Commons Sitting of 30 December 1912

Preamble
The House reassembled—after the Christmas Adjournment—at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kirkcaldy District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (CHRISTMAS RECESS).
The following Papers, presented by His Majesty's Command during the Christmas Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—

1. Obscene Publications and the White Slave Traffic (International Conferences),—Copy of Correspondence respecting the International Conferences on Obscene Publications and the "White Slave Traffic," held in Paris, April and May, 1910;

2

2. Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire (Royal Commission), Copy of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to make an Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Wales and Monmouthshire and specify those "which seem most worthy of preservation. Minutes of Evidence, with Appendices and Index. Vol. I.;

3. Mines and Quarries (General Report and Statistics for 1911),—Copy of the Annual Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, with Statistics, for the year 1911. Part III. Output;

4. National Health Insurance (Joint Committee),—Copy of Rules, dated 9th December, 1912, made by the Joint Committee established under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, under the Ninth Schedule of the said Act for the conduct of Inquiries with regard to Draft Special Orders;

5. National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland),—Copy of Order, dated 11th December, 1912, made under Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners as to payments out of the Scottish National Health Insurance Fund to Insurance Committees;

3

6. Board of Education,—Copy of Statistics of Public Education in England and Wales. Part II. Financial Statistics, 1910, 1911, 1912;

7. Congested Districts Board (Ireland),—Copy of Twentieth Report of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland for the period 1st April, 1911, to the 31st March, 1912, with reference to subsequent transactions and with Accounts for the two years ended 31st March, 1911, and 31st March, 1912;

8. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings),—Copies of Returns of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission under the Land Law Acts, the Labourers (Treland) Acts, and the Land Purchase Acts during the months of May and June, 1912.

Ordered. That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

IMPERIAL TRADE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of First Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions, together with Minutes of Evidence taken in London during October and November, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS).
Copy presented of Regulations for the Nomination and Election of additional Members of the Legislative Councils of Bengal, Behar and Orissa, and Assam; and amended Regulations for the Legislative Council of Burma [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute III. of the National University of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Chelmsford, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 (0) of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of shops within the borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the council of the urban district of Barry, 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.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the urban district of Pontypridd, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the closing hours on the several days of the week for certain shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 11th December, 1912, in terms of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain classes of shops in the burgh of Peebles [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EARNINGS AND HOURS INQUIRY.
Copy presented of Report of an Inquiry by the Board of Trade into the Earnings and Hours of Labour of Workpeople of the United Kingdom: VIII. Paper, Printing, etc., Trades; Pottery, Brick, Glass, and Chemical Trades; Food, Drink, and Tobacco Trades; and Miscellaneous Trades in 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Statement of the Income and Expenditure of the Board of Trade for the year ended 31st March, 1912, together with an Account of the Receipt and Issue of Stores [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (BURSARIES, Etc.).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th December; Mr, Munro-Ferguson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5031 to 5033 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 2lst December, 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Provisional Order, 1912 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 412.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to Behaviour during Disease [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 413.]

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 16th December, 1912, granting a Retired Allowance to Patrick Dolohan, Civil Assistant, Ordnance Survey, Ireland, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT (RULES).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court (Finance (1909–10) Act), 1912, dated 18th December, 1912 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent addition or alteration has been made in the personnel of the British section of the six-Power group for lending money to China; the names and particulars of the present constituents of that section; what adjustment has been made in the terms for division of profits on loan transactions now under negotiation; and, seeing that the Russian section of the group is composed of non-Russian financial houses, even the Russo-Asiatic Bank being controlled by non-Russian interests, whether he is in a position to state any interest Russia now has in the six-Power group?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As was announced recently in the Press, the British group is now composed as follows: The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Messrs. Baring
  6
  Brothers and Company, Limited, the London County and Westminster Bank, Limited, Parr's Bank, Limited, Messrs. J. H. Schroeder and Company. I am not in a position to give details of the financial arrangements arrived at between the constituents of the group. It is for the Russian Government to decide whether they are satisfied that the Russian group is properly representative of Russian interests.

  Tuberculous Pigs.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether steps have been taken to inspect the farm or farms from which the eight tuberculous pigs seized and condemned at the Smith-field Show came from; whether the remaining swine on the premises have been slaughtered and the result of the post-mortem examination made known; and what compensation, if any, has been paid to the owners?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board have taken no action in the case to which the hon. Member refers. I would explain that tuberculosis is not a scheduled disease under the Diseases of Animals Acts, and no question of compulsory slaughter or of compensation to the owners could therefore arise.

  Regent's Park (Bedford College).
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the whole of the buildings in course of erection in Regent's Park for Bedford College appeared in the plans originally submitted to the Crown estates surveyor for approval, or whether any have been added and approved subsequently, and, if so, when?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole of the buildings in course of erection in Regent's Park for Bedford College were indicated on the plans originally submitted, though the detailed drawings did not include details of the kitchen and dining hall and common room block. The detailed drawings for this latter block were approved 1st August, 1912. A small clock turret on the administration block not originally shown was sanctioned 13th February, 1912.
  Mr. CASSEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell why this college is allowed facilities for building in the park which are not allowed to anyone else?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This question has been previously discussed in the House and many answers were given by the Treasury when they were responsible.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer show that since then additional buildings have been erected?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; it does not show anything of the kind. It only shows details which were not shown on the original plan and which have been passed subsequently.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Do not these later additions gravely interfere with the amenities of the park?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As a matter of fact, this is not in the park at all, and they have in no way interfered with the amenities of the park, which are carefully guarded not only by the Treasury but by the Office of Works.

  King Edward Memorial.
  Captain MURRAYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in connection with the site for the King Edward Memorial, he will consider the suggestion that the Duke of York's Column should be demolished and the memorial erected near the steps overlooking St. James's Park?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner does not sec his way to consider the suggestion referred to.
  Captain MURRAY: May I ask out of what funds the Duke of York's Column is kept in repair?
  Mr. W. BENN: The repair and upkeep of the Duke of York's Column falls on the Office of Works Vote.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider throwing this column open to the public, so that a view might be obtained from the top, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the City of London make a profit of £300 per annum on their Monument, and will the Board of Works do something on the same lines?
  Mr. W. BENN: I will convey that suggestion to the First Commissioner.
  Captain MURRAYasked whether the hon. Gentleman has any information to the effect that the memorial to King Edward is to take the form of an equestrian statue?
  Mr. W. BENN: The answer to my hon. Friend is in the affirmative.

  Public Buildings (Edinburgh).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what were the reasons which induced him to decide that the designs for the new Government buildings on the site of the Calton Gaol should be carried out in the Office of the Board of Works; and whether, in view of the national character of those buildings, he will reconsider his decision?
  Mr. W. BENN: The Committee having examined the designs and models prepared in the Office of Works, Edinburgh, considered an open competition unnecessary.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that he invited this question and offered to give the reasons if the question were put down?
  Mr. W.BENN: The reasons which actuated the Committee were that they accepted the designs which they considered the best possible for the site.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for the last six years designs of all public buildings have been carried out in the Office of Works, and if he can state why designs for important public buildings are no longer put out to open competition?
  Mr. W. BENN: Each case is considered on its merits, and that was done in this case.

  National Gallery (Layard Collection).
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can give any information as to the pictures of the Layard Collection, which have been left to the nation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): A large number of pictures have been bequeathed to the Trustees of the National Gallery under the will of the late Sir Henry Layard. The majority of these pictures are now in Venice, and the question of their exportation from Italy is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome. I fear it is not possible at the present moment to make any further statement on this subject.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that previous to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church the appointment of public notaries was made by the Archbishop of Armagh as Primate of all Ireland, and that subsequently they have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and whether he is now prepared to state that the new Clause to the Established Church (Wales) Bill, of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for North Somerset, to transfer the appointment of public notaries in Wales to the Lord Chancellor, will be accepted by the Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

  Metropolitan Police (Disciplinary Board).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Disciplinary Board has yet made any Report on the case of the constables who are said to have assaulted Chapman; and whether the Board would have inquired into the case if the attention of Parliament had not been called to the case by reports in the Press?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Deptford on the 19th of this month, the case has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the disciplinary inquiry has in consequence been suspended. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Destitute Persons (Victoria Embankment).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary how many persons were prosecuted by the police for being found on the Embankment at night without visible means of subsistence during each of the months of September, October, and November of this year; how many were taken from the Embankment and sent to casual wards by the police during the same months; and whether this new method of treating the destitute originated in his Department or in the Local Government Board?
  Mr. McKENNA: The scheme referred to by my hon. Friend has been in operation over a restricted area in the neighbourhood of the Embankment during the last
  10
  two months only. Tickets entitling the-bearer to receive shelter are given by the police to all homeless persons found on the Embankment. The recipient has only to present the ticket at the appointed place to receive from the officer of the Metropolitan Asylums Board (the authority controlling the London casual wards) an order for admission to a casual ward or to shelter provided by a charitable agency, as the circumstances of each case require. During the two months twelve persons found on the Embankment without visible means of subsistence, who had refused the shelter offered them, were charged by the police as vagrants. The scheme was undertaken by the Metropolitan Asylums Board at the suggestion of the Local Government Board. The object is to enable the authorities to render assistance in deserving cases, and to clear the Embankment of the undesirable characters resorting there, and the experiment has had a considerable measure of success.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is anybody without visible means of support charged with being in that condition on the Embankment, unless he accepts one of these tickets, goes to the casual ward, and does two days' work to pay for his keep in the casual ward?
  Mr. McKENNA: When my hon. Friend has an opportunity of reading the answer I have given, he will see that all his questions are sufficiently answered.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is there a punishment inflicted upon those persons who do not go to the casual ward?
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. W. THORNE: What else are poor people to do who have nowhere but the Embankment to go to?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is a large subject, and should be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board rather than by myself.

  Indeterminate Detention.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked how many persons are now undergoing the punishment of indeterminate detention; how many have been discharged from such detention since 1st January, 1912; whether any have committed suicide; and how many are now undergoing disciplinary punishment in connection with such detention?
  Mr. McKENNA: One hundred and four persons are now undergoing indeterminate detention; one has been discharged from such detention since 1st January, 1912; none have committed suicide; and thirty-nine are now undergoing disciplinary punishment in connection with such detention.

  Manchester City Police (Promotion).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resignation of two police constables in Manchester because they did not get the usual advance in pay; whether, on asking why their increase had been withheld, they were told by the superintendent of the division that they had not done their duty in that they had not brought enough cases before the Court; whether pressure of this sort upon the police force is in accordance with the intentions and wishes of His Majesty's Government; and, if the facts are as stated, what steps he proposes to take to reinstate the officers concerned?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have communicated with the Chief Constable, and am informed that there is no ground whatever for the suggestion that the contables' rise of pay was interfered with by their superintendents on account of their not bringing more cases into Court.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the report of a case in the Press and see whether there was any ground for the evidence of police-constables themselves that they had been told that their advance was stopped because they had not brought sufficient cases to the Court?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is precisely the question which my hon. Friend has put on the Paper, and the answer to that question is in the negative.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the report been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; and I have given the result not only of the inquiry referred to, but of an inquiry by the Chief Constable.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would pressure of this sort be in accordance with the intentions and wishes of the Government?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend may be quite satisfied that it would not.

  Neglect of Children (Marlborough).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the sentences of two months' imprisonment with hard labour passed by the Marlborough Petty Sessions upon Mr. and Mrs. Hollister for neglecting their six children; whether the man was in steady work at a wage of 13s. a week in a rent-free cottage; whether they were living nine persons in one room with insufficient clothes and bedding; whether there was any complaint against the man and woman except that caused by poverty; and whether he can see his way to cancel the rest of the sentence and allow the parents to get back to their children and their labour?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry, and am informed by the magistrates that they were satisfied that the children's condition was not due to poverty, but to wilful neglect. The father was earning 13s. a week, and had a pension of 3s. as well as a cottage rent free. Both defendants were sent to prison about three years ago for a similar offence, and they were repeatedly warned by the inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children before proceedings were taken in the present case. I regret that I have not found any sufficient grounds to justify me in advising any interference with the sentence.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does my right hon. Friend think it possible for a man to keep a wife and six children on 13s. a week? Is he aware that there were nine persons sleeping in one room? Does he think it possible for people to keep decent under those conditions? Is it fair to deprive a man of his wife and children on these grounds?

  Colliery Managers (Certificate Examinations).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked how many Scottish mining students were examined at Edinburgh for the first-class colliery manager's certificate in November of this year, and also the number examined in November of last year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of candidates who were examined at Edinburgh for a first-class manager's certificate in November of this year was twelve, all of whom resided in Scotland; and in November of last year, forty-four, of whom thirty-five resided in Scotland and nine in England and Wales.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Can the Home Secretary state whether Rule 4 (a) (V.) of the Rules issued by the Board for mining examinations, which makes it necessary for the applicant to produce the plan of a mine survey, in the production of which the purchase or hire of costly mining instruments is involved, has had the effect of preventing many working-class students from going forward for examination?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be very glad to answer that question if my hon. Friend will give notice of it.

  Public Morality.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are not these Reports the tary if he is aware of the increasing frequency of cases of unnatural vice and of the fact that painted boys are regularly parading the West End; and will he institute an inquiry into the cause and the encouragement of vice and the desirability of measures being taken without delay?
  Mr. McKENNA: The police do not confirm the suggestion in the question that there has been any increase of late in the class of crime referred to, and there is not, therefore, any special ground for an inquiry.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are not these Reports the only source of information open to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. McKENNA: They are the best source; I will not say they are the only source.
  Mr. BOOTH: If I send the right hon. Gentleman the names of one of His Majesty's judges and other officials who will give definite information, will he consider the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: His Majesty's judges could only receive information upon the subject in consequence of police prosecutions.
  Mr. BOOTH: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the name of one of His Majesty's judges who has been repeatedly accosted in the streets, will he have an interview with him?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly; but his experience must be quite exceptional.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of public morality, including the publication of literature of a certain kind and the non-administration of the laws already on Statute Book?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURED PERSONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked how many insured persons there are in county Derry and in county Antrim?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It will not be possible to state the number of insured persons in the two counties referred to in the question until all the cards for the first quarter have been scheduled, and this process will still take some time to complete.
    Mr. BARRIE: Have not these cards now been in the possession of the Insurance Commissioners at least six weeks?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think they all are at present. As soon as I have the information I shall be only too glad to give it to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give an estimate as to the number of people insured in Ireland under the National Insurance Act up to 20th December, taken according to promises, and how many were Post Office contributors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of cards received from deposit contributors in Ireland at present is 13,800. The number of persons who have actually joined approved societies cannot be stated until the cards have been returned from the societies and scheduled.

    SOUTH WALES SCHEME.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of workpeople, male and female, affected by the arrangement under Section 99 of the National Insurance Act operating in South Wales, the number of offices opened at the docks specially assigned to the scheme, giving the cost of any new buildings and the rents paid; the average weekly amount collected from employers and workpeople in respect of contributions under Parts I. and II. of the National Insurance Act for the first three months; the average weekly payments for the same period made by employers to the Board of Trade towards the administration of the Act, and the stamping of the workpeople's insurance cards; the number and status of, and the salaries paid to, the permanent staff engaged at the dock offices; the number of, and weekly salaries paid to, the temporary staff engaged at the dock offices; and the nature of he work performed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I assume the hon. Member to refer to an arrangement under Section 99 of the Act, made between the Board of Trade and certain firms of ship-repairing employers at Cardiff, Barry, Newport, and Port Talbot, and covering between 8,000 and 9,000 persons. None of the Labour Exchanges affected is at present devoted exclusively to the work involved by the scheme and it is not possible to separate the cost of the premises and the staff required from the total vote for Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance. The average weekly amount of contributions collected under the arrangement, during the quarter ending 12th October was £241 6s. 7d. The average weekly payment made by employers in respect of the keeping and stamping of the Health Insurance cards of the men employed by them was £2 16s. 6d. The work undertaken by the Board of Trade under the scheme includes, in addition to ordinary Labour Exchange work, the stamping of the contribution cards and unemployment books of the workpeople affected, and the keeping of the necessary records for this purpose.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are the small sums mentioned the whole of the expense to which the State has been put by this scheme?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As I have explained, it is impossible to distinguish or to separate the expenses under that head from those of the general work of the office?
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman try to so distinguish them, because the object is to find out what is the cost to the State of this scheme in South Wales and also a similar scheme at Liverpool, which is said to be extremely expensive?

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked whether, under the National Insurance Act, an insured person will be entitled to be treated by his own medical practitioner; and, if so, whether, in the event of a number of doctors refusing to accept service under the Act, any amendment thereof will be sought to meet the situation thus arising?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The insured person is entitled to a free choice amongst the doctors registered on the panel subject to conditions defined by Section 15 (2) of the Insurance Act. If, however, the doctor
    16
    of his choice declines to go on the panel, the insured person is not entitled to claim as a right that he should be treated by his own medical practitioner at the expense of the insurance fund.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether, in the event of private medical practitioners not coming on the panel, the insured person is to be at the mercy of the Insurance Commissioners or the insurance committee, and how does that really fit in with Section 15 of the Act and the promises he himself made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member will take the trouble to read the Act he will see that there is only a right of choice amongst doctors on the panel, and that if any private arrangements are made with doctors outside they must be subject to the allowance of the Insurance Committee and the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he went into that question, he thought so many medical practitioners would not accept service under the Act?
    Captain MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not practically certain now that sufficient doctors will come forward to work the Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I prefer not to express an opinion.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask whether any objection will be made by the Insurance Commissioners to allowing insurance committees to permit private practitioners in counties to continue for individual patients under Section 15, Subsection (3), of the Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that would depend entirely upon circumstances?
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a general statement as to what he proposes to do in cases of counties where the whole of the doctors have refused to serve?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should first of all have to wait and see whether there are any counties of the kind.
    Earl WINTERTON: There are.

    NON-PAYMENT or CONTRIBUTIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Colonel BURNasked how many prosecutions have been instituted in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively, for non-payment of contributions under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The numbers of prosecutions for non-payment of contributions under the National Insurance Act which have been instituted in England, Scotland, and Ireland are forty-five, ten, and sixteen, respectively. No prosecutions have yet been instituted in Wales, but proceedings in several cases may be taken in the immediate future.
    Colonel BURN: How much latitude is to be given to those who refuse to pay their contribution—there are a great many—I -want to know what time they are to be given?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Friendly remonstrance is the first method adopted, but in any case I am afraid persistent refusal will mean prosecution.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the valuation put by the pension officers on the living of an old age pensioner named Ballesty, of Edgeworthstown, Ballinalee sub-pension district, who has been deprived of his pension; and whether a Local Government Board inspector will be sent to inquire into this case before it is finally disposed of?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The pension officer estimated that this pensioner's means exceeded £31 10s. a year. The Local Government Board, on the matter being referred to them, sent an inspector to make local inquiry as to her circumstances, and on consideration of all the facts of the case decided that her means did not exceed £28 17s. 6d. a year, but exceeded £26 5s. a year, and accordingly determined that she was entitled to a pension of 2s. a week.
    Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of that inspector's report?
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether in cases of alleged valuation of a man's means of living, in connection with an old age pension, by pension officers in Ireland, there is any scale drawn up by the Treasury to guide the officer in coming to his decision, or whether it is left to himself to put on his own valuation, against which there is no appeal; what qualification these men have for such work; and whether he will consider the desirability, in fairness to all parties, of having the items set out in the
    18
    pension officer's report and a copy sent to-the local pension committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No scale has been drawn up by the Treasury as a guide to pension officers in Ireland in estimating the value of means for purposes of the Old Age Pension Acts. The officers' estimates are based in each case on the result of their investigations and on their general knowledge of the locality. I am not aware of any qualifications in which pension officers as a class are lacking for this particular part of their duties. I do not understand the suggestion that there is no appeal against the officers' estimates of means. In every case the decision rests with pension authorities, i.e., with the local pension committee or with the Local Government Board on appeal, and these authorities are in no way bound by the officers' estimates. As regards the last part of the question, officers in Ireland' already have instructions which ensure-that committees will be furnished with all the particulars requisite for forming their own opinion on the question of means; and I am assured that there is no necessity for further instructions in the matter.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pension officers are in the main English officials sent over in. connection with his Department, and that they have no local knowledge whatever?
    Mr. FLAVIN: On what basis does the pension officer estimate the weekly rental value of a room in a mud-wall cabin?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I must have notice of that question.

    Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked for what special purposes, as provided by the Public Works Loans Act, 1912, do the Public Works Loan Commissioners require £6,000,000 for the year 1912–13, as compared with £5,000,000 only in previous years; and is the additional £1,000,000 ear-marked?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The additional £1,000,000 has not been ear-marked, but it was thought advisable to increase the maximum amount which the Commissioners might lend to meet possible expansion in the demands for loans.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Did the Commissioners give no reason for asking for the additional million?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They gave the reason I have already read out in the answer. I do not know any other.

    Parknasilla Telegraph Facilities (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Post master-General whether provision will be made for telegraph facilities at Parknasilla, county Kerry, before the tourist season opens next spring?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer of the 5th of August last, to which, I regret, I have nothing to add.

    Marconi Agreement (Mr. J. E. Taylor).
    Mr. FRED HALL (Camberwell, Dulwich)asked what was the extent of the punishment inflicted on Mr. J. E. Taylor, staff engineer at the Post Office, owing to his purchase of Marconi shares; and were any other Civil servants similarly punished for dealing in these shares?
    Captain NORTON: Mr. Taylor has been reduced from the rank of staff engineer to that of assistant superintending engineer, the respective scales being £520 by £20 to £700 and £420 by £20 to £500. His actual salary is reduced from £540 to £500. No other officer of my Department, so far as my right hon. Friend is aware, has dealt in these shares.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would it not have been fairer to await the Committee's Report before reducing this man?
    Mr. HALL: Were steps taken to find out whether or not there were any other members of the staff of the Post Office who had information in regard to the agreement, and, if necessary to punish them; or has Mr. Taylor been made a scapegoat for somebody else? May I ask for an answer?
    HON. MEMBERS: "Answer" and "Put the Question down."

    Trunk Telephone System. (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General when he expects to have the trunk telephone system installed in Longford; whether he is cognisant of the fact that this installation was promised by the late Mr. Hanbury when Postmaster- General in this House; whether all the necessary formalities have been concluded and the people who signed guarantees were informed they would have the telephone by Christmas; and will he now
    20
    definitely state when he hopes to have the system installed?
    Captain NORTON: I am not aware that any definite promise has been made as regards the date of opening of the Longford Exchange. Owing to the pressing nature of other telephone work in Ireland, particularly the provision of the new Dublin-Mullingar trunk lines, on which the utility of the Longford service largely depends, I am sorry I cannot at present furnish an approximate date for the completion of the work.
    Mr. FRENCHasked if the Wexford and Dublin trunk telephone is now working satisfactorily?
    Captain NORTON: I am glad to say that although occasional difficulties are still experienced, partly in consequence of unfavourable weather, the trunk circuit between Dublin and Wexford has been working more satisfactorily of late.

    Post Office Savings Bank, Ireland.
    Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Post master-General by what method the names and addresses of farm labourers and other humble people who are depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland can be obtained otherwise than through a Post Office official, as the names and addresses of these persons cannot be found in any directory, British or Irish; and whether he will inquire how an outside agency obtained those addresses?
    Captain NORTON: There is no such thing as a list of Post Office Savings Bank depositors; and no one, even at the Central Savings Bank Office, could make a list of Irish depositors without consulting nearly two thousand ledgers, each weighing from four to seven pounds. Even then the list would not contain the names of Irish depositors who had opened their accounts at any post office in England, Scotland or Wales. So many persons in Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, are Savings Bank depositors, that any circular distributed broadcast, as was this circular, must reach persons who are depositors.

    Kensington School (Charge Against Assistant Master).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that on the 7th November the head master of W. school, Kensington, reported a serious charge against an assistant master named

    21
    M.; whether a number of boys had been debauched, and what steps, if any, have been taken to save these children from a life of vice; whether the offender has fled from the country; and whether a careful record of cases of this kind is kept, and proper steps taken to make it impossible for such persons to be again employed in teaching in this country, according to the Sub-Committee's Report dated 15th November?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am unable to answer the second, third, and fourth parts of the question. A careful record is kept of all cases in which charges of this kind are made against teachers and are not satisfactorily met, and the hon. Member may be assured that, so far as the Board's jurisdiction extends, teachers who are guilty of such conduct will never be permitted to teach again.

    Sugar Importation (Alleged Preferential Treatment).
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of Board of Trade whether he is aware that sugar in bags is carried from Hamburg to Goole in the steamers of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, transhipped at Goole into the railway trucks of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and carried through out from Hamburg to Manchester at a rate of 15s. 1d. per ton; that the rate for the same class of traffic, sugar in bags, from Goole to Manchester is 15s. 10d. per ton; and that sugar and other imported articles can, by preferential rates, be conveyed from Hamburg into Manchester cheaper than the same traffic can be brought from Goole to Manchester; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent this preferential treatment of the foreign importer?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have communicated with the railway company with regard to my hon. Friend's question, and am sending him a copy of their reply.

    Public Health Act (Islington).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the dead body of a girl, A. N., of Islington, was taken home from the infirmary on 5th May and remained in an unscrewed coffin for three days; that a woman and three children lived, ate, and
    22
    slept in the same room; whether the medical officer of health for Islington investigated the circumstances and reported that no action could be taken under the Public Health Act; and if he will consider the desirability of holding an inquiry into the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have made inquiries in regard to this matter. The facts were not reported to the medical officer of health until twenty-two days after the child's death, and he then investigated the circumstances. I am informed that during the time that the body was awaiting burial the family had the use of a second room for domestic purposes. I do not think there would be any advantage in holding an inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: If I supply my right hon. Friend with a copy of the printed agenda paper of the Education Authority bearing out the facts as I have stated them will he give the matter further consideration?
    Mr. BURNS: Certainly

    Children Act (Housing Conditions, Battersea).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the case of E. V. D., of Battersea, who has been rescued from a life of vice; whether he is aware that the officers of the Children Act reported that her father, mother, and five children under seventeen years, together with a married daughter, her husband, and two children, lived in a room with one bed; and whether he has instituted an inquiry into the housing condition of the neighbourhood and into the administration of the Health Acts by the local authority?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has not been drawn to the case referred to. I have been in communication with the borough council of Battersea in regard to the question of my hon. Friend, but they have no information on the subject.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from the officers referred to in the question, the officers administering the Children Act—passed by the present Postmaster-General—and see whether he cannot get full information from them?
    Mr. BURNS: Beyond the reply from the Battersea Borough Council, I have made application to the London County Council.

    23
    So far I have heard nothing from them on the matter; but I am quite willing to make further investigation into this case.

    Gold Coast Colony (Sentences).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Gold Coast Colony, recently, a white man named Evans, found guilty of stealing amalgam valued at £75, was sentenced to one day's imprisonment, and that a coloured man named Blisset, who had served the Government for twenty-three years, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment upon a charge of falsifying labour pay sheets for the sum of 25s., and the assessors in this case unanimously expressed the opinion that Blisset was innocent; and whether such contrasts of judicial decisions will receive consideration, with a view to the remission of Blisset's sentence?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt):I am aware of the cases referred to by my hon. Friend, and have already had before mo the evidence in the trial of Stationmaster Blisset. I am making further inquiries, and shall give the matter full consideration when the reports for which I have called are available.
    Mr. KING: May the man be set at liberty, or allowed bail, pending inquiry?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No; I could not suggest that from what I have heard of the evidence.

    Afforestation (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether any and, if so, what schemes of afforestation have been proposed for any districts in South Kerry?
    Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department have not acquired any land in South Kerry for the purpose of their scheme of afforestation. Only one suitable block has been offered in this district, and the Department have at present under consideration the question of its acquisition.

    Fruit Tree Planting (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked how many applications have been received for the planting of fruit trees in South Kerry; and how many have been complied with?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No applications for loans for the purchase of fruit trees appear to have been received from residents in the Parliamentary Division of South Kerry. Three such applications (representing thirty-five individuals) have, however, been received from the districts of Milltown, Killorglin and Muckross, and all have been granted subject to the Regulations of the Department's loan scheme being complied with.
    Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked how-many applications have been made from the county Tyrone for fruit trees during the past year; and what is the present state of the fruit industry in that county?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No application for a loan under the Department's scheme of loans for the purchase of fruit trees has been received from county Tyrone. From information supplied by the horticultural instructor for that county it appears that over 5,000 trees were planted by residents in the county under his supervision in the past year. The area under fruit in county Tyrone in 1912 was 586 acres, an increase of 94 acres over the previous year, which relatively compares favourably with other counties. The fruit industry in county Tyrone is progressing, and the outlook is distinctly favourable.

    Governor of Tasmania (Mr. Macartney's Appointment).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked who recommended Mr. William Ellison Macartney, late Deputy-Master of the Mint, for the position of a Governor of one of the Australian Colonies; was it done by any Australian State Government; and is it usual to confer such high appointments on gentlemen associated with opposite political parties?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Mr. Macartney was recommended by me to His Majesty as being an official of experience and capacity. I do not attach importance to the political opinions of those I select for Colonial Governorships.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: How many "Molly Maguircs" applied for this job?

    Colonial Office (Dominions Department).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the number of officials in the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office; and what number of rooms is allocated to their use?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The number of officials in the Dominions Division is eight,

    25
    and in the Dominions sub-registry seven, besides one of the confidential clerks, as the Noble Lord will see stated on pages xiv., v., of the Colonial Office List for 1912; to these officials nine rooms are allocated. This statement should be qualified by adding that a considerable amount of general business common to both the Dominions and Crown Colonies is dealt with by a staff common to both divisions.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand that these people belong not to a separate Department, but are detailed for duty from time to time; that they do other duty beside that appertaining to the Dominions?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, they deal with the Dominion questions.

    Imperial Reunion Association of Canada.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked (1) the total number of women and children who have left this country for the Dominion of Canada under the auspices of the Imperial Reunion Association of Canada during the year 1912; (2) if he will lay upon the Table of the House particulars relating to the Imperial Reunion Association of Canada, showing where in Canada the association exists, together with the names of different committees in Canada associated therewith?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no official correspondence regarding the association, but I am informed that since the association was started by the Winnipeg Industrial Bureau in 1911 branches have been established at Vancouver, Nelson, Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Yorkton, Brandon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton, Peterborough, Ottawa, Brant-ford, Montreal, and St. John (New Brunswick). I have not seen any complete figures for 1912, but I understand that up to August last 1,542 wives and children of men who had emigrated were assisted out to Winnipeg.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the importation of Irish store cattle into Scotland and England?
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to withdraw the restriction imposing four
    26
    days' quarantine on store cattle exported from Ireland to Great Britain; and, in view of the position of Munster and Con-naught in connection with the disease, will he at least take off the above-named restriction from those provinces?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department on this subject, and for the present I am able to say that the restrictions on exports to British ports from counties Londonderry, Tyrone, Monaghan, and parts of Armagh and Fermanagh are being modified, and animals will be received here from these districts under the same Regulations as apply at present to the larger part of Ireland. From Meath the export of fat stock will be resumed on the issue of the necessary Order by the Irish Department.
    Mr. FIELD: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will issue Orders to enable those regulations to take effect—will he do so to-day or to-morrow?
    Mr. BARRIE: When may we expect the port of Londonderry to be thrown open?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: It is a question of preparing and issuing the necessary Orders. It is a dangerous thing to make any statement in the House, because, as I explained before, statements in the House are acted upon by the people, who begin to move their cattle.
    Mr. BARRIE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in an interview, in Dublin, with the hon. Member for Fermanagh, intimate on Saturday last that the port of Londonderry would be open to-day?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed unanimously by the County Council of Donegal on 17th December, asking that a Commission be at once appointed to inquire into the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England and in Ireland, and expressing the desire that such Commission should consist of persons not officially connected with Departments directly concerned; and whether any steps will be taken to comply with this request?
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether, if a desire is expressed by the majority of those representing the cattle industry in Ireland that a committee of inquiry be appointed to investigate the loss

    27
    to that country consequent on the restrictions and conditions imposed upon the landing of its live stock in Great Britain during the Litter portion of this year, and to report upon the future prospect of cattle raising in Ireland in the event of a continuance of this year's regulations being enforced periodically, and to report generally upon what rules should regulate the transit of cattle from one country to the other, he will accede to their request?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have considered the matter very carefully, but I still adhere to the opinion which I have already expressed that no useful purpose would be served at present by the appointment of such a Commission as is suggested.

    Dominion Parliaments and Councils of Empire.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked whether, in view of the repeated expressions of opinion in the Dominions and the Dominion Parliaments that they, the Dominions, should be represented in the Councils of Empire, he will communicate officially with the Governments of the different. Dominions overseas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has recently sent to the Dominions a dispatch on this subject which we hope shortly to lay before Parliament.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the feeling which prevails throughout both this country and the Dominions overseas, some immediate steps can be taken with a view to the creation of a chamber to which all matters concerning the welfare of the Empire as a whole could be submitted; and whether he will, during the remaining part of the present Session, make some pronouncement as to the views of His Majesty's Government thereon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently said, I think it is premature to make any statement on this subject.

