Commons Sitting of 11 June 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Keighley Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
London and North-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Maidenhead Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
North Middlesex Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Southgate and District Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Herne Bay Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
York United Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Prestonpans Combination Water Supply (Finance) Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Exe Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Kent and Bela Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Sea Fisheries (Conway) Provisional Order Bill,
Sea Fisheries (Lynn) Provisional Orders Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill (by Order),
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Local Government Provisional Orders.(No. 12) Bill (by Order),
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Military Lands Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Bradford Corporation Trolley Vehicles Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill,
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Third, Report with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 11th June, 1912, amending the Code of Regulations for Day Schools in Scotland, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAG FLOCK ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under Section 1 (1) of the Rag Flock Act, 1911, in relation to flock manufactured from rags [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
OSBORNE.
Copy presented of Report by the House Governor and Medical Superintendent at Osborne for the year ending 31st March, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AERONAUTICS.
Copy presented of Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the year 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
Copy presented of Returns relating to the Council up to 31st March, 1912, with Estimate of Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 155.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4886, 4897, and 4898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  WOMEN'S PETITION.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I have the honour to present a Petition which has
  670
  been largely signed by women of all ranks in Ireland, who are convinced that serious dangers to their social and domestic liberties will result from the establishment of a separate Legislature and Executive in Ireland. The Petition has been signed by 104,261 persons, and I am informed that all those signatures were collected within a fortnight. The Petitioners have considered the question entirely from the women's point of view. They say no-legislative safeguards would avail to protect them from the dangers they apprehend; and their prayer is that the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled will reject any legislative proposals that would disintegrate the United Kingdom and expose them to the disastrous consequences of such disintegration.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That so much of the Lords; Message [15th May] as relates to the place and time of meeting of the Joint Committee on the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords], the Ancient Monuments Protection Bill [Lords], and the Ancient Monuments Protection (No. 2) Bill [Lords], be now considered.
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships—[Mr. Gulland.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Opium Trade.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Chinese Republic has yet formally adopted the obligations of the late Imperial Chinese Government in respect of the discontinuance of the growth of the poppy?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The present Government in China is only a. provisional Government, and as such has

  671
  not yet made any official declaration of its intention to assume the obligations of the late Imperial Government. We have received assurances that the Chinese Government will do its utmost to enforce the suppression of the cultivation and smoking of opium, but at present that Government has not effective control of the cultivation in many of the provinces of China.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the case will continue to run against India regardless of China's omission to perform her part?
  Sir E. GREY: The question is an exceedingly difficult one. The situation to which it has now gone is at present under consideration and consultation with the India Office and I cannot say more than that.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: May I ask whether we have no moral obligations quite apart from the question of Indian or Chinese obligations?
  Sir E. GREY: There will be no attempt to escape from moral obligations.

  Turkish Affairs.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Island of Rhodes is included in the Turkish possessions in Asia, and that the integrity of the Ottoman possessions in Asia is guaranteed by this country under the Cyprus Convention of 1878; and whether, in view of the recent seizure of Rhodes by Italy, this country is prepared to carry out its treaty obligations?
  Sir E. GREY: The Island of Rhodes has been militarily occupied, not annexed, by Italy in the course of her hostile operations against Turkey. In relation to such operations a neutral Power has, in international law, no obligation or right but that of neutrality. The Cyprus Convention of 1878 refers only to the eventuality of the occupation of further Turkish territories in Asia by Russia. It does not, therefore, apply in the present case.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any reassuring news with regard to the military movements on the Turco-Bulgarian and Turco-Greek frontiers?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information of any kind as to military movements either on the Turco-Bulgarian or Turco-Greek frontiers.

  Trans-Persian Railway.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give the House any information as to the constitution of the Société d'étude, which has been formed for the promotion of the Trans-Persian railway scheme?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the answer returned to the hon. Member for North Westmeath on the 6th instant; there has been no further step since then.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say who the British representatives are on this Société?
  Sir E. GREY: The Société d'étude has not yet been finally constituted, and as soon as I can give definite information I will. It is in a very inchoate state. There is a Société d'étude which is in itself only a preliminary step; and that preliminary step is not yet completed.

  Morocco and West Africa.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked when it was intended to publish the Report of the negotiations of last year with regard to Morocco and West Africa, between the British and German Governments?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no single Report of the negotiations, which were not confined to Great Britain and Germany. A very full statement of the part that we had taken in this question was made to the House on 27th November last year, and for us to publish a Blue Book about the whole question would probably revive controversy that has now ceased on points many of which concern France or Germany more directly than ourselves. I do not, therefore, propose to publish papers unless things are published in France or Germany that make it desirable or necessary for us to make further statements.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it possible to lay any papers concerning the negotiations with reference to the rights of our traders in territories ceded by France to Germany?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not sure that there are any papers that can be laid. It is entirely a different matter. If difficulties do

  673
  arise I will deal with the question, but at present I am not conscious of any difficulties.

  Miss Malecka.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could now make any further statement as to the case of Miss Malecka?
  Sir E. GREY: I am informed that the Emperor has ordered Miss Malecka's expulsion from Russia. As her conduct in some instances was undoubtedly such as no British subject has a right to pursue in a foreign country, I think that the action of the Emperor and of the Russian Government should receive the fullest possible recognition, and will, I am sure, be appreciated as a generous and friendly act by the House. I trust it will also be recognised that British subjects residing abroad should not interfere in political questions in foreign countries, and should not receive any encouragement from here to do so, and I trust nothing will be said in connection with this case calculated to give any other impression.
  Mr. MORRELL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay papers regarding the case?
  Sir E. GREY: I think, in view of the fact that Miss Malecka has been released, and all the penalties entailed by the sentence have been remitted or commuted simply to expulsion from Russia, the House will probably feel that it is not necessary.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was at his request there was no Debate on this case, and that for the sake of future reference it is very desirable that some official report of the case should be laid? [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Sir E. GREY: In an answer I gave the other day I think I did recognise—at all events, I meant to do so— that I had given that promise to the House, and that if I did not lay papers it could only be because by the general sense of the House I was released from the promise I had given.
  Sir J. D. REES: Had Miss Malecka's activities ever come under the notice of our Consul in Warsaw?
  Sir E. GREY: I think it is undesirable to re-open that question. I have at various times made statements, and one of the answers I gave last year probably covers
  674
  that particular question. I think it is undesirable, if I am not to lay papers, to re-open the question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not advisable, in the interests of British subjects, who, in the future, may be involved in other countries that there should be on record a full statement of the case from the British Government's point of view?
  Mr. G. LLOYD: Will the right hon. Gentleman refuse that request entirely in view of the prejudice it might have on our foreign relations?
  Sir E. GREY: I am really in the hands of the House. If the general sense of the House is in favour of papers being laid, a promise to lay papers having been given, that promise will be kept. All I can do is to submit to the House that, in view of the way in which the case has terminated, the House as a whole should agree to my being released from the promise.
  Mr. KING: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get at the general sense of the House without there being some discussion on the matter?

  Mongolia and Manchuria.
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked what were the exclusive privileges claimed by the Russian and Japanese Governments, respectively, in Mongolia and Manchuria; whether each of these Governments admitted the special claims of the other in these Chinese provinces; and whether the exclusive claims of either had been communicated to His Majesty's Government and were recognised by them?
  Sir E. GREY: Information concerning the special interests claimed by the Russian and Japanese Governments, respectively, in Mongolia and Manchuria, will be found in certain treaties, conventions and agreements between the Governments of China, Russia and Japan. His Majesty's Government are unable to add any information to that contained in those documents, but I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with a list of these documents mentioning the publications when they can be found, should he desire it. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Article I. of the Convention between Russia and Japan, signed 30th July, 1907, which was communicated to His Majesty's Government. We recognise that Russia and Japan have special interests in Mongolia

  675
  and Manchuria on condition that they are not contrary to the principle of the "open door" for British commerce.

  Boat Accommodation (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether any and, if so, what Regulations existed for the provision of boat accommodation in the case of ships plying between Madras and Rangoon and Calcutta and Rangoon; and whether such ships, when furnished with Board of Trade certificates, were in fact under any restrictions as to the number of passengers they carry?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Boat accommodation for vessels plying between the Indian ports mentioned by the hon. Member is governed by Regulations made by the Indian Government under the Native Passenger Ships Act of 1887. The Regulations prescribe a sliding scale of boats based on the registered tonnage of each vessel. The Government of India report that the scale requires revision and are considering the amendment of the Regulations. The British India Steam Navigation Company, which is the largest company engaged in the trade, is already providing additional boats, rafts, and other life-saving apparatus on all their passenger vessels. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of passengers is restricted by the Native Passenger Ships Act, which prescribes the space accommodation per passenger.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he could give the House any further informamation regarding the state of affairs in Tibet?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The latest news from Lhasa, dated the 28th May, is to the effect that fighting continues incessantly, neither side showing any signs of capitulation. All attempts at effecting a settlement have failed. The Chinese garrison in Tengye-ling monastery is stated to have three maxims and to be holding out well. The Chinese are surrounded by the Tibetans, who are in occupation of five strongholds on the north of the city; the buildings in the south are held by the Chinese. The latter have exhausted their provisions and are said to be in great straits for food.
  676
  Many houses have been burnt by both sides, and Lhasa is reported to be reduced to one-third of its former size. The Chinese are stated to have shelled the Potala Palace, but without doing serious damage. The Tibetans have been besieging the Trapehi barracks, which are occupied by about sixty Chinese troops. Twenty Chinese were killed in a recent engagement; the Tibetan casualties are not known. According to a recent report the Tibetans have expelled the Chinese garrison from Nyarong, in Eastern Tibet, and have formally reoccupied the district. Another report states that the Tashi Lama has called out all available persons in the neighbourhood of Shigatse, having received instructions from the National Assembly at Lhasa to send troops not later than the 10th June to co-operate against the Chinese. The Dalai Lama is still at Kalimpong.

  Indian Press Act.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Secretary of State for India had received a resolution from the General Council of the Institute of Journalists supporting the protest by the Calcutta committee of the institute with regard to Lord Crewe's recent reference in the House of Lords in regard to the English newspapers of Calcutta and the Indian Press Act?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the affirmative. The reply which the Secretary of State caused to be sent to the Institute of Journalists appeared in the Press on the 25th May.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does that close the incident?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As far as I am aware, that closes the incident.

  Director of Commercial Intelligence (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked what extra charges would be imposed upon the revenues of British India if the proposals of the Government of India, consequent on the removal of the capital to Delhi, of duplicating the office of Director of Commercial Intelligence was carried into effect; and whether there was any ground for this proposal other than such as arose from the transfer of the capital?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official knowledge of the scheme referred to by the hon. Member. He is

  677
  aware that the Government of India have Invited an expression of opinion from the Chambers of Commerce on certain suggestions for reorganising the Commercial Intelligence Department, but he has seen no estimate of the cost. As regards the second part of the question it is understood that the Government of India consider that owing to the growth of trade and commerce in all parts of India a reorganisation of the Department is required. The Secretary of State at present reserves his opinion on the scheme in all respects.
  Sir J. D. REES: Had the Secretary of State or the Government of India proposed any such action until the change in the capital had been decided upon?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given.
  Mr. G. LLOYD: Has this reorganisation scheme anything whatever to do with the transfer of the capital to Delhi?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It may be taken as having regard to the general development of trade and other considerations.

  Bengal.
  Sir J. D. REESasked what extra cost to the revenues of India would result from the representation on the Legislative Council of the Governor-General of the three administrations of Bihar, Bengal, and Assam, as compared with the cost in the case of the two Lieutenant-Governorships of Bengal and Eastern Bengal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is not proposed at present to increase the number of members of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, but certain rearrangements are contemplated as regards the position of provincial representatives as whole-time members of the Imperial Council, the exact cost of which cannot yet be estimated.

  Afghanistan.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he could give the House any information regarding the rising in the Khost Valley and the present condition of the frontier between India and Afghanistan?
  Mr. MONTAGU: On 14th March the Mangal and Zadran tribes of the Afghan district of Khost rose against the Governor, attacked an Afghan post, and proceeded to besiege the Governor at Matun. Since that date desultory and indecisive
  678
  fighting has taken place, in the course of which various Afghan detachments have taken refuge in British territory and have in due course been returned to Afghanistan by another route. It is understood that Afghan troops are being moved against the rebels. The neighbouring tribes on the British side of the border have been strictly warned against participation, and the present condition of the frontier is satisfactory.

  Torture by Police (Calcutta).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House further details of the torture cases for which four head constables in Calcutta have been convicted, stating the number and sex of the persons tortured and the nature of the torture; will he say who was the superior officer over these constables; and why no alteration of the law has been carried out making confessions inadmissible except to the trying judge, and thus taking away from the police the motive to torture?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A sub-inspector and three head constables of the Calcutta police were charged with voluntarily causing hurt to one Nageshwar Ajha for the purpose of extorting a confession which might lead to the detection of a theft case. Two head constables were convicted of causing hurt, and the sub-inspector and the other head constable of abetment. All four were acquitted of causing hurt to another prisoner who alleged that he had been tortured. Nageshwar appears to have been beaten and slightly wounded with a knife. The sentences passed were two of nine months' rigorous imprisonment, one of six months, and one of four months. These constables belong to the force under the Commission of Police, Calcutta. The alteration of the law suggested is still being discussed by the Government of India with local governments. I must, however, point out that such an alteration could not remove all motive for obtaining information by improper means from persons supposed to know about a crime in order to facilitate detection of the offenders; its effect would necessarily be limited to persons suspected of having committed an offence.
  Sir W. BYLES: Have any other recent cases of torture by the police to extract confessions come to the knowledge of the India Office?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I regret to say the practice of torture is still resorted to in India, but in diminishing degree.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the circular contemplated by the hon. Gentleman to be sent out urging that there should be personal examination in the case of every accused person who makes a confession been sent out, and is it being acted upon?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would rather not commit myself from memory, but I sent my hon. Friend an account of the various changes introduced recently, and I think that is one of the changes.
  Colonel YATE: Are these head constables all natives of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No; I regret to say that in this case the sub-inspector was not a native of India.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether Mr. Johns, the chief engineer of the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway, has yet made any official report respecting the suggested railway line along the Mekran and Persian coasts to Bushire; and whether the Government of India is proceeding with the scheme?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that Mr. Johns has reported the result of his survey, but the Secretary of State has not yet seen his report. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Are we to understand that the Government of India does not propose to take any steps to carry out the scheme?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir.

  Sikhs in British Columbia.
  Mr. KINGasked whether a petition has been received from Sikhs in British Columbia protesting that they and their families are under graver disabilities, political, social, and educational, than the Chinese and Japanese settlers in that Colony; and whether any reply has been returned?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A petition of this character was received by the Secretary of State for India in 1911, and was the subject of correspondence with the Colonial Office and of discussion at the last Imperial Conference. I would refer the hon.
  680
  Member to the reply given to his question on the 21st November last by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. No more recent petition of the kind has been received. I may point out that in cases in which British subjects resident in one of the Dominions address a petition regarding the laws of that Dominion to the Secretary of State for India the only possible course is to ask the Colonial Office to invite the attention of the Government of the Dominion to the matter.

  African Protectorates.
  Captain FABERasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will state what reduction there has been in the troops in East Africa during the last two years; and whether any further reduction is contemplated?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I understand that the hon. Member's question refers to the three Protectorates of British East Africa, Uganda, and Nyasaland. There has been no reduction in the strength of the King's African Rifles in British East Africa and Uganda. In Nyasaland the strength has been reduced by two companies, but certain changes in organisation have been made which have had the effect of practically adding a half company to the reduced establishment. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I am not in a position to make any statement.
  Captain FABER: May I ask if the Governor is in favour or not of this reduction?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think I could answer a question of that sort—at all events without notice.

  Income Tax (Commission Agents and Bookmakers).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of racing commission agents and bookmakers assessed to Income Tax in London, the rest of England, Scotland,. Ireland, and Wales, respectively, and the total profits respectively disclosed; and can he state whether they are assessed on earned or unearned income?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of my hon. Friend's question is not available. With regard to the second part,

  681
  such profits are regarded as coming within the definition of "earned income" contained in Section 19 (7) of the Finance Act, 1907.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ACTION IN INDIA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India, whether he was aware that since the introduction of the Insurance Bill fraudulent aid societies had been floated in India which had taken money from the poor and ignorant by advertising that for every rupee paid in they would receive several times the amount in benefits; and whether he would take steps to prevent the application of these European methods to the detriment of honest subscribers in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is not aware of the practice referred to by the hon. Member; but Acts have quite recently been placed on the Indian Statute Book to bring provident insurance societies and life assurance companies under better control.

    EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTION (OUTWORKERS).
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked whether any decision has been arrived at as to which employer is to pay the employers' contribution under the National Insurance Act in the case of an outworker who takes work from several employers and does the work for all in the same week, or same weeks in case the work takes more than one week to complete?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Regulations dealing with the payment of contributions for outworkers will shortly be issued, based on the report of the Committee presided over by Sir Ernest Hatch, and these regulations will determine methods of payment in the case of an outworker working for more than one employer.

    BRITISH SEAMEN AND FOREIGN EMPLOYERS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked if the National Insurance Commissioners will issue regulations showing whether a British seaman who is employed for six months in each year as one of the crew of a foreign yacht flying a foreign flag, and for the remaining six months is employed by a British employer, would have to pay his employer's contribution under the National
    682
    Insurance Act for the time during which he is employed by the foreign employer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The position of such a person is clearly defined in the Act, and is not left to regulations. The seaman is not required by the Act to pay any contributions while serving on a foreign ship.

    OFFICIAL EXPLANATORY LEAFLET.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that a domestic servant is compelled by the National Insurance Act to contribute 3d. per week towards the cost of health insurance and the master or mistress is compelled subject to a penalty to collect that sum on behalf of the State by deduction from the servant's wages, he will authorise the withdrawal or modification of Official Explanatory Leaflet No. 16 of the National Health Insurance Commission, in which it is stated that a contribution of 6d. a week must be paid for each servant by the master or mistress who will have a right to take off 3d. from the servant's wages?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The employer of a domestic servant is not compelled, subject to a penalty, to collect 3d. per week by deduction from the servant's wages. Under Section 4 (2) of the Act he is "entitled to recover from the contributor by deduction from wages or otherwise the amount of the contributions paid by him on behalf of the contributor." The official leaflet stating the law on the matter is entirely correct, and any statement that a penalty is imposed on the employer who does not recover the amount from the servant would be entirely incorrect.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Apart from the question of penalties, is the hon. Gentleman aware that this leaflet is creating the impression that there is no compulsory contribution in the case of domestic servants, and that any deduction from their wages would be an act of meanness on the part of their mistresses?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The leaflet states quite clearly that the employer has the right to take threepence off the employé's wages. He also has the right, if he chooses, to pay the contribution himself, and there is no penalty if he does pay the contribution.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is that not a grossly unfair way of expressing it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is an exact statement of the Insurance Act as passed by the House of Commons last December. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. LLOYD: Was not this leaflet deliberately worded like that, so as to give an erroneous impression?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This leaflet, as is the case with all our leaflets, is deliberately worded to explain the exact Jaw to the people affected.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there any penalty attaching to a servant who refuses to pay this tax?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the first place, that is not the question; secondly, it was answered only yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Shropshire; and, thirdly, there is no question of the servant refusing to pay because the the servant has not got to pay because the employer has to pay.

    OFFICIAL LECTURERS.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether it is the practice of official lecturers on the National Insurance Act to exact from those attending their lectures a pledge not to divulge any information to the Press; and, if so, what is the justification of such secrecy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and Ludlow.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the instructions sent to the Commissioners the word "Private" is written, and those attending are specially told that they cannot go to the lectures unless they pledge themselves not to say anything about them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have explained this matter many times to the House, and perhaps in a word I may explain it again. The ordinary lectures arranged by the lecturers are open to the public or otherwise as those who arrange the lectures desire, and if they choose they can have all the Press of Europe there. But in addition to that there are special courses of training for officials, and those at the request of the officials who wish to answer questions which they think might be misinterpreted in public are private courses. Those are the only courses which are private as far as the Insurance Commissioners are concerned.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the representatives of friendly societies who attend in large numbers are told that the matters are secret? The word "Private" is written on the paper which is sent to them.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That does not refer to the ordinary thousands of lectures which have been given, but it refers to a certain number of special courses where the officials ask, in view of the fact that they wish to put a number of questions and they do not wish the answers to be reported, they may be private courses, and in that case they are private.
    Mr. LLOYD: For what reason are the conveners of meetings allowed to have private meetings?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Because the officials themselves ask that these meetings should be private.
    Mr. LLOYD: For what reason are they enabled to have them private?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is there any penalty for divulging information to the Press?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there is any statutory penalty.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CROWN PROPERTY (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked, in view of the condition of Crown property in Ireland, and the fact that no intelligent account of it is obtainable, whether the occasion offered by the international settlement under the Government of Ireland Bill will be availed of for the preparation and issue of a statement of the capital value and annual income in present British currency of Crown property in Ireland at the date of the Union and now, respectively; the consideration for which parts of that property have been disposed of in the interval, and the application of the proceeds; and whether a Schedule of the extant Crown property in Ireland will be attached to the Bill, showing what it is that Clause 39 transfers and retains, respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to both questions is in the negative. The preparation of the statement suggested would be very difficult, if not impossible, and I see no sufficient necessity for it.

    COINAGE.
    Mr. STANIERasked whether the Government of Ireland Bill will allow the Irish Parliament, if they think fit, to make coins for their own use in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer is in the negative.

    Anthrax.
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that discontent prevails in agricultural circles in respect of the difference of opinion that often exists between the veterinary inspectors of the local authority and the Board of Agriculture, respectively, in the diagnosis in cases of suspected anthrax; and whether, in view of the fact that a farmer runs the risk of losing an animal from suspected anthrax and afterwards of losing the insurance money should the inspector appointed by the Board decide that it is not a case of anthrax, he will consider the advisability of so modifying the existing system as to prevent cases of hardship of this description?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Great care is exercised by the veterinary staff at the Board's laboratory in the investigation of cases of suspected anthrax, and, in view of their wider experience and the facilities at their disposal, they are in a better position to make a diagnosis of the disease than are the veterinary inspectors of local authorities. As at present advised, I am not prepared to modify the provisions of the Anthrax Order of 1910.
    Captain MURRAY: May I ask whether it is not possible that if there is any other micro-organism present it may overgrow and destroy the anthrax culture before the Board's diagnosis takes place?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am advised by my experts that there is no serious risk of that if the specimens are sent up quickly, as they ought to be.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the bacillus of anthrax is the most persistent bacillus known to-day?

    Bee Disease.
    Mr. STANIERasked if further investigations are being carried out to
    686
    gather further knowledge on the Isle of Wight bee disease; and, if so, by whom; and has the Board any knowledge as to whether the disease is increasing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Further investigations are being conducted by Dr. Graham Smith, of whose recently published report on investigations conducted last year the hon. Member is probably aware. From the reports which are now reaching the Board, there is no doubt, I am afraid, that the disease has reached some districts which have not hitherto been affected.

    Sugar Cultivation.
    Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board are carrying out any experiments with sugar this year and, if so, where; and whether they are now satisfied that the crop can now be grown with success in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the question, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the Report on Experiments in the Cultivation of Sugar Beet in 1911, recently published as a Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 6162).
    Mr. STANIER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman and his Board are satisfied: I have read the Report?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are some crops of sugar beet now being cultivated both in the Eastern and the South-Eastern counties: we shall know by the end of the autumn whether it can be cultivated on a large scale successfully.

    Census of Production.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state when the results of the census of production with regard to agriculture will be published?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Report is in the Press, and will be published very shortly.

    African Red Water Fever.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board supply serum for inoculation against African red water fever; and, if not, where it can be got; and is he aware that importers of cattle are now asking for this inoculation before the cattle leave this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: British cattle intended for export to foreign countries have been inoculated against red water by the Board's veterinary officers for some years past. The demand is increasing, and I hope to be able to make arrangements to meet it; but, in view of the risks involved, I do not think it would be desirable that the virus should be supplied from the Board's laboratory for use elsewhere.

    Overseas Imports (Duties).
    Mr. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that by the recent Anglo-Portuguese commercial treaty, in return for a reduction in the Customs Duties on British goods entering the Portuguese Colonies, Great Britain has reduced the duty upon Portuguese wines entering this country; and whether he is prepared to make similar reductions in the duties imposed upon products of the Overseas Dominions imported into this country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware of the existence of such a treaty.

    North Somaliland.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether there has been any trouble during the current year in North Somaliland; and, if so, whether he can make any statement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: There has been fighting between the Mullah and the friendly tribes with varying success. There has also been a certain amount of intertribal fighting among the friendly tribes themselves as the result of the looting habits of the Somalis, which appear to be ineradicable. I am not prepared to make any further statement at present.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is this Mullah the same Mullah that was so often dead?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; or a very close relative.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: He used to be mad.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to make a statement about the promised Franchise Bill; and whether the promise still holds good that a woman's suffrage amendment to it will, if carried in this House, be accepted by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that this Bill will be introduced next week. In regard to the second part of the question, I must refer my hon. Friend to my previous declarations on the subject.

    Parliamentary Candidates (Returning Officers' Expenses).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether it is the intention of the Government to relieve candidates for Parliamentary elections of the returning officers' expenses prior to the next General Election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The intentions of the Government will be explained on the introduction of the Franchise and Registration Bill.

