Commons Sitting of 12 December 1912

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
Mr. Denniss, (32 petitions) from Oldham and Radcliffe-cum-Farnworth bearing 11,329 signatures.
Mr. Ashley, (48 petitions) from Blackpool and Lancaster bearing 10,509 signatures.
Captain Faber, (1 petition) from the Western Division of Hampshire bearing 8,414 signatures.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Return presented of Officers appointed to the Staffs of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the National Health Insurance Commission (England) up to and including 2nd December [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CROWN COLONIES, ETC. (DEATH SENTENCES).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 12th June; Mr. George. Greenwood]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 394.]

GAS AUTHORITIES (RESIDUAL PRODUCTS).
Report from Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 392.]

LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read a third time To-morrow.

TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 395.]
Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 339.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill to which this House has disagreed, and they agree to the Amendment proposed by this House in lieu of another of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—
  Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law as to the notice necessary to determine tenancies of Agricultural Holdings." [Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords.]

EAST INDIA (SANITARY).
Copy presented, of Report on the Progress of Sanitary Measures in India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Grimsby, and confirmed by the Secretary of State, for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hours on the several days of the week for certain shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Copy presented, of Report by Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke, C.B., R.E., on the derailment that occurred on the 17th September, 1912, at Ditton Junction, on the London and North-Western Railway [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented, of Statute III. of University College, Cork [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 393.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the value of British trade with Persia for the year 1910–11 was £4,541,560, or 26.4 per cent. of Persia's total trade with foreign countries, and that this represents over a period of ten years between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000; is he aware that, in order to preserve this trade, a properly organised gendarmerie under British Indian officers is required to patrol the roads in Southern Persia, and that, no proposal has been made of an armed occupation of the country; is he aware that British traders have already expressed their willingness to pay extra duties, if necessary, to defray the cost of the gendarmerie; and if ho will state the nature of the obstacles which prevent the restoration of order and security for British trade?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I am aware of the fact quoted by the hon. Baronet at the beginning of his question, but a reference to the trade reports will show that the total value for the years 1901 to 1911, inclusive, is £33,721,589 and not between forty and fifty million. The question of the best means of protecting and extending British trade in Persia, has constantly occupied my attention in communication with the Government of India and the Board of Trade. Various schemes have been considered and a creation of a gendarmerie under Swedish officers was finally adopted. I am aware that, early in 1910, certain British firms, engaged in Persian trade, expressed their willingness to submit to the imposition of a surtax of 10 per cent. at Bushire to defray the cost of policing the Bushire-Isfahan road, but it soon became clear that the sum thus obtained would prove insufficient for the purpose and moreover, so far as my information goes, the opinion of the firms interested was not unanimously in favour of the measure, and still less of the extension of the surtax to all the Persian ports of the gulf which was subsequently sug-
  738
  gested. The obstacles to the restoration of order are the importance and the financial embarrassment of the Persian Government. With regard to the proposal of armed occupation, the proposal made by the hon. Baronet on the 19th for the disarmament of the tribes could not have been carried out except by the occupation of Southern Persia and appeared to be tantamount to a suggestion of that nature.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received particulars of the latest raids by tribes near Shiraz in which a British officer has been killed and an entire caravan of English merchants has been carried off?
  Sir E. GREY: I very much regret to say I have had information, the same as has appeared in the Press, of the death of a British officer. I have not, of course, got full details, but His Majesty's Government will have to take the full circumstances into account.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the Swedish gendarmerie been the success anticipated for it by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I should have said, previous to the receipt of this grave news, the Swedish gendarmerie had not yet realised all the hopes formed of it, but it has not yet had sufficient experience to say it has proved a failure. In view of the grave news we have received, the whole question will have to be taken into consideration.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: In view of the serious situation, can the right hon. Gentleman not devise some means by which British merchants trading in Southern Persia will at least receive the same protection as Russian merchants trading in Northern Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: If British merchants trading in Southern Persia were to receive the same protection as Russian merchants trading in Northern Persia, it would, of course, mean sending a large force of British troops for practically an armed occupation of the trade routes.

  Murder of Rev. A. J. Douglas (Lake Nyasa).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any report of the trial of a corporal of the Portuguese army for the murder of the Rev. A. J. Douglas on Lake Nyasa; if His Majesty's Government were represented at the trial; if there were any

  739
  provocative or extenuating circumstances justifying the sentence; and whether the Portuguese Government have offered, or have been asked, to pay adequate compensation to the relatives of the victim?
  Sir E. GREY: I have as yet only received telegraphic reports of the result of the trial, which moreover differ as to the sentence passed. I must await fuller reports before taking any decision in the matter. A Nyasaland official was deputed to be present, at the trial, and an interpreter was engaged for him by His Majesty's Consul-General at Lorenco Marques. Particulars as to the sentence, so far as we at present possess them, were given yesterday in answer to a question from the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Can the right hon. gentleman say when he expects to have the fuller information?
  Sir E. GREY: I am told it is on its way.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask whether any demand for compensation has been made?
  Sir E. GREY: We are waiting for the full report of the trial before we come to a final decision.
  Mr. STANIER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will specially ask the reasons there should be such a great difference between the two reports of this trial?
  Sir E. GREY: No doubt it will be apparent when we get the full Report.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the ease of Mrs. Laffan and family, who are evicted tenants from the farm at Ballyclough, close to Limerick city, the landlord being Mr. R. F. Furnell; if the, landlord in this case has met a number of influential men of the locality, and stated that he is prepared to sell this property to the Estates Commissioners in order that the Laffan family may be restored to their holding, and has refused to sell to a would-be purchaser as the evicted tenants have been out for the past twenty-six years, and the landlord wants to see them restored; whether the Limerick Golf Club, which holds portion of those lands on lease, have written to the effect that they are willing to give up their lease in order to have the evicted tenant get back her farm; and, in the face
  740
  of all this, and seeing the feeling that has been aroused in the locality, the Estates Commissioners will take action and purchase this property, putting aside in this case the question of priority in order to have this matter settled at once, when all the parties concerned are anxious for a settlement, and the other tenants have purchased?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have directed inquiries to be made regarding this case, and when these inquiries are completed they will consider what action, if any, they can take in the matter.
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the lands within the township of Boyle, county Roscommon that are vested in the Estates Commissioners have been let to graziers on the eleven months' system; whether these lettings have now expired; and whether the people of Boyle have asked the Estates Commissioners to formulate a scheme of commonage for the said lands, and have trustees appointed who would be responsible for the annuity, the lands to be used as a commonage for milch cows and other suitable purposes for the benefit of the town?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That portion of the lands of Termon and Warren which has been acquired by the Estates Commissioners has been let by them temporarily for grazing pending the acquisition of an additional portion of Termon, which they hope to acquire at an early date. Representations to the effect mentioned in the concluding portion of the question have been received, and will be considered in the allotment of the lands.
  Mr. GINNELLasked in what counties in Ireland the Estates Commissioners have exercised the power of compulsory purchase conferred on them by the Irish Land Act of 1909, and the total amount of land so acquired?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have acquired 1,750 acres in counties Clare, Tipperary, and Waterford under the compulsory provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1909.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Have the Estates Commissioners acquired by compulsory powers a single acre of land in Ulster?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of it.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether the landlord of the William estate at Gap-

  741
  panagroun, Mastergeehy, near Waterville, has accepted the offer for the purchase of his estate made by the Congested Districts Board last July; and, if so, when will the Board complete the sale with the tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has not accepted the offer of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate.
  Mr. BOLAND: When will a renewed attempt be made to get this landlord to accept reasonable terms?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I expect the Congested Districts Board will pursue the subject whenever an opportunity offers.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether it is the intention of the Estates Commissioners to acquire by compulsion the untenanted land on the Smith estate, at Ballynanty, Bruff, county Limerick; are they aware that Mr. Arthur White, who has been grazing these lands, is at present farming on the same system some hundreds of acres all over county Limerick; and, in view of the determination of those who were evicted from Ballynanty, as well as the surrounding uneconomic holders and labourers, to clear the evictor and grazier, will the wishes of the public bodies in county Limerick be acceded to and have this land distributed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are inquiring into this matter, but are not at present in a position to say whether this is a case in which they should or could acquire the lands compulsorily. If, however, there is any intention on the part of the surrounding small holders and labourers as alleged by the hon. Member to interfere illegally with the present user of the lands and any such interference takes place the Commissioners will discontinue all proceedings for the acquisition of the lands.
  Mr. GUINEYasked what is the cause of delay in completing the purchase negotiations of three sub-tenants on the Sir George Colthurst estate, townland of Laught, Banteer, county Cork, the names of the sub-tenants being John Buckley, John Leary, and Patrick Lane, seeing that the middleman who has purchased has made satisfactory arrangements with the sub-tenants and is most anxious that the business should be completed at once?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked on this subject on the 26th August, 1909, by the then hon. Member for North
  742
  Kerry. Up to this date the necessary application from all the parties interested has not been submitted to the Land Commission for consideration.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Berridge estate, in Connemara, has yet been purchased by the Congested Districts Board; if not, whether the delay in completing the purchase is due to the fact that the tenants are to be consulted as to the terms of purchase; and will he urge the officials of the Board to lose no further time in ascertaining the views of the tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Negotiations have not yet been concluded between Mr. Berridge and the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate, but a further conference is to take place in a day or two. As soon as the purchase proceedings are concluded no delay will occur in consulting the tenants.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state what steps the Government propose to take to carry out the undertaking given to complete the process of land purchase at the earliest possible date?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I cannot yet make any statement, but the question is receiving careful consideration, and I fully recognise its urgency.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is now two months since the Chief Secretary gave the House an undertaking on the part of the Cabinet that they would take steps to complete the process of land purchase at the earliest possible moment. Is that not a reason for the consideration of a question which the Chief Secretary declared was more important than Home Rule, and may I ask whether we can expect that the Government will tackle the question next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.
  Mr. REDDY: Will it be a compulsory measure, because a great many landlords in Ireland will not sell otherwise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a complicated question which is receiving very careful consideration.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will it be necessary to introduce a new Bill in order to facilitate land purchase in Ireland;
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it probably will, but I should not like to commit, myself.

  Primary Education (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously adopted at a public meeting recently held in Newry, claiming for primary education a Supplemental Estimate of £500,000, and to similar resolutions adopted by various managers' associations, by the General Council of County Councils, and by the Commissioners of National Education; whether the populations of Ireland and Scotland are practically the same; that the Grant for primary-education in Scotland is £350,000 greater than the Irish Grant; that the central committee of the teachers' organisation has asked for a Supplemental Estimate; that the salaries of Irish teachers are 50 per cent. below those paid to Scotch teachers; whether a Grant of £185,000 has been diverted from educational purposes; and what action he propses to take in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received many resolutions in favour of increased expenditure on Irish education. For reasons which I have more than once stated, no accurate comparison can be drawn between the Votes for Public Education in Scotland and Ireland. I understand that the average salaries of Irish teachers are nothing like 50 per cent. below those of Scottish teachers. The difference between the population of the two countries is small, but the attendance of pupils for which provision is made in the Estimates is 58 per cent. higher in Scotland than in Ireland. The allocation of the Grant of £185,000, which is the equivalent of the additional Grant paid in England and Wales for educational purposes under the English Education Act of 1902, is provided for by the Ireland Development Grant Act, 1903. As the Development Grant was gradually encroached upon for Irish land purposes, the recurring charges for education originally placed upon it were transferred to the Vote for Public Education, Ireland. The sum voted for elementary education in Ireland per head of population has increased since the financial year 1902–3 from 5s. 8d. to 7s. 10d., or 38 per cent., while the corresponding figure for England and Wales has risen from 5s. 5d. to 6s. 11d., or 28 per cent. In effect, therefore, Ireland has received both the Grant of £185,000 in connection with land purchase, and an equivalent of the additional Exchequer Grants in England and Wales as well. The claims of education
  744
  in Ireland have received, and will continue to receive, my most careful consideration.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit Scotland receives in proportion to its population at least 25 per cent. more than Irleand?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The amounts payable depend upon the average attendance, and owing to the average attendance in Scotland being 58 per cent. higher than in Ireland, the amounts they receive no doubt are greater.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will grant the Return asked for in the name of the hon. Member for East Limerick?
  [Return of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were appointed to the force prior to the passing of the Constabulary Act, 1882, and who are liable to deductions from their annual salary towards the upkeep of the Constabulary Force Fund, including ex-members now receiving an annual pension.]
  Mr. BIRRELL: The information asked for is not available. The Return would serve no useful purpose, and its value would be out of all proportion to the trouble and expense involved in its preparation.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    MODEL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    Mr.GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether teachers in Irish nrodel schools will come under Part I. or Part II. of Schedule 3 of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Any model school teacher who shows to the satisfaction of the Civil Service Committee that he is pensionable on terms not less favourable than those applying to an established Civil servant can have his compensation assessed under Part I. instead of Part II. Unless he is able to do this he will be assessed under Part II. This is the effect of an Amendment to the Schedule in my name.

    UNIONIST DEMONSTRATION.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. D. Crosbie, of Ballyheigue Castle, county Kerry, attended a Unionist demonstration at Tralee on 11th September and seconded the resolution protesting against the Home Rule Bill, and that Mr. Crosbie has sold his estate to his tenants, who live

    745
    at Ballyheigue Castle; whether he has a large farm and employs a good deal of labour; whether he is aware that a meeting was held at Tralee on 24th November in commemoration of the death of Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien, who were hanged for the murder of Police Constable Brett at Manchester, and addressed by John M'Bride, an employé of the Dublin Corporation, and others; that violent language was used by the speakers at that meeting; that shortly afterwards a large rick of hay, the property of Mr. Crosbie, was fired in the yard of Ballyheigue Castle; and that on the following night the cattle shed and two more ricks of hay in the yard, half a mile from the castle, were also fired; will he say what is the loss arising from the fires; whether any arrests have been made, and what steps he proposes to take to protect Unionists who take part in demonstrations from intimidation of this character; and in what way he proposes to encourage landowners who have sold to remain in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the night of the 1st instant a large hay shed containing 50 tons of hay, the property of Mr. Crosbie, was set on fire in the yard of Ballyheigue Castle, and on the following night two more hay sheds, containing 150 tons of hay, were set on fire. The damage is assessed at £1,000, and a claim for compensation has been made. The police, however, have no reason to believe that the burning of the hay has any connection with either Mr. Crosbie's attendance at the Unionist meeting at Tralee, or with the language used at the meeting held at Tralee on 24th November. The police are pursuing their inquiries, but so far have not been able to obtain any evidence to justify an arrest. All necessary protection has been and will be afforded to all persons requiring it.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is there any evidence of any feeling in any part of North Kerry as to the unpopularity of this gentleman?

  Dublin Herald of Arms.
  Mr. GINNELLasked who made the Report in 1907 upon which the then Dublin Herald of Arms was removed from that position, and he and his companion required to resign their positions in the Army; whether that Report was oral or written; and by whose direction was the matter withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Courts under the ordinary Criminal Law?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There was no such Report as that referred to. In October, 1907, it was decided, with the approval of the Crown, that the Office of Arms, Dublin Castle, should be reconstituted. This involved the retirement of Dublin Herald, who was notified accordingly, and who resigned office. I know nothing of the circumstances which led to this gentlemen resigning his position in the Militia.
  Mr. GINNELL: I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow (Friday) evening.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether for some years past Daniel Neylon, an evicted tenant on the Stratford estate, Kilfenora, West Clare, has been on the list of the Estates Commissioners as one of those to whom a definite promise of reinstatement has been given; whether he can state the cause of delay in reinstatement; and whether, if that be due to the present deficiency of available land, steps will be taken to accelerate the rate at which the Land Act of 1909 is being put into operation in West Clare?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not aware that any definite promise such as that referred to in the question was made by them. As I have already informed the hon. Member, Neylon's name was noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by the Commissioners, and his case is at present under their consideration.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if, considering there are not many evicted tenants still left in county Clare, with a little energy all the cases might be disposed of and these irritating questions removed from this phase of public life?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I agree with the hon. Member that the cause of irritating questions should be removed at the earliest possible moment.

  Belfast Riots.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the names of the prisoners now on trial in Belfast in connection with rioting, the offences with which they are charged, and the dates when these offences are alleged to have been committed; and whether, in view of the political complexion which has been given to the prosecution by the attempt to secure the hearing of the charges before magistrates likely, owing to their

  747
  political views, to convict the prisoners, the Government will authorise the release of the accused men, having regard further to the time which has elapsed since the occurrences for which they are charged?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are no persons now on trial for riot in Belfast, but preliminary investigations by a Justice of the Peace are proceeding in certain cases with a, view to having the defendants returned for trial by a jury at Assizes. As the offences are indictable the hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the magistrates have any power to convict. There is no intention to abandon the proceedings.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government appreciate the loss caused to owners of cattle, sheep, and pigs in Ireland by inability to sell them at the usual period, and consequent inability to meet their usual engagements; and, if any steps are being taken to ease the situation and avert a crisis, will he say what they are?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There can be no question that, owing to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, regrettable and serious loss is falling upon large numbers of those connected directly or indirectly with the Irish cattle trade. Apart from the payment of compensation for animals slaughtered, which has been done in every case, there is no power to mitigate the suffering caused.

  Irish Crown Jewels.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the jewels stolen from the Arms Office, Dublin Castle, in 1907, have been replaced; and, if so, will he state the circumstances, so far as known, of the replacement?
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Crown Jewels stolen from Dublin Castle have now been restored, and, if so, by whom?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no truth whatever in the report that the Crown Jewels have been replaced.
  Mr. GINNELL: Are not the Crown jewels at present within the reach of the Irish Government awaiting the invention of some plausible method of restoring them without getting entangled in the Criminal Law?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I assure the hon. Member I have no knowledge whatever where
  748
  these jewels are. I only wish I knew; I would place them in their proper position.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Chief Secretary is able if he likes to lay them on the Table.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will move for them.

  Rates (Ireland).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland with reference to the sum of £727,655 voted in 1911 towards paying rates in Ireland under The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, how much was allocated to the payment of half the poor rate which before the passing of the said Act was paid by land and house lords in Ireland, distinguishing the amount allocated in respect of each of the latter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The sum mentioned in the Question represents the total amount of the Agricultural Grant, all of which is applied to the relief of rates on agricultural land. Of this sum, £316,730 was applied to the relief of poor rate, and £410,925 was for county cess. The former sum may roughly be taken to represent the benefits derived by owners of land, and the latter to represent the benefit to occupiers from the Agricultural Grant.

  Residences for Women Students (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make further representations to the Treasury as to including in next year's Estimates a sum sufficient to provide new residences I for women students undergoing training as national school teachers in Ireland, to take the place of Talbot House, Dublin, which is admittedly unsuitable and insanitary, and has been a fertile cause of sickness and disease amongst these students?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A further representation will be made to the Treasury in the matter when the Estimates for the next financial year are being considered.

  Copper Mines (County Tyrone).
  Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is aware of the existence of copper mines at Cappagh, in the county Tyrone; and whether he will state the nature, extent, and working capacity of these mines, and when they were first discovered, or, if he is not in a position to do so, whether he will have an inquiry made and report

  749
  furnished by Mr. Lyhan, the mineral expert to the Department, concerning the past history and possible future development of this industry, of such importance to the immediate neighbourhood and the county at large?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department are aware that prospecting for copper was carried out many years ago at Cappagh. The Department's mineral expert will make an inspection at Cappagh as soon as his other engagements permit.

  Kilrush Forestry Centre (Ireland).
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in the demesne of the Vandeleur estate, Kilrush, Mr. H. R. Glynn, of Kilrush, is in occupation of the buildings, which he is having painted and repaired; if so, whether Mr. Glynn is one of the richest men in the West of Ireland; under what Land Act it is provided that, following on the expropriation of one landlord, another may become a beneficiary; and whether, in the event of Mr. Glynn having obtained an interest in the demesne, steps will be taken to put an end to this condition of affairs?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Mr. H. R. Glynn is not in occupation of any buildings on the lands of the Department's Forestry Centre at Kilrush.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. gentleman give a promise that in no circumstances whatever shall he be put in occupation of any land?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have answered the question put by the hon. gentleman on the Paper. I will certainly not give any promise to discriminate between people in Kilrush or anywhere else.
  Mr. LYNCH: In that, case will the right hon. gentleman explain under what Statute Mr. Glynn could legally obtain any interest whatever in an estate which was——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regard to the demesne of the Vandeleur estate, Kilrush, West Clare, his attention has been called to a resolution of the Kilrush branch of the United Irish League strongly protesting against the ranching system which the Department has introduced in the
  750
  demesne; and whether, in response to the feeling prevailing in West Clare in the matter, he will take steps to terminate these lettings and transfer the demesne again to the control of the Estates Commissioners, so that it may be utilised to the advantage of the local uneconomic tenants in accordance with the Land Act of 1909?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department have received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Kilrush branch of the United Irish League calling on the Department to hand over to the Congested Districts Board 250 acres of demesne land for distribution among the people of Kilrush. As the hon. Member was informed, in reply to his question on this subject on the 31st October last, the Department are not in a position to take the course suggested. The Department hold this property, as trustees under the Irish Land Acts, for forestry purposes, and a scheme for the economic development of the whole area into a forest centre is being carried out. The temporary letting of the grass lands will cease as they are planted up.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it part of the scheme that this demesne should be cut up and delivered over under the eleven months' system, and that part of it should be handed over to the control of the landlord?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department estimate that it will take some five years to plant the demesne. Some of the land will be unoccupied, so far as the forestry scheme is concerned, for that time, and, as we are bound to get the best terms we can for the present for the advantage of the Treasury, we propose to let the land under temporary lettings until it is all planted out.
  Mr. LYNCH: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that the provisions of the Land Act of 1909 are carried out with a sole eye to the interests of the tenants concerned.

  Adulteration of Meal.
  Mr. GUINEYasked whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has been called to the sale of a quantity of English manufactured meal to a man named Patrick O'Connor, Is-landar, Boherbee, county Cork; whether this man's suspicions having been aroused, he got a sample of the meal analysed, and that the analysis of which showed the meal to be adulterated with a large percentage

  751
  of sawdust; whether the Department of Agriculture has since taken a sample for analysis; if so, what is the result of the Department's analysis; and, if the result is as first stated, what steps the Department of Agriculture propose taking in order to prevent tins imposition on purchasers?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department were informed by Mr. O'Connor that he had purchased from a cross-Channel firm a quantity of pig meal, that he had had a sample of this meal privately analysed and that the analyst had reported the presence of sawdust to the extent of about 20 per cent. On the application of Mr. O'Connor the Department sent, one of their official samplers to his premises for the purpose of taking a sample of the meal in question. Mr. O'Connor produced to this officer three bags From which he stated he had taken the sample which he had had privately analysed. The Department's sampler took a sample from these bags, and as the result of a careful examination the Department's analyst reported that he was unable to verify the presence of any sawdust in the meal. In the circumstances no further action by the Department appears to be called for in this case.

  Nyasaland (Married Officials).
  Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, at eight, of the stations in Nyasaland which are recognised as having healthy climates, unmarried district officials have been appointed, some of whom are junior members of the service, whilst at six stations, which are known to be unhealthy and disagreeable, married officials, who are accompanied by their wives and babies, have been located, some of whom are senior to the juniors in question; and, seeing that this is in direct opposition to a policy of, in the interests of morality, encouraging officials to marry, whether he will reconsider his refusal to use his prerogative with the Governor of British Central Africa in connection with the appointments referred to?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I can only repeat what I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 13th November, that the assignment of officers to particular stations is a matter for the discretion of the local Government, in the interests of the public service, with which I do not propose to interfere.
  Mr. GRANT: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the marriage of officials in African Protectorates?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, no doubt it is part of my duty to encourage marriage, but if the encouragement of marriage were to limit the discretion of the Governor as to the posts to which he might send the man who was most needed or most fitted for the post, I might find myself under the necessity of discouraging marriage.
  Mr. GRANT: If it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the marriage of officials in the Protectorates of Central Africa, and if His Majesty's Government find that the officials in charge only put in bachelors, in these circumstances is it not the duty of the Government to interfere?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have never found that.
  Mr. GRANT: If the right hon. Gentleman does find that, will he take such steps as are necessary?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If I find anything of the sort I should reconsider the whole situation.
  Mr. GRANT: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that on Monday I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

  Gold Coast (Palm Oil Ordinance).
  Mr. A. LYTTELTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will forthwith lay the correspondence concerning the Palm Oil Ordinance in the Gold Coast?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The correspondence is not yet complete, and I cannot promise to lay Papers before Christmas, but I will undertake that there shall be no avoidable delay.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he promised lo lay this correspondence, which merely involves printing, a month ago?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I know that the right hon. Gentleman asked me the question a month ago. I can assure him that there has been no delay in preparing the Papers. The right hon. Gentleman himself has had experience of the delays that take place in the preparation of long correspondence which is to be laid before the House.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the precise nature of the offer made by the First Commissioner of Works to the Edinburgh City Council in adjusting the building line in connection with the laboratory at the Royal Botanic Gardens; and why it is now proposed to make additions at the rear of the laboratory, seeing that when the building was erected originally it was stated that such space could not be taken from the gardens?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The whole matter of the building line in Inverleith Row is now the subject of negotiation between the First Commissioner and the Edinburgh Town Council. The First Commissioner, therefore, would be grateful if my hon. Friend would postpone his question until a decision has been reached. A satisfactory outcome is anticipated.

  Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie has any intention of proceeding this Session with the Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill, which is now awaiting Report?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): My right hon. Friend is sorry that lie is not yet in a position to state what line the Government propose to take in regard to the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, as the matter is still under consideration. He will let my hon. Friend know as soon as a decision is reached.

  Convicts (Disciplinary Sentences).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the disciplinary sentences passed on the wounded convicts Bannister and Morris to wear chains for six months; whether this punishment comes before him for review; what opportunities the convicts had to call evidence as to their treatment before their attempt to escape; and how many convicts in our penal establishments are at present wearing chains?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The wearing of leg chains is not a punitive measure; the chains are light and do not restrict the prisoner's movement further than to
  754
  hamper him slightly in any attempt to escape. If the Governor considers it necessary as a measure of security, he may make a recommendation to the Directors of Convict Prisons, who are empowered by Rule 142 to issue an order for the purpose. Such an order has been made in the case of the two convicts, but as they are at present in close confinement as part of a punishment awarded by the Board of Visitors, there is no need in the meantime for the order to be put in effect. There are at present three other convicts wearing leg chains. Rule 142 provides that every prisoner having a complaint to make shall have ample facilities, either personally to the Governor, the Directors, or the Board of Visitors, or by petition to the Secretary of State. If ill-treatment is-alleged, it would be within the discretion of the authority hearing the complaint to call such witnesses as the prisoner might wish to call in support of his complaint.

  Federated Malay States.
  Mr. INGLEBYased the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the desire of the Federated States of Malay to be represented on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and whether he would give his sympathetic consideration to any authoritative proposal put forward with this object?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  Mr. KING: Might not the case be met if one of the Lords to be appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill were to be paid by the Federated Malay States?

  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked which Colonies are at present represented on the Committee of Imperial Defence, or any Sub-committee of that body; and if the Government contemplate giving each Colony that contributes to the upkeep of His Majesty's Navy the right to be represented on the Imperial Defence Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No Colonies or Dominions are at present permanently represented on the Committee of Imperial Defence or on any of the Sub-committees, but it has been the practice for some years past to take advantage of the presence of representatives of the Dominions in this country to invite them to meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence and of its Sub-committee, the Oversea Defence Committee, when matters affecting their

  755
  interests are under consideration. With regard to the latter part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for the Fareham Division.

  Neath Education Authority.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Neath education authority is still refusing to pay salaries to non-provided school teachers at the same rate as the salaries paid to teachers of similar qualifications and experience in the council schools; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to induce the Neath education authority to discharge its legal obligations in this respect?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I have received no communication relating to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and no question has arisen for the Board's determination under Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Has not the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the case of Alderman Davies' school, and if I can supply him with facts proving that these salaries are lower at that school than the ordinary scale, will he take action?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: It is the duty of the authorities to maintain schools efficiently, and they have ample power to vary the salaries in accordance with the varying circumstances of the school. Unless my attention is called to the matter under Section 7 of the Act, I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the case will he look into it?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: If I have any indication that such a school is inefficient——
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not a question of the school being inefficient, but of teachers getting lower salaries than the scale, although they have the same qualifications as teachers in other schools.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: My jurisdiction only comes in if I am satisfied that the schools are inefficient.

  Lead Poisoning.
  Mr. HILLSasked whether the conference upon the new rules for lead processes in the potteries, due to be held on 25th November, has been held; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The inquiry under Section 81 of the Factory Act with regard to the draft regulations was held on the 25th of November and two following days, and the Home Office expects to receive the Report of His Honour Judge Ruegg, who was appointed to hold it, very shortly.
  Mr. HILLSasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to an inquest held in Stoke Workhouse on 2nd December, upon John Piper, a glost placer, of Longton; whether he is aware that the coroner stated that in Piper's case the rules with reference to medical examination of workers in lead processes had been absolutely ignored; that the deceased had been working in lead processes for five years, during which period it was possible that he had never been medically examined at all; and what steps he intends to take?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has received a report on this case and the proceedings at the inquest. The man was a casual worker, and exact particulars as to his previous employment are not ascertainable. It appears, however, that there was serious neglect in the observance of the provisions in the special rules with regard to the examination of casual workers, and the firm by whom the man was last employed has been severely cautioned. As the man has not been employed in a lead process since 1911, it is not now possible to take proceedings. The new rules, which will be in operation shortly, contains further provisions in regard to the examination of casual workers.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: What steps do the Department propose to take to see that the proper observance of these rules is carried out. Otherwise what is the use of any rules at all?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The new rules will shortly be, in operation, and the inspectors, of course, will do their best to give them effect.
  Mr. HILLS: Who is to blame for this scandalous breach of the rules?
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that lead poisoning is one of those diseases which may be entirely eliminated, and will he see that the new rules are carried to such a point as to make lead poisoning impossible?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is a very controversial matter, of course.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he has made any further inquiry as to whether one firm in the spelter trade employ their speltermen six days only in one week regularly; and, if so, can he state the result of such inquiry?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I understand that the occupier of one small works in the Swansea district has, during the last four weeks, been trying the experiment of dispensing with Sunday labour. I have no particulars at present as to how the work is arranged, or as to how far the experiment is proving successful.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has inquired into the hours worked by speltermen in the Swansea district over a period of time covering three weeks; and, if so, can he state the result?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Home Office has asked for some further particulars on the subject, but has not yet received them.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the speltermen engaged in the Swansea district are the only workmen engaged in a trade scheduled as dangerous who work seven days weekly the whole year round?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No returns are required to be made to the Home Office as to the hours of employment of adult males in the different industries of the country, but I am informed that there are workers employed regularly on Sundays in at least two other industries which are scheduled as dangerous trades under the Factory Act, namely, chemical works and lead smelting.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Does any lead poisoning take place in these chemical works?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the period of time a workman engaged as a spelterman can work at this specific occupation continuously before he is found to have contracted lead poisoning?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Only a small percentage of the men employed in this industry ever contract lead poisoning. In the case of those who are attacked, the
  758
  period of employment before attack varies according to the workers' susceptibility to lead and other causes.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the fifteen parishes in Wales which were found by the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales to be without a single communicant in the Established Church will be treated similarly under the Established Church (Wales) Bill as those parishes in which there are communicants?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: All parishes in Wales will be treated similarly under the Established Church (Wales) Bill irrespective of the number of communicants. Of course, it will be within the power of the representative body to make any new arrangements as regards the property handed over to it under the provisions of the Bill.

  Camp Hill Prison.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the convicts confined in the Camp Hill Prison. Isle of Wight, many of whom are habitual criminals of the worst type, are allowed to dine together and smoke and chat after meals; whether tablecloths and floral decorations are provided for them, and they are allowed, out of the moneys which they earn in prison, to buy confectionery, sardines, and other tinned meats; whether their cells are fitted with electric bells and hot shaving water is supplied to them when they ring for it; whether they are allowed to adorn their cells with photographs; and whether these luxuries and privileges have been granted with the object of deterring other criminals from seeking to qualify for admission to this prison or inducing those at present confined there to do everything they can to remain there; and (2) whether lie will lay upon the Table of the House of Commons copies of the rules and regulations regarding the privileges and general treatment of the convicts confined in the Camp Hill prison, Isle of Wight?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The rules for preventive detention were laid on the Table of the House in February, 1908, and they will be found in Appendix No. 17 a of the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners, 1910–11. Full information as to the operation of this—a new and experimental system, devised to give effect to the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908—will be

  759
  found in paragraph 29 of the Commissioners' Report for 1910–11, and in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the last Annual Report, 1911–12, lately issued and presented to Parliament. The hon. Member will find in these documents a statement of the object and purpose of the new system and of the rules for giving effect to it; of the progress made, and of the hopes entertained that, in spite of great inherent difficulties, a successful attempt may be made to segregate from the community persons found on indictment to be habitual criminals, under conditions which, it has been enacted by Parliament, shall, so far as practicable, "be less rigorous than those of penal servitude, and shall admit of such reformative influences as may be best fitted to make these men willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge." A sentence of preventive detention can only be imposed as supplementary to a sentence of penal servitude, and no convict goes to Camp Hill until he has served the sentence of penal servitude in the ordinary way in a convict prison.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to inform me about the floral decorations?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have no precise information as to the floral decorations.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the hon. Member accept the hospitality of Camp Hill for a month and see how he will like it?
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Has there not been serious complaint amongst the convicts that their bells are not answered when they ring for hot water?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In regard to the floral decorations and the unanswered bells, I shall be very glad to make further inquiries.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are these prisoners detained for life or for any definite period, and is flogging part of the amenities of this prison?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When an hon. Member asks a question of a right hon. Member opposite, is it not considered courteous on the part of the right hon. Member to give some answer to the question put upon the paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I gather from the answer given that all these suggestions were admitted and explained.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory answer I propose to raise this question on the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday.