    Licence Duty (Applications for Reduction).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1911, for a reduction of Licence Duty have been received by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;
    28
    how many of these applications have been decided upon; how many of them have been granted; and how many refused?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One hundred and forty-two applications have been received, of which ten have been granted, seventy-four refused, fifty-four are still undecided, and four have been withdrawn.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this Clause of the Act is more generally applied in regard to the figures showing how it works?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only consider the cases as they come.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Having regard to the small number of applications, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see they are fully inquired into?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. They have been inquired into very carefully indeed.

    New Copper Coins.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the bad minting of some of the new copper coins; and whether he will call the attention of the Mint authorities to the subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If, as I presume, the hon. Member has in mind the striking of coins where the impression of the obverse die is noticeable on the reverse, I would refer him to the explanations given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for North Somerset in Debate on the 25th June last.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to have a few really minted coins placed in the tea room to show what the Mint can do?

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. BOYTONasked whether a letter is being sent to many auctioneers and estate agents by the secret Land Inquiry Committee asking them to say whether, in the district in which their practice is most extensive, there is brisk, good, fair, slack, poor, or non-existent demand by tenants to occupy shops, offices, factories, work shops, and other manufacturing premises; and if this inquiry is made with his sanction and authority, either as Chancellor of the Exchequer or in any other capacity?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have repeatedly stated, it is for the Committee to determine its own procedure.

    Tuberculosis Act, 1908.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that until it is definitely known what Grant-in-Aid is to be provided by the Treasury, Irish county councils are reluctant to adopt Part II. of the Tuberculosis Act, 1908, with its financial responsibilities; and whether he will take an early opportunity of intimating the amount of the Treasury Grant?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Irish Local Government Board are now preparing a circular explaining the distribution of the Grant, including the additional sum to be provided in connection with the provision for non-insured persons.
    Mr. BARRIE: When may we expect the circular to reach the county councils?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will inquire of the Irish Local Government Board. I think it is more strictly a question for the Irish Office.
    Mr. BARRIE: Will it be in the hands of the Irish county councils at their next meeting, which is 10th January?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will see.

    Regular Forces of Crown (Recruiting and Pensions).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with a view of inducing the best class of recruit to join the Regular Forces of the country, he can hold out any hope that he will, in the Budget for the coming year, make such provision as may be necessary to cover the expense which would be incurred if permission is granted by the Departments concerned for the non-commissioned officers and men of both Services, on leaving the Navy and Army and subsequently joining the Civil Service of the State, to count the years they have given their services to the country in the former to count for pensions in the latter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear that I cannot undertake to make provision for the purpose suggested.

    Soldiers' Leave (India).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet made his promised in-
    30
    quiry in reference to the memorandum on Indian soldiers' leave?
    Mr. ACLAND (for the Under-Secretary of State for India): The memorandum was addressed only to general officers commanding brigades in the Secunderabad Division and related only to furloughs in 1912–13 for non-commissioned officers of the Unattached List—i.e., in non-regimental employ—in that division. It made no change in the regulations which require six years' service in India before furlough can be taken, and had no bearing on soldiers' furloughs generally. Unattached List furloughs are allotted to each division in proportion to the number of men eligible, and in the Secunderabad Division there were eight furloughs for forty-six men. In view of the claims of senior men-the general officers of brigades were informed that applications of men under ten years' service need not be forwarded in 1912–13 as they could not be successful.

    Press Telegrams (India).
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked by whom the cost of cabling to England summaries of Indian Press comments in: the speech recently delivered at Cheltenham by the Secretary of State for India was borne?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Secretary of State, following the practice of his predecessors, is in daily telegraphic correspondence; with the Viceroy on matters of public interest affecting India, and the charge for the telegram referred to, as for all similar communications, was borne by Indian revenues.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the expenses of telegrams for political purposes should be debited to the public service?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask the opinion of a Minister.

    India (New Capital).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to proposals for securing the sanitation and amenities of the new Delhi by damming the River Jumna made by Sir Bradford Leslie; and whether they will be brought before the new Delhi Town-Planning Committee for their consideration and assistance?
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member no doubt refers to a paper on Delhi read by

    31
    Sir Bradford Leslie at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts. A copy has been sent to the Government of India.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the Secretary of State put them forward? Will he support these proposals?
    Mr. ACLAND: I will convey the hon. Member's desire in that respect to the Secretary of State.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether it is proposed to publish the Report of the Committee appointed to advise on the site and planning of the new Delhi?
    Mr. ACLAND: A copy of the Report will be placed at once in the Library. But it should be understood that until the Committee make their final recommendations the Report does not bind in any way either the Government of India or the Committee.
    Mr. KINGasked whether it is intended to set aside a site in the new Delhi for a cathedral; if so, whether the site has already been decided upon; and whether the building to be erected will be entirely raised by voluntary donations?
    Mr. ACLAND: The sites for buildings at Delhi have not yet been allocated. It may be assumed that a site will be set apart for a church. The questions whether it will be a cathedral church, and the funds out of which it will be built, have not, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, yet arisen.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board has recently approached the land lord of the Myles O'Mahoney estate, near Beaufort with a view to its purchase; and, if not, whether negotiations will now be reopened?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the]7th October, to which I have nothing to add. Mr. Myles O'Mahoney is only a trustee for the owners of the Sugrue estate.
    Mr. HAYDENasked whether the farm of Leabeg, with turbary attached to same, is included in the proposed sale to the Congested Districts Board of the estate of Sir N. R. O'Conor, Dundermott, Ballymore, county Roscommon; and, if not, whether the attention of the Con-
    32
    gested Districts Board will be called to the necessity of including it,in view of the amount of turbary, and to the fact that there are two tenants upon it whose valuations are, respectively, 10s. and 15s. per annum?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The town land referred to has not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board. The owners have been asked to sell a portion of the town land, and negotiations are pending in the matter.
    Mr. HAYDENasked whether the Congested Districts Board has received a memorial from the tenants on the estate of Mr. C. M. O'Conor, of Mount Druid, Bellanagare, county Roscommon, requesting the Board to exercise their powers for the purchase of this estate; and whether, in view of the fact that seventeen out of twenty-two tenants on this estate occupy holdings valued under £7, the Board will take all the necessary steps to have the estate purchased as soon as possible?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received memorials asking them to purchase portion of this estate, and they are now in communication with the owner on the subject.
    Mr. KELLYasked whether, seeing that the tenants of the Hayes estate, county Donegal, signed agreements to purchase their holdings at a reduction of 7s. in the £, to take effect immediately upon the completion of the agreement, he will explain why the Congested Districts Board are now collecting the old rents from the tenants up to the 4th January- next, as the tenants regarded the immediate reduction of their rents as one of the chief inducements to the sale?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. One of the conditions of the undertakings signed by the tenants was to the effect that if the Congested Districts Board purchased the estate the tenants would, when required by the Board, purchase their holdings, if unaltered, at prices which would give them certain specified reductions on their present rents. The Board have purchased this estate, and have not yet decided what holdings require alterations, and the prices of those holdings cannot therefore be fixed. The Board are collecting the old rent from the tenants this year as provided for in the undertaking which the tenants signed. All tenants on estates

    33
    purchased by the Board are required to pay full rent during the first year's collection.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will explain why the holding of James Harrington, Garryandrew, Edgeworthstown, on the estate of Barry Fox, a minor, for which he signed an agreement to purchase on the same terms and at the same time as the other tenants, has not been vested in him; whether all the other tenants have now got their vesting orders; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into the case with a view to the immediate vesting of this man's holding in him?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants. The majority of the purchase agreements were lodged in October, 1908, but the agreement signed by James Harrington was not lodged until December, 1910. The proceedings for sale were instituted by the trustees for the owner who was a minor at the time. He came of age before Harrington's agreement was lodged, and the agreement was signed by him as owner. The vesting of Harrington's holding will be carried out as soon as the necessary legal steps continuing the proceedings for sale in the name of the present owner have been completed.
    Mr. FARRELL: Am I to understand that this tenant is not being excluded?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, he is not being excluded. The delay is owing to the fact that the owner of the estate became of age between the time the estate first became the subject matter of a sale and this particular tenant coming to an agreement.
    Mr. DORISasked if the right hon. Gentleman can give a Return of the estates, if any, which have been purchased since the passing of the Land Act of 1909, under the provisions of Section 60 of that Act; and can he state why this Section has been ignored in numerous cases in which landlords refused to sell their estates through the Board or in which agreements as to price, etc., were not arrived at?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not acquired any estates compulsorily. Final offers under the provisions of Section 60 of the Irish Land Act of 1909 have been made by the Board in twenty-two cases, of which ten have been accepted by the owners and the remaining cases are still pending.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Have the Estates Commissioners acquired any estates there compulsorily?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think they have started proceedings for doing so.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked whether the occupying tenant in John Reilly's farm, Crenagh, Killeshandra, has agreed to let Reilly back on being provided with a farm elsewhere; when did the tenant communicate his willingness to take another farm to the Estates Commissioners; and will he have this case specially looked into?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners were in negotiation with the present occupier of Reilly's former holding, but could not agree to his terms. Reilly refused to take a holding elsewhere, and the Commissioners decided to take no further action in the matter of his application.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question which asks whether the occupying tenant has agreed to let Reilly back, and when did the tenant communicate his willingness to take another farm?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate with the Estates Commissioners and inquire for the date asked for.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked what further progress, if any, has been made to wards the acquirement of the untenanted lands of Clonfin, North Longford, on the John E. Thompson estate; whether he is aware that a year ago it was promised that this estate would be dealt with early in 1912; what is the cause of the delay; and when a definite order will be made?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate was the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, but the Estates Commissioners asked the owner to sell certain town lands, including Clonfin, to them instead of direct to the tenants, in order that the Commissioners might be able to carry out a scheme of rearrangement in these town lands. The owner consented, and the lands will be dealt with as soon as practicable in order of priority.
    Mr. LUNDONasked what amounts of money have been advanced to the tenant farmers of the county Limerick under the various Land Acts; and what was the average number of years' purchase paid under each Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Reports of the Land Commission and the Estates Commissioners for the information he requires.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether any purchase agreement was ever signed by Mr. Borland, of Anglesborough, county Limerick, who has been in possession of evicted land on the Massy property for a period of twenty-five years'?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 6th May last, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the cause of the delay in issuing vesting orders in the Brayrors estate, Tankardstown, North Kilmallock, county Limerick, Number B369 4; when were agreements for purchase lodged; and will the purchase money be advanced before the 1st of April next?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, agreements signed by the tenants for the purchase of their holdings having been lodged with the Estates Commissioners in October, 1907. It will be dealt with in order of priority on the Principal Register of Direct Sales (All Cash), but, having regard to the claims of other estates, the Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when it will be reached.
    Mr. DORISasked whether all game rights have been transferred to the occupiers of the Crimlin section of the late Lucan estate, county Mayo, purchased through the Congested Districts Board; and what are the present game rights, if any, of the occupiers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: All game rights on the section of the estate referred to have been reserved to the Congested Districts Board on resale of the holdings to the tenants.

    Appointment of Magistrates (Ireland).
    Mr. DUFFYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the appointment of magistrates in Ireland has given rise to dissatisfaction amongst the people; whether the practice at the present time is to submit to the Lieutenant of each county the name or names of persons recommended for the magistracy for his sanction or rejection; whether the Lieutenant in all the Connaught counties is a Tory in politics; and whether he can state what
    36
    steps are open to the commercial, farming, and industrial classes to secure a nominal representation on the bench in view of the fact that all names submitted are certain to be vetoed by the Lieutenant in question?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am of course aware that the appointment of magistrates fails to give general satisfaction. The practice is as stated by me in the reply given to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Donegal on the 29th February last. As I have previously stated, the Lord Chancellor is always prepared to consider in connection with the county magistracy suitable names which may be submitted to him from representative sources.
    Mr. DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that requests have been made to the Lord Chancellor to give some representation of the industrial classes on the local bench and that such requests are generally ignored and invariably some most unpopular and offensive man is appointed; and does he consider that such a policy is calculated to inspire respect and confidence in the magisterial bench in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not agree that such a course is pursued.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Chancellor regards it as his duty to submit the name of every magistrate he appoints to the Lord Lieutenant of each county; and is he aware that the Lord Lieutenant of county Donegal is a signatory of the Solemn League of Covenant?

    Shooting Outrage (County Galway).
    Captain CRAIGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a report of the shooting of Martin Henehan, a labourer employed by Mr. Golding, of Bawnboy, county Galway; whether he is aware that Henehan has been severely wounded by a bullet in the leg; whether Mr. Golding has been unpopular in the district for some time; what steps have been taken to protect him and his servants; and whether anyone has been arrested or made amenable?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that Martin Henehan, a labourer, employed by Mr. Golding, was fired at on the night of the 12th December and wounded in both legs by some grains of shot. The results are not serious to his health. Mr. Golding has been under police protection for some time and a patrol was on its way

    37
    to the house when the shots were fired. The night was very dark, and Henehan did not see his assailant, and so far the police have not been able to connect anyone with the offence.

    Bomb Explosions (County Limerick).
    Captain CRAIGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that within the past month two explosions have taken place outside the house of Mrs. Norah O'Shaughnessy, in Newcastle West, County Limerick, which explosions were caused by bombs constructed out of the box of a cart wheel filled with gunpowder; whether he is aware that the motive for these out rages is that Mrs. O'Shaughnessy has bought premises in Newcastle which are claimed by another person; that Mrs. O'Shaughnessy was summoned some time ago to appear before the local branch of the United Irish League, and refused to do so; and will he say what special protection is being afforded to Mrs. O'Shaughnessy?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that two explosions occurred as stated, one at the residence of Mrs. O'Shaughnessy outside the town, and the other at her business premises in Newcastle West, but on neither occasion was much damage done. I can make no statement as to the motive for these occurrences, which can only be a matter of opinion. Mrs. O'Shaughnessy received a notice of the nature referred to, but declined to attend the meeting as requested. All necessary protection is being afforded to Mrs. O'Shaughnessy.
    Captain CRAIG: Have any arrests been made?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Road Improvement Fund (Ireland).
    Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked what is the proportion of the Grant that the county Tyrone is entitled to under the Road Boards Act; and what amount has already been allocated?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No individual county council in Ireland is entitled to any definite proportion of the Road Improvement Fund. The making of Grants is in the discretion of the Road Board, subject to Treasury approval, and they are made upon applications from county councils after considering the circumstances of each case. Grants aggregating to £3,145 were made to the Tyrone County Council on the 19th September, 1911, 9th October, 1911, and 23rd April, 1912.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Has the Road Board taken into consideration the case made out by the county council to the effect that the roads have been very much cut up owing to the heavy traffic where new mines have been opened?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me as to that case I will see that it is laid before the Road Board.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
    Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked how many schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1906, have been dealt with in the county Tyrone; and whether the sanitary authorities are satisfied with the present housing conditions of the agricultural labourers and artisans throughout the county?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to page 10 of Parliamentary Return, No. 157, of the present Session, where particulars will be found of the number of labourers' cottages actually built and in course of construction, respectively, on 31st March last, in each of the seven rural districts comprised in county Tyrone. The aggregate numbers given are 997 built and twenty-six in progress. Since that date twelve additional cottages have been authorised for Cookstown Rural District, and an Order is at present in preparation authorising 134 more in Omagh Rural District. I cannot say whether the rural district councils in the county, who are the rural sanitary authorities, are satisfied with the present housing conditions, but out of the seven rural districts in the county there are only two improvement schemes awaiting inquiry.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.
    Mr. FRENCHasked if there is a proposal to wind up the Irish Constabulary Fund on or before the passage of the Government of Ireland Bill and to allow the entire fund to be absorbed by the Treasury; is he aware that dissatisfaction prevails amongst policemen and ex-policemen at the prospect of having their widows and orphans deprived of savings that were intended for them; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is no such proposal as that referred to in the first paragraph of the question. As I have already

    39
    stated, the fund is perfectly safe and there need be no anxiety about it on the part of subscribers. If the fund is not wound up at the date of the transfer of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the Irish Government it will remain, as at present, under the control of the National Debt Commissioners, subject to the trusts for which it was created.

    Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether there is any reason or objection which can be overcome to the reinstatement of Thomas O'Donnell, Drumconlester, county Cavan; what was the date of O'Donnell's eviction; and how many evicted tenants still remain to be dealt with in county Cavan?
    Mr. BIRRELL: O'Donnell in his application for reinstatement states he was evicted in May, 1895. O'Donnell's sister has been reinstated in the holding in respect of which he applied for reinstatement, and of which she appears to have been the original tenant, and the Estates Commissioners cannot interfere in the matter of O'Donnell's application. There are seven county Cavan evicted tenants whose applications for reinstatement have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by the Commissioners and who have not yet been provided with holdings.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that steps are taken to have these men reinstated before the spring is over?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have already said that steps are taken.

    Irish Local Government Act, 1898.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked whether, as a result of the Irish Local Government Act, 1898, Lord Lansdowne was saved a burden of £788 in poor rate annually; whether Lord Londonderry was similarly saved the annual outgoing of £930, which sums or somewhat similar amounts had been for generations past paid by the afore said lords or their predecessors; and will he state the amount saved to Irish land and town lords annually since the 1st April, 1899, stating the amounts involved in 1910, 1911, and 1912?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no information as to what
    40
    lands were and are held by the landlords referred to, or who are the tenants or what arrangements existed between these landlords and their tenants as to the payment of poor rate and county cess prior to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898, or as to the valuation and amount of rates payable on such holdings. For these reasons it is not possible to give the information asked for.

    Rioting (Carrickfergus and Belfast).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if the charges against the persons accused of rioting in Carrickfergus and Belfast were withdrawn from Petty Sessions at the instance of the police; and, if not, who were responsible for the procedure that has been followed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: With regard to the Carrickfergus case, the persons charged with riot, and since convicted at Assizes, were sent for trial by the justices at Petty Sessions. The proceedings in the cases at present pending in Belfast have been directed by the Attorney-General.

    Game Licences (Ireland).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked whether the Irish Board of Customs and Excise have departed in any respect recently from their practice in issuing proceedings against parties killing game without a game licence or certificate; and will he say if any distinction is made in taking proceedings when the alleged offence is committed on lands the property of peasant proprietors and lands held otherwise and demesne lands?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: So far as I am aware, the answer to each part of the question is in the negative. The hon. Member has been good enough to send me details of a specific case arising in this connection, and I am having inquiry made.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether any money from the million Grant will be advanced to rural district councils in the south of Ireland for the carrying through of schemes under the Irish Labourers Act; how much of the million has at present been allocated; and on what grounds has the Local Government Board refused to accede to the demands of those rural councils in the county of Limerick who have yet to provide for a number of labourers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The total amount of loans actually sanctioned out of the additional million provided by the Labourers Act, 1911, up to this date is £172,777, out of which £31,765 has been granted to rural districts in Munster. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to previous similar questions on this subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that the Local Government Board for Ireland has substituted a rule of its own for that laid down by the Labourers Acts for the expenditure of this £1,000,000 of public money, with the result that the money is withheld from councils entitled to it and given to councils not entitled to it on sanitary grounds?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I do not think that is the case at all.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the numbers in the way of cottages built up to 1st December, 1912, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the rural districts of Kilmallock, Limerick (No. 1), Croom, Tipperary (No. 2), and Mitchelstown (No. 2); in how many of these rural districts has the second half-acre been given; and what is the price per week charged the tenants in each district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the table printed at page 152 of the Appendix to the Report of the Local Government Board for the year 1911–12, which shows the number of cottages actually provided on the 31st March last, as well as the number in course of construction on that date in each district referred to in the question. The Local Government Board have no statistics of the number of cottages built up to the 1st December. The table indicated above also gives the other particulars asked for in the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of a circular issued by the Local Government Board allocating this money to counties which did not receive money under the previous Acts?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member no doubt remembers perfectly well that when the Bill was under discussion the great object I had in view was to benefit those parts of Ireland where this most beneficent operation had not already been carried on.
    Mr. GINNELL: And where it was not wanted. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Labourers (Ireland) Acts lay down the grounds upon which this
    42
    money is to be advanced and that the Local Government Board have issued a circular laying down other and different grounds?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I do not agree at all.

    Shooting Outrage (Whitegate, County Clare).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has been informed that on Saturday night, the 14th instant, shots were fired into the house of a man named Slattery, near Whitegate, county Clare; whether Slattery was wounded in the arm; and whether any arrests were made?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that on the date in question two shots were fired into the house of Mrs. Burke, near White-gate, breaking three panes of glass and slightly wounding James Slattery in the elbow. The police are continuing their inquiries, but so far have not obtained sufficient evidence to justify an arrest.

    King's Army Regulations (Church Parades).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the dislike of the present compulsory system, he will take such steps as may be necessary to amplify paragraph 113, King's Regulations, or to issue a fresh paragraph in the Regulations for the coining year, so that, with the exception of the orderly officer of the day, no other regimental officers shall be compelled by regimental or other orders to attend church parades on Sundays (including Christmas Day and New Year's Day); (2) whether, as kit inspections will be held only at such times as company, etc., commanders may consider necessary (paragraph 113, King's Regulations), such inspections, or full-dress inspections, are permitted to be held on Sundays, including Christmas Day and New Year's Day; and, if so, as these inspections, especially full-dress inspections, involve Sunday work, often leading to discontent and subsequent punishments, he will take steps to have compulsory inspections and compulsory church parades, except in cases of urgent necessity, forbidden by Regulations in the coming year; and (3) whether paragraph 113, King's Regulations, is strictly adhered to in all Cavalry and Infantry regiments now stationed in the British Islands: if not. if he will cause

    43
    such orders to be issued as will prevent Sunday inspections either of barracks or stables; whether the order stating that the holding of parades will be as far as possible avoided on Sundays include the compulsory parades known as church parades; and, if not, whether he will take steps to amplify the present Regulation in next year's issue so that it shall be made clear that the attendance of non-commissioned officers and men at Church of England or any other church parades is not compulsory?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): As under paragraph 1333, King's Regulations, church parades are compulsory for the men, one officer would not be sufficient, and further there would not appear to be any good reason for treating the officers differently from the men in this respect. In practice leave is frequently granted to large numbers of officers and men. I am not aware that the present system leads to discontent. As regards kit inspection or full-dress inspection, nothing is known of these taking place on a Sunday, Christmas, or New Year's Day.

    Royal Flying Corps.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether an officer of the Australian Army attached to the British Army has been advised by the War Office to learn to fly at a foreign school; and why this course was adopted, seeing that his doing so is calculated to divert Australian orders for aeroplanes to foreign firms instead of encouraging Australia to order from British firms?
    Colonel SEELY: No such advice has been given so far as I can ascertain.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether, in view of the War Office proposal that civilian aviation schools and aerodromes were to be encouraged by sending officers to learn to fly there, and by engaging accommodation for military machines at such aerodromes, any officers whatever have been sent by the War Office to learn at civilian schools; whether any arrangements have been definitely made for the accommodation of Government machines at such aerodromes; whether officers of the British Army have recently been sent by the Government to learn to fly at foreign schools; and, if so, for what ?
    Colonel SEELY: Officers are required to learn to fly and to obtain a Royal Aero Club certificate before being taken for a course of instruction in military flying, but it is left to them to decide where they will go to learn. Of the 111 officers who have obtained the certificate and have been selected for the corps 108 obtained them after receiving instruction in Great Britain at civilian flying schools. Arrangements have been made for accommodation for Army aeroplanes at four civil aerodromes, and the War Office is prepared to extend this number if other civil aerodromes in suitable places are ready to enter into agreements on the terms already arranged. No officers have been sent to learn to fly at foreign schools; I understand that one officer has recently gone to a French flying school at his own wish.

    Military Station (Longford).
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Secretary of State for War the reasons which determined the Army Council to close the military station at Longford; whether the decision to do so was come to with his knowledge and consent, having regard to the fact that in May, 1911, he wrote a letter denying the truth of a rumour then prevalent that the same was about to occur; who actually made the order in the end; and is it proposed to continue it?
    Colonel SEELY: The evacuation of the barracks was due to the absorption of No. 3 Company, Army Service Corps, which was quartered at that place. The absorption was not contemplated until the end of the year 1911, and was ordered by the Army Council on 29th February, 1912. The reason for the absorption was the replacement of horse by mechanical transport. The barracks are available for occupation should they be required, but at present they are not so required.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA (ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION).
Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, or his representative, whether he can give the House any information with regard to the attempted assassination of Lord Hardinge?
Mr. ACLAND (for the Under-Secretary of State for India): The House will have learned during the recess of the attempt to assassinate the Governor-General of India

45
on the occasion of the State entrance into Delhi on the 23rd December. With regard to the facts of the outrage, I cannot add anything to the full reports which have appeared in the Press? I am glad to be able to state that Lord Hardinge's condition has steadily improved. The shock was severe and the wounds painful, but his hearing, at first injured, is returning, and he has been able to see some of the members of his household. A small piece of metal in the neck still has to be removed. The news of the outrage provoked intense indignation and sympathy with the victims throughout India, which has been reechoed from the Dominions and from foreign countries. The Secretary of State in Council immediately telegraphed a message of sympathy to Lord and Lady Hardinge, in which I am sure that the House will share. Rewards for the discovery of the criminal have been offered by Government and supplemented by the chiefs and the public in India. No definite discovery is yet reported.
Sir J. D. REES: Has the Secretary of State received any information tending to show that this outrage resulted from the activity of any political party or seditious group in India?
Mr. ACLAND: No definite discovery has yet been reported.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has received a resolution from the Donegal Board of Guardians protesting against a portion of the county of Donegal being put under the Cattle Trade (Restrictions) Act, inasmuch as there has been no trace whatever of foot-and-mouth disease in that district, and asking that the restrictions should be removed as speedily as possible, having regard to the great injury done with reference to the cattle fairs held in Ireland?
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I desire to ask the Vice-President a question, of which he has received private notice: Whether he can give the House any information with regard to foot-and-mouth disease which may have come under his notice during the Christmas recess; when he proposes to remove the restrictions from the five scheduled counties in the province of
46
Ulster; and whether, in order to promote confidence between the English and Irish Boards and to facilitate one thorough and conclusive inspection satisfactory to all parties, he will welcome the suggestion that the English Board should send over a number of their inspectors to co-operate with their Irish professional colleagues at Irish ports of export?
Sir J. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Vice-President a question, of which I have given him private notice: If he can now make any statement as to when the restrictions upon the movement of cattle into and out of the county of Armagh will be removed?
Mr. RUSSELL: As the result of a conference held to-day with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, I am able to say that extensive alterations will be made in regard to the restrictions over the whole of Ireland as soon as the Orders can be prepared. I do not desire to make any definite statement until those Orders are ready for issue, because of the difficulties arising in Ireland from statements being made in this House being acted upon by the people before the Orders are actually issued. But I may state, for the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen from the North of Ireland, that we have agreed that the restrictions shall be removed from the whole of Ulster, with the exception of portions of South Donegal, of the southern division of Fermanagh—I mean the Parliamentary Division—and of Mid-Armagh. With the exception of those three areas, the restrictions will be withdrawn from the whole province of Ulster. My right hon. Friend has already announced that instructions will be issued at once as soon as the Orders are prepared, but I am able to announce, with regard to Munster and Connaught, that arrangements are being made. I prefer not to make any definite statement until the Orders are ready.
Mr. W. O'BRIEN: How soon may we have some statement, I hope a final statement, as to the Regulations?
Mr. RUSSELL: I hope on Thursday.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: How many weeks have elapsed since there was a case of cattle disease anywhere in the North of Ireland?
Mr. RUSSELL: There have been cases of suspicion, but the latest confirmed cases were three weeks ago.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Have not the English Department sent over inspectors who have agreed that these were mere cases of suspicion, and not of actual disease?
Mr. RUSSELL: No, Sir. No English inspectors have visited Ireland on this business. Communications have been made by telegraph, and we have been quite willing to receive their advice. We have been sending over the heads and tongues to the English laboratory; even if English inspectors had come across they would have seen no more. Only last week we invited the attendance of English officials in the county of Armagh, where great difficulties had arisen, but the difficulties have been surmounted and the views of the Irish officials have been accepted, and that has enabled us to remove the restrictions from a great part of Armagh. I beg the House to understand there is no friction of any kind between the two Departments.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: How is it that a part of South Donegal is alone excepted from the removal of the restrictions, having regard to (the fact, which I think is admitted, that in that Division there is no trace whatever of foot-and-mouth disease, direct or indirect? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the restrictions shall be removed in a short time?
Mr. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend is wrong. There was a cargo of ninety-three animals—eighty-three from Ballyshannon and ten from Enniskillen—taken to Derry and slaughtered there. Three heads were forwarded to Glasgow and traces of foot-and-mouth disease were found. That is the reason why South Donegal has been excepted from the removal of the restrictions. I can assure my hon. Friend that these cases are being anxiously watched every day; we do not desire to keep on these restrictions, which involve loss and great trouble to the people of Ireland, one moment longer than is really necessary, but as soon as every investigation has been made that it is possible to make, the restrictions will be removed.
Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Arising out of the reference to the restrictions in county Armagh, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the inspectors of the Department have found a single case of foot-and-mouth disease in that county?
Mr. RUSSELL: The Department has had ten inspectors, including Professor
48
Mettam and one of has assistants, in Mid-Armagh for the last ten or twelve days. The hon. Baronet asks whether a single case of foot-and-mouth disease has been traced. Experiments by inoculation have been made and they are not yet complete. We await the report of three or four inspectors. It is not necessary that cases of foot-and-mouth disease should actually exist, but the suspicion of disease renders it necessary to make inquiries, and this must be taken into account. I hope we-shall be able, very soon, to clear the remainder of Armagh.
Mr. BARRIE: May I press for a reply to the latter part of my question as to English inspectors coming over to Ireland?
Mr. RUSSELL: I have told the House that there is at this moment no centre of disease in Ireland. There is no case of foot-and-mouth disease, and why therefore, should I bring over English inspectors?
Mr. BARRIE: To restore confidence.
Mr. RUSSELL: I am sorry my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Council of the Department of Agriculture, should be a party to circulating the view that the Departmental officials have not the confidence of the people of Ireland. I do not believe that view is held extensively in Ireland.
Captain CRAIG: May I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the strong opposition among Irish cattle dealers to the proposed detention of cattle at both the port of export of Ireland and the port of import in England or Scotland, and whether before issuing any orders on the subject he will receive representations from those interested, and whether in order to promote confidence in English and Irish Boards, and to facilitate one thorough and conclusive inspection satisfactory to all parties, he will welcome the suggestion that the English Board should send over a number of those inspectors to co-operate with their Irish professional colleagues at Irish ports of export?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received notice of that question, and so perhaps the hon: Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give him a full answer, but I can tell him that when the final arrangements are made for restoring the normal trade between

49
Ireland and England, we believe it is necessary there should be inspection on this side after the animals have completed the voyage across. I am afraid I cannot depart from that arrangement, but it will be carried through without any undue delay on this side.
Captain CRAIG: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an inquiry by means of an independent Royal Commission or Departmental Committee, so that the general public may have some chance of expressing their views on this subject, in view of the extraordinary nature of the proceeding.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot admit that this is an extraordinary proceeding. It is a procedure carried out with regard to other diseases in every branch of the animal trade. I am charged with the duty of carrying out the Regulations under the Animals Diseases Act. This is conceived to be one of the necessary precautions against the importation of disease.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: What steps are being taken to prevent French hay being imported from a country in which there are hundreds of these cases of disease? What steps have been taken to prevent foreign infection thus coming in?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. We do not admit French hay.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: It comes in in another form—as packing.
Mr. FALCONER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he makes the final Order which he proposes to make, if he will take steps to ascertain the practically unanimous opinion of farmers in Scotland against detention at the port of landing, and whether he is aware that at the present moment a considerable number of farmers have large numbers of cattle detained in Ireland because it is impossible to get them across on account of the want of shipping and lairage accommodation under the existing restrictions?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the existing Regulations, I hope that they may
50
be modified in the immediate future. With regard to the detention to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it will continue no longer than is necessary—first, for inspection of the animals to see that they are free from disease, and, secondly, for resting, watering, and feeding them before proceedings on a railway journey.
Mr. FIELD: What will be the period of detention on this side of the Channel?
4.0 P.M.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think all that is necessary in regard to inspection, feeding, and watering before proceeding on a railway journey will be probably twelve hours from the time of the arrival of the animals in port until they leave the port again.
Mr. KILBRIDE: Before the right hon. Gentleman brings that Order into force will he see that proper, lairage accommodation is provided on this side, otherwise he will seriously hamper the trade, as at present there is not proper accommodation?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Lairage accommodation is being provided rapidly, both by shipping companies and railway companies, at both English and Scottish ports. I hope there will be no congestion on this side when the animals come through under the new Order.
Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not a fact that no disease has been found in Fermanagh since 11th October; and is the port of Derry to-be opened to-day?
Mr. RUSSELL: I think I guarded myself sufficiently on that point. The port of Derry cannot be opened until the Order is prepared and issued. I have telegraphed to Dublin ordering the Order to be prepared and issued at the earliest possible moment. I hope that no steps will be taken by anybody in Derry, in consequence of the discussion here to-day, to attempt to ship animals, because they will be stopped for a certainty.
Mr. CRUMLEY: What about Fermanagh?
Mr. RUSSELL: I have liberated one-half of Fermanagh—South Fermanagh, The other half will be liberated at the earliest possible moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PETITIONS (PUBLIC PRESEN-TATIONS).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I respectfully direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what I consider is a very serious inroad on the time, which is a strictly limited time, for interrogating Ministers? That time has been encroached upon during the last six weeks, day after day, by the presentation of great numbers of petitions. The rule under which petitions can be publicly presented before questions was long in operation before the limited time for questions was decided upon, and I respectfully suggest to you that you should limit the number of petitions publicly presented to a certain strict number on any one day, so as to prevent the time limit for questions being so unduly encroached upon. Sometimes it has been encroached upon to the extent of ten and even fifteen minutes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I ought to take it upon myself to limit the time that is open to hon. Members for presenting petitions publicly. That would have to be done, if done at all, by Order of the House. It is one of the few privileges which the public have. I remember that Mr. Gladstone compared the privilege of petitioning to the privilege of voting, and I should be the last person to endeavour in any way to stop that privilege.