    Canada (Preferential Trading).
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the nature of the negotiations Germany, through her Canadian representative, has recently made or is now making with the Canadian Government for preferential trading between Germany and Canada?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware of any such negotiation.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada, the Hon. G. E. Foster, at Montreal on 23rd May, when he stated that Canada would soon have a preferential tariff with the whole of the British Empire; and if the Canadian Government have yet approached His Majesty's Government on this matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. I have read the speech, but no general proposal for a preferential tariff with the whole Empire has been made to His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that as the result of the recent West Indies Conference at Ottawa the West Indies will divert£8,000,000 worth of trade annually into Canadian channels; and whether he will, as far as the West Indies are concerned as Crown Colonies, encourage such preferential trading?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware on what basis the hon. Member's estimate is founded, but until the text of the agree-

    689
    ment has been published, and the decision of the West Indian Legislatures in regard to it has been made known, I am not prepared to discuss its effects or my attitude towards it. The description of the West Indies generally by the hon. Member as Crown Colonies is inaccurate and likely to give offence.
    Mr. HUNTasked if the Government have stipulated that the trade advantages under the agreement for reciprocal preferential trading between Canada and the West Indies, signed on the 10th April, shall also be granted for goods sent from the United Kingdom to the West Indies, and also for goods sent from the United Kingdom to Canada?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It has always been an accepted principle that any trade advantages granted by one Dominion or Colony to another shall be extended to the United Kingdom, and I have no reason to think that this principle was not fully recognised by the parties to the recent Conference at Ottawa.
    Mr. HUNT: Does that apply to Canada and the West Indies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That is the effect of my answer.
    Mr. HUNT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason for saying Canada will agree to it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no reason to think that that principle was not fully recognised by both parties at the recent Conference.

    Rural Cottages (Great Britain).
    Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that during the last three years 1,689 cottages have been compulsorily closed in Great Britain and of the want of cottages in rural districts, he can say whether the Government will build 34,000 cheap cottages in Great Britain as has been done in Ireland?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government refuse to do anything for the country workers in Great Britain while doing so much for country workers in Ireland?

    Electoral Reform.
    Mr. GREENEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to postpone the introduction of the proposed Electoral Re-form Bill till next Session, substituting for it in this Session a smaller measure dealing with plural voting and redistribution?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

    Racing Telegrams.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether any, and, if so, what special arrangements were made by his Department for the transmission of telegrams from the Epsom racecourse last week; the number of operators engaged; the number of telegrams sent; and the net profit or loss to his Department in connection therewith?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): These particulars are not yet available in their entirety, but I will communicate them to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the number of complaints, prosecutions, and convictions, respectively, recorded against Post Office servants and other persons connected with the back-coding of racing telegrams and stealing letters, etc., addressed to commission agents, respectively, during the last five complete years?
    Captain NORTON: I am unable to state the number of complaints connected with the back-coding of racing telegrams made during the last five years, but during that period there have been fifteen prosecutions affecting in all ten Post Office servants and twenty persons not in the Post Office service. All except two Post Office servants and one person not in the Post Office service were convicted. There is no special record of the loss of letters addressed to commission agents.

    Dundee Post Office (Overtime).
    Mr. WILKIEasked whether postmen are being employed at the Dundee Post Office on duties proper to sorting clerks and telegraphists; that the surveyor has stated in reply to representations that this was done to avoid overtime; and whether he will direct that postmen so employed shall be paid the scales of wages proper to sorting clerks and telegraphists?
    Captain NORTON: I understand that the arrangement was made in consequence of a vacancy for a sorting clerk and telegraphist which it is not possible to fill at present. Postmen acting as substitutes for sorting clerks and telegraphists receive the pay of sorting clerks and telegraphists at one step above the minimum of the scale, or their own wages, whichever are greater.

    Shops Act.
    Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of issuing an explanatory memorandum showing what are the articles included in the term other articles of a perishable nature, used in the Second Schedule to the Shops Act, 1911, and giving a definition of the term holiday resort, used in Section 6 (1) of the Shops Act, 1911?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna):I have no authority to lay down any rule as to what articles are to be regarded as perishable for the purposes of Schedule II., but I may say that in my opinion the term cannot be taken as applying to articles which would obviously run no risk of deterioration by being kept over the weekly half-holiday. As regards the second point, the Act does not define the phrase "holiday resort," but in the circular which has been issued by the Home Office to local authorities, and which has been placed on sale, some observations are made on the point for the guidance of the authorities, and I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a copy. He must, however, bear in mind that, while my Department has done its best to explain the effect of the Act, I have no authority whatever to interpret any doubtful point. Such interpretation is the function of the Courts of Law.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has circulated, as was promised in Grand Committee, among all the local authorities, a memorandum from the Home Office explaining the provisions of the Act in full?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, a circular has been sent round. I do not know whether it is in strict compliance with the promise made, but I will inquire.

    Special Jurors.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to
    692
    the complaints which have recently been made by jurymen as to the excessive calls made upon them; will he say who is responsible for the selection of jurors to serve on special juries; and has he any power to issue orders requiring the selection of jurors on some definite system which will result in the duty of serving on special juries being equitably distributed among all persons liable?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to this matter, and as the Noble Lord is aware, this and other questions relating to jury service are now under the consideration of a Committee which I appointed. The qualifications of a special juror are fixed by Statute, and it is the duty of the overseer who prepares the jury list to specify the names of those persons who are qualified to act as special jurors. I have no authority to give any instructions upon the subject.

    Lea Conservancy Board (Breach, of By-Law).
    EARL Of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received an appeal from Mr. R. E. Pallet, of 6, Coningsby Road, Harringay, N., for remission of a fine imposed upon him for a breach of a by-law of the Lea Conservancy Board, on the ground that the said by-law was believed by the offender to be ultra vires, and has since been rescinded; and, if so, will he accede to the appeal and remit the fine?
    Mr. McKENNA: An application was received from Mr. Pallet in 1900, but no sufficient ground was shown for advising the remission of the fine imposed upon him and he was so informed at the time. I have reconsidered the case, and I see no reason to depart from the decision which was then arrived at.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any further appeal from Mr. Pallet since?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, not that I have been able to discover.

    Motor Traffic.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether the Order recently issued by the President of the Local Government Board prohibiting motorists from driving with open cutouts is not infrequently disregarded by motorists within the Metropolitan area;

    693
    and whether he will issue further instructions to the police in this matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: No complaints have reached me since the Order was issued; and the Metropolitan Police report that there has been a marked decrease in the nuisance. I will consider whether any further action on my part is necessary or practicable.
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the circular issued last year by the Commissioner of Police, many drivers of motor vehicles in London still continue, especially during the hours commonly devoted to sleep, to make excessive and inconsiderate use of warning signals; and whether, in these circumstances, he can hold out hopes of shortly passing legislation on the lines continued in the Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Bill introduced on 26th March, 1912?
    Mr. BURNS: I am assured that there has been a noticeable reduction during the last twelve months in the inconsiderate use of warning signals by motorists, and I hope that the action of my hon. and gallant Friend in drawing attention afresh to this matter may further assist in reducing the nuisance. I am sure that the drivers of motor cars have no desire to destroy the repose of their fellow citizens. I cannot promise legislation on the lines suggested.
    Captain MURRAY: Who has given this assurance?
    Mr. BURNS: I confirm the views of the police myself.

    Bravery (Pomona Dock, Manchester).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can suggest some suitable recognition of the act of bravery on the part of Harry Williams, a dock labourer, who on 21st May, though unable to swim, jumped into the water at Pomona Dock, Manchester, to save a drowning man?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am making inquiry into the facts of this case, and will in due course communicate with my hon. Friend.

    Nowes Charity.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Education whether the public inquiry promised by his Department into
    694
    a matter known as Nowes Charity, affecting the; education of boys in the districts. of Yeovil, Salisbury, and Romsey, has yet been definitely fixed; and whether he will comply with the representations made by the town councils of Yeovil, Salisbury, and Romsey, and deal with this long-delayed matter at once?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): The inquiry will be held as early as possible in July. I hope to be in a position to deal with the matter after I have received the report of the inquiry.

    Carriage of Cider by Rail.
    Captain CLIVEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now satisfied himself that the refusal by the railway companies to allow cider to be consigned at the same computed weights as they allow for beer constitutes an undue preference in favour of beer; and, since undue preference is prohibited by law, what action he proposes to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robert, son): Questions of undue preference are determined by the Railway and Canal Commission and not by the Board of Trade. The Board are, however, in communication with the railway companies on the subject of the carriage of cider, and on receipt of the necessary information I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

    Wreck of Steamship "Hughenden."
    Mr. WILKIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the finding of the Court of Inquiry held into the wreck of the steamer "Hughenden," with the loss of twenty-five lives, and to the fact that the Court found that the ship was not properly loaded when she left Smyrna; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such improper loading?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to the opinion of the inspector who held an inquiry into the loss of, the steamship "Hughenden" to the effect that this vessel was not loaded in accordance with the Board of Trade Regulations for the carriage of grain cargoes, and the matter is receiving the consideration of the officers, of the Board of Trade. As regards the steps taken to prevent the improper loading of grain cargoes, I may point out to my

    695
    hon. Friend that Section 453 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, places the responsibility for seeing that the loading is in accordance with the law on the owner, master, and any agent of the owners charged with the loading of the ship or sending her to sea, and British and foreign ships laden with grain cargoes are inspected by Board of Trade surveyors on their arrival in this country, and in cases in which it is considered necessary proceedings are instituted against the persons responsible for any contravention of the law.
    Mr. WILKIE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Board of Trade should issue Regulations in regard to the proper loading of these ships?

    Vessels Foundered or Stranded.
    Mr. WILKIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish a Return giving the names of vessels, including tonnage and lives lost, reported missing, or lost by foundering and stranding, otherwise than by fire or collision, since 1st January, 1911, the nature of the deck cargo, if any, carried by such vessels, and, if any of the vessels were registered before 1906, the amount of freeboard of each vessel before and since that year?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend can give this Return for vessels registered in the United Kingdom reported as missing or lost by foundering or stranding between 1st January, 1911, and 31st May, 1912.

    Chinese Pork.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the number of carcases of Chinese pork imported into the United Kingdom for each month during the last year up to and including the month of May; and whether he can state the proportion of carcases rejected?
    Mr. BURNS: In October, 1911, twenty-two carcases arrived at London from Shanghai; there were no rejections. In January, 1912, 3,790 carcases arrived at Liverpool. 3,527 have been examined up to the present, and of these four carcases and 150 pieces have been condemned and destroyed on account of disease or un soundness. In April, 1912, ninety car leases and fifty-six packages of sides Arrived at London from Manchuria and Shanghai. Of these fourteen carcases and
    696
    one side were condemned on account of disease. The remaining sides were ordered to be re-exported as not complying with the Foreign Meat Regulations.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of pieces of carcases being rejected as diseased does he suggest that the remainder of the carcases are passed as sound?
    Mr. BURNS: Oh, no. They are rejected entirely.

    Sale of Food and Drugs Acts (Milk Vendors).
    Mr. WILKIEasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the state of the Law with regard to the defence of warranty in the case of prosecutions, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, of vendors of milk; does he propose to initiate legislation for the better protection of the public in this respect; and, if so, when may the introduction of such legislation be expected?
    Mr. BURNS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am considering the question of legislation on the subject and hope to lay proposals before Parliament at an early date.

    Syndicalist Prosecutions.
    EARL Of RONALDSHAYasked the Attorney-General, if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Mr. Ben Tillett at Preston on 19th May last, in which he said he was out to tell the soldiers not to shoot, that he did not tell them not to shoot their own officers or capitalists, but that they should not shoot their own equals, for the soldier who shot one of them was guilty of murder; and will he say what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: The question does not correctly state the substance of the speech in question according to reports before me, inasmuch as I cannot find in these reports any incitement to the men to shoot their own officers or capitalists. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
    EARL Of RONALDSHAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the reports are to which he refers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am speaking only in the name of the Attorney-General, and I will ask the Noble Lord to put his question to the Attorney-General.

    Gaskell v. Cheshire Miners' Federation.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Deputy of the Chancellor at the Manchester Assizes in the case of Gaskell and others versus the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation and others, on 25th March last; and whether the Government intend to introduce legislation to alter that decision so as to prevent men from being deprived of their livelihood by the conspiracies of others?
    Mr. McKENNA: The action was brought against the Federation and against individuals who were alleged to have committed illegal acts. It was decided that the action did not lie against the Federation, and that the individuals had not committed illegal acts. The Government does not see any reason to introduce legislation to alter this decision.

    Tobacco Cultivation (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether arrangements have yet been made with the Development Commissioners for the encouragement of tobacco cultivation in Ireland?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture,): A scheme of experiments in the rehandling and manufacturing of tobacco to be grown in Ireland has been agreed on by the Development Commissioners and the Department. On the 4th instant the Department were informed by the Commissioners that the Commissioners would forthwith report to the Treasury recommending an advance to the Department in aid of the experiments upon the terms proposed by the Department as amended by the Commissioners. The Department have not yet been apprised of the decision of the Treasury on the Commissioners' recommendation.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the amount of the Grant is?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is£35,000.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Is that the amount applied for by the Department or is it only half the amount?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is not the amount applied for by the Department. But the
    698
    sum is as much as the Department can profitably employ at the present time, and I have reason for believing that a second Grant will be made when the Department is ready.

    Mrs. Helen Blake's Property (Westmeath).
    Mr. GINNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman can state the present estimated value of the property left by Mrs. Helen. Blake née Sheridan, a native of Boherquill, Westmeath, who died childless and intestate at Kensington some thirty years ago; why Mrs. Blake's next-of-kin have never been sought in her native parish where they are; whether they will now be afforded an opportunity of proving their kinship; and whether an account of the property, and of what has been done in relation to it, can be examined on their behalf?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The property left by Mrs. Helen Blake, late of No. 4, Earl's Terrace, Kensington, who died on 23rd September, 1876, a widow and intestate, is of the value of£100,000 and upwards. The estate was administered under the direction of the High Court, which found in the year 1884, after the issue of the usual advertisements for kin, that the deceased died without known kin, and that the estate had devolved on the Crown. It is open to any person now claiming to be next of kin to take such proceedings at law as he may be advised. So far as the advisers of the Crown are aware, there is no evidence that the deceased was a native of Boherquill, Westmeath, or that any kin of hers are living there. The accounts do not bear on the question of title, and could only be shown when title had been proved.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say where these advertisements for kin appeared?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot without notice. If the hon. Member will give me notice I will inquire.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRALTY (STATUS OF CONTROLLER).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been a Committee sitting at the Admiralty on the question of the status of the Controller; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the result of the finding of the Committee?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): A Committee is inquiring-into the organisation of the Controller's Department, but their Report has not yet been received. When a decision has been arrived at, I will make a statement.

    HOSPITAL SHIP.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the Admiralty have determined to build a hospital ship for the Fleet or to buy one?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot add any thing to the answer that was given to the Noble Lord on the 7th May.

    NUMBER OF MEN RECRUITED.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the number of men recruited for the Navy to the end of the financial year 1912 was short of those voted, and, if so, whether he will state to the House the number short, giving stokers, seamen, and marines, respectively; and whether he will state the total number of men recruited for the Navy for 1911–12 up to the end of the financial year 1912?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of men and boys borne on 31st March last was 240 short of Vote A, the shortage being mostly in stokers. Seamen and stokers are not distinguished in the Vote. Twelve thousand nine hundred and forty-six men and boys were recruited in the financial year ending 31st March, 1911, and 12,588 in the year ending 31st March, 1912. The figures must be taken as approximate pending verification from particulars contained in returns from the Fleet.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason the stokers will not join is the miserably poor payment they receive.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a question which I think the hon. Member must put down upon the paper.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of J. Hodgkinson, Salford, contractors to the Admiralty, are not observing the Fair-Wages Clause in the payment of certain ironfounders and pattern-makers in their employment; and whether he will have inquiry made and secure compliance with the Clause in question?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This firm has at present no Admiralty orders, either directly or as sub-contractors. In the event of their receiving any order they would, of course, be required to comply with the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the application by Florence Sullivan to be reinstated, as the son of an evicted tenant, on the lands of Cappanhanarally, in the M'Gillicuddy estate; whether Florence Sullivan's father was a tenant of these lands and was evicted in November, 1879; whether this holding is now in the landlord's hands; and what is the objection to reinstating Florence Sullivan?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners are inquiring into this case.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) in view of the term mutually agreed to six years ago by the vendors and tenant-purchasers of the Reid and M'Endoo estate, Westmeath, that the untenanted grass farm called Nolagh would be sold for distribution and enlargement of the uneconomic holdings in a manner then legal, but rendered inoperative by the Land Act of 1909, the distribution of the land being the substantial thing, the method immaterial, whether the Act of 1909 is now made the sole pretext for refusing to carry out the agreement; and whether, in view of the Estates Commissioners' power to purchase and distribute the land substantially in accordance with the aforesaid agreement, they will do this when they come to deal with this estate; and (2) whether the Irish Government will allow the intention of Parliament, in passing the Land Act of 1909, and one of the terms mutually agreed to by the vendors and tenant-purchasers of the Reid and M'Endoo estate, Westmeath, to be defeated by the vendors on the technical ground that that Act has rendered it impossible; and whether the vendors will be required to carry out in the manner provided by the Act of 1909 substantially what they agreed to do in a manner allowed by the Act of 1903 when the agreement was made?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member no purchase agreements were entered into between the parties for the sale of these lands prior to the Act of 1909, and under that Act no advances can now be made under Section 2 of the Act of 1903 for the sale of parcels of untenanted land by landlords direct to the tenants. The Estates Commissioners will consider the question of the acquisition of the lands referred to when they are dealing with the property in its order of priority.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that the agreement for the sale of this estate included the creation of tenancies on land in the landlords' own hands, and subsequent sale to the Estates Commissioners, and if his Act of 1909 does not block that and thereby prevent the sale?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is the fact that under the Act of 1909 advances could not be made under these circumstances.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see if the Estates Commissioners proceed to acquire this land that a similar amount will be given as would have been offered before his Act was passed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have already said the Estates Commissioners will consider the question of acquisition in all its bearings when they come to deal with this land in order of priority.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the vendor will not suffer any loss by reason of this Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Industrial Unrest.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the Committee of the Cabinet appointed to inquire into the question of labour unrest have been held, and what conclusions, if any, have been arrived at; whether the Government have decided to hold a further and more searching inquiry into this subject; and, if so, whether he will state by whom such inquiry will be held and what will be the terms of the reference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer given on the 5th instant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on my behalf in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Devizes.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than a month ago stated that the Government hoped to arrive at a conclusion on this matter quickly, and to decide whether there should be a further and larger inquiry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Has not that conclusion yet been come to?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    Trade Boards Act (Tailoring Trade).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the Trade Board in the tailoring trade in reducing the minimum rate of wages for women from 3½d. to 3¼d. an hour, and resolving that if 80 per cent. of the women employed on piece rate by any firm earn the minimum fixed by the board, such firm shall be considered as a firm paying the minimum wage; and whether the allowing of such an exemption is within the powers of a Trade Board?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The facts of the case are not quite accurately stated in the question. No minimum rate for the tailoring trade has been finally fixed, and therefore there is no question of the Trade Board reducing such a rate. It is the case that the Tailoring Trade Board gave notice in November last that they proposed to fix a minimum time rate of 3½d. an hour for women, and that after considering objections received in accordance with the Act they have given notice that they propose to fix 3¼d. The statutory period during which objections to this latter rate may be laid before the Trade Board has not expired. With regard to the percentage referred to by my hon. Friend, I understand that the Trade Board have under consideration the meaning to be attached to the term "ordinary worker" in Section 8 of the Trade Boards Act, and that they have referred to the district trade committees a provisional resolution setting out for the guidance of the Trade Board itself in connection with proceedings instituted by it under the Act a working rule based; on a percentage of workers employed. Such a rule, if adopted by the Trade Board, would have no legal authority, nor would it be binding on the Board of Trade.

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
Mr. CARR-GOMM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he is aware that notices of dismissal have been issued by the Port of London Authority to many of the permanent men employed in the maintenance department of the Authority; whether this action is not a breach of Section 60 of the Port of London Act, 1908, whereby these men are safeguarded for five years against dismissal, except in the case of misconduct or incapacity, and, if so, will he state what he proposes to do in the matter?
Mr. BUXTON: I understand from the Port of London Authority that notices of dismissal have been issued to a certain number of their employés. I am not aware whether these men come under the provisions of Section 60 of the Act, which provides that if the services of any officer or servant transferred to the Port Authority are dispensed with within five years except for misconduct or incapacity, he shall be entitled to compensation. The Port Authority have promised to send me further information which I shall be happy to forward to my hon. Friend.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has any statement to make to the House with regard to what the Cabinet are doing with reference to the transport strike?
The PRIME MINISTER: The House is aware that in the course of the last ten days the Government have made every effort in their power to bring to a satisfactory close the dispute between the employers and employed in the Port of London. Proposals were put forward which, unfortunately, have not found acceptance on both sides, and so far the efforts have proved abortive. The matter now, we are told, has assumed, or threatens to assume, a wider scope. I do not think I can usefully in the public interest say more at the moment than that this new aspect is engaging the most serious consideration of the Government.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Arising out of the answer we have just had, may the House assume that the Cabinet is still in a position to offer its good services to either or both of the sides should an opportunity arise, and may we also assume
704
that without delay some statement may be made on the subject?
The PRIME MINISTER: With reference to the first question of my hon. Friend, the answer is in the affirmative, and, with regard to the second, I would not pledge myself in regard to the matter of time, but there will be no unavoidable delay.
Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has observed that in another strike in which the Government in no way intervened the parties arrived at an amicable settlement?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know-to what the hon. Member refers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Would the Prime-Minister say what the arrangements are for the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and perhaps he might at the same time state the business for the rest of the week?
The PRIME MINISTER: We give tomorrow for the Motion, and on Thursday we proceed with the Committee Stage of the Government of Ireland Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Friday?"] Friday is a private Members' day.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Mr. SANDYS: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament, and the second dealing with the alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
I venture to suggest that if this proposal be accepted by the Government the procedure under this Bill will be more in accordance with Parliamentary practice and constitutional precedent, because I submit these two subjects are absolutely separate and distinct. The establishment of a new Constitution for Ireland and the alteration of the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ought really to be dealt with in two separate and distinct Bills. I am aware that the principle was unfortunately infringed when

705
Mr. Gladstone introduced his two previous Home Rule Bills in 1886 and in 1893, and that is the reason why I understand you, Sir, were unable to sustain the objection which was made at the beginning of the Second Reading Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for the Brentford Division (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). But if you found it necessary to follow the precedent of these two former occasions, I submit that the House is in no way bound thereby. This Bill, according to the strict terms of its title, proposes merely to amend the provisions for the Government of Ireland, but, in effect, it proposes vast constitutional changes in the Government of the United Kingdom. It is most desirable, on an important occasion of this land, that we should adhere strictly to those constitutional principles which are recognised by constitutional authorities, and which are based upon principles of prudence and common sense. Therefore, from the constitutional outlook alone it would be far better if those two separate and distinct subjects were dealt with in two separate and distinct Bills.
Apart from the constitutional practice, as to which there can be no doubt whatever, in my opinion at any rate, each of these two subjects is of such paramount importance in itself as to demand separate consideration. I am well aware that this opinion may not be a universal one. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the course of the interesting and literary speech which he made during the Second Reading Debate, gave us to understand that, in his view, this question of Home Rule was not so serious now as it was a few years ago. He explained to us that, in his opinion, the modern eye with its more accurate focus was better able to gauge the relative importance of a measure of this kind than what he described as the distorted vision of 1836 and 1893. I contend that the vast mass of public opinion in this country holds a totally different and divergent view. I believe that the great mass of the people, the great mass of the electors, regard these changes which are now being proposed as all-important. They believe that the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin will have far-reaching results upon the future of this country, upon the future of the British Empire, upon the future destinies of the Irish people, and upon the material prosperity, religious liberty, and political freedom of the loyal population of Ulster. For these
706
reasons, and on account of the paramount importance of these proposals, from the point of view of Ireland alone, I say that the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin, and the constitution of this new authority, demands a separate Bill entirely devoted to that one single purpose.
So far as the Constitution of this country is concerned, I submit it is most undesirable that these far-reaching alterations which have been suggested should be dovetailed in this clumsy fashion in two Clauses, not even consecutive Clauses, in a Bill which purposes to deal exclusively with a totally different subject. We heard a good deal, in the course of the Second Reading Debate, about the supposed analogy between the establishment of the Home Rule Parliament in Dublin and the granting of self-government to the Dominions of the Empire. What would have been said if it had been suggested in the case of the British North American Act of 1867, the Australian Constitution Act of 1900, or the South African Act of 1909—if in any one or other of those great Acts granting a Constitution to the self-governing Dominions, there had been embodied a proposal for altering the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? I am perfectly confident that any suggestion of that kind, no matter from which political party it might have emanated, would have been received with an outburst of genuine opposition from every political party in the country. If it be suggested, as indeed it is suggested, that there is an analogy between a measure of self-government for Ireland and those previous measures which have established new Constitutions in these Dominions, then, in my opinion, at any rate, it is most desirable we should follow the precedent set on those occasions and deal exclusively with the establishment of this new Parliament and a new Constitution, and not attempt in one and the same Bill to make an alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom It appears to me absolutely incredible it should ever have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to make these far-reaching changes in the cardinal principles of the constitution of this House without at any rate embodying them in a separate Act of Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman has not thought it necessary to do it; it would seem to be only a further proof, if further proof be required, of the complete contempt in which he holds the constitutional traditions of this country.