  Canal Works, Limerick (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the Fair-Wage Resolution of the House of Commons is being evaded by the engineer of the Board of Works, Ireland, at the canal at Limerick, by employing men who are known as handymen both at masonry and painting to the detriment of bonâ-fide tradesmen; whether Mr. Fletcher, the engineer, has been waited upon by the local trade societies and asked to discontinue this practice, and that his answer has been that he is not allowed enough money to employ proper tradesmen; and, if this is so, will an inquiry be held into the matter with the view of compelling the Board of Works to carry out the Fair-Wage Resolution of the House of Commons?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have made inquiry into this matter. There has been no violation of the Fair-Wages Resolution, and I understand that the Board of Works engineer did not make the statement attributed to him. Two men have been employed, one on rough whitewashing, etc., formerly done by the lockkeepers, and one on rough masonry work, formerly done by the head of a gang of labourers. This work has never been done by the skilled men represented by the local mechanics' institute, and all work requiring skilled men is kept for such men.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    POLICE AND INSPECTORS' DOMICILIARY VISITS (IRELAND).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if inspectors under the National Insurance Act are being accompanied upon their domiciliary visits by constabulary officers; if he will state the reasons for this procedure; and whether it has received his official sanction?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General is not aware that it is the practice of the police to accompany inspectors under the National Insurance Act when making domiciliary visits. One case, however, has come to his notice in which the police

    761
    accompanied the inspector as a breach of the peace was anticipated.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is it in accordance with the law for police officers to accompany the inspectors on these occasions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, unless under particular circumstances. In this, probably the only case which has occurred, a breach of the peace was anticipated. Certainly it is not customary or right for the police to accompany the inspector.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Inspector-General on the subject?
    Mr. BIRRELL: He will see what I have said.

    WOMEN'S NATIONAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked by what authority the agents of the Women's National Health Association attend meetings of county councils, sanatorium committees of county councils, and county insurance committees; by whom are these gentlemen appointed; and out of what funds are they paid for their services?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the representatives of the Women's National Health Association who have attended at the meetings of local authorities have done so by arrangement with or invitation from these bodies, and that these representatives are appointed by the association and are paid out of its funds when their services are not gratuitous.
    EARL of KERRYasked why "Slainte," the journal of the Women's National Health Association of Ireland, is being sent out in envelopes bearing the Post Office stamp, official paid, as well as the official stamp of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This magazine is not sent out in envelope franked by the Lord Lieutenant, but a certain limited number are so sent to certain officials and others connected with the public health movement. The majority of the copies of this magazine are sent direct from the publisher's office in the ordinary way. Every envelope having an approved frank is also stamped by the Post Office as official paid.

    VOLUNTARY INSURERS.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he can state the number of persons who have become voluntary insurers under the
    762
    National Insurance Act; and (2) whether he can state the number of insured persons whose rate of remuneration exceeds 1s. 6d. and does not exceed 2s. a working day, and in whose case the contribution of 1d. per week is being paid out of moneys provided by Parliament?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is impossible to give the information desired by the hon. Member until the first quarters' cards have all come in and been scheduled, a process which will still take some weeks to complete.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many penny contributions are being paid by the Treasury at present in the ease of persons earning less than 12s. a week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell how many until the contributions have been paid, and that cannot be ascertained until the cards have been returned and sorted. That is a considerable process in dealing with 13,000,000 cards.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Is there any contribution being paid by persons earning less than 12s. a week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge of any money being paid by contributors that ought not to be paid by them. The Treasury will pay the penny in due course.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Is it being paid now?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Nothing is being paid at present to approved societies except a certain amount for administration and sanatorium benefit. When they want the money they will have it.

    COUNTY COUNCILS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the county councils in Ireland have refused to perform the duties imposed upon them by the National Insurance Act; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir. I should be glad to know what instance of refusal the hon. Member has in mind. I am not aware of any such case.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what benefits approved societies will have obtained in return for the 2d. per member proposed

    763
    to be charged for the expenses of administration of medical benefit up to 14th January, 1913; and whether, in the event of the societies accepting the proposed agreement, it is intended that the two-ninths contributed by the State shall be paid to their credit in reduction of the 6s. and 1½d. paid by each member, respectively, for medical benefit and the expenses of its administration.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Section 15 (6) of the National Insurance Act requires societies to pay to insurance committees such sums as may be agreed or in default of agreement may be determined by the Commissioners in respect not only of medical benefit, but also of its administration, and the sum of 2d. per member has been suggested as a reasonable sum for the period up to 14th January, 1913, in view of the heavy administrative duties which fall on insurance committees before that date. Two-ninths of the sums referred to in the case of men, and one-fourth in the case of women, will, as provided by the Act, be paid by the State, the society only paying the remainder.
    Mr. INGLEBY: May I ask whether 2d. per member does not amount to something like £50,000, and why so large a sum is voted for administrative services which do not yet exist?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the most heavy task the insurance committees will have during the whole course of their existence will be performed in these six months.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury where the residential institutions are situated in which forty-five out of the eighty-two patients who are receiving sanatorium benefit in the West Riding of Yorkshire are being treated; and of what nature and under what management they are?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am circulating the information desired by the hon. Member.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Does that mean that there are a great many institutions in which there are one or two patients under treatment for tuberculosis?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There are many institutions. I have a list of eight or nine to which patients have been sent.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Are these regular sanatoria or mere makeshifts, and does
    764
    this carry out the pledge that sanatorium benefit will be given to all suffering from tuberculosis?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir, they are regular sanatoria. There are various institutions, some of which have been adopted for sanatorium treatment, and some of which are sanatoria in the ordinary sense.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Are they in the West Riding?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated number of persons suffering from consumption in the West Riding of Yorkshire, of whom only eighty-two have hitherto received any sanatorium benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information as to the number of persons suffering from consumption in any district except so far as they have applied for sanatorium benefit under the National Insurance Act. As I informed the hon. Member on the 10th instant, applications had been received up to 20th November from 140 persons, including a number who were not eligible. Of these eighty-seven were after examination recommended as suitable and eligible for treatment and eighty-two received treatment from the insurance funds. The number of those who have received treatment in this district has now risen to over 100.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the eleven months ending last November there were 3,271 cases notified, and that last year 1,376 deaths occurred from phthisis in the West Riding?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should not think that is in the least incompatible with my answer. The insurance committees have only to deal with tuberculosis benefit in respect of persons who apply for benefit. So far as I can see, the West Riding is adequately dealing with this benefit.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the pledge being carried out that sanatorium benefit would be open to all suffering from tuberculosis after 15th November?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, I should think it is being thoroughly carried out. At the beginning of the Act there are a number of persons suffering from tuberculosis who will not be insured persons

    765
    not employed persons in the ordinary sense of the word—and therefore the number will steadily increase. I think the West Riding is fully carrying out its obligations.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is it not possible to give patients sanatorium benefit in their own gardens, without putting up large buildings?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I know that is recommended by a great many experts. I dare say it is one of the methods which will be considered.
    Mr. BOOTH: What would have become of the 100 consumptive people in the West Hiding, who have received benefit, if the Act had been postponed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the number of tuberculosis cases which are being treated in rate-aided institutions to which the Insurance Commissioners are not in a position to make a Grant in respect of maintenance, he can say whether any arrangement or legislation is contemplated with a view to relieving the rates of this expenditure?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have no announcement to make at the present, time on the subject of legislation of the character suggested.

  Municipal Representation.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that in several of the London boroughs the result of the last Borough Council Election has been the return of members of a single party only, in many wards without a contest, and that a section of the voters in these boroughs are thus entirely excluded from participation in municipal affairs; and whether the Government will consider the proposal to introduce, or at least favour, next Session the Municipal Representation Bill, which confers optional powers upon the municipalities to adopt proportional representation as the method of election in their councils.
  Mr. BURNS: I am not able to give any undertaking on the subject of proportional representation.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is in a position to give any reliable estimate of the percentage of old age pensioners in Poor Law infirmaries?
  Mr. BURNS: The only information which I can give on this subject is derived from a Return, which I obtained early in the present year. This showed that on the 1st January last there were in workhouses or other Poor Law establishments in England and Wales 2,191 old age pensioners who were receiving relief which did not disqualify for an old age pension—i.e., medical or surgical assistance only. The number of old age pensioners in England and Wales on the 29th March, 1912, was, according to the last Annual Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, 642,524.
  Mr. BAIRDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board have decided that the provision by boards of guardians of nurses for old age pensioners on account of infirmity caused by old age or resulting from an accident is beyond the scope of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to secure the provision of nursing attendance granted on medical recommendation to old age pensioners?
  Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board have acted, speaking generally, on the view indicated in the hon. Member's question; but I may say that where nursing attendance is recommended by the medical officer on account of specific illness, or incidentally to medical or surgical assistance, disqualification would not, in the Board's opinion, ensue. The question of amending the Act of 1908 is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than for me, but I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to his notice.

  Sub-Postmasters' Pay.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Postmaster-General whether large numbers of sub-postmasters, since the conditions of and payment for their services were fixed, have had extra duties placed upon them without extra pay; whether such extra duties are concerned with coupon deposits, home safes, and health and unemployment insurance; and does he propose to revise

  767
  the payment of sub-postmasters in order to make it correspond with their increased duties?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The question of the credit to be allowed for new work is being investigated and will be adjusted as soon as circumstances permit. As regard insurance work in particular, I beg to refer to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Derry on 25th November.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Postmaster-General what sum of money has been expended by his Department in connection with the rural party telephone lines in England, Wales, and Scotland; have Irish farmers had any telephone facilities given; and, if so, will he state the nature of the same and the cost?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The amount actually spent or ear-marked to be spent in connection with rural party lines in Great Britain is £5,000. No such lines have actually been commenced in Ireland, and there are at present only three cases in which the necessary conditions are fulfilled, namely, at Carrickfergus, Kilmaca-nogue, and Two Mile Bridge (Clonmel), and the work of constructing the lines at these places will be shortly begun. The estimated cost of these lines is £315.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Postmaster-General whether, in connection with the training of young men as unestablished night telephonists to replace established sorting clerks and telegraphists in various provincial towns, he is aware that officials of his Department have stated that the work of night telephonists is not such as should attract young men for permanent employment but is more suitable for a man who has failed in life; whether these arguments have been frequently used against the claim for establishment of the present night telephonists; and whether, in view of the fact that these statements conflict with the present practice of his Department, he will direct that the training of young men for unestablished positions on this admittedly badly-paid work shall be suspended until the Select Committee on Postal Servants has heard the views of the men's representatives?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 24th October, the question of the status
  768
  and pay of this class will no doubt be considered by the Select Committee. The conditions of service are clearly announced to all applicants.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the installation of the automatic telephone exchange at Epsom has enabled him to judge to what extent more extensive development of this system in London and other centres is desirable; and, if so, has he formulated any plans for installing the automatic system in any of the exchanges of these centres?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The experimental automatic telephone exchange at Epsom has up to the present proved very satisfactory, and, as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 20th March last, schemes for the establishment of larger automatic exchanges in Leeds, Brighton, and Portsmouth are under consideration. No further installation of automatic telephone equipment in the London area is, however, at present contemplated.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the conversations between London and the West of England are unsatisfactory as regards hearing and delays; and what steps he proposes taking to remedy this state of affairs?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Occasional cases of difficulty in hearing and of undue delay have occurred in connection with calls between London and places in the extreme West of England, but there is no reason to think that the service is generally unsatisfactory. Several additional circuits are now in course of construction between London and Exeter, London and Bristol, and Bristol and Plymouth, with the view of improving the service.
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are one or two circuits in the West which are particularly bad, where the wires are almost impossible to hear over, and will he have those cases inquired into?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to tell me the places.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: How long will it be before the defects are remedied?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope very shortly. The engineering staff are pushing on as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General to what extent he has formulated plans for ensuring in each and every district that prospective subscribers can be connected within a reasonable time of their application?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The general arrangements for the development of the telephone service are such as to ensure that, unless exceptional difficulties are encountered, prospective subscribers shall in all cases be connected within a reasonable time. A very large amount of plant is being constructed at the present time with a view to facilitating the installation of subscribers' telephones with the least possible delay. Unfortunately the amount of spare plant available for such purposes in the system taken over from the National Telephone Company was small.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked whether the Special Commissioner has completed his Report on the working of the automatic system at Munich and other European towns; and whether such Report will be published, and when?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Reports of the Special Commissioner are for the information of myself and my Department, and as at present advised I do not propose to publish them.

  Moville Mail Service.
  Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he is aware of the defective mail service between Moville and England and Scotland, as it takes a letter two nights to reach these places respectively; whether he will have such changes effected in the motor mail service as to enable the Scotch and English mails which arrive, at Londonderry at 10 a.m., to be delivered in Moville before 4 p.m., thus giving time for replying the same evening and delivery in England and Scotland the following day; and whether this improvement, could be effected by making the hours of the mail motor 12.30 noon for leaving Londonderry, and 4.30 p.m. for leaving Moville; and (2) whether he is aware that the mails between Londonderry and Moville since the 1st October have been almost continually late, thus causing inconvenience to the public; whether he is aware that on 30th November the mails that were due at Londonderry at 7.15 p.m. did not arrive there until 9.6 p.m.; that on 2nd December the mails that were due at Moville at 7.30 a.m. did not reach there until 11 a.m.;
  770
  and that no mails were sent from Moville at 8.50 a.m., the usual time for dispatch, thus causing serious disappointment to business people and others; and whether he will see that these grievances are remedied?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHIPWRIGHTS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if a third-class shipwright under the new scheme has the same rank as a fourth-class engine room artificer; and if he will classify the other shipwright ranks relative to the engine room artificers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A shipwright third class is a leading rate, like the E.R.A. fifth class. An E.R.A. fourth class is a chief petty officer. With regard to the second part of the question, a shipwright second class and a shipwright first class are petty officers. A chief shipwright is a chief petty officer.
    Mr. FALLEasked if men who were trained as boy shipwrights and who decline to accept the new rates will be required to relinquish their claim to dockyard employment on the established list, and if boy shipwrights who decline to accept the new rates will be placed on the established list at the expiration of their first engagement?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certain details relating to this question are still under consideration, and I am not prepared to anticipate, the general instructions on the subject which will be issued to the Fleet next week.

    INCREASED PAY.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the increased rates of pay apply to lieutenants on the supplementary list, that is to say, lieutenants brought in from the merchant navy; and, if not, whether there is any prospect of these officers being included?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Lieutenants on the supplementary list of twelve years' seniority receive 14s. a day full pay plus 2s. a day messing allowance, this allowance being part of their substantive pay. The sum received is therefore 16s. a day, which is

    771
    the maximum rate of pay laid down for lieutenants by the new scale. As all supplementary lieutenants on the list are of twelve years' seniority, there is no reason for revising their pay.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked what is the new rate of pay, after nine years' service, for a chief stoker, chief petty officer, chief armourer, master at arms, chief writer, chief shipwright, and chief electrician; and if any of the above ratings receive allowances for anything other than badges?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the first part of the question, I will refer my hon. Friend to the statement presented to Parliament last week. As to the second part of the question, seamen chief petty officers are eligible to qualify for non-substantive pay varying from 2d. to 1s. 4d. a day; chief stokers, for a few allowances as diver, yeoman of stores, or engineer's writer, varying from 1d. to 6d.; and chief shipwrights and chief armourers, for an allowance of 6d. a day as artificer diver.
    Mr. BARNESasked the percentage of the former rate which the increase of pay bears in the case of seamen, painters, plumbers, and shipwrights, respectively?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The percentages asked for vary within each class and with each period of service, and it is not considered that any useful comparison could be made between them. As indicated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord on the 4th instant, the increase given is adapted to the requirements of each class.
    Mr. FENWICKasked what allowances, over the amount of full pay, are made to chief and warrant officers, namely, gunners, boatswains, and carpenters; and how many of each rank receive them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Allowances varying in amount from 3d. to 2s. 6d. a day are payable to the officers in question. They are set out in detail on pages 780 and 781 of the last Quarterly Navy List. As regards the second part of the question, the great majority of warrant officers receive some form of allowance, but to give my hon. Friend a detailed answer would involve an amount of labour which I do not think I should be justified in imposing npon the Department.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that chief and
    772
    signal boatswains in Portsmouth signal schools receive 1s. 6d. and 1s. less than they receive when at sea; that these boatswains have served at sea and have returned to depot, where they are employed, pending appointment to flagship or cruiser, giving instruction to Royal Navy officers qualifying for signal lieutenant and officers of the Royal Naval Reserve; that this 1s. 6d. is paid to the three staff signallers at the school, but is withheld from these boatswains working in the same school, though they are doing the same work; and that although the money to pay them is granted by the Treasury it is handed back as unspent; and, in view of these facts, will he give instructions that these sums of 1s. 6d. and 1s. be paid to the chief and signal boatswains during the periods they are doing staff work ashore?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Chief signal boatswains and signal boatswains borne as supernumerary in their signal schools waiting appointment do not receive the allowance of 1s. 6d. or 1s. a day, according to the class of certificate held, this allowance, as is the case with commissioned warrant officers and warrant officers generally, being only payable to officers actually holding appointments. While supernumerary in the signal schools these officers are employed in the ordinary work of the schools as may be found necessary. Certificate allowance is paid to signal boatswains on the staffs of the schools who hold appointments on the staff. As regards the two last parts of the question, no provision is, or has ever been, made for paying supernumerary officers' certificate allowance, and it is not proposed to make any change in the Regulations governing such payments.

SIR FRANCIS BRIDGEMAN (RETIREMENT).
Mr. MORRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can now add anything to the information which he gave the House yesterday on the subject of the resignation of the First Sea Lord?
Mr. CHURCHILL: The duties which at all times fall upon the First Sea Lord vitally affect the safety of the State. During the last few months I had come to realise, from constant personal intercourse with Sir Francis Bridgeman on official

773
business, in which he always maintained the highest standard of capacity and zeal, that his health and strength were becoming no longer sufficient to enable him without undue strain to sustain the responsibilities of his great office. His life this year at the Admiralty has been a continual struggle against ill-health. He himself was deeply concerned upon the subject and had on several occasions contemplated laying down his office from this cause. Having reached a definite conclusion, I was bound, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister, to impart it to Sir Francis Bridgeman, which I did by letter on 28th November, during his absence from London through illness. In consequence of this, Sir Francis Bridgeman, with great propriety, resigned his post. No difference of view or policy has at any time existed between us or could have led him to tender his resignation, and on personal grounds I have the greatest regret that our official association should come to an end.

PURCHASES OF SILVER (INDIA).
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: if his attention has been called to recent criticisms, not only in India, but at home, of the financial management by the India Office particularly in regard to recent purchases of silver, and the lending of cash balances, and if he can see his way to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject?
The PRIME MINISTER: I only got the right hon. Gentleman's notice a very short time ago, but I may say that my attention has been called to these matters. The India Office is not only willing, but anxious for the fullest possible inquiry into all the points that have been raised. I do not think that it would be desirable at this stage of the Session, particularly in view of the labours imposed upon Members of the House, to appoint a Select Committee. Indeed, I doubt whether a Select Committee could properly be constituted, which would command general confidence, and would undertake an inquiry in what remains of the present Session, but I will consider the suggestion, and also the possibility of some other form of inquiry which would be even more satisfactory to the public at large.
Mr. BONAR LAW: If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to appoint some
774
such Committee, would he take an opportunity to have the matter explained by the Government and discussed in this House, when we shall be able to judge whether an inquiry is necessary or not?
The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps such an opportunity might be afforded on the Motion for the Adjournment for the holidays next week.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that really is not adequate. Does he not think, in the interest of the public service, and even in the interest of the Government themselves, that an opportunity should be taken to explain a transaction which is at least unusual?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept for a moment the suggestion that there is anything unusual. On the contrary, in all essentials the transaction, as far as I am aware, has been in strict conformity with the practice of the present and previous administration.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say what will be the business for next week, and is it also possible for him before Christmas to give us an idea as to the arrangements for the end of the Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Next week we propose to take, as I have already said, the Established Church (Wales) Bill on Monday and Tuesday, and we will continue the Committee stage of that Bill on the two following days. I hope to be able next week to give some indication of what the future course of the Session will be.
  Mr. KING: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, relative to the course of business. Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that there is a prospect before us at half-past ten to-night of twenty-six Divisions, and does he know that his faithful followers view this with feelings of alarm. Has the right hon. Gentleman also observed that a number of the Amendments in the names of the Chief Secretary and the Postmaster-General stand also in the names of several hon. Members opposite, and will he under the circumstances approach through the usual channels Members on the opposite side so that, if possible, the number of Divisions may be diminished? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will do my best, but I am not very sanguine as to what the result will be.

STRANGERS' GALLERY (REGULATION).
Captain MURRAY: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker. Is it permissible for strangers in the Gallery to look at you, Sir, through field glasses?
Mr. SPEAKER: A cat may look at a king.
Captain MURRAY: With very great respect, Sir, is it not possible that what may appear to be a field-glass is in reality a camera? Are strangers in the Gallery to snapshot Members unawares, and in any ungainly attitude they may be at the time?
Mr. SPEAKER: If there was any reason to suppose it was a camera I do not think the House would desire to admit photographers here. I doubt very much whether the photographers would obtain any advantageous pictures.

BILL PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make a further provision with regard to Education in England and Wales." Presented by Mr. WINFREY; supported by Sir Ryland Adkins, Mr. Alexander Harvey, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Rendall, Mr. Clough, and Mr. Arthur Henderson; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 14th January, 1913, and to be printed. [Bill 340.]
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Considered in Committee.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  TWENTY-SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [proqress, 11th December.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps it will be convenient to the Committee if I indicate which of the earlier of the proposed new Clauses are in order. The first one, in the name of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell), which proposes that, "After the passing of this Act no Irish peer can be entitled to sit or vote in the House of Lords," I have had considerable doubt if it comes within the scope of the Bill, but the doubt which I entertained has not been entirely resolved, and I propose to give the hon. Member the benefit of that doubt. The next new Clause standing on the Paper in the name of the same hon. Member is clearly outside the scope of the Bill. A further Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) deals with a matter that has already been decided under the Bill. The next new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rurtherford) is in order. The next two are out of order. The one in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (Marquess of Tulli-bardine) is in order, and also the following one in the name of the hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Hamersley).

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Irish Peers not to Sit in House of Lords.)
  After the passing of this Act, no Irish peer shall be entitled to sit or vote in the House of Lords.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Clause which I move is so simple and plain that until this morning it had never been my intention to do more than, if it were in order, formally to move it, and let it stand or fall on its own merits. Since I arrived here, however, it has come to my knowledge that one Member at least thinks this Clause a malicious one. I can best dispose of that eroneous notion by explaining what my object is. This Clause is only a fragment of my conception of what Home Rule should be. One of the commonest vices of subordinate nations is the sort of slavish snobbery which apes the thing of the dominant nation. The things aped are usually not the best characteristics of the dominant nation; but even if they were, slavish imitation proves the absence of self-respect, and a nation which does not respect itself will not be respected. A people devoid of specific individuality are not a nation, but a set of liveried lackeys. I deeply regret that many provisions in this Bill, as now passed, are calculated to glorify and develop this vice, and that, unless checked by a strong public opinion in Ireland, it may come to be regarded as the correct thing to get educated in England, to speak with an English accent, to wear English clothes and to practice English manners in all things. I have nothing to say against those English things in English people; they are all right in their own place; but our practical experience agrees with the theory that the man in Ireland who wants to impress people by passing himself off as an Englishman is neither a credit nor an advantage to either country, and that the fewer of that class we have the better for you and for us on both sides of the Channel. With intimate knowledge. I assert that Ireland has to-day two marked characteristics. She is, of all countries in Europe, the most in need of practical domestic legislation of a kind about which there is really no controversy among Irishmen. In the earlier part of the Session I heard Mr. Speaker suggest, on a dubious question, that there was no subject on which all Irish Members were agreed. I assert that there are many such subjects
  792
  covering the whole ground of domestic politics. When it was a question of obtaining money from the Treasury for the purpose of arterial drainage there was as strong an effort on behalf of the Bann as on behalf of the Barrow or the Shannon. The present cattle disease, with the restrictions arising from it, has brought about such a state of things among Irish Members that the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) said quite correctly that all Irish Members spoke with one voice. The second characteristic of Ireland to-day is that in no other country in Europe is there such a wide and varied range of subjects raising little or no controversy among Irishmen themselves. In my conception of Home Rule, the Irish Parliament would devote itself for a good many years exclusively to Irish domestic affairs, and for that reason if I could have my way, and a good many other people in the country, we would allow no distraction for Irishmen from the affairs of their own country by coming here to either House at Westminster. As surely as they come they w ill assume the airs of superior beings and be no use, but an injury, to us, and a positive nuisance to the British Parliament. It has not been possible to express these views at the proper part of the Bill without becoming or seeming to become identified with certain wrecking Amendments, which, of course, should not be tolerated in connection with any procedure. This Clause proposes to diminish the attraction exercised upon the aristocracy bearing Irish titles, and to restrict their usefulness to the country whence they derive those titles, and to give a new and worthier aim to their ambitions. It would transform the resident aristocracy from the idle, ineffective nonentities they are to-day into what, in spite of my knowledge of their origin and history, I believe them capable of becoming, a real useful asset to Ireland. It would annihilate the power and prestige of the absentee aristocracy, who, by the fact of being absentees, deserve no better fate. My nationalism is sufficiently confident and vigorous to allow me to give due credit to all Irishmen resident in Ireland, irrespective of class or party, and to resent, so far as I may, wanton taunts levelled at Irish Unionists, either in this House or elsewhere. I absolutely refuse to regard their present attitude as permanent. On the contrary, I look forward with a confident belief to a time in Ireland

  793
  when they will become a powerful element for good. Defective though I consider this Bill in many respects, its one great merit, to my mind, is the prospect it opens up of wiping into oblivion the sordid sectional strife of the past. The purpose of this Clause is to accelerate the completion of that process in a small but potentially important section of the Irish community. For those reasons I beg to move.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): If we were not hard pressed for time, I confess I might reply to the interesting disquisition of the hon. Member, which contained many sentences worth considering, although I confess the conclusion of his speech did not seem to me to be very closely connected with his preliminary observations. The Government is not disposed to agree to this new Clause. We intend to take things as they are as much as possible. The elected Irish Peers in the House of Lords are twenty-eight in number, and from the point of view of population they would be, I will not say entitled, but might perhaps have had a larger representation than that they now have. There they are in the House of Lords corresponding to the forty-two members who will come over to this House to represent Ireland from its Imperial aspects. You will have forty-two Members in this House, and there will be twenty-eight Irish Peers in the-other place. I therefore think it is undesirable to remove the Irish Peers from the position secured to them by the Act of Union, and where they have been for a very long time. They vary no doubt as we all vary, and as any twenty-eight men vary, in degrees of ability and of intelligence, but I do not know that we can enter into any personal disquisition or analysis of their character. The whole House of Lords is a subject which is subject to revision as we all know, and when that question conies to be considered, as soon come it must, the whole question then of the hereditary Peers, English and Scottish, and Irish will undoubtedly come under review. I therefore think it would be an improper thing and outside the scope of this measure were we to interfere with the rights of the Irish Peers secured to them by Act of Parliament and which they at present enjoy. They are not there in excess of their numbers. Therefore I think they ought to remain until such time as the whole subject may come under review. However. I am much indebted to the hon. Member for many of his observations. I
  794
  hope his countrymen will take a good many of them to heart. I really do not think that this is a new Clause which the Government would be well advised to accept.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. GINNELL(speaking seated, and covered): May I ask if I may be allowed to withdraw the Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would have had the right, but as I have already put the Question, it is too late.
  Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for Society of Freemasons in Ireland.)
  Nothing in this Act shall preclude the Society of Freemasons in Ireland and kindred societies recognised as such by the regulations of the Grand Lodge of Ireland from having the same rights of meeting, of admitting members, of holding property, and of maintaining charities as are now or shall from time to time be allowed or accorded by law to similar societies recognised by the Grand Lodges of Scotland and England, respectively, and any law made in contravention of the rights secured under this Section shall, so far as it contravenes these rights, be void.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In moving this Clause I can assure hon. Members I am not going to delay the Committee very long, because I am here for business and not for obstruction. One of the very first things I wish to do is to acknowledge as simply as I can the support on this question of Members from all quarters of the House. I do not wish hon. Members for one moment to think that I am moving this Clause simply on my own initiative. I wish to say to hon. Members who may not be Freemasons that, although Freemasons may be political on the Continent, there is no such thing in this country. Our one object is to keep the question of party politics and denominational questions out of the Freemasons of this country. In this country we know nothing so far as the craft is concerned with regard to denominations, and we know nothing so far as politics are concerned. The Clause which I am moving

  795
  has got the backing of the Masons not only of this country, but in Ireland and in Scotland, and also in the Colonies and all over the world, and I hope hon. Members will assist me to get it through. I will say to those who are not members, that the Society of Freemasons does an immense amount of charitable good in the best sense of charity, in the way of schools, annuities, benevolent funds, and so on. In Ireland I do not know what the regular numbers are, but the recruits every year in the three countries are—in Ireland, 4,000; in Scotland, about 12,000; and in England, 12,000. That shows very encouraging results so far as numbers go. So far as property and capital are concerned, the joint income is about £73,000, and the capital and property £1,750,000. They are a very influential society, and from that point of view its members ask for this protection.
  Quite apart from that, I should like to say that hon. Members opposite may be quite certain, and indeed I am prepared to guarantee, that the members of the craft are most sincerely anxious to practice every kind of charity and not alone monetary charity; they are really anxious, and more anxious every day, themselves and through their society, to bring different sections of the people a little closer to one another and to get them to see things more and more from each other's point of view—to bring, as a matter of fact, a real sense of fraternity about in this country and in Ireland. I think that that is a society which ought to be assisted, and I am anxious to show, so far as Ireland is concerned, that it is a society which should have our support and should be helped out of any difficulty. I cannot see why the Freemasons in Ireland, quite apart from any other body, should be placed under a disability as compared with the Freemasons of Scotland and England. Surely the Freemasons of Ireland have just as much right not to be placed under a disability as the Freemasons of the United Kingdom. In the early days in this country the Freemasons were freed from being banned under the laws relating to secret societies. In Ireland they have never been freed, and I think it is hard that the Irish Freemasons should ever had have to suffer under what I may call the White Boy Acts, which I do not think any of the Nationalist Members approve of. I think it would be an excellent idea, so far as the Freemasons are concerned, to insert a provision of this
  796
  kind. The new Clause which I am now moving is not exactly the Clause which fits the case; it goes too far in some directions and is too short in others; but since it was placed upon the Paper I have had expert advice, and I now think it could be better done in another way. I have drafted another new Clause, which is further down on the Paper. I do not know whether it would be in order to move it. It is really the same idea, and has the same intention, and, if possible, I would like to substitute it in place of this one. It is simpler and goes straight to the point.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Noble Lord's second Clause, although it may be possibly of the same substance, but I cannot decide on that, not being an expert on this matter, appears to be so wide that I could not allow it to be substituted, but if he moves the first Clause, and the Government are prepared to accept it, or the other one, it might be possible for them then to move that the other one be inserted in its place.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That is absolutely satisfactory to me, and I hope it will be to the Government. I will move my Clause, and, if the Government accept it in principle, they can then say they do not accept its terms as they stand, and possibly they will move the other one, which, I am quite certain, will be satisfactory. I hope hon. Members generally will support me. I have a personal interest in the matter, because a hundred years ago my great-great-grandfather moved a similar Amendment in another place, and it was carried by all parties in that House.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The last observation of the Noble Lord about his great-great-grandfather and what took place in another House almost makes me wish that I had been a Member of that House, and then I should have been quit of this. As I understand it, the principle of the new Clause which he wishes to be incorporated in the Bill is the same in both cases, but he prefers not the Clause which is earlier on the Paper, but one which appears subsequently in these terms: "It is hereby declared that existing enactments relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Ireland or of any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge." The existing enactments which are