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  First

  …

  New Clauses

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clause 1

  …

  …

  …

  —

  Second

  …

  Clause 1

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clause 2 to the end of paragraph (10)

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Third

  …

  The remainder of Clause 2, and Clause 3

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 4 to 7

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Fourth

  …

  Clause 8

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 9 to 14

  …

  …

  …

  10,30

  Fifth

  …

  Clauses 15 to 21

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 22 to 27

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Sixth

  …

  Clauses 28 to 30

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 31 to 39

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Seventh

  …

  Clauses 40 to 46

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 47 to 49 and Schedules

  …

  …

  …

  10.30"

  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask you, Sir, with great respect, whether you are aware that since Mr. Gladstone's time the privilege of petitioning has been abused by the presentation of bogus petitions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that has arisen first since Mr. Gladstone's time.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is my hon. and learned Friend right in suggesting that there have been petitions against Home Rule? I do not think there have been any at all.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would appear by reference to the Report of the Committee on Petitions.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  REPORT STAGE: ALLOCATION OF TIME.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move,
  "That the proceedings on each of the seven allotted days given to the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table:—

  59
  In moving this Motion, I may point out that the number of days to be allotted to the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill has already been decided by Order of the House, therefore the only question which remains to us to-day is the manner in which the discussion shall be distributed over the time so available. Under the original Allocation of Time Resolution, passed by the House in the middle of October, seven days were to be allotted to the Report stage of the Bill, but during the discussion on Clause 8—which deals with the constitution of the Irish Senate—I agreed, on behalf of the Government, to give another half day in addition to the seven days originally allocated. We propose that that half-day should be given after the discussion on the present Resolution comes to an end. That will allow full time to be given to the discussion of Clause 8 on the fourth allotted day under the Resolution. Perhaps I may here point out that the Government Amendments to the Bill, which are on the Paper, except for a few purely verbal or drafting Amendments, are all Amendments carrying out promises made by the Government during the Committee stage. Under the Resolution I am moving, the Government have attempted to allocate the time in order to bring under discussion the most important parts of the Bill, and also those which were not adequately discussed in Committee. They have also endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Opposition in this respect, so far as those wishes have been made known. We are perfectly ready to receive any suggestions which the Opposition may offer with respect to the mode in which the time is to be allocated.
  Turning to the Resolution, under the scheme as it appears on the Paper, a whole day's Parliamentary time is given to the discussion of new Clauses, that is, including the half-day which will be available to-day, and the time up to 7.30 to-morrow. If it be more than a half-day to-day, so much more time will be left. In reference to these new Clauses, I may say that so far as the Government are concerned, they are concerned only with two, the first of which, which I do not think can lead to any provocative Debate, is one put down by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, to deal with the power at present existing in the Irish Executive to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act; while the second deals with
  60
  the position of Trinity College, Dublin, and Queen's University, Belfast, which, of course, is a matter in which considerable interest is felt on both sides of the House. I observe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Down (Captain Craig) has an Amendment on the Paper, the effect of which would be to reduce the time given to Clause 2 from a whole day to a half-day.
  Captain CRAIG: That is so.
  The PRIME MINISTER: And proportionately to give the half-day that is thus saved to the discussion of new Clauses. [Hoy. MEMBERS: "NO."] I think I am right.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: That is quite right.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure whether that Amendment is proposed on the assumption that only the half-day which appears in the Resolution is to be
  given to the new Clauses.
  Captain CRAIG: May I explain? The reason for the Amendment is because of the important step which the right hon. and learned Gentleman below me (Sir E. Carson) and his colleagues have taken in regard to the Amendment to exclude Ulster from the Bill. As the time-table at present stands, the Prime Minister will recognise that it would be necessary to enter upon that important and serious subject immediately at the dinner hour tomorrow evening, whereas under my scheme the intention is that that very important subject shall have a clear day's discussion.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. I now understand the position. Of course, I did not know, at the time this table was framed, that that course was going to be taken. I say at once that if he and his Friends prefer that the discussion should be taken in that form, we shall accept his Amendment, and the result will be that that important discussion will be taken at the beginning and occupy the whole of the sitting. I did not know of that proposal before. Now I know it, I entirely assent to it, and will assent to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. That, of course, will contract the discussion on Clause 2.
  Captain CRAIG: That does not matter.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Amendment will have that effect. With regard to Clauses 2 and 3, under our proposal the time is so divided that an opportunity will be given in the second division, that is to say, after the break, for the discussion of any additions it is proposed to be made to the exceptions from the Irish Legislative powers. I pass from that. I will agree to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. The rest of the third day will be given to Clauses 4 to 7, which will allow a discussion on the Irish Executive. Coming to the fourth day, I have endeavoured to observe the pledge I gave, namely, that the first half of that day should be given to a discussion on Clause 8, which deals with the constitution of the Irish Senate. The second half of that day will be given to Clauses 9 to 14, which will afford an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Irish House of Commons. Coming to the fifth day, we first take Clauses 15 to 21, under which the financial scheme of the Bill will be reviewed. We devoted nine days in Committee to the discussion of that scheme, therefore we think, having regard to the proportionate allocation of time, that that will be sufficient for that purpose. An opportunity for a discussion on the Joint Exchequer Board will be given on the second half of that day, when we take Clauses 23 to 27. I now come to the sixth allotted day. We have put in the forefront a matter which has also excited a good deal of interest, and in regard to which debate is not yet exhausted, namely, the procedure to be adopted with respect to appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in connection with matters arising in Ireland. On the second half of that day we take Clauses 31 to 39, and we start a discussion, which was curtailed in Committee, on the office of the Lord Lieutenant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was not very much curtailed. I remember that I took part in it, in a very empty House, and that it occupied two hours, but I quite agree that points were raised that require consideration. On the first half of the seventh allotted day we begin with Clause 40, which deals with Interdepartmental arrangements between the two Executives; and on the second half of that day we start with what is undoubtedly a very important matter, which was also raised in Committee, and was reserved for further consideration, namely, the question of the appointed day, with regard to which the Government have put down Amendments
  62
  which I hope will give effect to the general? wish then expressed. I think, on the whole, we have made the best allocation of time, having regard to the governing considerations which I indicated at the outset of my remarks. I have made the concession which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) suggested, and if any further suggestions are put forward the Government will be very glad to consider them in the course of the discussion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No Minister has ever had so much experience in moving Resolutions of this kind as the present Prime Minister, and the speech to which we have-just listened is, I think, a proof that in this case practice does not seem to make the task become any easier. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that all that it was necessary for him to do was to express a willingness to allocate the time in any way desired by the Opposition. But I think a very much more difficult task than that rested upon the right hon. Gentleman. I know perfectly well that the House has already decided that seven days should be allotted to this stage of our proceedings, but the task which, in my opinion, fell to the right hon. Gentleman, and which he-has not carried out, was to show that in that time he was able to carry out the promise which he gave in regard to the discussion of this Bill both on the Committee and on the Report stage. The House will remember that in introducing the general Resolution the right hon. Gentleman, with a playful humour which is not his usual characteristic, told us that it erred, if it erred at all, on the side of generosity. We have had experience of that generosity, and the House can judge how far that remark was justified. He told us also ore that occasion that these Resolutions would' enable this Bill to be discussed in a far better way than the Bill of 1893 was discussed. He told us, amid the laughter of my hon. Friends behind, that unlike the-Bill of 1893, where thirty Clauses were altogether undiscussed, every single Clause of this Bill would be discussed either in Committee or on Report. That was met by laughter, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "It is easy to laugh, but I have carefully considered this statement, and ray statement holds good that every important provision of this Bill will be discussed in Committee or on Report." Then the duty, as I understand it, which fell to the right hon. Gentleman, was to show that that promise had been fulfilled. I ask the House to consider exactly to what extent it is true. Of the whole Bill 212 lines have

  63
  been discussed in Committee, and 1,434 lines have passed absolutely without any discussion at all, and the result of the discussion of the 212 lines is that the Government themselves have introduced eighty-four Amendments in Committee, ten of which only have been discussed, and seventy-four have been introduced absolutely without the smallest discussion. In addition to that they have put down as the result of that discussion fifty-nine additional Amendments of their own to be considered on the Report stage. If, as the result of the discussion of 212 lines, the Government find it necessary to introduce nearly 150 Amendments, take a simple sum in proportion, and ask yourselves how many Amendments would have been necessary if the remaining 1,434 lines had been discussed.
  But I do not think anything can illustrate more clearly the casual way in which this Bill has been put through the House than the reference which was made by the Prime Minister to his promise in regard to the appointed day. That refers to Clause 47. What happened? When that Clause was discussed my hon. Friends behind me spent a whole afternoon—I am not sure it was not a whole day—in showing that the Clause as it stood was utterly unworkable. The Minister in charge of the Bill—it was the Attorney-General—met every one of these criticisms by saying there was nothing in them, and that the Bill met the case precisely as it stood. He held on in his bold fight for Ireland, and was relieved at last by the fall of the guillotine. What happened next? The next day the same subject was introduced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. H. Campbell), and by an accident the Prime Minister happened to be present. After listening to the criticism of my right hon. Friend, he felt that the case presented was utterly unanswerable, and, disregarding the heroic struggle of his colleagues the day before, he at once promised an Amendment, which would never have been made, and which, he admits, is necessary if it had not happened that he was present when the subject came under discussion. Again I put to the House a question of proportion. If the Prime Minister had been present the whole of the time the Bill had been before the Committee, what would have been the number of Amendments which the Government would have put down in connection with that very Amendment? There is some-thing else which is worth noting. When
  64
  the Prime Minister said he would make that Amendment, my right hon. Friend asked, "Will there be time to discuss it?" Yes, certainly," said the Prime Minister, "on the Report stage." Under this Resolution as it now stands, so far as I can see, that promise cannot be kept. It is quite true this Amendment is to Clause 47, and Clause 47 comes first of a block of Clauses, but there are other things in that Clause besides the Amendment of the right hon Gentleman, and under the Resolution, as it now stands, this discussion is to begin at 7.30. But the Closure Division falls at 7.30, and twelve questions have to be put from the Chair. If, therefore, the House does not forego the privilege of voting, which is the only privilege still left, practically the whole time will be taken up in Divisions, and the promise given by the Prime Minister will not be kept.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will meet that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is just like the previous occasion when the right hon. Gentleman was present. What would have happened if he had heard the whole of the discussion and the criticism which was made? After as careful an examination as I could give to this Resolution, I say, and I do not think there is a Member of the House who will study the question who will disagree with me, that the time allotted for this stage of this Bill would not be too much if it were devoted entirely to the Government Amendments which have been put down. I have here a list of the Amendments made by the Government in Committee, none of which have been discussed and almost none of which can be discussed under the Resolution which we are now considering. I shall not go over the whole of them. I shall take one day only. It is the fifth day, and it includes all the Financial Clauses. What do we find among these Amendments? There is, first, the power of the Irish Parliament to vary Customs Duties limited to additions never discussed in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This Amendment was never discussed in Committee.
  Mr. BOOTH: The subject was.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: What I say is literally true. I do not say there was not some discussion of the general subject, but I say this Amendment, which we meant to meet that discussion, has never been discussed, and, therefore, there is no opportunity of judging whether or not it meets

  65
  it. Another Amendment, is no power of Irish Parliament to vary the rate of Income Tax except Super-Tax—also undiscussed. A third, variation of Customs drawbacks only to cover duty paid and expense of revenue restrictions. A fourth, provision for paying duty on articles taken from bond. Another, provision for duties on trade between Great Britain and Ireland when articles are not originally subject to Excise Duty. Another, drawbacks to be allowed on articles subject to duty passing from one country to another. It is not worth while even going over these, but it is sufficient for me to point out that these Amendments all deal with Financial Clauses which were altered fundamentally in Committee, that they profess to be put in to meet the result of criticism, that there is no possibility of discussing them on Report, that there is no means of knowing whether or not they meet the criticisms which caused the Government to introduce them, and that from beginning to end, while the Financial Clauses of the Bill have been fundamentally altered, this House has absolutely no means of knowing whether the alterations do or do not meet the criticisms which were directed against them. Now turn to the Amendments on the Report Stage. I will again only refer to one or two. There is, first of all, the Amendment in regard to the Irish postal service. If I am not mistaken—I have not verified this—a promise was given that this would be discussed on Report. If that promise was given it cannot be carried out.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no. It comes on the second day, when there are three hours for discussion. The postal service is nearly at the end of Clause 2, and judging by experience in Committee it is certain that this Amendment never can be discussed on Report. Anyone who followed the discussion on the postal service will agree with me that it was left in a state of utter confusion, but bad as the provisions were when the Bill was introduced the Amendment which the Government have made makes them still more unworkable, and criticism in this House has shown that they are utterly unworkable as they now stand. As regards other Amendments on Report, I turn to those in connection with finance, and again not one of them can be discussed on the Resolution as it stands. Here are some of them: "Powers of addition to Customs limited to
  66
  duties of a like character," whatever that means. There is a new Sub-section prohibiting the Irish Parliament varying Death Duties on the personal property of persons domiciled in Great Britain. Again, not discussed in Committee, and it cannot be discussed now. On Clause 17 there is a new Sub-section dealing with a subject which was discussed to a considerable extent in this House—the subject of the Exchequer Board and the methods by which it would calculate the value of taxes for England and for Ireland. Anyone who has followed these discussions knows that the matter was left in the utmost confusion, and that it was impossible for the Government to point out any way in which it could be dealt with. Now an Amendment is put down professing to deal with it. There is no chance of discussing it, and, in my belief, the Amendment does not meet in the least the criticism directed against it. In this same group there is another Sub-section, also the result of our criticism. The criticism was to the effect that the Irish Parliament might, if it chose, put on taxes which would be out of all proportion to the value of the receipts derived from them. This Sub-section is to meet that case, and the way it meets it—I can only refer to it—is to leave it practically to this House to decide whether or not the tax is out of proportion to the revenue. Here, again, this matter, as the discussion showed, was not understood by the Government, and could not be made to work. They profess to remedy it by an Amendment, and that Amendment never can be discussed in the House on the Report stage. The House will remember that on the Guillotine Resolution the Prime Minister said that every important provision could be discussed either in Committee or on Report. How has that promise been fulfilled? I have a list which it would weary the House to read, but I shall give them one or two examples of matters which have not been discussed and which cannot now be discussed. First, the conditions respecting the power of the Lord Lieutenant to withhold the Royal Assent. Over and over again that subject was brought up. Over and over again we asked the Government to give us some indication as to the way in which it would work. They have never given it. This part of the subject, the way in which the Royal Assent is to be given by the Lord Lieutenant, has never been discussed, and it cannot be discussed now. The power of

  67
  the Irish Parliament over Money Bills—that has never been discussed, and it cannot now be discussed. The privileges and qualifications of Members of the Irish Parliament—that was never discussed, and it cannot be discussed now. The number of the Irish at Westminster and how they shall be elected, the one subject which more than any other affects the United Kingdom—that has never been discussed, and under this Resolution it never can be discussed.
  The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman doubts it. It never was discussed. The point I have specially named, the number of Irish Members at Westminster and how they shall be elected, was never once discussed in any shape or form, and cannot now be discussed. Clause 26—the conditions necessary to financial revision and the manner in which Irish representatives shall come to Westminster. Here, again, this was never discussed.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)was understood to say it was discussed.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The point of the subject which I have specifically named never was discussed in any shape or form. Then we come to Clause 40—arrangemtnts between two Departments for the performance of one another's duties. According to the way in which that is made to work the Government can, if they choose, alter the whole of the Act. They can change the whole of the administrative machinery by which the Act is to be made to work. That subject has never been discussed, and never will be discussed.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I pointed out specially that it could be discussed on the first part of the seventh day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. That is so. It can be and will be discussed; but if it is, the subsequent parts of the same subject cannot be discussed, and here they are—the power of concurrent legislation with the Imperial Parliament—another safeguard never discussed and cannot possibly be discussed on the later stages of the Bill. And, finally—this is the last to which I shall refer—the power to make Orders in
  68
  Council adapting laws, which really means a power as great as has ever been given to any Government in the world. That power is given without any discussion at any stage of this Bill. I have not gone in any detail into this subject, though I have the material here which would justify me in doing so. But I have not done so for the simple reason that there is not a Member of the House, in whatever quarter he sits, who does not know that the House of Commons has had nothing whatever to do with the framing of this Bill from the beginning to the end. There is not a Member of the House who does not agree with me in thinking as I do that it would be just as sensible, that you would pay just as much tribute to the House of Commons, if instead of wasting these seven days the right hon. Gentleman had brought down a Resolution that the Bill should become law to-morrow. Everyone knows that under the conditions under which we are working the House of Commons has ceased to be a Legislative Assembly in any sense of the term.] ask the House to think for a moment what are the conditions under which this Bill has gone through, and what is the importance of the Bill. It is impossible to imagine any Bill more important. It sets up a new Constitution for Ireland; it sets up in effect a new Constitution for England, and in addition, if the Bill is to become law, it proposes to do what has never been done at any time in any country in the world's history—it proposes to use coercion to-compel a homogeneous community to leave a Government with which they are content and to accept another with which they are not content. This is the kind of Bill which is carried through by these methods.
  And consider this further, the moment the last stage of the Bill has been completed in this House, when the Third Reading is passed, the Bill will still be suspended in the air for more than a year at least. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Well, in all probability it will be suspended for more than a year. It will come up for discussion again twice in the House of Commons, but by the arrangement not one single line of this undigested mass can be altered. If it becomes law at all, it must become law precisely in the form in which it now leaves the House of Commons. Suppose that anything of the kind were happening in a foreign country and we were reading an account of it, is there a Member of this House who would not say that such a method of carrying legislation

  69
  was the negation of representative government, and meant the destruction of all Parliamentary institutions? Yet what are we doing, and why are we doing it? It is because the Government are attempting the impossible. They are attempting to carry measures under Parliamentary form when they are destroying the spirit of Parliamentary institutions. That is what they are doing. The Government have, I think, done a grave injury to this country by destroying the Second Chamber without putting a substitute in its place, but they have clone, as I believe, a greater and a more permanent injury by the way in which they have treated the House of Commons. The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am sorry he is not present—in a moment of expansive-ness let us see the inner workings of his mind, and I am quite sure that in this respect he reflected the opinions of all his colleagues. Speaking in Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this—
  "The Parliamentary machine was impeded by pedantry and garrulity. He turned into the House of Commons now and again when they were discussing tile Home Rule Bill and found a languid and an attenuated House, very few of the Members listening, and most of them waiting for their own turns to speak. All that was a great waste of time."
  It is an interesting speech. It shows, not only what the House of Commons has become, but what the Government desire that it should become. What is the use of speaking, or discussing, or debating? It is a waste of time. The only use of the House of Commons, under present conditions, is to act as a sounding board to echo the voice of any Minister, whoever he may be, who is chosen to give the decision of the Cabinet. I venture to say that if the Parliamentary conditions, as we now see them, are to become permanent, our institutions cannot be preserved, and, what is more, they will not be worth preserving.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I gather from the concluding portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that it would be in order to carry on a Second Reading discussion of this Bill on this Motion. [An Hoy. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am not objecting. I do not, however, intend to follow his example. I intend rather to devote the few words I have to say to the first portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which seemed to me to be strictly germane to this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has taken up the position that there has not been sufficient time for the discussion of this Bill, either in Committee, or, as now suggested, on
  70
  Report, and he says the House of Commons has had no control whatever over, nothing to say to, the framework of this Bill. But the moment before he complained of the fact that the Government are proposing very nearly 150 Amendments of their OWN, and he endeavoured to make out that those Amendments have not been and will not be discussed. Every single one of them, as the Prime Minister said, with the exception of purely drafting Amendments has been put on the Paper as the result of discussion and agreement come to by the Government. Everyone of them is in the nature of a concession to the pressure brought upon the Government, mostly by hon. Members above the Gangway, and to say that these Amendments have not been discussed, and that they are not a proof that the House of Commons has had a great deal to do with the framework of this Bill, is to make a statement that cannot hold water for a single moment. The right hon. Gentleman wants to make out a rule-of-three sum. He says if 150 Amendments have been the results of the discussions on this Bill for forty-five days—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Instead of putting the rule-of-three sum, as he says, I shall put a rule-of-three sum of my own, and I say that if the discussions of this Bill for forty-five days have resulted in the suppression of free speech, and in the impossibility of discussing this Bill, what does the right hon. Gentleman ask? If 150 Amendments have been produced after discussion for forty-five days, and if the discussions have resulted simply in the impasse which the right hon. Gentleman alludes to, what, I want to know, would be the fate of this House if there had been no Guillotine Resolution at all? If the House had gone on without this Guillotine Resolution we know very well on the confession of these Gentlemen that not forty-five days would have been occupied, but that the entire of the Session would not have been sufficient.
  Captain CRAIG: Hear, hear.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That is quite a candid admission from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who always is candid in everything he says. It is a candid admission by him that if there had not been this procedure Resolution this Bill simply would have been killed by talk and the length of the discussion which would have been pursued. The right hon. Gentleman says that voting is the only privilege left to the Opposition now. Does the House

  71
  recollect what has occurred? The principle of the Bill, that is on the question whether Ireland would be given, for the management of purely Irish affairs, a subordinate Parliament with an Executive responsible to it, has been discussed already for seventeen Parliamentary days. The question as to the powers which should be given to that Parliament has been discussed for five and a-half days. The finances of the Bill have been discussed for nine days, and in all forty-five days have been taken up by discussion of this measure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tremendous."] It is tremendous. The hon. Gentleman is not as old a Member of the House as I am. If he was, he would know perfectly well that if the discussion of a great controversial measure were to be conducted in the spirit that animates him, it would be impossible ever to carry in this House any controversial measure even in the lifetime of a single. Parliament. Let me consider for a moment what has been the fate of this Opposition whose mouths have been closed, and to whom the only privilege left is to vote. I find that up to this date 5,500 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT have been spoken on this Bill, and I have made a little sum on this. I find that allowing sixty lines to a column and eight words to a line, this House has already talked 2,500,000 words on this Bill, which is pretty good for a silenced and gagged Assembly. I am told—I do not give it on my own authority—that in the Bible there are only about 1,000,000 words. You have actually spoken on this Bill more than double the number of words in the Bible. This number of words will give about 4,500 words for each Member of the House.
  Earl WINTERTON: This is Irish humour.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: It is House of Commons fact. Of course, every Member of the House did not take part in these discussions. If they had they would have been entitled to 4,500 words each; but those who did take part in the discussion have got an average of 20,000 words each, and it was pointed out to me, as I was getting these figures out, that if these words were extended in one line that line would reach from Bolton to Ashton-under-Lyne, and the holder of the line, if he thought fit, would then have enough line left to turn right-about-face and start again to Bolton. That is not all. That is
  72
  not the total of the volume of discussion on this Bill which has gone on. If we had all the speeches made in the country and all the articles written in the newspapers with reference to this Bill, it seems to me that the line of words would extend from John o' Groats to Land's End. Even that is not all. I have only spoken now of the words that have been spoken with reference to this Bill this year in Parliament and out of it, but the House must remember that, after all, the Home Rule Bill in its main features and its main principles has been before the country for over twenty years, and if you add in the words that have been spoken from the commencement of this Home Rule controversy you would probably have a line that would go round the habitable globe. On the question merely of Divisions, which is the sole privilege left to the Gentlemen who have spoken three million words, they voted in 194 Divisions, and my Friend who supplied me with these figures has calculated that each one who took part in these Divisions has already walked over twenty miles. The problem with the Opposition, I respectfully submit, has not been that they have not had time enough. The problem, largely has been how to occupy the time, and it is now notorious that adventitious and surreptitious aids have been invoked to assist them in doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rosenbaum."] How else have they been able to occupy the time? They occupied a length of time in discussing and actually dividing against some of those principles of which they have always declared themselves the firmest supporters. When the Clause came up enunciating the continued supremacy of this House they spoke against it and went the length of voting against it. Similarly, when the question of two Chambers came up, they were the bitter opponents of Single-Chamber government and spoke against two Chambers in Ireland and voted against the proposal, and in that way it seems to me they were forced to occupy the time that was given. Unless this House of Commons is to become absolutely impotent, unless every Government, when its turn comes up, is to give up for ever all hope of carrying through this House any great controversial measure, some such procedure as this is necessary. It seems to me that the amount of time given to this Bill has been, in the words used by the Prime Minister, not only adequate, but generous. For my part, I feel perfectly certain that that view will be taken in the country.
  Sir E. CARSON: I only desire to add a very few words to what has been said as regards this Amendment by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot help thinking that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed us is a very fit prelude to the proceedings upon which we are now entering. It was high time for somebody to show up the whole farce that was going on in this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given a most valuable contribution in that direction. I have a very strong opinion that he did not write that speech himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name," and "Rosen-baum."] I think that it came from an Ulster Member below the Gangway.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I delivered the same speech at Ipswich the other day.
  Sir E. CARSON: I do not know what that interruption means but that he also gets his speeches for the country written by the same gentleman. But really the whole question that the hon. Gentleman deals with with such levity, I think he would take in a far different light if he had been night after night and day after day sitting in opposition to a measure in which he and his people at home were deeply concerned, and ho felt the insult and the aggravation that were put upon him by the tyrannical methods of the Government, and knew that those who had spent days and months in making up this Rill, and trying to understand it, and trying to amend it, were absolutely precluded from moving a single one of the Amendments which they had put down. There has been a great deal of talk about the discussion of the Clauses of the Bill. The Committee stage is not merely for the discussion of Clauses; it is for the discussion of Amendments, so that hon. Members may have a chance of putting forward in what way they think the Bill ought best to leave this House, so that it may bear upon it some impression of the work that we are sent here to do. To my mind, far and away the most important results of this Guillotine Resolution is that hon. Members who framed their Amendments—and some of them I know did so after a great deal of consideration and thought and a great deal of hard work—knew that they never would have a chance of putting forward any single one of their Amendments. There were not more than a few of the Amendments which were put down that were discussed, and there were 900 Amendments on the Paper which were
  74
  never reached or never discussed at all. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about the number of words that were used, but I ask the House—when we consider that what we are doing is framing a Constitution under which men are going to live for all future time, and which a great body of men absolutely detest—is that the way a Constitution was ever framed, in any country, not confining it to this country where the Constitution has grown up, not in a single year but in hundreds of years, all of which is now being abrogated and destroyed in many respects. The thing is absolutely ridiculous. Nine hundred Amendments have been undiscussed altogether; twenty-four Clauses of the Bill never were discussed at all.
  5.0 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Waterford, in his hurry to get the Bill—I do not think he will find it as easy as he imagines—makes a joke of the whole thing. Well, it is no joke to us. We have never treated is as a joke. We have done our best in very difficult and very adverse and very aggravating circumstances to try to confine our Debate here and the propriety of Debate when discussing this Bill. I remember, a short time after the discussions commenced, passing out after one Division on the Closure, and hearing two Libera Members saying, "They have not even go enough in them now to shout gag." No; that was not our method. We had resolved to try to discuss the Bill and the way we were met in relation to it was that every evening the answer we got was the guillotine, and now we are told by the hon. Member for Water-ford—I do not know whether that is his idea of the way he will run the new Irish House—that we have had a great deal too much discussion. Why he is growing almost more tyrannical than the Prime Minister's Government in his anxiety to snatch this Bill in the time that remains. Everybody knows that hon. Members have now met here with the object of getting away for a holiday as quickly as possible. They do not care one farthing whether this Bill is discussed or not. I have heard hon. Members opposite, and even to-day cheer the fact, which was a fact, that the House was almost empty during the dissions of this Bill, and Liberal newspapers have boasted of it. I do not think it is a thing to boast of, it is a thing which the House of Commons ought to be ashamed of. It only shows us that, under the

  75
  methods adopted all interest goes out of the Debate, no matter how important the Bill, the moment we know that at a prearranged time everybody will be here just to suit the purposes of the Government. I agree with one observation of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that there must be some limitation, but, as the Prime Minister promised us, there should also be adequate discussion. But when you come to see what is adequate discussion, I submit it must be adequate discussion relative to the importance of the Bill and not relative to the number of Bills which, by reason of the Parliament Act, you are determined to force through. That is the whole thing. What is the use of discussing it? Docs anybody pretend that if we were not to have the Welsh Bill as well as the Franchise Bill, we should have had this restricted discussion over the whole of the Home Rule Bill? Everybody knows we would not. The hon. and learned Member in his jocular way talks about the amount of time we have had and the amount of time that is wasted. I think he forgets that Mr. Gladstone when he introduced his Home Rule Bill gave us almost quite as much time as we have had over this Bill, and yet everybody knows that the time which Mr. Gladstone allowed was not adequate for the discussion of this Bill.
  Let us look for a moment at one or two matters in which, in setting up a new Constitution, we have not been allowed to have any voice, and we are not going to be allowed to have a voice, in addition to those matters which have already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition. I should have thought that one of the most important matters that we might have been allowed to discuss has reference to the constituencies of the new Irish Parliament. I should have thought that one of the matters of some importance to the setting up of any Parliament would be the constituencies which were to return representatives to Parliament. But that is treated as nothing in this Bill. We have not been allowed to discuss it in Committee in detail, nor will we be allowed to discuss it on the Report stage, because we are only allowed three hours, excluding Divisions at half-past seven, for the discussion of Clauses 47 to 49 and the Schedules. Is it right or is it fair that a Constitution should be set up in Ireland in which the constituencies who return the Members to
  76
  govern the Irish people are never to be discussed in this House? I think it makes a pantomime of their Constitution. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Supposing you brought in a Redistribution of Seats Bill to-morrow, would you give the possibility of a half-hour for the discussion of the whole of that Bill in Committee? You would take weeks and months in Committee, and necessarily so; and yet not one single moment is to be given to the important question of the constituencies in the setting up of this Parliament. That is your Constitution.
  And if ever there was a country which required mature consideration as regards the constituencies it was Ireland. In the United Kingdom you have a mixture of great industrial towns and centres containing vast numbers of people, such as there are in Lancashire and London, but when you take Ireland the conditions in that country are absolutely different. There you have an agricultural country with few industries, and those industries mainly centred in one part of Ireland—the North of Ireland. What are you doing—have you ever even considered it? You are giving to the boroughs in Ireland thirty-four Members, and you are giving to the counties 128 Members; so that you are going to have the whole of the industries in the North of Ireland regulated, ruled, and bound hand and foot by the agricultural constituencies in the South and West of Ireland. That may be right or it may be wrong, but it ought to be discussed. Yes; and do you think that a great industrial community, such as Belfast and some of the surrounding towns which are very closely allied to them—if there was nothing else in it—will allow themselves to be ruled by these small agricultural holders in the South and West of Ireland? The thing is impossible. No sane man would think of setting up a Government of that kind. All I am complaining of at the present moment is that the Prime Minister, doing no doubt his best with the time which he has himself limited, has not been able to find a single day, hour, or minute which he can give us for the discussion of this question. What is the condition of these small holders that are going to govern Belfast and the industrial classes of the North of Ireland, as well as industries elsewhere, such as they are? Have hon. Gentlemen opposite ever thought or set themselves to find out what will be the class of voters who would do