707
4.0 P.M.
This attempt to slip through Clauses dealing with the constitution of this House in the middle of a Bill purporting to deal entirely with the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin is only another step in the surreptitious introduction of a written Constitution, to take the place of those ancient precedents which have come down to us through the centuries, which have varied with the changing necessities of passing generations and which, unprotected by statutory authority, have, nevertheless, hitherto been regarded and respected by all parties in the State as the source of individual freedom and national greatness. It may be desirable to give Ireland a Parliament of its own. It may be desirable to make an alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but I submit that these two grave and important subjects deserve separate consideration in separate Bills. After all, changes in a nation's Parliament are not to be lightly undertaken. A short time ago it seemed good to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends to make alterations in the powers of the Second Chamber, and they thought that those alterations were of sufficient importance to merit their having a Bill to themselves. Now, when he proposes to make these changes in the constitution of this, the democratic Chamber of the predominant partner, in which the representatives of the people sit, surely it is desirable that those changes should be embodied in a separate and distinct Act of Parliament! I will briefly indicate, in order to show the importance of this question, the revolutionary changes which are proposed to be carried out. The Irish representation in this House under normal conditions is to be reduced by about 60 per cent., and this measure, in addition to that, provides that in certain exceptional circumstances there shall be an irruption into this House of a further contingent of Irish Members. Yet these Members who are to come over from Ireland under these circumstances represent no constituency. They are not necessarily elected under any franchise sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament. They are selected by the Irish Parliament themselves and they come here, not as representatives of the people, but as envoys of a nation. Surely that is a revolutionary change. This is the first time in British history when men are to sit in this House not as representatives, but as ambassadors.
708
This far-reaching constitutional innovation must necessarily involve a complete remodelling of the procedure and constitutional practice of this House. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to carry this out not by an Act of Parliament, but in two Clauses of a measure primarily devoted to another purpose altogether. I should like hon. Members to notice this: that one of these Clauses, and possibly the most important of them, is set so far down in the Bill that it is highly probable that it will never come up for discussion at all. I also suggest that it is desirable that this division which I propose should be made, because I think it will simplify our examination of the Bill. No doubt to establish, a new Constitution for Ireland is a difficult matter to deal with, but I do say that the present arrangement of the Bill is unnecessarily complicated and confused. Whether this complication and confusion has arisen by accident or design it is, of course, impossible for me to say. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman had had a free hand, he would probably have started in the manner I have suggested by dealing with these two matters in two separate Bills. Possibly, however, the exigencies of the political situation have made it desirable for him to produce a measure of as complicated and confused a character as possible, so that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) might be able to go over to his friends in Ireland and explain to them that this Bill represented a full realisation of Ireland's national hopes and representations, while the timid supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, who-kept the matter in the background at the time of the last General Election, who possibly forgot to mention the subject at all in his election address, might be able to go to his supporters and represent this change as being of small constitutional importance. Considerations of this character no doubt have great weight with the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that they should have no weight with this House.
I believe that to carry out the division which I am proposing would simplify our examination of this measure. In addition, it would not only in my view be a convenience to the Members of this House, but it would enable the general mass of the people in this country to appreciate exactly what is being done. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman made this observation, but a number of

709
hon. Members and right hon. Members, Speaking in the course of the Second Beading Debate, made statements to the effect that this proposal for the establishment of a, new Constitution for Ireland had been placed in the most clear and unmistakable way before the electors of this country at the time of the last General Election. As to whether statements of that kind have any real foundation in fact is, of course, a matter of opinion, but I am perfectly confident that there is not a single hon. Member or right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House who will be able to get up and say that these changes in the constitution of the Parliament in the United Kingdom were in any way submitted to the people of this country at the time of the last General Election. Therefore, I do urge that even if the electors of this country are not to have an opportunity of expressing their views at the poll—I believe that is the accepted policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends—at any rate it is highly desirable that they should clearly appreciate exactly what is being done. I do not think any hon. Member from the other side of the House would pretend that these changes and alterations in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom have ever received the sanction of the people. In addition to that, it is perfectly obvious that a large number of hon. Members opposite, and supporters of the right hon. Gentleman who have not seats in this House—important supporters—although they are in favour of the policy of Home Rule for Ireland, have strongly disapproved of these suggested alterations in the constitution of the Parliament in the United Kingdom. Mr. Erskine Childers, writing to the "Daily News" on 2nd February, said:—
"To retain any substantial number of Irish representatives at Westminster would be to wreck the whole scheme."
Lord Joicey, a very influential supporter, I am told, of the right hon. Gentleman and his party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]— well, formerly a very influential supporter—writing to the "Morning Post" on 2nd May this year, said:—
"Whilst anxious to remove any serious and legitimate grievance of the Irish people, I have been equally anxious in doing so not to cause injustice to the people of Great Britain. I see by the provisions of Mr. Asquith's Bill that forty-two Irish members are to be retained, and although the proposed Irish Parliament will have complete control over Irish affairs, they will be allowed to vote in the Imperial Parliament on British domestic measures. Surely that is most unjust to Britain, and I do not see why it should be allowed."
710
The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones)—I hope he will contradict me if I in any way misrepresent his statements, I have read them with great care—said that his views on this particular subject were shared by many of his hon. Friends. He said:—
"Although I yield to no one in my devotion to Home Rule yet I regard with the greatest apprehension what I believe, in the words of Mr. Gladstone, would be the degradation of Parliament."
The hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. Agar-Robartes) speaking in the House of Commons on 2nd May, said:—
"I strongly oppose the retention of forty-two Irish Members in this House.….If that argument be valid and sound we shall have forty-two Irish Members here demanding and trying to extract financial legislation from the English taxpayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1912, col. 2164.]
Again there were some very interesting observations I was fortunate enough to find in a copy of the "Freeman's Journal," which were made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at a meeting in Liverpool not very long ago:—
"Do not forget—"
he said, speaking to an assemblage consisting largely of English Catholics—
"Do not forget that you will not always have the Irish party in the House of Commons to defend you, because—"
I think this shows the hon. Member was somehow not in the full confidence of his hon. and learned Friend, because he went on to say—
"it is absolutely certain that whatever scheme is devised, the people of England will not submit to give over to Ireland the complete control of her own affairs and permit us to come over here and boss their affairs."
I venture to submit that for this reason alone it is most desirable that the division of the Bill into two parts that I have suggested should be adopted, otherwise it seems to me that hon. Members on the other side of the House will be put on the horns of a dilemma. Although the idea may be extremely painful, some of them may be compelled, because they are supporters of the policy of Home Rule for Ireland, to vote for a Bill which contains provisions for an alteration of the constitution of the Parliament in the United Kingdom, to which they object. Such a state of affairs would be most regrettable, and if hon. Members on the other side of the House were to find themselves in that unusual situation I venture to think that their position would be most distasteful to them. Therefore, I suggest that, for the benefit of hon. Members on the other side of the House, who are placed in this awkward position, who are in favour of the

711
policy of Home Rule but who object to alterations in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it would be far more satisfactory if this division were made, so that they could vote, as they always do, in accordance with their belief and their conscience. Again, I believe that if this suggestion were adopted it would really assist what I understand is the ultimate policy and intention of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I believe that the division of the Bill which I advocate is absolutely essential if this scheme is to be considered, as the right hon. Gentleman tells us it is to be considered, as the basis of a new federal system, and if he has, as his ultimate goal, the establishment of a central Parliament at Westminster and the formation of subsidiary legislative assemblies looking after the affairs of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman is really in earnest, it is obvious that a new constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is absolutely necessary. If that is so, surely it is essential that a proposal of this kind should be considered in a separate Bill by itself, and no attempt should be made to deal with this great question in two Clauses of a Bill which is primarily concerned with another matter altogether. The right hon. Gentleman, in one of his most recent statements, has gone even beyond this, and he tells us that he regards this proposal for the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin not merely as the basis of a new federal system for the United Kingdom, but his object is, in his own words—
"to build up, step by step, a constitutional fabric which will make the Imperial Parliament fit to discharge its duties to the Empire."
A vast Imperial project of this kind, containing as it does admittedly great difficulties which will have to be surmounted, is surely worthy of consideration in a separate Bill. It is absolutely ludicrous that the right hon. Gentleman should even think it possible that the basis should be laid of a great scheme of that character in two Clauses of a Bill primarily concerned with the establishment of a new Constitution for Ireland. I am aware that hon. Members below the Gangway attach very great value to the approval which they think they have received for this Home Rule scheme from representative citizens of the Dominions. I suggest, however, that this is, after all, a question which concerns us far more than it concerns them. But I would ask the
712
right hon. Gentleman does he seriously think that Colonial public opinion is likely to be favourably impressed with this portion of the scheme, which he tells us is to be the basis of an ultimate system of Imperial federation, when he himself does not attach sufficient importance to it to give it a separate Act of Parliament. He approached this question from what I should describe as a totally inadequate if not a contemptuous point of view. My opinion is at any rate that when this portion of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme is understood amongst the citizens of the Dominions it is far more likely to arouse their hostility than to gain their support. This division which I propose is not only desirable but absolutely essential. If my suggestion is adopted these proposals will be brought more into accordance with constitutional practice and precedent. The importance of the issues involved demands that they should be dealt with by separate and distinct legislation, and if the right hon. Gentleman is in earnest and really regards this as a first step towards national and Imperial federation it is absolutely necessary that we should separate that portion of the Bill which embodies the changes proposed in the Parliament of the United Kingdom from the other portion of the Bill which deals with the constitution and power of the new Parliament which is to be established in Ireland.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Motion.
The main purpose of this Instruction is to enable the Bill not merely to be split in two, but to be reported separately to the House, and to come separately for Third Reading. The object of that is that the country might have an opportunity of deciding, as we hope they will have to decide, on both Bills; that if one Bill, under the provisions of the steps which have been taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, should become law, at all events the Bill dealing with the constitution of this House of Parliament may at least go before the country. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he or his colleagues can in any way assume to have a mandate for Clauses 13 and 26. That there was no mandate for Clause 13 must, I think, be established beyond controversy from the number of questions which were put in regard to the provisions of the Bill which elicited time after time the answer "Wait and see." The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly within his rights and powers to decline to give us information

713
as to the Bill, but if it was going outside what is ordinarily understood by the granting of local self-government in local matters to an Irish Legislative Assembly and was going to remodel the Constitution of the Kingdom, he has no right to go before the people of the country and endeavour to obtain a mandate for a Bill containing these Clauses without at least outlining them in order that the people might express their approval or disapproval.
With regard to the retention of the Irish Members here, we have been in very great difficulty. In 1885 the Irish Members were altogether kept out and were not to be allowed to take part any more in our Debates. And I think all the great leaders of the Liberal party, notably the present Lord Morley, put most strongly the utter impossibility of the Irish Members, when they had once got control of their own affairs, having a controlling power over the affairs of Great Britain. In 1893 the Liberal party swung round and tried to evolve a scheme for the in-and-out process, allowing the Irish Members to vote on Irish questions, but not on questions which exclusively concerned Great Britain. That, of course, went by the board. I suppose it was the least logical of all the three schemes, and afterwards, in 1893, the scheme emerged from the House with the Irish Members retained. Over and over again last year we tried to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman which of these two principles was to be embodied in this present Bill. But we got absolutely no answer. We were told to wait and see. How could the people of the country give a mandate merely to wait and see? I had the honour, a fortnight ago, of discussing this question with a member of the Canadian Parliament, and he asked, Why are you going to allow Irish Members to remain in the Parliament of Great Britain, controlling the affairs of the Empire, when you decline to admit us, the representatives of at least an equally great nation, to your Parliament to assist in controlling the affairs of the Empire too? I had no possible answer, and I suggest that there has been no answer given to the people of this country. They have not been able to express their decision whether they desire the retention of the Irish Members or not.
But Clause 26 is really of much more vital importance. No such proposition has ever been made either in the Bill of 1885 or 1893. The right hon. Gentleman is breaking down the very root principle of
714
the constitution of this House. There is no Member in the House who is entitled to give a vote on any subject whatever without being answerable to some body of constituents for his vote, and these delegates, these ambassadors from Ireland, are to come here, possibly at a very critical stage in the fortunes of our country, and deal with financial matters—and, after all, nearly anything can be done by financial measures—responsible to no constituents, but merely to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond). I have the greatest respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I see no reason why he should have a number of delegates—while he may be a Member of the House himself, and will possibly be Prime Minister of the Irish House of Commons—voting in this House, in addition to his forty-two Members, as he chooses to direct them. This Clause is in itself an outrage on our Parliamentary traditions. When would this Clause be likely to be put into force? My point is that the people of the country could not and did not know anything about it. It would only be likely to be put into force at some time of stress and of financial difficulty, possibly when we were involved in a great war, when it would be necessary to recast the financial relations between this House and the people of Ireland, and when the Government would find it essential to make great demands, not merely upon us, but upon the whole Empire, for financial assistance. Then and then only, in all probability, would the hon. and learned Gentleman come with his additional delegates to the assistance, it might be and I think it would probably be, of the Liberal and Radical opposition, assisting them to vote down patriotic measures which might be proposed for the relief of our country. The whole of the Prime Minister's argument in introducing the Bill was that the Irish had for the last thirty years demanded Home Rule. For the moment I accept that position. He said:—
"From the first moment the Irish people were granted an articulate political voice, it pronounced by a majority of four to one in favour of Home Rule.… One thing had remained constant … the insistence and the persistence of the Irish demand."
That may be true, but is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the insistence and persistence of the Irish demand for Home Rule was an insistence and persistence in favour of the modification of the constitution of this House by the admission of forty-two Irish Members and by these extraordinary delegates coming

715
over from Ireland? I am going to found myself upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. He said:—
"We cannot admit, and we will not admit the right of a minority of the people, and relatively a small minority particularly after every possible care has been taken to safeguard their special interests and susceptibilities—"
I think that is true. Very great care is being taken to safeguard the interest and susceptibilities of the Irish party below the Gangway—
"to veto the verdict of the vast majority of their countrymen."
The right hon. Gentleman applied that to my hon. Friends who represent the Conservative part of Ulster. I apply it, as I believe I am entitled to do, as between the representatives of Ireland and the representatives of Great Britain in this House. We desire to keep our Constitution unfettered. We are quite satisfied with our Constitution. It has lasted many centuries and we decline to admit the right of a small minority comparatively of the people of the United Kingdom to insist on the right hon. Gentleman breaking up our Constitution. In order that that might not take place my hon. Friend has moved that the Bill be divided into two parts, so that whatever the fate of the Home Rule part may be, however far he may have a mandate to carry out the wishes of the people of Ireland in regard to Home Rule, we who are a majority in Great Britain may carry out the mandate which we have received to maintain our Constitution.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have listened with attention and I hope with respect to the two speeches which have just been delivered, but I failed to discover how the hon. Gentlemen who made those speeches brought them into any relation with the position they have laid down. Their speeches—and that of the Mover was a very interesting and able speech—were directed to two points. The first was a long argument against the Second Beading process, which the House has already given, and the next was an argument which would be perfectly relevant and would be worthy of respectful consideration when the two Clauses, and the only two Clauses in the Bill, which deal with the constitution of the Imperial Parliament, namely, Clauses 13 and 26, are reached. If you leave out from the two hon. Gentlemen's speeches the parts of their argument which they devoted to these two
716
topics, what is left? Let me ask what would happen if this Instruction were carried? How much further advanced would we be? The House has read the Bill a second time containing all these Clauses, and the effect of this Instruction being carried would simply be this: when you reached the two Clauses in question they would have to be postponed. I will mention another matter, an extraordinary omission from the Instruction, which shows that the hon. Member very imperfectly comprehends the position. When these two Clauses were reached they would have to be postponed, and the rest of the Bill would be proceeded with. Then the two Clauses which were postponed would have to be proceeded with, and they, with the rest of the Bill, would be reported to the House. How much better off would you be at the end of it than now? Let me further point out to the hon. Gentleman that his Instruction really does not deal with the Bill as it stands. The Committee are to be instructed to have power to divide the Bill into two: the first dealing with the constitutional powers of the Irish Parliament and the second dealing with the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That leaves a very large part of the Bill neither in one category nor the other. The whole of the provisions relating to the Executive, the judiciary, and other matters in Ireland, do not fall within either of these two suggested parts. What is the Committee to do then? The hon. Gentleman gives us no guidance on that point whatever. But, of course, the real objection to the merits of the Instruction can be stated in two or three sentences. I am perfectly certain that it will be shown in Committee that you cannot properly discuss the constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament without constant reference to what is going to be the position of the Irish Members in the Imperial House of Commons, and in the same way, when you come to deal with the Clauses in regard to the position of the Irish Members in this House, you cannot adequately or successfully discuss them without reference to the grant of Home Rule. The two subjects are inseparable and intertwined on every point; and the whole effect of this artificial separation would be not to dissociate in debate the one from the other, but to duplicate debate on every point connected with both.
I will only make one other observation, for I think that is quite enough to dispose of the argument of the hon. Member. The

717
hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) dilated at great length—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I am not suggesting in the least excessively, for, as I have said, his speech was very concise, but he dilated relatively at great length on the terrible and unanticipated position which would arise if the 26th Clause of this Bill were adopted. He seems to think, and I am not sure that the view was not shared by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction, that the 26th Clause would enable the hon. Member for Waterford to bring over cohorts of ambassadors, as they are called—Members who would overawe the Imperial Parliament. Clause 26 deals only with one particular contingency which will not arise until there has been a three-years' surplus in Ireland; and then they will only come here for one specific purpose, namely, the readjustment of the financial relations between the two countries. They will have no power of any sort or kind to deal with any other matter of legislation. It is a remote contingency, and can only apply to one particular subject matter. When we come to deal with the 26th Clause, I will be very happy to defend by argument the provision we have made with regard to that special matter. To pretend that any reasonable debating assembly could discuss the Home Rule provisions without reference to the changes made in the Imperial Parliament, or discuss the changes made in the Imperial Parliament without reference to Home Rule, is to suppose that we live in watertight compartments which do not exist. If the Instruction were adopted, I am perfectly confident that in our procedure in Committee we should not take advantage of the power given to the Committee. Therefore, I ask the House with reference to the particular proposals contained in the Bill to assent to the general proposition that we cannot deal with one half of it without dealing at the same time with the other.
Mr. LONG: I am not in the least surprised at the answer the Prime Minister has made. He has paraphrased the admirable speeches of my two hon. Friends, which, I think, deserved a much fuller reply than they have received from the right hon. Gentleman. He has paraphrased them, and we may be allowed to pay him the same compliment. He tells us that the Motion can be answered and disposed of in a sentence or two. The real answer is not the one the Prime Minister has given. The real answer is that it would
718
not suit the purpose of the Government to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, because if it were adopted, and we had before us two different Bills, it would be possible for this House and the country to appreciate better than they can do now what the House is asked to do. The answer of the Prime Minister is one with which those of us who have sat in this House for years are very familiar. It is the answer which a Minister makes at the beginning of proceedings that these matters are dealt with in certain Clauses, and that when the Clauses are reached you will have the opportunity of discussing them. A few days ago I read in the papers when I was abroad a letter written by an hon. Gentleman opposite, one of the supporters of His Majesty's Government, in which he advocated, not for the first time, that this Bill should be dealt with under a system which we know as compartment closure—that these proposals should be made at the beginning of the discussion of the Bill in Committee, and that certain time should be allotted for different parts of the Bill. It is not a novel proposal. It has been frequently adopted in this House, and there is a great deal to be said for it. If any proposal of that kind were to be adopted it would be infinitely easier to adopt it and apply it in a fair way to all parties in the House if you divided the Bill into two different parts, each affecting two totally different things, and making two different changes. The Prime Minister dismissed all the comments on Clause 26, because he pointed out that it does not become operative until there has been a surplus in the Irish Revenue, and the tone of his remarks seemed to indicate that he thinks that is a very distant period in Irish history. He pointed out that the Clause does not become operative until this takes place, and that it is not of any great importance—a most amazing statement from the Prime Minister of this country.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say so.
Mr. LONG: I certainly understood the Prime Minister to say so.
The PRIME MINISTER: I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that the hon. Gentleman had greatly exaggerated the case. He seemed to think that it applies to other subjects than the mere readjustment of the financial relations.
Mr. LONG: If the Prime Minister says that my description of his remarks is inaccurate, I abandon it at once; but certainly the impression made upon my mind—and I think on the minds of many others on this side of the House—was that not only had my hon. Friend exaggerated the effect of the Clause, but that in reality no serious notice need be attached to it, because its operation would be of a very limited character. That is no answer on this question. You are, for the first time in this or any other Parliament, proposing by Clause 26 an extraordinary change. You are making Members of Parliament to be brought into the House for a particular purpose. I do not agree with the answer of the Prime Minister that their powers are to be limited. I say this is a changes for which there is no precedent in any other constitution, and if you are going to do this you should do it openly in a Bill passed for the purpose. What is the history of this matter? My hon. Friends have reminded the House that in 1886 and 1893 it was proposed to deal with this question in a totally different way. In the Bill of 1886 no representation was given to Ireland, and in the Bill of 1893 there was a limited representation—and very limited powers. What are you doing now? You are not only bringing Irish Members into the House, and allowing them to have control of English and Scotch affairs, while depriving English and Scotch Members of any right to interfere in Irish affairs, but you are allowing them to deal with Imperial questions which have to be settled in this House. Already the representation in this House is in a very irregular shape, but you are going to bring in forty-two Members from Ireland whose position will be totally different from that of representatives of the other parts of the United Kingdom. If that is not a complete change in the constitution, I do not know what the meaning of the word change is. I venture to say that my hon. Friend is perfectly right in asking that, if you are going to do this, you ought to do it by a separate Bill. What is the other answer of the Prime Minister? He says nothing will be effected if the Instruction is carried. He made a trifling criticism of the Instruction. My contention is that it would be effective for the purpose which my hon. Friends have in view, namely, the division of this Bill into two parts.
I have referred to the fact that this Bill will have a far-reaching effect on the constitution of this House. The Prime
720
Minister says the Instruction is not necessary. I venture to say it is necessary for this reason: I have no doubt that before very long we shall be told that this Bill is to be dealt with under some system decided by the Government as to the allotting of time which will shorten our Debates. It is quite conceivable that the parts of the Bill which deal with the constitution of this House may come at the end of one of these periods, and that there will be no discussion on them at all, whereas if the plan proposed by my hon. Friend were adopted, it would make it perfectly certain that they would be discussed in their proper places. Reference was made by my hon. Friend to the Dominion of Canada, but we have greater examples. We passed through this House not very long ago a Bill giving a Constitution to South Africa. At that time the hope was expressed that ultimately we might have some great Imperial Council to which representatives would be sent from the South African Parliament. What would the Members of this House have said if you had proposed to provide in the new Constitution for these representatives being elected? I venture to say that there is no man on either side of the House who would not have said, "If you are going to change the constitution of this House, you must do it in a Bill for that purpose, and not in a Bill setting up a Parliament in South Africa." The ground is even stronger still in this case, because the Prime Minister has told us that this is to be taken as a first step towards a great federal scheme. If it is a first step, surely you ought to have two distinct plans. As you are going to do two distinct things and achieve two totally different objects, they ought to be achieved in two totally different ways.
The PRIME MINISTER: You would not get that by division of this Bill.
Mr. LONG: Why not?
The PRIME MINISTER: Because it is not within the title of the Bill.
Mr. LONG: If my hon. Friend's object were achieved and this Bill were divided into two, you would have to denude this Bill of the part which refers to Great Britain and produce a new Bill. It is hardly worthy of the Prime Minister to found himself upon what is a purely technical objection to the wording of the Amendment.
The PRIME MINISTER: No, I am founding myself on the Instruction. The Instruction is to divide this Bill into two Bills, and you cannot get beyond the title of this Bill when you divide it. [Cheers.]
Mr. LONG: Hon. Gentlemen are cheering a little too soon. Does the Prime Minister lay down that it is impossible to withdraw a Clause from a Bill in this House and bring it up in the shape of a new Bill with its own title subsequently?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is not your Instruction. That is the introduction of a new Bill.
Mr. LONG: Certainly. That is the meaning of my hon. Friend's speeches, and it is what they said. We do not conceal from ourselves for a moment that it would mean the introduction of a second Bill, a Bill for the purpose of reforming the Constitution of this country and this House, and the Bill so introduced would have its proper title. But because the Government have chosen to adopt this particular machinery and to try to smuggle through this House proposals for reforming the Constitution in a Bill entitled the Government of Ireland Bill, we should not now be told that our objections are not worth listening to, and that our proposals cannot be entertained. This is being done because the Government, if our proposals were carried, would have to do what they should have done in the first instance. The objection of the Prime Minister does not hold good for a moment. May I assume that our objections had held good in point of Parliamentary law, and that Mr. Speaker had been appealed to and had ruled that this Bill was not in conformity with the title, then you would have to withdraw you Bill and would either have to reintroduce it in two distinct forms, each with its own title, or else bring it into conformity with the Amendment, and to suggest that it is impossible to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend and that his Amendment would not do what we desire, and to offer that as an objection to our proposal, is altogether unworthy of the Prime Minister. The real reason is not that the Amendment is insufficient and not that the thing cannot be done. The real reason is that it does not suit the object of the Government to do it. They know that by the aid of various Parliamentary machines they will be able to carry this Bill, with its great changes of our Constitution, behind the backs of the people, and without their full knowledge;
722
they know that they would be able to do it without this House having full opportunities of discussing each of these details in their separate Bills. That is the real reason of my hon. Friend's Amendment. We press it because we believe that it is a step which the Government ought to take, and we are quite satisfied that those whom we represent will endorse our action, because, if adopted, it would at all events show the country what the Government are really doing, and enable this House to approach its work in a practical manner.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who holds such confident language about the Rules of this House, is, in fact, mistaken. It is not incompetent to go beyond the title of the Bill. What is incompetent is to go beyond the general purport of the Bill. If this Bill were split into two Bills, the Bill, which would then relate to the government of the United Kingdom, would have its own purport, and if it was ruled to the contrary it is by no means certain that you could not produce an Amendment in that Bill relative to the general purport of that separate Bill. It is, of course, perfectly possible to amend the title in conformity with the new branch of the Bill, but that is, as my right hon. Friend says, entirely a technical point. The substantial defence of the Government is that this Amendment would not produce a coherent scheme Quite true. Nothing would produce a coherent scheme out of the Government's original carelessness, because what the Government propose to do is to form a new federal constitution for the United Kingdom, instead of bringing in that federal constitution altogether in five chapters, as it ought to do, a chapter relating to the Parliament in England, a chapter relating to the Parliament in Scotland, a chapter relating to the Parliament in Ireland, a chapter relating to the Parliament in Wales, and a chapter relating to the whole Parliament of the United Kingdom, which would have been a proper way of dealing with the federal constitution; that is the way in which without exception all federal constitutions have been made, for never in the whole history of of the world has anyone ever tried to make a federal constitution by taking a bit and dealing with it by itself. Here the Government have taken the whole of chapter 3 and a bit of chapter 5. Now we ask that these two bits should be separated