  797
  referred to, are, as he says, what is known as the White Boy Code, which will receive the condemnation at all events of existing society; but it is nevertheless the fact that there is existing in Ireland this code of laws which would hit the Freemasons. Nobody has any desire that the Freemasons or anybody else should be exposed to the provisions of enactments of that kind, and I am quite prepared to meet the views of the Noble Lord without saying anything about the Freemasons, an admirable body to whom I belong myself, which is altogether outside the terms of these existing enactments, although they might possibly hit so excellent, charitable, and fraternal a society. I am quite willing to move in the words I have just read that a Clause of that kind be added.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Freemasons from Acts relating to Unlawful Oaths or Assemblies).
  It is hereby declared that existing enactments relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Ireland, or of any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge.
  Motion made and question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Flying of Union Jock over Irish Houses of Parliament.)
  The Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) appointed by Royal Proclamation, in pursuance of the Union with Ireland Act, 1800, shall, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, continue to be the official flag of Ireland, and shall be hoisted in a conspicuous place and kept flying over the building or buildings in which the Irish Parliament sits throughout each day up to sunset while the Irish Parliament is in Session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Clause. All through this Debate, from the time that the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading, we have been assured that the
  798
  object of the Members of the Government and of this Bill was to set up in Ireland a Parliament subordinate to the Imperial Parliament, that the Imperial Parliament shall have a veto power, and shall have and exercise sovereignty over the Parliament in Dublin, and shall in every respect be superior to it and exercise superior authority. Safeguards were inserted which W3 on this side of the House said were shams, but if there are to be real safeguards they should be for the purpose of fully securing to the Imperial Parliament its power and authority. That being so, I think it is only a proper consequence and corollary to that that as a symbol of authority and a symbol of power the National flag should fly over those Parliament buildings in Dublin. It may be said, why should we in a Bill of this kind to establish a separate Parliament in Ireland suggest that a Clause of this kind should be put in? Again I say that all through this Debate we have been told that Ireland is in a peculiar position and that we cannot legislate for it in the same manner as we have legislated for the Dominions when we granted them self-government. That is perfectly clear. The whole thing has been peculiar. When the Prime Minister started by introducing this Bill he made the peculiar statement that he had a mandate at the last election that this Bill should be brought in, and he founded his whole argument upon the speeches made by the Opposition, and not upon any advocacy of the Bill by Members of the Government or their supporters. I thought at the time what a splendid defence there would be in the future, if they follow his example, for the pickpockets of the country. The pickpocket will be able to say, "Oh, you cannot arrest me; I am perfectly free. It is true that I picked a man's pocket, but was notice not posted up at every railway station, 'Beware of pickpockets'?"
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order, may I ask whether it is relevant to introduce pickpockets on a Clause of this kind?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member should be allowed to develop his argument a little further.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I do not think the hon. Member could have heard the Prime Minister's excuse for introducing this Bill, and I think I have shown that it is exactly an analogous position to the pickpocket's excuse that he ought not to be interfered with because there was placarded at all the railway stations,

  799
  "Beware of pickpockets." The Prime Minister relies entirely for his justification upon the speeches of the Opposition for everything that he may do. In every speech that has been made by the Members of the Government it has been said that the Clauses of this Bill are different from any Clauses in the Acts granting self-government to the Dominions overseas. They say Ireland is in a peculiar position. That being the case I think I am perfectly justified in saying that although there is nothing in the enactments granting self-government to the Dominions overseas, laying down that they should fly the flag of the country, Ireland being so peculiar and being in a different category altogether, there is an absolute necessity in this case to put in such a Clause. In proof of that I only have to go back to the fact—and I think it is within the recollection and knowledge of every Member in this House who has been listening—that before any self-government was granted to any Dominion, either Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa, there was never a word said in those countries, and especially in Canada and Australia, against the use and acknowledgment of the Union Jack, or that that flag should be the national flag of those countries when self-government was granted to them.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: They asked leave to make their own flag.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: The hon. Member for Stoke says that they asked leave to make their own flag. I would like him to quote his authority for that statement. There has been no application ever made on the part of one of our self-governing Dominions to make their own flag, except as regards the mercantile marine, and Canada did ask, and the then Colonial Secretary gave permission to Canada to fly the Union Jack with the Canadian arms in the corner on her revenue cutters. If the hon. Member for Stoke can quote authority for what he has said, I will be only too glad to withdraw what I have said. It is within memory and knowledge that none of the Dominions, with the exception stated, have demanded ever a separate flag. On the contrary, I should like to quote speeches to show how the leaders in the Dominions were absolutely solid on this question. I shall quote their language shortly, for I do not want to take up too much time of the Committee, just
  800
  to show the difference between the cases, and to bring home the different spirit and idea, and the language expressing that spirit and that idea, of the advocates of self-government in our Dominions, and the language and conduct of the Irish Nationalists who are now asking for self-government for Ireland. I do not think any man listening to me, when quoting, can help but come to this conclusion: that it is necessary to ask that the Union Jack should be flown as the national flag in Ireland as this Motion provides. Both parties in Canada, headed by Sir John A. Macdonald, and the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Mr. George Brown, and all the other eminent men, in the most eloquent language have advocated the Union Jack. Sir J. A. Macdonald, in a speech made at Kingston, about the time of the Confederation, said:
  "Under the broad folds of the Union Jack we enjoy the most ample liberty to govern ourselves as we please. At the same time we participate in tile advantages which flow from association with the mightiest Empire the world has ever seen."
  Sir John, in other speeches, made use of similar language. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, on the opposite side of politics to Sir John, about the same time spoke, and said:—
  "An immense Empire, built upon our part of the North American Continent, whore the folds of the British flag will float in triumph over a people possessing freedom, happiness and prosperity equal to the people of any other nation on the earth.… Under the banner which we believe, after all, covers the greatest amount of personal benefit and be greatest amount of personal happiness to be found in the world."
  I could go on quoting again—
  "The patriotism of the British people and Government will ever be with us, and we in turn hope always to reside under the shadow of the grand old flag of England, at once the symbol of power and of civilisation.… I repent it every day—we should be proud to live under the British flag."
  Australian statesmen on both sides of politics, the leading men in every part of our Dominions and the founders of the Federation in these countries have said much the same thing. Let me now quote the language used a very short time ago by one of the important men in Ireland. Mr. Kettle is a very important man, one of the most important advocates of Irish Nationalism, and for the granting of this Bill. Let me show the difference between the language of the two sets of statesmen in the two countries. What I am going to quote was in connection with the display of the Union Jack at a Nationalist meeting only last March, at a time when this Bill was really under discussion. The Union Jack was floating over a building in Dublin in which were the offices of the

  801
  "Irish Independent." Certain questions arose about it. Mr. Kettle and other people objected to the presence of the flag, and, in fact, there was a great desire amongst numbers of people in Dublin to pull it down. Here is the language of Mr. Kettle to the "Irish Independent," and I ask the attention of the Committee to this, bearing in mind what I have just read of the language of the statesmen to whom I have referred:—
  "Permit me to repair at the earliest possible moment an injustice towards your newspapers which, I—in common with many other persons present at the great Home Rule demonstration—appear to have committed yesterday. While I was speaking, my attention was called to the heraldic symbol of the corrupt and disastrous act of union flying from Carlisle Buildings. Flaunted in the face of the men gathered to demand the reversal of that blundering crime and criminal blunder, the thing looked like a gratuitous insult. I expressed regret that the office of 'Parnell's paper' should on such a day be so dishonoured, and translated the general feeling of the meeting into a condemnation of 'whoever was responsible.' I think it my plain duty in view of the explanatory note which appears in to-day's 'Irish Independent' to withdraw any shadow of possible imputation to your firm of conduct unworthy of Irish Nationalism. The flag … was displayed, as I understand, not by you, but by a Governmental or semi-Governmental department which rents the upper rooms of Carlisle Buildings. Until Home Rule gives us a new unsullied flag, symbolic of that relationship of friendship founded on justice, which only Home Rule can establish between Ireland and Great Britain, our Government departments must, I suppose, do the best they can with the colours in stock."
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at that and think it very funny, but it is a distinct statement by a man who in all probability will hold a very important position in the Government of Ireland under this Bill, if it ever becomes law. Here is a statement that you must take to heart:—
  "Until Home Rule gives us a new, unsullied flag."
  That is an intimation that the old Union Jack is to be taken away and another flag put up. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] What else does it mean? [An HON. MEMBER: "The flag will be unsullied."] I am sure it must be to all our minds, if we think seriously about it, a very important matter. I am not moving this Motion with the object of throwing ridicule upon the Bill. All I desire is to see some enactment put in it that will establish beyond per-adventure the fact that the Union Jack shall be the common flag of England and Ireland in the future as in the past. That is my sole object. Unless it is in the enactment we only have to look at the threats and read the threats of hon. Gentlemen to know that the Union Jack will not be the flag of Ireland, but some other flag. I have here, and I have read them very carefully, thirty cuttings from thirty newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am not going to trouble the
  802
  House with them, but if hon. Members do not believe what I say I can stay here and read them over. I am perfectly prepared to do that.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that reading newspapers is not in order in the House.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I am not going to read the whole newspaper; only cuttings. I believe I will be in order in reading cuttings
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, but I heard the hon. Member say about thirty newspapers.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Of course, I meant cuttings, not newspapers. I am perfectly prepared—and I do not think the Chairman will rule me out of order—to read these cuttings, if hon. Members opposite doubt my statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am very glad hon. Members agree. That has saved me a great deal of trouble, and I have no doubt that having agreed they will realise the fact that there are thirty different accounts of instances in the last two or three years in Ireland where the Union Jack has been destroyed, burnt, trampled upon, and in other ways used with contumely and contempt. Where did that happen in any of the other Dominions over the sea?
  Mr. HAYDEN: They have Home Rule.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Exactly; but I refer to the time before they had it. Before any suggestion was made of the confederation of Canada, where was there an instance of such things as I have stated here? Ireland in this matter stands in a perfectly distinct position as against the others. For twenty years or more the Irish Nationalists have used the most extraordinary language against England and against her rule. Whether disloyal or not, it is a fact that for twenty years past language that would never be tolerated—I was going to say by decent people—has been used against the country of England. They now come into this House and say, "All that is passed; all that has gone; give us this Home Rule and there shall be no more language of that kind used; we will submit to you in every way." In fact, they have taken back every statement made during the last twenty years. They have said it is all false and wrong. They ask you to believe them now. If you do believe them now, if they want you to believe them, let them consent to this Clause

  803
  going into this Act to show that they are really bonâ fide and honest in what they are saying. If they do not consent, then it shows to me that they are not honest in what they have stated. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we have only the statements by hon. Members below the Gangway—verbal statements. I myself would prefer to have something in writing, because I confess that I do not trust them. Let us have it in writing, and then if this thing has to become laws and Ireland is to have a separate Government, let them be the same as all the other Dominions, but do not let us have a flag different to theirs, or any other flag than the one that flies over the whole of our Empire! I regard the thing with dread, and that it will happen unless we pass this Clause.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has concluded his speech by announcing that he does not trust the Irish people.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: On this subject.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: That announcement has in it nothing of novelty for us. In every speech which has been delivered while this discussion on the Home Rule Bill has been going on, we have found the same spirit animating the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway. The speeches on the Second Reading were all on the subject that the Irish people could not be trusted with self-government, and every Amendment which hon. Members above the Gangway have proposed in the Committee stage has been characterised by the same sentiment. They have shown, in fact, once again the truth of what Gladstone said many years ago:—
  "Liberalism is trust of the people qualified by prudence; Toryism is distrust of the people qualified by fear."
  I am surprised at the knowledge the hon. Gentleman displayed about Ireland. I do not think he was ever there.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Oh, yes, I was.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Then it was for a very short period.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Oh, no.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I think the House would be much more interested in knowing not so much what the hon. Gentleman knows about Ireland as what Ireland knows about the hon. Gentleman, which I think is absolutely nothing. I can quite
  804
  understand where the hon. Gentleman got his information. There is a daily publication circulated amongst the Unionist Members where speeches can be got ready-made, and being of an inquiring turn of mind I got hold of one of these daily parts, which extends to about thirty pages. I find in it the very interesting announcement:—
  "This memorandum has been prepared by Mr. Rosenbaum, and is circulated by permission of the Unionist Central Office. Mr. Rosenbaum will be under the Gallery during the Debates."
  I wonder if this boy of bulldog breed is here at present. If he was, and if it was in order, I should appeal to you, Mr. Whitley, to ask him to stand up in order that we may look on this authority on Irish questions rejoicing in the fine old British name of Rosenbaum. I wonder what part of Ireland Rosenbaum comes from. I will guarantee that until this publication was issued we never heard of Rosenbaum even in the North-East of Ireland. But that is not the only information I got in this document. On the front of it I see printed in green ink the statement, that if any hon. Member finds that the speech supplied him was used before he gets up to talk he has only to—
  "telephone to Victoria Street, Westminster—Victoria 4592, two lines."
  and he will get a new speech down to him red-hot.
  "The Intelligence Bureau will be open until 10.30 every night during the Committee Stage of the Home Rule Bill."
  So that if any Gentleman finds that another hon. Gentleman has run away with his speech, he has only to telephone "Victoria 4592—two lines," and he will get a new speech sent down to him. I think it would be extremely difficult for anybody in this House to discuss this Clause seriously. I admire the brave effort that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made to treat the matter in a serious spirit. I object to this new Clause for several reasons. In the first place, I think that the Clause must fail for want of definiteness. There are many Union Jacks, and I do not know which Union Jack he proposes for us.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: There is only one.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: There is an Imperialist for you who says there is only one Union Jack! Now this is a subject of which I know something——
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I do not know whether I should refer to the Proclamation of the 1st January, 1801.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The ignorance of Imperialist Members about Imperial affairs is simply colossal. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a Union Jack. The proper name of the flag is the Great Union, and it is only a Union Jack when it is flown from the jack staff of a ship of war. I am speaking with authority, and I may give the hon. Member a bit of information that Mr. Rosenbaum could not give him. It would be a most awkward thing if this Clause was inserted, and it would be most awkward in many respects. The Union Jack changes with nearly every Sovereign—anyone who reads the history of the Union Jack will learn that—and are we to buy a new flag every time a British Sovereign mounts the Throne. In fact the hon. Gentleman who has spoken says he does not know that there are more Union Jacks than one. Well, we have the Lord Lieutenant's Union Jack in Ireland, which is an entirely different thing from the Union Jack in this country. The Lord Lieutenant's Union Jack is the Great Union with the Irish harp and the blue shield of St. George. Is that the Union Jack one sees flying every day? And they have got a different Union Jack in India. Every Colony in this great Union has a separate badge. Moreover, I may inform hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that the Great Union is the flag of Empire which is recognised as such in every part of the British Dominions. But every Dominion in the Empire, and not only every Dominion, but every State in every Dominion, has got its own flag, and why should you attempt to impose upon us a condition which you dare not attempt to impose upon any Colony of your Empire. Why, even Scotchmen have a flag of their own. I will not attempt to inflict upon the House a full description of the Scottish flag, but if any hon. Member takes a look at the Scottish Education Office any day he walks down Whitehall he will find, not the Great Union, but the Scottish flag flying. The Great Union as it is to-day was altered at the passing of the Act of Union between England and Ireland, and it is surely rather a ridiculous proposal now when we are revising the whole terms of the Act of Union and repairing the blunder of 1800 that you should force upon us a symbol of that Union which we hate. After all, you are not flying your Union Jack or Great Union, as you ought to call it, very long even from this House. It was only a few years ago you hoisted it on the Victoria Tower, and it was only
  806
  done then because a body of Jingoes formed an association here that the flag was flown from Victoria Tower.
  An HON. MEMBER: Rosenbaum.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Oh, no. It was before Rosenbaum's time; he had not landed upon these shores at the time that decision was arrived at. It was an association for the promotion of Empire Day, a day which I venture to say the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down could not give me the date of now. A number of Gentlemen in this House continually got up and pestered the Jingo Government, day after day, week after week, and month after month to give a demonstration of their love for the Empire by hoisting the National Union from the Victoria Tower, and it was only after sustained pressure that Mr. Arnold Foster decided to hoist that flag. This Empire jogged along for seven centuries before this incident, and you have not made a bit more progress, since the Empire is not a penny richer, and now this sudden access of belated patriotism, which only a few days ago hoisted that flag, will not let us wait for seven centuries before we hoist it. I am very anxious we should not have any complication with people of Scotland, and I am afraid, if I am to depend upon authority that if we proceeded to prepare a flag of our own in accordance with this Clause we should find ourselves in very serious difficulty with the people of Scotland, and we do not want to quarrel with any portion of the Celtic fringe after we get Home Rule. When the Scottish flag was being prepared there was great difficulty about the three crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick, and let me say that, notwithstanding the large part Wales plays in the government of the country, poor St. David does not get a look in at all. We are told that to combine these three crosses without losing the distinctive feature of each was not easy.
  "Each cross must be distinct and retain equally distinctive its fimbrication, which denotes the original ground. In the first Union flag the red cross of St. George with the white ii lubrication that represents the original white field, was simply imposed upon the white saltire of St. Andrew with its blue field. To place the red saltire of St. Patrick on the white saltire of St. Andrew would have been to obliterate the latter, nor would the red saltire have its proper bordering denoting its original white field; even were the red saltire narrowed in width, the portion of the white saltire that would appear would not be the St. Andrew saltire, but only the fimbrication appertaining to the saltire of St. Patrick. The difficulty has been got over by making the white broader on one side of the red than the other. In fact, the continuity of direction of the arms of the St. Patrick red saltire has been broken by its portion being removed from the centre of the oblique points

  807
  that form the St. Andrew's saltire. Thus both the Irish and Scottish saltires can be easily distinguished from one another, whilst the red saltire has its due white fimbrication."
  What would happen to us if we removed the white fimbrication? We might have a declaration of war at once from Scotland, and we do not want to invite any complications of that character. The fact is that in reality this Clause is only intended as another demonstration of antagonism, hatred, and distrust to the Irish people. It cannot be supported by one intelligent argument except the arguments supplied hot from the Press by Mr. Rosenbaum.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I am sure we have all enjoyed the very amusing speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for South Down, although he did not attempt to answer the serious speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodstock (Mr. Hamersley), who proposes to make this Clause a portion of the Act. It is all very well to make jokes with regard to the British flag, and to say that the speech which was delivered by my hon. Friend is one of those prepared for circulation in this House by Mr. Rosenbaum. Speaking for myself, I may say that I have never seen any of the speeches referred to, and I should refuse to deliver a speech made by somebody else. With regard to the Union Jack, the hon. Member for South Down seems to be singularly misinformed. The origin of the flag is perfectly historical in character and very well established, and as to the difficulty the hon. Member anticipates with regard to making a flag for Ireland, I suggest that all his difficulties would be avoided by retaining the existing flag and not interfering with it. There can be no doubt that the Union Jack is a well-recognised historical name. Some time ago an address was sent to King Edward asking for permission to fly a certain flag, and on the 29th December, 1907, Lord Knollys replied as follows:—
  "In reply to your letter of the 9th instant, I beg to inform you that the Union Jack, being the national flag, may be flown by British subjects privately or officially on land—Yours faithfully, Knollys."
  So much for the Union Jack being the national flag. In addition to that, the Motion that is made here is that "the Union flag, commonly known as the Union Jack," should be hoisted over the Government buildings and official buildings and the Parliament House during the sittings of Parliament, so that as to the name of the
  808
  flag there can be no doubt whatever. For my part, I do not intend to go into matters which can be regarded as more or less controversial, and I am the last man in the world to make any charge against my fellow countrymen. I have seen a great deal of the Irish race. I have many friends amongst them, and I have confidence in them when they are left to the opportunities that are put before them, and not led away from the path of peace, order, and good government. It must be remembered, however, that whatever the cause may be—and we are not investigating causes at the moment—expressions have been used in Ireland with regard to our flag which, to say the least of it, are not respectful, and consequently it may be legitimate enough to inquire what there is underlying those expressions which have been made in public speeches and otherwise. The question is whether it is a fact or not that as recently as March last a public newspaper was the subject of animadversion in the city of Dublin because the Union Jack was flown from the building in which the business was carried on or near to it. Is it a fact that a large section of those in sympathy with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway sympathised with the action of Mr. Kettle on that occasion? Is it true that on that public occasion Mr. Kettle, who occupies a high and responsible position in Ireland, found it necessary to explain the circumstances under which the flag was flown from those buildings, and found it necessary to apologise for the presence of the flag in the capital city of Dublin? Is it a fact that he found it necessary to say, if I may paraphrase his words:—
  "For the moment that flag may fly in this country, but the day will come when 'a new and unsullied flag' will fly from the legislative buildings and other public buildings in Ireland."
  That means that the flag is not respected; that the allegiance to it is only a strained allegiance, and that those who entertain those views are only waiting for the day when they may hoist their new, unsullied flag. With regard to myself, my main reason for taking part in this Debate is that these very warnings suggest to us that there is to be a change in the flag when the opportunity occurs to make that change. I heard an hon. Gentleman say, "Why not let the Parliament of Ireland choose a flag when that Parliament is established?" Is that what this House desires? Does this country desire, and do the people of the United Kingdom desire,

  809
  that the time-honoured, historical, unsullied flag known as the Union Jack is only waiting its time, and that a "new and unsullied flag," more conformable with the ideas of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, is to take its place? My only motive in wishing to have it made clear in statutory form that the flag which exists to-day is the one which shall continue in the future is these continual forewarnings and rumblings we hear so frequently as to the possibility of a change in the future. I should have thought that Irishmen, irrespective of religion, and in view of the services they have rendered to that flag, if they had a proper regard for patriotism, would consider that there should be no more honourable or higher ambition than to seek to continue their local government under the ægis of that great flag. Our flag is second to no other flag in existence to-day.
  I do not desire to say anything which may offend the self-respect or national sensibility of any hon. Member of this House, but I think I may state with confidence, in the presence of statesmen sitting opposite, who are responsible for the Irish Government, that the presence of the Union Jack or the Union flag above the Parliamentary buildings in Ireland will not only be a greater guarantee than any other for peace, order, and good government in that country, but it will contribute infinitely to the financial credit of the country itself. A change in the flag flying over public institutions in Ireland might seriously injure Irish credit under a Home Rule Government, and would affect transactions involving the borrowing of money in the interests of the State. I should have thought that, after seeing this Motion on the Paper, if any value is to be attached to their recent professions, the first thing hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would do to show their devotion to the Empire would be to say "this Motion is entirely unnecessary as we ask for nothing better than the Union flag or the Union Jack, which is not identified with events before 1801, but which is identified with so many events since that time which redound to the credit both of Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen." I should think Members of the Nationalist party would be the first to say: "Yes, we are true to the Empire, we are true to British institutions, and we wish to work Home Rule with fair play to the minority as well as to the majority. If there is any suspicion in this House representing
  810
  the entire United Kingdom and having responsibility beyond that to the whole Empire, we as Nationalists should be the first to say we give our allegiance to the flag; we stand by the protection the flag guarantees, and we will administer the laws of our country in accordance with the best traditions of British Justice."
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the actual words of the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman has moved:—
  "The Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) appointed by Royal Proclamation, in pursuance of the Union with Ireland Act, 1800, shall, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, continue to be the official flag of Ireland, and shall be hoisted in a conspicuous place and kept flying over the building or buildings in which the Irish Parliament sits throughout each day up to sunset while the Irish Parliament is in Session."
  Upon that I should like to say, first of all, that there is no Act of Parliament and no Royal Proclamation that makes the Great Union, known throughout history and familiar throughout the world as the Union Jack, the official flag of Ireland. There is certainly no Constitution in our own or any other where you find an Act of Parliament making solemn provision that a particular flag should be kept hoisted in a particular place over a particular building. I am not going into the heraldic question, which is interesting enough, but, nevertheless, the proclamation of the King, made in January, 1801, defines what the Union flag shall be. He proclaims:—?
  "That the style and titles aforesaid and also the arms or ensigns armorial aforesaid shall be used henceforth, as far as conveniently may be, on all occasions wherein our Royal style and titles and arms or ensigns armorial shall be used."
  It is to be employed on suitable occasions. It is nowhere stated in any Proclamation that you should make it compulsory that a particular flag associated with the Royal prerogative should be hoisted habitually and conspicuously, and fly at all times, and in all weathers, when the Irish Parliament is sitting. All these things are a complete novelty. I really deprecate the notion of making this Amendment an opportunity to make demonstrations against the alleged loyalty or disloyalty of the Irish people. It is a fact that this Union Jack came into existence not so very long ago. It is not the flag that has braved a thousand years the

  811
  battle and the breeze. It is not that kind of flag. It is a flag, a noble flag, and a great flag, exciting emotions which will always rise in the breasts of loyal subjects, but it came into existence after the passing of the Act of Union with Ireland, and everybody who has even a schoolboy's knowledge of the Act of Union must recognise, unless he is incapable of having any sympathy with opinions which he does not share, that there are and always have been countless Irishmen who do not take any passionate pleasure in being reminded of the Act of Union. That in no way interferes with their loyalty to the Kingdom or to the connection between England and Ireland, which existed, more or less at all events, before the Act of Union; bur, whether they are wise or foolish, they associate a legislative Act of which they do not like to be reminded with that particular flag, and to say it was disloyal for Irishmen in times past to have been angry with the Union Jack, or to have treated it as a political symbol, is, I think, rather an unreasonable thing. People acquainted with Irish history know that at the present time it is contrary to law to fly the Union Jack from public-houses. That is not because this House, when it made that regulation, in any way sought to put an imputation upon the Union Jack, but because it felt that, if in a particular country the Union Jack was associated with party and party animosities and feelings, it was most desirable to keep, not so venerable an emblem because it is not venerable yet, but so glorious an emblem from the dust of party contests. Consequently, at the present time the Union Jack cannot be flown from public-houses.
  You will not encourage loyalty by compulsory flag flying. Compulsory loyalty is as impossible a thing as compulsory religion or compulsory Greek. You cannot do it. I am sure we are all most anxious to see, as a consequence of this legislation, a state of mind and feeling springing up in Ireland in which symbols of the Union, instead of being associated with that which is distasteful to them, will, so far at any rate as the majority of the Irish people are concerned, be associated with cheerful events of which they like to be reminded. I therefore deprecate, as strongly as I can, the introduction into this Debate of any motives of loyalty or disloyalty or of any reference to the treatment which amongst an excited populace this particular flag may have received at different times. I think, as I have already
  812
  said, those can be explained not by any hatred of England but by an association of the Union Jack with a legislative Act they do not like and which they still associate with Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, and other persons who to the great majority of Englishmen are no more than past historical personages, of whom any intelligent man in this country might find it difficult to give an account of more than three or four sheets of paper. It is quite different in Ireland.
  The objection to the Union Jack is not due to any hatred of the English people or to any unwillingness to be associated with the glories of the English people, in which the Irish, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause very generously and historically recognised, have played so great a part. I therefore object to this new Clause because it is a novelty and imposes upon a country a compulsory burden which in my opinion we have no right to impose upon it. The Union Jack is not the national flag and is not the official flag in any sense of the word. It would be quite possible for the Irish people to float a flag, and indeed they have a flag, bearing the Arms of Ireland, the golden harp on a dark blue ground, the third quarterign on the Royal Standard, a great flag which cannot be flown everywhere, and which indeed appertains to the Royal presence. It would be childish to attempt in a great Act of Parliament which seeks to establish this Irish Parliament and this Irish Executive to insert an obligation on people whether they like it or not to fly a particular flag all day long on a particular building. There is no precedent for any such proceeding anywhere, and it is an extreme novelty in this House. I like flags and I like to see them flying, but to seek to dictate to people what kind of flag they are to fly over a particular building I really think savours of the ridiculous. Assuming you want, as I want, to get rid of unhappy distinctions, bred by history, which have undoubtedly grown up, I am quite sure it is not by compulsion you will produce the result we all have at heart. I am therefore opposed to this Clause.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not surprised at the speech which the Chief Secretary has just made, a speech in perfect taste and a very good official defence of a Minister in charge of a Bill of the course which his Government mean to pursue. I am not going to rake up history. He seemed to think we were all going to dwell on cases

  813
  in which, in the excitement of some controversy, Irish mobs or others may have insulted the Union Jack on this or that occasion. I am not going to rake up these ancient and regrettable circumstances. I do not think any of us would gain anything by dwelling on a past in which such events occurred. I have nothing to complain of either in the tone or in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but he did not, I think, show any sufficient appreciation of the importance which symbols have and must have in cases of national and corporate feeling. That, perhaps, is a small question, and it is not against anything which he said I wish to direct my observations. I am frankly surprised at the tone in which this new Clause is met by the spokesman of the Irish party below the Gangway. I confess that whatever my opinions might have been on the merits of this Amendment, I should not, were I an Irish Nationalist desirous of persuading the British House of Commons of the new spirit which it is claimed this Bill is going to create, have spent half an hour in making jokes, not always in very good taste, all directed towards making as ridiculous as he could the national flag of the Empire of which he still proposes to be a member.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I know the courtesy which always distinguishes the right hon. Gentleman, and I am quite sure he has no desire to misrepresent me. I made it perfectly clear we in Ireland regard the Union Jack as the Flag of Empire, and shall so regard it under Home Rule; but we claim the right which is claimed by every Colony and every Dominion in the Empire to have our own flag in addition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said so distinctly.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman denies that he spent a large part of his speech in turning what he calls the Flag of Empire into ridicule——
  Mr. MacVEAGH: No, the new Clause into ridicule, not the flag.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He talked very little about the Clause, and he talked a good deal about the flag. I am, in the memory of the House, no small number of the numbers of which were in convulsions of laughter during the hon. Gentleman's speech; indeed, I have listened to a good many of these Debates at this hour, and I do not think I ever saw those benches so
  814
  full or so interested or so amused as they were when the hon. Gentleman was giving his humourous historical account of the Flag of Empire, as he calls it. I should have supposed hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have put up some spokesman who, whilst attacking the details of the Clause, like the right hon. Gentleman, would have said the past must be the past, and any quarrel they might have had with that which the Union Jack symbolised was over and done with and was to be forgotten.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: The Mover of the Clause said he would not believe us if we did say it, and he was cheered by your party.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If he said it in the humourous setting given to the Debate by the hon. Gentleman it might not have carried conviction to everybody. I should certainly have thought the tone taken by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have been very different from that which, us a matter of fact, was taken by the hon. Gentleman they put up to discredit the Amendment. Let the House take a lesson from what is done in other great communities. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary seemed to regard the Union Jack as a rather modern mushroom flag, though he did full justice to the greatness and cause of the Empire which it represents. But look how the United States use their flag. Every foreigner who lands upon their shores and expresses an intention of becoming an American citizen is shown the flag as the symbol and very embodiment of the spirit of the United States, and it becomes the great bond of union among them. Are we merely to treat our flag as so much bunting? That is not how it is regarded in every one of our Colonies. Does anybody tell me if there was a discussion at which members from the Dominions were present, and in which the position occupied by the Union Jack in the Empire was under discussion, they would tolerate for one instant the sort of speech which the spokesman of the Nationalist party has thought fit to make on this subject.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: It was scandalous.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Even now the echoes of their merry laughter ring on those benches. I consider whatever be the detailed merits of this Amendment, that on questions raised by Amendments like this you can test what is the real future for inhabitants

  815
  of Ireland. I do not desire to say anything which will offend anybody, but remember the way in which the Home Rule controversy has been carried on by great men, by Irish men of whom Ireland has every right to be proud, by Members of this House of whom this House has every right to be proud, because they were great Parliamentarians. Some of the greatest of them have talked of Ireland carrying her flag among the nations of the world. That is the teaching of the past. But hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have told us in all these debates that that teaching is antiquated and that the past is past and should be forgoten. Ireland they say under this new Constitution which you are going to give her will become more and more closely bound up with the interests and sentiment of Great Britain and the Empire. I earnestly hope that that is true, but it is not a very easy idea to carry out, and to maintain ardently; a subordinate patriotism is not a thing which has been found easy by nations in the past. It is not a thing which the former teaching of hon. Gentlemen makes easy for them. If they are going to carry out their former professions, whether they succeed or not, they are going to reverse the whole current of their teaching altogether, and they are going to tell an Irishman that he must remain Irish, loving Ireland, but yet henceforth he must support that greater whole of which Ireland is a part, just as Scotchmen, who do not yield to any Irishmen in their love of their country, recognise that the patriotism of a Scotsman in no way hinders, obstructs, or impairs that larger patriotism which he has for the United Kingdom and for the British Empire. If you are going, when this Bill is passed, to talk very little about the Empire, very little about the Parliament which your new Parliament is said to be subordinate, if you are going to fly a purely Irish flag, if you are going to appeal to purely Irish sentiments, and if you think, after that, you are going to make Ireland bear the same relation to the United Kingdom and the Empire as Scotland bears, let me tell you, you are grievously and utterly mistaken. The cultivation of such an emotion is no easy matter, and if you think it is going to spring up at once under the operation of hon. Gentlemen's eloquence, then you are profoundly mistaken. I believe that the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in bringing this Amendment is an
  816
  object which every Irishman ought most earnestly to pursue, and ought to make him do his best to induce the rising generation in Ireland to feel that they belong to the larger community. Their whole argument for this Bill in this House is that they feel we have hindered that sentiment so far by what, they consider to be our ill-contrived legislative machine. I do not agree with them, but if they believe it, then they surely ought to welcome everything which should give, with their full consent, legislative sanction to the employment of those symbols which point continuously and necessarily to that larger and higher patriotism to which they now avow themselves to be whole-hearted converts. But they have not done so. They have received the suggestion with sneers and scoffs. They have made a speech about the Imperial flag which I think myself, speaking as a citizen of this Empire, absolutely intolerable. I have listened to it with shame and disgust. If that is going to be the spirit with which they are going to deal with these great symbols in Ireland, then I can tell them, however honest their professions may be in this House, they are destined to be absolutely shattered under the policy they themselves put forward.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Although I unfortunately was called away from the House about half an hour ago, and therefore did not hear the Chief Secretary or the commencement of the speech of the-right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, his concluding remarks induce me to believe that I ought to intervene for a few moments in this Debate. Let me say at the commencement that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has, in my judgment, done a profound injustice to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. J. MacVeagh). I go so far as to say that the object which the right hon. Gentleman says ought to be entertained by all patriotic Irishmen, namely, while cultivating her own separate nationality she should also be willing to share and be proud of a wider nationality of Empire, is the object of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down, as it is certainly the object of myself and my colleagues. I was profoundly impressed the other day by a speech made in the City of London by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he enunciated this very doctrine, and I paid him the compliment—if he will admit it is a compliment—of quoting his speech at length at a Home Rule meeting a couple