  77
  this? In Ireland there are 353,547 small holdings of under thirty acres. When you take those, with the agricultural labourers who exist upon them, and with the number of votes that come out of those holdings, you will see at once that the whole industrial community of Ireland will be absolutely swamped by the agricultural labourers and by small farmers, who are in a very little better position than the agricultural labourers. The whole of that matter has been left absolutely undiscussed. The constituencies in Ireland are to be left to be framed at the sweet will of His Majesty's Government. That one instance alone shows how absolutely ludicrous is the whole method in which you have disposed of this Bill.
  But that is not the whole matter. We have not discussed nor been able to discuss the constituencies to be represented in this House. That is to be done, as I understand, by an Order in Council. This House is to part with the settlement of the constituencies of the Members returned to this House. That has never been discussed. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford thinks it a great triumph that he is effecting by the rushing of this Bill—but which I have no doubt he is somewhat nervous may not get through for some reason or other—if he thinks this a great triumph of statesmanship—and the Government may think that it is also statesmanship—all I can say is that is not statesmanship, it is mere folly. You cannot set up a Constitution of this kind, with any idea of its ever becoming a working machine, or giving any satisfaction—putting aside all sentiment—without going minutely into those details. When the hon. and learned Gentleman makes a joke about the number of words spoken in this House, I would like to ask him whether he has ever calculated out how many Bills are inside this one Bill. If I wanted to joke about the matter I daresay I could, even far more truly than in the statistics he has given, have worked out 100 or 150 Bills, which are all included in this measure, and which are all, more or less, if this Bill ever becomes law, going to affect the fate and happiness of the people of Ireland. It is very easy to joke; it is very easy to make fun of speeches; but the logical conclusion of it all is that the House of Commons has ceased to be a legislative machine at all, except without discussion—that is, except without adequate discussion. We are not saying here that the time for discussion should not be
  78
  limited so as to prevent a waste of Parliamentary time. We are saying here that a Bill of this complexity, which the Prime Minister himself called the chief Bill of the Session, has been given no adequate chance for discussion, and that in framing his time-table the right hon. Gentleman has not considered either the interests of Ireland or the interests of the United Kingdom, or the interests of the people of Ireland, but has solely considered political exigencies.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. and learned Member has referred to the insufficient time which he says has been allowed for the discussion of the Bill, but my own strong belief is that it is not so much that insufficient time has been allowed as that the time which has been given has not been put to its proper use. The right hon. and learned Member said quite truly that the Committee stage of a Bill is for the purpose of considering Amendments with a view to so framing the measure that it may become law in the best possible shape that this House can give it. I entirely agree with that proposition, but the difficulty is that the House of Commons has for many years used the Committee stage, not only for the purpose of amending a Bill, but for destroying a Bill. I submit to the Opposition and to my own side that the House should recognise that when a Bill has passed the Second Reading it is intended that it should become law, and that in the Committee stage Amendments should be considered with a view to putting the measure into the best possible shape. If that method were' adopted we would escape many of the acrimonious discussions which take place, and would use to greater advantage the time which is given. For my part I think that the time is growing longer and longer that this House gives to important Bills. It is not that the Bills are more important than the Bills passed in former times, but it means that the method of discussion in the Committee stage has completely changed, and that there is a perpetual tendency to speak upon Amendments as if it were a Second Reading discussion. This has been to some extent checked by the Chairman, but it is practically impossible for him to prevent that, if the House really intends to have a Second Reading discussion, though usually it has been done by agreement, and, instead of devoting ourselves to the consideration of Amendments, we spend our time in prac-

  79
  tically continued Second Reading Debates., I submit to those who are concerned in the procedure of the House, as I am myself very sincerely, that the real difficulty lies there in the too frequent Second Reading discussion of the Clauses, rather than in not sufficient time being given to the Amendments.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: That is the result of the guillotine.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I think in some degree that is so. I do not think the guillotine is a perfectly satisfactory method of dealing with the difficulty, and I do not altogether like it, and I do not think it will ever be satisfactory until the time has been reached when the time will be allotted by an impartial Committee rather than by the Government of the day, but that, of course, is not under discussion to-day, and we are really only to-day concerned with the allotting of the seven and a half days which the House has already decided to give to the Report stage. I do say in regard to the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last that the real evil lies in trying to use the Committee stage to destroy a Bill which he hates, and so long as he uses the Committee stage to try and destroy the Bill it really is not reasonable to complain that he has not had the opportunity of amending it. The Opposition has largely in its control what subject shall be discussed in Committee and how the allotted time shall be spent. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out a very strong case, and in so far as it is true that there may be important matters which have not been discussed, I do submit that is due, not to the insufficiency of time, but rather to the way in which the Opposition has chosen to use that time. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a speech which was very full of contradictions. That is perhaps not unusual. He generally contradicts his colleagues, but in this case he contradicted himself more than once. In the course of his speech he talked about the dignity of the House of Commons, and that in the very same sentence in which he was appealing to another place to destroy the work of the House of Commons. I do say to him that what is really destroying, or tending to destroy, the dignity of the House of Commons is that Members of this House have appealed against the House of Commons outside the House of Commons, and it is not for any right hon. Gentleman who does
  80
  that, and who makes that part of his political armoury, to stand up and claim that he is a defender of the dignity of the House of Commons. Another remark which I think was made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the House of Commons had nothing to do with the shaping of this Bill, but he himself admitted that whenever the Prime Minister was here he had shown himself of a yielding disposition and had accepted Amendments. It does seem, to my mind, a contradiction to say in the same breath that the House of Commons had nothing to do with the shaping of the Bill and that the Prime Minister had frequently accepted Amendments.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELLmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the righthon. and learned Gentleman was not present-when his Leader made his speech.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I was.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It will be within the recollection of the House that the Leader of the Opposition said that whenever the Prime Minister was here he had shown himself of a yielding disposition, and had been disposed to accept Amendments, and the right hon. Gentleman even worked out a rule-of-three sum to show how many Amendments would have been accepted if the Prime Minister had been here more frequently. As a matter of fact, he was here throughout our Debates. I speak with knowledge, as I am one of those who have been almost always here, and the Prime Minister was here throughout our Debates except during the Financial Clauses of the Bill, when, as he himself stated, he delegated them to certain of his colleagues. That also, it seems to me, destroys the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the House of Commons had nothing to do with the shaping of the Bill. It is quite true that the Bill went through Committee with many undiscussed lines, but that was true of Bills in days when there was no Closure. I have been at pains to read some of the old Debates on great Bills of this House, such as the Debate on the Irish Church Bill and many great Bills which passed through the Parliament of 1868 to 1874. In the Committee stages of those Bills whole Clauses went through undiscussed, and quite as many in those days as go through under the guillotine. I admit those were Clauses which the

  81
  House had decided to let through without discussion, probably having considered them, but really Members fall into an error if they think that the non-discussion of Clauses is born of the guillotine. The effect of the guillotine is that we sometimes spend time discussing unimportant parts of Clauses and leave undiscussed important parts. That I have always felt about the guillotine and regretted it, but it is not the case, and it cannot properly be argued by anyone who knows the past history of procedure in this House, that there is less discussion of the provisions of important Bills to-day than there was even in what we may regard as the palmy old days, when there was perfect freedom of discussion for the House. The truth is, as the Prime Minister said, in introducing his Guillotine Resolution, that every important provision of the Bill would be discussed in Committee stage or Report stage, that that has been done. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last searched themselves and with the competent help they are able to command, and certainly have not produced very many examples this afternoon of matters which have not been discussed. They said they did not do so in order to spare our time, but we have got until half-past seven o'clock, and we would be glad to have heard of more instances. I do not think, as I say, that a very strong case has been made out. Every important provision of the Bill I believe has been discussed. I think some have been discussed over and over again. We have been discusing the great principles underlying this Bill and underlying the Clauses instead of the details, but that will only be done when the House and the Opposition recognise the real purpose of the Committee stage and devote themselves to it. For my part, I am no friend of the Guillotine Motion, but in the present allotment of time I think the Government seem to have done their best with the seven and a half days. I am glad that they have accepted Amendments from the Opposition so that the Opposition may shape the discussion as far as they can. That is only reasonable when the time is limited, and within that framework I do not think there is much to complain of in the Motion which is at present before the House.
  Captain CRAIG: I listened not altogether with astonishment, but at the same time with deep regret to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford
  82
  (Mr. J. Redmond). What we have complained about all through the discussion of this Bill in the early stages has been the unseemly levity with which hon. Members opposite seem to treat this subject, which,, to us, is of such great importance, find to the class of levity, unseemly levity unfortunately, the whole Nationalist party, led by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, seemed to cater on every occasion on which they address the House. I wish that some of those hon. Members who come down here and treat the whole discussion of the Bill as a huge joke with which to go back to their constituents, would only come up to the North of Ireland and see what they think of it—
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I ask, Is the general discussion still proceeding, or is; the hon. Gentleman going to move his-Amendment, which seemed to deal with the allocation of time?
  Captain CRAIG: I was merely dealing with one aspect of the matter. I am sure the hon. Member was one of the very worst offenders and treated this serious matter in a way which is disgusting and revolting to every hon. Member who understands the seriousness of the case. He is the worst offender in the House, and a man we despise for the way in which he tries to lower this Debate from a matter of the supremest importance to one which is a mere matter of jesting and joking across the floor of the House.
  Mr. R. HARCOURTrose—
  Captain CRAIG: I will not give way.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Apart from personal abuse, on a point of Order, I desire to ask you again whether a general Debate is proceeding or whether we have to argue simply upon this subject?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon and gallant Gentleman can move his Amendments at such time as he may think fit. In the meanwhile I think he is entitled, just as the hon. Member, to discuss the matter at large, and then he can conclude with his Amendments.
  Captain CRAIG: I have perhaps come from a different atmosphere too recently to address the House, and I shall content myself on this particular occasion by simply formally moving the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper, and the Radical party can take their Bill and their Amendments and treat them as they like.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to second the Amendments.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman made offensive personal references to me, but as he has now left the House, I do not intend to reply to him.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself now to the Amendment.
  Amendments made: Leave out"7.30"and insert instead thereof"10.30."["Allotted Day: First. New Clauses.…7.30."]
  Leave out the words, "Clause 1"I"Allotted Day: First."]
  Leave out"7.30"["Allotted Day: Second. Clause 1.…7.30."]
  Leave out the words, "Clause 2 to the end of paragraph (10)"[Allotted Day: Second."]
  Leave out the words "The remainder of" ["Allotted Day: Third."]—[Captain Craig.]
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to move, in respect of the Fourth Allotted Day, to leave out the words "Clause 8,"and to insert instead thereof the words "Clauses 8 to 13."And further to leave out the words "Clauses 9 to 14,"and insert in stead thereof "Clause 14."
  This Amendment is intended as a protest against the extraordinary arrangement that the Government have made in reference to this Report stage. For some incomprehensible reason, Clause 8, which is purely a discussion on the Irish Senate, a matter that is not of any practical interest to anybody, gets a whole afternoon to itself in addition to any discussion that it may receive subsequently, while Clauses 9 to 14 are huddled together to be disposed of within two hours after the dinner hour upon the same night. The seven Clauses that are to be treated in that way begin with Clause 9, which deals with the important question of the composition of the Irish House of Commons. That, of course, will occupy the entire two hours, and might very well occupy an entire sitting. The result of the Government arrangement will be to prevent any discussion what ever of two Clauses which I regard as perhaps more important than all the other Clauses in the Bill put together, with the exception of the first and the second. I refer to Clause 13 dealing with the representation of Ireland in this House, and Clause 14 dealing with Irish revenue and expenditure. In my Amendment I have
  84
  confined myself to Clause 14, which is the financial core of the Bill. I say that the suppression of all discussion upon a Clause of that kind is a perfectly indefensible and, so far as some of us are concerned, an intolerable proceeding. I do not like to use any strong terms that can be avoided, but it is little short of an outrage that the representatives of Ireland should be debarred from saying a single word upon the Clause which is the keystone of the whole fabric, and upon which the whole future of the financial relations between the two Parliaments will depend. It is an extraordinary fact that upon the night when the Treasury Resolution which really decided the finances of this Bill was under discussion, only one of the eighty-six Nationalist representatives intervened in the Debate, and that one was not the Leader of the party behind me.
  That is a fact which I think will be quoted hereafter with some amazement, and it is a rather ghastly commentary upon the Christmas pantomime humour to which we listened a while ago as to the superabundant discussion of this Bill. My Friends and I contented ourselves with one speech of protest against a financial scheme which, in our judgment, at all events, will deprive this Bill of any title to permanence or finality. I speak, of course, of the machinery of the Bill as distinguished from its principles. We resisted the temptation and the very strong and aggressive provocation which we received on that occasion from the Treasury Bench to carry on a conflict in this House throughout the rest of the proceedings on the Financial Clauses. We abstained from all further discussion of those Clauses; but I put down an Amendment to Clause 14 which I hoped would give us an opportunity of making one further appeal to the Government to recognise that the financial arrangements of the Bill are, and ought to be, of a temporary character, and to provide for their revision after a few years of practical experience. That is, in my opinion, the only condition on which these financial arrangements could be tolerated. The Government themselves have on Clause 26 opened the door to revision within, I think, six years. But Clause 26 could only come into operation in conditions which, to my mind, almost certainly will never arise. More than that, the provisions of Clause 26 can only be with a view to increasing, instead of diminishing, the Imperial burdens of Ireland. The Government concede a

  85
  revision which can only add to our burdens, and refuse any concession that might afford relief. I hope the Government will reconsider their time-table in this respect. It would be very easy for them either to accept this Amendment, which would be a very small concession indeed, or to pass at a swoop without any pretence of discussion a dozen, or even two dozen, of the minor later conditions of the Bill. At all events, we urge upon the Government that we are not unreasonable in asking that we should have an opportunity of submitting our views on the last occasion when the Nationalist representatives of Ireland will have any voice in the future financial arrangements of their country. I respectfully request that before this discussion closes, some Member of the Government will tell us plainly whether or not we are to have the opportunity for the brief discussion which we desire.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I beg to second the Amendment. The Bill has been vitally changed in the Committee stage upon the one matter to which I, at any rate, attach importance, namely, the question of finance. One of the chief reasons why I, for one, was anxious to see some settlement in Ireland, was to get relief from British Budgets. Our country, as an agricultural country, is wholly unsuited to them. You, with your vast ideas and grandiose exchequer, can afford the sort of Budgets that you frame year after year. To my astonishment, without a word of protest, as far as I know, from the Leader of the Irish party, a Clause was accepted putting our finance permanently for all practical purposes under the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Finance has always played the greatest part in every struggle for liberty in this House. It was because we were getting rid of British Budgets under the Home Rule Bill that we consented to our representation being cut down to forty-two Members. As my hon. Friend has said, we have never had an opportunity since that change was made of discussing the important question of the Irish representation in this House, in the light of that revolution in the terms of the Bill. Now, when a modest Amendment is put down by my hon. Friend (Mr. W. O'Brien) in order to raise the question—I do not say that the Government have done it deliberately, because I am sure the Prime Minister is too large-minded to descend to a manoeuvre of that character,
  86
  but by some mischance or by some want of consideration, that Amendment is being entirely smothered and put out of sight. It was not of a revolutionary or hostile kind. All it proposed was that this scheme of finance which, without any consideration for our feelings, has been adopted, should not be permanent in character, but should be reconsidered after a period of something like six years.
  The Government have made this extraordinary change in the Bill without reference to Irish feeling, and, as far as I know, without even considering the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), whose chief function now seems to be to act the part of harlequin when the Prime Minister gets up. He has told us to-day, as an excuse for his humour, that he had already made his speech at Ipswich. I wish he had left it at that. At all events, with the financial fate of Ireland at stake, as it is in this matter, I expected some different kind of contribution to the Debate in the shape of a demand for consideration on this financial question, instead of a computation of how many hundred thousand, or million words were spoken by Members of the House. We who are friendly to the principle of the Bill, anxious to see it work, and whole-heartedly desire a settlement between the two Kingdoms, have been placed in a position of great difficulty during these Debates. We were in a somewhat similar position when the University Bill was being discussed in Committee upstairs. The whole time was taken up by a couple of Gentlemen whose children were never likely to go to the university, and who had no concern whatever with it. Those who were anxious to see the Bill welded into some reasonable shape and to prevent it from becoming what it threatens to become abstained from speaking, because otherwise they would have been accused of assisting in the obstruction indulged in by some hon. Members from the North of Ireland, whose only desire was to kill the Bill. In the same way with regard to the present measure, they were kept from making a reasonable protest against the scheme of finance, which has, unfortunately, been adopted by the Government, because they would have at once been charged with assisting the general body of the Opposition. We have no desire to do that. We desire to help pass a good and reasonable Bill. I say sincerely that the finance of this Bill is putrid—there is no other word for it—from top to bottom.

  87
  The finance is the one thing that the people will feel. You may talk as you like about reserving the police and reserving this, that, or the other; but what the people will feel is the question of finance. What condition of affairs will there be when with this great boon which has been held out to them, which is to crown their joy and to restore their position after the misery of a century, they find themselves cribbed, cabined, and confined at every turn by the arrangements that you have made? All we say by the Amendment of my hon. Friend is that this financial scheme shall be temporary in its character and reconsidered after a period of five or six years. The Government, with that reasonable Amendment on (he Paper, have made arrangements—I do not say wilfully—under which that Amendment will be avoided; and the hon. Member for Waterford, instead of demanding for his country further time for the consideration of this important subject, treats us as if we belonged to Ipswich. We do not. Accordingly, my hon. Friend has made his demand that this question of finance shall be once more considered. Surely hanging upon and dependent upon that is the question of our representation. When Mr. Gladstone's Bill was before this House in 1886 I certainly was opposed to the Irish representation being continued in this House. I was quite content that our representation should be cut down to forty-two. I think that is reasonable—a reasonable settlement and compromise-though perhaps there is not much logic in it. But if the Irish people are to wait every March or April to see what is in the British Budget; if their representation in this House is to be cut down to something like forty Members, what chance will we have, what power will we have, or what force shall we employ in order to bring our case before the minds of the Government?
  Another most important consideration is this: It is not by arguments that Governments are affected; it is by votes. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is framing his Budget—I do not say the present Chancellor, but a future Chancellor—he will have to cut his coat according to his cloth. He will have to frame his Bill according to his majority, and if Ireland has only forty Members in this House what consideration will she get when these Budgets of the future are framed? They will not be framed from an Irish point of view,
  88
  unless the margin of the party majority should fall to a very small number indeed. Therefore, I do say in this matter that this question of finance, and the question of Irish representation which hinges upon it, are vital matters in the Bill—it is not matters of police, or of appointments, and not some of the other matters that are being discussed here at great length. Finance is the first, second, and third, and I might say the life and soul of this Bill. In the present state of its finance the Bill is utterly deplorable. You will not get a single authority in Ireland, no matter what politics they may be, to take your view as regards finance—not one. I challenge hon. Gentlemen behind me to get up now, and in the face of their country, say they are satisfied with the finance of the Bill. They are simply trying to smuggle the Bill's finance through the House of Commons. They are simply trying to avoid discussion as to its defects. We therefore, not in any spirit of hostility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—well, we have got to live in the country, and we have got to pay your taxes as well as our own. We respectfully put forward this very moderate demand that a few hours' time should be given to the discussion to be raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for 'Cork.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have perhaps for the moment forgotten what happened when we were discussing Clause 8. When we were dealing with that Clause in Committee a definite promise was made that half a day should be allotted to Clause 8, and it is in pursuance of that promise that we have framed the allocation of time. If we were to accept this Amendment we should not be able to carry out that pledge; consequently it is quite impossible for us to accept it. As I have said, by doing so we should not be performing the pledge given by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Clause 8 comes first.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, but four other Clauses deal with the matter, and if we accepted the Amendment I am afraid we should be open to the reproach that we have not given the half-day promised to Clause 8. If the Opposition are willing to accept the Amendment as a fulfilment of the pledge which the Prime Minister gave, if they intimate that to us now, we would willingly accept the Amendment. If, as I say, the Opposition assented to that

  89
  suggestion, we should be released from our pledge. It is only on that condition we could accept the Amendment. I point out the Prime Minister's promise in order to show that if it had been possible we might have been able to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The net result is that as we stand it is an absolute impossibility. May I point out further that the object of this Amendment—though it does not seem very plain—is, as the hon. Gentleman said, to get a discussion on Clause 14. I do not propose to follow other hon. Members into a discussion generally on the finances of the Bill, which has already been fully discussed in Committee, but I want to remind the hon. Gentleman opposite, when he says that Clause 14 has not been been sufficiently discussed and that there has not been adequate opportunity for such discussion, that he has selected the worst possible instance upon which to hang any reproach of the kind. If he will recall the matter to his recollection, it will be found that Clause 14 is a Clause that has had, in effect, five days' discussion out of the twenty-seven originally allotted to Committee; thus twenty-seven eventually became twenty-nine in consequence of the two days which were given, acting upon Mr. Speaker's suggestion, by which we moved the recommittal and reconsideration of the Money Resolutions. First of all, there were three days in the original allocation of time to Clause 14. Then, in consequence of what happened, two further days were given, and the result is that in respect of that Clause, and proposals concerning it, there have been five full days to its discussion out of the twenty-nine.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Was that by Irish Members? I pointed out that on the Financial Resolution, upon this vital question, only one of the eighty-six Irish Nationalist representatives was heard. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not prepared 'either to deny it or to assent to it. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assertion, but I have yet to learn that the power of argument depends upon the number of times it is repeated. To listen to one Member stating the argument is sufficient, and I do not know that the Committee would be more impressed by the repetition of the argument by others. I do not think it would be any use detaining the Committee further upon this matter, because it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment, in view of the
  90
  pledge given by the Prime Minister, from which we are not released by the Opposition.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: What is happening just now is an excellent illustration of the impossibility of attempting any free discussion of the Bill under this allocation of time. We have an Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, and supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for one of the County Divisions of Cork, the object of which is to secure more discussion on the Report stage in reference to the Financial Clauses, including Clause 14, which, the hon. Gentleman truly says, is the kernel and keystone of the whole financial scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General says, quite truly, "I quite agree that this matter is very important, and that your application is a reasonable one, but we have put it out of our own power to grant it." Why? Because, he says, "We have already agreed that an equally important Clause, Clause 8, is to get a discussion. That discussion will occupy the first half of that allotted day. Therefore, says the right hon. and learned Gentleman, you can only take what is left. What will be left will be three hours or less, from half-past seven to half-past ten. The Government therefore say, "We have tied our hands, as our time-table will not permit the granting of what prima facie seems a reasonable request." That is quite true. It is a very good answer—that is to say, it is a good answer for not yielding to the request of the hon. Member. But it only illustrates the way in which discussion in this House has been strangled, and will be strangled throughout the entire Report stage. Clause 8 is an important one. I do not say it is as important, I do not believe it is, as the Financial Clause. But it is an important matter, more particularly as there has been introduced into it the experiment of proportional representation., which up to the present moment no one inside or outside the House appears to understand.
  That is going to be tried upon my unfortunate country; it is going to be tried without having received either any satisfactory explanation or any very full discussion. Accordingly, we are going in the enormous and most liberal allotment of three hours to discuss what is a revolution in our system of Parliamentary representation; a method entirely novel and entirely original. The Government pride

  91
  themselves on the generosity that they have shown in giving to this House three hours' discussion in regard to this startling innovation. Then they say, having given that three hours, "Our hands are tied; we will not enlarge the time owing to our time-table for the discussion of these Financial Clauses being fixed." That is true. But I say it illustrates to an extraordinary degree the absurdity with which all our proceedings on this Bill have been up to the present conducted, and the conditions under which we are going to discuss this Bill on the Report stage. I can only repeat what has been said already by my right hon. and learned colleagues in the representation of Dublin University, that it is perfectly ludicrous to suppose that within this allotted period we are going adequately to attempt to discuss one tithe of the important questions that must inevitably arise on the very face of many of these Clauses. So far as we are concerned, speaking for myself, I would just as soon that the Government took the extreme course of passing the Report stage in one day, or half a day, than give us the ludicrous period under this scheme of allotted time.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Prime Minister gave a pledge to the Leader of the Opposition, and is bound to keep that pledge. But I should have thought that the Government might have been able, with the exercise of a little ingenuity and a little good will, to keep that pledge, and at the same time not to make the effect of it to shut out from discussion practically the one cardinal matter which arises. The Government have adopted a most arbitrary method in the grouping of the Clauses. The Financial Clauses of the Bill start with Clause 14. Clause 8 is the Clause dealing with the composition of the Senate. Clauses 9 to 13 deal with cognate matters, namely, the business proceedings of the Irish Parliament, money Bills, disagreement between the two Houses, the privileges and qualifications of Members of Parliament, and the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons and the United Kingdom. It, therefore, appears to me that the only method of keeping the pledge which the Prime Minister gave and at the same time not shutting us out from the discussion of the Financial Clauses would be to have in the second compartment Clauses 9 to 13, and to have put Clause 14 in its natural posi-
  92
  tion, namely, at the beginning of what are the Financial Clauses of the Bill. On the fourth day you have set down for discussion three matters, all of importance—the question of the proportional representation in the Irish Senate, the matters dealt with in Clauses 9 to 13, and you add to that this Clause 14, which raises the whole question of Irish finance, thereby not alone crowding the fourth day, but cutting off Clause 14 from its natural place in the Bill as the proper introduction to Clauses 15 to 21 dealing with finance. I think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is not convincing. It is perfectly within the power of the Government to keep their pledge to the Leader of the Opposition, and at the same time to give the Irish Members the opportunity which all of* them should require, and which some of them do require, of raising again for the last time this important question of finance, and that could be very well done-by grouping Clause 14, not with the four Clauses with which it has no connection, but with Clauses 15 to 21, to which it is really the proper introduction.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to consult those anxious to pass this Amendment, while at the same time religiously keeping the pledge he made to the Leader of the Opposition, who asked for a half-day for Clause 8. Would it not be possible, seeing how very important these Financial Clauses are, to have taken the end of an evening not dealing with finance at all, and at the same time to arrange to give half a day extra for these very important Financial Clauses mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken. Hon. Members from Ireland have done everything so far to expedite this measure to-which we take the greatest exception. I should very much dislike to see the right hon. Gentleman depart from the pledge for the full discussion of Clause 8. I think the Clause is sufficiently important to have an extra half-day devoted to it, and, if possible it should be taken by itself. The whole of the attention of the Committee should be focussed on the tremendously important financial question opened up by Clause 14.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid, anxious as I am, to facilitate matters, I cannot respond to the appeal just made. I am carrying out the pledge I made with regard to Clause 8 to give a half-day. If this Amendment were carried I should be

  93
  departing from that pledge. The hon. Gentleman wants an extra half-day for Clause 14. We have already given one half-day and I cannot really give another. In regard to Clause 14, I repeat what was already said by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, it has been discussed for five days. There is no Clause in the Bill which received so much discussion in Committee, and therefore I do not think at this stage that there is any Clause that has less cause for special consideration.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: We find ourselves in the position of a besieged garrison on reduced rations. We are fighting for the crusts of bread the Government are giving us. I could quite understand the conclusiveness of the Prime Minister's argument if you once assume his premises, and I might observe that one of the many arts of Parliamentary debating of which he is master is to assume all the doubtful parts of his case and then triumphantly prove the parts of the case which no one disputes. That is a familiar and successful Parliamentary stratagem. It assumes first of all that by the laws of the Universe he must pass this Bill, the Welsh Bill, and the Franchise Bill at some early date in February so as to allow them a month in another place and in the interstices of Easter fill in the usual financial business before the 31st March. Of course, if you assume that there is no alternative, that you have to get through this business
  before a date which ultimately depends upon the 31st March, well and good.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are now discussing a particular Amendment. We will resume the discussion upon the Motion as a whole later, and if the Noble Lord wishes to address himself to the general question he will have an opportunity of doing so when this Amendment has been disposed of.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I will not detain the House a moment longer after that observation. I was not going to deal with the general argument beyond this that it is not fair to the argument of my hon. Friends to assume that there is no way out of the difficulty. The obstacle is of the Government's own making, and there is a way out if they wish to find it.
  Mr. GILHOOLY: I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider his attitude towards this Amendment. The Financial Clauses are regarded in Ireland as of vital importance. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has given a promise with regard to Clause 8, but that need not prevent him if he wished to give more time to the discussions of the Financial Clauses. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on this Amendment as a protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter.
  Question put, "That the words ' Clause-8' stand part of the Table."
  The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 123.

  Division No. 471.]

  AYES.

  [6.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Alden, Percy

  Clough, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Arnold, Sydney

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Field, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finshury, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Furness, Stephen

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crooks, William

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gill, A. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cullinan, John

  Ginnell, Laurence

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Bethell, Sir J.H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Boland, John Pius

  Delany, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Dillon, John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hackett, John

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Doris, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duffy, William J.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Slid)

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, James

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison, Hector

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Muldoon, John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Munro, R.

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

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Shortt, Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O Doherty, Philip

  Snowden, Philip

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Dowd, John

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ogden, Fred

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O Grady, James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Sutton, John E.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durfiam)

  Joyce, Michael

  O Malley, William

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O' Shaughnessy P. J.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.J

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Leach, Charles

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  London, Thomas

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Webb, H.

  Lynch, A. A

  Radford, G. H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  McGhee, Richard

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

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

  Robertson, Sir Scott (Bradford)

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Molloy, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chambers, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gardner, Ernest

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Barnston, Harry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bird, Alfred

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gretton, John

  Blair, Reginald

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Guiney, Patrick

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Croft, H. P.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hamilton, Marques of (Londonderry)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Byles. Sir William Pollard

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

  Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cassel, Felix

  Fell, Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  96

  97

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

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

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Newton. Harry Kottingham

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  lane-Fox, G. R.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  louche, George Alexander

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

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Locker, Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C (Droitwich)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Winterton, Earl

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Worthlngton-Evans, L.

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Starkey, John Ralph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Maurice Healy and Mr. Gilhooly.