723
and that we should be able to consider chapter 5 separately from chapter 3. Surely that is a very reasonable proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Constitution of the United Kingdom and the new Constitution of Ireland are intertwined so that you cannot consider how to make an Irish Parliament without also considering the representation of Ireland in the United Kingdom Parliament. That may be true. Neither can you decide on the representation of Ireland in the United Kingdom Parliament without also deciding upon the representation of Scotland, of Wales, and of England in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. How are we to know that forty-two Members for Ireland is a reasonable or an unreasonable number unless we know what England, Scotland, and Wales are to send? If we had a separate Bill, all these points could properly be raised; we could ask the Government to explain to us what the proportion, according to their scheme, of the different parts of the United Kingdom in the common Parliament ought to be, and when the right hon. Gentleman says "we cannot discuss these things separately," I agree. He should have laid his whole scheme together before Parliament. Why did he not do so? Because it would not have been good Parliamentary tactics; because he would have had to get over the immense difficulty of the relationship with not only Irish Home Rule, but with Scotch, Welsh, and English Home Rule, and because he has not a notion, and none of his followers have any notion of how those difficulties are to be got over, and because he knows little and cares less about any of the three. He cares as little about them as he would care about Irish Home Rule if he did not depend for his official existence on eighty Irish votes. This Bill has on every line of it the low-ness of its origin. It is a beggar's brat all through. It springs from mere partisanship tactics; it has not an atom of statesmanship in it from one end to the other.
It is because the Government are content to deal with the Constitution as part of their party stock-in-trade that these difficulties arise. If they had really approached the subject with an honest desire to establish a federal constitution, we should not have agreed with them, but we should have thought that they were making a statesmanlike constitutional attempt. They would, at any rate, be
724
amateurs in statesmanship, even if unsuccessful amateurs, but now they are mere frauds, pretending to be statesmen, but being, as a matter of fact, only skilful partisans. Is not it reasonable that we should at the earliest possible moment make a protest against this sort of way of dealing with the Constitution? Let us have separate Bills for Ireland and for the United Kingdom. We shall then be able to debate the problem of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and we shall be able to consider, amongst other things, in the financial relations of the different parts of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman regards that as so unimportant that he speaks of the mere readjustment of the financial relations. If he had given any study to the question on which he has undertaken to legislate, he would know that these questions of the financial relations of different members of a federal system are the most difficult and intricate and, on the whole, the most unsuccessful parts of federal constitution. Yet he speaks of a mere readjustment of financial relations as though it were a matter which did not deserve the serious consideration of this House. We must protest at the very outset against a scheme which for party purposes would place this House in a position which it has never held before, which will change its constitution fundamentally and will change that fundamental constitution without even indicating how any ultimate solution is to be made of the problem that is inauspiciously and unworthily attempted.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The beggar's brat crops up sometimes in very unexpected places, and gives us cause to doubt the doctrine of heredity. This Bill is a Bill not to establish a federal system. It is a Bill to grant Home Rule to Ireland. The Bill does not establish the federal system, and does not purport of itself to establish a federal system. Those of us who desire to see a federal system established in this country and to see this country organised on federal bases will look to it to see that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent that being done in the future, but this Bill does not purport to establish a federal system, and therefore all that hag been said with regard to a federal system in relation to this Instruction is beside the point. This Bill purports only to grant a measure of self-government to Ireland with regard to local and domestic affairs in Ireland. A measure of devolution like this, devolving certain powers from the Imperial to the local Parliament, necessarily

725
involves certain changes in the Imperial Parliament, and the changes in the Imperial Parliament and the new Parliament in Ireland are strictly relevant to one another. They are reciprocal; they are reverse sides of the same operation; they cannot be considered except in strict relation to one another. This Bill is dealing entirely with the relations between the Imperial Parliament and the new assembly which is to be constituted in Ireland, and it is impossible to consider these relative and reciprocal matters in separate Bills. So far as that particular point is concerned, the same Instruction might have been moved in the Bill which was introduced some years ago to establish a Union Parliament in South Africa.
That was a Bill which dealt with separate Parliaments and also dealt with a central Parliament. It dealt with local Parliaments in each of the provinces as well as with the central body. Why did not some bold Member on the other side rise, then, and propose that the Bill ought to be divided into two parts, one dealing with the local Parliament in each of these provinces and the other dealing with the separate Union Parliament? The same might have been said when the Union of the Parliament of Ireland was taking place with the Parliament of Great Britain. When the Bill was introduced why was not an Instruction moved then to bring in two Bills, one dealing with the dissolution of the Irish Parliament and one dealing with the new powers which were to be granted to the Imperial Parliament? There is no change in the Imperial Parliament proposed in this Bill which is not strictly relevant to the changes incidental to the constitution of a local Parliament in Ireland, and the two things cannot be considered apart from one another. A great deal has been said upon the merits of Clauses 13 and 26 with regard to the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament and with regard to the increased representation of Ireland in case of an alteration in the financial relations. I will agree with much that has been said. I have said something myself of the same kind in criticism of these Clauses which can be brought up on an Amendment, but the merits of these Clauses do not affect the merits of the proposals which are before us. They do not affect the proposals to divide this Act into two, and these Clauses can be operated more easily and more fully in the Bill to which they are strictly relevant than if they were in a separate Bill.
5.0 P.M.
Major MORRISON-BELL: I should like to deal with the latter part of the Instruction, relating to the alteration of the constitution of this House, because possibly Members hardly realise what a difference this Bill will make in its constitution. Clause 13 of the Bill proposes that there shall be forty-two Members from Ireland in this Assembly, but, under Clause 26, there is introduced a further representation in proportion to the population of the country, which, under the present circumstances means that you would introduce a further twenty-three Members from Ireland. The House possibly does not realise that by the introduction of those Members it would have four different sets of representatives within its walls, and it is no unreasonable demand that is made by this Instruction, that if you are going to alter the constitution of this House and have four different sets of Members, it should be dealt with in a separate Bill. With great respect, I do not think the Prime Minister, in his answer, successfully dealt with the points put forward by hon. Members on this side. It is undoubted that you will have four different sets of Members in this House, as I hope I shall make clear in a very few moments. First you have the 609 Members from Great Britain and forty-two Members from Ireland. The forty-two from Ireland will each represent 100,000 of the population of that country. Then, by Clause 26, you bring in another twenty-three Members, making the number from Ireland sixty-five. You at once alter the whole complexion of the other forty-two Members, because, instead of their representing 100,000 of the population, as they do when the number is forty-two, when they are raised to sixty-five they will each represent 67,000 of the population. You will have this situation, that at Question Time the hon. Member for Cork, who represents 100,000—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing Clause 26. We are not discussing that, and he must wait until the Clause is reached. What we are discussing is whether the Bill shall be divided into two Bills. The hon. Member must confine himself to that.
Major MORRISON-BELL: I was trying to show the House that the arguments put forward on this side of the House are strong enough to justify the Instruction, and, possibly, it has not been appreciated by the House—how absurd would be the position that would arise when these extra

727
Members are introduced into this House. If I am unable further to follow that argument, which, of course, I should not think of doing after your ruling, Sir, I would merely submit that the Instruction should be accepted by this House, and I trust that, when we go to a Division, we shall find enough Members on the other side of the House who realise the points and arguments submitted in support of the Instruction, and that they will vote in the same Lobby with those who sit on this side of the House.
Captain CRAIG: I wish to associate myself at the outset with my hon. Friends on this side who have taken part in the discussion. I think the Prime Minister made a very inadequate reply to the arguments which were advanced, because, as the Bill goes on, there can be no doubt that Clauses 13 and 26 will be very much altered by Amendments, unless the Government have made up their minds to allow no Amendments to be accepted, but to stick to the hard and fast Clause actually introduced. Therefore, it would be much more convenient, in our opinion, that the Home Rule portion of the Bill should be completely discussed, and that thereafter we should begin on a fresh Bill altogether, when we have all the Amendments to the Home Rule Bill before us. With the Bill as it emerges from Committee we should be able to start with a new measure affecting the representation of the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) said that this Bill was not the starting point of Federalism. That is in direct contradiction to the speech made by the Prime Minister, who said that this is the first step to Federalism, and on that ground he appealed to the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time. Are we to be so soon disillusioned by one of his own supporters, in regard to a statement in this House made in order to sooth the feelings of the electorate, who were never consulted outside the House, that this was to be the first step towards Federalism? Is that to be thrown over immediately by one of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters?
The reason why this Instruction has been brought forward is to elicit distinct information from the Prime Minister on the subject of the representation of the United Kingdom as a whole, and whether
728
a fair proportion has been allocated to represent Ireland. Are these Nationalists who come to this House, or are they not, a band pledged to the Radical Government to remain Radical for a certain number of years in order to help them to carry through other legislation? That is a question to which an answer should be given before the Debate on this Motion is concluded. Ugly rumours are already abroad, and we are face to face with the perpetuity of these forty-two Nationalists absolutely under the sway of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and who are to be dictated to and told how they are to vote in support of the Radical party for a certain number of years. That is a matter which should be cleared up, and how can it be better cleared up than by having a special Bill for the purpose, and divorcing such questions from the distinct subject of Home Rule. Another point of great importance is that some important Amendments may be submitted. I see that some important Amendments have already been put down which would create another class of representatives in this House, and consequently all these important points which would not necessarily be proposed from these benches—and necessarily not from the Nationalist Benches, as I understand that the whole of them are carefully muzzled— but the more outspoken Radical supporters of the present Government may have Amendments such as I have indicated, and these will materially affect the whole question of the representation of this House.
There is a strong feeling in regard to proportional representation which undoubtedly has a bearing on the whole Bill. This Instruction is of the utmost importance to every question touching the solidarity of the United Kingdom, and on the opening day, when a matter of such vital importance is before us, the Unionist party, who are here in force, have opposite to them empty benches, with the exception of four hon. Members who probably know less about Ireland than any other Members of this House. It is a travesty if the Debates on this question are to be conducted in this manner, and I cannot help entering a protest at the earliest possible moment if our arguments and our reasons are not to be listened to, and the Bill is to be passed by a slave-bound party in spite of all that is advanced from this side. The edict is to go forth from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford,

729
who tells the House of Commons how to register his decree, and the country is to have no say in the matter. On these grounds I heartily support the Instruction, so that we may be a little more clear about this muddled business, and that at all events we shall be able to elicit something from the Government as to what their intentions are. If discussion is to be silenced, as no doubt it will be later, and if the Bill is to be forced through this House, then the people of the country should know something about this federal scheme for the United Kingdom, and if it is intended to have representation of other parts of the United Kingdom under a scheme similar to that proposed by this Bill.
Mr. BUTCHER: The argument in favour of this Instruction is strongly reinforced by the declaration which was made by the Prime Minister on the First Reading of this Bill. He told us that this Bill was only the first step towards federalising the United Kingdom. What are the essential features of such a federalising scheme? First, you should define the powers of the central federal Parliament; and, secondly, you should define the powers and constitutions of the subordinate or provincial Parliaments of the federal union. What does that involve? It involves a large change in the central Parliament of this country as it stands at present. If the United Kingdom is to adopt federal government, then there will have to be wide changes not only in the powers but also in the Constitution.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not discussing this Instruction, but he is now discussing one that stands in his own name on the Paper.
Mr. BUTCHER: I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, Sir, but what I want to point out is the necessity of dividing this Bill into two parts. Further, we want to see what central Government there would be in this country under the electoral system announced by the Prime Minister; in other words, what the central Authority will be under this Bill, and to do that we must consider what is to be the future of the Government of the four parts of the United Kingdom—England Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member cannot do that. This Instruction only deals with what is contained in the present Bill.
Mr. BUTCHER: May I be allowed to put it in this way? The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) pointed out a few moments ago that this is not a Bill for a federal system. That is perfectly true, but I think that is the strongest argument for having it divided into two parts. If it were a Bill for a federal system, then we should be able to define the powers of a central Government, having regard to the powers of the subordinate Government, and we should be able to carry out the essential part of a federal system, namely, to adapt the powers of the central Government, having regard to what we intended to give to the subordinate Governments. Now we have got to set up a central Government under this Bill which the Prime Minister tells us is to be adapted to a federal system, and we are asked to do that when only one subordinate Government is being set up by the central Government. I submit that if our object is to have a federal system, we ought to consider, first and foremost, what powers should be entrusted to a central Government which are capable of being adapted not merely to the Government of Ireland, but to all the other Governments which are to be set up subsequently.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is arguing against the Second Reading of the Bill, and is not arguing in support of the Instruction which is now before the House.
Mr. BUTCHER: By this Bill you are introducing enormous changes into the powers and constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and I say that it is essential that the country should be informed and be able to realise what those changes are, and that the best, and, indeed, the only way in which the country can be informed of them is by having them embodied in separate Bills. More than that, I say that you cannot properly consider what the powers and constitution of a central Government should be unless you are able to consider that question apart from the sole other question which is involved in this Bill, namely, the Government of Ireland. By this Bill you propose to make changes in the composition of the United Kingdom Parliament. You will no longer have 670 Members with equal powers and authority, but in this House you will have three sets of Members. You will have Members from Great Britain on the same basis, and from the

731
same constituencies as before. Then you will have forty-two Members from Ireland who are not returned on any basis of population at all, but upon some haphazard scheme which has recommended itself to the Prime Minister. Those will be Members who will have entirely different powers from any powers possessed by Members ever introduced into this House before, because they will be legislating for Ireland across the water, and for the domestic affairs of England on this side. You will also have this eruption of irregular levies under Clause 26.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is only repeating arguments already used. I am sure if he has any fresh argument to bring forward the House will be glad to hear it.
Mr. BUTCHER: The composition of the House will be seriously changed and the powers of the House seriously modified. You propose to delegate by this Bill to the Irish Parliament a very large portion of those powers of legislation which were formerly solely enjoyed by this Parliament. We are told indeed that the supremacy of Parliament will be retained, but we know from statements that have been made in this House that the power, for instance, of passing overriding legislation by this Parliament on purely Irish affairs is never to be exercised. Therefore, I say that this Parliament is asked to part with a very large portion of its undoubted existing powers by the provisions of this Bill. From both those points of view, namely, the alteration in the constitution of the House and the wide alteration in the powers which this Parliament would enjoy, I say that those proposals ought to be embodied in separate Bills so that not only we in this House, but the country would be able to follow them.
Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: What struck me I must say with regard to the very short and perfunctory and even contemptuous remarks addressed by the Prime Minister to the House a short time ago wa3 that he advanced at all events no reason why this Instruction should not be given. He gave us no reason why the purpose of the Government would be in any way interfered with. I should have thought that, if for no other reason, it might have been worth while on the part of the Government at this early stage to have shown some sort of, a spirit of
732
conciliation and desire to meet reasonable wishes on the part of Members on this side of the House. Several of those who have addressed the House, including the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), have concerned themselves very much with the question as to how far this-Bill would fit itself, or can fit itself, into a scheme of federation. I confess that my desire to see this Bill split into two and dealt with separately does not arise from that point of view. I never have myself believed, and do not believe now, in the idea of federation so far as these islands are concerned. I do not for a moment think that the Government have any such intention, or ever had. I have always felt and still feel that all this cajolery about a federal scheme is merely an attempt to delude the country as far as possible, and that it might as well be locked up in the same box as the Preamble of the Parliament Bill.
My support for this Instruction is from a totally different point of view. It is this, that I do think it is very important that the electors of the country should have as much opportunity as possible of giving their judgments not merely upon the general principles of the measure, but also upon the methods by which it is carried out. I am not, of course, going to attempt to discuss on this occasion the matter which we have already discussed, and shall again, as to how far the particular principle underlying this Bill was ever before the country at the last election, but I do not think that anyone, not even the Prime Minister, would maintain for a moment that the particular method by which it is sought to give effect to the principle of Home Rule for Ireland was in any way before the public at the last election. I would suppose that even hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, just as much as those on this side, at all events desire that their policy and the proceedings of this House should be considered by the electors, who are supposed to be the masters of this House, and intelligently judged upon. From that point of view it seems to me important that the country should have the opportunity of considering these matters, separated one from the other, namely, the methods by which this Bill will give effect to the principle of Home Rule in Ireland; and, secondly, the methods by which it is attempted to make the necessary and consequential alterations in the Constitution of Great Britain.

733
I should have thought that even hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side might quite well have supported us in asking for this Instruction, because I should have supposed it was to their interest as well as ours that these matters should be separately taken to the judgment of the country. It might very well be that the strongest objection taken by public opinion to this Bill, as time goes on, would be found to centre round Clauses 13 and 26. If the Bills were to be separately discussed, any successful attack that might be made upon those Clauses from the point of view of the British nation would not affect hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They might very well shrug their shoulders and say, "We have got our part of it; we are not concerned about those powers on this side of the Channel." It might very well help them to have those matters separated in that way. I am trying to maintain we ought to have this Instruction in order to defeat an attempt which is being made in this Bill, and which we are seeing more and more of every day, namely, what I would call a new method of tacking. The old method of tacking was confined to combining with a Money Bill some other extraneous matter for the purpose of getting it through the Upper House without Amendment. Tacking takes a new form in these days. Nowadays the great difficulty is to get the people of this country to realise what is being done in their name and to exercise any real independent judgment upon it. I think this Bill shows that the Government really in giving the measure the compendious title of the Better Government of Ireland Bill, popularly known as Home Rule, have tacked into that Clauses which have nothing necessarily to do with the better government of Ireland, but which are solely concerned with the adjustments on this side of the Channel. Those Clauses go through under the ordinary Parliamentary practice without the people of the country having their attention called to them. I think if those different parts of this Bill were treated separately it would have, or might have, the effect of enabling the country to exercise its independent judgment on each part, which they cannot possibly do if they are combined, as they are at present, in this large and complicated measure. If it is the desire of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I presume it is, that the country should be instructed, surely they ought to be the first to take any step in their power to get over one of the great difficulties in politics at the
734
present day, namely, the difficulty of making the country take an active and intelligent interest in what is being done in Parliament.
We all know that the public at large do not read the Debates in this House. They do not get the opportunity of reading them, and I do not know that they would be very much wiser if they did. At all events they do not read them, and therefore it can hardly be said, although we profess to be a democratic country, that the people of the country have any initiative or any control over the proceedings of this House. Surely it ought to be the first object of democratic statesmen like the geniuses who sit on the Front Bench opposite, and their first endeavour, in proposing a policy to the country, to propose it in such a way that all the main principles and all the important details embodied in their measure would have the best possible opportunity of coming under the purview of the electors outside, and of having their judgment brought to bear upon it. It is for that reason mainly I desire to support this Instruction. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Down (Captain Craig) said a few things of a caustic kind with regard to the condition of this House during this Debate and the paucity of hon. Members opposite who think it worth while to take part in the discussion. I am not sure that from our point of view the condition of the House is not without encouragement. In regard to the facts that very few of the hon. Gentlemen who-habitually sit opposite are present to-day, I presume that is because a very large number of them are unable to trust themselves to hear the arguments addressed from this side, and I presume that the few who think fit to remain cannot trust themselves to get up and reply to the arguments we addressed to them. That, I think, is a matter for encouragement. I see that a similar silence is observed by hon. Members on this side below the Gangway. I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) that he should help us in moving for this Instruction in order that we may separate the Irish from the British portion of this Bill, and discuss them separately. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway will assist us to carry that out.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: If this Bill embodied what the Prime Minister suggested when he introduced it, namely, the basis of a federal system, I should be the last person in the world to support this

735
Instruction. But the Bill does not in any sense represent a federal system as it is known in any part of the Empire, or in the long experience which this United Kingdom has had in giving federal or union Governments to the Oversea Dominions. In any federal system you clearly define at once and finally what are the functions of the central Government. The national services would be so clearly defined that there would be absolutely no necessity in any Bill for a federation or union for separating the measure into two parts, because there would be absolutely no invasion of any established rights of any kind, but simply a number of Governments yielding up certain powers to a central power, and giving to that central power great national rights. No invasion of the rights of the Constitution would be permitted. But in this Bill we have an invasion of the Constitution of this country. We have an invasion of the rights of this Parliament. We have national services belonging to this Parliament handed over to a subordinate legislature—a thing which has never been done in the case of any federation or union within the Empire. Again, you have got what you have not in any federal or union Parliament of the Empire—representatives drawn from the subordinate Parliament as delegates to the central Parliament to assist in controlling or revising general or national taxation. Imagine the Parliament at Ottawa calling up members of the local Parliament of British Columbia or Manitoba, or the Parliament at Melbourne calling up Members from Queensland, to come to the central or super-Parliament to revise Imperial taxation! The thing is unheard of!
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving arguments against Clause 26; they really have nothing to do with the Instruction before the House.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I was trying to show that if this Bill had been introduced upon a federal basis I would not have supported my hon. Friends, because I do not think they would have had a case. But it seems to me that the powers of this central Parliament have been invaded, and necessarily a new situation arises. The Bill gives powers to a subordinate Parliament, and also revises the functions and powers of the Imperial Parliament. I felt, therefore, that I should be in order in drawing this distinction and in arguing that the Instruction was justified by that circumstance. I do not wish to pursue
736
the matter further, because I have made my point in regard to the invasion of the functions of this Parliament. If the Prime Minister wishes to present to the country a coherent scheme of government in Ireland with, at the same time, a revision of the functions of this Parliament and its constitution, I cannot imagine him doing it without assenting to this very reasonable Instruction.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am surprised that the Prime Minister, who is a master of Parliamentary strategy and tactics, did not see his way to accept this Instruction. The Instruction is not mandatory. It does not bind the Committee to any course of action. It is merely an empowering Instruction. In the course of the Debates in Committee material changes may be made dealing with the constitution either of the Irish Parliament or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances contingencies may well arise in which the division of the Bill into two Bills would seem more justifiable to hon. Members opposite than it does at present. If such a contingency arises the Committee will not have power to divide the Bill. By the acceptance of this Instruction the Government would lose nothing, but the Committee would have power to pursue a course of action which, even from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, might prove advantageous. I should like to see the Bill divided into two for reasons given by my hon. Friends and for another reason. The important part of the Bill as affecting the British Parliament is to be found in Clauses 13 and 26. I have had a little experience of the way in which Bills are conducted through Parliament. A Minister frequently gets up at the beginning of the Debate on an Amendment and says, "This is a very important point; we will consider it when we come to Clause so and so." But when we reach Clause so and so we are acting under the guillotine or some other instrument of Parliamentary torture, and the promised opportunity for consideration never arises. If this Instruction were accepted and the Bill divided into two, we should make sure, as regards representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of an opportunity for the fullest and freest discussion. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance now that we shall have a full and free opportunity for discussion on Clauses 13 and 26? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need wonder that we prefer to make our own opportunity for discussion by means

737
of this Instruction, and to give the country an opportunity of securing that information which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are apparently only too anxious to withhold.
Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they
have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament and the second dealing with the alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 286.

Division No. 92.]

AYES.

[5.40 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Mount, William Arthur

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Foster, Philip Staveley

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Astor, Waldorf

Gilmour, Captain J.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baird, J. L.

Goldman, Charles Sidney

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Peto, Basil Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pollock, E. M.

Barnston, H.

Grant, James Augustus

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Bathurst. Charles (Wilts. Wilton)

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

Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

Beckett, Hon Gervase

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Rees, Sir J. D.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Haddock, George Bahr

Rolleston, Sir J.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hall, Fred (Dulwich

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bigland, Alfred

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bird, Alfred

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

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

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Harris, Henry Percy

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, William Clive

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bull, Sir William James

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

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

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Stanier, Beville

Butcher, John George

Hills, John Waller (Durham)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Starkey, John Ralph

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

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stewart, Gershom

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Swift, Rigby

Cassel, Felix

Hunt, Rowland

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Cator, John

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cautley, Henry Strother

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Keswick, Henry

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Chambers, James

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Larmor, Sir J.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lewisham, Viscount

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Courthope, George Loyd

Lloyd, G. A.

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Crichton-Stuart, Lard Ninlan

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

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dairymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

M'Mordie, Robert

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros. Arthur Philip

Magnus, Sir Philip

Yate, Col. C. E.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, Sir George

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Fell, Arthur

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

Sandys and Mr. Barrie.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Alden, Percy

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Adamson, William

Agnew, Sir George William

Armitage, Robert

Addison, Dr. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Goldstone, Frank

Needham, Christopher T.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Greig, Colonel James William

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Nuttall, Harry

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barton, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beale, W. P.