  817
  of days afterwards. I concluded the quotation by saying that the doctrine he laid down was our ideal. He said he was proud as a Scotchman of the separate nationality of Scotland, as the Canadians were proud of the separate nationality of Canada, and as Australians were proud of the separate nationality of Australia; while they were all proud of being citizens of the Empire and of the wider nationality of that Empire. The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to Ireland, but that is our ideal, and the Irish people have been debarred from the realisation of that ideal by the history of Ireland ever since the Union. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is well acquainted with the history of Ireland. Does he forget that the most extreme movement against British rule for the last 100 years since the movement commenced was a movement and a constitutional movement for reform. Take the case of Wolf Tone. His was originally a constitutional movement which had for its object Parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation, and it was not until 1795 when, unfortunately, Lord Fitz-william, who embodied those ideals, was withdrawn from Ireland, that these men became rebels. The same thing has happened in every movement since that day. The '48 movement was created and conducted by men who originally only asked for Parliamentary reform, and who, when they found that hope was absolutely gone, turned into rebels. From the clay of Wolf Tone down to this moment there has been no leader of Nationalist sentiment in Ireland who was not willing and eager to grasp the idea of a separate nationality combined with the Imperial unity, if he had been allowed to do so. Let me come down to this particular Amendment. It seeks to impose, for no reason I know of, some humiliation upon Ireland. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not think it is quite fair that I should be interrupted. Throughout all these Debates I have refrained from interruptions, and my colleagues have done the same, and I think I might be listened to now. I say I know not what the object of this Amendment is, unless it is to inflict upon Ireland some stigma on this point which has not been inflicted on any other self-governing portion of the Empire. Do you think that by putting this provision in the Bill you are going to make the Union Jack the flag of the Empire? It is already the flag of the Empire and has been so created by Statute, and the Home Rule Bill will not interfere with it.
  818
  If the Home Rule Bill is passed without this Amendment, the Union Jack will still be the flag of the Empire, and it will be flown in a contented Ireland after the Home Rule Bill is passed. The Union Jack is provided for by Statute. People speak of the disfavour with which the Union Jack has been received in Ireland in the past.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Under what Statute?
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: It was at the time of the Union—the Proclamation. That stands and is not interfered with in any way by this Bill at the time of the Union. Some hon. Gentlemen have said that the Union Jack has been received from time to time, in periods of excitement, with disfavour in Ireland. Remember this, the-Union Jack dates only from the Union of 1800, and all parties admit that the Union from that date down to this moment—I will not go into its history, or the reasons—everyone knows that from 1800 down to this moment, the Union has been detested by the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, and that flag, created only as a symbol of that Union, I think most naturally, in times of excitement has from time to time met with marks of disfavour. But after the passage of this Bill it will no longer be the symbol of a hated and distrusted Union. It will be the symbol of a Union which the Irish people have frankly and fully accepted. It will be the symbol of the great Empire into which, for the first time they say, they have been admitted on terms of equality and honour. It is nothing less than a stigma that, by a Clause in this Bill, you should compel the Irish people to put over this building or that building a flag which will be their flag for the first time after this Bill is passed.
  It is said that Ireland will flaunt her own flag. I do not know what "flaunting her own flag" means, but I will tell you what Ireland will do. She will do what every Colony in the Empire does to-day. Go to Canada, and you will find there the Union Jack the symbol of the Empire, but you will find a flag of Canada alongside it. Go to Australia, and you will find the Union Jack there. I have sat in great Australian gatherings with the Union Jack over my head, and side by side with it the Australian flag, the blue flag with the Southern Cross upon it. Go where you will throughout the Empire, and you will find these flags, often where there is no Home Rule at all. My hon. Friend alluded to the case of Scotland. I remember

  819
  being greatly interested in seeing the flag of Scotland, without any Union Jack within eyesight of it, floating proudly over the Scottish Office in London, and not long afterwards I happened to be passing through Downing Street, on a most innocent mission, and I found the flag of Wales, without any Union Jack near it, floating over the house of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No, Sir, we will not flaunt the flag of Ireland in the face of anybody, but you will have in the city of Dublin the Union Jack floating as a symbol of the Union, for the first time accepted by the Irish people, as a symbol of the Empire, and alongside it you will find some Irish flag. Personally I do not know what that flag will be. I know what my own predilections are in that respect, but I also know that there is great difference of opinion among Irish scholars as to what the real colour of the old Irish flag was. Whether it will be the St. Patrick blue or whether it will be what we are in the habit of calling the "immortal green," is of little importance to the Members of this House. The important fact is this, that the Irish flag will be a symbol of that local separate nationality which the right hon. Gentleman praised in his speech in the City of London, and the Union Jack will be a symbol of the Empire to which Ireland, then for the first time, will feel she has been admitted on honourable and equal terms. In these circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented the motive and intention of my hon. Friend's speech, and he has certainly very gravely misrepresented the intentions, views, and ideals of my colleagues and myself.
  Mr. WHYTE: In the few remarks I shall address to the Committee I wish specially to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour), and to recall to the memory of the House another speech which he made, the text of which was that the basis of democracy is the consent of the governed. In the opening passages of the speech he delivered to-night the Committee recognised the author of the "consent of the governed" speech; but, as he went on, he divested himself of the philosophic and historical character in which he had delivered the previous speech, and turned his remarks into a more definitely partisan way. May I remind him that the whole of this Debate arises out of the fact that the
  820
  United Kingdom, of which he is one of the highest leaders, has for a whole century failed to understand the application of his own doctrine to Ireland, and that the consequence has been that the Irish people, with a perfect right and in an absolutely natural sense, have denied the fact that the Union Jack was their flag. There are hon. Members on the Irish Benches who have been the inmates of Irish prisons—placed there at the dictates of English Ministers. I do not know whether or not the Union Jack flew over those prisons, but I suspect that it did. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on that side of the House to accept a Clause moved in the spirit in which it has been moved, and supported by the quotations with which it has been supported, or to accept, in the meek spirit which he suggests, a Clause which, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford very truly said, represents an insult and a humiliation to the Irish people? The insult and humiliation it represents is that the whole spirit in which hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have conducted this Debate is one of the deepest distrust of Ireland. Viewing the behaviour of Irishmen for over a century, they believe that the behaviour of Irishmen in the future, even under Home Rule, will be the same. There again they completely misconceive the doctrine which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself understands very well, and the doctrine he himself propounded, namely, that you cannot have the only loyalty to the flag that is worth having unless you have the consent of the governed.
  Mr. CROFT: We were all interested to see the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) get up in his place and endeavour to pour oil on very troubled waters, and endeavour to wash out the impression made by the tragic speech which was made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) a little earlier in the Debate. [Laughter.] I am well aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite found a great deal of amusement, in that speech, but if it had been uttered in any other Parliament, Dominion or Provincial, in the British Empire, he would have been howled down by every man present. I do not wish to open the old sores on this question at all, but I wish to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether a grave injury is not being inflicted upon our national life if we permit

  821
  to go unchallenged a speech of that description. What is the object of this Clause? It is to invite this Parliament to decide that the Union Jack shall fly over the Parliament in Dublin. That flag flies over all the Parliaments in the British Empire, and what is good enough for the Dominions overseas is good enough for them. If there is anything in what the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford from time to time has said, and if any of his protestations are true, you would have thought that he would have been only too ready to come alongside all other parts of the Empire and fly that great flag over the Parliament in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "So he will; he said so."] We were told by the hon. and learned Gentleman that this will be a humiliation.
  Mr. J. REDMOND: No, I never said that. I am sure the hon. Member does not intend to misrepresent me. I never said the floating of the Union Jack over the Parliament in Dublin would be a humiliation. On the contrary, I said that is what will happen.
  Mr. CROFT: I am very glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that. I did not mean to misrepresent him. He did not wait until I had finished quoting. I was going to say that he considered that if this Clause were passed it would be a humiliation. I was not going to misquote the hon. Gentleman. If that is what is going to happen, and it is no humiliation, why not show your good faith and agree to the Clause now? The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), which has been quoted, referred to the fact that Canadians, Australians, and Scotchmen are proud of their separate national feelings. Yes, Sir, but they are all proud of our national flag, and I would still ask whether it is not possible, even now, that by consent the Irish party should agree to a Clause of this description, to which we attach a great deal of value.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will you vote for the Bill then?
  Mr. CROFT: If the hon. Gentleman will provide real safeguards in every Clause in this Bill, I am perfectly prepared to do my best to try and make it a workable measure.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Then you are a Home Ruler?
  Mr. CROFT: Although we have been reduced to nothing but a machine, we still call ourselves a Parliament, and although I admit it is a mockery and a sham, at the same time it is our duty in whatever possible way we can to improve this Bill. Speaking not as a party man, but from the point of view of the wider feeling of the British Empire, who will read with pleasure the speech that was made this afternoon? I still hope that a very large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite will accompany my hon. and gallant Friend into the Lobby in support of this Clause.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I must say that we on this side of the Committee, and I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, have listened with the greatest gratification to the main parts of this speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He apparently has reached the stage when he would welcome a settlement of the Home Rule question by consent.
  Mr. CROFT: I never said that.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member is a not unimportant personage. He is the leader and the chief captain of the Confederates. He is to make a tour in Scotland shortly, and his going there has been heralded by paragraphs in all the papers telling his history from his birth upwards, until he founded the celebrated Confederates. So it is important that we should pay the utmost attention to everything that falls from his lips. He has made a proposition to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. He said, "Why will you not accept this Clause, which, it is true, makes the Union Jack statutory in Ireland, but accept it as the symbol of your good faith?" Naturally one expects when an offer of that kind is made that the quid pro quo is to be granted. And obviously the implication in the speech of the hon. Member was that as the result of the acceptance of this Clause he and those with whom he acts—may I say those whom he leads—will be willing to work with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) for a settlement of this Home Rule question. I hope I am not misinterpretating the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CROFT: If this Amendment was accepted I should certainly be more inclined to believe some of the utterances of the hon. and learned Gentlemen.
  Mr. PRINGLE: That does not carry us very far—not so far as the hon. Member went in his speech. He is cooling down. I must keep him up to the pitch of his earlier fervour. I took the liberty of interrupting him, suggesting that he was a Home Ruler. What did he then say? "Oh, well, we must have every safeguard in this Bill." Consequently he is apparently a Home Ruler if it is only clear that the safeguards which are necessary for the integrity of the Empire and the unity of the United Kingdom are inserted in the Bill. That must be his position. We are, then, in a position to deal. I remember reading a very interesting article in the "Observer" newspaper two years ago. It was written by a gentleman whose name frequently flames on the posters of the evening newspapers in London, and it pointed out the changes which have taken place in relation to the Home Rule problem.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting a little out of relation to the particular Amendment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am just developing my argument. I hope, if I am a little slow in developing my argument, I shall be treated with the indulgence which is usually displayed in your ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member would put his point in the beginning it would be easier for the Chair to see whether the rest is relevant.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The point upon which I started was this, that upon the basis of the hon. Member's speech there was a possibility of a settlement of the Home Rule question by agreement. On certain conditions he is prepared to consider a settlement on the lines of this Bill. If I know that is so I may vote for this Clause. I want to be quite clear as to what the attitude of the Opposition will be on this particular point. If, as I conceive it, the attitude of the hon. Member and those with whom he acts is that if safeguards are introduced, and if the new conditions are recognised which have arisen in relation to the Home Rule controversy, he would not allow the sullen negation of a small minority in the North-East corner of Ireland to prevent a great Imperial settlement, we are prepared to meet him.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: What are your terms?
  Mr. PRINGLE: We have only got to the first step. The first term is this Clause, and on the basis of this Clause I, at least, am prepared to deal, and I have no doubt the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) will be prepared to accept this. It is true that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) has described this Clause as a humiliation, and it is because, for the first time, in making a new Constitution within the Empire, we are providing for statutory loyalty and compulsory patriotism. It is, therefore, humiliation, but still I am quite sure of this, that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would be willing to pocket their pride, as we say in Scotland, if they were assured that, as the result of this slight slur upon their national character, they were to receive self-government from the Imperial Parliament with general consent, apart from the small minority in the North-East comer of Ireland. I think that is the situation which we have reached, and I have no doubt it appeals even to the hon. Member (Mr. Ronald M'Neill), because though he comes from the North-East of Ireland, he is an English Member, and he is not only a parochial Ulsterman, but he is also an Imperialist.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is hanging too large a coat on a small peg. It really is impossible to discuss the whole Bill on this Clause. I must ask him to keep to the Clause.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I thank you for the indulgence which you have extended to me. I confess that the opportunity which was opened up by the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Croft) was too inviting for me to neglect it, and I hope that although it is rather late to go on with this matter at the present time, yet in the two years which are available before we get this through under the Parliament Act, some sort of conference on the lines I have suggested may be held, and that we may have Homo Rule by universal consent.
  Mr. CROFT: The hon. Member has certainly given a meaning to my words which I cannot permit to go unchallenged. As one who believes in the unity of the British Empire, had I seen anything in this Bill which could have drawn more closely towards Imperial federation, I should have given it at any rate my most careful consideration, because then I should have believed that the hon. Member really desired to build up a great Imperial federation. As I have found from the very start

  825
  that this Bill did not aim at that end, but at a policy which is absolutely divorced from Imperial federalism, I wish him to understand that I could never support this Bill under any circumstances.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member seems to have some doubt as to my good faith. I wish to make an offer which will be evidence of my good faith. I am willing with him to form the nucleus of a committee to carry out the objects we have in common.
  Colonel GREIG: The hon. Member seemed to show that he certainly has not studied this Bill or really grasped what it means. Those of us on this side who support it, read in every line and in every Clause an approach to Imperial unity, for the very simple reason that we believe that with a reconciled Ireland there will be a nearer opportunity for Imperial unity to come about. But I am not going into that point. I want to say one or two words about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) who made a very strong attack on the hon. Member (Mr. MacVeagh). I am certain there was not a Member on this side of the House, nor indeed on the other side, who listened to that speech, who could say that from beginning to end the hon. Member uttered one single word of contempt for the flag. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to drag a red herring across this Debate. What we were laughing at was the fact, as described in words used by the hon. Member (Mr. Croft), that these Debates, to a very large extent, at least the speeches coming from the other side were machine made. That was the point that appealed to our sense of humour.
  Let me say a word about this suggestion of the flag. We believe that that flag is one that should not be the flag of any particular party. We on this side are just as keen defenders of that flag and upholders of it as hon. Members opposite, and yet we find that the Tory party has made it, in the North of Ireland, a partisan emblem, and in the General Elections which have taken place in this country from time to time, it is printed on their cards as if they were the only supporters of it. Then the very Amendment, if you look at what it actually says, is an attack on the Royal Prerogative. Let us turn to what the Act of Union says:—
  "Article I. Let it be the first article in the Kingdom of Great Britain Ireland..… and that the Royal style and titles appertaining to the
  826
  Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its dependencies and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof shall be such as His Majesty, by His Royal Proclamation under the great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint."
  This Clause proposes that the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) appointed by Royal Proclamation, shall henceforth, after the passing of this Act and the acceptance of this Clause, be the official flag of Ireland. Clause 2 says the Irish Parliament shall have power to do certain things, but
  "they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in all or any of them. The Crown."
  One of the prerogatives of the Crown is to say what the emblems shall be. This Clause will confine the Crown and restrict its jurisdiction.
  One more thing and I have done. Again and again in this Debate there has been a denial of what we on this side of the House accept, that there is an Irish nationality as much entitled to its place in this Kingdom as the nationality to which the late leader and the present leader of the Opposition and many of us on this side belong—the Scottish nationality. We are proud of the Scottish nationality, and we expect and believe that the Irish are proud of their nationality. What will happen after this Bill has passed? That the Irish nation, and the Scottish nation when they get their Home Rule, will be independent? No, they will be interdependent nations of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I do not think that any one on this side of the House has made the denial of Irish nationality to which the hon. Member (Colonel Greig) refers. What is constantly said, of course, is that our idea of Irish nationality is a totally different thing from the idea that prevails below the Gangway, and that the inferences we draw from Irish nationality are also very different. Surely, there was no point in the hon. Member's contention that this Clause would actually amount to an attack upon the prerogative. In support of that contention the hon. Member read a Clause from an earlier Statute which conferred upon the Crown at that time—just as we are now conferring upon the Crown power to do various things by Order in Council—power to decide by proclamation from time to time what the official flag shall be. That is exactly what

  827
  we are asking the House to do to-day. We are asking the House to prescribe what shall be the official flag in Ireland after this Constitution has been settled. I do not know that it is very necessary for any of us on this side of the House after what has been so extremely well said by my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), to say more in support of the proposed new Clause. The speech of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) gave me very much more satisfaction than his speech the last time I had the privilege of hearing him in the House. I think the hon. Member is so much more effective when he tries to be humorous than when he tries to be serious. I think the role he played as a broad comedian gave him more scope for his particular genius than when he tried to pose as a pocket Demosthenes.
  Mr. KEATING: It is better than throwing books anyhow.
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: I can assure the hon. Member that I do not feel in the least hurt by his retort, any more than the very able gentleman to whom the hon. Member for South Down called attention below the Gallery was hurt by his remarks, although they were not absolutely in good taste.
  Mr. KEATING: You are a judge of taste, you are!
  Mr. R. M'NEILL: I have heard the name repeated in various parts of the House since it was introduced in this Debate by the hon. Member for South Down. The hon. Member reproached us on this side of the House because in the attempt to unravel the peculiarly intricate difficulties of the finance of this Bill we have been content to enjoy the assistance of a very able gentleman who has made a special study of it. The hon. Member made great play with the name of this gentleman, and that appeared to give him great satisfaction. It appeared to me to be rather dangerous ground for a Member of his party to travel over, for they, after all, are quite content and quite willing to enter into a Constitution for their own country, the finance of which is being devised for them by the Postmaster-General. It has been said, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) and some others, that it would be an insult to Ireland to adopt this new Clause. That
  828
  was repeated by the hon. Member opposite representing a Scotch constituency, who said it would be an insult because in. all the other branches of the Empire we have never before attempted by legislation to prescribe the official flag which they were to use. But we are always being told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when we bring forward some Colonial analogy that there is no analogy for this Constitution. Surely, if the plea of the Front Bench opposite is accurate, there is no precedent for what is being done in regard to the Irish Constitution. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say this is not a Bill to dissolve the United Kingdom. We are told that after this Constitution comes into force the Kingdom will be as much united as before. There is no pretence in the case of the Dominions Overseas that they are united with this country. There never was a pretence that they were to remain substantially unaffected in the relations between them and the Mother Country by the Constitutions they received. It was acknowledged that we were giving to them Constitutions which practically amounted to independence, but in the case of Ireland it is one of the different component parts of the United Kingdom which hitherto have accepted one single flag as the emblem of the unity and sovereignty they have in common.
  Now, because we are to this extent showing our willingness to trust the professions which are made by hon. Members below the Gangway, that they really do wish to continue in the United Kingdom, we are told that it is a positive insult to ask them to do anything of the sort. I think this is an opportunity of showing their good faith in regard to these professions. The hon. Member for South Down produced a heavy book of reference, which I rather think was a book of reference in which I have some personal interest. He gave learned disquisitions on the Union Jack and the various styles of flags. I think, personally, that it would have been a great deal more to the point if the hon. Member had told us which particular variety of Union flag it was that his friends snatched out of the hands of the Sunday school children at Castledawson, and which excited animosity and violence against women and children when they came within sight. These are the facts which would be very much more material to the present discussion if we could get the information from hon. Members below

  829
  the Gangway than those learned disquisitions drawn from the Encyclopædia Britannica which were produced by the hon. Member for South Down. I speak as an Irishman, and as the representative of an English constituency, and I feel that after this Bill has come into operation—if it ever does so—we do desire to have a symbol of continued unity as proposed in the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I only rise because there has been put into my hand an interesting document in reference to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Croft). I would not use it if I did not see that the hon. Gentleman is still in his place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why use it at all?"] This is a poster which was put on the walls in his constituency during last election. It is headed, "The Union for ever. Every vote for the Radical means Home Rule for Ireland." There was no doubt in his mind about the mandate. It goes on in this way, "The hauling down of the Union Jack. Vote for Page Croft, and keep the old flag flying." [Cheers.] I am glad to hear that these interesting sentiments have the sympathy and support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I rise deliberately as an Englishman to stand side by side with hon. Gentlemen from Ireland when these, imputations are made. We all know this class of electioneering.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is opening up too wide a topic.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I do not dispute your ruling. I desire to say that accusations have frequently been made against English candidates at elections similar to those which are now being made against Irish Nationalists. I remember the days of the Boer war.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON Mr. STANLEY WILSON made a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: The hon. Member for the Holderness Division will allow me to remember what happened during the Boer war. I remember a poster which was put out in the Newmarket Division against the sitting Member.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the Amendment proposes the compulsory flying of the Union flag over the buildings of the Irish Parliament.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I see you have no desire to widen the Debate, and I will
  830
  return to the point you have mentioned. It is that process of compulsion which I do think causes difficulties. It has been pointed out that the Union Jack in Ireland has been turned unjustly, and as I think most lamentably, into a party emblem. I object to the use of the Union Jack in Ire land or in this country as a party emblem. I think that the use of the Union Jack in electioneering literature is most lament able. I hope it will not be an imputation on my patriotism, and I suppose my family has been as long in the country——
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: On a point of Order. Has that anything to do with the subject under discussion at the present time?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already asked the hon. Member to direct his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I will conclude by saying that I think hon. Gentlemen opposite have reason to resent the spirit in which at is proposed that this Clause should be forced upon them. I think the method of the compulsion is the most objectionable feature of all. I was greatly struck with what the Chief Secretary said in dealing with compulsion. I remember the story of a bishop, a celebrated man, Dr. Thirlwall, when he was an undergraduate. He was accused of not being as regular as he should have been in his attendance at chapel, and it was put to him by the authorities of his college that for certain persons it was either compulsory religion or no religion at all. The bishop said that the distinction was too subtle for his simple mind. This kind of compulsion, and the spirit in which hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to impose the Clause will make no just concession to the feeling of Irish nationality, and it will justly cause resentment.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I certainly should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Harcourt). He, in the first place, taunted us with not putting sufficient trust, I do not say in the professions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but in their ability to carry out those professions. He has taunted us, especially those of us who represent constituencies in the North of Ireland, with making in the North of Ireland a partisan symbol of the Union flag. He has said that the Union flag is a partisan emblem in Ireland. It is, and he might have gone further. He might have

  831
  said that in Ireland "God Save the King" is a party tune. Who made it a party tune? What are their party flag and their party tune, the harp without the Crown and "God save Ireland." The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is the present condition of things. He says that when the Home Rule Bill goes through this will be all changed.
  Mr. DEVLIN: There will be no ascendancy.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: And the Union Jack will be flying in every county in Ireland. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford will be read with interest to-morrow in Ireland, and I shall be surprised if it escapes altogether without comment. It is suggested that in the old days Irish Nationalists were hot against the Union Jack because it meant the symbol of a hated dominion and they had no hope of Home Rule in their minds, and if any outrages took place on that flag they were committed by poor ignorant people in the heat of the moment. Let us examine a bit of recent history in the light of that statement. On the 31st of March the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford addressed in Dublin a great meeting of rejoicing—for what? For the certainty, as he said, that within a few months they were going to be within a very close distance of achieving Home Rule. Therefore, there was no question at that moment of there not being any hope of Home Rule. The hon. and learned Member went so far as to say he was certain. That was at a great demonstration held on Sunday in the streets in Dublin. There is a newspaper in Ireland called the "Irish Independent," which has offices in one of the principal streets in Dublin. It so happened that over the office of the "Irish Independent" there was floating a Union Jack. This Union Jack was comparatively close to a part of the meeting which was being addressed by Professor Kettle. I mention all these facts because it is suggested that the animus against the flag comes from
  poor ignorant people. No one will suggest that Professor Kettle is anything but a learned and eminent man in the world of letters. When Professor Kettle was speaking, a voice from the crowd called out:—
  "What about the 'Irish Independent' and the Union Jack floating over it?"
  Professor Kettle said:—
  "I am sure that the people of Dublin will lie able to take care of anybody who is in opposition to Ireland's will, and will know how to deal with the enemies of the Irish people. And I say that for a paper which was once founded by Mr. Parnell, it is a sorry exhibition."
  What sorry exhibition? To fly the Union Jack. May I explain that when Mr. Kettle made that statement he was doing an injustice to the "Irish Independent." The "Irish Independent" took occasion next day to explain in its columns that Mr. Kettle had done them an injustice, and that, in point of fact, the Union Jack that was exhibited was not their Union Jack, but belonged to the Irish Lights Board, which happened to have offices over them.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that Mr. Kettle was simply speaking as leader-writer of the opposition paper, the "Freeman."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: After all the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the history of politics in Ireland of recent years sufficiently well to know that those who are to-day leader-writers on the "Freeman's Journal" may to-morrow hold the highest offices of the State in Ireland. In fact, one might almost say that it had become a sine qua non to the avenues of office in Ireland at the present moment. It is sufficient to say, however much appreciation we may attach to the professions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, if they are to all rise up in Ireland a spirit of reverence for the Empire flag they will have to reverse the whole current of the teaching which they have given in Ireland up to to-day.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 296.

  Division No. 444.]

  AYES.

  [6.40 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Barnston, Harry

  Bird, Alfred

  Baird. John Lawrence

  Barrie, H. T.

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Boyton, James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, James Fittalan (Sheffield)

  Royds, Edmunds

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Campion, W. R.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Chambers, James

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dalziel, Davison (Bixton)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Swift, Rigby

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Touche, George Alexander

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Gastreil, Major W. Houghton

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Goldman, C. S.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Nield, Herbert

  Winterton, Earl

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Younger, Sir George

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hamersley and Mr. Macmaster.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Doris, William

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duffy, William J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burns, Rt Hon. John

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Alden, Percy

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Clough, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clynes, John R.

  Falconer, James

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Field, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Barton, William

  Crean, Eugene

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Crooks, William

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Crumley, Patrick

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cullinan, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Davies, Ellis (William (Eifion)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dawes, J A.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  De Forest, Baron

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Delany, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brace, William

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

  834

  835

  Guiney, Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Hackett, John

  Manfield, Harry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Masen, David M. (Coventry)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molloy, Michael

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, John J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morison, Hector

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sheehy, David

  Hazleton, Richard

  Muldoon, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Munro, R.

  Shortt, Edward

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Henderson, J M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Snowden, Philip

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hinds, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sutton, John E.

  Hoggs, James Myles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ogden, Fred

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Grady, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rutus

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Malley, William

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shee, James John

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Webb, H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Ponsonuy, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  William, John (Glamorgan)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  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)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lundon, Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Reddy, M.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richards, Thomas

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving of Citizenship.)
  Every person who at the date when this Act comes into operation is domiciled in Ireland, and thereby enjoys the status of a citizen and subject of the United Kingdom, shall have the right by notice in writing addressed to the Lord Chancellor of England to renounce such Irish domicile and to elect domicile in Great Britain, and thereby to retain all the rights and privileges (with their corresponding duties and
  836
  obligations) of British citizenship as distinguished from Irish citizenship for all purposes applicable thereto, including the incidence of Imperial taxation, the right of probate, the law of divorce, and other similar matters, and shall not be subject to the laws passed by the new Irish Parliament except (as regards any real or personal property in Ireland) to the extent and so far only as a British citizen holding such property and having no Trish domicile would be subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In connection with this new Clause which I move, there was one subject which when I first heard the Home Rule Bill introduced struck me as being of very vital importance, perhaps a great deal more important than many Members of this Committee may think. What occurred to me was that we were carving out a piece of the United Kingdom, and that the object of the Rill was to float that off, so to speak, as a separate undertaking. And I asked myself, and in fact one or two of my friends who reside in Ireland asked me, what would be the status, the domicile, the citizenship of a man at present residing in Ireland immediately upon this Bill coming into operation. It is some months ago now when the Bill first came out, but I endeavoured to embody my view upon the subject in this Clause, at the time, but I had almost forgotten it, it is so long ago, until it loomed up through the fog of these proceedings, and we have now reached it.
  I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that everybody at present resident in Ireland is now a subject of the United Kingdom, and is entitled as of right to the domicile of the United Kingdom. He is entitled of right to enjoy all the incidents; privileges and rights, both at home and abroad, that this citizenship confers upon him and which are attached to it. It will be in the recollection of all Members of the Committee that it was a proud thing for a man to say in ancient times Civis Romanus sum. It was always a very important fact to what particular imperium State or Legislature men owned their allegiance. I asked myself whether, in setting up this new Parliament, which would incidentally deprive these people who to-day are entitled to these rights, have we any right inferentially to deprive them of those rights and privileges? I may be asked, and asked with a good deal of force, what will those rights and privileges really mean. Are they substantial, or are they merely something of a sentimental character? I may explain that the law of domicile is very complicated, while at the same time it is a very important matter. By the law of domicile is construed the validity of a man's will, and perhaps, what is more important than that, the distribution of his estate in case he should die intestate. I take it that the most important incident, and beyond the
  838
  mere sentimental question of the law of domicile, is the distribution of a man's estate.
  The laws on this subject in the United States are different in character from what they are in England; they are certainly different in almost every country in Europe from what they are in England, and also as between one another. The subject is one of the greatest possible difficulty. I am aware of a case which occurred the other day, where a Swiss gentleman resident in Liverpool died, and his estate and effects, notwithstanding his will, became divisible in the most astonishing manner that it was possible to conceive. The lady whom he had been married to, and who, everybody thought, was entitled to his effects in England, turned out to be entitled practically to nothing at all. The meaning of domicile is laid down with very considerable care in the Civil Code. The place of a man's birth is his legal domicile until, or unless, he chooses of himself alone to take another domicile. I will not delay the Committee by describing the cases in which a man can voluntarily alter his domicile, because he can do so by permanently taking up his abode in some foreign country, if he is a person of full age. This Clause affects the political and civil status of every person resident in Ireland. The greatest authority on this subject, and it is a very important subject, if only I can convince the Committee of its importance, namely, Storey, said:—
  "In the British Empire there is only one allegiance, but there are numberless domiciles."
  There are parts of the Dominion of Canada where, if a man is domiciled and dies without a will, his estate will be divided in one manner, while in another part of Canada, if he died there without a will, his estate would be divided in a different manner. That arises entirely out of his domicile. I wish to put this point: It is conceivably possible that the Irish Parliament might abolish primogeniture. I only give that as an illustration. Supposing the law in that respect were different in Ireland from what it is in England, having passed the law of primogeniture, they might pass a law, as in France, by which a man's estate at his death was to be equally divided among all his children. If the law were different between the two countries, the estate of any man who resides in Ireland to-day would be dealt with in accordance with his domicile at the time of his death.