  Moore, William

  Swift, Rigby

  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move to leave out"10.30"["Clauses 47 to 49 and Schedules 10.30"], and to insert instead thereof "12.0."
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I wish to tender to the House something in the nature of a personal explanation. Hon. Members will recollect that when the Amendments were being discussed the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig) made some personal reference to myself which I desired to answer at the time, but owing to the Rules of our procedure, and as the hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving an Amendment, I was unable to do so, and I am now taking the only opportunity left to me. The hon. and gallant Member referred to my intervention in the Debate, and stated that I had been guilty of approaching this question something in the nature of a spirit of frivolity and mockery in my treatment of a question which I know lies near to the hon. and gallant Member's heart, and that is the question of Ulster. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would be able to prove that contention. While he was speaking I picked up a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT dealing with the Committee stage with which I had provided myself for the purpose of speaking on the main question of the Guillotine Resolution, and I referred to the contribution I made to the Debate during that discussion. On the sixth allotted day the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh spoke, and I will quote from his speech as an example of the charges which are, in my opinion, rather imprudently made against hon. Members on this side of the House, that we approach these discussions in a spirit of frivolity and mockery. The hon. And learned Member for North Armagh
  98
  was making what I am bound to say was a somewhat provocative speech, and he said:—
  "We are quite willing and ready to safeguard ourselves when a cowardly Government, in subservient obedience to the Irish vote, is going to filch our liberty and property from us."
  I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that that was an observation which lends itself to retaliation. When the hon. and learned Member sat down I had an opportunity of addressing the House, and I said:
  "The hon. and learned Member opposite speaks from his experience, and his opinions are entitled to absolute respect in this House."
  I think hon. Members will agree that they have seldom heard a more mealy-mouthed intervention in response to a somewhat provocative speech than that. I regret that I have had to detain the House with two minutes of a personal explanation, but I desire to say that we on this side would regard it as a grave disaster if we entered upon the discussion of the Report stage in anything but a spirit of conciliation. Hon. ' Members opposite, when speaking upon the Main Question, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, have said that the Government would have done equally well if, instead of providing seven or seven and a half days for the consideration of the Report stage they had moved that the Bill be now passed into law, or that it be read a third time. Apparently they have left out of sight the fact that the question of Ulster, the dominant question in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, has been discussed at considerable length outside the operation of the Guillotine Resolution. I do not refer merely to the First or Second Reading, but it will be within the recollection of the House that the most important Amendment dealing with the exclusion of four Ulster counties was given three days' discussion, and I think I shall be well within

  99
  the mark when I say that on the third day all legitimate discussion was well exhausted. I think the hon. Member for East Down has been unfair not only to myself, but to hon. Members generally on this side, because the Amendments which he moved received perfectly fair treatment, and were received in a reasonable spirit with the object of getting this great capital question discussed at a proper time of day when even' argument advanced could receive due consideration from the Government. I think the hon. Member should recollect that his Amendments were immediately accepted by the Prime Minister in a spirit of conciliation. When for the first time Ulster makes, as we understand, a definite proposition, we are perfectly ready to consider it—indeed, we are eagerly and anxiously awaiting the observations and the arguments on this subject which will fall from hon. Gentlemen opposite even at this late stage of the discussion. I apologise once again for introducing a personal matter into this discussion, and I regret it all the more because we are extremely anxious to get on with the consideration of the remaining portions of the Bill, and I certainly believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have no title to complain of our arguments going for a moment outside the realms of order.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am glad the hon. Member opposite has thrown out so fair a promise of a conciliatory spirit and a reasonable line of argument. I am bound to say that there are a certain number of hon. Gentlemen opposite who, throughout all these Debates, have certainly been exceedingly fair in hearing such arguments as we were allowed to present, although the time was not very long. I must say also that there have been a certain number of hon. Members who very rarely come into the House, and when they do come in they have brought to the Debate a spirit of levity which those who sit on this side certainly have not displayed, and which I think is very ill-timed and out of place. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) made an interesting contribution to the Debate. I have heard him make a number of speeches upon Guillotine Motions, and I think he has always prefaced his remarks and has never been ashamed to acknowledge that he dislikes the guillotine altogether.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Hear, hear.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: And so-do I, but I am bound to add that I cannot charge my memory with any occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has so far allowed his dislike of the guillotine to carry him into the Division Lobby against it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: May I point out that we are not now really discussing the Guillotine Motion? We have decided already to allot seven and a half days to the discussion of the Report stage of this-Bill, and we are now merely discussing how the seven and a half days can be best allotted.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman would have been entitled to say that but for the proceedings during the last half-hour, which was taken up by an Amendment proposing a reallocation of the time, and when the Prime Minister resisted that proposal one of my hon. Friends suggested that the way out of the difficulty was to give an extra non-allotted day. The hon. Gentleman has just been voting against that. I say, frankly, when the kangaroo was originally instituted, I was one of those who viewed it with great suspicion, but I am bound to say it is, in my opinion, infinitely preferable to the guillotine, and I still believe, even in the case of a highly controversial Bill, that by the ordinary methods of the Closure and the Kangaroo you could get a far more fair and reasonable discussion.
  It is said we have not been able to show that by the Government's proposed allocation of time any substantial injustice will be done to the Opposition, and I should like to go through the proposed time-table and see how we actually stand. It would not be fair to the Government to call into question their arrangements with regard to Clauses 2 and 3, because, owing to Parliamentary necessities, it is certainly highly desirable that the discussion on Clause I should commence at the beginning of a Parliamentary day. Therefore, if this Procrustean bed of the Government is to exist, it is quite true the discussion of Clauses 2 and 3 must be squeezed into a smaller amount of time. I do not, therefore, make any complaint about that. That disposes of two and a half allotted days, and we come to the third allotted day, when three hours are to be given in the evening to Clauses 4

  101
  to 7. I invite the attention of the Prime Minister to this, because he said all the important points in the Bill had either received, or were going to receive, full and adequate discussion. What are Clauses 4 to 7? They comprise the Irish Executive, the position of the Lord Lieutenant at the head of the Executive, the position of Irish Ministers, who are to be Irish Ministers, and their relation to the Lord Lieutenant, and all the provisions with regard to the different transferable services, of which the Royal Irish Constabulary is the only one which has at present been discussed, and that only partially.
  The PRIME MINISTER: And land purchase.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I agree. The transfer of land purchase was discussed on Clause 2. I had forgotten that, and I make the correction. Then there is the Veto of the Lord Lieutenant, on which we have only had a partial discussion. All that is comprised in this compartment, and it is to be disposed of in three hours. It is suggested we have had sufficient discussion. These four Clauses consist of 104 lines; sixteen of them were discussed in Committee, and eighty-eight of them have never had a word of discussion at all, and apparently under the scheme of the Government they are never likely to receive one word of discussion. The first three and a half hours of the fourth allotted day are taken up with Clause 8. That is in accordance with the promise made to the Opposition, and I do not, therefore, complain about it. Clause 8 contains thirty-one lines, and in Committee only five were discussed, leaving twenty-six to be discussed in half a day. Let me call attention to the evening of the fourth day, when Clauses 0 to 14 are to be discussed. Those Clauses comprise a somewhat interesting collection of provisions, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's idea that all important points are going to receive full and ample discussion. There is the Irish House of Commons, the position of Money Bills, and the relations between the two Houses of Parliament in Ireland, the whole of the Parliament Act for Ireland, the qualifications of Members of Parliament and their privileges, the question of the Irish at Westminster, and the question of the Transferred Sum. That is not a light Budget to be got through in three hours. Those six Clauses
  102
  contain 165 lines, of which the large total of twenty-five have been discussed in Committee, leaving 140 undiscussed altogether, including the whole of Clause 10, which deals with Money Bills and the relations between the two Irish Houses, and the whole of Clause 12. It is quite obvious, therefore, that neither Clause 10 nor Clause 12 will ever receive one single word of discussion in this House.
  I go on to the fifth day. In the afternoon Clauses 15 to 21 are to be taken. That, the right hon. Gentleman says, is finance. Let the House hear a little about what is comprised in those Clauses. There is the question of the powers of taxation, the relations between Great Britain and Ireland as to Customs and Excise, the calculation of revenue, charges on the Land Purchase Guarantee Fund, the disposal of the Development Fund, the disposal of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, the provision for an Irish Exchequer, and the Audit of Irish Accounts. That is all to be done in three and a-half hours. There are at least two exceedingly important Amendments to Clause 17, standing in the name of the Government, which cannot by any conceivable chance be discussed. One has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend, and the other is remarkable inasmuch as it provides—if I gather its meaning rightly—that this House is to have the power from time to time, if an Irish tax is costing too much to collect, of saying the Irish Parliament is to be saddled with the cost of collecting it. That is a remarkable provision to go through without one single word of discussion. This compartment, Clauses 15 to 21, comprises 265 lines. How many does the House think we discussed in Committee? I make a liberal estimate and I say seven, leaving 258 lines absolutely undiscussed, including the whole of Clauses 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21; and, let me observe further, if it had not been for the fact that the Government refrained from moving their own Amendments, even Clause 17 would not have received any discussion in Committee, because all the time left for the block of Clauses 17 to 21 was the fragment of one hour left to us after we had been engaged in discussing and dividing upon Government Amendments to Clauses 15 and 16. I say it is a perfect scandal, and it really is hardly consistent with the facts to suggest in relation to this block of Clauses that we have had anything approaching to an adequate opportunity of discussion.

  103
  I do not think the case is any better with regard to the afternoon of the fifth day, when Clauses 22 to 27 are to be taken. They comprise the Joint Exchequer Board, Irish loans, and what is the true Irish revenue. The Government's own official experts said it was absolutely impossible to decide what was the true revenue of Ireland. That has all to be decided along with other matters and the important question of revision coining upon the "happy day" in three hours. Those Clauses comprise ninety-six lines; eight of them were discussed in Committee; and eighty-eight of them have never been discussed at all, including the whole of Clauses 23 and 25, and, I may add, a most remarkable Government Amendment to Clause 26, which appears on the Paper, and which will obviously never receive a word of discussion, though, as far as I can understand, it empowers the Crown by Order in Council—that means the Government of the day—to select who shall be Members of the House of Commons for certain purposes. That is the most remarkable provision which has ever yet been proposed by any Government in any Act of Parliament, and, if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that proposal will go into the Bill without one single word of discussion, and once it is in the Bill it can never be taken out again if the Parliament Act is to have that operation which hon. Members want. I think that is a sufficiently remarkable provision at all events to be worthy of a word or two of discussion, even under the present regime. The next compartment is Clauses 28 to 30. They comprise sixty-nine lines; only nine were discussed in Committee, leaving sixty without discussion, including the whole of Clause 28. They get three and a half hours.
  Clauses 31 to 39 comprising the Lord Lientenant, existing judges, and persons having salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund, existing laws and institutions, and Crown lands, are to be disposed of in three hours. This is a block of which the Government might very fairly say an unusually large proportion received some discussion in Committee. The block comprises 252 lines, of which no less than 130 were discussed in Committee, leaving only 122 lines undiscussed; but those 122 lines, it ought to be added, include the whole of Clauses 32, 34, 35, 36, and 39, so the result is not as creditable to the Government as might be thought. On the last allotted day we are to deal in the afternoon in
  104
  three and a half hours, with the arrangements between Departments in England and Ireland, with concurrent legislation, with the reduction of Irish representation at Westminster, with advances to the Irish Government, and with any adaptations in little things like existing laws and institutions which may require to be made by Order in Council. Those Clauses, Clauses 40 to 46, comprise 159 lines, of which only twenty-seven have ever been discussed. There has been no discussion, and never will be, on Clauses 41, 45, and 46, leaving 132 undiscussed, including the whole of Clauses 40, 41, 45, and 46. In the evening of the last allotted day we have, I understand, owing to the extension the Prime Minister has given us, no less than four and a half hours. We have got up to twelve o'clock to discuss Clauses 47 to 49, which comprise the Appointed Day and all the Definition Clauses. Those Clauses contain eighty-five lines, of which not one single line has ever been discussed in Committee. I do not press Clause 49 because it is only the title, but Clauses 47 and 48 are both very important Clauses.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We had a discussion with reference to Clause 47.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Clause 47 was only discussed through the leniency of the Chairman, who allowed us to refer to it on the discussion of Clause 42. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that a satisfactory Parliamentary proceeding. It is quite obvious that all we could do was to discuss the general proposition. We could only do that by reference, and as to moving any Amendment, it was quite impossible. Neither Clause 47 nor Clause 48 has ever yet had one word of discussion. The case does not stop there. Hardly anything has been said about the Schedules. You cannot count the Schedules by lines; I count them by pages. There are fourteen pages of Schedules to be got through in the balance of time left after the discussion of Clauses 47 to 49. They have never had one single word of discussion. I agree that something less than one-half of those pages deal with Civil servants in Ireland. But of that I make no special complaint. I think it is fair some discussion should have taken place on them, but, although certain Amendments were wanted to be moved, we have not been able to move them. Still, I make no special complaint

  105
  of that. I do say, however, it is perfectly monstrous that a complete redistribution scheme for Ireland should be smuggled through in this way without any discussion in this House. I might say a good deal more. I might quote a number of figures, but it is no use going on. The thing has become a perfect farce. I did make one calculation when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford was speaking, as to what we should be required to do in order to discuss this Bill in the time that the Government propose to allot to us on the Report stage. I find that the Bill contains 1,642 lines, and of those 1,440 have never been discussed at, all. It is proposed to give 7½ days' discussion to the Report stage, and at a liberal computation that represents forty-nine hours of Parliamentary time. A very small sum in long division will show hon. Gentlemen that to discuss 1,400 odd lines in forty-nine hours involves passing one line of the Bill every two minutes. That may be the idea of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to legislation. It may be the idea of free democracy, but it certainly is not the idea which I have entertained, and I do not believe it is the idea that any man who takes an intelligent interest in the affairs of this country can possess. I think it is a perfect scandal that affairs should be conducted in this way. It may well be said that the right hon. Gentleman has tied down the safety valve, and he is now engaged in speeding up the Parliamentary machinery in this House to an extent which has never before been known, and which must lead to a breakdown in the machinery. Further than that legislation passed under these conditions can have no real moral value. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division spoke of the old days, but in the old days in this House there was some pretence made of discussing Bills. How can it be suggested that a Bill has received fair discussion here when not a single word has been uttered in regard to seven-eighths of it? The case would not have been so bad had there been a Second Chamber, but you have removed that opportunity for reviewing the work of the House, and you have deprived the Second Chamber of the power of amending any Bill. Under conditions like that it is perfectly outrageous to pretend that Bills are receiving fair treatment, or that measures are getting fair discussion. Bills passed under such
  106
  circumstances cannot have that moral sanction which ought to be behind the considered judgment of the House of Commons.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire. It seemed to me that a Motion of this kind affords the House of Commons an opportunity for a pious exercise which is called self-examination. It affords us an opportunity of looking into the mechanism of the House of Commons and seeing what it is that makes it necessary to have restrictions upon discussions such as we have under review to-day. The fundamental trouble is that we here have an exaggeration of the rigidity of the party system. It is true that in the old days the Committee stage and the Report stage were more speedily got through, but in those days the whole tactics of Parliament were generally directed to persuasion—to persuading independent Members, and there was always somebody worth persuading; consequently the whole tactics of Parliament were directed towards that object. But that condition of things died out a great many years ago, and as it died out a new system grew up—a system beginning with using the Committee stage for other purposes than persuasion, for purposes of party criticism. The result, was that the Opposition claimed to be allowed to manage the Debate in their own way. If they were allowed to do that, it involved prolonged discussion on particular points, and when they were able to secure a dialectical advantage over the Government they could force it to make changes in the Bill, and thereby discredit the measure in the eyes of their fellow countrymen. That system has been pursued. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who is a great authority on these matters, on one occasion dwelt on the difference between Debates in this House and Debates in the House of Lords. He said that while the Debates in the Upper Chamber were extremely brilliant they did not get to the bottom of the subject so thoroughly as the Debates in the House of Commons. But he also admitted that there was an enormous amount of tedious repetition in the House of Commons discussions that had very little real value. The guillotine destroyed that altogether, but there was no longer the power of getting at the bottom of the matter. The

  107
  guillotine destroys the reality of debate, and everyone must recognise that during the last few years that has been the case. Other evils sprung out of it. It is recognised that the Debates are sparsely attended. We all recognise that a Prime Minister—one of the most brilliant and accomplished speakers in Parliament—in old days had considerable audiences.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have heard Mr. Gladstone address no more than six Members on the other side of the House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: During the dinner hour, probably. I do not remember the incident referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. But I have noticed the right hon. Gentleman addressing very thin Houses to an extent I have never known before. I merely adduce that fact, however, as showing that the evil is increasing, and I do not believe you are going to get a remedy for it unless the rank and file take up their old regard for the Leadership of the Front Bench. I have recently amused myself by reading some of the speeches made by Members of the Liberal party against former Guillotine Motions, and I have found in them most admirable statements of the case against the guillotine; yet they are not prevented from bringing in a Guillotine Motion at the present moment. Knowing the weakness of right hon. human nature as I do, I notice without surprise the striking behaviour of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite in bringing forward this Resolution. They are fulfilling their former prophecies with all the ardour of martyrdom. We shall never get over these difficulties unless we can obtain a body of opinion which cares more about the House of Commons than about party. At present Members think more about the success of party than about the House of Commons. Until a change is brought about it does not matter whether we are governed by Parliament or by a despotic Cabinet. People, however, are beginning to see that respect for the law itself depends ultimately on the machinery by which the law is made. The House of Commons will be obliged to reform itself. It will have to take some other way on dealing with the difficulties which it has to encounter.
  7.0 P.M.
  Let me enumerate some of the ways in which it can act. It might use grand Committees instead of Committees of the Whole House much more largely. It might
  108
  proceed to use the House even apart from Grand Committees in such a manner that it should sit in different divisions for purposes like the Report stage and for a good deal of business in Committee of Supply. While the House itself is overworked individual Members roam about the lobbies miserably unoccupied, having nothing to do, and finding the time intolerably tedious. That state of things might very well be altered by a delegation of business such as is carried out in other Chambers. Let me say at once I do not believe in the delegation of national or quasi-national business. I hold entirely different views. I want the House to deal with important business and not merely with the draining of an Irish bog. I should like to see some means of delegating the unimportant parts of the business of the House of Commons to other assemblies, which I would not have elected independently, because I think the House of Commons itself should appoint them. You will never get back to a great House of Commons unless you are prepared to allow a certain measure of independence to individual supporters of the Government of the day. The evil of growing party discipline is certainly intensifying from day to day and from year to year. I saw only the other day that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) was attacked in his constituency for some very reasonable exercise of Parliamentary independence.
  Mr. PIRIE: I beg the Noble Lord's pardon, I was not attacked by my Constituents. On the contrary, I received a unanimous vote of confidence.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am sorry if I misread the report, but I understand that the hon. Member gave an assurance that in future he would vote with the Government, whereas he had not done so in the past.
  Mr. PIRIE: The Noble Lord is more completely misinformed in that statement than in his previous statement. This is not the time to give an explanation, but perhaps on the Third Reading I shall be able to give a full explanation of my vote.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It certainly is the case that pressure is brought to bear on Members on both sides if they decide against their party. I know it was done in very extreme cases in which party feeling ran high, but it is now done as a matter of machinery constantly, at every turn. I

  109
  have heard stories in conversation with hon. Members, of those who, not acting with the Opposition, which is always against the Government, but acting in honest independence on their own extreme Radical lines, have been attacked by their constituents for want of loyalty to the Government they support. You will never get the House of Commons to be an efficient legislative body unless you get rid of the notion that it is disloyal to the Government to vote against them on all the ordinary details of a Bill and on all the smaller questions which come up. The real effort which ought to be made is to get rid of the notion that a constituency has a right.—not the constituency, but the party organisation which represents the party in the constituency—to make from day to day criticism of and have control over the representative when he is once elected. The old and true version is that the representative is elected to Parliament to do the best he can, and he should be left untrammelled to act as he chooses in that Parliament.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think my hon. Friend is an untrammelled representative of the City of London, because his views happen to coincide with those of the ardent partisans, who chose him as their representative. Sir Edward Clarke was much less fortunate. Our complaint against the Government in respect of this particular guillotine is that they carry the thing further than it has ever been carried before. It is true that it is in the nature of a disease which has gone on for a great number of years; but they have made it much worse. They, first of all, rearranged the Constitution to suit the party exigencies they had in view. Having done that, they found it necessary to rearrange the business of the House of Commons in order to get through the required number of Bills and work their Parliament Act. Having done those two things, they limit Debate in the House of Commons much more rigidly and on a greater scale than has ever been done before. The evil of the guillotine is not to be met with answers like the interesting statistical speech of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. Redmond). The evil is the rigidity of the guillotine rather than its limitation in point of time. If you could restrict the guillotine to a certain number of questions, and hon. Members could debate those questions subject to the ordi-
  110
  nary Closure, and you had elasticity, it would be far less mischievous. What destroys the House of Commons is that everyone knows that there is a fixed wall behind which the Government can take refuge. Debates like this are like passing a man's hand through a candle. He can bear it for the moment during which his hand is passing through, but, if you hold it there, he would soon cry out with pain.
  I was present during some of the Debates—unfortuately I was ill and not able to attend all—on the Clauses dealing with finance and the judiciary, and it appeared to me that the Government had not a good case, and that there was a good point of which the Opposition were not able to take advantage because of the rigidity of the guillotine. If we could have prolonged the Debate for two or three hours longer, perhaps we might have produced some effect. The real defect is the rigidity. The Government have made it worse, and have intensified the evil under which we suffer. The result is that there is a growing sense that this Bill either will not pass into law, or, if it is passed, must be repealed as soon as the next Parliament assembles. There is a growing sense of unreality spreading over all our proceedings. Parliament is falling into contempt. I am a great reader of the publications associated with the Labour party, and I observe that it is quite as common among the supporters of the Labour party to speak with contempt of the proceedings of this House as it could be for the most ardent Tory who despised democracy. The reputation of Parliament is going down. Unless we form some body of opinion which is non-official, which really cares for institutions more than it cares for partisan advantage, and unless we can carry through some really fundamental reforms in the procedure and organisation of this House, Parliament will fall into deeper contempt, the law will follow it, and we shall be face to face with the evils of disrespect of the law and contempt for Parliament.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I do not see why this House should make itself out to be worse than it is, or represent itself as labouring under a more cruel misfortune than has yet befallen it. Here we are, with the guillotine falling at 7.30, discussing simply the question how best seven and a half days which are already allotted to this measure should be spent on the Report stage. That being the question before us,

  111
  we have had the great satisfaction of listening to the speech of the Noble Lord—a speech which I doubt very-much could have been delivered except under the guillotine. Perhaps it is one of the evil consequences of the guillotine that it does get into the heads of sublime personages that the thing is going to come to an end at 7.30, and you might just as well listen to an interesting speech as to a dull one. We have had during the last twenty minutes or half an hour the gratification of listening to a speech from the Noble Lord in which he never so much as mentioned any of the alterations in this allocation, or descended to such details as Clause 8, or Clause 41, or Clause 44. He delivered a disquisition, half history, half romance, on this House, dealing with the days long before he or any of us entered it. He seemed to imagine that there then existed in the House of Commons a great mass of free opinion, and that the orators of the various parties—the Pitts, the Foxes, the Disraelis, the Gladstones, and Brights, and everybody—when they rose to make their orations, which you may read or not, as you like, were addressing not the country, not their opponents on the Front Bench opposite, but a party of wobblers whom they pointed at and said, "I see there is so and so listening. I have got him in my eye. I will direct my arguments to him, and it may be I shall get him with me into the Lobby." I myself doubt whether there ever was—at all events, in the time of Parliamentary oratory—any such party in this House. I remember a story which is told by Sir Walter Scott—I have not been able to trace it further—about Oliver Cromwell. When Oliver Cromwell was Leader of this House, one of his friends, who was very much annoyed with a proposal he was making, said to him:—
  "Mr. Cromwell, I will take the sense of the House against you."
  to which Cromwell replied:—
  "Very well, you will take the sense, and I will take the nonsense, and we will see which is the bigger Lobby."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That cheer is a recognition that every Opposition is persuaded that it carries with it the good sense and the minority, and that the Government Lobbies are swollen by the nonsense and the majority. Of course that view is instantly changed the moment the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) changes his seat and finds
  112
  himself once more where he longs to be, voting in the bigger and therefore in the nonsensical Lobby. I doubt whether the Noble Lord is right in saying that there is any very great change in that respect. I should be very sorry to think there was no room in this House for an independent Member. I really honestly do not believe that the constituencies are in the least degree tenacious of what may be considered to be their rights in having themselves represented by a man who reflects their opinions. It largely depends upon the character of the man himself. If they' feel he is not a troublesome person who votes against his party simply because he loves to be contradictious, but that he really has genuine opinions of his own, to which he can give proper, courageous, intelligent, but not necessarily eloquent utterance, I do not think he is worried by his constituents any more than in the old days. After all, constituencies too have their rights. The Noble Lord, in a justifiable manner, made a contrast between the hon. Baronet and Sir Edward Clarke, and indicated that in the one case an hon. Member got into trouble with his constituents and the other did not. It is only fair to the hon. Baronet who at present represents the City of London to assume that the City are better pleased because they think he represents their views. They think the hon. Baronet represents their views, better, particularly in these democratic days. You cannot waive these constituencies on one side. Sometimes hon. Members are disposed to say, because a constituency has been represented by a very able man whom we all want to see in the House, "What a shame that such and such a borough will not continue to return him because we all want to hear him far more than the ninety-nine just men who found no repentance." That is not quite fair on the constituencies. You have, therefore, to strike a balance between independence and the representation of the views of the constituencies. I rejoice to be able to say I do not really think there is any falling off in the spirit of independence of Members or that constituencies are becoming more and more exacting. They like to be represented, I admit, by a man, by someone of character and determination, who can make known and express his views. If they have a man of that sort they are willing to put up with a good deal of latitude, although of course there are

  113
  questions on which they might find it difficult to allow him to have it entirely his own way.
  To listen to some hon. Gentlemen opposite you would think we had been doing nothing at all in the forty-five days or thereabouts that this Bill has been under discussion, and that nothing has happened. I have a copy here of the Rill as Amended in Committee in which I have underlined in red ink all the addition's which have been made during its progress under the guillotine, as things are, and also I have in brackets the words which have been omitted. Then I have got in print or in ink on the interleaved side the Amendments which the Government hope to be able to introduce into the Bill during the Report stage, all of which spring from the results of our discussions. Really, I am quite honest in saying I do not think there are more than two pages of the Bill which are not scored over with red ink or with brackets, or with written or printed matter which represents the additions which will be made to the Bill on the Report stage. Therefore, it is not fair or just to the House to say that nothing has been done, and that all these forty-five days have been wasted. They have covered the whole scope of the Bill. I do not say that the time might not have been more judiciously expended, although I agree that the Government have no right to be harsh on the Opposition in that matter, to complain because they have not spread the butter judiciously over the whole surface of the loaf, because that, of course, is not in human nature. I have no quarrel myself with the manner in which the Bill has been discussed, and I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I sympathise with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). Under trying circumstances, and irritated and interfered with by the guillotine, which must always be irritating to an Opposition, I think they have shown extraordinary skill as well as restraint in debate. Still, I say if they had been more economical in the disposition of the time they would have covered
  some of those Clauses which I agree have not been discussed in the manner which they deserve.
  The Schedules have been referred to. Schedules do not, of course, admit of very close discussion line by line and word by word, because when once you establish a certain basis of population after all it follows pretty much as a matter of course what they will be. Still, I quite agree that these Schedules are very well deserving of consideration, and they might have got it. Now that the Prime Minister has extended the time from half-past 10 to 12, I do not think there will be very many divisions taken at 7.30. There will be, I hope, time to raise any questions which may arise on the Schedules, but they will not really admit of a great deal of discussion. Of course, people can discuss them for months, if they feel so disposed, but you all agree with the right hon. Gentleman, looking forward, as you do, to occupying office some day, that nothing can be carried in this House now without, at all events, some attempt to restrain the endless verbosity and prolixity of Members: who use it for the purpose of destroying the Bill. I am afraid any Government with any great controversial measure will have to have a time-table of some sort. The only question is how the time-table should be allocated, and how it should be spread over the whole Bill. On the whole, confining myself entirely to this last attempt on the Report, we have made the best possible division and distribution of the time, giving to those Clauses for which further discussion was asked or for which further discussion is necessary the first place. I do not think we can do more than that. We have already done a great deal, and I am perfectly satisfied that if seven and a half days are expended, as I hope they will be, in rational and critical Debate the rest of the Bill will be pretty well covered.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 153.

  Division No. 472.]

  AVES.

  [7.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Arnold, Sydney

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Adamson, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Boland, John Pius

  Alden, Percy

  Barnes, G. N.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Armitage, Robert

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Brace, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hudson, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Reddy, M.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jowett, Frederick W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Moiton;

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Leach, Charles

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cullinan, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  London, Thomas

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McGhee, Richard

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Dillon, John

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Calium, Sir John M.

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Kean, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shortt, Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Snowden, Philip

  Essex, Richard Walter

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Field, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Tennant, Harold John

  Furness, Stephen

  Morgan, George Hay

  Thomas, James Henry

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Morison, Hector

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Muldoon, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Glanville, H. J.

  Munro, R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph

  Wadsworth, J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Neilson, Francis

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Guest. Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hackett, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Waring, Walter

  Hall, Frederick C. (Normanton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Webb, H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wedgwood, Josiah

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Haslam. Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ogden, Fred

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hazieton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

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

  O'Shee. James John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Winfrey, Richard

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hodge, John

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

  Hogge. James Myles

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  116

  117

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Altken, Sir William Max

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

  Moore, William

  Anton, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fetherstonhaugh. Godfrey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Balcarres. Lord

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Pryce- Jones, Col. E.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Blair, Reginald

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle. William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gretton, John

  Royds, Edmund

  Boyton, James

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

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Starkey, John Ralph

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

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Carlile, Sir Hildred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Swift, Rigby

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Terrell, G. Wilts, N.W.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kebty-Fietcher, J. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chambers, James

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Captain Percy Arthur

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  M'Mordle, Robert James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Pike Pease and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Ordered, That the proceedings on each of the seven allotted days given to the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill shall be those shown in the second column of the following

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  First

  …

  New Clauses

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Clause 1

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Third

  …

  Clauses 2 and 3

  …

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 4 to 7

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Fourth

  …

  Clause 8

  …

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 9 to 14

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Fifth

  …

  Clauses 15 to 21

  …

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 22 to 27

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Sixth

  …

  Clauses 28 to 30

  …

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 31 to 39

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10.30

  Seventh

  …

  Clauses 40 to 46

  …

  …

  …

  …

  7.30

  Clauses 47 to 49 and Schedules

  …

  …

  …

  …

  12.0

  table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table:—
  Bill, as amended, considered.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Repeal of Section 16 of 21 and 22 Geo. S. c. 11. Irish.)
  After Clause 42, to insert the following Clause:—
  The powers conferred in the sixteenth Section 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 the Third, chapter eleven, intituled "An Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject," shall not be exercised, and that Section is hereby repealed.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." I move this Clause in compliance with a promise I gave in the Committee stage upon an Amendment moved by the hon, and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher). We had then a discussion upon the matter, and it was stated that there was a Clause of this kind in the 1893 Bill. We thought it unnecessary to have it in this Bill. I certainly agree with the observations which were made: that the provision of the 16th Section of the Act passed by the Irish Parliament in the reign of George III. was really obsolete, and never would be exercised. But as some Members had an apprehension upon the matter and desired that there should be a Clause inserted in this Bill repealing that provision, that is what is done by this Clause.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I only desire to say that I am much obliged to the Government for having carried out the pledge given in the Committee stage. I think the Amendment entirely meets the case.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to. Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special Provisions as to Dublin University, Trinity College, Dublin, and the Queen's University of Belfast.)
  After Clause 41, to insert the following Clause:—
  No law made by the Irish Parliament shall have effect so as to alter the constitution, or divert the property of, or repeal or diminish any existing exemption or immunity enjoyed by the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, or the Queen's University of Belfast, unless and until the proposed alteration, diversion, repeal, or diminution is approved, in the
  120
  case of the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely: (a) the governing body of the University, and (V) the junior fellows and professors voting together, and (c) the Academic Council, and (d) the Senate; and in the case of the Queen's University of Belfast by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely: (a) the Senate, and (b) the Academic Council, and (c) the Convocation of the University.
  Provided that—

  (a) This Section shall not apply to the taking of property for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water, or drainage works, or other works of public utility upon payment of compensation; and

  (b) There shall be paid annually, out of moneys provided by the Irish Parliament, to the Queen's University of Belfast, a sum of eighteen thousand pounds for the general purposes of the University, and that sum if and so far as not so paid may be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Transferred Sum and paid to the University.