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Donnell, Thomas

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

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

O'Dowd, John

Bentham, G. J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Grady, James

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

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

Black, Arthur W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.)

Boland, John Plus

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley. William

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hayward, Evan

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Shee, James John

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Brunner, John F. L.

Henry, Sir Charles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hinds, John

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hogge, James Myles

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pointer, Joseph

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

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Hudson, Walter

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

Pringle, William M. R.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Radford, George Heynes

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Clough, William

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Clynes, John R.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, Frederick William

Reddy, Michael

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kelly, Edward

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rendall, Athelstan

Cotton, William Francis

King, Joseph

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Cowan, W. H.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Crooks, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Crumley, Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Cullinan, John

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

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Leach, Charles

Roch, Walter F.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Dawes, James Arthur

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Rowlands, James

De Forest, Baron

Lundon, Thomas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Delany, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Devlin, Joseph

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Scanlan, Thomas

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Dickinson, W. H.

McGhee, Richard

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Dillon, John

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

Shcehy, David

Donelan, Captain A.

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Doris, William

Macpherson, James Ian

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Duffy, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smyth, Thomas F.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Sutherland, John E.

Elverston, Sir Harold

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Sutton, John E.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Essex, Richard Walter

Meagher, Michael

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Tennant, Harold John

Falconer, James

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Menzies, Sir Walter

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Fenwick. Rt. Hon. Charles

Middlebrook, William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Millar, James Duncan

Tculmin, Sir George

Ffrench, Peter

Mond, Sir Alfred

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Field, William

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Verney, Sir H.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mooney, John J.

Wadsworth, J.

France, G. A.

Morgan, George Hay

Walters, Sir John Tudor

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Morrell, Philip

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Morison, Hector

Wardle, George J.

Ginnell, Laurence

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Glanville, Harold James

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

740

741

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

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

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Young, William (Perth, East)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Wilkie, Alexander

Winfrey, Richard

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Notice had been given of the following further Instructions:—
Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they grant no powers to the Irish Parliament which would be inconsistent with the establishment of a general federal system of government for these Islands and which could not reasonably be given to the Parliaments of England, Scotland, or Wales.
Mr. BUTCHER: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless or until an Act or Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom have been passed providing for the establishment of separate Parliaments for England and Wales and for Scotland, respectively.
Captain CLIVE: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless or until an Act or Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom have been passed providing for the establishment of separate Parliaments for England and Wales and for Scotland, respectively.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless or until an Act or Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom have been passed providing for the establishment of separate Parliaments for England and Wales and for Scotland, respectively.
Mr. MALCOLM: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless or until the House of Lords has been reconstituted in pursuance of the Preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Mr. CASSEL: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless or until the House of Lords has been reconstituted in pursuance of the Preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless and until the Bill has been submitted to a poll of the Parliamentary electors of the United Kingdom and has been approved by a majority of the electors voting.
Major MORRISON-BELL: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established unless and until the Bill has been submitted to a poll of the Parliamentary electors of the United Kingdom and has been approved by a majority of the electors voting.
Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill that the Irish Parliament shall not be established until a Royal Commission has been appointed to consider the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and has reported, and a scheme has been framed for the future financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland when any Irish Parliament shall be established.
Mr. SPEAKER: The next Instruction standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) is out of order, because it is a mandatory Instruction, and a mandatory Instruction cannot be given to a Committee of the whole House. The three Instructions that follow stand in the names of the hon. Members for York (Mr. Butcher), and for Ross (Captain Clive), and the Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine)—and provide that an Irish Parliament shall not be established unless, or until, an Act or Acts of Parliament have been passed establishing a separate Parliament for England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively. That is a Second Reading objection. The House has decided that the Bill shall now be read a second time, and it is too late to consider that objection now. The same remarks apply to the next two Instructions standing in the names of the hon. Members for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) and for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel),

743
to the effect that until the House of Lords has been reconstituted in pursuance of the Preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911, this House shall not proceed to the establishment of an Irish Parliament. That also appears to me to be a Second Reading objection. With reference to the next two Instructions, standing in the names of the hon. Members for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) and for Honiton (Major Morrison-Bell), I find that practically the same Instruction stood on the Paper in 1893. I propose to read exactly what took place on that occasion, 5th May, 1893. I will confine myself entirely to what fell from Mr. Speaker Peel. The ruling was given on an Instruction proposed by Mr. Parker Smith. Mr. Speaker Peel said:—
"The second deals with the ad referendum principle, and this, I need not say, is the Instruction which has given me the most anxiety; but I have come to the conclusion that an ad referendum is a matter of such transcendant importance that it could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee. I know that the ad referendum has been included in the provisions of some Private Bills enabling the ratepayers to decide by a vote whether or not they should adopt a particular Act which imposed a charge upon them. But this Instruction is a proposal to enable the electors to override the decision of this House; to go over the heads of the elected representatives of the people, and to submit to the electors generally whether a Bill of this great magnitude should come into force or not. That, I think, is quite beyond the scope of the Bill, and could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction."
Those are the words of Mr. Speaker Peel, and I confine myself in my ruling to quoting them.
Captain CRAIG: May I respectfully point out on the last point on which you have ruled that the difference between the conditions existing in Mr. Speaker Peel's time and now are very great. You have referred to a Bill of a similar nature to this, but may I point out that that Bill had been honestly placed before the country. In this particular instance the country has never seen the Bill, nor had they heard of the Bill until it was introduced after the last General Election. The consequence is that there is no chance whatever, owing to the trap in which we find ourselves, that the people of this country will ever have the opportunity of pronouncing on this particular Bill. Surely, Sir, under those circumstances, would it not be possible for you—I suggest it with all respect—to allow us to have a chance after this Bill has been threshed out in this House to put before the people a fair proposal, so that they may see for the first time what the Government propose to do? On those grounds I
744
would respectfully ask you whether it is not possible to reverse the decision of Mr. Speaker Peel owing to the altered conditions now to what existed then?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what would happen to me if I were to reverse a decision so clearly in point. In that case there was a Home Rule Bill, and in that case there was a referendum Instruction in almost identical words to the present. I cannot upset the decision of so respected a predecessor of mine in a case which seems to me to be absolutely on all fours. With regard to the last Instruction on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), to the effect that the-Bill shall not be proceeded with until a, Royal Commission has proceeded to consider the financial relations of the two countries, that also appears to me to be a. Second Reading objection.
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Irish Parliament.)
(1) On and after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament consisting of His Majesty the King, and two Houses, namely, the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons.
(2) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish Parliament or anything contained in this Act, the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and un-diminished over all persons, matters, and things within His Majesty's Dominions.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's, Kent (Mr. R. M'Neill), and the Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) propose to postpone Clause 1. It appears to me that in this Bill to postpone-Clause 1 leaves a tail without a head. It is impossible to go on with a discussion as to the powers of the body without knowing what the body is. Therefore, I do not think I can take that Motion.
Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. May I ask you whether there is any precedent whatever for your ruling this Amendment out of order? It is entirely a new ruling on the Committee stage of a Bill.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I inquire whether on the Home Rule Bill of 1893 an exactly similar Motion was not moved and ruled in order by your predecessor?
The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that was the case. In reply to the Noble Lord, the practice of the House has altered since 1893. He asked me for a precedent for the course I propose to adopt: I say there is one. On 10th July, 1899, the hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, rose to propose the postponement of the first Clause of a Bill, and Mr. Speaker, who was then Chairman of Ways and Means, declined to accept the Motion on the ground that it was not competent to postpone the effective Clause of a Bill for the subordinate Clauses. It appears to me that that precedent exactly governs the present case.
Sir E. CARSON: May I ask, as you have stated it, if you are right in so stating that this same Amendment was allowed on the Bill in 1893, and under exactly similar conditions; have you heard Mr. Speaker rule that he was bound by the ruling of his predecessor when the case was on all fours to that of the Bill of 1893?
The CHAIRMAN: I heard that ruling, and I am following the decision of Mr. Speaker himself when he occupied this chair as Chairman of Committees.
Sir E. CARSON: No, not on this Bill; that has nothing to do with this Bill.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: You say that you cannot separate the head from the rest of the body. The real question is what particular body are we going to put the head upon. That is the point I want to raise.
The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what we are going to discuss.
Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask that your ruling may be recorded at the Table in view of a Motion to disagree?
6.0 P.M.
Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: As the first Amendment stands in my name, I submit, with great respect, that this is not a question of postponing an effective Clause only pending the decision on a subordinate Clause. The question here is really this, if the Committee passes the first Clause it commits itself to the constitution of the Parliament in Ireland consisting of two Houses, one of which is to
746
be the Senate, and the point I wish to raise on the question of postponing the Clause is that we should postpone the consideration of that Clause until the Committee has had an opportunity of considering and deciding whether or not there is to be a Second Chamber at all, and if you would allow me to present the case for my proposition—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment would put what is first off to the end. It postpones Clause 1 to the end of the Bill.
Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: With great respect, may I point out to you that this is exactly the same point as was taken in 1893. In 1893 the proposition was that the first Clause, which also was an effective one in the way of shaping the Irish Parliament, should be postponed until after the consideration of a later Clause—Clause 9—dealing with the representation of Ireland in this House, and the point that it was out of order was raised by an hon. Member below the Gangway, I think one of the hon. Members for Cork, and the Speaker held it was in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who moved the postponement of the Clause, not only to move his postponement, but actually to go into the merits of the question of the representation of Ireland in this House under that Clause, in order to show that the first Clause establishing an Irish Parliament could not rightly and properly be discussed until some decision had been come to upon that point, and in order to elicit from the Government a statement of their intentions with regard to the representation of Ireland in this House. What I desired to submit is precisely a similar case. My object is to elicit from the Government a statement of their intentions with regard to the Second Chamber whether or not they intend to adhere to Clause 8, or to give way to criticism on their own side directed against the establishment of a Second Chamber in Ireland.
The CHAIRMAN: I have to consider all the facts, and I have given my decision. The next Amendment standing on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm), York (Mr. Butcher), and Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), raises the question of time and conditions for the operation of the Bill. Some of them are outside the scope of the Bill, which will be observed from the ruling of Mr. Speaker.

747
In so far as they deal with the question of time, they must be raised on later Clauses of the Bill, where the question of time is dealt with—that is, Clauses 42 and 46.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I very respectfully ask you how this ruling which Mr. Speaker has just laid down from the Chair, based entirely upon the precedent of 1893, binds you? As I understand, you just ruled the precedent of 1893 had no binding force at all. I submit very respectfully, therefore, if that is so, you are not entirely to rely upon the precedent of 1893 any more. You must consider this matter entirely de novo, without reference to the precedent of 1893, and without reference to the ruling Mr. Speaker has just given. I do not wish in any way to comment upon your rule, or to remind you of the statement of Mr. Speaker that he did not know where he should be if he did not abide by the precedent of 1893.
The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord misunderstood me. I was not ruling that this Amendment is beyond the scope of the Bill. The immediate point is this: that these Amendments deal with the time when the Bill comes into operation, and my ruling is that they cannot be moved at this stage.
Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. With regard to the matter of time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but it is a most serious matter for us to know the foundations upon which we can discuss this Bill. You say from the Chair, Mr. Whitley, and I bow to your ruling, that this matter of postponement and suggestions to take a referendum, and so forth, which you call matters of time, must be raised in the proper place. Is it not possible that the Government may refuse to allow us to discuss the matter at a later stage when we reach those Clauses? Therefore I ask when will we have an opportunity of pinning down the Government to the trickery they practise?
The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of argument.
Mr. MILDMAY: How can it be said, Mr. Whitley, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield is a time Amendment, when you consider the distinction between the position in 1893, when there was a constitutional method of ascertaining the wish of the people, and when there is no such method now?
The CHAIRMAN: That is also a matter for argument.
Mr. MOORE: On the question of time, Mr. Whitley, I listened to your suggestion that it should be raised on Clause 42. May I point out respectfully that is a very different matter which is raised in Clause 42. Time is mentioned here in the opening words of Clause 1, "on and after the appointed day"; that is the day for the creation of the Irish Parliament. We cannot move an Amendment on Clause 42, postponing the creation of the Parliament because that Clause deals with transitory provisions and under that head we cannot move a time Amendment which deals with the fundamental provision, such as is dealt with in Clause 1. Therefore, I submit we cannot deal with it on Clause 42, which is concerned with transitory conditions.
The CHAIRMAN: If it cannot be dealt with on Clause 42 it can be dealt with on Clause 46.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I call attention to the fact that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield is not an Amendment dealing with the matter of time, but an Amendment dealing with conditions. If you look at the words of the Amendment you will see it begins with the words "if and when," and the whole effect of that Amendment would be to enforce conditions under the operations of this Bill. That Amendment might well be carried and the Bill might still come into operation on the appointed day. It really does not necessarily impose any but a temporary check.
The CHAIRMAN: My point is we must decide what it is we propose to do before we decide "if and when," even upon an Irish Bill. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt) proposes to leave out Sub-section (1), which is equivalent to the rejection of the Clause, and it is therefore not in order.
Lord HUGH CECIL: On what precedent Mr. Whitley, do you base your decision that it is impossible to move the omission of Sub-section (1)?
The CHAIRMAN: On a number of precedents. It is a Second Reading practically over again to move to leave out Subsection (1).
Lord HUGH CECIL: Has it not been the habitual practice of this House to con-

749
sider Amendments of the greatest importance raising the whole question on the first Clause.
The CHAIRMAN: Not recently. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) is covered by the same point.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I submit to you, Mr. Whitley, that here we have the point on which the Bill is to come into operation. I submit that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby is just as much in order here as on Clause 46. Of course, if you were to rule that the question having been disposed of here, and that it could not again be raised on Clause 46, we should have nothing more to say, but I do submit that it is in order here and that we have a right to discuss it on the first occasion on which it can be raised.
Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask at what, stage of the Bill it will be possible to introduce this Amendment as to the time for the commencement of the Bill?
The CHAIRMAN: On Clause 46.
Mr. MOORE: On a point of Order. May I submit that Clause 46, which deals with the appointed day, deals with the first day for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. This Section deals with the creation of an Irish Parliament which is an entirely different thing, because an Irish Parliament cannot meet on a certain day until it is created. I therefore submit that you cannot move an Amendment in regard to the day for the creation of an Irish Parliament on a Clause which deals with the first meeting.
The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled on the point.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. The Bill provides that there shall be an Irish Parliament on and after the appointed day. Really, I submit to you, it must be in order for the Committee to decide whether they desire that to be the decision of the Bill. The question whether the Parliament is to come into being on an appointed day is a separate question. This Committee might decide that the appointed day is a matter provided for in Clause 46, but none the less that the Parliament should not come into being on the appointed day; that the House of Commons should be created, and so on; but that it should not have power until a later day, which is the appointed day. The two
750
questions are separate. What we are really now doing is to insert a particular day in this Clause. I submit very respectfully it may be within the control of this Committee to say upon this Clause whether or not the Parliament shall meet some other day.
The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord can raise that on Clause 46.
Mr. MOORE: Is it not open to me to move to omit "appointed day," and to insert instead thereof "the first of January, 1920."
The CHAIRMAN: No.
Mr. MOORE: Why not?
The CHAIRMAN: Because I have already ruled we must first decide what it is we are going to do before we consider the time. I think the Committee will find it is for the convenience of all parties to do so.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Forgive me if I press this matter, because it is of some importance, governing not only the proceeding of this Committee, but future Committees. You say, Mr. Whitley, we are not to settle the time until we know what we are going to do at the time. That is a criticism of the drafting of the Bill. The Bill itself fixes that time as the first proposition, and therefore it is the first proposition that comes up for the consideration of this Committee. I hope hon. Members opposite will bear with me in making these statements. They will not always be in a majority, and they will some time desire the protection and guidance of the Chair, as we do now. I submit very respectfully we are dealing with the Bill as drafted, and the draughtsmen have chosen to deal with the question of time before the question of substance. Then the Committee should follow that course, and deal with the question of time before they come to the substance. May I remind the Committee that in the case of the Education Bill of 1906 the Bill began with very much the same words. There were a very large number of Amendments dealing with the appointed day, and they were all discussed and decided upon before we went on with the rest of the Bill. Under the ruling which you have just given, Mr. Chairman, we shall never be able to deal with these words "on and after the appointed day" in any Bill under any conceivable circumstances.
The CHAIRMAN: I have given this point very careful consideration, and I

751
have concluded that my decision is the proper ruling to give on this point. The proper place to discuss it will be when we deal with Clause 46.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: In those words you have brought in an indeterminate point of time, and I would like to ask how can it be out of order to make that a determinate point of time.
The CHAIRMAN: In all these matters it is necessary for the Chair to consider the proper time when these questions can be raised, and I have decided that point.
Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "on and after the appointed day." I do not dispute your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but as you seem to think it is a matter of convenience that the whole of this question should be left over, I move to leave out those words. The whole matter would then be left at large to be dealt with whenever it arises in the Debates upon the Bill, and it would leave open the discussion of the point raised by the Noble Lord as to whether the appointed day is from the commencement of the Act or from the day of meeting of the Irish Parliament.
Mr. MOORE: If my right hon. Friend's Amendment is carried the Clause will then read, "there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament consisting of His Majesty the King and two Houses." Under those circumstances I take it there can be no objection to my moving an Amendment which under other circumstances would be out of order, making the date the year 1920. I make that suggestion, not because I want the Bill to come into force, but because I want to postpone its operation in order to give us breathing space to take counsel and courage, and, above all things, to allow us to have an opportunity of consulting the electors. I therefore cordially support the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. and learned Friend to omit these words. It seems to me that there was no clear conception in the mind of the draughtsman of this Bill when he put in those words, and I shall support my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
Lord HUGH CECIL: This Amendment raises the question whether it is desirable that the date of constituting an Irish Parliament shall be the date of its operation or whether it shall be left indefinite
752
in this Bill. If this Amendment is carried we shall decide that at some proper period of the Bill some definite point of time will have to be inserted so that it will not be left an indefinite and perhaps an uncertain date. I think that is in every respect better, because public feeling in Ireland is very warmly excited about this Bill already. At the present time in Ireland parties are ranging themselves on one side or the other for the struggle which they think is going to take place when this Bill comes into force. The minority in Ireland has anticipated the grave consequences, and they are already disturbed in their mind and looking forward with grave apprehension to what is to follow. It seems to me eminently better that there should be a fixed date before we enter into what I am afraid may be a revolutionary struggle, and we should know when this Bill is coming into force, and it should be fixed by Act of Parliament. If this is done persons in Ireland interested will be able to make their calculations accordingly, and they will then see precisely when the Bill is to come into force.
I disbelieve in the Bill altogether, because I think it is a measure which will do not only serious mischief in its ultimate consequences, but it is also one which troubles and disturbs the people. It is a Bill which dislocates the public mind. Therefore, is it not on every ground better to have a fixed date, and that there should be that determinate element? This Bill is improperly drafted if your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is accurate, that it would have been better to postpone the whole question of the appointed day until we have settled the point of substance. It is true that the Clause reads a little off-hand. It says:—
"there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament consisting of His Majesty the King and two Houses, namely, the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons."
As you have ruled, Mr. Chairman, that the question of substance is properly considered before the question of time, we must, in deference to your authority, believe that that is the proper way of dealing with this Subsection. We shall first consider in that way the substance, and I understand the question of time will remain open for subsequent decision. We shall then go on to decide a definite date, only determining that some definite date shall be put in when we reach the Clause dealing with that matter. For these

753
reasons I beg to support the Amendment which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I want to point out that this Clause sets up automatically two mutually destructive entities. Clause 1 provides that—
"on and after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament."
Clause 46 provides that—
"The appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the day for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament."
May I point out that until the appointed day there cannot be an Irish Parliament, and until there is an Irish Parliament there cannot be an appointed day. I should like to know which proposal is going to take precedence. What is going to happen at one minute past twelve on the fatal morning in face of these two mutually incompatible statements? This is a point which I think the Prime Minister might clear up, and until we know which is going to come first I do not see how we can proceed at all.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have been very much impressed by the arguments brought forward by my hon. Friend. I do not say that there are no arguments to be brought forward against the Amendment from the other side of the House, but as I have not had the privilege of listening to those arguments I am inclined to think that the arguments used by my hon. Friends on this side are correct, and that the legal array of talent on the Front Bench opposite is unable on the spur of the moment to find any arguments with which to confront this proposal. Under these circumstances, desirous as I am of voting only upon a really serious issue and on the merits of the case, unless I hear from right hon. Gentlemen opposite some valid reason against this Amendment I shall be obliged to vote for the proposal of my right hon. Friend. As to the Amendment itself, it seems to me, from the point of view of a clear Clause, the omission of these words is necessary. If the Amendment is carried, the Clause will do what I believe is the desire of all hon. Gentlemen opposite and of hon. Members below the Gangway. That is to say, it would set up in Ireland an Irish Parliament, and I fail to see how that object is damnified or injured by the omission of those particular words. I am
754
surprised at the attitude of hon. Members below the Gangway on this point, and I hope they will give us their objections to this proposal. If the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has no objection to the omission of these words, I hope we shall have his support in the Division Lobby. Am I to understand that there is to be no answer to the very able arguments which have been raised not only by humble people like myself, but by my right hon. Friend below me (Sir E. Carson) who is an eminent lawyer, and whose Amendment should receive every respect. I hope in what is undoubtedly going to be a long and arduous discussion that our Amendments are not going to be received with any want of courtesy from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a very serious question, and it should be discussed in a serious manner, and I hope the Prime Minister will have the courtesy to tell us why he objects to this Amendment. If, on the contrary, he does not object, then the right hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the Committee, because he might have got up and settled this point.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I should be suspected of want of courtesy in this matter. The sole reason why I did not rise is because I wanted to see the argument developed, and it has not been developed. I wanted to see if there was any substance in it. The argument has not been developed either by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London or the Noble Lord below the Gangway. I wanted to gather whether this is an Amendment of substance, not being on the Paper. I think it would be better to take these words as they are. I will deal with the only point of substance, which, I think, was made under a misapprehension by the Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford. He seems to think that if these words are left as they are there will be no fixed day provided by the Act for bringing into existence the new Irish Parliament. He is under a misapprehension on that point, because he does not apparently appreciate Clause 42. Perhaps he will turn his attention to Clause 42, which is in these terms:—
"The Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
So we have fixed in the Act the very date on which the Parliament is to come into existence, subject to the power given

755
under Clause 46 of varying it by not more than six months earlier or later as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The very clear explanation of the Prime Minister makes the case for this Amendment very much stronger than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman has explained to the House that these words are really just the same as if you had written into the Bill the date fixed in Clause 42, subject, of course, to Clause 46 giving the power of varying it by six months. The Committee has now to consider whether they think it desirable this Parliament should come into existence on some day in September, 1913. That is a very important issue, a tremendously important issue, because the Government have told us quite definitely that they have no intention of consulting the country, if they can possibly avoid it, until long after that date. The real issue is whether this Bill is to be passed through Parliament and, if possible, into law behind the backs of the electors in the country. That is the issue, and that is a very important issue. I can understand a Member of the party to which I belong, if he holds views which have long ago been discarded by that party, being desirous of using political power which temporarily belongs to his party in order to pass a Bill which is disapproved by the electors of the country, but is it credible that the Radical party is going to commit themselves to that doctrine? Is it really what they desire to do? Is there any hon. Member opposite who honestly doubts that if this Bill were submitted to the electors of the country it would be rejected by an overwhelming majority? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There are two members of the Liberal party who hold that view, the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), who is always a very courageous exponent of the views he may hold, and the hon. Member who sits on the back bench and whose constituency for the moment escapes me. There are those two, and only those two Members of the Radical party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—who really believe that the majority of the people of this country desire this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "There are scores of them."] There may be a few more wild fanatics and partisans who have persuaded themselves of that.
An HON. MEMBER: Why do you not fight by-elections on Home Rule then?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Nobody really seriously thinks the majority of the electors of either England, Scotland, or Wales are in favour of this Bill. The real question we have got to decide is whether, in those circumstances, this House ought to pass this Bill without insisting on some reference to the constituencies. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the very terms of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act provides for a delay of two years in the case of the other House rejecting any Bill. The point of the delay of two years is that no Bill of serious importance which the other House thinks ought to be submitted to the country shall be passed until the electors—and we were told over and over again by the Government that this was such a Bill—have had time to think about it and form their opinion about it. What is the use of their forming their opinion unless they are to be given some means of expressing it? By inserting those two years you committed yourselves to the proposition that this House has no right to pass Bills of which the country disapproves. I should have thought the Radical party would not have required a statutory enunciation of so obviously a constitutional principle as that. They now desire to put into this Bill a date which, unless we are fortunate enough to turn the Government out in the next year, which I hope may be the case, though no one can regard that as certain—[Laughter.] No, because I know hon. Members opposite will support the Government; yes, and their£400 a year as well.
Sir MAURICE LEVY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he accepts the£400 a year?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly.
Sir M. LEVY: We are as honourable as you are.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, but I am very anxious for a Dissolution and you are not. I am sorry I should have wounded the hon. Member. I rather fancy£400 a year is not a matter of great moment to him. It may well be you are opposed to the policy of the Referendum. I can understand that, but surely you are not going to say you are going to pass this Bill against the wishes of the electors. Suppose the by-elections go as they have been going lately, suppose in every case you retain a seat you retain it with a greatly decreased majority, and suppose in many, cases you lose, how are you going to justify