  839
  Nothing can deprive a man of his domicile against his will except, according to Storey, sentence of death, exile for life, or outlawry. If the Government do not adopt a Clause of this kind, then by this Act of Parliament we deprive every person now residing in Ireland, by Statute, of the right of domicile, and status as a domiciled citizen of the United Kingdom. The points which entirely depend on this question of domicile are as follows:—The question of majority or minority. For instance, to-day in France a man does not become of age until he is twenty-five; he cannot contract a legal marriage without his parents' consent until he is twenty-five. Therefore, if an Englishman were domiciled in France he could not make a legal marriage under the age of twenty-five without his parents' consent. That is simply an illustration. Then there is competency to marry, that entirely follows the law of domicile; and the law of the guardianship of infants and the question of legitimacy follows domicile. It is conceivable, for instance, that the Irish Parliament might pass an Act under which the children born before marriage could be made legitimate; all questions of intestacy also follow the question of domicile.
  7.0 p.m.
  I conceive, from reading the Bill, that it never occurred to the Government, in framing it, that there was any necessity to provide for, first, the sentimental point, that it is depriving a man of his citizenship in the United Kingdom; secondly, I do not think it has occurred to them to deal with the question of domicile at all, or to give any person resident in Ireland the right to choose which domicile they would be effected by. If this Bill passes, from the day it comes into operation, every child in Ireland, by the misfortune of its birth—I am speaking from my own point of view—will be domiciled in Ireland as contra-distinguished from England. Of course, that is a misfortune that may happen to any inhabitant in any part of Africa or anywhere else; but the case covered by my Clause is the case of the people, sui juris, who are entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship by the domicile to which I have referred. All I seek by this Clause is to give each of those people the right by simply sending a notice to the Lord Chancellor to say, "I elect so long as I live, whether resident in Ireland or not, to remain a citizen of the United Kingdom, of which I have been and am a citizen and to be domiciled in the United
  840
  Kingdom, and I will not accept the citizenship of this separated subordinate country, and I will not accept the domicile which is sought to be forced upon me." I say we cannot legislate for the future, we cannot affect those at present unborn. They must, take their chance as to where they are born, they are not responsible for their parents or the country in which they are born. "What we can do is to deal out an ordinary meed of justice to those who are now residing there, and we can give them at all events the right and option to remain citizens of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, entitled to the domicile with its rights, incidence and privileges. It is in that spirit, and for those reasons I move the insertion of this new Clause.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot associate the interesting speech of the hon. Member with the new Clause which he has moved. I do not know whether he has read it, but it involves consequences of a character quite distinct from any point that may arise as to how far the question of domicile ought or ought not to be reserved as a question for the United Kingdom. I may say on the mere question of domicile there was an Amendment down in the name of an hon. Gentleman opposite in the Committee stage which did not come on, and I rather think it is quite likely if it had come on I should have been in a position to accept it. That will remain open to us on Report, therefore I will not go into that question now, and I will simply consider the question of whether it would be possible for us to accept the new Clause. The hon. Member did not seem to me to keep distinct the difference between domicile and nationality. An Irish person born in Dublin or Belfast after the passing of this Bill will not have his nationality affected. He will remain a citizen of the United Kingdom, and he will be able to say, Ciris Romanus sum, whenever he is travelling abroad, and his nationality will not be affected in the least by the fact that a subordinate Legislature has been set up. He will be subject to the laws of that Legislature so far as they touch him in his capacity as a person having a domicile in Ireland. The Scotchman is in exactly the same position who has a Scottish domicile. He is subject to Scottish law, which is as different from English law in spirit and intention as if it were the Code Civil. They have different laws of marriage and illegitimacy, and they have that terrible law which some hon. Members regard with so much horror,

  841
  namely, that the subsequent marriage of the parents legitimises the offspring born before marriage. The Scotchman is a citizen of the United Kingdom. Therefore I do not think there is anything in this affecting in any way whatsoever the question of nationality. There have always been consequences following domiciles. There used to be, though I am not quite sure if there is now, a law of Anglo-Indian domicile. A person resident in India, serving the Crown, was subject in many ways to a domicile which did affect the distribution of his property and had other consequences. So it is in Ireland, so it is in Scotland, and so it is in England. You have your domicile, and certain consequences follow from it. There really is nothing I can assure the hon. Member to damnify in any single respect in any way citizenship, nationality, or anything of that kind. An Irish subject of the Crown who was born or lives in Ireland after the passing of this Bill——
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the Amendment to which he referred?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) on Clause 2, I think. I think that requires consideration. The proposal of the hon. Member refers to anybody who, after the passing of this Bill, is domiciled in Ireland, that is to say, who lives in Ireland in such a manner as to give him an Irish domicile. As everybody knows, domicile depends on residence, coupled with intention. I live in Ireland some weeks every year, but I always have the intention of coining back. Therefore I do not imagine that my property, small as it is, will ever be affected by Irish legislation under this Bill, or that it will be divided amongst my legitimate issue, after my death, in accordance with Irish law. Therefore, it is a question of residence coupled with intention. You may reside in a country, and yet in no sense have a domicile. On the other hand, you may have gone to a country, and you may have been there only a week when a foreign Power comes along and takes possession of the country. They may take away your property, if they chose to do so. as being the property of an enemy, although you may have been there only a few days, unless you can show that you had a strong intention of returning. It is a difficult and complicated question, but nevertheless it is a question of fact, coupled with intention.
  842
  Here is a person living in Ireland and domiciled in Ireland and the hon. Member proposes that after the passing of this Bill, he should be able to address a letter to the Lord Chancellor saying that although his domicile is in Ireland, he wishes to be treated as if he were not domiciled in Ireland. He lives in Ireland, and has no intention of going anywhere else, but nevertheless he is to be given power to elect to be domiciled in Great Britain. He is not going to live in Great Britain, and is not going to leave Ireland; but nevertheless he wishes to be treated in the future as if he had a domicile in England. Thereupon he is not to be subject, according to this Amendment, to any of the laws passed by the new Irish Parliament. He lives in Ireland, but he is not to be subject to their laws On the other hand, he is to be subject to all the English laws, and thus he will have the satisfaction for the first time in his life for paying Inhabited House Duty, and he will have the satisfaction, if he is an ostentatious person, of paying for armorial bearings, and he will have the satisfaction of paying 7s. 6d. instead of half-a-crown if he keeps a dog; and in the same way, unless he arranges with his wife, he will be entitled to the privilege of domicile in the Divorce Court, and to the privilege of taking proceedings in that most obnoxious Court. I do not see how you could possibly say that a person living in Ireland and actually domiciled in Ireland, would not be subject to the laws passed by the new Irish Parliament.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the, last three lines?
  Mr. BIRRELL: He is to be free from the obligation of obeying Irish laws, except so far as they do certain things. In other words, he is not to be subjected to the law of the Province of the Empire in which he resides. I think the hon. Member will see that that is an impossible Amendment for me to accept. With regard to the question of domicile, I would like to keep that open without expressing any confident opinion about it now. I might be out of order if I did so, but with regard to reserving the question of domicile for the United Kingdom, I think that is a question which ought properly to be considered, and will be considered on the Report stage of the Bill. That does not meet the case I admit that has been made by the hon. Gentleman, but the

  843
  case to which I do attach importance is, that of keeping domiciles as a United Kingdom subject so that there should not be differences of law on that point. Otherwise people must stand the racket of living in a country which has the possibility of different laws from England. Scotchmen submit to it with a good grace, and although the law between England and Ireland are not so different in important matters as the laws of England and Scotland are, still there have always been differences. Really there is no extraordinary hardship imposed on any person who is domiciled in Ireland to say he is to be subject to the laws of Ireland, and that he must submit to them. You may say that the Bill is a wrong Bill, and you say you ought not to set up these provincial Parliaments and have any differences of taxation and possibility of different laws, but I think it would be ridiculous to say that anybody who lives, say, in Tipperary, or in Kerry, should be in a position to say, "Although I am in Tipperary or in Kerry, I am subject to English laws and English laws only, and can snap my fingers at Irish laws and can pay English taxes which no Irishman has hitherto paid, and will pay no Irish taxes just as if I lived in London." I do not think that is the way to get over any difficulties there may be in the pure and simple question of domicile. Although there is a nucleus, if I may say so, of sound argument in the proposition of the hon. Member, I think he will agree with me that that would be a hopeless position to adopt.
  Mr. BALFOUR: As a layman I approach this subject with every great diffidence, but surely the right hon. Gentleman must see that he has not made out his case because he says what a dreadful thing it would be that one who lived in Ireland should not be subject to Irish laws. I hope a great many Scotchmen and Englishmen will live perhaps many years in Ireland, and if they remain domiciled as they are now as Englishmen or Scotchmen they will exactly be in the position which the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely intolerable.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, but the intolerable thing is that in the case of a domiciled Irishman you should say he is not domiciled when he is.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I was thinking of the practical grievance. Two people may both
  844
  live exactly the same length of time in Ireland, and it so happens that the one who is domiciled in Ireland is subject to Irish laws and the one who is domiciled in England is subject to English laws, and that can be done now without the smallest embarrassment; and the Englishman's property when he leaves property comes under English law and the Irishman's property under Irish law. There is no practical inconvenience there, as I think everybody must admit. The only question is as to the absurdity which the right hon. Gentleman is so sensitive to, namely, the fact that a man has a particular domicile now and this Statute may make him have another domicile. That is a purely theoretical grievance says the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to know whether this proposition is not an act of equity to people who would cease to be domiciled in Ireland if they had reason to know that Home Rule would be introduced into that country. That is the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that if there is a change of allegiance it would be only right that people should have the choice as to which power, the old power or the new power, they would be subjects of. There was, for example, in the American war—I mean the war between the Colonies and this country—a choice given to people who were domiciled there, whether they would acknowledge allegiance to the United States or remain with the old Kingdom.
  Mr. PRINGLE: They had to leave the United States.
  Mr. BALFOUR: At all events, there was something of that kind. This, however, is not a case of allegiance, but when you change the status of a whole community by legislation you ought to give a choice, if there is no practical inconvenience attached to it, to the people concerned to say whether they should be under the old system or the new. I quite agree that if my hon. Friends were proposing an arrangement that would embarrass the Irish Government and impoverish the Irish Government——
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is part of the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I should say that would be only to a very slight extent. I think it is possible they might get more than they would lose.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Those who elected to remain with an English domicile would not be liable to pay any taxation to the Irish Parliament under this new Clause. I am not saying that that is inherent.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think that is so, and I really do not know whether on that account it would be better to belong to England rather than to Ireland. It is possible that the taxation would be just as heavy on this side as on the other. It is a very important matter, affecting matrimony, the status of children, and the leaving of property at death. I think the Government should consider at least the existing generation. I do not propose we should go on for ever, but they might consider whether the status of the existing generation should not remain as it is, that they should be subject to no injury, and should have liberty to claim that they should go on as they are.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Clause was drawn up at the time when the Bill was first introduced, and of course a great many things have been put into the Bill which have made it different since that time. I quite agree there is a great deal in the objection of the Chief Secretary to the concluding words of the Clause, and I should be quite content that it should end at the words "British citizenship," having regard to the way in which the Bill is now shaped. What I want to get is this, that any person at present resident in Ireland would be able to elect, just as if he had his domicile in Great Britain, to continue in that position, and would be exactly in the same position as an Englishman who was residing in Dublin temporarily or for two or three years without the intention of taking up a permanent place of abode there. Any Englishman or Scotchman now residing in Ireland without the intention of permanently remaining there, has still got his English or Scotch domicile, and what I ask by the Clause—leaving out the last portion—is that any Irishman—I quite agree it must be cut down to the people who are at present living and residing in Ireland—may be able after the passing of this Act to maintain his present position. I do not seek to affect future generations. I think the people who to-day have status rights and privileges—I am not discussing them at present—as subjects domiciled in Great Britain and Ireland, as distinguished from Ireland alone, should be at liberty to retain that status, that right, and that position which they have now got. I am willing
  846
  to leave out of the new Clause the reference to taxes and so on and to stop at the word "citizenship." If I do that, may I ask the Chief Secretary if he will favourably consider it, because he was evidently struck with the importance of the question of domicile, which could not be discussed under the Closure arrangement at the time it was reached in Committee? I admit it is a difficult subject, and I do not press the Chief Secretary at the moment, but I hope he will take it into consideration and see whether on the Report stage he could do something to enable the existing inhabitants and residents of Ireland to elect a domicile, and, apart from the simple question of domicile, that the rights they have got to-day should be continued if they so wish. I do not bring forward this in a party spirit or from any desire to wreck the Bill. I have only a sincere desire to give to a large number of people who are resident in Ireland today, and who for sentimental or other reasons do not care about being handed over to the tender mercies of the new Parliament, the right to be placed in the same position as an Englishman who is resident in Ireland temporarily with the ultimate intention of going back to England some years hence, and who has not got an Irish domicile. If you place them in that position, we will be quite satisfied. I make an appeal to the Chief Secretary. I do not ask him to accept the Clause now. I know that would be unreasonable, but I hope he will be able to meet this sentiment in some reasonable and intelligent way.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I think, if the hon. Member will pardon me, there was a little confusion in his mind which is shown in the form of Amendment, because the object he wants to secures which I am in full sympathy with, can be secured in a much simpler way, and in a way which I hope will commend itself to the Chief Secretary, and that is by restraining in future any Parliament that will be set up in Ireland from altering the law of domicile at present existing.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: No, no.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I think the hon. Gentleman will accomplish his purpose in a less complicated way than the way in which he proposes. What he has forgotten is that every person who is domiciled in Ireland to-day is subject to the particular infirmities, or, if you like, the advantages, attaching to domicile in Ireland.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I did not forget anything of the sort.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: As a domiciled Irishman to-day I am subject to the Irish law of divorce, to the law affecting marriage relations, and other matters of that kind, which are wholly different in Ireland. I am subject as a domiciled Irishman to different laws in these matters to those to which the hon. Gentleman is subject, although I may claim, as he does, to be a subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom. In Scotland the law is different from the law in Ireland and in England, but Scotsmen all the same are entitled to be citizens and subjects of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the position of the Irishman, whose domicile remains exactly as it was before the passing of this Bill, will remain subject to the existing Irish laws and to the liabilities or privileges which are determined by his domicile. We will remain in Ireland subject, as we were before, to the Irish law. The danger is that legislation might be passed which would impose upon us, by reason of our domicile in Ireland, greater burdens and liabilities as regards our domestic relations and otherwise than we are at present liable to. I was glad to hear from the Chief Secretary that he was prepared to consider favourably the Amendment on Clause 2 upon this subject. If the Irish Parliament was prevented from altering the existing law of domicile as it applied both to Ireland and to England, so that we who are still domiciled in Ireland would have to that extent precisely the same status as we had before, it would go a long way to meet the case. The danger is that the Irish Parliament, for the purposes of taxation, might say in future that any man who was actually living in Ireland was to be considered as a domiciled Irishman. He might spend half his time in Ireland and the other half in Great Britain, and they might say to him, "You claim to be an Englishman, a Scotsman, or a Canadian, but you spend half your time here, and you draw the bulk of your income from here, and we will pass a law that the test of domicile in future is to be residence in Ireland." That would be a grave infringement of the existing rights of Irishmen and Englishmen. I am of opinion that this could be met to a large extent by putting in an Amendment on the Report stage to Clause 2 which would prevent any alteration in the existing law of domicile, and that would leave us in regard to our
  848
  status precisely as we were before the Bill was passed.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree with the view just put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend. What is wanted, I should think—I am expressing my own opinion—is to secure uniformity of the law in Great Britain and Ireland on the vital and important question of domiicle, and I will therefore consider the introduction of the word "domicile" in its proper place in Clause 2, so as to restrict the Irish Parliament from dealing with or making that a subject matter of legislation. I really think I am almost in perfect, accord with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although the hon. Member behind him does not seem to be, but I tell him honestly that that is the most he will get out of me. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would ask me to adopt the Clause as it stands. The hon. Member (Mr. Rutherford) suggests that a person resident in Ireland should be able to reserve his status by writing to the Lord Chancellor. There is no occasion to write to the Lord Chancellor. I hope that he will still remain, that every true Irishman will remain, and for ever will remain a subject and citizen and have all the rights of a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that he will only be subject to the peculiar laws affecting his own domicile. Domicile should remain a subject to be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament, and the way I propose to deal with it is by accepting some such Amendment as that on Clause 2. I think that covers the whole ground and that the hon. Member may go away feeling that he has made out his case.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not understand how the suggested Amendment to Clause 2 would secure the object which the hon. Member has in view or would leave everybody's domicile really as it is. If the laws of marriage or other laws which depend upon domicile were changed, one would still suffer an injury. I do not think there is any advantage in the Amendment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, and I think the Chief Secretary might try to consider the proposal as it stands. I know it is a difficult matter to deal with, but really the point is that we on this side of the House think that the Irish Parliament and Executive may do oppressive things. It does not really very much matter how you deal with the question of domicile, in view of that danger. I think the matter had better be left as it stands. We should not on this

  849
  side of the House take the responsibility of furnishing the Government with anything which in unscrupulous hands might be represented as a concession, or as the opportunity of making a concession, or in granting a safeguard which, as a matter of fact, is not a safeguard.
  Mr. BIRRELL: In replying, may I say that the suggested Amendment of the hon. Gentleman does not, as has been pointed out, meet the particular case. I hope the Amendment which may be made on the Report stage will answer the case. As to going about saying that we are making concessions, I really never quite understood what sort of speeches are made in the country—though I have made a good many myself—but they are not based upon the lines suggested by the Noble Lord. To take, as the Noble Lord suggested, the opportunity of making a concession—I thought it was a rational proposal—so that some people may run about the country saying, "Although the Chief Secretary made this quite invaluable concession, yet the whole of the opposite side voted against the Third Reading of the Bill"—well, that is not the spirit in which we take this Debate. I therefore shall not avail myself of the opportunity given to me by the Noble Lord's speech to get away from the contract which I partially entered into. With all due deference, I cannot accept what the Noble Lord says. I still think the matter of domicile should be nut right on Report.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In order to save time may I just say a word or two? [Laughter.] Yes, because my object in saying this word or two is to shorten the matter and to withdraw the Clause. I think I ought to feel obliged to the Chief Secretary for meeting the question, which is only a part and a very small part of the question, which I raised, in the way he has been good enough to do. I am grateful also to the hon. and learned Gentleman who sits below me for so kindly explaining what the effect of the operation of the Clause would mean. Further, I think if he has made it clear that the law of domicile is the same in Ireland in the future under all circumstances as it is in the United Kingdom, then at all events we shall have gained that much. The Chief Secretary by declining to accept this Clause in any shape whatever has made it clear—I hope that this will be made clear not merely to the Committee but to everybody who takes
  850
  any interest in this Home Rule question—that from and after the passing of the Home Rule Bill every person resident in Ireland will be automatically deprived of the status and position of a citizen, and of domicile in the United Kingdom: will be compelled to be a citizen and domiciled under that subordinate Parliament in the future, to own allegiance in the first place to the subordinate Parliament of Ireland. I realise it would be hopeless and a waste of time to divide upon the subject. I beg therefore to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Restriction of Powers of Irish Parliament re Medical and Denial Acts.)
  Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Irish Parliament to enact any law which will have the effect of repealing or amending the Medical Acts of 1858 and 1886 and the Dental Act of 1878, and of the several Acts amending the same.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: In moving this Clause, I should state that it was put down originally as an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Irish Local Government Act, but in consequence of the Closure was not reached. I like the form in which it appeared then on the Paper better than the form in which it now appears. There is very good reason why the Clause I now move should appear as an Amendment to Clause 2, because this particular Clause deals with an Imperial matter. The operation of these Acts is not confined to the United Kingdom, but covers the whole of the Empire. Therefore it is very right and proper that these matters should be relegated to the Imperial Parliament, even if there were Parliaments for the different parts of the United Kingdom. The chief Medical Act to which this matter refers gives power to the General Medical Council—and let me point out to branch councils existing in England, Scotland, or Ireland—to exercise certain regulative and disciplinary powers over all examinations qualifying for medical registration. The object of the present Clause is simply to continue to the General Medical Council the wide powers which it at present possesses. The purpose of these powers is to maintain in the Kingdom and elsewhere a minimum standard of proficiency for those who are trained as medical practi-

  851
  tioners. I may perhaps read the Clause in the main Act which is as follows:—
  "The standard of proficiency required from candidates at the said qualifying examinations shall be such as sufficient to guarantee the possession of the knowledge and skill requisite for the efficient practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery."
  I should say that the British Medical Council do not in any way interfere with the number of the different examinations which may be held in different parts of the Kingdom or the Empire. All that they do is to ascertain before any examination, whether held in England, Scotland, or Wales, shall qualify for registration, that that examination shall be of a certain standard of proficiency. The Act enables the General Medical Council to send inspectors to ascertain in all these cases the character and standard of the examination. It is only in those cases in which the council has reason to believe that a lower examination is being held, or one which is not up to the standard required by the General Medical Council, that the Council can then appeal to the Privy Council, and they, after hearing evidence on all sides of the question, can eliminate that particular examination from those qualifying for practice. I venture to think that this is a matter of very great importance to Englishmen—to medical practitioners in Great Britain, and also to medical practitioners in Ireland, because, as the Act at present stands, any medical man who has the qualifications which are granted by the General Medical Council can come over to England and can practise there, or in Scotland, or in Ireland. Further than that, when registration has been obtained from the General Medical Council, that registration does, in fact, confer a primâ facie title on anyone holding that title to practise throughout His Majesty's Dominions. Therefore, I think I may say, that the matter is one distinctly of an Imperial character. It may be asked, as on a former occasion, whether one has any mandate for this proposal which I now put before the Committee. The following proposal was carried by the General Medical Council:—
  "That in the opinion of the Council it is important in the public interest that a uniform standard of medical and dental registration should be maintained in Great Britain and Ireland, and that accordingly steps should be taken to procure the insertion in the Government of Ireland Bill of provisions reserving to the Imperial Parliament the control of legislation relating to these Acts; and that the President is requested to
  852
  communicate this resolution to the Lord President of the Privy Council."
  I would like, further—because there is no necessity to elaborate the arguments in favour of a proposal of this kind—to say that the following resolution was carried by the British Medical Association and the Irish Association at a conjoint, board:—
  "That in view of the large number of Irish medical students destined to practice in Great Britain and the Colonies, the Joint Committee of the British Medical Association and the Irish Medical Association hopes that in any legislation for the separate government of Ireland, provisions will be inserted safeguarding the present system of the supervision of medical education and registration of medical practitioners by the General Medical Council representing all the three Kingdoms."
  It is for the reasons that I have briefly stated that I suggest, in the interest of the medical practitioners throughout the whole Empire, that this Clause should be added to the Bill.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that there is nothing whatever contentious about the proposal which he has made, although I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept his proposed new Clause. I do so for two reasons: First of all, because, once you begin to attribute to the Irish Parliament a likelihood of being retrograde in its legislation, I do not know that you can stop with the medical profession. I do not know of any profession so well defended by interests and by principles, and by almost a natural disposition to pursue them, as the medical profession in Ireland. This medical Act of 1858, to which reference was made very shortly by the hon. Gentleman, is of world-wide importance. It established this General Council which exercises power; I do not say that might be thought somewhat tyrannical; I do not go into that now—but it establishes a register, and unless a doctor is on that register, of course he would be tabooed in all countries where these laws operate, and they operate not only over this country, but also in a good many of our Dominions. If in Ireland these qualifications of doctors or the examinations for doctors were interfered with, it would only have the effect of confining all these medical practitioners in Ireland to their own country, and their own country is not big enough to supply them with the necessary practice for themselves, and the result is that wherever you go you find Irish doctors carrying on their profession. If you are abroad, and you wish to have a practitioner whose language you speak with facility, and you send for

  853
  one of your own countrymen, the odds are that you will find he is an Irishman. Only about a year ago I was hustled somewhat roughly by ladies and I slipped and displaced a cartilage of my knee. I went home in great pain and at once sent for a practitioner, and a gentleman was brought to me who relieved me of all my suffering. I guessed he was an Irishman, and when I disked him his name he told me it was Redmond. I only instance that as showing that Irish doctors are the last of whom you may be afraid in this matter, and it is an imputation upon the Irish Parliament to suggest that in this matter, in the forefront of European intelligence, that they are going to alter and repeal these great Statutes affecting the medical profession all over the British Empire, thereby confining their practitioners to the 4,000,000 of people who live in Ireland, and denying the opportunity to them of carrying their high qualifications and great skill in diagnosis to other portions of the Empire.
  It is excessive caution on the part of the General Medical Council to entertain any apprehension of that kind. The fact is always like that in connection with Home Rule. People have some little fear of their own. There is always some "but," and they want to accept one "but," and if you listen to all the "buts" nothing would be left. I do not say that in some circumstances an attempt at exception might not be justified, but the General Medical Council in this case are exhibiting unnecessary alarm. There is no reason whatever to suppose that an Irish Parliament, in which the medical interests are likely to be represented far more strongly than they are in our Parliament, would be at all likely to interfere with the welfare of their own medical practitioners, almost all of whom are ambitious of better conditions and of seeking appointments in other parts of the United Kingdom. I agree it is a matter of great importance. without going into the whole question of the Medical Council, that the qualifications of doctors and the severity of the examinations should be maintained as far as possible on what you may call the cosmopolitan basis throughout the British Empire, so that wherever you went you would find a qualified doctor who went through this curriculum. I think there would be no likelihood of the Irish Parliament departing from that high standard, and there need be no alarm on the matter. I am clothed from head to foot in an armament of confidence which enables me
  854
  to resist the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman without in any way calling in question the importance of the subject he has brought before the Committee. But once you begin to exempt this and to exempt that from the operations of such a Bill as this, there would be really no end to it, and certainly if I gave way in this I should find it very difficult to resist other applications with probably something more behind them.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: If I may say one word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he will find first of all that his argument would apply to all the reserve matters set out in the second Clause of the Bill. It is an argument we could all use, namely, that if you grant this you must grant everything else. We have exempted a great many things under Clause 2, and I think this matter is equally as important as a number of them. The second point I would raise in reply to the light hon. Gentleman is that this matter has the support of the whole of the medical profession, and that the Irish Medical Council agreed in this recommendation, and I understood when this Clause was put in my hand that the leaders of the Irish party would support it. The matter is one of Imperial importance, and I cannot but express my extreme surprise that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted it.
  Dr. ESMONDE: But for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman I should not have intervened, but I should have, thought that if the medical men of Ireland for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks were anxious about this matter, I should have heard something about it. I have heard nothing about it. I thoroughly agree with the Chief Secretary that it would be a deplorable thing if we were to have one system of medical qualification in Ireland and another system in England. I do not think that would be a good thing for the State at large. I think it would be a monstrous insult to the new Parliament to pass a Clause like this. The Irish medical men and the English medical men must in the nature of things have practically the same qualifications. After this Bill is passed you will have to have competitive examination as usual for medical men, for the Army and Navy, and it will be in the interest of the Irish colleges to do what they always have done to keep themselves well in front of the various associations in the Empire in these competitive examinations and to keep their curriculum always at a

  855
  high pitch. As regards the question of the General Medical Council, I think the least said about it the better, because there are many medical men who think they have a great deal too much power at the present moment. No doubt they may have called upon the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause, but I feel sure that the Irish doctors would in no circumstances wish to place themselves in a different position, and they certainly would not be so treated by an Irish Parliament. The interests of the Irish Parliament would be to keep up the same high level of education for the medical profession of Ireland
  as in this country, and I think that in the circumstances this Clause would be quite unnecessary, as the Irish Parliament would do nothing which would tend to place Irish medical men in a disadvantageous position as compared with Englishmen or Scotchmen.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman was not present when I read the resolution of the general board of the Irish Medical Association.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 281.

  Division No. 445.]

  AYES.

  7.58 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Blair, Reginald

  Hills, John Waller

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Swift, Rigby

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cave, George

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chambers, James

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Dixon, C. H.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Doughty, Sir George

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Nield, Herbert

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir P. Magnus and Mr. Fell.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clough, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Boland, John Pius

  Clynes, John R.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Alden, Percy

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Brace, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cotton, William Francis

  Armitage, Robert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crean, Eugene

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crooks, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Barton, William

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Doris, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Duffy, William J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Richards, Thomas

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r'nd,Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Falconer, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rowlands, James

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Kean, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gilbooly, James

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Manfield, Harry

  Sheehy, David

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Shortt, Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Snowden, Philip

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Guiney, Patrick

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Sutton, John E.

  Gulland, John William

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hackett, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Morison, Hector

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Muldoon, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Munro, R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Waring, Walter

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  O'Dowd, John

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Ogden, Fred

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hinds, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Hodge, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Shirley Benn) to move the second new Clause standing in his name.
  Mr. MORTON: I am in this difficulty, Mr. Chairman. I am relying upon the promise of the Prime Minister made when introducing his Motion in which he re-

  859
  ferred to safeguards, and he specially mentioned the questions raised in my new Clause, dealing with decrees of Ne Temere and Motu proprio.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can only deal with the Clauses at present on the Paper. The Clause put down by the hon. Member is quite outside the scope of the Bill; in fact, he proposes to add a new crime to the calendar.
  Mr. MORTON: The Prime Minister promised it, and not I.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment of Provincial Imperial Courts.)
  (1) There shall be established in each of the four provinces of Ireland a provincial Imperial Court, which shall have the sole jurisdiction in the province in which it is established in civil proceedings where any party to such proceeding is domiciled in a different province in Ireland from that in which any other party to such proceeding is domiciled or where any party to such proceeding is domiciled out of Ireland.
  (2) A judge of a provincial Imperial Court, who shall be a member of the Irish Bar of at least ten years' standing, shall he appointed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Judicial Committee, of the Privy Council, and every such judge shall hold his office by the same tenure as that on which a judge of the Supreme Court in England holds his office.
  (3) An appeal from the decision of a provincial Imperial Court shall lie to His Majesty the King in Council.
  (4) If it is made to appear to the judge of a provincial Imperial Court that any decree or judgment in any such proceedings as aforesaid before that Court has not been duly enforced by the sheriff or other officer whose duty it is to enforce the same, such judge shall appoint some officer, whose duty it shall be to enforce that judgment or decree; and for that purpose such officer and all persons employed by him shall be entitled to the same privileges, immunities, and powers as are by law conferred on a sheriff and his officers.
  (5) His Majesty in Council may make rules respecting all matters within the jurisdiction of the provincial Imperial Courts.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time,
  860
  and in doing so I will briefly explain its object. I do not think the proposals of this Bill will lead to the peace and contentment in Ireland which we all desire to see. Whether or not this Bill produces civil war there is no one here who knows Ireland who will not agree that it is bound to produce intense irritation for a certain period between the Anglo-Irish and the Celtic Irish. Whilst that irritation exists it is extremely useful for us if we can have Courts which can be held above all politics and sentiment. The chief reason why I suggest the establishment of these provincial Imperial Courts is due to the experience I gained whilst living in the United States. I lived in one of those States for some years, and I found that if you brought civil cases in the State Courts you were very apt to find that the result of those cases were influenced to a considerable extent by the sentiment of the locality. If on the other hand, you brought those cases in the United States Federal Courts you undoubtedly got justice. I can recollect a case that was tried in one of the Law Courts in Mississippi and the verdict was given for the defendants. There was an appeal to the-Supreme Court, and the decision was reversed, and the ease tried again. Again judgment was given for the defendants, and again it was taken to the Appeal Court and reserved, and that happened no less than four times to my own knowledge, and the last time the State Court found for the defendants.
  I have never known a case in the United States Federal Court which has the right of trying these cases where one man lives in one State and the other man lives in another State where he did not get justice. The judges were often Southerners, but they were appointed by the President of the United States, and I believe that the jurors who served in those cases always felt that they were serving as jurors of the United States and not as jurors of one State. I cannot help feeling that whilst irritation exists in Ireland it would be far wiser if we had these four Imperial Provincial Courts where the judges would be appointed by the Crown, and where the juries would feel that they were acting for the United Kingdom, and would not be influenced by any sentiment or politics. Irishmen as a rule are loyal to their principles, but they are apt to be influenced by sentiment just as much as any other people in the world. I therefore feel that if the Government could nee their way to