  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I do not think this Clause should be considered in the absence of the Chief Secretary, and I rise for the purpose of giving him an opportunity of being present. The House will remember what occurred a short time before the Adjournment. A promise was given at an earlier stage of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman, who undertook to frame a Clause for the protection of these universities. When the matter came to be considered, after consultation with myself, the right hon. Gentleman promised that the original Amendment which was-proposed by me would be altered and modified. It has now been moved in the form in which it stands on the Paper, but there are one or two alterations upon it which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make, and it is in consequence of that that I am anxious he should be here. I found the right hon. Gentleman extremely courteous, and very anxious to carry out, not only the spirit,

  121
  but the letter of the promise given to myself as one of the representatives of Dublin University. As the Chief Secretary has now returned to the House, perhaps I may give way to him.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I must apologise to the House for asking its indulgence, because of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The new Clause as it stands on the Paper docs not completely carry out my proposal, because I found it necessary in consultation with the representatives of Trinity College to add new words of protection to those on the Paper, and also, I think, words of useful explanation with regard to a particular sum of £5,000 a year which was by the Wyndham Act appropriated for the benefit of Trinity College as the owner of land in Ireland. But first of all I would remind the House of how the matter stands. It will be in the recollection of some of us that there was for a good long time on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Mr. Rupert Gwynne), a Clause exempting Trinity College, its status, constitution, and property, and all its effects, altogether from the purview, scope, and operation of the Bill now under consideration. When that Amendment came to be moved, it was adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. J. II. Campbell), and he moved it. Of course, it was, as everybody in the House must have felt, a very strong proposal, lifting Trinity College, as it were, with all its property in different counties in Ireland, and planting it extra territorilly outside of Ireland altogether. An Amendment similar to it had been moved in 1893 by the then Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. David Plunket), in a very able speech, but it was controverted, and not assented to by Mr. Gladstone, and therefore it did not become part of that Bill even in the House of Commons. However, it was again brought forward in connection with this Bill, and the attitude of the Government was that it was a pity it should be brought forward, their opinion being that it was not necessary. Nevertheless, as a great scholastic foundation, such as Trinity College, did bring it forward, we thought it should be considered, and having been closely associated in Irish University business and brought into close contact with Trinity College, I could well understand the
  122
  feelings animating those who brought the Amendment forward, and therefore, to cut the matter short, I assented to it. It was assented to with the general approval of the House of Commons. The demand having been made by the representatives of that university, we thought they were entitled to have this Clause. Accordingly I agreed to give it.
  Sir E. CARSON: And also to Belfast University.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must not omit Belfast. Belfast University has a peculiar paternal interest for me in the matter. I found that the case of Belfast was in many ways stronger than that of Trinity, which, being a great institution with great traditions behind it, is very well able to take care of itself, whereas Belfast is dependent upon an annual Grant for the salaries of its professors. We thought these universities should be put in together in the new Clause which I was to prepare in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. We passed on in this House to other controversial matters, and the venue of discussion as regards this particular subject changed from this House to Trinity College itself. I will not repeat the stale classical quotation which I used the other day when I was made aware of the fact that the controversy did not lose in vigour or strength by being transferred to academic atmosphere. It was very interesting, and I am sure the representatives of Dublin University felt what a live body of men they represent. The controversy was carried on pretty vivaciously in Trinity College itself. One thing which was disappointing was that the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted as his own did not meet with the views of Trinity, or, at all events, did not voice Trinity at all. They did not want to be left outside of Ireland. They were quite content to throw in their lot with the country upon whose soil they had been so long planted, and where they had prospered so well that the graduates of Trinity are to be found in all parts of the civilised world. Therefore, the new Clause which I am now moving is not the Amendment I agreed to move, but one, I am equally proud to say, which contains the views of Trinity College itself. They claim exemption and protection—that is to say, they are to be subject to the laws of Ireland, but—there is always a "but" in Home Rule matters—

  123
  no law made by the Irish Parliament shall have effect—
  "so as to alter the constitution or divert the property of, or repeal or diminish any existing exemption or immunity enjoyed by the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, or the Queen's University of Belfast, unless and until the proposed alteration, diversion, repeal, or diminution is approved, in the case of the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting …convened for the purpose."
  Then there is, first of all, among the bodies to be represented at the meeting the governing body of the university, the old autocracy which the younger men violently opposed. As you grow older your sympathies extend themselves, and perhaps you are not so violent as you were to this autocracy. It claimed in 1911 to enable Trinity to reform itself, and she reformed herself to that extent by adding four representatives of the junior men to this aged but honourable Board. Therefore, it is provided that the consent must be obtained of this body, consisting of the provost and seven senior professors and four juniors; (b) the junior fellows and professors voting together. That is a largish body as there are, I think, forty-eight professors and thirty-three junior fellows. Then there is (c), what is called in the print the Academic Council, but which ought to be called the University Council, and then (d) the Senate. Then in the case of the Queen's University, Belfast, it is necessary to have a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely, (a) the Senate, and (b) the Academic Council, and (c) the Convocation of the University. The effect of that is that the Irish Parliament could not interfere with the Constitution or divert the property of or interfere with any existing exemption or immunity of this ancient body of Trinity, or the newly created body in Belfast without obtaining the consent of these individual bodies. This view is embodied in the new Clause which has been made the subject of conversation, and also of correspondence between myself and the junior Member for Dublin University, who has conducted the negotiations in this matter.
  Of course, unanimity in a learned body is not to be expected, and there is a great spirit in Trinity among the younger men,
  124
  which I confess I regard with pleasure, showing independence. They have met and did not like this Amendment at all. In fact, at one time, they did not want even their property protected in any shape or form. In fact, they rather reproved me for having consented to protect their property. I daresay they were quite right in thinking that their property needed BO protection from an Irish Parliament. They, at all events, are not uneducated peasant proprietors living on their thirty acres of land. They are the learning and the spirit of the younger generation of scholars and university men in Dublin. However, on my approaching them and intimating that after all there was no great harm in that kind of protection they were good enough to yield and withdraw their opposition to the protection of their property. But it is a fact of which this House is entitled to take notice that these persons who were academic persons took this view. There is a minority of them still who dissent, and whom I am sorry I cannot recognise because I am bound to give effect to the arrangement that has been made. At the same time, I have spent a very troublesome Christmas, because every post has brought me letters and printed documents signed by the names of distinguished persons, including two-senior professors, Dr. Mahaffy, a scholar of European reputation, and Dr. Tyrrell, a friend to all Ciceronians, and therefore in my humble way very dear to me, and sixteen professors and a very considerable number of the junior fellows, but still a marked minority, and I will not repeat what sometimes is attributed to me as having been said about minorities. I am bound by the promise which I gave that I would, in discussion with the representatives of the University, come to an arrangement with them.
  Sir E. CARSON: Our seats are quite safe.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I daresay they are safe. In Ireland there is a strong feeling in favour of university representation, and those who want to find persons disposed to favour university representatives should emigrate to Ireland, because probably Ireland will be the only place after some time where universities will get full Parliamentary representation. However that may be, I feel bound to put upon record the fact that there is within Trinity itself a strong minority who do not like the a, b, c, d bodies whose consent must be obtained before the Constitution can be

  125
  altered, and for this reason. They think the old body, even with the four new men, is likely to stand in the way of subsequent academic reform, and they say, "Our King's letter will be taken away from us as it were, and we shall want to go to the Irish Parliament to get some reform in our academic constitution, and we shall be brought up dead against this Clause, which says that we cannot get it unless we have the consent of the governing body. The governing body," they say, "is an ancient body highly Conservative in academic matters"—I only use the word conservative in those matters—"and we shall not be able to get the reforms which can be got quite easily if necessary from the Parliament." That is why they object. I, myself, think they exaggerate the position. Trinity College has always shown, I think, a perfect readiness for reform in many ways; in fact, it led the way in all reforms and was long ahead of Oxford and Cambridge in the matter of religious tests and the admission of people to all emoluments and to places on its governing body, and although this Provost and seven old gentlemen did no doubt for a very long time exercise their powers of veto, that has really been altered by the King's letter and common consent, and I think now that Trinity is possessed with what I may call a reasonable spirit. I am not making myself a partisan in the matter—I am not entitled to do so as between Dr. Mahaffy and the Provost and his majority—still I must honestly say I do not think there is any reason to believe that this Clause will be an obstacle to that reasonable academic reform which I believe, from conversation with Trinity men generally, is held to be reasonable and necessary. Therefore I move that this Clause be read a second time in the form in which it appears on the print. There is one proviso, however, because, of course, to exempt all properties from being taken except with the consent of these bodies would be an obstacle in the way of Trinity itself which is a large landowner in different parts of Ireland where land might be required for various work, and therefore it is provided that this Section shall not apply to the taking of property for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water, and drainage works, or other works of public utility upon payment of compensation. Then Belfast is provided for by securing that there shall be paid annually out of money provided by the Irish Parliament to the Queen's University of Belfast a sum of £18,000 for the
  126
  general purpose of the University, and that sum if and so far as not so paid may be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Transferred Sum and paid to the university.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Shall be deducted.
  Mr. BIRRELL: May or shall, whichever you wish. If I put it in "may" they say they want "shall," and if I put in "shall" they say they want "may." I always put in the words they want. It might very reasonably happen that the Irish Parliament, not for any extraneous purpose, but for the purposes of education might divert, some of this money. Therefore these professors and others who look to this sum' for their annual salaries presented a case to the Prime Minister and myself which I think is secured by that proviso. In order that I may not have to trouble the House again after the Second Beading, there is another matter to which I may make reference. I propose after the Clause has been read a second time in addition to one or two purely verbal Amendments, such as the changing of "academic" into "university," to add a new proviso, that until the Joint Exchequer Board certify the amount standing to the credit of Trinity College under Section 39 of the Irish Land Act of 1903, is adequate for the indemnity for which provision is made in that Section there shall be paid annually out of moneys provided by the Irish Parliament a sum of £5,000 towards that account. They are in Ireland well acquainted "with what this £5,000 is for.
  I was not a Member of the House when the Land Act of 1903 passed, but there was no doubt that £5,000 was not paid to Trinity College, but was charged upon the Irish Development Grant, and was taken year by year and placed to the credit of an account to meet deterioration-which might fall upon Trinity College inconsequence of the redemption of its head rents on the sale of property and the loss; of income from them. I think there was also some colourable suggestion that this would in some way benefit the middle men themselves, and that the task of land purchase would be made much easier in consequence. I do not know that that result has exactly followed, but at all events the £5,000 a year is granted and forms part of the transaction which we are now effecting with regard to Trinity, but the opportunity has been taken of arranging the matter. I must say Trinity College has shown very great fairness. This sum

  127
  of £5,000 annually goes on accumulating year by year. There is a very small claim upon it, not more than £l,100 a year. It has already accumulated to a very large sum, and it is obvious that as time goes on the fund will be very much in excess of what is required in order to secure to Trinity its proper indemnity. Therefore my proposal is, although the matter is left to the Exchequer Board to certify, that when the accumulated sum amounts to such a sum as to produce annually a revenue adequate to meeting the loss for which it was intended the £5,000 a year will cease to be paid, and it would fall into the Exchequer of the Irish Parliament and be available.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of the accumulation at the present moment?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am told that it is about £50,000. We cannot reopen that transaction, which was a Parliamentary transaction. I think it is a good thing to secure that this sum should not accumulate beyond the reasonable demands of the college to make good the purpose for which it was originally created. Therefore, the words which I propose, and which are agreed to by Trinity College, are necessary, and I think meet to some extent a growing injustice, having regard to the increased amount. I think Trinity College is to be thanked for the manner in which it has recognised that this sum will in time be more than adequate to meet their demands, and when that is so, Ireland will absorb the whole value. This was a matter of bargain which received Parliamentary sanction, and therefore I felt myself bound to carry out such proposals which will meet the views of Trinity College. The majority of Trinity College, I think, quite clearly do support the new Clause in the form in which it will be put from the Chair, with this Amendment, which I have read, and therefore I ask the House to give it their sanction.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As to the last part of the new Clause, and the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has read, I do not complain that the House has not bad notice of that Amendment, because I suppose it was due to the holidays. I have taken a very special and deep interest in the question of the £5,000, and I think the arrangement which the right hon. Gentle-
  128
  man is making is a fair one. I have always felt that the money accumulating there and remaining idle was a matter in which Trinity College should have moved, and that is one of the reasons why I protested against the acceptance by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), in the hasty way in which he did, the proposal to exclude the college from any Irish authority. I said that at least power should be given to the college to resort to the Irish authority if they so desired, and to some extent that view has been met by the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to the £5,000, the college undoubtedly has not required all the money, nor is it likely to require it, for this reason: If anybody will turn to the Report made by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, with whom I had the honour to be associated, they will find that the tenures of the college are so complicated that without some legislation, which now, I understand, is reserved to the Imperial Parliament, it would be very hard to effect a sale in very many cases. I do not think the present Government have acted fairly in that respect. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, who spent two years on his Report, put in a tremendous amount of labour in order that this land might be sold to the tenants. But the moment that proposal was made Resolutions poured in, and Gentlemen connected with the majority of the Irish party froze down on any proposal to allow Trinity College lands to be sold in that way. Now, as I understand, the question of the sale of these lands is to be allowed to remain with the Imperial Parliament, where Ireland will have representation of about forty Members. It is most unlikely that the Imperial Parliament will tackle the very difficult questions in connection with the tenures of Trinity College, and, to my mind, therefore, this new Clause condemns those tenants existing in eight or nine counties over Ireland, perpetually to remain in their present state of servitude, owing to the over-ready acceptance of this proposal by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who jumped up to say that this Clause ought to be agreed to.
  I wish to make a proposal with regard to this £5,000, and it is one which I think is in the interest of the college itself. In its magnificent library there are entombed unprinted manuscripts of the most valuable and important kind. Many of them are not catalogued, and most of them are unknown, going back and penetrating to

  129
  the earlier trackways of Irish history. Why, instead of this money being allowed to remain as it is, unfructifying and useless, should not some course be taken by which the interest on a sum of £50,000 or £60,000 could be ear-marked for some educational purpose"? It is simply lamentable to see what I may call a store-house of learning lying inaccessible, except to very learned men and scholars. There are Irish and English manuscripts, some of which are almost illegible except to experts, and there are stores of learning lying there, but the college have no funds to do the necessary work, while this £5,000 a year is accumulating without any practical chance of its ever being made available for any purpose whatsoever. Although I am not going to oppose the Amendment, I think it is a mistaken Amendment. I do think that some plan might be adopted by which the unfructifying and useless £5,000 could in some way be applied to the benefit of education. The unfortunate tenants have been forgotten; they are certainly deserving of a better fate; but they are now, so far as I can see, condemned by this Amendment to remain unpurchased. If anybody will go back to the answers given to me by the Attorney-General for Ireland of that day—now Lord Justice Cherry—when I asked him whether there was any intention of giving effect to the Report of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, I am afraid he will come to the conclusion that though the then Attorney-General apparently spoke in his own language, he was inspired from those quarters which have no great regard for land purchase.
  Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to imply, though he did not actually say so, that in some way or other the Constituents of my right hon. Friend and myself, or at least a large portion of them, had thrown us over. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing of the kind has taken place. As regards the Amendment originally put down it was on the Paper for some months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Six months."] At all events, a great many months, and I am bound to say that in the whole of that time I had not had one single letter from the whole of my Constituents objecting to the Amendment in the form in which it was put upon the Paper. You will always find, particularly in an academic body, whatever particular course you actually take, that a certain number of people will think that
  130
  you ought to take another one. They like to have their finger in the pie. In the various suggestions that were made for settling the university question, we found almost the very same group as upon this question coming forward with complaints as to what was done, and when I stood for the university a section opposed me on the ground that I was not sufficiently Conservative. Here we have an Amendment, and I can only say, as far as I am concerned, that I do not in the least object to the substitution of this Amendment for the Amendment which originally stood upon the Paper, and I really think that in so far as they are striving to make capital out of the fact of the substitution of this Amendment for the other one, it is of very little comfort as regards the great confidence which, it is alleged, has been placed in the new Irish House of Commons. After all, what is this? It means that if you get the majority of three or four separate bodies, who are, in relation to the university, a kind of governing body, if you get a majority of each of those boards so that you can get the general consent of the university to legislation, then the Irish Parliament is to have jurisdiction. I do not object to be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court if my consent is necessary before I am brought there by a writ. After all, the only thing is that if they give their consent they will be subject to the Irish Parliament, and if they do not give their consent they are not subject. At the same time, we must not forget that as regards Trinity College the old procedure is the proper procedure. It was last year when the board were revolutionised—whether sufficiently or not I do not know—I think I would have liked to go a little further—but I myself have been urging these reforms in Trinity College, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, for a long time. I have been on the side more or less of those who would be called the belligerents of Trinity College. We must not forget, and I think this is overlooked by Dr. Mahaffy and others, the power of the King's Letter remains, and that upon proper representation at any time by the college they can have even further reform should those reforms be thought to be necessary. In addition there remains also the legislation of this House if it became necessary to deal with the Irish University question. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not feel in the least degree hurt by anything that has been done by

  131
  any branch of my Constituents. I feel that they have thoroughly protected themselves while professing great confidence in the Irish Parliament, and I am perfectly satisfied the proper course has been taken.
  I only desire to say one word or two as regards the sum of £5,000. I believe I had something to do with that sum originally myself when the Bill was going through in 1903, and that sum has been accumulating there ever since. I think myself it is a great pity that that sum has had to accumulate, because I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) that there are complications in connection with the title of Trinity College lands which can never be solved unless by some special measure with reference to them. I remember perfectly well the Committee upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman sat along with Lord Justice Fitzgibbon. It is a long time since I read the Report, the time it was issued, but I remember what they suggested, and which I thought was perfectly feasible, and a suggestion which would be much easier even now than it was then. What they suggested was that Trinity College ought to get Consols and should be paid so much income, and that the whole of the lands should be taken over by the Government to be dealt with, and the titles knocked about as they pleased with a view to eventually giving the occupying tenants the benefits of the Purchase Act. I think, broadly speaking, that was what was in their Report. For my own part, I cannot see how the criticism of the hon. Member for Cork applies, and how this thing will be in any worse condition by reason of this Clause being placed in the Home Rule Bill, because under the Home Rule Bill the whole question of purchase, as I understand, if I understand anything aright, is to be reserved in this Imperial Parliament, and this Imperial Parliament will have to grapple with this question. In point of fact, there is an undertaking, as I understand, that this question is to be grappled with, and I commend to the right hon. Gentleman opposite who thinks purchase just as urgent as Home Rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "More urgent."] More urgent.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is very urgent anyway.
  Sir E. CARSON: Very urgent. I commend to him the fact of the present price of Consols, because paying the interest they do at present, there would be very
  132
  much more reason than would have been the case at the time the Report was issued to satisfy Trinity College by giving them Consols. I quite agree with the Member for North-East Cork that unless something of that kind is done this sum of £5,000 would go on accumulating but for what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, and would not really be made use of either for the benefit of the tenants or for the general benefit of education. I am quite satisfied, if this Bill does become law, that the sum should be made such a sum as will give indemnity on the loss of the sale of those lands. That is all I desire to say as regards this Amendment. I understand that as regards the Amendment relating to Belfast University, that it is to be made perfectly clear that the word "may" shall be changed to the word "shall," a matter which has been troubling them a great deal, though I would be prepared to guarantee as a lawyer that the word "may" did mean "shall." That, however, never satisfies a layman, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to the change.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: May I say at once that the last thing I should wish to do is to bring any party controversy into this Debate. I shall always remember the first time I spoke in this House. I had the honour to be followed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, and he was kind enough to greet me as not exactly a constituent of his own, but the next thing to it, and to welcome me with a kindness I have never forgotten. But I think we are entitled to take stock of the very remarkable developments that have attended the history of this Amendment. I do not want to put it in any party sense, but, putting it in the simplest and frankest way possible, I think it comes to this, that in the academic sense and in the broadest sense Trinity College has determined, on the hypothesis that the Home Rule Bill becomes law and that an Irish Parliament is established, and desires that that Irish Parliament should have the power to deal with the affairs of Trinity College. They look to it as a body, assuming that it comes into existence, that will have an acquaintance with Irish affairs, and that will have the leisure to deal with Irish affairs; and in that sense it will be a body that will differ somewhat from this House. Take such a matter as that just referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, namely, as to an arrangement to allocate some of the money of Trinity

  133
  College specially so that it might be available for the publication of manuscripts in the library. This House of Commons has not the time to deal With a matter like that, and that is precisely the sort of matter upon which I think there would be no occasion to invoke a King's Letter, but where you might very reasonably go to your domestic House of Parliament, and it would obviously not be a party question. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that he would at all events get support in a proposition of that kind, quite independent of party. It appears to me that there are certain points agreed in this matter. In the first place we are all agreed that by the express and declared will of Trinity College, and also of the University of Belfast, neither Trinity College nor the University of Belfast are to be cut off from the life and interests of the Irish people. I take those words deliberately from an article in the "Irish Times," which is a representative Unionist paper, and recognised as such. Secondly, we are agreed, and I again quote from the same source—
  Mr. MOORE: Why not take it from the "Freeman's Journal"?
  Mr. GWYNN: The reason that I am quoting from the "Irish Times" is that it is still representative of the opinion of the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs.
  Mr. MOORE: It is not indeed.
  Mr. GWYNN: I am very glad to have listened to that. But at all events whether the "Irish Times" or the "Freeman's Journal" both are agreed that Trinity College and Belfast University shall have absolute protection for their academic liberties and for their powers. We agree again that the Irish Parliament shall not pass legislation which is not approved by college opinion. I come now to the point at which diversity sets in, and in any remarks I have to make I wish to address myself not so much to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to the representatives of Trinity College here. I desire to ask them to reconsider their attitude upon this matter, to consider, after all, what is the real opinion of Trinity College in this matter, and how-best in future you are going to secure it. Looking back on the whole history of this affair, what happened was that the hon. and learned Member the Leader of the Irish party rose in his place and asked the
  134
  Chief Secretary to give to Trinity College whatever Trinity College through its representatives asked for, even though it was a thing in a certain sense most humiliating to us to accept. We are still bound by that pledge to support whatever demand is made by Trinity College through its accredited representatives. But I claim the right to submit here, with all humility, some considerations for those representatives who, from our point of view, have in this matter the final word.
  It is quite clear that Trinity College desires that there shall be in the Irish Parliament power to legislate in accordance with college opinion. But when the Chief Secretary says that Trinity College can get on very well without the control of the Irish Parliament because it is such an old body, I venture to differ from him. It is just because Trinity College is old and encumbered with many interesting but very inconvenient Statutes and institutions that it may very well want the help of Parliament to liberate it from those anachronisms and anomalies of which it is not yet entirely purged. I do not think that Belfast, which is a modern institution, with a constitution shaped only the other day by a very competent body, is in the same need of being brought up to date with modern conditions. There comes from Trinity College a complaint that the Amendment which the Chief Secretary has put on the Paper, and which the representatives of Trinity College accept, practically abrogates the right to appeal to the Irish Parliament. I am quoting again from the same source, which seems to me to put the matter very concisely. Trinity College, or, at all events, an influential section of opinion in Trinity College, entirely objects to the proposal to make four separate consents necessary. They want an expression of college opinion, but they do not want one small body or group in the college to be able to block the whole course of university reform. That has been too much the history of Trinity College in the past. For my own part, I am not quite sure whether this Amendment, as drawn, may not have the surprising effect of cutting the board altogether out of its power to interfere in this matter, for good or for bad.
  The four consents are those of the governing body of the university, of the junior fellows and professors of the academic council, and of the senate. I ask myself, what is the governing body of the university? The governing body of the

  135
  college is the board, but—I speak with all humility in the presence of the eminent lawyer who represents the university—I think the governing body of the university is the senate, which is, in my judgment, twice nominated, and the board does not come in at all. The board may have to go to the Irish Parliament cap in hand to get representation in the council of the university. That is a matter which the representatives of Trinity College will have seriously to consider; and when they consider it, if they find, as I think it is exceedingly likely they will, that this Clause will require amendment ultimately in another place before it can satisfy Trinity College, I hope they will consider the larger question, whether it is really necessary to give to each of these four separate identities or groups in the university the power of blocking the whole course of academic development. I repeat, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, that our object to-day is to give Trinity whatever Trinity really wants; but we are not perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking the real mind of Trinity in this matter. We are told that the view to which I have referred is that of a minority. It is a minority which includes Professor Mahaffy and Professor Tyrrell. When I find that the minority includes these very distinguished scholars, who have so little in common except their European distinction, I think it must be a very considerable minority indeed. I may remind the House that these are some of the younger men to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. When we were last discussing this matter he said:—
  "Some of the younger members, I should believe members of 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."
  These juniors, like Professor Mahaffy and Professor Tyrrell, who were great men in scholarship when I was a schoolboy, which I regret was a long time ago, have a persistent desire that the Irish Parliament should be given a reasonably free hand. They, at all events, not merely through the* Press, but directly in writing, appealed to the Irish Members in this House—I do not want to say that they appeal to the Nationalist party—to help them in this matter. I hold in my hand a letter froth Dr. Mahaffy, who, I may say, expresses his strong disapproval of the exhibition of
  136
  distrust shown by the requirement of four independent consents. He dislikes the expression of distrust, but he says also that it will make all reform impossible. That is a serious consideration for Trinity College. It is a serious opinion coming from such a man. It is the opinion, as I think, of the most progressive element in the college. It is an opinion which has made itself apparent in this matter without any reference whatsoever to party. I think that we in Ireland are entitled to claim it as one of the most hopeful signs of the times. I go further and say to the Chief Secretary that I think he is entitled to claim it as one of the good results of his University Act. There are now in Dublin two universities working harmoniously and courteously side by side, competing in friendly rivalry. In the North of Ireland there is another new independent university, in which I am glad to say there are 25 per cent, of Catholics side by side with Protestants. If it were not for the atmosphere which these new institutions have created I do not think we should have had the development which we have seen in connection with the history of this Amendment. Whatever may come or go in Ireland, I think that the history of this Clause will be a hopeful augury for the future, whatever that future may be.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I rise to make a few critical observations. In another part of the Paper to-day there is to be found an Amendment which I put on the Paper as soon as I had the opportunity of seeing the Chief Secretary's. Mine is a much smaller Amendment. Although I agree fully that Belfast should be safeguarded if she wishes to be safeguarded, my Amendment differs from that of the Chief Secretary in one or two very material respects. Like my hon. Friend who has just sat down I have had correspondence with people in Trinity College during the last few weeks. It has been very difficult to get any sort of opinion organised or collected at Trinity College owing to the fact that the university is now in recess; but I think one might go almost so far as this: if the voices of the junior fellows and professors of Trinity College could be collected it would be found that at least one half of the junior fellows—[HON. MEMBERS: "More than one-half"]—are disappointed at my right hon. Friend's Amendment. I am credibly informed that a large majority of the professors would be of that opinion. I think the reason is sufficiently obvious. The original Amendment of my right

  137
  hon. and learned Friend who sits opposite (Mr. Campbell) excluded the university altogether from the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament. Everybody disliked that. Immediately there was a consensus of opinion, I may almost say a unanimity of opinion, at Trinity College in dislike of that Amendment. But I am not quite sure that the Amendment which is now on the Paper is not almost as fatal to the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament as the original Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend opposite. This Amendment requires that no less than four separate academic bodies should give their consent before any legislation can be taken in hand by the Irish Parliament. We have had some experience of these academic bodies.
  Those of us who know them are, of course, filled with very high regard, almost veneration for them, at all events for the senior governing body at Trinity College, but I venture to say that it will be found quite impossible to get the consent of four academic bodies in Trinity College or anywhere else. Therefore, in my Amendment I have put in a proviso that these academic bodies shall meet in joint session for the purpose of discussing such matters as may arise in the future. I am glad to think that that Amendment, with that particular proviso, is acceptable to a very large proportion of the professors and junior fellows of Trinity College. I would ask that my right hon. and learned Friend opposite should give the matter his very earnest consideration. Trinity College does not want to be excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament. We are all agreed as to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I think a large majority, but surely in practice it will be found if these four separate consents are insisted upon that you might almost altogether have excluded Trinity College from the purview of the Irish Parliament. It has generally been found impossible to get anything approaching a majority of opinion of any one of the bodies concerned in the government of Trinity College.
  There is another consideration. Under the official Amendment, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Galway, it will be possible for any one of these bodies to baulk and checkmate the other three. I am aware, of course, of the provision that relates to King's letter. But talking about legislation it is quite clear that either the board could checkmate the other three bodies, or any one of them could check-
  138
  mate the board. For practical legislative purposes these august assemblies are to be invited by my Amendment to meet together under such conditions as their Chancellor may prescribe and to arrive at a decision in joint session. I have said that my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary, is under an honourable obligation to the representatives of Trinity College. I know that I speak for a large and influential body of opinion in Trinity College, and I would suggest that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench below me, and my right hon. and learned Friend on the bench opposite, should confer together with a view to seeing whether the clumsy machinery of the official Amendment cannot be simplified in the interests of Trinity College, and in the interests of the compromise which has been arrived at. I venture respectfully to submit that suggestion to the consideration of the two right hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I can only speak with the permission of the House, as I have already intervened. I quite recognise the spirit in which the hon. Members for the City of Galway (Mr. S. Gwynn) and Luton (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth) have dealt with this question, but I do not want them to imagine for a moment that the matter is not one which I have not most carefully considered. I have been at home for the last fortnight with a view to taking a holiday, but may tell the House that from the beginning to the end of that period my time has either been occupied in interviewing some of these gentlemen within the walls of Trinity College or else inditing very lengthy epistles to my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary. I have also conferred with my right hon. Friend, the senior Member for the University. We have with the greatest possible care considered this question, and as to the way in which the vote could be ascertained. I would not say a word against the spirit in which this debate has been conducted, but I want to say an entirely erroneous impression prevails with regard to the views of my Constituents in reference to this question. In the case of the original Amendment, which has been already mentioned by my colleague, it was on the Parliamentary Paper of this House for over six months. During all that period we received no whisper of objection in any quarter, or from any individual, or any section of our Constituents of the university. No single individual elector of Trinity College,

  139
  no single fellow or professor, junior or senior, ever wrote to my colleague or myself one word of objection to that original Amendment. After the spirit of it was accepted in this House the governing body of the college met, and by a majority of ten out of twelve—two gentlemen did not vote—
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Ten to two.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: No, ten out of twelve.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Oh, yes, I beg pardon.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: They thanked me for the Amendment. Later on, some of the younger members or junior fellows—and here again I may say I was speaking, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, of those who communicated with me after the Amendment was accepted—began to communicate with me. The only persons who communicated with me were some of the junior fellows, and that was what I was speaking of. I never had the least word from Dr. Mahaffy and neither had my colleague. As regards Dr. Tyrrell, I am rather surprised by what was said of him, because I have seen Dr. Tyrrell several times in the last fortnight, and there was no stronger advocate of this Clause as it stands that I could find within the walls of Trinity College. That only shows how difficult it is with the best intentions to gather what I may call a consensus of opinion in university circles. However, I took all the pains I could, and I came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to yield to the demand put forward on the part of some of the junior fellows and professors, that they should, as it were, have the power to override the views of the governing body of the college. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said a difficulty may arise in getting the four different bodies to agree. They are not so cantankerous as that view would represent, because it was only last year that as a result of agreement, and it could not be obtained otherwise, they got a King's Letter of a defined and definite form remodelling their constitution.
  Mr. GWYNN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is necessary to get the consent of these four bodies before you could get a King's Letter?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: No, I did not say that at all. But I said apart from this Clause altogether, under the law as it stands, you
  140
  could not force a King's Letter upon a Corporation like Trinity College unless they agree to it, and as a result of agreement and compromise they adopted last year a King's Letter in the form in which it now appears, and that was the result of compromise on the part of the four of these bodies—the senior fellows, the board, the governing body, and the junior fellows and professors. As a result of that compromise they got in the last twelve months practically a new constitution. In the interests of the college I could not be any party to tearing up that constitution. The effect of adopting the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite would be to reduce the governing body to be merely a component part of a gathering in which the junior fellows and professors would outnumber them by five to one, with the result that the younger men and the professors, by a majority of votes, could entirely swamp the governing body of the college. That I could never agree to, and so far as I could find out that is the collective opinion of those interested in the university and the college, whether within the walls or outside. And hon. Members must recollect that the interests of this university are not confined to the junior fellows and professors. There are persons interested entirely outside, of what may be called the academic circle—and I am not satisfied myself from my experience that the views of the academic circles have always been the views of the bulk of the constituency, but rather the reverse.
  I want to refer to one other matter. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who on two occasions took part in these Debates, spoke in a spirit of great generosity and affection for the university. I think the view he gave, speaking at Ipswich, of that memorable speech, to which he referred, was that I stated in this House that while the original Amendment which I moved had been the one that had been supported by the entire Unionist party in 1893, that no sooner had I moved it for the purposes of this Bill than I received hundreds of letters from all parts of my constituency protesting against it. I said exactly the reverse. What I said, and what is the fact, is this, that I received hundreds of letters approving of my action and my Amendment and supporting it, and to all these letters there were only two that said they preferred to trust themselves to the new Irish Parliament.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman I entirely misunderstood and my recollection is entirely at fault. I understood him to say and my recollection is that he did say, that he received protests then but that in 1893 he received no protests.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. What I said was that the only protest I have received was from some of the junior fellows, and it is a fact that I received hundreds of letters approving of my action, and that out of the whole of the letters I received there were only two which stated that they preferred to leave the university under the control of the Irish Parliament. I do not wish to deal any further with the matter except to say a word about the £5,000 a year. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. S. Gwynn) for calling attention to that reference to the governing body of the university. My recollection is that, so far as I had anything to do with the Clause, I put in the governing body of the college, and it ought to be the governing body of the college, because I think the body created by the King's Letter of last year was described as the governing body of the college. As regards the £5,000 a year, I say at once that it would be quite reasonable and fair that that £5,000 a year should not be allowed to accumulate for one year more than necessary for the purposes of the Act, and accordingly the authorities of the college agreed on my suggestion and are perfectly willing that this accumulation shall cease the moment the Joint Exchequer Board are satisfied that a sufficient sum exists to provide the indemnity, because it would be ridiculous that it should go on after that period. The reason there is this accumulation is due to the slow rate at which land purchase negotiations are proceeding, but that is a controversial matter and I will not go into what the reason may be. But the fact remains that owing to the negotiations for purchase not proceeding as rapidly as was expected this sum has not been used to the extent that it was thought it would be, and the result is that there is a very large sum standing there in the shape of accumulation. It is quite reasonable and right when the period arrives, when the Joint Exchequer Board say there is no further reason for it, that the Irish Exchequer of the day—and I hope it will be a very long day—will get the benefit of it. Let me say in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cecil
  142
  Harmsworth), who has shown a very great interest in this matter, and whose assistance and co-operation I entirely welcome, I want him not to imagine for a moment that my right hon. Friend and colleague and I have not given this suggestion the fullest and most anxious consideration. I spent hours in the last fortnight in Dublin in endeavouring to ascertain the views of my Constituents upon the question. I discussed it with many of them—those in favour and those against it—in endeavouring to ascertain the views of both sides, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake for this House to interfere in the domestic economy of this university. Above all it would be a mistake to do anything such as this Amendment would do and tear up a constitution which has not had a fair trial. Under the King's Letter this new governing body is created consisting of the old members recruited by some of the younger fellows and professors. That new body has not yet had a chance, it is a body willing and anxious to carry out all the reforms necessary to bring that ancient university up to date and it may safely be trusted. I think it would be a great mistake to do anything by this Amendment which would override and overrule this new governing body, because I believe that would be the inevitable result if the Amendment moved by the hon. Member were accepted. I hope the House will understand that this Clause has been arrived at after anxious and careful consideration, and I wish to acknowledge that the Chief Secretary has kept his promise and pledge to us in the most scrupulous and honourable way, and he has been extremely fair and courteous in the matter. I think it is only right that I should say that.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I think in justice to myself and also to the right hon. Gentleman I ought to put myself straight on the matter which he has controverted. The statement I made, as well as I recollect, in my speech at Ipswich was to this effect, that whereas in 1893, when the right hon. Gentleman moved this identical Amendment, not a word of objection came from any party, and he acknowledged himself that it was moved and carried in substance by agreement in this House this year, and no objection came from various quarters—
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Here is what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is