757
yourselves before the country and posterity if you venture to pass a Bill of this gigantic moment without the assent of the electors? Surely that is real tyranny. That is a usurpation of power which was not given you for this purpose at all.
Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I must ask my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) to treat this matter seriously. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to do so, because they would destroy the Constitution with the lightest of hearts, but I am sure no hon. Friend of mine would treat this other than as a very serious question upon which feelings are very keenly aroused, and the proceedings on the first day of the Committee of this Bill do not seem to me calculated to suit those feelings. I do not know whether the Government and their supporters desire deliberately to exacerbate and exasperate the feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow made a very irrelevant speech in reference to a previous Amendment. I do not know whether it is their deliberate purpose to exasperate the feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House—
Sir TUDOR WALTERS: On a point of Order. May I ask if all this personal abuse is relevant?
The CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members in the neighbourhood of the hon. Member were interrupting. I deprecate these references, but, if hon. Members do interrupt, they cannot expect to go without retort.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I assure you, Sir, I am grateful for your protection, and I shall not say anything, unless I am provoked, which is outside the strict limits of the Amendment to which I am speaking. Had I been allowed a quiet hearing, I should have concluded my observations a long time ago. This Amendment raises in the only way in which, according to the rules of the House, it can be raised—the broad question whether this House under the Constitution as now settled has the moral authority to pass a Bill of this magnitude without consulting the people of the country. I believe myself, profoundly, the more that question is put before the public of the country the more certain will be the answer. No, that is not what we intended when we passed the Parliament Act. We never intended to put the House of Commons into a position of uncontrolled
758
supremacy. That was never argued. We understood from the Government that their two years' delay and their other provisions were such that the House of Commons would never pass a Bill which was not approved by the majority of the electors of this country. What is the Constitution you are seeking to establish by your action now? You are seeking to establish the rule of the bureaucracy pure and simple, and absolutely nothing else. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench issue their decree. They say we wish this Bill to pass, and we decline to allow any Amendment. They send the Chancellor of the Exchequer down to some part of the country to denounce any one, even Members of his own party, who ventures to suggest an Amendment to a Government Bill, not indeed to this Bill, but to another Bill of equal importance, and there are not ten men on that side of the House who wilt venture to vote against the Government.
There are a large number of people who sit on that side of the House who do not agree with this Bill or with other measures brought forward by the Government. Everyone knows that is true, and any one who cares to converse privately with Members of the party opposite will surely find I am not exaggerating. That being so, they all vote quite obediently. I am not blaming them for it. It is very difficult for them under the Constitution under which we live to vote according to their consciences and according to their opinions on a particular measure, because what they have to say to themselves is, "If we vote in that way we shall incur the greatest obloquy. Supposing we are men of public honour and spirit, we may be content to suffer that, but then, in addition to that, we shall be turning the Government out, and the Government, with all its faults, stands for the general policy with which we agree; we are, therefore, bound to vote for every proposal they put forward." That is the position of the majority of the Members in the House of Commons, and everybody knows it. That being so, unless you allow sufficient delay to permit the country being consulted in some form or another, the effect of your existing Constitution is to put the matter absolutely in the hands of the Cabinet without any kind of appeal, except it may be to the party caucus. For that reason, I do earnestly press upon the Committee the desirability of not insisting on these words, but leaving, if they wish to do so, this Clause as

759
an expression of the principle of Irish Home Rule, reserving to the country, by reason of a sufficient delay, an opportunity to be consulted on this gigantic constitutional change before it is forced into law and acquires authority.
Mr. LEES SMITH: The Noble Lord has told us that it will be an act of tyranny and a constitutional outrage to pass this Bill without referring to the judgment of the people. The answer to that in my mind is that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have no real desire to refer this question to the judgment of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try."] They tell us that the last General Election did not obtain that judgment; but if we accepted the invitation which they have extended to us, and if we had another General Election to-morrow, would the result be any more decisive? [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it."] If we were to accept that invitation hon. Members know very well that they would not fight the election on Home Rule at all.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why not have a Referendum on it?
Mr. LEES SMITH: I will deal with that argument presently.
The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest we are getting back to a Second Reading Debate, whereas, as a matter of fact, we are now in Committee on the Bill, and are dealing with a particular point.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Am I right in suggesting that this Amendment raises this issue: that the House has a right to demand that a time shall be fixed sufficiently long to enable an appeal to be made to the people of this country?
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment raises the question whether the time should be dealt with by an Amendment by putting the words "the appointed day" in this Clause, with a subsequent definition in a later Clause. So far as that raises a question of whether the date named in the subsequent Clause is the right one or not, the hon. Member is entitled to discuss it. But he is not entitled to raise another Second Reading Debate.
Mr. LEES SMITH: I only rose to point out one fact. Hon. Members opposite are demanding an opportunity to refer this question to the judgment of the people; yet we see that at every byelection they do not use the opportunity afforded them. Hon. Members deny that fact; but may I
760
give an instance in point? There is at the present moment an election—the result of which will be declared to-night. It has been taking place in Hythe, and it afforded an opportunity to obtain the judgment of the people on this Bill. But what was the method adopted by the party opposite? Did they seek to obtain that judgment? I would ask the Noble Lord—
The CHAIRMAN: In the first place, I would remind the hon. Member that he should address the Chair; and, in the second place, I may tell him that the subject with which he is now dealing is out of order.
Mr. LEES SMITH: I merely wish to say that the result of recent elections show that the arguments upon which this Amendment is based are a mere debating device, and not the result of genuine conviction.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I really think the Opposition are entitled to ask the supporters of the Government to try and adopt some uniformity in the line of argument they take on this question. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Opposition refuses at election time to discuss Home Rule; but it was only the other day that it was claimed from the Front Bench opposite that we were misrepresenting the fact when we said the matter was not properly discussed at the last election. It appears to me that the Prime Minister and his Friends use this argument accordingly as it suits them. They ring the changes so far as we are concerned. But supposing the hon. Member opposite was correct in his facts, which he is not; supposing he was correct in his inferences, which he is not, it would be no answer to the point pressed on the Committee by my Noble Friend—the Member for Hertfordshire (Lord Robert Cecil). Hon Members may agree with that view or not, but nobody can deny that the Noble Lord put before the Committee a question of the gravest possible moment, and advanced in support of it arguments worthy the attention of the Committee—arguments which ought to be met by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Your ruling makes it perfectly clear, while none of us desire to raise here again in Committee the whole question which was discussed on the Second Reading, that this is the time, the only time it may be, when we can discuss the question whether this Bill at this moment should tie us down to the suggestion of the Government, or whether we are to have the opportunity of reserving to this House the right to say,

761
whatever your decision is as regards the present situation, that there shall be an opportunity for the people of this country to consider whether they shall endorse it.
In your ruling earlier this evening, you were good enough to tell my hon. Friends that there would be another opportunity of raising this question on a Clause which comes on at a later period of the Bill. You will, I am sure, acquit me of any intention to discuss your ruling if I make this one remark, that we, of the Opposition, have struggled to do our best under difficult circumstances to strictly conform to the ruling of the Chair and to obey the Rules of Order. On the many occasions with which I can charge my memory in reference to rulings of the Chair similar to the one you have given to-day, we have been content to wait for these later opportunities. But with what effect? You can help us, and you are good enough often to do so, by advice and recommendations as to the proper place to make certain changes. But you cannot, however anxious you may be to help us in our Debates, and we recognise that you are anxious to advise us—you cannot control the action of the Government. There is only one person in this House who can give us the guarantee which is the corollary of the suggestion and advice embodied in the ruling which you have given from the Chair. We are told we must not Debate this now, but that on later Clauses the opportunity will offer. One of my hon. Friends this afternoon, following upon your ruling, asked the Prime Minister if he would give us guarantees that there would be an opportunity of raising this question. The Prime Minister did not respond to the invitation, and I do not know that we blame him for not doing so, because we are aware that he is determined to carry this Bill through in the shortest possible period of time. We are in this position, that we are doing our best to keep within the rules you have laid down, and to avoid anything like a repetition of the arguments used in the course of the Second Reading Debate; but we do press on the Government and on the Committee this point, that this is the time—it may be the only time—at which this House can secure for itself and for the country the rights which they enjoyed before the Constitution was altered, and, unless we press this on the Committee now, we may never, during the long Debates that are to come on this Bill, have an opportunity of bringing before the Committee one
762
of the gravest matters which can be raised. I think the argument advanced by my Noble Friend is not only one entitled to the attention of the Committee as a whole, but one which carries us very far along the new road which the Government are asking us to trace.
I am not going to argue whether Home Rule is before this country or not. Whatever may be the facts of the case as to past and present elections, and, indeed, as to future elections, whatever may be the views of hon. Gentlemen as to the form of Home Rule, no man who seriously considers the responsibility of his position here can deny or dispute the fact that there is in this Bill, in reference to this House and to Ireland, matters of which the country have not the faintest notion, and to which no Minister in his speech ever made the slightest allusion before the Bill was read a second time. Therefore we are enitled to press on the Government, before they commit what we regard as a great outrage on the country and the Empire, that they shall allow something to be put into the Bill that will give us security that the measure shall not be placed on the Statute Book or come into active operation until the people of the country have an opportunity of knowing what its contents are.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, in moving his Amendment, set an example to his followers by saying nothing in support of it. I have listened carefully to every speech delivered this evening, and I must say that they have followed the example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman by advancing nothing in supporting the Amendment, although they have done so with great prolixity. The right hon. Gentleman is a very able advocate. When he has a good case he can be trusted to make the most of it. When he throws up his brief it is not likely his juniors will do better with it. When Ulysses cannot bend the bow there is very little hope for the disappointed suitor.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. H. TERRELL: The Prime Minister tells us that in Clause 42 the appointed day is fixed, and that it provides the date for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, which is to be on the first Tuesday in September, 1913. But Clause 46 provides that the appointed day shall be the day of the first meeting of Parliament or such other day, not more than six months later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty's Government made in Council. The result

763
is that the Irish House of Commons will have to meet six months before it is created, and I think it is only an Irish House of Commons that could possibly do that. The only other alternative is to have these words stand part of Clause 1. Then you, in substance eliminate the words in Clause 46 enabling His Majesty in Council to fix the appointed day at some period not more than six months later than the first meeting of the Parliament. One of the two alternatives is necessary. In the one case you come to an absurdity, and in the other case you eliminate part of the Bill which the Prime Minister has considered to be important. I submit that one or other alternative ought to be taken. We ought now either to eliminate these words which will make the Bill really intelligible as to the date on which the Parliament is to be created, or we come to the difficulty to which I referred.
Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. H. Terrell). I think these words ought to be left out from this Clause. They are quite unnecessary for the purposes of the Bill. I differ from the Prime Minister in regard to Clause 42. I understand that Clause 1 is to establish an Irish Parliament. The appointed day referred to there is an illusive day. It will not be the day fixed under Clause 42, the first Tuesday in September, 1913, but it is not going to be fixed by this House; it is going to be fixed by Order in Council, and it may be some day six months earlier or later, according as the Executive of the day may please. If we leave out these words "the appointed day," the probability is that we may have some real opportunity of discussing the question of the appointed day. It may well be, if this Bill is long in Committee, that by the time we come to Clause 42 and Clause 46, the Prime Minister may have adopted those methods with which we are only too familiar, and thereby give us no opportunity of really discussing either of those problems. On the other hand, if we leave out these words we shall have some sort of guarantee that an important Clause like Clause 46 will be given fair discussion by this Committee. We ought not to transfer to the Executive a power which should be exercised by this House. As Clauses 42 and 46 were referred to by the Prime Minister, it is interesting to see whether there has been
764
any alteration since the Irish Government Bill of 1893. There was a provision in that Bill that there was to be a margin with regard to the appointed day of seven months earlier or later. Under Clause 46 of this Bill there is a margin of only six months. Under the Bill of 1893 I see the first Tuesday in September, 1894, was fixed as the appointed day. I do not think we need attach much importance to Clause 42 of this Bill. What we want to know is whether sufficient opportunity will be given to the people of this country of knowing when this new Parliament is to come into being. It is only by having a full discussion on some Clause that we can possibly obtain that. I think the right course is to leave out the words "on and after the appointed days" at this point, in order that after the people have heard, by our Debates in Committee, something more of this Bill, when we reach Clause 46 we may be able to press the whole question raised by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), and to ensure a real opportunity being given to the people to consider the measure before it comes into operation.
Mr. MILDMAY: Unless I am mistaken, the question at issue is whether or not the people of this country are to have any say as to the form which the Government of this country is to take in the future. In that sense it appears that the principle of democracy is at stake. We challenge the assertion made by the Prime Minister that—
"all the governing principles of this Bill were laid before the country at the last election."
Is it or is it not a governing principle that the Home Rule given to Ireland shall be of such a nature that it will be capable of extension in a federal sense to England? Is it or is it not a main principle that Irishmen should have representation in the English Parliament without taxation? Is it or is it not a governing principle that we shall be taxed for Irish purposes without representation in the Irish Parliament? Is it a main principle, or is it a mere detail, that you are proposing, in defiance of every federal precedent, to raise up tariff walls within these islands?
The CHAIRMAN: That would allow subsequent Amendments to be raised on this one. I cannot allow that.
Mr. MILDMAY: Shall I be justified in alluding to the argument used by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), when he resented the suggestion that Home Rule had been driven into the background at the last General Election?
The CHAIRMAN: I think I stopped the hon. Member.
Captain CRAIG: I should not have risen on this occasion had it not been for the remarks which fell from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. MacCallum Scott) in taunting my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) for proposing this Amendment, and then, as he said, leaving it to his junior counsel. If that is the way we are going to be taunted throughout the Debates on this Home Rule Bill, I can assure hon. Members opposite that they will get as good as they give. The Committee will bear in mind that on the spur of the moment, in order to save some Amendment of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman moved this Amendment and left it to those hon. Members to bring forward their arguments. The hon. Member opposite had better devote himself to smaller fry, and not attempt to belittle the Leader of the Irish Unionist party in the House of Commons. The Amendment is most vital to us in Ireland. The Clause says in so many words that this Bill shall come into force on 13th September, 1913. Does anybody think that is a fair time to allow the country to study so complicated a measure? There is not one man, who is a free agent in this Committee, who can say it is fair that so short a time shall be given. That is the whole point of the Amendment before the Committee. We who have gone through the country know that in every case when we were anxious to bring forward the danger to this country while this Government were in power, know that we were told, wherever there was a Radical sitting, that there was no use in mentioning the subject at all, because it was as dead as Queen Anne. Is it not all the more necessary that what is denied to the country before the Bill was introduced should now be permitted to the country when the Bill has been introduced?
I think one hon. Member said that the people were not very keen on reading the Debates of this Committee. I have no doubt whatever that as time goes on and the gross scandal is revealed in connection with this Bill, the country will soon learn what are the real intentions of the Government, and what a sordid bargain was entered into between them and the Nationalist party. Is there to be no sense of fair play towards the minority in Ireland? You deny us the chance of going before the country in the first instance, and now you deny us a fair chance in which to present our case. I call it mean. I call it
766
low down, on the part of Radical Members, to deny us any chance of reforming the Upper Chamber. That right has been taken away, and now, under the miserable compact entered into, the Bill is going to be forced through the House of Commons against the will of the whole country, and no reasonable time is to be given to us to show up the iniquity to the very gentlemen who have elected hon. Members opposite. Why is it they are determined to carry through all the sordid bargainings that have been carried on? Simply and solely because the whole party—I do not blame the leaders a bit more than their followers, because they would not go to such extreme lengths were it not the case—are too cowardly to face the consequences of going to the country. This Amendment is one which has every element of justice in it. No one has denied that. Hon. Members have had an opportunity of getting up and declaring that there was something unfair and outrageous in this Amendment. Some of them have spoken, but not one has said it is an unfair Amendment. Supposing my right hon. Friend's wishes are carried out by the Committee, what will be the effect? That we should go on to discuss the question whether there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament, but the appointed day, which is the 13th September, 1913, will not be inserted at the very beginning of the Bill, and it will leave us free, later on, to insert such a time as will give us an opportunity to convert those who rashly put their faith in the Radicals, through misstatements on their part, at the last two General Elections.
As the hon. Member for Northampton was speaking, a letter was put into my hand. I know it is out of order to read that letter. Before the hon. Member was interrupted he was going to travel along lines, which I only wish I had the chance of travelling along, for that letter was one of the most sordid I have ever read. I hope to have an opportunity of reading it to the Committee later. [Laughter.] It said things which will stop that laughter of hon. Members, who, by a cruel, sneering manner of conducting these Debates, hope to smooth over their treatment of the House and the country and their failure to convince by argument any Member of this Committee. That is not going to have any effect on us, except to make us fight all the harder for what we consider to be decency in the House and honesty in the country. The fact that a Gentleman who is not an Irishman and who knows nothing about Ireland has got up from the Front

767
Bench to answer this Amendment reveals the absurdity of this whole Debate. If the Debate is to be conducted in a reasonable way a Minister who is not bound down by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) should take charge of it, so that we may not have the voice of a Front Bench man and the hand of the hon. Member for Waterford.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The Prime Minister obviously attaches considerable importance to the retention of these words, which must be construed with reference to the subsequent Clauses which fix the appointed day in 1913. Therefore you have, at the very outset, the Government plan avowed and declared, namely, to set up this Parliament at this particular date. It may well be that when we come to Clauses 42 and 46 the exigencies of public time and other reasons may deprive the Committee of any opportunity whatever of considering either Clause, and we shall then have committed ourselves, without discussion and without a chance of Amendment, to this fixed date in December, 1913. It is because we protest against any fixing of the date, even by inference, at the outset of the Bill that my right hon. Friend has proposed to leave out these words. This is one of the most important questions that is likely to arise in the whole of the discussion, because it entitles us to raise the question whether changes of this magnitude ought to be, under our Constitution, carried into law without the electorate being given, in the first place time to consider them, and in the second place an opportunity to decide upon them. We are, in all probability, foregoing every opportunity for raising that question again. Therefore I hope my Friends behind me, when they realise the importance of the issue that is now raised and that, under your ruling, is now open for discussion, will deal with it fully and fairly. I will not enter into the controversy as to the extent to which hon. Members opposite committed either themselves or their supporters to Home Rule at the last General Election. I will merely mention one figure which, I think, in it self ought to be conclusive on that point. There were something like 286 Gentlemen returned to this House who now sit upon the benches opposite. Out of that number 184 never even mentioned the subject of Home Rule—
The CHAIRMAN: It is not very easy to keep the Amendment to the real point. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see
768
that I have already had to pull up one or two Members. If I allowed it to go on we should have the whole Second Reading Debate over again.
Mr. CAMPBELL: May I respectfully suggest that what you have pulled up other hon. Members for was a different matter. One wanted to refer to certain pamphlets which were published in the pending election at Hythe. I am dealing with the General Election.
The CHAIRMAN: I really cannot allow this. The point of the Amendment is whether this method of drafting the Bill ought to be adopted—putting in the words "appointed day" at this stage.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: While probably it was necessary and inevitable that there should be in this Bill a consequential change dealing with the reduction of Irish Members in the House, I do not think anyone will say the country ever knew, probably right hon. Gentlemen themselves did not know at the time, what their plan was going to be, and certainly no question ever arose, as far as I know, during the course of the last General Election, as to whether the Irish Members were to be retained in this House or entirely excluded.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will see that if that were permitted every one of the forty-two pages of Amendments could be reviewed on this Amendment. In order to be fair to all alike, I cannot allow these arguments to be developed.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I have no wish to develop them if you would only allow me to mention them. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept the Amendment. His own case is, as I understand, that the whole fixing of the time is to be postponed to a later date. We may or may not have an opportunity of discussing it. If we have not that is our misfortune. If the whole question of time is to be postponed till this late stage of the Bill, why should the right hon. Gentleman ask the House now to adhere to these words, which have no meaning, because their effect and meaning is to be entirely controlled and dependent upon what this Committee may do when they come to the later Clauses in the Bill. I cannot conceive, from his own point of view, what harm it would do or how it interferes with the Bill, but it gives

769
us this great guarantee and security, that if you leave these words out now, we must get an opportunity later on of determining this vital question as to the date of the commencement of the operation of the Act.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think it is absolutely necessary in the case of this particular Bill to keep as much in your own hands as you possibly can in order to have a lever to deal with questions later on. Hon. Members opposite who are interested in Scottish, but not apparently in Irish Home Rule, who are interested in questions like the franchise and are prepared to name a certain date in the Bill, will have given away a very strong lever when it comes to this particular point in the Bill later on.
The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is getting far away from the Amendment.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am not going to deal with the franchise question. I merely wish to point out that there are many reasons why these words should not be inserted here which will crop up in the Bill, and hon. Members will throw away their only lever with the Government if they do not back up this Amendment now. In very much the same way a lot of hon. Members who spoke with regard to Irish Home Rule in the country stated—
The CHAIRMAN: I must really ask the Noble Lord to keep to the point which I have endeavoured to explain.
The PRIME MINISTER: I intervene for the sake of saving time if I can, and not of replying to arguments which have been put forward. I cannot accept this Amendment. I think the words ought to remain as they are. At the same time it is a perfectly reasonable proposition that hon. Members should be assured that they will have an opportunity of discussing the actual date at which this Parliament is to be brought into existence. Be it observed —I say this by way of caution—that I do not in the least degree admit that that date ought not to be the date named in the Bill, or that it ought to be a date after there has been an opportunity, by dissolution or otherwise, of some reference to the country. I think that at the proper time and place in the Bill there ought to be an opportunity of discussing what is undoubtedly one of the most important of all the points raised. I am quite ready to give an undertaking that there shall he an
770
opportunity, be it on Clause 42 or in some other place—I think Clause 42 is the appropriate and natural place—of discussing the date at which the Irish Parliament should come into existence. I think hon. Members might be content with that assurance.
Mr. CASSEL: The assurance which the Prime Minister has given us is, of course, some measure of satisfaction, but I was going to object to the words from a drafting point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out, nor has any speaker on the other side, the slightest necessity for these words here, nor any reason why they want to keep them in. Having regard to your ruling that we are not to deal with the point of time on this Clause, we ought to have no words dealing with time in this Clause, and the words, "the appointed day," are particularly unfortunate, having regard to the two later Clauses, because there the appointed day is wrapped up in such hopeless confusion that it would be infinitely better to leave the words out altogether here. No one has yet said it would make any difference. The Prime Minister said there was a fixed date for the appointed day. That is not so. The only fixed day is the day for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. Curiously enough this is a Tuesday—the first Tuesday in December, 1913. Why Tuesday is selected I do not know.
The PRIME MINISTER: Make it Wednesday.
Mr. CASSEL: I do not attach any importance to that. The appointed day is a variable date, which may be six months before or six months after the day fixed for the first meeting. Was there ever such ridiculous draftsmanship? It is absolutely hopeless. I do not think any Bill ever had worse drafting in it. For these reasons I hope my right hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division, notwithstanding the pledge given by the Prime Minister.
Sir E. CARSON: As the Prime Minister has told us we will have ample time at a later stage to discuss this question, I certainly am prepared to accept that promise. In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: With reference to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, I may take it that we shall have a full discussion as to the date of the operation of this Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "shall" ["there shall be in Ireland"], to insert the words "subject to the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry being excluded from the provisions of this Act."
I propose this Amendment as an honest attempt to solve one of the most complex questions in connection with the government of Ireland. It is an attempt to remove what has been in the past a stumbling block to similar Bills on similar occasions. I, for one, am sincerely anxious of seeing some measure of Home Rule carried into law. If my Amendment is accepted it will rule out the four counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry, and thus remove one of the chief obstacles to Home Rule. I think this Bill makes the mistake of treating Ireland not as two nations, but as one nation. I think everyone will admit that Ireland consists of two nations different in sentiment, character, history, and religion. I maintain it is absolutely impossible to fuse these two incongruous elements together. It is as impossible as to try to reconcile the irreconcilable. The great hostility which manifests itself in North-East Ulster against the not unnatural aspirations of the majority in Ireland, the dreaded supremacy of the Church to which the majority belongs, a Church which Protestants in Ireland know from experience, and which we know from history, never wavers or hesitates in its endeavour to establish not only spiritual but civil and political power wherever it obtains a foothold— that feeling is so strong and vigorous among the Protestants in the North-East of Ireland that if you try to impose the rule of an Irish Parliament on these strenuous Protestants, I am forced to the conclusion that you are attempting what is impossible. Of course, there are Protestants in the South, and also in the West of Ireland, and it is very likely that hon. Members opposite who come from Ulster may object to the Amendment for fear it may be said that they are trying to save their own skin while deserting the Protestants in the South and West of Ireland. I do not think that is a charge which can be supported by argument, or which can hold water. In the first place, the Protestants in the South and West of Ireland live under totally different conditions to those in North-East Ulster. They live, for good or ill, among a population of Roman Catholics who will largely predominate in
772
the Irish Parliament. They are scattered and cannot be singled out for special taxation or for special attention at the hands of the Irish Parliament. The Protestants in the South and West of Ireland in my opinion cannot be put in a worse position under the Irish Parliament. The numbers are small and insignificant, and therefore it is wrong from my point of view that the overwhelming majority of the people in Ireland should be checkmated by merely the minority in the South and West, provided you put in the Act such safeguards as it is possible to put in an Act of Parliament. That is the view which has been adopted by the Government. It has been practically adopted by everyone in this House. It is the policy that the views of the majority should prevail.
If that is the view of the Government, then the views of the majority in these four counties should also have due regard paid to them. I quite agree that it would be possible from the administrative point of view to make out a better case for the total exclusion of the whole of Ulster from the Bill, but I have chosen four counties for these reasons: In these counties there is an overwhelming body of Protestant opinion. The Protestants there demand no special privileges. All they ask is to enjoy the same laws and liberties which we enjoy in this country. I maintain that there are several arguments why special treatment should be given to the North-East of Ireland. First of all, there is the question of the majority. The Protestants in these counties are in a overwhelming majority. Then you have to consider the character and composition of that majority. From outward and visible signs we can be sure that the Protestants of North-East Ulster are determined, if possible, to ignore, and, if necessary, to resist, every action of the Parliament established in their country. The Protestant majority in North-East Ulster is composed of men who have shown themselves in the past to be industrious, resolute, and determined. We find them today massed together with personal differences put aside, and standing together, men of all kinds and conditions, in the common determination never to submit to the Parliament established in Ireland. There is also ingrained and embedded in them a spirit of antagonism to any change, and especially against this change, which they honestly and sincerely believe will endanger their lives, liberties, and property. They have built up in the past, through