  861
  allow these four provincial Imperial Courts to be established, it would be good for the peace and contentment of Ireland. The judges under this new Clause are to be men selected from the Irish Bar of ten years' standing, and I am sure you will not get any better judges than they will make. The juries will be drawn in the same way as for the other Courts. I feel that this is not a matter of doing anything to try to kill the Bill, or an endeavour to bring politics into it, but it is a case where I feel it would be better for Ireland as a whole if they had these four Imperial Courts.
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second my hon. Friend's Amendment. In the special circumstances of Ireland, and considering the fact that with regard to one province it might be urged that there was a certain solidarity of sentiment and a similarity of nationality of feeling, I confess that I think in regard to three of the provinces of Ireland it would be quite impossible for anybody to stand up and make the same statement in regard to them. At first sight I confess that I had to study this Amendment before I appreciated the necessity for it, and it appeared to me, upon careful consideration, that this is a very necessary proposal. It would occur to anybody familiar with Wales that the position in this respect is somewhat analogous. I remember a case in Wales in which a judge from England tried a case just as a judge for the three provinces in Ireland might come into Ulster. The case was tried and the jury were Welsh. The counsel for the defence made an extremely short speech, and although the judge summed up dead against the prisoner, he was immediately acquitted. This circumstance so struck the judge that he asked for a translation of what counsel had said. The judge said, "That must be the most eloquent and able counsel who ever addressed a jury, because after I had summed up against the man, counsel in a few words entirely cancelled the whole effect of my summing up." From a translation it appears that the address of the counsel consisted of these, very few words:
  "Gentlemen of the jury: The prisoner is a Welshman. You are Welshmen. I am a Welshman, the judge is an Englishman,"
  and he was acquitted.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Where did this occur?
  Sir J. D. REES: I must beg the hon. Gentleman to allow me to put this case in my own way. He will have the opportunity of putting his case afterwards with
  862
  his superior knowledge of the Welsh language.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I merely say that it is an incident that never occurred.
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg the Committee to note the arrogance of the hon. Member opposite. He not only asserts that the ease did not occur to his knowledge, but he actually commits himself to the statement that such a case never occurred. Surely no human being on earth, much less a Member of Parliament, ever before committed himself to such an arrogant denial.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Arrogance is better than falsehood considerably.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not think the hon. Member ought to use such an expression as "falsehood" in reference to what has been said by an hon. Member in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Sir J. D. REES: I merely mention this by way of illustration. It shows the whole world of difference there is between the manner in which judge, jury, prisoner, and counsel approach a case in different parts of the United Kingdom. Is there any hon. Member of this House who will assert there is not as wide a difference between the other three provinces of Ireland and Ulster as there is between the border counties of England, or any other counties of England, and the Principality of Wales? I mention this as an illustration, because it gives point to the Amendment and shows how necessary it is that something of this sort should be done. If further proof were needed of the necessity of some such provision, it would be found in the fact that since local government was introduced into Ireland you will not in the three provinces outside Ulster find any other than Nationalists or Catholics who obtained any representation. [An HON MEMBER; "That is not so."] I will withdraw that, and instead of saying Unionists and Protestants obtain no representation, they obtain an exceedingly small and wholly inadequate representation. Those are dividing lines and lines of cleavage, which are not only apparent in regard to local affairs, but equally apparent in regard to civil proceedings. My hon. Friend has provided that the judge of every provincial Court shall be a member of the Irish Bar of at least ten years' standing. That proves the moderation and consideration with which he has approached the subject. I never

  863
  succeeded in becoming a barrister, but when I studied for the Bar a barrister of seven years' standing was qualified for any office. I believe be still has this statutory qualification.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs) indicated dissent.
  Sir J. D. REES: Naturally I accept correction, but, at any rate, the Attorney-General will allow a barrister of ten years' standing is qualified for anything.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS Sir RUFUS ISAACS indicated dissent.
  Sir. J. D. REES: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman, who is head of the Bar, does not consider a barrister of ten years' standing is qualified for any office. I hope he will enumerate those offices for which a barrister of ten years' standing is not qualified. I do not think he will detain the Committee long by that enumeration. The Amendment goes on to provide that every such judge shall hold office by the same tenure as that on which a judge of the Supreme Court of England holds his office. That also is necessary. It is impossible to get away from the fact that you have in Ireland two sections of the population animated by totally different ideals and requiring totally different treatment. Above all, they require this in regard to civil proceedings, judgments in which absolutely create the legal and even economic atmosphere in which the people pass their lives. I maintain this Amendment is absolutely necessary. A judge being appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Judicial Committee would not be subject to suspicion in regard to his political leanings. I am not here to assert that because a man is a member of the Nationalist party he is not capable of being a just and impartial judge, but I do say such a gentleman, if appointed, would not be regarded as a just and impartial judge by the people of one of the four provinces. It is not enough to be just. You must appear to be just and be recognised as being just. It is really necessary to provide civil judges whose impartiality will be beyond all doubt and above suspicion. Sub-section (2) of the proposed Clause provides in a very satisfactory manner that they shall possess that absolutely necessary qualification. Even the question of language may arise. It has been argued in this House that the Irish language is to come into use again,
  864
  and may be employed in the Courts. A breeze occurred in this august assembly because an hon. Gentleman sitting on those benches penetrated into the sacred precincts of the House of Lords in the garb of Old Gaul.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with the Second Heading of this Clause, and I hope he will be good enough to confine himself to the principle of the Clause and not enter so much into detail.
  Sir J. D. REES: I will do my utmost to obey your ruling. I was endeavouring to point out the difficulties that arise when two languages are spoken in a Court. I instanced a case which occurred in Wales, and I repeat it did occur in Wales.
  Mr. RAFFAN: And I repeat it did not.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Gentleman knows all the cases that have occurred in Wales. My knowledge is necessarily less comprehensive.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it in order when an hon. Member has made a definite statement for another hon. Member in a disorderly manner to say it is contrary to fact?
  Mr. RAFFAN: May I on the point of Order submit that when a statement which indicts a whole nation with dishonesty is made one is entitled to ask when and where the case occurred?
  Sir J. D. REES: My indictment of a whole nation consisted of this, that the exceeding great eloquence of a Welsh advocate obtained recognition at the hands of the Court.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will deal with the point of Order. It is quite in order for an hon. Member to make a statement and for another hon. Member to make a complete contradiction. I did not notice any disorderly manner.
  Mr. T. O'DONNELL: May I ask whether it is competent for an hon. Gentleman to make a statement regarding a case which in the knowledge of every Member who knows the English law is impossible to have occurred. A barrister whether in Wales or in Ireland must address the Court in the English language. The hon. Member has stated that a barrister addressed the jury in the Welsh language.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members in this House make statements on their own responsibility.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I point out it is absolutely necessary to speak to a jury in words which they can understand, and it is not out of order to address them in any language whatsoever. It is not, however, a real point of Order as is very obvious from the fact that you yourself, Sir, have not called me to order. It is also provided that an appeal from the decision of an Imperial Provincial Court shall lie to the King in Council. Shall I be out of order in again invoking an illustration from a case in my own knowledge in order to show? Why is it superfluous that an appeal should lie to the King in Council? Take the ease of judgments in the Calcutta High Court which are continually reversed by the Privy Council. Why is Ulster to be disallowed an appeal which is provided in the case of every other British possession? At one time the Front Bench is all for pointing out this is a federal Constitution, and that Ireland is a part of it. But directly hon. Members on these benches seek to take advantage of that very contention, they declare that no such safeguard is necessary. Here we have two absolutely irreconcilable attitudes, and I maintain that Section 3 provides a very necessary safeguard. Now I come to the next Section. It is very little use obtaining a judgment if you cannot enforce it. Anybody who has had experience of the Courts knows that a man can spend a good deal of money in getting judgment, and, in the end, be far worse off than if he had never gone to the Court. Therefore I think my hon. Friend has more than justified his case in providing by the fourth Clause that a judge shall be empowered to appoint a receiver whose duty it shall be to enforce a judgment or decree, and further that such officer "shall be entitled to the same privileges, immunity and powers as are by law conferred on a sheriff and his officers." Without some such safeguard the Court which my hon. Friend desires to set up would be absolutely useless. Take for instance the case to which reference has been made. Unless you have some provision for the special execution of the decree passed under circumstances like this the decree obtained will not be worth the paper on which it is written. There remains the fifth and last Sub-section of the Amendment:
  "His Majesty in Council may make rules respecting all matters within the
  866
  jurisdiction of the provincial Imperial Courts."
  If such Courts are to be provided, as I hope they may be, it is absolutely necessary that His Majesty in Council should make such rules, otherwise it would be quite easy for the Irish Parliament or any other authority to make rules which would render the provision of the Court absolutely useless. They may stand in need of such safeguards under the new Constitution. I now submit that the matter is well worthy of the consideration of the Government. It is a very necessary provision. Right through this Bill there is a real fundamental difficulty which pervades every section: there is the fact that there are two different Irelands, and the one will not be ruled by the other. The one will not be satisfied with the Court provided by the other, and suspicion will attach in their eyes to such Courts. I do not say it would be justified, but I do think that special provision of this character should be made, and I hope the Attorney-General will give this proposal serious consideration.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Clause is really one of a most extraordinary character, although I give the Mover every credit for desiring to produce something which may be of benefit to Ireland. He drew upon his own experience in the United States as supplying him with a model for this proposal. When I read the Clause first I came to the conclusion not only that it is not necessary, but that it would be extremely mischievous. I really cannot conceive anything more mischievous or more calculated to prove a condemnation of the judiciary. This is what the Clause means: that you will not trust the judges, either those appointed under the régime which at present exists or those to be appointed under the new Bill. It means you will not trust a judge so appointed to try a civil proceeding where one of the parties is domiciled in another province of Ireland. I cannot conceive anything which could be such a strong condemnation of the judiciary in Ireland.
  Sir J. D. REES: Would it be possible to make a distinction between Ulster and the three other provinces?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think I shall be able to show the hon. Gentleman that not only would that be unnecessary, but that it would be absolutely futile as a remedy for the state of things he refers to. The object of this proposal is that in case you

  867
  have a Nationalist in litigation with an anti-Nationalist you are to have a judge appointed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on the advice of His Majesty, and you are to have a judge set up in each of these provinces who is to be the only judge entitled to try such a case. Where is it that two people are mostly in antagonism? As the hon. Member said just now, it is in Ulster. Does he realise that this provision would not operate at all in Ulster? Has he appreciated that fact? Let me make it quite plain. In the province of Ulster, if you have an anti-Nationalist in litigation with a Nationalist, the ordinary Courts would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is only if you get a Nationalist in one province and an anti-Nationalist in another that you bring in this new judge who is to be appointed as the sole judge who shall have jurisdiction. Therefore the point which the hon. Gentleman says is at the root of this is absolutely untouched by this provision. I cannot help thinking that this proposal is framed under a complete misapprehension of what would be the real result. Let me call attention to some other aspects of this matter. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke asked why there should not be, for example, in Ulster, a power on the part of the litigant to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if he were dissatisfied with the judgment.
  Sir J. D. REES: That was accepting, for the moment, the assumption which has been put forward, that Ireland is being placed in the position more or less of a self-governing Colony under this Bill.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I know, but what I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and I am dealing with the very point, is this: He says, "Why should not he be allowed to do it, and ought he not to have an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?" Is he unaware of the fact that in this Bill we give it to him? The hon. Gentleman has evidently not paid particular attention to this Clause. If he had, he would see by reference to the Clauses in the Bill as originally introduced into this House, and as it is now, that there is an appear given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in all cases where there is an appeal. He is a man of quick intelligence, and when he read the Clause he saw at once that it was unnecessary, but foe some reason, which I do not at-
  868
  tempt to define, and which is not so relevant to this Clause, he thought it desirable to take a view favourable to the Clause. I am quite sure that he has come now to his original view that the Clause is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman who moved it did so thinking it was a means of reaching an evil which he thinks exists, but which I utterly deny. I cannot conceive that any judge, when he is trying a case, can be supposed to be influenced against one of the parties because he happens to be domiciled in a different province from that in which the judge who is trying the cause. That is impossible. The last observation I will make is, that if it is true that there are these prejudices, and that you have to make such provision—which I utterly deny—it is no more true of Ireland than of England. If it is true, what an extraordinary result you would arrive at if you accepted this Clause. You take away from the judges, who are the trained experts in sifting evidence and dealing with matters which come before them in litigation, the right to try a civil proceeding, but yon allow juries, who are not trained, to try the case. Although the hon. Gentleman had an excellent object in view, he does not really attain it by this Clause, and there is no reason why we should accept it, but, on the contrary, every reason why we should reject it.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Repeal of s. 16 of 21 and 32 Geo. III. (Irish Parliament).)
  Section sixteen of the Act passed by the Irish Parliament in the Session held in the twenty-first and twenty-second years of the reign of George III., entitled "An Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject," is hereby repealed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move the Second Reading of this new Clause. The object of this Clause is an important one. It is to take away from the Irish Lord Lieutenant and from the Irish Privy Council the power, which is given to them by the Section referred to, by proclamation to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. I say that power ought not to be given to any Executive either in Ireland or anywhere else. If such a power were ever to be exercised, it only ought to be used on the rarest possible occasions.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am glad to have the concurrence of the hon. Gentleman behind me. That power ought to be exercised not by the Executive, but by the act of the Legislature itself. That is a proposition so self-evident that it is hardly worth giving any time to supporting it. I need only say that in Great Britain at this moment there is no power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act by the act of the Executive, and why in Ireland, under a Home Rule Bill, there should be power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act by an act of the Executive, rather than by the Legislature, I cannot conceive. This Act is rather a curious one. It is an Act passed by the Irish Legislature in 1781, just before Grattan's Parliament came into existence in 1782. It is called—
  "An Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject."
  In substance, it is an Act establishing the principles of the Habeas Corpus Act which was passed in Great Britain in 1679. The first fifteen Sections of that Act are right enough. They give a man a right to habeas corpus, and prevent arrest and imprisonment without trial. But Section 16, which is the Section I ask the Committee to repeal, has these extraordinary provisions—
  "Provided always, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Governor or Governors for the time being——"
  that is the Lord Lieutenant—
  "and the Privy Council of this Kingdom——"
  that is Ireland—
  "to suspend this Act, by a Proclamation under the Great Seal of this Kingdom"——
  that is of Ireland—
  "during such time only as there shall be an actual invasion or rebellion in this Kingdom or Great Britain …"
  It goes on to say:—
  "and that no judge or justices of the peace shall bail or try any person or persons charged with being concerned in such invasion or rebellion, without an order from the Lord Lieutenant, or Lord Deputy and Privy Council of this Kingdom for the time being, signed by six of the said Privy Council, any law, Statute, or usage to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
  That is, indeed, a strange Section. I ask the Committee to consider that this is a
  870
  power to be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council in Ireland. On whose advice is it exercised I When this subject came up for discussionn in 1893 it was suggested by the Law Officers of the Crown—I think Sir Charles Russell was one and Sir John Rigby the other—that the power of suspending habeas corpus in Ireland could only be exercised on the advice of the Imperial Executive. I do not think that was a true reading of the Section, but supposing it was, why should the Imperial Executive in England be entitled to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland? In that I should have the concurrence of every hon. Gentleman from Ireland, namely, that no English or British or Imperial Executive should be entitled to advise the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and put Irishmen in gaol without charge or conviction. But, supposing that this power is to be exercised, not upon the advice of the Imperial Executive, but upon the advice of the Irish Executive, then I say, though in this perhaps I shall not have the concurrence of Members from Ireland, it is an additional reason why the power should be taken away. The Irish Executive, if it ever comes into existence under this Bill, will be, to a large extent, a perfectly untried Executive. It will rest upon them to say whether a state of rebellion exists such as would justify them in exercising this power. There might be some local riot in the province of Ulster or elsewhere, and they might magnify it in their minds into a rebellion, and issue a proclamation and take the power to arrest and put in gaol, if they can do it, everyone who opposes them in Ulster. There might possibly be physical difficulties about enforcing that, but it would be within their constitutional rights to issue this proclamation and to arrest anyone they thought fit and put him in gaol without a trial.
  Again they might say that a state of rebellion existed if there was a refusal to pay taxes. I am not going to anticipate what may occur if this Bill should ever pass, but it is at least possible that there may be some refusal to pay taxes imposed by an Irish Parliament; and for my part, considering the way this Bill has been carried through. I should say they would be justified. But, be that so, or be it not, I think the refusal is likely to take place, and I myself should resist being arrested without trial by suspending habeas corpus. If this refusal to pay taxes should occur, the Irish Executive may say, "Here is a

  871
  rebellion against the Crown, and we must at once issue a proclamation," and they would hunt up this Statute of 1781 unless we repealed this Section, and the Irish Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Privy Council would issue their proclamation, saying, whereas a state of rebellion exists, therefore we suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. That is a state of things which would be perfectly intolerable. We should not permit such a thing in England. The English Executive have no such power, and do not ask for such a power, and if they did ask for it I do not believe there is a single Member in the House who would give it to them, and if you would not entrust the Imperial Executive of this country, why should you entrust the Executive in Ireland? If this Section remains on the Statute Book the Irish Privy Council and the Lord Lieutenant will have that power, and I ask the Committee to take it away from them.
  Another observation I wish to make is this. The power of suspending habeas corpus in Ireland by a proclamation, although it is on the Statute Book to-day, has certainly never been exercised since the time of the Union in 1800. It has lain dormant. [An HON MEMBER: "What about 1882?"] That was not done by proclamation but by Act of Parliament. That is the point of the whole Amendment. I am not saying that cases may not arise—conceivably they may, though very extreme ones, I believe—when it may be necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, but if so, the whole point of my argument is that it should be done by Act of Parliament and not by proclamation. Therefore, I say if this is a power which you would not entrust to the English Executive, and if it has not been exercised by the Executive of the United Kingdom for 112 years, you should put it out of the power of the Irish Executive, or indeed of the English Executive, if they have any power over the matter, to put that Section into operation, and you should say that no Executive, either that of the United Kingdom or that of Ireland, should be allowed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland by proclamation, and therefore it is necessary to repeal that Section.
  Mr. FIELD: May I ask whether it is the fact that the Executive, either in Ireland or in England, has the power that has been ascribed to it by the hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. FARRELL: I view the Amendment with very great suspicion for this reason. This has existed and has affected the liberties of Irishmen and Irish Nationalists for all the time the hon. and learned Gentleman has been in this House, and we have never heard one single word of protest from him against it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I have already said it was never used.
  Mr. FARRELL: And for that reason you want to strike out of this old Irish Act a Section which may be altogether inoperative. We have not yet heard the Attorney-General's decision on that point, but so long as it was used against Irish Nationalists and Irishmen, and in the interests of law and order there was no protest made. But we are threatened with rebellion in Ulster. It is the constant theme of the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway that when the Bill passes into law we are to have a rebellion in Ulster. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted it. He is preparing for this great rebellion by taking out of the hands of the Irish Parliament the power to deal with rebellion. And that is in the interests of the freedom and the liberty of the subject! We heard nothing from the hon. and learned Gentleman about the suspension of the Constitution in Ireland under the famous Coercion Act of 1887 passed by a Unionist Government, by which the liberties of many of my colleagues and myself have been frequently taken away without trial by jury, by a mere scrape of the pen of the Executive, and the Lord Lieutenant proclaiming whole counties and provinces in Ireland, and there has never been the slightest protest. But now when there is going to be set up this Parliament with power to manage the affairs of the whole country it must be crippled, not in the interests of the liberty or the freedom of the subject, but in the interests of revolution and rebellion in the North of Ireland. I sincerely hope the Government will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have listened with great attention to what has fallen from the hon. Member, and he seems to be full of grievance as to Acts of Parliament passed in this House, but that is not the question. The question is whether or not you are going to repeal the power, which has not been exercised for at least 100 years, of the Lord Lieutenant, apparently of his own motion, or, at any rate, on the

  873
  suggestion of his Executive, to suspend habeas corpus, and thereby do away with a privilege which every Parliament in the world has fought for for centuries. If there is one instance of the liberty of the subject which is appreciated and which is vital to any well civilised country, it is that there should be the right to bring up people out of prison for trial. [Cheers.] Very well then, if you agree in that, why do you propose to leave power to deprive them of that power? The suggestion is not to take any such right from the Irish Parliament. If they think fit to do it, they can. The suggestion of the new Clause is to take the power out of the hands of an individual. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The suggestion of the Clause is quite plain. It is to give the power, if it is a power that should be exercised, in the hands of the representative body, and to take it out of the hands of an individual. That is the very thing which this Parliament and every Parliament has struggled for centuries to retain, and if you are going to leave this power in the hands of an individual, it is retrograde legislation. It is reviving a thing very properly dead, and it is entirely inconsistent with the whole scheme of your Bill. You are proposing to give liberty to Ireland, and to entrust the people with the management of their own concerns. I ask you to put this power in the hands of the Irish Parliament, and to take it out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. It is a just Clause, and I venture to hope that, following the precedent of Mr. Gladstone's Bill in 1893. the Government will see their way to accept it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) who moved the Clause has, I think, quite correctly stated the position of the law, and I have not the slightest desire to come into conflict with him. I agree also with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hume-Williams), that there have been many struggles in the past to retain this power in the hands of Parliament. It is unnecessary to enter into these matters The particular power to which the new Clause refers is one which everybody agrees has never yet been put into force.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Yes it has. The Post Office has opened letters.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman refers to in connection with the opening of letters.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that unless the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended the Post Office is not supposed to open people's letters, even if they suspect that they contain revolutionary matter.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Really that has nothing whatever to do with it. The question is that there should be this power reserved to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. This must not be confused with the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Farrell). Of course, the power of dealing with the Habeas Corpus Act will belong to the Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament, of course, shall determine what shall be done with regard to the Habeas Corpus Act if it should think fit to change the law. That is our view.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: By an Act of their own Parliament?
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Certainly, by Act of Parliament. This provision to which the Amendment refers has lain dormant, if not dead, for a considerable period, and it is one it is not necessary to revive. There is a good deal of force in what was said by the hon. Gentleman who proposed the new Clause, that this power would not be exercised. It never has been exercised, and never would be exercised. It is not contemplated that it ever should be exercised, and I think we might very well accept the principle of the proposal which has been put forward, and having made it perfectly plain that the power to deal with this matter must be with the Irish Parliament, and that we are in no way interfering with what their view may be when they consider this question, I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that I am not satisfied that the words on the Paper are quite the best to be used for the purpose. I do not say they would not be effective—I think they would—but I would prefer to consider the words and make the Clause quite plain. We will accept the principle, subject to that. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the statement I am making that I do agree with the view which he has put forward, that I accept the principle of the Clause and that I accept the substance of it, it is a mere question of what words shall be used to carry it out in the phraseology used in the Bill. If he will accept that, I will undertake to bring up on Report words embodying what he has stated.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am glad that the Government have accepted this Amendment. It is really a restriction of a power which has never been exercised since it was conferred. I imagine that my hon. and learned Friend will accept the assurance of the Government, but before he withdraws his Motion I want to enter a caveat against the supposition that we accept entirely the position as stated by the Attorney-General and his Friends. We do not accept on this side of the House his hypothesis that the Irish Parliament ought necessarily to have power to deal with the Habeas Corpus Act. I only want to guard those on this side of the House against that supposition, because it might be said afterwards, if we moved an Amendment to prevent the Irish Parliament from dealing with the Habeas Corpus Act, that we compromised ourselves when we accepted the assurance of the Attorney-General.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman does not dispute what I have put forward, that under the Bill, as now drafted, the Irish Parliament will have the power.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not dispute that proposition, and I may add that I think it is wrong, and when we have an opportunity I shall endeavour to take that power away from the Irish Parliament.
  Mr. BUTCHER: After the fair way in which the Attorney-General has accepted the substance of the Clause, I will withdraw the Motion on the undertaking which he has given to bring the Clause up on Report in a form which he thinks will better meet the object I have in view. I desire entirely to associate myself with what has just fallen from my hon. Friend, that we do not think the Irish Parliament ought to have the power to alter the law relating to habeas corpus as it is in the United Kingdom at this moment. We think that should be part of the fundamental laws of the United Kingdom which the Irish Parliament should not have power to alter. That is quite a different question from that to which I referred, namely, whether if a very urgent state of affairs arose in which it might be necessary for the Irish Parliament to suspend for a time the action of the Habeas Corpus Act, they should have power to do it. It may be that they should have power to do it. I wish to enter the strongest possible caveat against its being supposed that we acquiesce in giving the Irish Parliament, or any other Parliament, power to alter the law regulating Habeas
  876
  Corpus as now existing in the United Kingdom.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Irish Exchequer to Indemnify the British Exchequer for Wrongful Acts of Irish Parliament.)
  Whenever, by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the Irish Government or by any Minister, officer, or servant of that Government, any person, including any foreign Power or the subject of any foreign Power, suffers loss or injury and any sum of money becomes payable and is paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in respect of such loss or injury, that sum shall thereupon become payable to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom out of the Irish Exchequer and shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In moving this Clause, I may say the wording is somewhat complicated, but it really embodies a very simple principle. After the concession which the Attorney-General made on the last Clause, he can hardly refuse to accept this one. The principle of it is that where there is control there shall be responsibility, and where there is no control there shall not be responsibility. There will be an Executive in Ireland, and under that Executive there will be a number of officers appointed who might be brought in contact with the subject of a foreign Power. They might cause some grievance to some subject of a foreign Power accordingly. If that foreign Power takes the case up it will have to go to the Imperial Government; it will not recognise the subordinate Government. If it goes to the Imperial Government obviously the Imperial Government ought to have either control or a remedy. The Imperial Government has before now been brought into considerable embarrassment by the action of Colonial Governments. I think the principal case is that of Newfoundland. Our whole relations with France were embarrassed and to some extent embittered throughout a century or more by the question of the Newfoundland fisheries, and from incidents which arose between the Newfoundland Government and the French fishermen which called for intervention by the French Government, and when the Imperial Government wanted to be on good

  877
  terms with France it found this question of great embarrassment, and yet it had no direct control. It did not wish to exercise its latent Imperial rights over an independent executive like that of Newfoundland, and it was from time to time embarrassed. Something of the same kind may easily happen again. It is quite easy to think of a number of possibilities in which the action of the Irish Executive may seriously embarrass the Imperial Government in its foreign relations, and the Imperial Government should have a remedy in its hands. I am not assuming for the purposes of my argument that the Irish Executive is either better or worse than any other Executive, but some officer of that Executive may make mistakes by which the subject of a foreign Power would be damaged and the foreign Power would have to proceed against the Imperial Government for compensation. I am only asking that we should have such power to recover such compensation from the Irish Government. It is an extremely reasonable Amendment, and I trust the Postmaster-General will accept it.
  Sir J. D. REES: I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend. If this Clause is not passed a cruiser of the same character as the "Alabama" might be allowed to leave one of the many harbours of the West Coast of Ireland without attracting very much attention, and in a war like the present war in the Balkans, where there is a very small fleet on one side and no fleet on the other, one armoured cruiser might alter the whole complexion of the war. Circumstances similar to those of the "Alabama," which involved this country in such prolonged litigation and very large pecuniary loss, might occur, and if this Clause were not passed there would be no redress as against the Irish Exchequer, and how the Irish Exchequer in a case like that would be compelled to make it good I do not understand. The case I put is not altogether a fanciful one. At one of the harbours on the West Coast of Ireland a squadron from France, somewhere about the time of the battle of Vinegar Hill, actually came over and landed a hostile force in the county Mayo, and that force maintained itself for more than fourteen days from that base and fought an action, which had it won it might have changed the whole political circumstances of the time. If that is the case, or if any other less serious omission or action of any officer in the service of the Irish Government might involve the
  878
  British Government in serious loss, surely it becomes the Government which has made so many inroads on the pocket of the taxpayer to make even at the eleventh hour some provision for protecting the taxpayer's pocket in the manner suggested by the Amendment. The case which I have suggested seems to me the most likely to occur. It is perfectly obvious that there might be innumerable cases. I am sorry that I have not the fertility of imagination to enable me to supply them, but other Members who do not suffer from that want of imagination no doubt would be able to supply other cases in which the taxpayers would be put to serious loss if my hon. Friend's Amendment is not accepted. In the interests of this Bill the Postmaster-General would do very well to allow this Amendment to pass, because I can assure him, having recently been at several meetings in the country, that the British taxpayer is awakening to the fact that Home Rule is affecting him in his most tender spot, his pocket. It is not too late for the Government to do something to convince the taxpayer that it cares for his pocket, and it will do so by accepting this Amendment.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member who has just spoken invites us to convince the British taxpayer that his interests are being safeguarded. What he proposes to do on this occasion is to provide against the case of an armoured cruiser secretly departing from the coast of Mayo to take part in some foreign war when Home Rule has come into operation, with the result that an arbitration award will be given against the Imperial Government. In the course of his many interesting contributions towards these Debates the hon. Gentleman has given us many vivid imaginary pictures, but none quite so unconvincing as this. The hon. Member who moved this Clause quoted various precedents of difficulties that have been occasioned to the Imperial Government through the action or inaction of Colonial or Dominion Parliaments or Executives, but I do not think that he has quoted any precedent for a Clause of this character in any Dominion or Colonial Constitution. This Parliament have never found it necessary to insert in any existing Constitution any safeguard of this character, and in the opinion of the Government it is not necessary now. The danger is an extraordinarily unreal one in view of the fact that the garrison in Ireland will be under the control of the

  879
  Imperial Government. The whole of the naval forces will be under the control of the Imperial Government; the coastguard will be under the control of the Imperial Government; the Irish Government will have nothing to say to any question of foreign policy, or to any question of war or defence, and the contingency which has been presented by the hon. Member is exceedingly unreal. If it should conceivably happen that by some fault of the Irish Government internationally—a case of which, in my view, the improbability is so great as almost to reach the level of impossibility—if such a case should occur, and, in consequence, the Imperial Exchequer were put to the expense through that action, then the Imperial Parliament at that time could deal with the case on its merits; and, as the whole of the Irish revenue flow into the Imperial Exchequer, and all Irish funds will be paid from here, it is quite clear that we have an ample financial margin on which we could rely in need. The suspicion which hon. Members opposite entertain of all the actions of the Irish Government at every point should not be stamped on the face of the Act and therefore I ask the Committee not to accept the Clause.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what took place on the 8th August, 1893. A Clause was moved by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, a respected Member of this House, as follows:
  "Whenever by reason of any act unlawfully done or omitted to be done by the Irish Government or by any Member or officer of that Government, any foreign Power or the subject of any foreign Power suffers loss or injury, and any sum of money becomes payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom by way of indemnity or compensation for such loss or injury, such sum shall thereupon be payable to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom from the Irish Exchequer, and shall be recoverable according to the provisions of this Act."
  It was argued on that occasion that the Imperial Government might be brought into serious embarrassment by the action of the Irish Government with foreign Powers, and there was cited in particular the danger in connection with the Newfoundland fisheries, and so cogent was the argument that before the speaker had concluded his speech, Sir Charles Russell, the
  880
  then Attorney-General rose in his place and said:—
  "In order to save time I may say that the Government will accept the Second Reading."
  Sir Charles Russell, a most eminent jurist, who would have done nothing to prejudice the interests of his country, and moreover was serving under the leadership of Mr. Gladstone, accepted the Second Reading of that Clause, and, therefore, in the name of Mr. Gladstone and Sir Charles Russell, I ask the Government to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not suppose the Government are really going to leave the matter where it is. They ought to consider carefully the position in which they place the Committee. My hon. Friend has moved a Clause which designs to protect the British Exchequer against default, against having to pay money caused by the default of the Irish Executive, and his position is that no British Government which is not responsible for control should be responsible for the exercise or want of exercise of control. The Postmaster-General said, in the first place, that the illustration given by my hon. Friend about the departure of a cruiser secretly was picturesque, was never likely to occur, and bore no relation whatever to the question. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Debate which took place in 1893, he will see that the very case which he said was unlikely to occur, did occur. In the case of the "Alabama" and "Shenandoah," the British Government was held liable for a very large sum of money because the Government of Victoria had failed to stop the "Shenandoah" from departing. The right hon. Gentleman says that case carries no conviction to his mind. It carried conviction to the mind of Mr. Gladstone. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Gladstone accepted a Clause which carried no conviction to him; does he think that Mr. Gladstone would agree to an argument which he did not think sound? The plain point of fact is that the Clause did not commend itself to Mr. Gladstone, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no precedent for a Clause like this in any legislation of our own Colonies, I answer him with the precedent of the Bill in 1893, and what better precedent does he want? When it suits the purpose of the Government they are always quoting the Act of 1893. They say this was proposed in 1893, and we are following that lead; or this course was not followed in 1893, neither do we follow it. Yet we have the

  881
  fact that this Clause was considered of such weight by the Government in 1893, that they went out of their way to put it in the Bill, but the Postmaster-General has not only rejected this with contempt, but apparently he hears of it for the first time.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not at all.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All I can say is that it was anything but frank of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this had no parallel in any Colonial Act, or in any Bill of any subordinate Parliament. Now he says that he knew of this Clause under the Bill of 1893, accepted by Mr. Gladstone, I am exceedingly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt that tone, and certainly if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who interrupts me, if I remember rightly, has not once contributed anything except interruptions in these Debates, and unless he proposes to contribute something more important than that lie should allow us to proceed.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: What is more important is that I have had to listen to you, and that is painful enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was prepared for those cheers. At all events, we are trying to put our case as fairly as we can. We are allowed a very short time by the hon. Gentlemen opposite in which to present it, and I really do think that we ought to be treated, at all events, with the ordinary decencies of debate, and that we should not be subjected to these repeated interruptions, for it is perfectly intolerable that they should continue. I have only this to say in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that frankly the position he takes up is not such as we expected in regard to a Clause which was accepted in 1893.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member assumes that I was not acquainted, or that the Government were not acquainted, with the fact that a similar Clause was accepted in 1893. We were well aware of that, but I was dealing with the question of the Colonies, which was mentioned by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and whose argument was that since a Colonial Administration has caused intolerable inconvenience to the British Government, we ought to put this provision into the Bill. My reply was that in no Colonial or Dominion Constitution was there a similar
  882
  provision. I was dealing with that point alone. As to the Debate in 1893 what occurred was this. A similar Clause was moved by Mr. Hobhouse in a speech which lasted only two or three minutes. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Government were already convinced."] The Attorney-General got up, in order to save time, and said, "I may say that the Government accept the Second Reading of this Clause." Mr. Hobhouse thereupon, after a few-words, sat down, and that was the whole of the Debate, and why it should be assumed that the arguments had carried conviction in the mind of Mr. Gladstone and that he was so impressed with the incidents of the "Shenandoah" and "Alabama" and so forth, I do not know. It is fairly obvious that the Government, desirous of saving time, as not infrequently happens when a Debate is becoming somewhat obstructive, thought, although the Clause was of no use, it could not do much harm, and that they would accept it and get on. Under the Bill the Irish Government cannot deal with any questions relating to foreign States. In Clause 2, Sub-section (4), there are words to this effect, that the Irish Parliament is not to have the power to deal with treaties or with any relations with foreign States or relations with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions, or offences connected with any such treaties, or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals or the return of fugitive offenders. Thus it is perfectly clear that all those matters which might conceivably bring us into conflict with other Powers are reserved entirely to the Imperial Government, and that whereas the Colonies and Dominions have certain powers in this relation, and nevertheless we do not insert such a Clause, yet in the case of Ireland they have no such powers, and still less is there any reason for inserting this Clause.
  Mr. BUTCHER: We have had many strange manœuvres on the part of the Government in the course of these Debates, but we have seldom had a more extraordinary illustration of the way in which they think fit to treat our Amendments than we have had in the course of to-night. What has happened? The Clause which is moved, and which is reasonable and fair, appeared so reasonable to Mr. Gladstone and his advisers that it was accepted in 1893. What does the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General do? He tells us that all the dangers which we anticipate as possible