  143
  reported in the "Freeman's Journal" to have said:—
  "I move the same Amendment now—
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I did not profess to quote your exact words.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Here are the words put into my mouth by the "Freeman's Journal":—
  "I move the same Amendment now, and to my astonishment I instantly get hundreds of letters not only from Dublin but from all countries where the graduates of Trinity College are to be found, protesting that they would not tolerate that a university should be put in the position of being put off from the rest of Ireland."
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I did not profess to be quoting the right hon. Gentleman's exact words. I paraphrased them, and if I did so unfairly, I at once apologise. I have looked up the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and this is what he said:—
  "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 (he 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. Since that time I have received hundreds of letters from all parts of England and Scotland, 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, however, 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. Gentlemen 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1912. cols. 894–5, Vol. XLV]
  The point I desired to make was that whereas no objection had been taken to this Amendment in 1893, an objection was taken in the year 1912, and that showed an advance of opinion in this matter. If in making that point I in any way misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman or carried him further than he intended, I have no hesitation whatever in stating that I did not intend to do so, and I apologise.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Of course I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's apology. I did feel that I had been put into a false position by it being suggested in public that I had stated I had received
  144
  hundreds of letters protesting against the Amendment, whereas the hundreds of letters were in favour of it, and I only got two objecting to the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why did you not say so?"] At any rate the matter has now been cleared up, and I hope it will not be made the subject matter of misrepresentation any more.
  Mr. MOORE: I am glad that this matter has been settled. I think the Chief Secretary during the Committee stage undertook that he would settle the matter, and he certainly has carried out his undertaking. It is a great comfort to the people in Belfast to know this, because naturally they are very anxious as to their future if Home Rule becomes law in Ireland. They insisted on this Amendment, and they have got it. I wish to say a few words about another matter, and I am afraid I shall not be able to avoid the controversial element to the same extent as my right hon. Friend has done. I think I have a right to intervene in these matters. My father held a position in this university and six of his sons entered Trinity College. Therefore we have been connected for a long time with that institution, in which my father held a professorship. I have myself been brought up at Trinity. While I fully and freely admit that our representatives have made the best bargain they can for the university, I have one little objection to make, and it is only a minor one, which I am almost afraid to mention. We know how my right hon. Friend deals with objections from his own side of the House. My view is that these Amendments are all a sham. We know quite well that they will never be carried out, because they will be evaded, and a person is a fool who asks for the paper safeguards from a Home Rule Parliament. Here my Friends have got a paper safeguard, and I wish them joy of it. I think it is rather a work of supererogation to criticise the Amendment now. I am very much alarmed at this provision with regard to the taking of property. Trinity College has a most valuable possession in the College Park right in the centre of Dublin, and if you are going to allow the Irish Parliament to drive a road—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"I—well, it has been suggested before now, and they are quite capable of it—if you are going to allow the Irish Parliament to drive a road from Kildare Street to Brunswick Street across the College Park, you will be doing an injury

  145
  which no amount of compensation will cover. I shall be told that the compensation will be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the Irish Parliament, but I know the class of man he will be, and, therefore, there will be very little safeguard in this provision. I will, however, leave that question. [Has. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do so because I have stated my opinion and I believe every word of it.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: The "Irish Times."
  Mr. MOORE: The hon. Member who interrupts me represents the greatest number of illiterates in any constituency in Ireland, but I am going to deal with this matter in my own way. This whole transaction is very interesting. It shows how it has been used entirely from start to finish for party purposes, and I hope the House will note the conclusion of it. My hon, and learned Friend says, with perfect truth, that his Amendment was moved on the Committee stage. The Chief Secretary said he could not accept it, and it went by the board, but he said it would bring up words which would suit. It was therefore left at large as to what exactly exclusion of Trinity College meant. It had not been defined in black and white, but it was to be defined. Then what happened? The present Provost, if he appoints anyone without the approval of the gentleman who conducts the "Irish Times," is the object of his censure in that paper, and the "Irish Times" is also very susceptible to Nationalist opinion. It is constantly quoted from those benches, and never without the statement that it is the leading representative Unionist paper, although for the last five years it has been suspect in Unionist circles.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Will you deny its Unionism?
  Mr. MOORE: Perhaps the hon. Member will calm himself. It is part of the game of the editor of the "Irish Times" to indulge in his aversion to the present Provost, and also to please the Nationalist Members below the Gangway, and he at once started an agitation in his paper with the object of proving that the effect of this Amendment would be that Trinity College would be cut off from the public life of Ireland. The editor of the "Irish Times" also holds the position of correspondent to the London "Times," and he is Constantly producing in the London "Times" extracts from the "Irish
  146
  Times," which he writes himself, as the opinion of the leading Unionist journal. It is quite easy by these methods to create an impression, and the ink was hardly dry on this article in the "Irish Times," reproduced in the London "Times" by their Irish correspondent, than the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. R. Harcourt), for party purposes, put questions on the Order Paper, suggesting that all his constituents had run away from the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University (Mr. J. H. Campbell), and that he had not carried out their wishes in moving his Amendment. Then our Nationalist friends began, and there were tributes paid in the country to the great generosity of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) in accepting this Amendment. At the same time minor Members of the Nationalist party went about saying Trinity College was cutting herself off and was not to be allowed to have any representation in the Irish Parliament. That was even said in this House.
  Mr. GWYNN: That was not said from the Nationalist Benches. It was said by the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. MOORE: With Nationalist cheers. No doubt it was a Nationalist suggestion since the Postmaster-General never moves without it. This was the kindly way in which the exclusion of Trinity College was dealt with. It was all done for party ends. All through last Session suggestions were made in Nationalist papers that my hon. Friend was not carrying out the wishes of his constituents. Then at last the "Irish Times," thinking it was successful in its campaign, announced that after all Trinity was not going to cut herself off root and branch from the public life of Ireland. That announcement was received with the same paeans of joy as the statement was received this evening. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford was in the country, and he made a speech in which he said a beautiful spirit was coming over everything, for only last night or that morning they heard that Trinity College repudiated its representative in the House of Commons and were going to throw in their lot with the new Irish Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have not got the cutting here, but I am speaking in the knowledge of hon. Members who read the speech.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: He said it at Sheffield. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. MOORE: Well, he went pretty near it. That is the way the matter stood. It is all very well to impress an English audience, and I suppose for use in the House here, but I would like the House to see how much confidence and trust under the accepted Amendment Trinity College is showing in the new Irish Parliament—
  "No law made by the Irish Parliament shall have effect so as to alter the constitution, or divert the property of, or repeal or diminish any existing exemption or immunity enjoyed by the University of Dublin, or 'Trinity College, Dublin, without their consent."
  That is a fine mark of confidence, and yet that is what you are so joyful about, "That Trinity College has been betrayed by their Member, that they had found out the truth, and that they had abandoned him, and had trusted them selves implicitly to the Nationalist party." There is, however, as the Chief Secretary says, always a "but." It is subject to the provision that the Irish Parliament cannot alter their constitution or divert their property, or deprive them of any existing immunity or exemption without their full consent. Such is their mark of confidence in the new Irish Parliament. There is no wonder that in the present state of affairs the Nationalist party are grateful for small things. This is the day of small things, and that is the great mark of confidence the University of Dublin is showing in the Nationalist party that has to be heralded on public platforms in the? country as proving a growing confidence on the part of the Unionists of Ireland. I think that is the maximum you will ever get. Speaking for hundreds of the graduates of the university, I say we would be perfectly content if the Chief Secretary had accepted the original Amendment, and prevented you with or? without the consent of any living person over being able to lay a finger on the place. There are hundreds and thousands of the graduates who will say that. If you were to poll the graduates of the whole body to-morrow you might have a party majority, though I doubt if you would have Professor Tyrrell with you, but such is their love for their ancient university, and such is their suspicion and well-founded suspicion of the personnel of the? coming Nationalist Parliament—if it ever exists—that you would have an overwhelming majority of the professors, fellows, and graduates against, for a moment, confiding their destiny to such a Parliament.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: We have had tonight a spectacle of friendship and kindly
  148
  spirit between the two Front Benches, and I think that even the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has been infected by it. All I wish to say is that this is not a question either of the character or disposition of the Irish Parliament or of its political complexion. The House will see that this Amendment does not involve the virtue or wickedness of our party in taking the course which the Chief Secretary has taken, under circumstances which we all understand, rather than the course advocated by the hon. Members for Gal-way. As to the relations between the Irish Parliament and Trinity College that is a small debating point which I do not desire to press. I only rose to say that I hoped we have not had the last word, because after all what is really at stake here is not the character of the Irish Parliament, but it is the future working of the great University at Dublin, and the question is whether you are likely to promote the best working of that university by requiring that any reform shall be subject to the assent of the bodies named in the Amendment, giving each a power of veto—a power which in many years past has proved disastrous to reform in so many different places—or whether the real and true interests of that ancient university, of which we are all proud, would not be best served in the manner proposed. I hope that in whatever negotiations may take place the sole consideration will be what is best for the welfare of Trinity College itself.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: We have heard in various quarters of the House expressions of distrust as to what the Irish Parliament would do to Trinity College. But the best antidote to that distrust is to remember what the Irish Parliament did do when it had the power. From my knowledge of history I can say that there have been no two bodies so intimately or affectionately associated during a whole period than Trinity College and the University of Dublin and the Parliament on College Green.
  Mr. MOORE: They were all Protestants then.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: They may have been Protestants, but they extended great liberality to their fellow Catholic countrymen. I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for North Armagh. Does he not know that the portals of Trinity College, through what is called Parliament Square were erected by the liberality of

  149
  the Irish Parliament? What does one see on entering the Square? He sees the statue of Edmund Burke, the greatest friend of Catholic rights and liberties, and on the other side he sees the statue of Oliver Goldsmith who, 160 years ago, spoke of the visible land hunger which then was as it now is the plague of Ireland. And when we come into Trinity College itself do we not find that the history of Trinity College is largely the history of the Irish Parliament. You go into its hall and you see before you Grattan who raised the great question of Irish Parliamentary independence, and on the other side in the Examination Hall you see Molyneux and Bishop Berkeley, both friends of Trinity College. Just see what the College has done. Take the case of the Oxford and Cambridge Union. In their case no member who has presided over the Debating Society has been a Member of Parliament at the same time, but Trinity College elected as the president of its Historical Society one who was at the same time Member for the University of Dublin, and when one looks into the records of the Historical Society it is seen that so and so was granted leave of absence in order to attend to his Parliamentary duties on College Green, and that is the Parliament of whose restoration the hon. Gentleman is so very much afraid. He tells us it is true that this will not be the Parliament of 1800 because no Catholics were in that, but let me remind him that among the Provost of Trinity College were Andrews and Hely-Hutchinson—both Members of the Irish Parliament—both protagonists of Catholic rights and education. It was Hely-Hutchinson who proposed an admirable scheme giving Catholics all the rights and privileges of Trinity College, and the Board of Trinity College, thirty-five years before the Boards of Oxford and Cambridge gave degrees to Catholics if they chose to apply for them. Let us consider this—it gives me some good hopes for the hon. Gentleman in the future, for we can only gauge the future by the past—as I look over the history of Trinity College in its connection with the old Irish Parliament it shows me that the most opposing political elements will be combined to defend the rights of an institution of which every Irishman is, and ought to be, proud. Trinity College has a unique history in the Parliamentary representation of universities. So far as I know, it is the only university representation which was the subject of an election
  150
  petition. It was a very remarkable petition. It was brought in 1791 before a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The allegation made was that one man standing for a fellowship was offered as a bribe for his vote the examination papers and the answers. On this Committee there sat two men, the most opposite in careers and antecedents. They both voted that the rights and liberties of Trinity College in connection with that election should be maintained. They were Lord Edward Fitzgerald on the one side and Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, on the other. They united for the protection of the institution. In respect of the university representation of Trinity College in future there will be one inestimable blessing, for we shall have, as we have not in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, at least one representative a university man to his finger-tips. In former times one of the representatives of Trinity College was always a fellow or professor of the college. The lovely examination hall was built by the liberality of a fellow of Trinity College, who was a member for the university in the old Irish Parliament. Since the Union not a single man connected with the teaching body of Trinity College has ever been its member. I have good hopes for Trinity College. I cannot forget that it was a fellow of Trinity College who was the inventor of the words "Home Rule." That was the Rev. Professor Galbraith, and God bless his memory for it.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I rise to remind the hon. Member of the scope of the Amendment now before the House. He seems to be going a little far a field from it.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I have said all the irregular things I was going to say, and I have to thank the House for the kindness with which it has listened to me in the matter. After all, blood is stronger than water. Trinity College is the college of my father and of both my grandfathers. I spent one happy year there. I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) will not go into a fit when I say that I regard it as one of my greatest privileges that I was one of the examiners in that institution, notwithstanding my politics.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Everyone in the House will agree that the first thing I should do is to move a vote of thanks to the hon Member who has just sat down

  151
  for his very interesting archœological lecture, dealing with statues and quadrangles. The hon. Member gave away his whole case at a very early stage in his lecture. He gave us a long list of names of persons connected with Trinity College at one time or another, mentioning among them Grattan and Flood, and also the whole of Grattan's Parliament. What differentiates the case at present from that of 112 or 120 years ago is the point made by the hon. Member that all these people loved Trinity College. Is the hon. Member or any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway prepared to get up and tell me that the rank and file of that party love Dublin University? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, its associations."] Listen to the unanimous yell! I am not a Trinity College man myself. That does not affect the argument, as the onlooker is supposed to see more of the game, and one who is not a member of the university may perhaps look at the question from an unprejudiced point of view Although I am not a graduate of Trinity College, I know a great many of the graduates, and I unhesitatingly say, in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary, that there is an overwhelming majority of those entitled to speak on behalf of Trinity College who would like to see it safeguarded, fenced and fortified in every way, against interference by any Parliament set up in Ireland. My hon. hon. Friends below me may have made the best of a bad bargain and obtained a certain amount of safeguard which, if we could trust the Irish Parliament, would be of some value, but I have no hesitation in reiterating the statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) that we do not trust this Parliament, and I feel perfectly certain that you have only to look at the sayings of hon. Members below the Gangway in past days, before they realised that the only chance they had of converting even the Liberal party to Home Rule was to adopt a conciliatory attitude and say that they loved everything in Ireland now which a few years ago they said they hated—
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Who ever said that we hated Trinity College?
  Mr. C. CRAIG: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) has himself said that Trinity College is very unpopular in Ireland.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Has he ever said he hated it?
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I did not say the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said it.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Then do not say it.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I would ask the junior Member for Waterford not to get so excited.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. C. Craig) a right to refer to me as the "junior Member for Waterford"?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member himself was interrupting the speech. He drew upon himself the remark. Hon. Members should rise when they have something to say at the end of a speech.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: When an hon. Member imputes a statement to other hon. Members in this House, is it not natural that some of us should, without rising, express our dissatisfaction with the imputation?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There have been a considerable number of these interruptions. It is not necessary to express disagreement in debate until the opportunity comes in rising to continue the Debate.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I think the hon. Member before he has been very much longer in the House will probably learn to control himself a little more efficiently. I did not say the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) had ever said he hated Trinity College. I know that many Members of the Nationalist party have on hundreds of occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I have named one. I have spoken of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have said he has before now stated that Trinity College is very unpopular with Ireland.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: That is a very different statement.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member reserve his contradiction till the conclusion of the speech?
  Mr. C. CRAIG: It only requires hon. Members opposite to look back over a very few years of Irish history to find innumerable expressions from Nationalist Members of Parliament and leading

  153
  Nationalists in Ireland who are not Members of Parliament to show their feelings towards Trinity College, Dublin. That is what differentiates the case between now and the time of Grattan's Parliament, when unquestionably it is safe to say that five-sixths of the Members of Grattan's Parliament were graduates of Trinity College. That is a very different state of affairs from what exists now. It is preposterous to suggest, as has been stated explicitly by one hon. Member opposite and several hon. Members below the Gangway, that there is any considerable number of graduates of Trinity College at present who desire to be in any way left to the mercies of a Dublin Parliament. The very opposite is the case. I guarantee that nine-tenths of them are bitterly opposed to the future Irish Government having any control or say whatever in the government of Trinity College.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Amendments made: Leave out the word "University"["(a) the governing body of the University"], and insert instead thereof the word "College."
  Leave out the word "Academic"["and (c)the Academic Council"], and insert instead thereof the word "University."
  After the word "property"["the taking of property"], insert the words "not being lands in occupation of or used in connection with the college or either of the universities."
  Leave out the word "may"["may be deducted on the Order"], and insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  At the end of the Clause insert the words ["and (c) until the Joint Exchequer Board certify that the amount standing to the credit of the account of Trinity College, under Section 39 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, is adequate to afford the indemnity for which provision is made by that Section, there shall be paid annually out of moneys provided by the Irish Parliament the sum of five thousand pounds for that account; and that sum, if and so far as not so paid, shall be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Transferred Sum and paid to that account."

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Suspension of Executive Power in Ireland during State of War.")
  (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by Proclamation made at any time of or during the existence of a state of war or of national emergency to suspend the exercise of executive power in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of the Executive Committee for such period as may be specified in the Proclamation, and during that period all executive power in Ireland shall be exercised without reference to the Executive Committee, and the Lord Lieutenant and the heads and officers of Irish Departments shall comply with any directions that may be given by His Majesty as regards Irish services.
  (2) If any head, or officer, or servant, of an Irish Department neglects or refuses to comply with any directions given by His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of this Section, he may be removed from his office by His Majesty in Council, and His Majesty in Council may appoint another person to fill the vacancy so caused.
  (3) All expenditure incurred in the administration of Irish services under the provision of this Section, and which are paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with Regulations made by the Treasury."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am afraid in moving this Clause I shall have to go rather wide of the pleasant academic atmosphere in which we have been living for two hours, but with regard to that academic atmosphere, having heard how my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. H. Campbell) spent his Christmas holiday, I thank God that I represent an industrial and not an academic constituency. The purpose of the Clause is to provide that in time of war or great national emergency the central Imperial Government shall have control of the whole machinery of Government, both Naval, Military, and Civil, throughout the United Kingdom. As it stands, our present position in time of war is anything but satisfactory. I believe the position of this country at the outbreak of a war is probably weaker than that of any great Power. Lord Salisbury said many wise things, but he never said a wiser than when he said that the British Constitution was a bad fighting machine. So it is, because the very excellencies that have made our constitution hitherto a wonderful

  155
  machinery for protecting the liberty of the subject in time of peace, work against the power of the country in time of war. When war threatens, the Government of the day necessarily has to consider how far public opinion will support it, and how far Parliament will support the first steps it takes to ensure the defence of the country, and that doubt and hesitancy undoubtedly affect the preparations for war, and anyone who will read carefully the history of the months of August and September, 1899, will have that very powerfully brought home to him. It is quite different with an autocratic Government, and there is an extraordinary contrast between the clumsiness of the machinery in a constitutional country and the swiftness and decision of the machinery in an autocratic country like India. The preparations which were made by the Indian Government at that time were infinitely better and surer than the preparations made by the British Government, and so it must always be. I do not say that is an argument for autocracy as against constitutional forms of government, I only want to put on record that even as we stand the machinery of government in time of emergency is a particularly weak one in this country.
  If that is so in regard to the central Government, the position is still more complicated in regard to subordinate Governments. There is an element of -weakness, and it may be of paralysis, at the outbreak of war when you have subordinate Governments to consider. The South African war furnishes two instances. In the case of Natal just before the outbreak of war, Sir George White was commander of the British troops in that country, and he found himself immediately in conflict with the Prime Minister of the Colony. The Prime Minister, thinking of the interest of his Colony, and ignoring, quite honestly no doubt, the highest strategical considerations, imposed on Sir George White certain conditions which proved of the greatest embarrassment and difficulty, and indeed led to severe military reverses at the beginning of that campaign. I am not quoting that upon my own authority, but upon the authority of Lord Roberts, who reported on the matter. In Cape Colony there was an even stronger example. There the Government was divided in its support—that is to say, it depended upon supporters belonging to
  156
  different races—and the consequence was that its action before the beginning of the war was eminently weak and uncertain, and it is on record that the Prime Minister (Mr. Schreiner) actually allowed, against the wishes of the military authorities, munitions of all kinds to go along the railways to the enemy, so that the Colony itself assisted the enemy at the beginning of the campaign. He also used his influence to prevent various advance posts being occupied out of deference to views of the civilian population of Cape Colony. There, again, serious injury and detriment was caused to the British strength at the beginning of the war.
  I want to enlarge on these two instances for this reason. In neither case could you say that the local Government was disloyal. In the case of Cape Colony, no doubt the position was difficult owing to the attitude of some of the Prime Minister's supporters, but no one could fairly say that Mr. Schreiner was a disloyal man, or that he acted against what he believed to be the patriotic interests of the Empire. In Natal the case was even stronger, for the Prime Minister and the Government were ardently patriotic, but they could not look at the situation with the eye of the Imperial Government, and that was the cause of great difficulty and embarrassment at the beginning of the war. In applying this argument to Ireland I do not, for the purpose of my argument, want to enlarge upon the special position of that country, or the special composition of any probable Irish Government. What I say would apply in greater or less degree to any subordinate Government. I would use the same argument if a similar machine of government were to be put into the hands of optimistic baillies in Edinburgh or rhetorical 'predikants' in Cardiff. I only say that in time of national emergency the whole machine must be at the disposition and under the control of the central Government. It is quite true that Army and Navy matters are reserved by this Bill to the central Government, but that is not enough, for at the beginning of war the part played by the civil side of the machine of government might be quite as important as that played by the purely naval or military arm. I think the Government have to some extent admitted this in the Bill. They have admitted it in the case of the Post Office. It was urged earlier in the Debates that it would be a source of great military weakness if the Post Office were in the hands of a subordinate

  157
  Government, and they have attempted to meet that point. I think they have met it in an unsatisfactory way. I ask the House to turn to the new Clause 45. Under that Clause there is a provision that an Order in Council may be made for the reservation of power to His Majesty by Order in Council to transfer in time of war or national emergency the powers and duties of the Irish Post Office to the British Post Office, or to the naval or military authority of the United Kingdom. But be it observed that there are two Orders in Council contemplated—one made at the time of the passing of the Act, and the other dependent upon or subordinate to that made at the passing of the Act, or whenever the Act is put into operation. If circumstances arise which are not contemplated at the time of the former, the former must prevail, and it may not be possible to put the second in effective operation for the simple reason that circumstances have arisen which were not foreseen when the first and governing Order was made. For instance, the original Order might say that in time of war all the postal facilities, all control of mail bags, control of the telegraph, wireless telegraphy, and the rest, may be put into the hands of the Imperial Government at the time of war, but circumstances may change. For instance, wireless telephony may have developed since that time, and if anything of that kind has arisen since the first Order was made which was not contemplated and foreseen at that time, the Second Order in Council would for effective purposes be null and void.
  I say this is a very unsatisfactory state of things, because you are entirely dependent upon the wisdom and foresight of those who frame the first and permanent Order in Council, and the other though it might deal with a vital matter would be vitiated. It would be far better to reserve to the Imperial Government power over that service and the other services absolutely unrestricted by any specific provisions at the time so that they could do what they like when a real emergency arises. It is not only a question of the Post Office. There are many other matters. For example, there is the whole question of the control of the Press. I believe in future when war is contemplated very strict control will have to be exercised over the dissemination of news. I am perfectly certain that will be a matter which will assume much greater importance in tactical considerations in future. I think we have
  158
  had an example of it lately. At the beginning of the war in the Balkans the utmost secrecy was exercised by the Balkan: authorities regarding their advance, and the great flanking movement to the East, that was so extraordinarily successful was kept veiled from the observation of Europe for a considerable time, and it was not until weeks afterwards that the existence was generally known of the third force operating between the right and left flanks. That was owing to the rigorous, and perhaps excessive, precautions taken by the Bulgarian authorities. There were no similar or so effective precautions on the other side.
  I do not think that it need be argued at very great length that secrecy in-modern war, at any rate where the first blow may be all-important, is absolutely-essential, and the authorities of this country will have to exercise very much more control in future wars over the Press of all kinds than they have done in the past. How would this apply to a subordinate Government? You might have the most excellent Executive possible, but if you had an Executive which did not see matters in the same light as yourself, you might not be able to enforce the law until it was too late. Suppose, which is quite possible, that the military authorities decided to mobilise at the Curragh a force to be dispatched from Cork for a raid on some foreign Power, secrecy would be the essence of success of such a proposal, but unless you have adequate powers of law enforceable by summary procedure all your precautions might easily be in vain. There might be a delay of two or three days before you had got some injunction or gone through legal processes before an Irish Court, which might be unsympathetic and take another view, that might frustrate absolutely the whole object of your expedition. I noticed the other clay in the papers that, in view of the possibility of a war, the very first thing the Austro-Hungarian Government did was to prohibit all news as to the movement of troops. That is the view which obtains in other countries, and is the common sense of the situation. The matter does not rest with the dissemination of news: other things are necessary. In the same country for the last few weeks they have prohibited the export of horses, and taken measures for commandeering private property for transport, and made special provision for the families of recruits. In all these matters co-operation

  159
  of the civil authorities is essential. You cannot have a military executive enforcing all these matters over a country even when a war has broken out, much less before the beginning of a war.
  10.0 P.M.
  The civil authorities of the subordinate Government might very well say that such matters as the prohibition of the export of horses and the seizure of private property for transport were unnecessary, and that they see no reason for giving encouragement to recruiting and making special provision for the families of recruits. In such a case what is the Imperial Government to do? Are they to ride roughshod over the subordinate Government and force them by the military arm? If not they can only come to some terms of compromise by which the main objects of the preparation for war will be frustrated at the start. In the same way as regards the restrictions on the movement of foreigners, there might easily be a conflict between the superior and the subordinate Government. A number of Irishmen who have become citizens of the United States return to visit their country from time to time and restrictions on the movements of foreigners might hamper them. They would have an influence both with the Irish Executive and their own Government and great diplomatic pressure might be exercised and the result would be that the Irish Government might resent any measures for the surveillance and possibly the detention of foreigners in a critical state of things in that country. In all these matters you must depend very largely on the police in times of war, and it would be disastrous if the military forces were to be under one Executive and the police force under another, when they should work in common. Take the case of railways. In all the old Railway Acts I believe the 'Government reserved a power to take possession of the railways in time of war. But under this Bill the Irish Parliament have jurisdiction over Irish railways. They might assume control over them themselves; possibly you might have nationalisation of the railways, which would be quite practicable in Ireland. If you had you would have the whole machinery of transport in the hands of the subordinate Government with the superior body unable to interfere, and the taking over of those railways might be most essential to us. Then if in times of emergency anything like universal service had to be adopted
  160
  the existence of a subordinate Government would be a great hindrance.
  All those difficulties and disadvantages you would have in time of war no matter what subordinate Government you have. I am not assuming it is going to be disloyal or hostile. If you assume that there is such a possibility then the danger becomes much more imminent and serious. A great American naval authority said that a hostile Ireland would very seriously menace British naval supremacy. If you can assume for instance the necessity of large forces stationed in Ireland, that might interfere with the strategic designs of the British Government with regard to some European war. But all that is not necessary to my argument. You might have those things, or you might have a state of things in which public opinion in Ireland, and consequently the views of the Government, might be divided. I do not want to assume the likelihood or even the possibility—but it did happen a hundred years ago, and we cannot say that it may not happen again—that we might have a conflict with the United States. If we were in such a position, is not it palpable that the sympathy of Irish public opinion might be divided, and that it might impress the Government of the day just as public opinion impressed the Government of Mr. Schreiner in 1899? These things are possible, and we cannot be blind to them. But all I want to show at present is that a subordinate government must be a source of weakness in critical times, and that power ought to be reserved to the Imperial Government to take possession of all the strings or ropes of government, and to be able to say to any public servant in any part of the United Kingdom, "Do this," and he must do it, "Go there," and he must go, so that he must look to the central authority for promotion in case of merit and punishment in case of dereliction of duty, and so that the Minister who has to bear the burden of the war, may be sure, as far as any law can do it that every man in the United Kingdom shall do his duty.
  Colonel BURN: I am very glad to second this Amendment. It is a most important one. Many aspects of what will or may happen under Home Rule which have not been discussed are very important for the future of this country. I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said about internal communication and movement of troops, and that it is impossible to carry them on if there is dual control, and if the

  161
  Government of this country are making their arrangements in the event of hostilities with any other Power, and if the Irish people, some of whom are hand in glove with the enemies of this country, are to control the movements of troops and all that is necessary for mobilisation to take place. We must remember that if mobilisation were ordered everything depends on celerity, celerity of arrangements and of railway transport, so that all should work like clockwork. That is a vital necessity. If that is not so, then there is chaos and confusion, and it takes three times as long to mobilise as it would under ordinary conditions. Then there is the question of a hostile Ireland. My hon. Friend expressed the hope that Ireland would not be hostile. All I can say is that if the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who represent Ireland mean anything, then we have got to anticipate and understand that we may have a certain faction in Ireland who are hostile to this country, and ready to welcome the enemies of this country. Everyone who has studied this question must know that there is a considerable section of the Nationalist voters and of leaders in Ireland whose antipathy is openly avowed. We have even hon. Gentlemen in this House, who represent perhaps most of the Irish constituencies, who are decidedly lukewarm, to say the least of it, to the British garrison in that country. On several occasions we have demonstrated out of their own nostrils their hostility or their lukewarmness, which is always on the verge of hostility.
  The necessity for this Amendment is demonstrated by history as far back as the Tudor period. Whatever Power has desired to get command of the Atlantic, it has invariably insisted upon having a base in Ireland, and that is the view of great naval commanders from the time of Sir Walter Raleigh down to Admiral Mahan to-day. The estates of the illustrious favourite of Queen Elizabeth, voyager and planter of Minister, were close by those of the poet Spencer, also a Colonist and planter. They were situate in the county Cork, and warrior and poet both, like their Spanish foes and the Irish Chiefs of the Tudors, insisted on the great importance of the estuary of the Lee that, in the words of the poet, "like an island fair encircled Cork with its divided flood." It is obvious to anyone who has studied the rudiments of this question of the strategy that the magnificent harbours of Queens-town and Cork and the safe anchorage of
  162
  Bantry Bay were positions of the greatest importance in our long struggle with Spain and France, and they are as important to-day as they were in the days of James II. and Marlborough or in the time of the Directory and Hoche. This is not the improvised folly of Tory prejudice but the well considered axiom of every strategist since British history began to assume its modern character. Anyone who remembers the history of Napoleon will recollect that when he was in captivity at the end of his career he said that Hoche's expedition would have succeeded had it not been for stress of weather. Even our own historian, Alison, says that possibly they might have succeeded in that expedition if only they had been somewhat better organised. At any rate, I think that everyone will allow that all these harbours of Ireland are just as necessary for our sea forces and our land forces, for our tactics and our strategy, for disembarkments and as bases of supply in time of civil strife, as are the chief ports of the Channel itself. The ports of the South and West of Ireland are as essential to command the direct routes to the Bay of Biscay, and to the English Channel and the Port of London as Plymouth and Portsmouth. That is a well considered view of every strategist, and it is ten times more important since the introduction of electricity and steam into ocean transport has practically annihilated distance, and, since our battleships and cruisers have become so colossal, harbours like Queenstown are a priceless national possession as bases. It is doubtful if these islands could provide six harbours of equal strategic value. I contend therefore that what I may call the Port Arthur of Ireland should be rendered absolutely secure and in the keeping only of those whose loyalty is undisputed and indisputable.
  I would remind hon. Members that it is but a few days distant from a hostile attack emanating from the Baltic or the German Sea, the Mediterranean, or from any of the French or Spanish ports, and to go and deliberately place such a key of Empire in possibly hostile hands or to give its control for even one week, into such hands as those of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Sinn Fein, Molly Maguires, or Pat Ford, is involving this country in a risk which no nation should be called upon to face. The power that gets a foothold in Ireland could bring England to her knees. Suppose the United States quarrelled with this

  163
  country as they did at Napoleon's suggestion in 1812, and the Irish Parliament in Dublin had power to levy taxes, the danger to this country would be incalculable. We must remember that the change since 1805, or considerably later, 1860, has been great and almost incredible—Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. At that time our maritime supremacy was a real maritime supremacy. Our navy was equal to the navies of all the world put together. To-day things are very different. We have a struggle to keep even with one Power, and we know we no longer stand in the position of security that we did at one time, let alone that modern conditions have so entirely changed, have so improved communication, introducing Marconi wireless telegraphy, and things of that sort, that even a country like Japan could with far greater ease invade America or threaten Australia, or defeat the Russians in Manchuria, than Napoleon could reach Syria or Wellington take Lisbon. Canada and New Zealand recognise this fact, and they are offering us substantial aid at the very time when this ill-omened Bill is making the path smooth for our enemies in the future. All the great authorities of the day, all the great tacticians, and the great writers on strategy consider that our strategic apprehensions are wisdom themselves, and I think that proves the necessity of this Clause, at any rate to take the minimum precautions. I could quote many of those strategical writers of to-day. I could quote Admiral Mahan or General Bernhardi, who are certainly the greatest strategic writers, and generally accepted all over the world as being the greatest strategic writers of today. They are tied to no political party in this country, and when they show us our danger, taking into consideration the conditions of to-day, they do so basing their assertions on the history of the past and on the conditions of to-day.
  I think anyone, and certainly any soldier who has studied the subject must know what a real danger it is to this country to have a hostile element in Ireland who are ready to help our foes. All our generals and admirals in the old days knew perfectly well that the real objective of Napoleon was Ireland when he had designs on this country, and that he said when he was in captivity that the road to London lay via Dublin. And Nelson himself always said that
  164
  Napoleon's strategy before Trafalgar, his true objective, was not England, nor the West Indies, but Ireland. I maintain that the Government cannot look lightly on this matter. I should like to know if they have consulted the Committee of Imperial Defence or the military authorities. I guarantee that every competent military opinion taken on this subject will say that the danger to this country is great. Whatever hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway may say to us here in this House, we can prove by their own words that they are ready to help the foes of this country. This Bill is a fatal one, of that I am certain, and if I ever thought it would be in operation then I should be indeed a good deal more fearful than I am at present. But I think there are obstacles, and in my opinion it never will be in operation. The Government know that, and I dare say hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway know it too. I think that the Government has no right to run these risks for our country, and I hope that even at this late hour they will see that there is wisdom in this Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend, and that they will give way and think no longer of their own party but of the future of this country.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the Government do not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, it is not at all because they underestimate the weight of the many considerations which have been laid before the House, and just recently in very cogent language, by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Burn). If it were the case that the Government within this island were to be entrusted, as he said, with powers for the movement of troops, or to be in a position to transfer important naval bases to a foreign or hostile Power, then indeed the position would be a serious one. But the Bill does nothing of the kind.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That was not my argument.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken is also entitled to a reply. The Bill, in Clause 4, defines the Executive power of the new Irish Government.
  "The Executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in His Majesty the King, and nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power except as respects Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act."