773
their industry and enterprise, great industries. The Protestants in the South and West of Ireland cannot be singled out for exceptional taxation, but in the case of the teeming population of North-East Ulster it is possible that they might be subjected to exceptional taxation. Take the case of the great city of Belfast. It might be made the object of unwelcome attention at the hands of the Irish Parliament. I admit it is a matter of speculation, but still it is a speculation which the Unionists of North-East Ulster are not prepared to risk. The animosity which they feel towards Home Rule has not been lessened in any degree by the safeguards in this Bill. It has apparently developed and increased. You cannot, in my opinion, therefore reconcile these two conflicting interests. You cannot reconcile what I have described as these two nations by putting one in subjection to the other. There are some things which will not mingle together. We have it on the best authority that orange bitters will mix with sherry, but I have never heard that orange bitters will mix with Irish whisky.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Oh, yes, quite well.
Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: In my opinion, it would be a great delusion to imagine that you can bring these two hostile factions together, that you will find wounds will heal, and that ancient feuds will be quietened simply by establishing a Parliament in Ireland, and trying to await further developments. I am afraid the result will not be quite satisfactory to the supporters of this Bill, unless you do the one thing proposed by the Amendment—unless you remove the storm centre from the operations of the Bill. It would be possible to use several arguments in favour of the Amendment. The first that comes to my mind is that it is argued that the views of the majority must be listened to, and that the national aspirations of Ireland cannot be ignored. Well, if this Amendment is carried, the Home Rule majority of the people in Ireland will have Home Rule, and, on the other hand, the Unionist majority in North-East Ulster will be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, and will be enabled to retain their liberties and their political allegiance with this country. The chief danger of disturbance and civil war will thus be removed. You may thus be able to satisfy to a great extent the demands of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and also to a greater extent allay the religious fears of the majority of
774
Protestants in Ireland. It may be argued in the first place that the hon. Members for Ulster have not asked for special treatment. But it was never expected that they would, as they would be accused of surrendering the Union and trying to bargain to secure their own safety at the expense of the whole of their fellow-Protestants in Ireland. Another argument which has been used against this Amendment, I believe by the "Times" yesterday in a leading article, was that the hon. Member for Waterford would not assent to it. There may be some truth in the suggestion. The hon. Gentleman may be casting a covetous eye on the hive of industry in North-East Ulster, with the idea later on of extracting money for Nationalist aspirations. A third argument is that this Amendment would cause probably the whole reconstruction of this Bill. It would do this Bill as it stands no harm to be reconstructed; and I say it is much better that this Bill should not pass this House just as it stands if you will by passing it set up in Ireland a system which in my opinion is foredoomed to failure and may produce greater bitterness and strife than have been seen in Ireland in years gone by.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I delayed in rising, because I thought it possible that some of the hon. Members from Ulster might have been desirous that their views should be recorded, but at the same time I have no hesitation whatever in saying that it is not the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment which has just been moved by my hon. Friend. Indeed, it would require a very great deal of evidence from Ulster itself to lead to the belief that she desires to cut herself off from the rest of Ireland. It is a delusion to think that the feeling of the Protestants of Ulster is so very strong as to make one suppose that the shrewd inhabitants of that prosperous province are entirely devoted to no other question than their religious opinions and religious differences. They are strongly involved with the general prosperity of Ireland, and there are certainly bankers, and Belfast banking corporations, whose joint branches I see whenever I motor about in all parts of Ireland. I see in the most prosperous towns in the south and west evidence in the main streets of the activity of the banking interest throughout the whole of Ireland, and although I do not pretend to have any figures at my disposal, I should be very much surprised indeed if it were not the fact that many of

775
the industries of which Belfast not only boasts, but that a great deal of the enterprise which the North-East of Ireland is able to show, in many ways is derived to a considerable extent from the moneys and savings of the agricultural portion of Ireland, and it is perfectly obvious to anybody acquainted with Ireland that the banking business has spread over all parts of the country, and that the working capital for the industrial enterprises of Belfast and the neighbourhood is derived to a not inconsiderable extent from the moneys of the people of the South and West of Ireland. I am, therefore, not surprised at the representatives from the north-east of the country having held their tongue in this matter of cutting themselves adrift from Ireland as a whole. Anybody acquainted with other industries in Belfast knows the extent to which they depend upon the rest of the country. For instance, in the seed industry, the seed merchants of Belfast make their profits entirely or almost entirely from the sales of their seeds in the agricultural portion of Ireland. Therefore one would require to hear a great deal more than we have heard yet to induce the Government, in dealing with the problem of the better government of Ireland, to suggest that these four particular counties should be excluded from the operation of the Bill and left as an annex to the Parliament.
My hon. Friend has not dealt with Ulster as a whole. He has omitted several important counties which form part of Ulster, where the division between Protestants and Roman Catholics is very marked and strong, and where there are a great number of Protestants who might be supposed, if they were animated with this desire to be associated only with people who think as they do upon certain Christian doctrines, to have desired that they also should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. I therefore think that the proposal of the hon. Member is in itself a somewhat fantastic proposal. It creates another minority, which is in no way of a satisfactory character. I presume that the cities of Belfast and Derry are intended to be included in the words of the Amendment, although the words confine it to the four counties. But on this assumption the total population of these four counties— according to the last Census—is just over one million—1,030,080, and of these, no doubt, a large majority—753,000—are Protestants; but the difference between the
776
700,000 odd and the million represents a very considerable Roman Catholic population in those places, and for my own part, although I dare say hon. Members will differ from me very strongly, I am persuaded that the distinction between Roman Catholic form of religion and the Presbyterian, and also the Protestant Episcopal Churches, is not of such a character that it should be regarded as a permanent and final boundary line of division between the different portions of the population of Ireland. I hope that I am not extravagant in saying that I believe it is quite possible for people to entertain the strongest differences of opinion, as between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and yet be closely and intimately associated in politics and in agricultural and commercial pursuits.
We have already experience, under the various boards of technical education and the like, of the Catholic clergyman and the Protestant minister, and the Catholic and Protestant members of these committees working together with such a degree of affection and regard that it almost seems as if they were sorry that they had been kept asunder for so long. I, at all events, look forward to a future of a more noble character than the past, in which hon. Members opposite still delight to dwell. Surely we are entitled to hope for it in these days when many Noble Lords talk of Christian unity and of advising Nonconformists. I protest I listen with interest to the advice which they give, and sometimes have a faint hope that it may be taken. Christian unity is a possible conception for which we should strongly pray. But how can you ever have Christian unity if you exclude the Roman Catholic religion altogether from it? Surely Noble Lords, who are advocating that union and looking forward to a time when there shall be unity of Christianity in this country, do not exclude altogether and for ever Roman Catholics from the purview of these generous hopes? I am not prepared to say myself that there will ever be unity of such a kind; but I am quite sure that there will be co-operation between Catholics and Protestants on every other form of legitimate and noble work, whether of patriotic, industrial, or commercial enterprise. I therefore feel myself that Home Rule without the co-operation of Ulster as a whole, not merely North-East Ulster, but all parts of it, would be of an imperfect description. I share the view which was expressed by Mr. Parnell in the speech which he made on the Second Reading of the first Bill—a

777
speech which I wish every hon. Member in this House would revive in his recollection or become acquainted with it for the first time. I confess that I know of no other speech, in all my research into this matter, which puts the case for Home Rule with such logical force, such clearness and such good businesslike sense and justice. And his view was that he could not dispense and Ireland could not dispense with the co-operation of Protestants as well as Catholics in this work.
We have been told that that is an impossible dream; that that can never be done; that there are two nations and two religions which will ever keep these people asunder, in Ireland alone apparently, because in other nations cooperation and friendship of the closest character has been found possible; and I confess that nothing surprised me more in Ireland, since I had even the slender acquaintance which, if you like to say it, any Englishman can make with it in six years, than to find how friendly and how well Catholics and Protestants can and do work together. It is said that the moment you set up anything like Home Rule you end all that. I do not believe it. Of course, those who differ from me are entitled to their opinions. I do not say that the introduction of this subject has not accentuated these feelings of opposition for a moment, and has not delayed the process which was going on; but that process of reconciliation is not going to be destroyed by any legislative proposals of any sort or kind. I believe in human sentiment and the growth of religious toleration and conviction; and therefore I can only say, speaking on behalf of the Government, that this proposal, made, I am quite sure, in perfect good faith by the hon. Member for Cornwall, but unsupported as far as I can make out by any of the persons supposed to be associated with Ireland is one which the Government cannot accept.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the speech to which we have just listened is interesting, and undoubtedly with a great deal of the pleasant anticipations which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward I entirely agree. I think that his speech in itself is the best possible indication of the complete absence of reality from the discussion in this House, as compared with what this question really is in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he had not risen in order to give hon. Members from Ulster an opportunity of speaking. Everyone, I
778
think, whatever his views, would certainly have desired and have the right to expect before rising to say anything on this question, that the determination of the Government should be expressed. As far as I am concerned, I rise now at the earliest possible moment to put as clearly as I can, and so far as I can speak for my hon. Friends behind me, what is the attitude we take up in regard to this the most vital Amendment which can possibly be introduced in connection with the whole Bill. But before doing so I should like to make reference to one or two remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that the Protestants of the North- East of Ireland think occasionally of something else besides their religion. That is perfectly true. He says they think about business. That is perfectly true; but I can assure him, and I think I am not overstating the impression which I believe prevails, that on this question their business and other considerations sink into insignificance before their actual hostility to the proposal now before them. In addition to that, what does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the people of the North of Ireland are carrying on banking and seed trade and other business with other parts of that country? What in the world does he mean? He must mean one of two things. Either that the people of the North of Ireland realise that if Home Rule is carried they would have no further trade or business with the other parts of Ireland, or it means that they are going to have a fiscal system so complete in itself that it would be impossible to deal fairly and consistently with it. Then the right hon. Gentleman made another serious remark to which I listened with interest, and to which I attach great importance. He spoke about the desirability of the disappearance of religious differences. I am sure nobody desires it more than we do, and I think I desire it as much as anyone. When he spoke of religious differences disappearing, that was true until unfortunately, for reasons that I have characterised before and do not intend to characterise now, the Government again brought forward this question, and again raised all this bitterness which was dying down. He tells us that in time Irishmen in the north and other districts of Ireland will realise that they can live together, and will find that they have business interests greater than the hostility which exists between them.

779
That is true. But if he applies it to the North of Ireland, will he tell me why the same thing does not apply to the Irish minority as a whole. He tells us that in the time to come this problem and these differences will disappear, and that hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches will realise that to share in the privileges and destinies of this great Empire is not an unworthy thing.
There are two points of view on which I am going to speak on this question very briefly. The one is our attitude and the other is what is the attitude of the Government, and how they can justify their action within the general principles upon which their Bill is framed. The right hon. Gentleman made a short speech. I think he could have made it shorter. Everyone would have understood him, and he would have told us everything that we want to know if he had got up and said, "The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) will not allow us to accept this Amendment." I ask right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench what did they mean in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Foreign Secretary on Home Rule if this is a question which is finally decided and on which they are determined there would be no Amendment? I would ask another thing. There is no one who knows anything about Ireland, and least of all the Chief Secretary, who could for a moment maintain in this House or out of it that the hostility of the people of the North-East of Ireland to being put under the rule of a Parliament in Dublin is not at least as strong as the hostility of the people of the rest of Ireland to being under the rule of the British House of Commons. No one can deny that. On what ground can you say the minority of Ireland—a very small minority against the rest of the United Kingdom— is to have this separate treatment? You tell us we do not understand their point of view, and that with the best intentions we cannot govern Ireland according to Irish ideas.
What about the North of Ireland and the South? The point of view of the North of Ireland is as different from the rest of Ireland as that of Ireland is from ours. If Ireland as a whole cannot be ruled according to our ideas, what right have you to think that the people of the North of Ireland should be driven out of this Union for which they have affection, and be placed under an authority which they,
780
rightly or wrongly, regard as a tyranny as horrible as that to which any small nation has ever been subjected? What justification have you for it? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that there are only a million of us, but that million is a fourth of the people of Ireland, and the whole of Nationalist Ireland is only something like a fifteenth of the whole population of the United Kingdom. If a fifteenth of the Kingdom claim a right to separate treatment, and the ground on which you are giving it to them is that they have persistently demanded it, then a fourth can certainly claim with greater justice from this House that they have a right to be kept under the Government which now represents them. We may spend much time in discussing Amendments as to whether or not this Bill as a whole is to be carried. You have a majority; I do not doubt that you will stick together; but this opposition of Ulster, and nobody knows better than I and hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches, is a real fact in this Home Rule controversy, and nobody who is acquainted with the feeling and the temper of the people in the North of Ireland can for a moment doubt that they will use every means in their power so that nothing short of force will drive them out of the Union to which they adhere, and compel them to accept a Government which they detest. I say that, from the point of view of the Government and the principles on which they justify this Bill, they have absolutely no right to refuse the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman.
Our attitude is this. I am going to vote in favour of this Amendment. I am going to vote in its favour not for a moment that it would take away my opposition to Home Rule; I say, and I believe it quite as strongly as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway believe that it is necessary, that Home Rule is unnecessary, that it would be bad for the United Kingdom as a whole, and I believe bad for Ireland. For that reason I still oppose it. But while we oppose this Bill root and branch, yet we are discussing it in Committee, and the ground on which we are discussing it is that we will support any Amendment which, bad as the Bill seems to us to be, would make it less bad than it was before the Amendment was introduced. That is the line on which I, and I hope my hon. Friends will support the Amendment. That is the ground which we can justify, as I am perfectly certain that on any principle on which hon. Gentlemen have gone to the

781
platforms of this country, it is utterly impossible to justify their refusal to accept the Amendment.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, if there is one part of public policy in which I believe it is the policy of devolution and Home Rule. I am of opinion that the differences of which we have heard will in time pass away, though at the same time the great difficulty in carrying Home Rule is Ulster. The Ulster difficulty is a very real one, but I believe in time Ulster will throw in her lot with the rest of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] I have a right to my opinion as well as others, and that is my belief. At the same time I think the proposal which has been made for separate representation of these Northern counties of Ireland, however fantastic it may be considered will not be the only thing fantastic in our Constitution, and if it be fantastic, yet I think it may be expedient. I believe the proposal ought to be accepted, and, therefore, I support it.
Lord HUGH CECIL: A very interesting Debate has been initiated at rather an inconvenient hour. It touches on what is really the most difficult question for the Government and its supporters that can be raised. As my right hon. Friend has very truly said the Bill contains a great many serious objections, but we object to the constitution of an Irish nationality and we do not believe it is a reality. I do think, however, that the Amendment makes this great difference, that if we put it into the Bill—I do not go into the precise number of counties, or whether there should be one or two more—it substantially excludes the North-East of Ireland, and would make this great difference that it would save the measure on its becoming law from leading to an immediate and violent crisis. I do not believe Home Rule will ever work well, but if this Amendment were accepted I think it would avoid the violent shock which might otherwise arise on its becoming law. If you reject this Amendment, if you insist on forcing on the minority in the North-East of Ireland, a system of Government which they detest, no one can doubt that there will be a violent crisis. There is something more important than how we are going to conduct banking and business, and what we want to hear from the Government is their policy with regard to Ulster. They say they are not going to accept this
782
Amendment now. We want to know what is their alternative plan. How are they going to deal with the situation which is going to be created. We were discussing some time ago when the Bill was to come into force. Suppose after the statutory two years a Bill comes into force, and the Irish Parliament comes into existence in September, 1915, we should have a General Election by law in December, 1915, by effluxion of time. How are you going to deal, in the face of the ordinary General Election, with the question of Ulster, which will then be very nearly a burning one? Hon. Members would then have to face the situation in which they found themselves. They would then have the alternative either of receding at the last moment or of sending troops to impose the Bill by force on Ireland. I am quite confident that when the time comes not a soldier will be sent. No one who knows how British Governments conduct their affairs supposes that any British Government, even the present one, could in the name of self-government, send troops to shoot down people and force them under a Parliament they detested. That is an absurdity which no Government could possibly be guilty of, but then what are you going to do? My right hon. Friends sit in positions of responsibility, and naturally hesitate to declare that they are in favour of rebellion, even of the most justifiable kind. I am in a position of less responsibility, and I have no hesitation in saying that Ulster will be perfectly right in resisting, and I hope she will be successful. In so far as my influence goes, I shall do my best to help and assist her—I do not suppose in fighting, but in whatever way which is most helpful.
I want to know what the Government and hon. Members are going to do, and how are they going to get out of the difficulty they are creating? One of them, supported by another hon. Member, reasonably suggested this Amendment. It is a far stronger Amendment from their point of view than it is from ours, as my right hon. Friend has truly pointed out. From their point of view it is both the logical sequence of their proposal, and it does remove or mitigate one of the great dangers that threatens them. Why is anyone who believes in Home Rule afraid of this Amendment? What would happen? You would have a frontier in Ireland. On one side you would have all the benefits of self-government, local autonomy, that which has carried so much benefit, as hon. Members think, to all parts of the world, and

783
on the other side you would have the domination of the Saxons, and the tyranny from which you are going to free the rest of Ireland. Can you doubt, if your principles are true, that between the one side and the other the unhappy counties will find they have made a mistake, and very soon come round to the notion that they would be much better under a Home Rule Parliament, and hasten to place themselves under it? If you believe in your principles, can you doubt that? We naturally take a very different view of what would be the result of exhibiting the two forms of Government side by side. How can you take that view? Can you suppose, if you put Home Rule side by side with the Union and exhibit it side by side, that if there is a word of truth in what you say, or an iota of reality in your case, but that sooner or later Ulster would make haste to join the rest of the country? So it seems to me if they reject this Amendment, and it is very difficult for hon. Members to resist it, they abandon the whole case they have put forward. They are in favour of self-government. Does not self-government extend to Antrim, Armagh, and the rest of the counties? They are in favour of recognising common sympathy as the basis of nationality. Is the common sympathy of Unionist Antrim, Down, and Armagh and the rest with the United Kingdom not to be regarded? They are in favour of trying to heal an ancient dispute, and they think they are going to do it. Is it not best not to try and force together those who are divided by age-long differences?
The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in supposing that the question is only a religious question. It is a religious question aggravated by long-continued partisan disputes. Of course, we all know that people of different religions can often live happily under one Government, but not where there has been a long and bitter dispute extending over many years. Why not act on your own principles, and trust the theory which you preach to us? Why not take this Amendment which logically carries them out, and then, relying on your principles, sooner or later the matter will turn as you desire? Hon. Members behind me take the opposite view when it comes to the point of cutting out Ulster. They want Nationalist and Roman Catholic Ireland with loyalist and Protestant money. They are not satisfied with the true basis of their nationality, if such a thing exists: they want, as an hon. Member very truly said, to take the honey out
784
of the hive of North-East Ulster, and people who take honey out of hives commonly get stung. I suggest that in the end it will be wiser for the Government to act according to their own principles, even though the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) does not allow them. They have as much to offer the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as he has to offer them. Why should it be always they that are sold and he that is bought in these transactions? Why do they always have to meet his wishes and never ask that he should meet theirs? After all, they have got to justify, two years hence or three years, to the British electorate the policy of either giving in to Ulster or coercing Ulster. What is the use of not facing the facts of the case, and of being blind to what is evidently true? This is not a matter to be shirked over by a pleasant answer like that which the Chief Secretary has given. It is the great reality of the question, and unless the Government have an alternative scheme to this Amendment they are mad in their own interests, and still more in the interests of the country, in not accepting the Amendment.
Mr. PIRIE: I must say that I think the Committee is entitled to some answer from the Government to the question which has been put to the Government by the Leader of the Opposition when he asked for some explanation to the very striking allusions which were made in the Second Reading Debate both by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and also by the Attorney-General, as regards the intentions of the Government on this matter. This is only one of the instances of reticence for which I have to criticise and find fault with the Government. Right through all this Debate in Committee we have to go through point after point of importance, and unless we have information of what the intentions of the Government are, then as far as I am concerned, on every occasion that I am in doubt as to what my position will be owing to the uncertainty, evasiveness, and wilful reticence of the Government, they will lose the benefit of the doubt unless they clear up the situation. They seem to imagine because we are here as a party we are to be deprived of all powers, save simply voting, because they chose to give vague descriptions about federalism and other things. To my mind this is far too important a matter to the welfare of the subordinate nationalities of the Kingdom to be treated as an Irish

785
question. Let me look at it as regards the immediate question under Debate. When I spoke on the Second Reading I distinctly laid down this proposition, that I believed it to be the bounden duty of the Government to give Ulster the opportunity of standing out of this Bill. I expressed the opinion also that I believed Ulster would not take advantage of that offer. I would put this case before the Committee: Suppose after the declared intentions of the Government to treat this Irish question as only part of a great Imperial question that they were to go on with a federal system for the United Kingdom, what would be the case of Ulster then? Do the Ulster Members say that if federation as regards the United Kingdom were carried out, if all the subordinate nationalities of the United Kingdom had Parliaments of their own, Ulster would stand alone? I believe that if the Government were perfectly frank, the case from the Imperial point of view as regards Ulster itself would be made infinitely easier. The Government are their worst enemies by the course of studied silence that they are pursuing. The Noble Lord opposite dealt with the same question. He wanted to know, as we all want to know, what the Government are going to do. Believing, as I do, that the Government suffer from their reticence, I shall support the Amendment. Supposing this federal system for the United Kingdom were carried out, there might be one other alternative for these four counties when brought face to face with the question, either of joining the Irish Parliament or of standing aloof. Supposing there were a Parliament for Scotland, they might possibly elect to join that Parliament instead of the Irish Parliament. Anyway, they might be given the choice. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by his charge of excessive reticence. We have discussed this matter in principle and in detail at very great length on the Second Reading. Neither I myself nor my colleagues have shown the slightest reluctance to grapple with the question in all its aspects. I should like to recall the attention of the Committee to the Amendment before us. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, particularly to its concluding part, in which he announced his intention of voting in favour of the Amendment. I have not yet heard from any of the representatives
786
of Ulster—Who at this moment are conspicuous by their absence, but perhaps we shall hear their opinion soon—whether or not they approve of and accept the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. In anticipation of their statement, let me point out what their position is. The theory of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that you cannot trust the Protestants of Ireland— what are called the Loyalist minority—to the tender mercies of an Irish Parliament; that if you do so they will be persecuted or oppressed from the point of view both of religion, of social equality, and of social, political, and industrial rights. That is their position, and that is the basis to a very large extent of the whole argument against Home Rule. What is the effect of this Amendment? Let us accept their premise. By accepting this Amendment you will take out from Ireland just that body of the Protestant minority which is best able to protect itself, and you will leave without any kind of redress or protection not only the scattered Protestant minority in the south and west, but the Protestants in the remaining parts of the province of Ulster. Was there ever such a self-stultifying Amendment? I do not wonder it has not been moved by any of the representatives of Ulster itself. Are these chivalrous champions of the rights of the Protestant minority going to take shelter in what my hon. Friend has so kindly provided, in this oasis, or Alsatia, or whatever you may call it, in which they are a majority, in which they are exposed to no kind of hardship or injustice, in which they may snap their fingers at their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. It is really a most extraordinary proposition. We shall be glad to hear what the representatives of Ulster have to say regarding it. As to our position it is perfectly plain. References have been made to statements made by some of my colleagues and certainly by myself, when, speaking on the First and Second Readings, we said we were most anxious—
Mr. BONAR LAW: The statement to which I referred was by the Foreign Secretary. I am speaking from memory, but my recollection of what the Foreign Secretary said was that if Ulster continued to resist it would be possible to make another arrangement.
The PRIME MINISTER: That remains to be seen. My right hon. Friend was speaking of the future. I thought the right hon. Gentleman referred to another