  883
  and which give rise to this Clause are purely unreal, imaginary, highly coloured, impossible, and he gave us quite a wealth of adjectives describing the Clause as absurd in substance. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he really think this Clause is absurd and the dangers it aims at avoiding are imaginary? If so, I should like to be informed why Mr. Gladstone and his Law Officers accepted it as right. [An HON. MEMBEB: "To save time."] Somebody says to save time. Are we to suppose that Mr. Gladstone and Sir Charles Russell, and all the great men who formed that Government, were willing, for the sake of sparing a few minutes, to accept an absurd, impossible, and imaginary Clause to put into their Bill. The thing is ridiculous. It is quite obvious that they thought it was a right and proper Clause, and that they accepted it for that reason.
  The Postmaster-General, in his last remarks, gave a reason which I confess quite baffled my understanding. He said that by a Sub-section of Clause 2 the Irish Parliament are prohibited from legislating in regard to offences against foreign countries, or as to anything connected with treaties, or relations with foreign countries, the extradition of criminals, and so on. He goes on to argue that because they are prevented from so legislating that therefore it is quite impossible for the Irish Government or any Irish Minister to do any wrong to a foreign country. What on earth have they got to do with each other. Although you prevent them from legislating, what is there to stop them if they think fit, or through inadvertence, doing a wrong thing to a foreign country for which compensation may be claimed? The two things have nothing to do with each other. What we say is that the Irish Government, or its Ministers, do something wrong to a foreign country for which the country claims compensation from the Exchequer of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, then that the loss so caused shall not fall upon the Exchequer of the United Kingdom but shall fall upon the Government who do the wrong, namely the Irish Government. The Postmaster-General's last excuse was, and I hope I follow his argument correctly, that if such a thing did occur, and that if the Irish Government should do something which involved the British Exchequer, then you had always got the power of the Imperial Government to legislate and deal with the
  884
  question on its merits. What does that mean? It means that the British Exchequer is to pay a sum of money, probably a considerable sum, to a foreign Government for a wrong done by the Irish Government. "Oh but then," says the Postmaster-General, "the Imperial Parliament can put that right. I suppose they can bring in a Bill saying that the Irish Government must pay and claiming the payment of possibly some millions. I should like to know what hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would say to a Bill like that. What about the forty-two Members? Would they not come over by the night mail and oppose such a Bill tooth and nail, and say that it was a most grossly improper claim, and that it was a breach of good faith to ask them to pay those millions.
  What then would become of your peace and harmony? You are never tired telling us that the object of this Bill is to promote peace and harmony between the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Do you think you are likely to promote that by bringing in a Bill against the Irish Government and forcing them to pay? What about the effect of such a Bill on the time of this House. We are told that the great object, or one of the great objects of this Bill, is to save time in future, yet the Postmaster-General calmly suggests that we should be involved in a discussion of a Bill of that sort which would certainly be most bitterly opposed, and that that is the best way of dealing with the question rather than by a Clause put into this Bill which would settle the matter once and for all without any necessity for coming to Parliament in future. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman is really to save time in the future and to promote peace and harmony between this Parliament and the Home Rule Parliament, if ever it is set up, surely he should accept this Amendment which would lay down the principles in which cases of this sort can be directly met. The truth of the matter is that he has given us no reasons whatever for refusing to follow the precedent set by Mr. Gladstone and his Government, but he has made it quite clear what indeed he and his Government have made quite clear time after time during the course of these debates, that not one of them care one jot or tittle for the interests of the British Exchequer and the British taxpayer. I see hon. Members from Ireland cheer that as I expected they would. Of

  885
  course, they do not care about the British Exchequer or the British taxpayer, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite follow example, or perhaps I should say their orders, and exhibit equal indifference towards the interests of the British taxpayer. We have to-night an admirable illustration of that cynical indifference towards the interests of the British taxpayer when this Amendment, which is a reasonable one, and which is one which was accepted by Mr. Gladstone, and which is for the sole purpose of avoiding friction in the future and protecting the interests of the British taxpayer, is first of all pooh-poohed by them as unnecessary, and they then advance certain lame, inconclusive and ridiculous reasons for not accepting our Amendment.
  Sir J. D. REES: With the indulgence of the Committee, since I introduced the "Alabama," into this Debate, may I venture to point out to the Postmaster-General that he has entirely ignored the whole of the facts which are behind the suggested Amendment? His answer was that the Navy would be under the Imperial Government and that the Customs would be under the Imperial Government, and he asked how could we fear such occurrences, whereas the real point is this, that the unauthorised action or omission of the Ministers or servants of the Irish Government may be such that we ought to provide that the Imperial Government shall not be penalised. The suggestion has been made in view of the case of the "Alabama," that something should be done to make provision against something against which the supervising authority could not provide or failed to provide. In that case the Attorney-General was the official concerned, and had been spending the week at his country house. He was somewhat overworked, and his wife, having regard to this, put the dispatch boxes on one side, and by that delay one day was lost, and owing to that unfortunate solicitude of this lady for her husband, this country suffered those severe damages. The suggestion now is that, in spite of the supervision of the Imperial Government, we should, owing to the omission of some Irish official, be cast in damages. The Postmaster-General said, with an air of great conviction, that Clause 2, Sub-section (4), would meet the point, but that really does not meet the case at all, and, as has been pointed out, Mr. Gladstone and his Attorney-General on the previous Bill
  886
  accepted this particular Amendment, or, at any rate, one which had precisely the same effect. The Act 56 Victoria like this Bill refers to treaties and relations with foreign States, and Mr. Gladstone accepted an Amendment to the effect of this Amendment in spite of a similar provision as to foreign relations.
  I do not know what the claim of the Postmaster-General is. I am afraid that he is much more interested in the conversation of hon. Gentlemen behind him than in the speeches addressed from this side, and he may be able to deal with the arguments of hon. Gentlemen behind him more easily. His claim is that Mr. Gladstone accepted this Amendment because he was bored. He appears to be able to explain Mr. Gladstone's inner mind. That was a very difficult thing to do at any time, but now that he has unfortunately passed away, I am really astonished to hear the Postmaster-General say that Mr. Gladstone accepted the Amendment because he was bored with the discussion. If that was so, if that was his motive, may I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should imitate him in that respect also, and being bored with the discussion, let him accept the Amendment. I do urge that this is a serious matter. I did not know that the incident of the "Alabama" was so pertinent until my hon. Friend brought further facts to our notice. That is a thing which might go beyond the supervision of the Imperial authorities, and this Amendment applies to a case in which ex hypothesi something occurs owing to the omission or the action of some officials of the subordinate Government. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to imitate Mr. Gladstone, and if he is bored with the discussion and cannot answer the argument, let him accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HOHLER: I listened to the speech of the Postmaster-General, and although he endeavoured to meet the argument, he has failed to do so. The Clause proposes that if, owing to the default of the Irish Government or its servants we suffer any damage, the Irish Government shall be responsible for any sum which The Hague tribunal or some such body, say that we should pay to any foreign Power; that we shall be entitled to get back that sum from the Irish Government. How did the Postmaster-General meet that? He said we have got control of the Army and Navy and Custom Houses in Ireland. That is no answer at all. If it is a default of any of those services which we retain, it is not

  887
  the default of the Irish Government. What we propose to deal with is something which is the default of the Irish Government I respectfully submit to the Postmaster-General that his argument never touched upon the point which is now raised. I was surprised by his second argument. He said that we take in our hands the revenue collected in Ireland, and that we can deduct what we like, and so refund to the Imperial Government any sum that we may be called upon to pay to any foreign Power. I submit that that is absolutely wrong. You have this Transferred Sum, and we have to pay to Ireland the proceeds of this revenue as stipulated in the earlier Clauses, and we are not entitled to make any deduction unless that deduction is expressly stated, and I say that no lawyer in this House would say that we are not bound to pay the sum as set forth in those Clauses, or that there is anything to enable us to deduct money from that sum in such a matter as this. The Postmaster-General's argument was one which really cannot be sustained. The other argument has already been referred to. It came from the bench behind him. He rested it upon Clause 2, Sub-section (4). It is pure nonsense in respect to the matter which is now raised. When he did address himself to the new Clause I understood him to suggest that there was no precedent for this Clause. He referred to the Colonies and their legislation, but surely it was within his knowledge that in the Irish Bill of 1893 there was a similar Clause. I think it would have been more germane and
  more candid if he had told us that there was such a Clause accepted in the Bill of 1893, and that on further consideration the Government of the present day did not propose to accept it.
  With regard to Colonial legislation, to say there was no such Clause was, in my judgment, entirely misleading. I confess I was surprised when that was quoted. We ought to have a provision which does, in fact, protect us in such an event as this. I would further point out, in regard to the arguments as to the Army, Navy, and Customs House, that the British Empire possessed these powers when the "Alabama" escaped from this country. Notwithstanding that, we had to pay a large sum of money. I cannot, for myself, see that that might not very easily happen in Ireland when you have a double power governing the country. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his determination and to admit this Clause. If, as he says, the whole matter is imaginary and problematical, that it is almost impossible of belief that such a thing might happen, how far easier it is to provide a Clause which we think is reasonable and necessary for our protection and which specifically enables us to deduct from the funds that go to Ireland the sum of money which we shall have to pay away to a foreign Power, not by virtue of our neglect, but by virtue of their neglect.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 280.

  Division No. 446.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hope, Major J. A (Midlothian)

  Baird, J. L.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denlson (Clapham)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fell, Arthur

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Blair, Reginald

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macmaster, Donald

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gretton, John

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

  Butcher, J. G.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Campion, W. R.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)>

  Cassel, Felix

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cautley, H. S.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Nield, Herbert

  Chambers, J.

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Swift, Rigby

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

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

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. Falle.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Touche, George Alexander

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Adamson, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leach, Charles

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Field, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  France, G. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Gilhooly, James

  McGhee, Richard

  Armitage, Robert

  Gill, A. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Arnold, Sydney

  Ginnell, L.

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barton, W.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Guiney, P.

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gulland, John William

  Meagher, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hackett, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hancock, John George

  Molloy, M.

  Boyle, D (Mayo, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brace, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Brady, P. J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morison, Hector

  Buck master, Stanley O.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Muldoon, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph p.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hayward, Evan

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hazieton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Clough, William

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Clynes, John R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ogden, Fred

  Crean, Eugene

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Crooks, William

  Hogge, James Styles

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  Delany, William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Outhwalte, R. L.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Doris, W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  King, J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

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

  Falconer, J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  890

  891

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Radford, G. H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Waring, Walter

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sheehy, David

  Watt, Henry A.

  Reddy, M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Webb, H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Shortt, Edward

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Richards, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Sutton, John E.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Thomas, J. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Rowlands, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Wadsworth, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving of Rights of University of Dublin.)
  The constitution of the University of Dublin and of Trinity College, Dublin, shall not be altered by any law made by the Irish Parliament, and any law made in contravention of this Section shall, so far as it is in contravention of this Section, be void.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: As the Committee is aware, we have already had some discussion on Trinity College in the course of these Debates. I think I am correct in saying that on Clause 2 the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell) moved an Amendment which, if accepted, would have excluded the University of Dublin altogether from the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament. The Amendment was not accepted, but I think it was understood at the time that some sort of agreement would be come to between, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is no secret that the Amendment originally moved was not altogether popular in Trinity College itself. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it believed that it would prove acceptable to the hierarchy of the college and the university. But he will see, if that was his supposition, he was to some extent mistaken, because since that time there has been repeated meetings in Trinity College in which a, variety of views have been expressed. I must say, for my own part,
  892
  I am extremely glad that Trinity College is not willing to be totally excluded from the jurisdiction of an Irish Parliament. I cannot imagine any result that would have been more unhappy for the new Constitution in Ireland or more disastrous to Trinity College itself, and, speaking for myself, I was very much impressed by the warm and eloquent words of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) when he expressed his keen regret that Trinity College should choose to be excluded from the jurisdiction of an Irish Parliament. Since then there have been many meetings and discussions in Trinity College, and I am told that even the Board itself is now no longer anxious that the college should be withdrawn from the purview of an Irish Parliament. There have been meetings of the junior Fellows and staff and very strong expressions of opinion have come from a large body of the students themselves. I think we have all reason to rejoice that such a state of opinion now exists in Trinity College. I ventured to put down my Amendment in the hope that it would meet the position of all parties in Trinity College. I confess to the Committee I am not myself perfectly satisfied that it docs so. The words of the Amendment have no doubt been studied by the Committee, but even my Amendment, I confess, goes further than a good many people in Trinity College would like it to go, because it would appear to exclude the constitution of the college of the university from the purview of an Irish Parliament and to confine that particular aspect of the question to the Imperial Parliament. I believe if any

  893
  words could be devised which made legislation possible with the consent of the various bodies responsible for the government of Trinity College, such an Amendment would generally be acceptable to the college. But I myself have no skill in draftsmanship and I had to content myself with the Amendment as it appears upon the Paper. I should be very glad and very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and the Chief Secretary if they could improve my Amendment so as to bring it more into agreement with the wishes of the people in Trinity College, and if it is not possible now upon the floor of the House to arrange the matter perhaps it could be done by a more acceptable Amendment on Report. As I say I have no experience or skill in the choosing of words of an Amendment to an Act of Parliament, and I put down my Amendment with such assistance as I have been able to secure. I should be quite willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of one more suited perhaps to the situation, and I should be very glad if an Amendment of that kind was accepted on Report. But in the absence of any assurance of that kind which perhaps I have no right to ask, I stand by my Amendment as it appears on the Paper.
  Mr. BIRRELL: What the hon. Gentleman has stated is true enough. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that on Clause 2 an Amendment was moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and upon that Amendment I expressed the readiness of the Government to come to some arrangement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The wording of the Amendment was not then agreed on, but was to be considered on Report. I daresay some Members of the Committee may have noticed that a controversy since has been conducted inter silvas academi, and everyone who knows Trinity College will understand that it was carried on with spirit and with animation on both sides. I agree with my hon. Friend that the new Clause which he has moved is one which does not meet the well-considered views of this great and famous university, and I have been in communication with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he has furnished me with his draft of what he thinks really does represent the views of a section of his important constituency. I may also say I have an obligation to discharge, not alone to Trinity College, but to Belfast, and my promise is equally binding upon me with regard to both these
  894
  great institutions, the one old and the other the new. It is one of the merits of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite which I am now considering, that in the new Clause we combine both these universities, which is obviously most desirable. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. Friend behind me will do what I ask him. I think the best thing for him will be not to press his new Clause, but to wait until the Report stage, when I have no doubt whatever that the Government will be able to put down an Amendment or a new Clause which will exactly meet the wishes of Trinity College in the decision they have arrived at after a controversy which has been a most helpful and healthy one, and I do not think any hon. Member of this House, no matter what quarter he sits in, need regret what has taken place. I think I shall be able by agreement with these two great institutions to put into the Bill a new Clause which will meet both the wishes of Trinity College and of Belfast. I hope, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will withdraw this new Clause and allow the matter to wait until the Report stage.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Upon this matter I wish to put myself right, not only with my own constituents, but with the Committee. The Amendment which I proposed to Clause 2 of the Bill, and which in substance and spirit was accepted by the Chief Secretary, was word for word the Amendment which was moved by the Opposition to the Bill of 1893. On that occasion it had the entire support, not merely of the whole Unionist party in this House, but, so far as I know, of all those who had any interest in the welfare of the University of Dublin. That Amendment was put down in the month of June last to this present Bill, and from that hour until the time it was accepted in spirit and substance by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I received no objection from any quarters of any sort or kind to that Amendment. On the contrary, in my interviews with some of the hierarchy of the university—I am proud to call the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth) one of my constituents, although he goes wrong sometimes—the only point they made was that they thought it was not explicit enough, and did not secure in express language the security which they considered to be adequate. Therefore I was like my right hon. and learned Friend and colleague in the representation of the University (Sir E. Carson), up to the day

  895
  that this Amendment had in spirit and substance been accepted, left in this position, that while the Amendment was on the Paper for six months we had received no objection of any sort or kind. Since that time I have received hundreds of letters from all parts of England and Scot land, because my constituents are scattered all over the Empire. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate my statement when I say that in no place do they exist in sufficiently large numbers to cause me any special trouble. In this case, how ever, some of them at home, after the Amendment had been accepted, and after they had maintained this mysterious silence for over six months, wrote to me raising certain objections, and one of them, the strongest—I do not think this will appeal very forcibly to hon. Gentle men below the Gangway—asserted that if you show by this Amendment in plain terms your distrust of an. Irish Parliament and Executive, they will take it out of you in some other way. The Paper which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are in the habit of quoting as a leading Unionist organ, the "Irish Times," made that ex press point, and they warned the University that if they were to allow this slight to be put on the Statute Book it might be regarded by a future Irish Parliament as such, and that Parliament would be quits with them in some way. That is not a pleasing prospect either for the University or the Unionist minority. But be that as it may, the governing body of the University met, and by ten votes out of twelve adopted the Amendment I have moved, and they have sent me an expression of their gratitude for having succeeded in getting it accepted. Some of the younger members——
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I am glad the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal attaches a certain importance to youth. Some of the younger Members—and I should have thought Members with less experience influenced by various reasons, none of which they have communicated to me—suggested that it might be desirable to allow legislation on the part of the new Irish Parliament to take place, provided it was done with the consent of the various bodies interested in the university. I thought there was good sense in it, because it occurred to me that in future this great university might itself require some
  896
  modification of its constitution, and I could see no reason why that power should not be reserved to the Irish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am afraid I find myself getting into very queer company, and there must be something radically wrong with what I am saying. However, I am taking the Committee fully into my confidence and telling them exactly what has occurred. As a result, I have drafted an Amendment which I have submitted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I do not ask him to accept it without considering it, and perhaps when he has considered it he will let me know whether he approves of it, and if he does I think the position will be settled to the satisfaction of all parties including myself.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I hope I may be allowed to intervene to say that from the point of view of those who have had some responsibility for this Bill, the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman is one which we feel has been made in such good temper and with so single-minded a desire to do what he thinks to be best and to be right for the great establishment which he represents in this House, that certainly we for our part should never think of making any party capital out of it. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps forgive me for saying, since I take a great interest in another great se at of learning, that I well understand that his first duty and interest is to serve the great institution which he represents to the best and fullest of his ability, and for my part I think I am speaking for all who take an interest in this Bill, when I say we take no factious objection because he has endeavoured from first to last to do that which he thought would be in the interests of that institution. On the other hand it appears to me—and I think any man who values a connection with a great university will agree with me—he is entirely right in trying to secure everything that it is prudent to secure for a great institution of that kind; and, if this Bill came into law on terms which put that institution into a position of risk, certainly any man in this House who had a special duty towards it, and did not endeavour to protect it would be open to very serious reproach. We recognise for our part entirely that it is in that spirit the right hon. Gentleman intervened at an earlier stage of our Debate. Here we are at the end of the Committee stage, and I hope I shall carry others besides Home

  897
  Rulers with me when I say that any man who really values and who really under stands the part which a great university can play in the life of a nation should be very slow to take steps which will put it outside the life of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman has said fairly enough that he has been in consultation with my right hon. Friend to see what might be the wise way in which to protect the great and important interests of Trinity College, Dublin——
  Mr. BIRRELL: And Belfast,
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, and Belfast in this Bill. I am not going to anticipate the result of those consultations, and all I take leave to say at the moment is that I think we shall all, whatever be our views about the matter, recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is only doing his duty. I come back to what is the main point. Could anything be more disastrous than that a great academic institution, which has had from the beginning to the end of its life a close connection with the enterprise and the intelligence of the nation, should deliberately put itself outside the activity of that nation?
  Mr. REMNANT: Are you not disfranchising it?
  Sir J. SIMON: That is not the proposal of the Bill. I approach it, I willingly confess, without any special knowledge of Trinity College, but there is nothing which for my part I feel more keenly than the part which a great national university can play and ought to play in the life of a nation. Here is this great institution, which, in spite of the fact that from some points of view it has been almost of necessity associated with a particular political and it may be a particular religious outlook, has at every stage, and in every circumstance, contributed towards the life of Ireland. There has never been a single stage in the history of Irish life when this great institution has not contributed as one of the leaders of that life some great name. Whether you take the Parliament of 1782 with Grattan or Flood, or the Revolution of 1798 with Emmet, or of 1803 with Wolfe Tone, or whether you come down to Thomas Davis or to Tom Moore, or whether you take the man who, after all, invented the very name of Home Rule, Isaac Butt, or whether you take the present Leader of the Irish Nationalist party, one and all of them owe their fealty to this great institution. It has from first to last
  898
  provided so many of those who have been representative of different kinds of Irish energy and of Irish movement; and to the mind of an Englishman who knows little about Trinity College at first hand this makes it deplorable that we should be asked a priori to cut Trinity College out of the scheme of a Bill of this sort. If this Bill is not going to pass and is not going to come into force, very well, no harm is done; but on the assumption that it is coming into force and is going to pass, I cannot say how gladly those of us who really attach importance to the academic relation between a great university and a great nation realise how reasonable is the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman puts before the Committee. Under these circumstances, without in the least degree anticipating what may be the form in which this proposal will be put forward on the Report, I say this on behalf of those who have an interest in this Bill, a sincere interest in the position of universities in the nation. Trinity College is within a stone's-throw of the old Parliament House; the property of Trinity College is for the most part in the South and West of Ireland; it is by the benevolence of the citizens of Dublin that they acquired the land on which their buildings stand, and it would be strange indeed if in this proposal to restore self-consciousness to the community we at this moment endeavoured to cut out from the self-governing institutions of that community the power to confer not evil, but good upon an institution of which every Irishman is proud.
  Sir J. LARMOR: It was with great pleasure that I heard the Solicitor-General speak in such high terms of this institution. There has been no intention on this side to de-nationalise Trinity College, but on the other hand we are bound to see to it that the Government in the proposal they will make on Report will do what the remonstrant portion of the community of Trinity College have asked for, namely, that they will take care it shall not be possible for any authority in Ireland, as it is proposed to be reconstituted to affiliate to the University of Dublin colleges of a new type which would be foreign to the constitution of that university. What is really wanted is to assert the freedom of the University. There never has been an intention on this side of the House of separating Trinity College from the Government of Ireland. But there has been an intention to

  899
  safeguard Trinity College from wanton interference with its constitution—an interference which, without some such Amendment, would have been perfectly possible under this Bill as drafted. That has been definitely asked for, in as strong terms as possible by those remonstrant members of Trinity College, whose action has been supposed to be a reflection of the case put by the right hon. Gentleman. Personally I see no difficulty whatever between what we ask for on this side and what the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause asked for. It is a question of language. We wish to have the safeguards. We do not wish to cut Trinity College out of Ireland, but we wish to make it impossible for the Parliament in Ireland to act tyrannically towards Trinity College, and we shall wait with anxiety the form of safeguard which is to be put in on the Report stage. I see grave difficulties in the matter of the University of Belfast, which, at present, depends on an annual Vote. I do not know how that is going to be safeguarded: if it is to rest with the Irish Parliament from year to year; but we all hope that actual safeguards will somehow be discovered.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I just wish, in a few words, to express the extreme gratification of my colleagues and myself at the position in which this matter now stands. That gratification is so sincere and so deep as to entirely prevent me from making any remarks of a party nature in connection with this matter. When I spoke on this matter when it was before the Committee on a previous occasion, I expressed the sense of deepest possible pain and humiliation that a proposal to exclude the University of Dublin from the purview of the new Irish Parliament should have been made at all. I most reluctantly agreed to it. I did so because I felt that if my colleagues and I refused it would be used with great effect against us, and said that we had rejected the first safeguard asked for by the Protestants of Ireland, a safeguard dealing with what has been a great fortress and citadel of Protestantism in that country. I regretted the acceptance of that Amendment from many points of view. An hon. Gentleman below me a moment ago turned round to these benches and said, "You are disfranchising Trinity College." So far from that—being true, we agreed that Trinity
  900
  College should retain its two Members in the Irish Parliament, although we made no claim that similar representation should be given to the new National University. Indeed, I may say that one source of my regret for the adoption of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. J. H. Campbell) in Committee was that it would necessarily have the effect of depriving Trinity College of the representation which this Bill would have given. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that he sees no difference between the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench and what is now suggested. I see a world of difference. The proposal, which was agreed to in Committee in substance and in fact, was a proposal which would have for all time——
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who agreed to it?
  Mr. J. REDMOND: I never suggested that the hon. Member ever agreed with anything I ever did. What I said was that the agreement which had been arrived at by the Committee was an agreement whereby for ever, in the admirable words of the Solicitor-General, for good as well as for evil, this great institution in Ireland would be cut off altogether from the national Parliament of the country. That I regarded as a terrible misfortune. What is now suggested is that some safeguarding words should be put in the Bill, safeguarding the endowments and status of the university, but not cutting the university off from Irish life, not turning the university into an alien university, but keeping the university still an Irish university, within the purview of the Irish Parliament, with power to that Irish Parliament to legislate for its good, and to legislate for it in any other way with its consent. I think there is a world of difference between the two suggestions. As an Irish Nationalist, I congratulate the Committee, and I congratulate ourselves oh the change that has come over the situation. So far as I have spoken I have mentioned only Dublin University. With the observations of the last speaker about Belfast University I entirely agree. Any new Clause which is passed for the University of Dublin ought to be so drafted, in my opinion, as to cover the case of the University of Belfast. I gather from what was said by the Chief Secretary that that would be the case.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. J. REDMOND: I think that in all the circumstances of the case all parties in this House and all sections of Irishmen in this House, wherever they sit, ought to congratulate themselves on what is a happy termination of an incident which would have been a lasting reproach, in my opinion, to the Ireland of the future.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have listened——
  The CHAIRMAN: The clock has struck, and I bound to put the Question.
  It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House the 14th October, to put forthwith the Question on the New Clause already proposed from the Chair.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of clock at this day's sitting.

SCHEDULES.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  Part I.—Irish House of Commons. Constituencies and Number of Members.

  BOROUGHS.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Dublin:

  College Green

  …

  …

  3

  Harbour

  …

  …

  3

  St. Stephen's Green

  …

  …

  2

  St. Patrick's

  …

  …

  3

  Belfast:

  East

  …

  …

  5

  South

  …

  …

  3

  West

  …

  …

  2

  North

  …

  …

  4

  Londonderry

  …

  …

  2

  Cork

  …

  …

  4

  Limerick

  …

  …

  2

  Waterford

  …

  …

  1

  Totals (Boroughs)

  …

  …

  34

  COUNTIES.

  Ulster.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Antrim County:

  North Antrim

  2

  Mid Antrim

  2

  East Antrim

  2

  South Antrim

  2

  Armagh County:

  North Armagh

  2

  Mid Armagh

  1

  South Armagh (including that part of Newry which is situated in Armagh County)

  1

  Cavan County:

  West Cavan

  2

  East Cavan

  2

  Donegal County:

  North Donegal

  2

  West Donegal

  2

  East Donegal

  1

  South Donegal

  2

  Down County:

  North Down

  2

  East Down

  2

  West Down

  2

  South Down (including that part of Newry which is situated in Down County)

  2

  Fermanagh County:

  North Fermanagh

  1

  South Fermanagh

  I

  Londonderry County:

  North Londonderry

  2

  South Londonderry

  2

  Monaghan County:

  North Monaghan

  1

  South Monaghan

  1

  Tyrone County:

  North Tyrone

  1

  Mid Tyrone

  1

  East Tyrone

  1

  South Tyrone

  1

  Totals (Ulster Counties)

  43

  Leinster.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members

  Carlow County

  1

  Dublin County:

  North Dublin

  3

  South Dublin

  3

  Kildare County:

  North Kildare

  1

  South Kildare

  1

  Kilkenny County:

  North Kilkenny (including the borough of Kilkenny)

  2

  South Kilkenny

  1

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  King's County:

  Birr

  1

  Tullamore

  1

  Longford County:

  North Longford

  1

  South Longford

  1

  Louth County:

  North Louth

  1

  South Louth

  1

  Meath County:

  North Meath

  1

  South Meath

  1

  Queen's County:

  Ossory

  1

  Leix

  1

  Westmeath County:

  North Westmeath

  1

  South Westmeath

  1

  Wexford County:

  North Wexford

  2

  South Wexford

  2

  Wicklow County:

  West Wicklow

  1

  East Wicklow

  1

  Totals (Leinster Counties)

  30

  Munster.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Clare County:

  East Clare

  2

  West Clare

  2

  Cork County:

  North Cork

  2

  North-East Cork

  2

  Mid Cork

  2

  East Cork

  2

  West Cork

  1

  South Cork

  1

  South-East Cork

  1

  Kerry County:

  North Kerry

  1

  West Kerry

  2

  South Kerry

  1

  East Kerry

  1

  Limerick County:

  West Limerick

  2

  East Limerick

  2

  Tipperary County:

  North Tipperary

  1

  Mid Tipperary

  1

  South Tipperary

  1

  East Tipperary

  1

  Waterford County:

  East Waterford

  1

  West Waterford

  1

  Totals (Munster Counties)

  30

  Connaught.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Galway County:

  Connemara

  2

  North Galway

  2

  East Galway

  2

  South Galway (including the borough of Galway)

  2

  Leitrim County:

  North Leitrim

  1

  South Leitrim

  1

  Mayo County:

  North Mayo

  2

  West Mayo

  2

  East Mayo

  2

  South Mayo

  2

  Roscommon County:

  North Roscommon

  2

  South Roscommon

  2

  Sligo County:

  North Sligo

  2

  South Sligo

  1

  Totals (Connaught Counties)

  25

  UNIVERSITIES.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Dublin University

  2

  Total of Borough, County and University Members:—

  Borough Members

  34

  County Members

  128

  University Members

  2

  Total Members

  164

  Part II.—representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
  Constituencies and Number of Members.

  BOROUGHS.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members

  Dublin

  …

  …

  3

  Belfast

  …

  …

  4

  Cork

  …

  …

  1

  Totals (Boroughs)

  …

  …

  8

  COUNTIES.

  Ulster.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members

  Antrim

  2

  Armagh (including that part of Newry which is situated in Armagh County)

  1

  Constituency.

  Number of Members

  Cavan

  1

  Donegal

  2

  Fermanagh

  Londonderry (including the borough of Londonderry)

  1

  Monaghan

  2

  Tyrone

  Down (including that part of Newry which is situated in Down County)

  2

  Totals (Ulster Counties)

  11

  Leinster.

  Dublin

  2

  King's County

  1

  Queen's County

  Kildare

  1

  Wicklow

  Wexford

  1

  Carlow

  1

  Kilkenny (including borough of Kilkenny)

  Longford

  1

  Westmeath

  Louth

  1

  Meath

  Totals (Leinster Counties)

  8

  Munster.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Clare

  1

  East Limerick

  1

  Borough of Limerick

  Kerry

  2

  West Limerick

  Cork, South

  1

  Cork, South-east

  Waterford, West

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  The remaining five Divisions of Cork

  2

  Tipperary, East

  1

  Waterford, East

  Borough of Waterford

  The remaining three Divisions of Tipperary

  1

  Totals (Munster Counties)

  9

  Connaught.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  Galway (including Galway Boro')

  2

  North Mayo

  1

  West Mayo

  South Mayo

  1

  South Roscommon

  East Mayo

  1

  Sligo

  Leitrim

  1

  North Roscommon

  Totals (Connaught Counties

  6

  Total of Borough and County Members:—

  Borough members

  …

  …

  8

  County members

  …

  …

  34

  Total Members

  …

  …

  42

  Government Amendment: In Part II. (Munster), leave out the word "South" ["Cork, South"], and insert instead thereof the word "East."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 447.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brady, P. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Adamson, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Barton, W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bentham, G. J.