  165
  What is defined as "Irish services"?
  "'Irish services' are all public services in connection with the administration of the civil government of Ireland except the administration of matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament have no power to make laws."
  Therefore it is clear that whatever is excluded from the purview of the Irish Legislature is also excluded from the purview of the Irish Executive. Excluded from the control both of the Legislature and of the Executive is—
  "The making of peace or war or matters arising from a state of war; or the regulation of the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between Foreign States with which His Majesty is at peace, in relation to those hostilities; or
  The Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force, or the defence of the realm, or any other naval or military matter."
  Is it possible to frame words wider than those, or to devise any Clause which would more fully and completely reserve to the Imperial Government the entire control of every matter relating to the defence and security of these islands?
  MARQUESS of TULL1BARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that war is only during the existence of hostilities? Is there anything in the Bill to stop the Irish Executive from dealing with matters before the existence of war?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words
  "the defence of the realm or any other naval or military matter"
  are not limited to war in existence. The point is completely covered by the words of the Bill itself, and they were put in with the hearty assent of those who represent the national movement in Ireland. If the Imperial Government retains this complete control over the Army, the Navy, and other menus of defence, I do not think that even the large powers that are entrusted to the Lord Mayor of Cork will really imperil the safety of these islands. Hon. Members have given two or three specific instances where they said inconvenience, embarrassment, and even? danger might arise in time of national emergency or actual warfare if the Imperial Executive had not the control over all Executive matters in Ireland. The Post Office was mentioned. But we have dealt with that. Although we considered
  166
  it adequately dealt with in the Bill as introduced, we have made the matter clearer by an Amendment, which, I submit, completely deals with the point. The Mover of the Amendment suggested that the original Order in Council to be issued when the Act first came into operation might omit certain points or not take into account certain contingencies which might later arise and could not be subsequently dealt with. The earlier Order in Council will naturally follow in this respect the words of the Bill, which are these—
  "to transfer in time of war or national emergency the powers or duties of the Irish Post Office to the British Post Office, or to the naval or military authorities of the United Kingdom."
  There again I fail to see what wider words could possibly have been chosen. Any thing at all which comes within competence of the Irish Post Office may be transferred in time of war, if it be necessary for the defence of the realm, to the officials of the Imperial Post Office. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the further question of the railways, which, he said, might be under the control of the Irish Department or even be nationalised and under the direct administration of the Irish Government. That is provided for already, not indeed in this Bill, but in earlier Acts which will have validity when this Bill has been passed. There is the Regulation of Railways Act of 1871, and the National Defence Act of 1888 which give power to the Secretary of State in a time of emergency to assume control of all the railroads of the United Kingdom. Those Acts will still be applicable when this Bill has been passed, and precisely the same powers will be in existence as now for the control of the railways, and thereby to assist the mobilisation and movement of troops. The next illustration used by the Mover of the Amendment was that of the Press. He asked how we could establish an efficient and adequate censorship over the Press in time of war or national emergency. Here again, whatever powers exist at present will also exist after the passage of the Home Rule Bill. Whether those powers are adequate or not, and whether they need enlargement, is another question which, of course, we are not here to discuss to-night. But even if the Amendment were made, and if power were given by an Order in Council to transfer from the Irish Executive to the British Imperial Executive, power over the Press, that would not in any way enlarge

  167
  the powers; we should have no more than now. If the hon. Member contends that those powers could not be enforced in Ireland because of unsympathetic judges: his Amendment does not touch the judiciary; would have no effect upon the enforcement of the law, and therefore would not effect his purpose.
  What would be the actual effect of the Amendment? It would not touch the judiciary; it would not enlarge the powers of the Imperial Government; it would at one stroke of the pen wipe out of existence the whole of the Irish Executive, while leaving still standing the Irish Parliament. The Irish Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, the Irish President of the Board of Education, the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer—all those ministers would suddenly find, by a stroke of the pen here in London, that their functions had disappeared, and that they themselves were left in a state of suspended animation. All their power would be transferred to Imperial officers; that is the purpose of the Order in Council that the hon. Member contemplates; that is the effect of the words that he has placed on the Paper. If there were among some strata of Irish society any degree of simmering disloyalty what would be the effect on Irish public opinion if it was suddenly found the whole of the Executive was removed from office? If Ireland were in any degree inclined to be disloyal, I assume—
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: "The heads and officers of Irish Departments shall comply with any directions that may be given by His Majesty as regards Irish services" under the Order in Council of the central or Imperial Government.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, with all due deference, I am afraid the hon. Member, if I may put it so, has not altogether fairly represented the effect of his own Amendment. Let me read the words:
  "It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by Proclamation made at any time in contemplation of or during the existence of a state of war or of national emergency to suspend the exercise of Executive power in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of the Executive Committee for such periods as may be specified in the Proclamation and during that period all Executive power in Ireland shall be exercised without reference to the Executive Committee…"
  Mr. HOPE: Read on.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: "And the Lord Lieutenant and the heads and officers of the Irish Departments." By the heads of the Irish Departments I understand him to mean the permanent heads—
  Mr. HOPE: Oh, no.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member says the Executive power in Ireland shall be exercised without reference to the Executive Committee, which means that the Irish Ministry as such shall have no power.
  Mr. HOPE: Ministers will have power over their Departments.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Could there be a more impossible proposition? It appears more absurd than at first sight. Irish Ministers, the hon. Member tells us, are to remain in office, but they are to-obey every order of British Ministers, and while the Irish Government are unable to act they are to be liable to all pains and penalties. If Ireland were inclined to be disloyal this proposal of the hon. Member would have precisely the effect of making her disloyal. On the discussions of this Bill in Committee right hon. and hon. Gentlemen over and over again protested against the large powers to be preserved to the Executive Government here by Order in Council. We were told we were becoming an autocratic bureaucracy and were assuming enormous powers by Order in Council. But here we have a ukase by which an entire Constitution is to be wiped out by Order in Council. Apparently the hon. Gentleman, in his objection to Orders in Council which were proposed for enabling the Home Rule machinery to be put into operation and the details for the working out of the Act to be successfully accomplished, was animated by no real constitutional principle or any regard for the sanctity of legislation. His view, apparently, is that any act of despotism is allowable if only it is aimed against the Irish Constitution, if only it is to limit the freedom of the Irish people and not to facilitate it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who seconded declared that a subordinate Government in time of emergency could only be a source of weakness. That might be if they merely exercised Executive powers and had direct control over the Army and the Navy and military defences, but surely it is a profound error to think that the more centralised government is the stronger it is. The

  169
  British Empire is not strong because it is centralised, but because it is decentralised, and when hon. Members have referred in terms of natural pride, in the Debate tonight, to the assistance given in time of stress by our Dominions overseas, I should like to ask them how much we should have received from those Dominions if we denied them Home Rule and gave them a system of government from Downing Street. The old Irish Parliament before Grattan's day was not a very subservient body, but when it got a larger measure of liberty under Grattan, almost its first act was to vote 20,000 Irish sailors to the Imperial Navy, and the whole of the experience of our Empire shows that if you want security in time of war and time of stress and danger, you can only get it by giving liberty, without which there can be no loyalty. The hon. Member quoted various ancient authorities of 100 years ago. I venture to quote one in reply from Charles James Fox. He said, in one of his great speeches—
  "I would have the whole Government of Ireland regulated by Irish notions, and I firmly believe that the more she is under Irish government the more she will be bound to English interests."
  That is our view also, and it is far better and safer in time of war and emergency to have by your side a friend that is free, rather than an unwilling partner bound in chains.
  Sir E. CARSON: I should have thought on an Amendment of this kind we might have been favoured with the presence of the Secretary of State for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty because, after all, questions relating to the defence of the realm are of some importance. They are not matters of philanthropy, and the very reference the Postmaster-General has made to our Dominions beyond the seas, shows that we are not altogether able to neglect the condition of affairs in other parts of the Empire in time of war. The Postmaster-General has referred to the Dominions. Does he really think that Ireland is anything to compare with Canada or our other distant Dominions beyond the seas? Whatever may be said about the form or effect of this Amendment nobody can doubt that by setting up a separate Parliament with a separate Executive in Ireland you are profoundly changing the whole question of government at the very heart of the Empire. The real question you have to decide is with two islands so close as Great Britain and Ireland, whether you are not
  170
  in the very essentials of your proposals in this Home Rule Bill making more difficult in time of war the defence of this country upon the assumption that you may have in the subordinate Parliament a country which does not see eye to eye with the Government here. If you set up in Ireland a Parliament and Executive responsible to that Parliament which did not see eye to eye with the Government of this country can anybody tell me that in time of war we should not be greatly weakened, whether it be in offensive or defensive operations I That is the real question raised by this Amendment, and it is an important one. The right hon. Gentleman quotes very properly the Dominion of Canada, which is I believe some 3,000 miles away, but that is a very different thing from a country twelve miles away. It is also a different thing from a country full of harbours offering all kinds of opportunities if you have hostile fleets to deal with. There was one argument I could have understood from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is the only possible argument in the real essentials of the questions raised, and that is he should say that we absolutely trust the new Irish Government. But he does not say that, and he knows he could not say that, because I suppose he follows from day to day the literature in the Irish Press and the discussions that go on in the papers as regards the probability of a war between this country and Germany. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman reads them, and the question put forward week after week in those articles is, whether it would be better for Ireland to side with Germany or with this country. Therefore we must assume, and that is the object of this Amendment, that there may be a hostile Ireland and a hostile Government in Ireland. If there is not, then the Amendment does not hurt anybody, but if there is a hostile Government in Ireland, and such hostility as was shown by hon. Members below the Gangway when the Boer war was going on, when they were sending out there men to fight this country in South Africa and rewarding them with scats in this House, and when there was a campaign going on in Ireland to prevent enlistment in the Imperial troops to go to South Africa, headed by hon. Members below the Gangway, then these are matters you have to contemplate in a country so close as Ireland is to England. The right hon. Gentleman, in treating with our Dominions beyond the seas, gives

  171
  the go-by to what happened in Cape Colony and in Natal. We all know perfectly well that a great deal of the disaster which occurred afterwards was in consequence of the lowering of the efficiency of our troops and our generals by the hostility of both those self-governing Colonies in preventing munitions of war being sent up through their countries, and by those munitions of war being afterwards used against us. We are contemplating that might take place in Ireland; and, if it took place there, why should it not take place in Ireland ! What is the answer he gives? It is realy the only answer. "If you only look at the Bill, you will see what is the authority of the Irish Executive. It has nothing to do with the Army and Navy, and nothing whatever to do with anything that concerns the Army and the Navy." He says that ought to be sufficient. Does he really think so? Does he know his own Bill hands over the Police Force of Ireland within six years to the Irish Government? Does he know that in six years' time you are going to have what is really a standing army in Ireland in the control of the Irish Parliament? It is all very well for him to say that all we have to do as regards the Navy or the Army is to say, "You, the Irish Executive, have nothing to do with the Army or the Navy." What will he do if the Irish Executive, backed up by the Irish Parliament, say, "We do not care about your Navy and Army; we have got our Executive here; we are in possession." He knows perfectly well the only thing we can do then is to proclaim martial law or something of that kind and create a feeling, as he says, of extra disloyalty in Ireland by reason of having done so. That is all very easy to discuss in this House, but, supposing we were at hostilities with a foreign power and that did happen, what would be the result upon our whole policy at the time? The result would be disaster, because you would have at the very heart of the Empire a force that was weakening every operation that was being attempted against a hostile Pover. The whole object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is a very simple one, that if that arises and if it should be necessary, there should be a right in this Imperial Government to say to these people who are hampering your operations as regards any foreign country, If you hamper our operations, we are going to take over your Executive for the time being." Is that an unreasonable proposition to make? I do not know what is
  172
  the answer to it. The sole answer given to us is: "We have got our Army and. Navy; the Irish have got their Executive." This Amendment is to prevent these two-being brought into collision. That is the only possible way by which you could conduct your operations if any such state of facts arose, and I do submit this is a matter that ought not to be passed lightly by. It is a matter with which we should deal now, because you will never be able to do it again. Once you have granted these powers we should reserve to the Imperial Parliament every possible power that may become necessary. We hope it will not become necessary in the event of this country being involved in a state of war, and a hostile condition of affairs arising in Ireland. I dare say many Members have forgotten what did arise in Ireland during the Boer War. They may have forgotten that the troops could not be allowed to walk through Dublin, but had to be confined to barracks in consequence of the hostility of the people. We are now told that all this is at an end. How do you know it is at an end? You do not know it. It is not at an end, and you know that perfectly well, and the same dangers that confronted this country in relation to Ireland during 200 years in regard to our operations with foreign countries, are still likely to aise in the future. I submit that this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment which need never come into operation if the Irish Government and the Irish Executive turn out to be that extremely amicable and friendly assistance to this country which right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have the House believe.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I want to point out that when this Amendment was raised to-night the only hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite was the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and he sat perfectly quiet. It was only when my right hon. Friend mentioned that it was rather strange that in a matter of this sort there should be no single military expert present on that bench that the Chief Whip sent for the Secretary for War. Now I should like to put a question or two to that right hon. Gentleman. Can he assure us that this will be a military advantage to us? If so, our objections to Home Rule might disappear. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Home Rule for Ireland will strengthen the military resources of the Crown If so, will he explain how? Has the Committee

  173
  of Imperial Defence considered this question of whether Home Rule will strengthen our military situation. What is the opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence of the strategical value of Ireland? The real point is, does it strengthen or weaken it? Does the right hon. Gentleman think, supposing the case of internal trouble in Ireland, that the Executive power being in the hands of the Irish Executive will be stronger for the suppression of Civil disorder than if it is left in the hands of the Central Authority here? Mo doubt, as he has anticipated trouble in Ireland in the future, he has some idea in his head, and will tell us how he proposes to deal with the matter in regard to Civil administration in Ireland.
  The Postmaster-General went back to the old cry of federalism, and told us how much more loyal Australia and Canada and other parts of the Empire were owing to their being separated from this country. Does he really consider that the cases are analogous from a strategical point of view, and that there is no difference between Ireland and Great Britain taken together, and Canada and Australia? Does he consider that Ireland has been disloyal in the past, or that Ireland was disloyal during the last war? If he thinks it was disloyal, it seems to be taking a great risk to separate it entirely. If he thinks it was loyal, I cannot understand his objecting to some Amendment of this sort. I want to know what is the reason for Home Rule in regard to Imperial defence. I am not going into the question of South Africa, for the very good reason that so far as Ireland is concerned, some of my hon. Friends probably have a much better knowledge of the circumstances than I have. I think Ireland sent out to South Africa just as many, if not more loyal men, as either Australia or Canada, probably far more in proportion to her smaller population. I do not think he can make it an argument that because they are going to be separated they are going to be more loyal than they were before, and the whole thing to my mind is that you must have close co-operation with two islands so very close together. I do not see anything in Home Rule that is going to help us from a military point of view, but I see a great deal that is not going to help us. That is one of my objections to Home Rule from a military point of view. I should like to ask this one point, as we have a very distinguished lawyer here. Would it be
  174
  possible to put martial law into force right over Ireland from the Central Executive?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Martial law, which is a negation of law or no law at all, and which is sometimes suited to Ireland, can be put into force. The' right hon. Gentleman says it will be the same as Canada. Can you put martial law into force in Canada?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not the same as Canada.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was using Canada and Australia as examples of the splendid future that is before Ireland. In any case he has not said a word from the strategic or the military point of view. He simply gave us party politics. I should like to hear the Secretary of State for War defend Home Rule from the military point of view, and say if it is really the opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence that this will strengthen the Empire.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) and the Noble Lord have asked us certain definite questions since my right hon. Friend spoke. We are asked whether, in the opinion of the Government and the Committee of Imperial Defence, the grant of Home Rule to Ireland will be a strength or a weakness to the Empire. I speak on behalf of the Government when I say that we are quite clearly of opinion that the grant of Home Rule to Ireland will strengthen this country. I would not wish to detain the House on a point on which I have addressed it more than once. I would only repeat the arguments which have brought us to this conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman draws a picture of this country engaged in war, and he says that in that case Ireland under Home Rule would be able to do us an injury. The answer we give is that any part of these Islands that is hostile can do us an injury in time of war, but that we believe, and have reason to believe, that the grant of Home Rule to Ireland will bring contentment to five-sixths of the people of that country, and in so doing it will do two things. It will make them more certain to be friendly to us, and will enable us to recruit more soldiers. We are asked whether Ireland was loyal to us during the South African war? Again the answer is the one frequently given. Were the Dublin Fusiliers loyal?

  175
  Were the other Irish regiments, with -which the Noble Lord himself served, loyal to us during the South African war? Wherever there was the hardest fighting there were Irishmen, from the South of Ireland as well as from the North, the most loyal in our cause.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That was my argument for the Union, that the other was unnecessary from the military point of view.
  Colonel SEELY: The question was were they loyal when they fought for us during the war in which we were last engaged.
  Sir E. CARSONmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Colonel SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman has filled up the gap I was about to endeavour to fill in my reply to the Noble Lord. Those who fought for us in that war, whether they came from the South or from the North, and notably from the South, were some of the bravest regiments who have fought for us and were the most loyal of all. The gap is that those who thought that they had been wrongly deprived of the Parliament they once possessed were not friendly to us. When they have had restored to them that which was taken from them by fraud they will be friendly. That is the only answer which we can give and I regard it as conclusive, and I speak on behalf of the Government and, I believe, all those on this side of the House, and more, I believe on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the people of this Empire, that in granting to Ireland that which she has so long sought we shall increase her strength in the hour of danger.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to move "That the debate be now adjourned."
  Question put, and agreed to. Debate adjourned till to-morrow (Tuesday).
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Captain CRAIG: In accordance with the notice I gave at Question time, I wish to ask the President of the Board of
176
Agriculture one or two questions which very nearly affect the cattle trade, not just at this particular moment alone, but for the future in connection with the announcement he has made to a certain deputation that it is the intention in a very short time to issue orders from the Board with regard to the detention of cattle on this side of the water for the purpose of furthrer inspection over and above what takes place at the export town in Ireland. During the very short Christmas recess I was at a meeting in the North of Ireland, which was attended by all classes interested in the cattle trade. It was a meeting of the Ulster Agricultural Society, at which there were present representatives of shipping companies, as well as of those practically interested in cattle dealing. The unanimous opinion was that whatever restrictions were necessary in regard to the stamping out of foot-and-mouth disease during the particular crisis through which we are passing must be borne with either good or bad grace according to the nature of the person affected. But a very different state of affairs occurs when those dealing in cattle, one of the greatest industries throughout the whole of Ireland, have to look forward to permanent double inspection of cattle, sheep, and other stock coming across from Ireland to England and Scotland. That announcement came, first of all, with astonishment and the gravest apprehension, because the cattle are inspected first in Ireland by the veterinary inspector and given a clean bill of health to leave for this country, and after having undergone detention, which is not the simple matter some people imagine, because it is not always convenient for the inspector to sec a certain lot of cattle, and sometimes they are sent back to the depot or place where the man keeps them, and he has to bring them out perhaps two or three times to suit the veterinary inspectors. That is the case at present, so much so that sometimes three or four weeks go by and the cattle exporters have to drive the cattle through crowded towns in order to suit the convenience of the Government inspector before they are put on board. That treatment of cattle once is surely quite sufficient for all purposes. A short journey on a steamer from Belfast, Derry, or Dublin to this side could be taken by the cattle in charge of herds to their destination without the great inconvenience and enormous extra expense of having to take them out

177
of the steamer and drive them to some perhaps rather distant compound for veterinary inspection again, but not to be rested. Remember this is not a question that can be put on grounds of humanity towards the cattle. Otherwise the attitude of both Boards would be under the gravest criticism for what has taken place in the past.
It is merely asking to return to the status quo, and that these cattle should not be driven into this compound and under the suggested scheme of the right hon. Gentleman subject not necessarily to one further inspection in addition to what has taken place in Ireland, but actually to two, because it appears he has suggested that if there is daylight during the twelve hours' detention the cattle may be inspected during the twelve hours, but they will be further inspected as they leave the lairage at the end of twelve hours. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I will read to refresh his memory the interview which he had with Lord Inverclyde and others on this important point. I excuse the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for a great deal owing to their undoubted stress of work during the last month, but there is no excuse when dealing with a matter which affects the whole trade of the whole country for the future to keep all these poor people, many of whom are very poor, absolutely trembling to know what the fate of their trade will be. One day the Prime Minister makes a definite statement that the Government intend to return to the status quo. Then the right hon. Gentleman in three or four days throws the Prime Minister over, and says the Prime Minister never had before him this proposal to maintain for all future time a double inspection of cattle in the United Kingdom. The idea of the right hon. Gentleman is not only to inspect the cattle once, but to keep moving them about this compound, to keep inspecting them during the daylight, and then after the daylight fails he says he may take into consideration having an artificial light erected that he may inspect them as they leave the lairage later on. I need not read that statement. When I threatened to read what he said he acquiesced.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quoting one sentence. We had a long conversation on the subject. Final arrangements were certainly not stated at that interview.
Captain CRAIG: It is printed by His Majesty's printers, and it contains the whole of the evidence. Of course, I cannot hold him to exactly what took place, but I will send him a copy of this, and he will see what I stated is perfectly true. I am sorry to say I have not marked that particular passage, but I refreshed my memory a quarter of an hour ago. All I can say is that I hope it is not true, and that the right hon. Gentleman will deny it. I hope he will say that one inspection, at any rate, will clear that point. [Mr. RUNCIMAN: "Hear, hear."] Then I will not dwell on that further. In any case he has left these poor people in a state of mind bordering on despair. The ports of Glasgow, Ayr, and a number of the ports that take cattle from Ireland, either in Scotland or England, are bound to put down compounds costing something like from £5,000 to £10,000, in order that cattle may be taken to them and there inspected. All this enormous expenditure is to be provided, and the Government has sternly refused to subscribe one halfpenny towards the cost, which will fall upon the railway companies, or those interested in the cattle trade At the lowest computation the extra cost which will be borne by the dealers in cattle, and therefore by the consumers in this country—of course, as an absolute Free Trader, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is to be borne by the consumers in this country—is about 40 per cent. on the charges for carrying cattle coming to this country. The interest on the money expended in providing these compounds is about 2s. or 2s. 6d. per head. In nearly every case where the railway runs to the docks there is not sufficient space for keeping cattle for twelve or twenty-four hours in order that they may be inspected twice by the Department's inspectors. Therefore, the vessels conveying cattle have to be taken to places where it is convenient to erect compounds, and where the cattle have to be detained twelve or twenty-four hours; after which they have to be driven through the docks, across the railways, and through the narrow streets to where the trains in the sidings are prepared to clear them off to whatever part of the country they are destined for. I agree that if the cattle have to be taken from the Clyde as far as Perth, or some of the long journeys, there might be some excuse for making an arrangement to give them a rest and to water them on landing from the steamers.

179
But that is not the idea at all. It is not done on humanitarian principles, and, from the way in which the compounds are being arranged, it would be literally as much trouble to take cattle from Derry or Dublin into Liverpool as it would be to some far distant centre of Scotland, for the simple reason that your docks are so placed that if you land in a port like Liverpool you must go through all the trouble of re-training the cattle, because it is impossible to drive them through the streets. Over and above that, there is another very grave question which arises, and that is why all this is necessary? This panic about foot-and-mouth disease I hope will pass off, as the panic about tuberculosis passed off a few years ago; but when it passes off for goodness sake let us return to sane methods. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that for many years past we had been protected on this side, but in the deputation speaking to Lord Inverclyde he asked: When they found among the animals coming to this side no less than 127 cases of sheep scab, speaking as business men, whether, when they had that experience working with double inspection, they would be justified in going back to single inspection again? I say that is a most unbusinesslike and unreasonable proposal. The whole fault lies from start to finish in the want of confidence in the Irish inspectors by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but surely for some petty jealousy between those two Departments the whole cattle trade of Ireland, and of England, and of Scotland, is not going to be ruined. We should send over to the port of embarkation some of the right hon. Gentleman's most trusted inspectors, and let them work in peace and harmony with the Vice-President's staff of professional examiners; and, working thus in harmony, let the one examination at the source from where the cattle are sent suffice for any part of the United Kingdom. I say that would solve this great difficulty to the satisfaction of any man who has the real interest of the cattle trade of Ireland at heart. The right hon. Gentleman said that some of his inspectors had gone, and we all know what that means. He said at Question Time that some of the heads and tongues of those infected animals had been sent over here but what happened in the case of Newry? The whole ship was inspected, and the cattle were sent because the inspector thought it was not a
180
case of foot-and-mouth disease at all, but when they arrived on this side the inspector of the President of the Board of Agriculture said it was foot-and-mouth disease, and immediately the trouble scattered, and the area affected was far greater than it had been. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had sent his inspector in the first instance to Newry to pronounce upon—
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland)made a brief explanation which was inaudible.
Captain CRAIG: I will leave that case on one side because I do not wish to make any misstatement. I have no desire to do anything except to bring this whole thing to an end. I am not chiefly dealing with the present foot-and-mouth disease; I am dealing more with the future. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board, when he likes, can be concise and plain so that everybody can understand him. The deputation in the meeting with Lord Inverclyde seemed to me to 'end without any real definite indication of what the Board's future proposals are. All that I ask tonight is that the President of the Board should shortly reassure the trade that there will be nothing done in any great hurry to peril this great trade in Ireland, and that he should not use the threat which he used to this deputation, that if they did not build new lairage in certain ports other ports would accede to his request, and the trade would be moved. It is not dignified for the head of a great Department to set one port against another in that way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement which will relieve the minds of those who are watching events with such closeness.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I make no complaint. of the hon. and gallant Gentleman having raised this question to-night. But I think the sooner a statement is made the better for all concerned. He has quoted from the interview that I had with Lord Inverclyde and his colleagues in the shipping trade between Ireland and Scotland and England some little time ago. I might point out, however, that that was only a conversation when we were trying on both sides to understand the difficulties we had to meet, and I could not pretend to state definitely what our final arrangements would be. But in order that the

181
shipping companies and the railway companies might be in a position to make their arrangements, so that when the normal trade was resumed there would be no delay in the erection of new compounds or the preparation of wharf accommodation, or whatever it might be, I was anxious to let them know, at the earliest possible moment, that there must, in future be, on this side, whatever there was on the Irish side, inspection of the animals which were imported into Britain from Ireland.
Captain CRAIG: Why on this side?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: As time is short, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my statement. The difficulty we have had in the immediate past has been that animals arrived over here—I am not imputing blame to anybody, but they were not caught in Ireland, and the disease was scattered over such a very large district in the north and middle of England that we had to track early in July no less than 60,000 Irish animals to their destinations. If we had then had our inspection on this side as well as the inspection on the Irish side we should almost certainly have succeeded in stopping some of the animals before they had gone out to their distant destinations in Yorkshire, the Midlands, and elsewhere, and I hope we should have succeeded in preventing a very large number of the outbreaks which have made this year a rather disastrous one for some of the farmers in England. The necessity for a double inspection is that we may not run this risk in the future. And when the hon. Gentleman asks why it should be on this side, I can only tell him that the conditions of the, trade, and the fact that the animals pass over, collected together in one ship, and that quite conceivably one animal infects the whole shipload, provide sufficient reason for our taking precaution on this side as well as having inspection on the Irish side. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made same reference to what I said to Lord Inverclyde on our experience with regard to sheep-scab. I do not blame the Irish Department for not having succeeded in spotting these cases during last summer. They have been working under the greatest pressure. Practically none of their men have had leave for some months past. They have also been working at the ports under very great pressure. As a matter of fact, the figures show that altogether over 300
182
cases of sheep scab have been caught at the ports by our inspectors under what is the double inspection system, the one in Ireland and the other in England. It is very much better for the inspectors to stick to their own country. We work in collaboration with the Irish Department. The inspection on this side does give us an extra safeguard. If we can stop disease at our ports it is a most convenient place. The hon. Member says,, "Why on this side?" There is a double object in having a resting time for these animals after their arrival on board ship. The hon. and gallant Member says I have no humanitarian object in the suggestion that there should be this resting time.
Captain CRAIG: Excuse me, what I said was: Leaving that on one side, what is the object of the double inspection?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very glad the hon. Member thinks there is that object as well. There is. Because I have had reports from all places which receive animals from Ireland that they have frequently arrived worn out, tired out and jaded from their sea passage, however short, and even that short passage, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, can occasionally be rough. They have been taken straight from the steamer right into the truck and sent off at once, without any time for rest, watering, or feeding. That is a condition that does not add to the value of the cattle when they have reached their destination. So far from there being any loss to the cattle owners and dealers from this short period of resting over on this side, I am informed by those who know more about cattle than ever I can profess to do that this resting time will actually add to the value of the cattle.
Mr. KILBRIDE: Did you get that from: Irish dealers?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I got it both from Irish and English dealers.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am not prepared to give the names. I could not guarantee that my memory would carry me safely, but I trust the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my assurance that what I have stated is so. We have had this double object of giving the cattle a better chance of arriving in good condition. It is not a double inspection in England. I never suggested that.

183
To one of the shipping representatives who came to see me, I suggested inspection by electric light, so that if the animals arrived at night they would be ready to go on first thing in the morning; the animals would have their rest and there would be no interruption of traffic at all. Such an arrangement would add greatly to the facilities under which the traffic is conducted, and will give a sense of security to those who follow the Irish cattle trade. The purchase of the Irish animals in England depends not only on the conditions on the animals for food, but that the English purchasers have the double assurance that they are not bringing in with those animals disease which might possibly exist in Ireland. And if we can restore the confidence of the English public and purchasers, we do a great deal towards helping the cattle trade and to restore it to its former prosperity. In making the arrangements I hope to make in the future I have no intention of detaining these animals for any long period of time. I suggest that probably twelve hours would be the outside time required for the purpose. That, I believe, would fit in with most of the shipping sailings and arrivals conveniently. There is no reason why we should not have the trade carried on without any interruption and without any difficulty of double drovers, or in carrying from one town to another.
I am told that the shipping companies and harbour authorities in every one of the ports where Irish animals normally arrive are ready to make arrangements, and have started to make arrangements whereby the compounding of animals for short periods of rest and watering can conveniently take place. In Glasgow the authorities are likely to increase this accommodation. At Greenock, at Ayr, at Stranraer, at Hey-sham, at Holyhead, at Birkenhead there will also be ample accommodation, so that enormous numbers of cattle can pass; and at Cardiff, Deptford, Newcastle, arrange-
184
ments are now complete. Whatever expenses the shipping companies are put to I know they will try to take it out of the trade, but the advantage the trade will get from the extra time spent by the animals in resting, which will enable them to be sent out in a better condition, will more than make up for the trivial amount—this small interest which they will have to bear. I am told that in one case the cost will be £5,000. The normal interest on that would be £250. Tens of thousands of animals pass through there every year—I am told it runs to 80,000, and the extra cost would be but a few pence per animal. One hon. Member mentioned 40 per cent. I cannot conceive where he gets that figure from. The extra cost will be more than made up by the increased price which the trade will get. I urge hon. Members to do nothing to disturb the minds of the British agriculturist because British agriculturists are the main purchasers of Irish animals. I am anxious to restore his confidence in 'the Irish trade. I am doing all I can in co-operation with my right hon. Friend to do that. Our expert advisers are working together from day to day, and my right hon. Friend and I are working together with that object. I want to see the normal trade restored, but when it is restored let it be on safe lines, which will not give anyone over here the idea that in purchasing Irish animals they have to undergo any undue risk. I hope I have made my statement plain. I shall be prepared to give fuller details in reply to questions in the House as to the form of the Order, the difficulties I hope to avoid and not to create, the exact time and also the ports where the facilities can be allowed.
It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twenty-sis minutes before Twelve o'clock.