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

  Alden, Percy

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwick)

  Armitage, Robert

  Boland, John Plus

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bowerman, C. W

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Clough, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hinds, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hodge, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Hughes, S. L.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Joyce, Michael

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

  De Forest, Baron

  Keating, Matthew

  Priestley, Sir Arthur Grantham

  Delany, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, G. H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  King, J.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Raphael Sir Herbert H.

  Doris, W.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell, (South Shields)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Falconer, J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Field, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roch, Walter F.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  France, G. A.

  M'Kean, John

  Rowlands, James

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Manfield, Harry

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sheehy, David

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molloy, M.

  Shortt, Edward

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Guiney, P.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gulland, John William

  Morgan, George Hay

  Snowden, Philip

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hackett, J.

  Morison, Hector

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hancock, John George

  Muldoon, John

  Sutton, John E.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Munro, R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, J. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Grady, James

  Waring, Walter

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Watt, Henry A.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

  Webb, H.

  908

  909

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Gretton, John

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Archer-Shee, Major William

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baird, J. L.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Hamilton, Marquess, of (Londonderry)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawson, Lt. Col. R. H.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barrie H. T.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hills, John Waller

  Royds, Edmund

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Blair, Reginald

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Boyton, James

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Butcher, J. G.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanier, Beville

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chambers, J.

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tryan, Capt. George Clement

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Winterton, Earl

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nield, Herbert

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Goldman, C. S.

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Younger, Sir George

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ormsby-Gort, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bird and Mr. Falle.

  Grant, J. A.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Greene, W. R.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Further Government Amendment: Leave out the words "South-East" ["Cork, South-East"], and insert instead thereof the words "North-East."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 323; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 448.]

  AYES

  [10.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Falconer, James

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Adamson, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lundon, T.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lynch, A. A.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Firench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Field, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Alden, Percy

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Macpherson, James Ian

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

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Armitage, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kean, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Glanville, K. J.

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M Micking, Major Gilbert

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Barnes, George N.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Barton, William

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Martin, J.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meagher, Michael

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Guiney, Patrick

  Millar, James Duncan

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gulland, John William

  Molloy, Michael

  Boland, John Plus

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, J.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mooney, John J.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hancock, John George

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brace, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brady, P. J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morison, Hector

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Munro, R.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Burke, E. Haviland

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hazieton, Richard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clough, William

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Clynes, John R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Ogden, Fred

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Grady, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hinds, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hodge, John

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shee, James John

  Crooks, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Cullinan, John

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rulus

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Doris, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  King, J.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, M.

  912

  913

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford,)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Webb, H.

  Richards, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Snowden, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Rowlands, James

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Winfrey, Richard

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Sheehy, David

  Waring, Walter

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macmastor, Donald

  Baird, J. L.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward Brighton)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, J. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, W. R.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gretton, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. WE. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred A.

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bird, A.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boyton, James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, sir Clement L.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Butcher, John George

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cautley, H. S.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Chambers, James

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Edmund

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Craik Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Croft, H. P.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Stanier, Beville

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Falle, B. G.

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

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  914

  915

  Swift, Rigby

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Talbot, Lord E.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Yate, Colonel, C. E.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Willioughhy, Major Hon. Claud

  Younger, Sir George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Winterton, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord A. Thynne and Lord N. Crichton-Stuart.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Further Government Amendment: At the end of the Schedule add—
  Part III.—Election of Senators.

  Constituency.

  Number of Members.

  The Province of Ulster

  …

  14

  The Province Leinster

  …

  11

  The Province Munster

  …

  9

  The Province Connaught

  …

  6

  Total

  …

  40

  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 316, Noes, 187.

  Division No. 449.]

  AYES

  [10.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Guiney, Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Adamson, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hackett, J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hancock, John George

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Crooks, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale).

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harcourt, Robert v. (Montrose)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cullinan, John

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Alden, Percy

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Armitage, Robert

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

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  De Forest, Baron

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Delany, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hayward, Evan

  Barnes, George N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Barton, William

  Doris, William

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duffy, William J.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Arthur W.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hinds, John

  Boland, John Pius

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hogge, James Myles

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Falconer, James

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Brace, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Brady, P. J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Field, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fitzgibbon, John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ginnell, L.

  Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Glanville, H. J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Clough, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Clynes, John R.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  King, J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Sheehy, David

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Malley, William

  Shortt, Edward

  Leach, Charles

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lough, Ft. Hon. Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  Smyth, Thomas G. (Leitrim)

  Lundon, T.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Snowden, Philip

  Lynch, A. A.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Maclean, Donald

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

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

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thomas, James Henry

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  M'Kean, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Manfield, Harry

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Radford, G. H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Martin, J.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Waring, Walter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, John, E. (Waterford)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Molloy, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Webb, H.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richards, Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Mooney, John J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morison, Hector

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Muldoon, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, J. (Glamergan)

  Munro, R.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowe, Sir Thomas

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Rowlands, James

  Winfrey, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon, Thomas W.

  Young, W. (Perthshire) E.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Capt. Guest.

  Ogden, Fred

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridegton)

  O'Grady, James

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

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fell, Arthur

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Butcher, John George

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Ashley, W. W.

  Campion, W. R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Baird, J. L.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Fletcher, John Samuel

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

  Cautley, H. S.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Chambers, James

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Goldman, C. S.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Barnston, Harry

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Grant, J. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Greene, W. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Croft, H. P.

  Gretton, John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bigland, Alfred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Bird, A.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Blair, Reginald

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Boyton, James

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Falle, B. G.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  918

  919

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Stanier, Seville

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hills, John Waller

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hill-wood, Samuel

  Nield, Herbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hohler, G. F.

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Touche, George Alexander

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Kerry, Earl of

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Winterton, Earl

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Royds, Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Yate, Colonel, C. E.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Morrison-Bell and Mr. Hamersley.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fist Schedule of the Bill."
  The Committee divide: Ayes, 316; Noes, 189.

  Division No. 450.]

  AYES.

  [11.3 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Adamson, William

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Alden, Percy

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Clough, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Armitage, Robert

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Arnold, Sydney

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Field, William

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Barnes, George N.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Barton, William

  Crean, Eugene

  Gill, A. H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Crooks, William

  Ginnell, L.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Cullinan, John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Boland, John Pius

  Dawes, J. A.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  De Forest, Baron

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Delany, William

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Guiney, Patrick

  Brace, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Brady, P. J.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hackett, J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Doris, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duffy, William J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Martin, J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Harmsworth, R. L, (Caithness-shire)

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis, (Monmouth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hayward, Evan

  Mooney, John J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morgan, George Hay

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

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Morison, Hector

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Muldoon, John

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

  Munro, R.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehy, David

  Higham, John Sharp

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Shortt, Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, Philip

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.).

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sutton, John E.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ogden, Fred

  Tennant, Harold John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Thomas, James Henry

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philip

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Shee, James John

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wadsworth, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Keating, Matthew

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  King, J.

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

  Waring, Walter

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

  Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Webb, H.

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Leach, Charles

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Lundon, T.

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lynch, A. A.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  McGhee, Richard

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Maclean, Donald

  Radford, G. H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Winfrey, Richard

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Young, W. (Perthsire, E.)

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Manfield, Harry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Captain Guest.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Barnston, Harry

  Blair, Reginald

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Boyton, James

  Baird, J. L.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Bull, Sir William James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bigland, Alfred A.

  Campion, W. R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bird, A.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  922

  923

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Cave, George

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Chambers, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Royds, Edmund

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Jackson, Sir John

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Croft, H. P.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Dalziel, D.(Brixton)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Dennis, E. R. B.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Falle, B. G.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Fell, Arthur

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Stanier, Beville

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fletcher, John Samuel

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Macmaster, Donald

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Grant, J. A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Greene, W. R.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Gretton, John

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfieid)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

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

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hamilton, Marquees of (Londonderry)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Younger, Sir George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Polock, Ernest Murray

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

  Hills, John Waller

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

  STAMP DITTIES WHICH MAY NOT BE ALTERED BY THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
  Duties on the following instruments:—
  Marketable securities.
  Share warrants and stock certificates to bearer (including instruments to bearer on which duty is charged by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section four or Section five or Section six of the Finance Act, 1899).
  Transfers of stocks, shares, and marketable securities (including composition for duty on any such transfers).
  Bills of Exchange and promissory notes.
  Contract notes.
  Letters of allotment, letters of renunciation, and scrip certificates.
  Statements as to amount of capital of corporations or companies with limited liability, and as to amount of capital contributed by limited partner.
  Statements as to amount proposed to be secured by issue of loan capital.
  Mortgages to secure debenture stock.
  Policies of sea insurance.
  Policies of life insurance.
  Government Amendments: Leave out the word "sea" ["Policies of sea insurance"]. Leave out the words "Policies of life insurance."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 311; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 451.]

  AYES.

  [11.14 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Falconer, James

  Lundon, T.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lynch, A. A.

  Acland, Francis D.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Adamson, William

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  McGhee, Richard

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Ffrench, peter

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

  Agnew, Sir George

  Field, William

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Alden, Percy

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Armitage, Robert

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kean, John

  Arnold, Sydney

  Ginnell, L.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Barnes, George N.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Martin, J.

  Barton, William

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Guiney, Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hackett, J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Molloy, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hancock, John George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Boland, John Pius

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morgan, George Hay

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brace, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morison, Hector

  Brady, P. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muldoon, John

  Brocklehurst, William B.

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

  Munro, R.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hayward, Evan

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Clough, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Clynes, John R.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hinds, John

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hodge, John

  O'Malley, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Shee, James John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crean, Eugene

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Crooks, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cullinan, John

  Illingworth, Penry H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Delany, William

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Doris, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Reddy, M.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  926

  927

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Shortt, Edward

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Richards, Thomas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Webb, H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Snowden, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, Sir J, H. (Denbighs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  William, John (Glamorgan)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Rowlands, James

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Winfrey, Richard

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Scanlon, Thomas

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Captain Guest.

  Sheehy, David

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Macmaster, Donald

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baird, J. L.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Saltord, South)

  Greene, W. R.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfieid)

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nield, Herbert

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bigland, Alfred A.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bird, A.

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

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Butcher, John George

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cassel, Feiix

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Chambers, James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Edmund

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Jackson, Sir John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Croft, H. P.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Stanier, Beville

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston),

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

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Falle, B. G.

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Swift, Rigby

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Talbot, Lord E.

  928

  929

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Younger, Sir George

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Winterton, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Grant and Mr. Kerr-Smiley.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wood, Hon, E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

THIRD SCHEDULE.

  PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION OF EXISTING IRISH OFFICERS
  1.—(1) If any existing Irish officer who is serving in the Civil Service of the Crown in an established capacity or who though not so serving in an established capacity devotes his whole time to the duties of his office—

  (a) retires under the conditions hereinafter denned as the statutory conditions of retirement; or

  (b) retires with the permission of the Civil Service Committee given in accordance with this Act; or

  (c) is removed from office by the Irish Government before he attains the age of sixty years for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, or required to retire by the Irish Government before he attains that age for any cause other than as aforesaid;

  he shall be entitled to receive such compensation as the Civil Service Committee may award to him in accordance with the provisions of Part I. of the Rules contained in this Schedule if he is serving in an established capacity, and in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of the Rules contained in this Schedule, if though not serving in an established capacity he devotes his whole time to the duties of his office.
  (2) If any existing Irish officer who is serving in the Civil Service of the Crown not being an officer who is serving in an established capacity, or an officer who though not serving in an established capacity devotes his whole time to the duties of his office, is removed from office or required to retire by the Irish Government for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, he shall be entitled to receive such compensation as the Civil Service Committee may award to him in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of the Rules contained in this Schedule.
  2. For the purposes of this Act, the statutory conditions of retirement are that—

  (a) Retirement must take place within a period of five years from the passing of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as the transitional period);

  (b) Notice of the intention to retire must be given in the prescribed manner;

  (c) The retirement must not take place until at least six months after the notice of retirement has been given, and may be postponed by the Civil Service Committee, if they think fit, to any later date within the transitional period; and

  (d) The retiring officer must show to the satisfaction of the Civil Service Committee that he is not incapacited by mental or bodily infirmity for the performance of his duties and that he will not be liable under the existing rules as to age to retire before the end of the transitional period.

  3. The Civil Service Committee shall not give their permission under this Act to an officer to retire unless that officer shows to the satisfaction of the Committee—

  (a) that the duties which he is required to perform are neither the same as nor analogous to the duties heretofore performed by him or are an unreasonable addition to those duties; or

  (b) that his remuneration has been reduced on the ground that his duties have been diminished.

  4.—(1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act as to existing officers, Petty Sessions clerks and officers in the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks shall be deemed to be officers in the Civil Service of the Crown, and in the case of officers in the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks to be officers serving in an established capacity, but any payments to any such officer on account of compensation payable under the provisions of this Act shall, instead of

  931
  being made out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be made out of the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund:
  Provided that if the amount of the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund is at any time by reason of the provisions of this Act insufficient to meet any payments charged on it under this or any other. Act, the deficiency shall be charged on and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund, and made good to the Irish Consolidated Fund out of the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund as the state of that fund allows.
  This provision shall apply to the pensionable assistants of the Petty Sessions clerks at Cork and Belfast as it applies to the Petty Sessions clerks.

RULES.

  Part I.—Officers serving in the Civil Service of the Crown in an established Capacity.
  A.—On Retirement under the Statutory Conditions of Retirement.
  1. The compensation which may be awarded to the officer shall be an annual allowance, not exceeding in any case two-thirds of the salary on which the allowance is reckoned, or, if he has completed less than ten years of service as reckoned for the purposes of this provision, a gratuity.
  2. The annual allowance or gratuity shall be calculated in like manner as the superannuation allowance or gratuity which the officer would be qualified to receive under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, if he retired on the ground of ill-health, save that for the purposes of that calculation, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

  (a) His years of service shall be reckoned as if he had served up to the end of the transitional period, and there shall be added any additional years which he may be entitled to reckon under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859:

  (b) His salary, where there are periodical increments, shall be taken at the amount which it would have reached if he had continued to serve in the same office up to the end of the transitional period.

  B.—On retirement with the permission of the Civil Service Committee under this
  932
  Act or on being removed from office or required to retire by the Irish Government before attaining the age of sixty years for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity.
  1. The compensation which may be awarded to the officer shall be an annual allowance not exceeding in any case two-thirds of the salary on which the allowance is reckoned.
  2. The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the superannuation allowance which the officer would be qualified to receive under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, if he retired on the ground of ill-health, save that for the purposes of such calculation the following provision shall have effect, that is to say:—

  (a) Where the officer retires or is removed after the end of the transitional period, ten years shall be added as abolition years to the years of service which he would be entitled to reckon for the purposes of such superannuation allowance:

  (b) Where the officer retires or is removed during the transitional period his years of service shall be reckoned, and the amount of his salary shall be computed in the same manner as is provided in this Part of these Rules in the case of an officer retiring under the statutory conditions of retirement, and ten years shall be added as abolition years to the years of service so reckoned:

  (c) Where the officer has been permitted by the Civil Service Committee to retire on account of reduction of salary, his salary shall be taken at its amount prior to the reduction:

  Provided that—

  (i) Where an officer at the time of leaving the service has attained the age of thirty years but has not attained the age of thirty-six years, the abolition years to be added for the purpose of this article shall be seven years instead of ten, and where an officer at the time of leaving the service has not attained the age of thirty years, or where, whatever his age, his years of service as reckoned for the purposes of this article, exclusive of the abolition years, are less than ten, the abolition years to be added for those purposes shall be five years instead of ten; and

  933

  (ii) No abolition years shall be added in excess of the difference between the age of an officer at the time of his leaving the service and the age at which he would be liable to leave the service under the existing rules as to age.

  C. —Officers to whom the Superannuation Act, 1909, applies.
  1. An officer to whom the Superannuation Act, 1909, applies by reason only of his having elected to adopt the provisions of that Act shall, if he so requires, be treated for the purpose of the determintion of his compensation under this Schedule as if he had not so elected.
  2. As respects any such officer who does not require his compensation to be determined as aforesaid, and any other officer to whom the Superannuation Act, 1909, applies, the provisions contained in Heads A and B of this Part of these Rules shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—

  (a) The annual allowance or gratuity awarded to the officer shall be calculated on the proportion of salary prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section One of the Superannuation Act, 1909, instead of the proportion prescribed by Section Two of the Superannuation Act, 1859, and the annual allowance which may be awarded to the officer shall not in any case exceed one-half of the salary on which the allowance is calculated:

  (b) In addition to the annual allowance or gratuity there may be awarded to the officer an additional allowance calculated in like manner as an additional allowance under the Superannuation Act, 1909, and for the purposes of that calculation his years of service and salary shall be reckoned and computed as in the case of his annual allowance or gratuity, but the additional allowance so awarded shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of the salary on which the allowance is calculated, except in the case of an officer to whom the Superannuation Act, 1909, applies by reason of his having elected to adopt its provisions, and then only to the extent specified in Section 3 of that Act.

RULES.

  Part II.—Officers serving in the Civil Service of the Crown who are not serving in an established capacity.
  1. The compensation which may be awarded to the officer shall be such gratuity or annual allowance (if any) as the Civil Service Committee think just, having regard to the following considerations, that is to say:—

  (a) The conditions on which the officer was appointed;

  (b) The nature and duration of his employment;

  (c) In the case of officers who do not devote their whole time to the duties of their office, the amount of time so devoted;

  (d) The circumstances in which he is leaving the service;

  (e) The compensation which might have been awarded to him on leaving the service in similar circumstances if Part I. of these Rules had applied to him;

  (f) Any offer made to him of another office or employment under the Irish Government;

  (g) The probability (if any) of his having continued in office for a longer period but for the passing of this Act; and

  (h) any other circumstances affecting his case.

  2. The compensation shall in every case be less than the compensation which might under Part I. of these Rules have been awarded to the officer on leaving the service in similar circumstances if that part of these Rules had applied to him.
  Government Amendments made: In Section 1, Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), leave out the word "sixty" [age of "sixty years"] and insert instead thereof the words "sixty-five";
  In Sub-section (2) at end, insert the words:—
  (3) The compensation of an officer serving in an established capacity who has previously served in a non-established capacity may be determined in accordance with the provisions of Part II. instead of

  935
  the provisions of Part I. of the Rules contained in this Schedule, if he so requires, and in that case the limit of the compensation shall be the amount of compensation which might have been awarded if his whole service had been service in an established capacity, and the compensation of an officer not serving in an established capacity may be determined in accordance with the provisions of Part I. instead of the provisions of Part II. of those Rules if the Civil Service Committee are satisfied that he serves in a capacity which under a condition of his employment qualifies him for a superannuation allowance or gratuity on terms not less advantageous than if he served in an established capacity, and accordingly in the application to him of the provisions of Part I. of those Rules references to that condition shall, where the context so requires, be substituted for references to the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909;
  In Section 2, paragraph (a), leave out the words "passing of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "appointed day";
  In paragraph (b) leave out the words "in the prescribed manner," and insert instead thereof the words "in accordance with regulations made by the Civil Service Commissioners";
  In paragraph (d) leave out the words "be liable under the existing rules as to age to retire" and insert instead thereof the words "attain the age of sixty-five years."
  In Section 3 leave out paragraph (b) and insert instead thereof the words:—
  (b) that, owing to changes made after the end of the transitional period in the conditions of his employment, his position has been materially altered to his detriment.
  In Section 4, Sub-section (1), leave out the words "but any payments to any such officer on account of compensation payable under the provisions of this Act shall, instead of being made out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be made out of the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund: Provided that if the amount of the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund is at any time by reason of the provisions of this Act insufficient to meet any payments charged on it under this or any other Act, the deficiency shall be charged on and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund, and made good to the Irish Consolidated Fund out of the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund as the state of that fund allows."—[Mr. Birrell]
  Government Amendment proposed,
  In Section 4, Sub-section (1), at end, add the words:—
  5. In this Schedule references to the Irish Government shall include references to any department or officer of the Irish Government."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 179.

  Division No. 452.]

  AYES.

  [11.24 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crean, Eugene

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Brace, William

  Cullinan, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brady, P. J.

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

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Alden, Percy

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  De Forest, Baron

  Armitage, R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Delany, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Doris, William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Barnes, George N.

  Clough, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barton, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cotton, William Francis

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Falconer, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William (Ciare, E.)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richards, Thomas

  Field, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Glanville, H. J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry

  Rowlands, James

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Martin, J.

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Guiney, Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Gulland, John William

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Hackett, J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hancock, John George

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Shortt, Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Mooney, John J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morrell, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morison, Hector

  Snowden, Philip

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Muldoon, John

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, R.

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Ogden, Fred

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Grady, James

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hinds, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Waring, Walter

  Hodge, John

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shee, James John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Webb, H.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Piric, Duncan Vernon

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Winfrey, Richard

  Kilbride, Denis

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

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

  King, J.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, G. H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, Michael

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Baird, J. L.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Ashley, W. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  938

  939

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, H

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Harnbro, Augustus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomr'y B'ghs)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bird, A.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blair, Reginald

  Hills, John Waller

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Boyton, James

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hohler, G. F.

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, John George

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.).

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Jackson, Sir John

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cave, George

  Jessel, Capt. H. M.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Chambers, James

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanier, Beville

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Steel-Maitland. A. D.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Falle, B. G.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Macmaster, Donald

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F (Ashburton)

  Winterton, Earl

  Goldman, c. S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Grant, J. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Gretton, John

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

  Younger, Sir George

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Captain Faber.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Mr. MALCOLM: I and several other Members came from the Lobby in the ordinary course after the two tellers had left and while the clerks at table were still there. We therefore claim that our votes be counted.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I am in the same position.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I am in the same position.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am in the same position.
  The CHAIRMAN: I made enquiry last night when there was a similar occurrence
  940
  and I was informed that in a succession of divisions such as we had last night hon. Members go into the Lobby for the next division before the one actually in process is completed. In that way Members get mixed up between one division and another, and do not proceed to the desk as rapidly as they ought to do. But in both cases, last night and to-night, the whips of their own party informed the teller at the door in the usual way "All out." Under our present rules hon. Members are not obliged to vote, and unless they take advantage of the opportunity they must be taken as not desiring to vote. Of course the arrangements which are made between both sides provide that both sides have a

  941
  representative who takes the means in his power to see that Members who desire to vote pass through before the tellers reach the door.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I was busily engaged with a colleague in discussing the shortcomings of the Liberal party.
  Mr. WYNDHAM Mr. WYNDHAM rose.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow a discussion on the matter. I was asked whether four Members could claim to have their votes added in this case. I shall see if that can be done.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: What I have to say is pertinent to the suggestion which you, Mr. Chairman, have made. At a certain moment you say "Lock the doors." If any Member is in the lobby before the doors are locked, he proceeds as quickly as possible to the clerk's desk to vote, but if he is debarred from voting, as in my case, can he claim to have his vote registered?
  The CHAIRMAN: After what I have said I hope this will not occur again. I would suggest that hon. Members who have voted should wait towards the end of the lobby, and not obstruct Members who desire to vote. In this case the names of Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Wyndham, Colonel Lockwood, and Lord Alexander Thynne will be added. The "Noes" will therefore be 182.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: The same thing happened to me in the division before the last.
  Government Amendments made: In Sub-head B (Rules—Part I.) leave out the word "sixty" ["age of sixty years for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity"], and insert instead thereof the words "sixty five."
  In Sub-head B (2) leave out paragraph (c).
  In Sub-head B, proviso (i), leave out the word "thirty" ["age of thirty years but has not attained the age of thirty-six years"] and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eight."
  In Sub-head B, proviso (i), leave out the words "thirty-six" ["has not attained the age of thirty-six years"], and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-three."
  In Sub-head B, proviso (i), leave out the word "thirty" ["age of thirty years, or where"], and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eight."
  In Sub-head B, proviso (ii), leave out the words "at which he would be liable to leave the service under the existing rules as to age" and insert instead thereof the words of "sixty-five."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put: "That the schedule, as amended, be the third schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 180.

  Division No. 453.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Brady, P. J.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  De Forest, Baron

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Delany, William

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Doris, William

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Armitage, R.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Clough, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Baring, Sir Godlrey (Barnstaple)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Barnes, George N.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Barton, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Field, William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Boland, John Pius

  Cullinan, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Brace, William

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Richards, Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Gulland, John William

  Martin, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hackett, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rowlands, James

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hancock, John George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molloy, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mooney, John J.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, George Hay

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

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Sheehy, David

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

  Morison, Hector

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Muldoon, John

  Shortt, Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, R.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Needham, Christopher, Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sutton, John E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hinds, John

  Ogden, Fred

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hodge, John

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Kelley, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Malley, William

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Holt Richard Durning

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Horne, C. Silverster (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shee, James John

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  King, J.

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lundon, T.

  Reddy, M.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lynch, A. A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  McGhee, Richard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Archer-Shee, Major

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Barnston, H.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Baird, J. L.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Bird, A.

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

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Blair, Reginald

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Boyton, James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  944

  945

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hohler, G. F.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Burn, Colonel, C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Butcher, John George

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cautley, H. S.

  Jackson, Sir John

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cave, George

  Jessel, Capt. H. M.

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

  Chambers, James

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dalziel, D, (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stanier, Seville

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Stewart, Gershom

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

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Falle, B. G.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Gastrell, Major W, Houghton

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Greene, W. R.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Gretton, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hall D B (Isle of Wight)

  Nield, Herbert

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

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

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peta, Basil Edward

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pole Carew, Sir R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Younger, Sir George

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Hills, John Waller

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Charles Bathurst and Mr. R. Gwynne.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Quilter, sir William Eley C.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  PROVISION AS TO COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Any officer or constable who after the day of transfer is required to retire for any cause other than misconduct, and is not incapacitated for the performance of his duty by mental or bodily infirmity, shall, unless he is qualified for the maximum pension that can be granted to him for length of service only under the enactments aforesaid, be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded to him by the Lord Lieutenant in accordance with the Rules contained in this Schedule.

RULES.
1. The compensation which may be awarded to an officer or constable shall be an annual allowance.
2. The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to receive under the enactments applicable to him if he had retired voluntarily and had been qualified in respect of his length of service for a pension, save that for the purposes of that calculation the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) there shall be added to his completed years of actual service, if the proportion of salary on which his allowance is calculated is one-fiftieth, ten years, and if that proportion is one-sixtieth, twelve years, but any such addition of years shall not affect the amount of salary in respect of which his annual allowance is to be calculated; and

(b) if he has, in addition to his completed years of actual service, served

947
for a period exceeding six months, his service for that period shall be reckoned as a completed year of actual service.

3. The allowance awarded to an officer or constable shall in no case exceed the maximum pension which could under the enactments applicable to him have been awarded to him if he had retired for length of service only.
4. In the event of a constable dying within one year after an annual allowance has been awarded to him under this Schedule, the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, grant an annuity to the widow or children of the constable in like manner as if the allowance were a pension granted to the constable on retirement.
Government Amendments made:
In the first paragraph, after the word "transfer" ["who after the day of transfer"], insert the words (a) "retires voluntarily under the conditions in that behalf hereinafter contained; or"; leave out the words "enactments aforesaid, be entitled" and insert instead thereof the words "existing enactments applicable to him, be entitled on retirement."
At the end of first paragraph insert:—
(2). The conditions of voluntary retirement are that—

(a) Notice of the intention to retire must be given within one year after the day of transfer;

(b) The notice must be given in manner prescribed by the Lord Lieutenant;

(c) The retirement must not take place until at least six months after the notice of retirement has been given, and may be postponed by the Lord Lieutenant, if he thinks fit, to any later date not being more than two years after the day of transfer; and

(d) The retiring officer or constable must show to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant that he is not incapacitated for the performance of his duties by mental or bodily infirmity and will not be entitled to retire on the maximum pension for length of service under the enactments aforesaid before the expiration of two years from the date of transfer, and that he joined the force before the passing of this Act.

In the second paragraph (Rules), at the beginning of Rule No. 2, insert the words "where the officer or constable is required to retire"; leave out the words "receive under the enactments applicable to him if he had retired voluntarily," and insert instead thereof the words "if he had retired from length of service under the existing enactments applicable to him";
In Rule 2, paragraph (a), leave out the words "but any such addition of years shall not affect the amount of salary in respect of which his annual allowance is to be calculated; and," and insert instead thereof the words:—
(b) his salary shall be taken at the amount which it would have reached if he had continued to serve in the same rank for the number of years so added, and in the case of a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary of the third class as if he were entitled to promotion to the second class on the completion of one and a-half years' service in the third class, and, in the case of a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary of the second class, as if he were entitled to promotion to the first class on the completion of eleven years' service in the second class;
(c) if the number of his completed years of service, as reckoned under this rule, is less than the minimum number of years of service for which provision as respects pensions is made in the appropriate pension scale that scale shall apply with the substitution of the number of his completed years of service as so reckoned for that minimum number.
In Rules No. 2, paragraph (b), at the end insert the words:—
"3. Where the officer or constable retires under the conditions of voluntary retirement the provisions of the last preceding rule shall apply with the substitution of five years for ten years and six years for twelve years";
In Rules No. 3, leave, out the words "the maximum pension which could under the enactments applicable to him if he had retired for length of service only," and insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds of his actual pensionable salary";
In Rules No. 4, leave out the words "an annuity" ["grant an annuity"], and insert instead thereof the words "a gratuity."—[Mr. Birrell.]
Question put, "That the Schedule as amended be the Fourth Schedule of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 166.

Division No. 454.]

AYES.

[11.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Falconer, James

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Farrell, James Patrick

Leach, Charles

Adamson, William

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Lundon, T.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, A. A.

Agnew, Sir George

Field, William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

McGhee, Richard

Alden, Percy

Fitzgibbon, John

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

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Armitage, R.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Macpherson, James Ian

Arnold, Sydney

Gill, A. H.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Ginnell, L.

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Glanville, H. J.

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

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Goldstone, Frank

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Barnes, George N.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Barton, William

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Martin, J.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Meagher, Michael

Bentham, George Jackson

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Betheil, Sir John Henry

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Millar, James Duncan

Black, Arthur W.

Guiney, Patrick

Molloy, Michael

Boland, John Pius

Gulland, John William

Molteno, Percy Alport

Booth, Frederick Handel

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Bowerman, C. W.

Hackett, J.

Mooney, John J.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Morgan, George Hay

Brace, William

Hancock, John George

Morrell, Philip

Brady, P. J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Morison, Hector

Brocklehurst, William B.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Muldoon, John

Brunner, J. F. L.

Hardie, J. Keir

Munro, R.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Nolan, Joseph

Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Chancellor, H. G.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hayward, Evan

O'Doherty, Philip

Clough, William

Hazleton, Richard

O'Dowd, John

Clynes, John R.

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

Ogden, Fred

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Grady, James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Malley, William

Cotton, William Francis

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hinds, John

O'Shee, James John

Crean, Eugene

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Crooks, William

Hodge, John

Palmer Godfrey Mark

Crumley, Patrick

Hogge, James Myles

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cullinan, John

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pirle, Duncan Vernon

Dawes, J. A.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pointer, Joseph

De Forest, Baron

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pollard, Sir George H.

Delany, William

John, Edward Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Dickinson, W. H.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Doris, William

Jowett, Frederick William

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

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Radford, G. H.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Kilbride, Denis

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

King, J.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Reddy, M

Elverston, Sir Harold

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wason, Rt. Hon. E (Clackmannan)

Richards, Thomas

Shortt, Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Watt, Henry A.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Webb, H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Sutton, John E.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wiles, Thomas

Robinson, Sidney

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Tennant, Harold John

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Toulmin, Sir George

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Rowlands, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Rowntree, Arnold

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Verney, Sir Harry

Winfrey, Richard

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

Wadsworth, J.

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Scanlan, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

Sheehy, David

Waring, Walter

NOES.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Greene, W. R.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Gretton, John

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

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

Peto, Basil Edward

Ashley, W. W.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Baird, J. L.

Haddock, George Bahr

Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Balcarres, Lord

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Randles, Sir John S.

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Harris, Henry Percy

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Barnston, H.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rolleston, Sir John

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Hills, John Waller

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hoare, S. J. G.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hohler, G. F.

Sanders, Robert A.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bigland, Alfred

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Bird, A.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Blair, Reginald

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boyton, James

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Jackson, Sir John

Stanier, Beville

Bull, Sir William James

Jessel, Capt. H. M.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Starkey, John R.

Burn, Colonel, C. R.

Kerry, Earl of

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Butcher, John George

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stewart, Gershom

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Swift, Rigby

Campion, W. R.

Larmor, Sir J.

Talbot, Lord E.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Cassel, Felix

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

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

Cautley, H. S.

Lewisham, Viscount

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

Cave, George

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chambers, James

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

Touche, George Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Valentia, Viscount

Courthope, George Loyd

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wheler, Granville, C. H.

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Mackinder, Halford J.

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

Dixon, C. H.

Macmaster, Donald

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

Doughty, Sir George

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Malcolm, Ian

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

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

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Winterton, Earl

Falle, B. G.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mount, William Arthur

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Gibbs, G. A.

Nield, Herbert

Younger, Sir George

Gilmour, Captain John

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Neville and Mr. Ingleby.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 341.]
The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes after Twelve o'clock.