787
statement—certainly my hon. Friend did— a statement which I am very glad to repeat, namely, that we are as anxious as anybody can be to secure in this Bill the most adequate and complete safeguards possible against religious or any other persecution. Any practical suggestion proceeding from the Members from Ulster, or from any other quarter of the House, which will supplement or render more effective the safeguards that we believe we have adequately provided, will be received by us with the utmost sympathy and consideration. There is no step in that direction that we are not perfectly ready to face. This Amendment proceeds on an assumption which I believe is radically false, namely, that you can split Ireland into parts. You can no more split Ireland into parts than you can split England or Scotland into parts. Without in any way disparaging or expressing anything in the nature of disrespect for the demonstration in Ulster, I say that you have in Ireland a greater fundamental unity of race, temperament, and tradition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am expressing my own opinion, which I believe to be justified by experience. You have an essential unity of race and temperament, although I agree that unhappily dissensions have been rank, partially by religion, and partially, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by the organisation of partisanship. These dissensions have spread, and have had a most noxious influence, both on the social and on the religious life of Ireland; but they are dissensions I believe which do not go down to the foundation of the national life. The more Irishmen are encouraged and empowered to cooperate in the great works of governing their own country, the more convinced am I that these differences will disappear. It will not be by the waving of a magician's wand, but they will be reconciled, and in the course of time completely disappear in that common sense of fundamental and overpowering unity which I believe to be the centre of Irish nationality.
Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has never shown, if I may venture to say so, a more brilliant example of dexterity in Debate than in the speech he has just made. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University put the case with absolute clearness to the Government, and asked for their answer. The Prime Minister carefully avoided
788
giving any answer, or of attempting to state the position of the Government. Dexterous and clever as the Prime Minister is, he knows that this task, at all events, is beyond his power. He therefore does not attempt either to answer the questions of my Noble Friend or to deal with the criticisms of his own supporters. I find something to complain about in the opening remarks of the Prime Minister. I readily admit that he never fails in courtesy to his political opponents, but on this occasion he was extremely unfair in the method and manner of his comments. He kept saying to us on this side of the House, "You hold this view and that view, and that religious difficulties will make government impossible," ignoring the fact that this Amendment had been moved from his own side, and, so far, has found two supporters on his own side. He talked about the representatives of Ulster in a way which I thought was unfortunate. He suggested, without the smallest foundation for it, that in the action of the Ulster Members, if they voted for this Amendment, there will be found betrayal of the cause of their fellow-Unionists in Ireland. Had he listened to the speech of my Noble Friend, and if the Prime Minister believes in the policy of which he is the head and front in this House, as my Noble Friend so well said, if he believes that Home Rule is going to bring all these blessings upon Ireland, what is the best way to do, to allow Ulster to see these blessings adjoining her, and so later desire to share them, or to tell her she will have to take Home Rule at the point of the bayonet?
My Noble Friend said, and was entitled to say on behalf of the Opposition, that we are justified in asking the Government what is their policy. The Prime Minister declines to answer. They have never told us yet what is their policy, what is the method by which they are going, as he says now, to find a way in which the opposition of Ulster is to be overcome. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked the Government a further question which the Prime Minister declines to answer. He referred to the speeches made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I did not hear that of the Foreign Secretary. I did hear that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I say that the First Lord made the most definite overtures for the exclusion of Ulster. He not only used language which at that time was unmistakable, but he said he would

789
like discussion of this question as between the different parties in Ireland. What was the meaning of that speech? Was it made by the First Lord of the Admiralty without consultation with his colleagues? If so, that is a new way, and another novel departure on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We always used to understand that when a Minister who was a member of the Cabinet spoke from his place in Parliament and used definite statements, or made definite suggestions, that he spoke not for himself, but for the whole Government of which he was a member. That is the whole principle of Cabinet responsibility, and government by Cabinet. If the First Lord made his statement without the knowledge and approval of his colleagues he had no business to make that speech, because it clearly indicated that there was in the minds of the Government some question of the adoption of this Amendment.
I have given careful consideration to this question. I foresaw it would be an extremely difficult question. Some of us have had to make up our minds, and there is undoubtedly a great deal to be said for and against the Amendment. The Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary, and especially the latter, did not touch upon the greater difficulties which I thought he might have touched upon—the difficulties in connection with administration, local government, and so on. When I am asked by the Prime Minister how I, a Unionist, who has worked in the closest possible alliance and cordial friendship with my Unionist Friends in the North of Ireland, can support an Amendment of this kind, I tell him not only why, but why I feel bound to support it. It is because I have asked myself the question that the Prime Minister, when he is asked, declines to answer, and which I venture to think he has not asked himself as he ought to have done before he made himself responsible for this Bill. I asked myself what is the policy that Ulster will adopt if this Bill is forced upon them? What is to be the language of those who are Ulstermen; the opinions held by those who are in Ulster; the action of Ulster? I can only say that if I lived in Ulster and had the Ulster feelings and the Ulster traditions—not holding the ideas which the Prime Minister gave utterance to at the end of his speech, or indulging in vague hopes based upon purely imaginary ideas—holding those views if I were an Ulsterman. knowing that all that I cared most for and held most dear would be endangered, and it being my solemn
790
opinion as an Ulsterman that the liberties and privileges not only of myself, but of my children, would be endangered—
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: You said they were!
Mr. LONG: I am not saying whether the Ulstermen are right or wrong; I said if I were an Ulsterman, and believe as the Ulstermen do believe—the hon. Member must not misinterpret my remarks, for I said perfectly plainly, if I were an Ulsterman and holding the views of Ulstermen— I should resist Home Rule by every means in my power. Holding that view—I have expressed it on many occasions—how can I vote against the proposal which offers to give a portion of Ulster, not the whole, but a portion, that which Ulstermen say they will fight in order to maintain? That is the only answer I can give. The Prime Minister has given a different answer. He says that in our interests as a whole, in the interests of Ulster as a whole, this Amendment is to be refused. Then I say if that is the line which he takes up in his responsible position as head of the Government, he is bound to answer the further questions which were put to him, and which we have put to ourselves and have answered; he is bound, I say, to tell us what is the policy of the Government in regard to Ulster. You refuse to bring them in by showing them the advantages side by side of your form with their form of government; you refuse to do it by gentle measures. Are you afraid to say that when the time comes you will force upon them that which you cannot get them to accept by the sword, the bayonet, and the use of force. You must make up your minds. You have no right to pass this Bill and decline to face the possibilities of the future, and to say "Let to-morrow take care of itself." You have declarations made to you solemnly, and made by men who are in deadly earnest, by men pledged to the action they mean to take. We have answered our question. Great though the difficulty and manifest though the disadvantages are, I shall vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member, and I believe the great majority of my Friends on this side of the House will vote for it not because we like it—we detest it all cordially, and are opposed to it all—but because it is the only answer we can give to the question which every honest man must ask himself, "what is my duty towards those who say no power on earth will induce them to accept Home Rule?"
Sir JOHN JARDINE: I am well satisfied with the answer given by the Prime Minister. I have not spoken in these Debates upon this Bill at all, and I would have remained silent but for the fact that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University challenged all Members sitting on this side of the House, including myself, to say what is their attitude on this matter. He stated that we were unsettled in our views, and did not know our own minds, and that we were following our leaders in this matter like sheep. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, to some extent, adopted that argument. Let me first of all, as an officer of long Indian experience, express my dislike to any arguments being used here which threaten force in resistance of laws that may be passed by the Imperial Parliament. The reports of our Debates in this House go to the furthest limits of our Empire, and I am sure that in a country like India it would be a bad thing if, time after time, these threats of force and the use of the bayonet and the sword and so forth are to be used against measures lawfully passed through Parliament. These things, published in India, are bound to have bad effect. I know the excuse is that it has been done on many occasions; this kind of argument was used in another place. The record of Debates show that it was used in the time when the Irish Church Disestablishment Act was under consideration. I think that kind of reasoning is doing very considerable injury. Although I am afraid I may be repeating the arguments of the Prime Minister, I wish to say, because I have been challenged to do so, why I will not vote for this Amendment. I answer at once that this Amendment is not proposed by Members from Ulster. In a previous Debate It was asked what is the demand of that part of Ulster which objects to this Bill. We have had no answer. So far as I understand from previous speeches this will not help Ulster or cause Ulster Members to look favourably on this Bill. Why should I vote for a palliative that will not be any real medicine for the disease and that will bring no balm to Ulster minds?
This is a proposal to make these four Ulster counties into a place like Newfoundland. Newfoundland has a Government of its own; it did not want to be merged with the great Dominion of Canada. Why should we turn into a component part certain counties of Ulster? There is no
792
natural frontier between those counties and the rest of Ireland. Why dissever them and make them into another Newfoundland? That would not conduce to good government. After the Rebellion in Scotland the chiefs of the Highlands and many of their followers did not want to be incorporated for the future, but, so far as I remember, there was no suggestion that the Highlands should be made into a separate province, and I do not think any Scotch Member will rise in his place and say that it would have been a good thing for Scotland to make them a separate province. The Union of Highland and Lowland in Scotland has produced an effect which we hope will be the same in Ireland. In Scotland they have one opinion and one aim. They fought for their interests and they are thankful to be regarded as Scotchmen, and there is no demand for separation in the Highlands or in the Lowlands among the Catholics or the Protestants. Their tendency is for Scotch Home Rule and not for division. I think I have answered the argument of menace and physical force against the law—the argument of the Die-Hards, and I think I have answered the argument of trying to split up Ireland and contrasted it with the advantage of uniting all parts of Ireland together. There are Protestants in the South of Ireland and Catholics in the North of Ireland, and, moreover, there has been times in Irish history when all parties have got on very well together under their own legislation. We are all familiar with the long standing quarrel and bitter feeling that has come down to this time.
My chief reason for objecting to this Amendment is that I think it is only by binding all parts of Ireland together and requiring them to live together under Constitutional Government, with all the safeguards in the Bill, that we can make Ireland prosperous and contented. The Prime Minister has offered to insert any other safeguards that may be necessary. It is not by slight alterations such as proposed by this Amendment which is not asked for, but is rather denounced by our opponents, and which will only be voted for by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it is proposed from this side of the House that you will settle this question. It is not an offer from Ulster. I think it is high time now after generations of disturbance in Ireland that better feelings on both sides should prevail. We are trying by this process and by this new framework of a constitution to make a new

793
departure. Might I illustrate the position by a homely little story from Scotland. There was a wee boy and his parents provided him with a pair of "breeks"; they were made well and fitted him well for a long time. They were fashioned to his little limbs and suited his disposition, and he was well satisfied with them and an anxious world of parents and neighbours admired them. After a time the boy began to complain of pains and restrictions. These breeks, he said, hurt his tender limbs. They were not loose enough for comfort; they were too narrow for expansion: in fact they hindered his growth, and he longed for trousers. But his parents and admiring friends, admirers of the garment that once fitted him well, and careless of the flight of time, refused him all relief from his hide-bound state. Canny as to spending money, stoutly conservative in opinions, they insisted that the breeks, venerable during the past, should endure as his covering for the future. But all in vain. What was the result? One fine morning the question solved itself ambulando. As he jumped a ditch, crack went the breeks.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know how this question of "breeks" affects the position, but I am sure if the First Lord of the Admiralty had the benefit of hearing this story he might have a different view of the rights and wrongs of Ulster. The Prime Minister tried to put hon. Members on this side of the House on the horns of a dilemma as to how we should vote in regard to this Bill. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, because a more ungenerous position in which he attempted to place us has seldom been put before the House. His argument seemed to be:
"Although you are convinced that the people of Ulster would be badly treated under the provisions of this Bill, although you believe in all honesty that you are placing the men of North-East Ulster under the heel of their hereditary enemies, you are not entitled to come to their rescue because there are a number of other men in the south and west who are going to be equally illtreated under the provisions of this Bill." Really, I think I am justified in saying that that was an ungenerous attempt to put us on the horns of a dilemma, when, as a matter of fact, there is no difficulty whatever as to how we should vote. I most honestly believe that the men of Ulster believe they are going to be wronged. Not only that, but I believe myself they are going to be wronged by
794
this Bill, and I have made that statement on scores of platforms.
9.0 P.M.
I believe that the people of Ulster and the people of the South and West of Ireland will be badly treated as soon as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford becomes Prime Minister of Ireland. At any rate, that is my honest belief, and I may be wrong. That is the view I take, and I think it is the view which is reasonable for any one of us to take, having regard to the past history of the Irish party and their dealings with the loyalists of Ireland. My position is perfectly clear. I see an opportunity of rescuing from the domination of the Irish party one province. I admit that I cannot rescue the loyalists from the South and West of Ireland, but I can rescue the loyalists from the North-East of Ulster. This proposal does not quite include the whole of Ulster, but it can easily be extended to achieve that object. My position is much the same as that of the leader of an army who has two of his garrisons in the enemy's country very seriously beleaguered. Is he not to attempt to rescue one of those garrisons because he is not able to rescue the both. This Amendment gives us the opportunity at any rate of rescuing one. The Prime Minister says that by voting for this Amendment we are leaving to the tender mercies of the Irish party the loyalists of the south and west, but had the right hon. Gentleman realised more fully what his own colleagues have said with regard to the position of Ulster, he would not have made that statement. The First Lord of the Admiralty realised the position of Ulster a good deal more seriously than the Prime Minister, who treated the whole question exceedingly lightly, as it seems his policy to treat all the Amendments we have moved this afternoon. I am not going to deal with the suggestions made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I want to call the attention of the Committee to the way in which the First Lord openly admitted the genuineness of the Ulster case. He said:—
"I admit that the perfectly genuine apprehension felt by a majority of the people of North-East Ulster constitutes a most serious barrier to a satisfactory settlement, and it is impossible for a Liberal Government to cavalierly or contemptuously to ignore the sincere sentiment of the well-defined community of the Protestants of Ireland."
I wish the First Lord of the Admiralty had heard his leader treat cavalierly and almost contemptuously the opinions of the

795
people of the North-East of Ireland. He said:—
"We may think they are unreasonable, but there they are, no one disputes the honesty of their opinion. We may think their opinions are prejudiced, but they are facts of a most stubborn kind."
If we exempt Ulster from this Bill we shall be providing them, not as the Prime Minister remarked with an Alsatia, but with a strong coherent body of opinion in the North-East of Ireland independent of the hon. and learned Member for Water, ford and his colleagues and not within their jurisdiction, not amenable to their pressure, and we should provide them with some way which they could flee to, and a strong body who would be able to defend themselves against possible persecution from the Nationalist party. The only crime of the men of the North of Ireland is their loyalty to the Union Jack, and every single argument the Prime Minister has used in the course of his speech, every single argument in favour of Home Rule for Ireland, can be used in favour of the exemption and separate treatment of Ulster. The only argument the Prime Minister has adduced for granting Home Rule is the consistent demand of the Nationalist party, and that is the only demand and the only argument which has come from any quarter of this House. We have not heard it argued that Home Rule is going to improve the position of Great Britain, or that it is going to include the Army, the Navy, the Civil Service, commerce, or agriculture. The only argument is that we must give Home Rule because the Irish people have demanded it for the last thirty years. The Prime Minister said that the verdict in favour for Home Rule was the same in 1886 and 1892, and he says:—
"One thing that has remained constant is the insistence and persistence of the Irish demand."
That is the Prime Minister's reason for granting Home Rule to Ireland. I venture to say that during that same period of thirty years the one thing that has been maintained is the insistent and persistent Ulser demand not to be put under the heel of an Irish Parliament. Every argument the Prime Minister has used in favour of granting Home Rule to placate the Nationalist demand can be used in favour of granting the Ulster demand, because their demand has been just as sincere and just as insistent and persistent as has been the demand of the Nationalist party for Home Rule. I said just now that I was honestly of the opinion that if Home Rule
796
was granted to Ireland it would be detrimental to the commercial well-being and material prosperity of the people of Ulster. I cannot help remembering in this connection a speech made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) when one of the previous Home Rule Bills was being debated. I do not hesitate to say that is a speech which in England has made more converts from the Liberal party against Home Rule, and made more men determined under no circumstances to vote for Home Rule, than any other. I do not think it has ever been apologised for or withdrawn. The hon. Member said:—
"When we come out of the struggle we will remember who were the people's friends and who were the people's enemies, and we will mete out our reward to the one and our punishment to the other."
That, to my mind, is a sufficient reason why every loyal Member of the Conservative and Unionist party, yes, and every loyal and honest Englishman on the other side of the House, and every man who is not fettered by the party whip, should join in this Amendment in order that at least we may save the people of Ulster from having the rewards of punishment meted out to them by the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway.
Earl WINTERTON: I cannot understand why, in the speech he made, the Prime Minister altogether ignored the point which seems to me to be the one above all others of importance in this discussion. The Prime Minister asked those who sit on this side of the House what is their attitude towards the Amendment, but, having regard to the plain and simple fact that this is a Bill brought in by the Government to disturb the whole existing order of government in Ireland, surely the onus of answering the question, "What are you going to do about Ulster?" lies upon the Government. Before any of us are asked what our view is with regard to this Amendment, we want to know the answer of the Government to that question. We want to know whether they agree with some of their more irresponsible supporters in the Press, particularly I think in the "Daily Chronicle," that the Opposition of Ulster is a false opposition, and that there is no real feeling against Home Rule, and that it has died down since the first and second Home Rule Bills? We want to know whether they think, if this Bill is passed into law, it will be accepted by Ulster? We want to know whether they agree with that view or whether they agree with the view of the First Lord of the Admiralty that there are

797
difficulties to be got over in Ulster, and that there are claims of Ulster which have got to be satisfied? My hon. Friend quoted some apposite words used by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that point in other speeches which he has made. He emphasised it at Belfast, where he said:—
"When Ulster insist upon their own rights and "privileges, they are in a very strong and respectable position."
I would like to ask the representative of of the Irish Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell) what the Government propose to do regarding those rights and privileges of Ulster? In spite of what has been said by the irresponsible supporters of the Government in the Press, and of the laughter below the Gangway on both sides of the House, when any reference is made to the armed opposition of Ulster to this Bill, I believe there is not a man who in his heart of hearts does not know you cannot pass this Bill without the acquiescence of Ulster. You have got to come to terms with Ulster before you pass this measure. I should like to know what is the real mind of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Irish Board of Agriculture. No one has had a greater experience of affairs in Ireland. Is he prepared to get up and say the opposition to Home Rule in Ulster is less acute and is easier to be got over than it was in the case of the two previous Bills?
The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell): I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Earl WINTERTON: I know it is true the hon. Gentleman spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, but he never answered that question. The hon. Member made many speeches both in this House and in the country at the time of the two former Home Rule Bills, and he showed then as strongly as any hon. Member has shown in this Debate the impossibility of carrying any Home Rule Bill which Ulster refused to accept. There are, we know, certain methods open to any Government of sending up toy balloons to see which way the wind is blowing, and there have been suggestions made, in the "Morning Post" and other papers, that there will be some compromise with Ulster. Therefore, when the Prime Minister comes down and says the onus is upon us to say what we will accept, surely we are entitled to ask: "What are
798
you going to do? What is your proposal? Are you prepared to stick to the proposals in the Bill throughout?" It is perfectly clear the Government would like to proceed if they could by the most devious by-paths to compromise this question, and I believe before the Committee stage of this Bill is over they will be prepared to suggest some compromise. I say therefore we are entitled to ask the Government to-night what is their suggestion. They know perfectly well they cannot force Ulster to accept this Bill if they do not want to do so.
My Noble Friend the hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) has already pointed out the absurdity, if this Bill passes into law in its present form, and if Ulster takes the method of objecting she most certainly will take, of reducing Ulster to a state of subjection by sending the King's troops against her. Is there any man in the Government who is prepared to ask the King's troops to go and fire on men who have been loyal to the Union Jack for the sake of those who have trampled upon it? Heaven help the men of the South of Ireland who attempt to march against Belfast in order to bring her to subjection. Are the Government prepared to send the King's troops to do that? Everyone knows they are not prepared to do so, and everyone who knows the mind of the Government and sees it expressed in their party Press knows they would avoid that contingency if they could possibly get out of it. Just as they are ready to make any bargain, however sordid, with those who sit below the Gangway, so they would be prepared to make any bargain with us in order to avoid the Ulster difficulty. We know the recent exposure with regard to what took place at the Veto Conference two years ago. They are ready to make any bargain. The only reason they have been so silent on the present occasion is that they know those who sit on this side of the House will come to no bargain of any kind and come to no compromise. It is because they are on the horns of that dilemma, and not we, that they are unable to give us any answer to our question. I do not know what the result of the voting on this Amendment may be, but, at any rate, it will have one useful effect; it will show to the Committee and to the country that the Government themselves, unless they can come to some arrangement with the representatives of Ulster who sit on this side, realise that the Bill is dead from the start. We have had it from the Prime Minister

799
that that is the case. I should very much like, in conclusion, to ask one question of the representative of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell), in reference to what the Prime Minister said upon Ulster in the course of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said, "You can no more split up Ireland than the United Kingdom." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that they had departed from the policy recently contemplated of extending the principle of Home Rule to Scotland and Wales? Has that been abandoned by the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: "He never said so."] I, at any rate, understood the Prime Minister to say that you could no more split up Ireland than the United Kingdom. If he intended it to apply only to England, I would ask does that include Wales, and has the intention of giving Wales Home Rule been abandoned? I have never heard an argument of a more boomerang nature than the one used just now. We were told that it was impossible to adopt the Amendment because it was impossible to split up Ireland. If it is true you cannot split up Ireland into two governments, it must be equally true you cannot split up the United Kingdom into four governments. The two things hang completely together, and one would hardly have thought it necessary to emphasise the fact. The whole thing is an absurdity. It would be equally sensible to say that we in the county of Sussex are a separate nationality from the people of London. No one in their senses would suggest there are not two nationalities in Ireland. But if the argument holds good in one case it must hold good in all cases. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of Irish affairs, will give us a more adequate answer than that given by the Prime Minister to our question—"if you do not accept our Amendment, if you do not exclude Ulster from the Bill, what are you going to do unless Ulster agrees to the proposal?" We know that she is determined not to agree; she is determined by every means in her power to oppose it. She is pledged, and she has never yet broken her pledge, if necessary to oppose it by armed force. We have never had an answer to that question; we also have never had an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman why in the years 1886–1893 he made speeches in this House and outside showing how impossible it was to carry the Bill if in face of the opposi-
800
tion of Ulster. We have never been told why he has now altered that view, and I venture to say we should all welcome some declaration from him to-night.
Mr. MORTON: I understand the Noble Lord to say that the people of Ulster and hon. Members on the other side, speaking on their behalf decline to make any bargain on this question. Hon. Members opposite have said the very same thing in regard to every reform for the last fifty years. Of course they are quite right in taking up that attitude from their point of view. I sympathise very largely with my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment. I am quite as anxious as he is to protect the Protestants of Ulster. I have voted with him on several occasions against the present Government during the last few years, and I should not hesitate to again vote against the Government if I thought they were doing anything likely to injure Protestants in any way in Ireland or elsewhere. I am afraid, however, that my hon. Friend is going the wrong way to protect the Protestants. If you took the Ulster Protestants out of the Irish Parliament you would be damaging the Protestants in the other parts of Ireland. I hope-to see the day when the Protestants will be in power in this Irish Parliament. Indeed, I confidently anticipate that that day will come, but I do not think that, by keeping them out of Parliament, you are doing anything but harm to the Protestants living in other parts of Ireland. May I point out that we are told that nearly half the residents in Ulster are Roman Catholics. Why should they not ask to be separated as well? If you are going to cut out the Ulster Protestants you will take from the Protestants in other parts of Ireland the very protection which you desire should be given to them. I desire to strengthen the Protestant representation in the new Parliament: not to weaken it. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he was willing to consider the making of the safeguards, if necessary, stronger than they appear to be at the present moment. I should be out of order if I were to discuss that question now, but there can be no difficulty in making them so strong as to properly protect the Protestants, and I certainly, in view of the Prime Minister's promise to consider the matter favourably, shall take the opportunity of proposing some Amendment with a view to strengthen them when we come to the Clause dealing with that point. On the

801
Second Heading we had no opportunity of discussing this matter at all. There is no doubt that some of us on this side of the House were not allowed the opportunity we ought to have had of debating this Bill. We are as much interested as anybody else. I cannot support the Amendment, but I am quite as anxious as anybody in the Committee to protect Protestants wherever necessary, in Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom. I cannot see that the Amendment covers all parts of Ireland, because it apparently leaves out the city of Londonderry altogether.
Sir E. CARSON: No, it does not.
Mr. MORTON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the city of Londonderry is not in the county of Londonderry! I am sorry to have to teach Irish Members something about the geography of their own country, but having been a part owner of property in the city of Londonderry, I happen to know something about it. It was carved out of county Donegal, and, geographically, it remains in that county, with the exception of a little bit on the south side of the river. Therefore my hon. Friend has left out a part in which I am actually interested. From my knowledge of the city of Londonderry, I do not think the Protestants there need have any fear. They are not in the majority now. It is worth bearing in mind that since the Catholics became the majority the city of Londonderry has been more quiet and orderly than it ever was before. They have stopped the regular riots they used to have every year, and they have removed the muskets, and from my experience of the Catholics in the city of Londonderry, I do not think you will have any complaint to make of them. I notice this, too, in regard to Londonderry, that although they may call themselves Unionists and all that sort of thing, they were most anxious, and probably more anxious than Nationalists, to take advantage of every Act that Parliament had passed for the benefit of Irishmen, whether in connection with the land or otherwise. I have no doubt that if this Home Rule Bill is passed they are the people who will make use of it. They will insist on getting all they can out of it, and no doubt all the Saxon money as well. I should have been very glad if we could have come to terms with the Ulster people, but I do not see how it is possible to cut Ulster away
802
from the rest of Ireland. I do not think there is any necessity for making a bargain in any part of the United Kingdom, except in regard to the safeguards which have been mentioned by the Prime Minister. In that connection we are entitled to ask for the assistance of Parliament. Otherwise, I really cannot see what good it will do to anybody to cut out these four or five counties. Although I am sorry I cannot support my hon. Friend on this occasion, I hope I shall be always with him in support of Protestants and Protestantism in this country.
Mr. JAMES MASON: The reason for granting Home Rule has been based mainly on the suggested fact that there has been a consistent and steady demand for it from the majority of the people in Ireland. If that demand is to be used as a strong argument for granting Home Rule to the majority in Ireland, surely the fact that Ulster demands to be left out of the bargain should be granted some consideration? What is to be the position of Ulster under this arrangement? What is the objection to leaving Ulster out of the bargain? I suppose, partly, it is a geographical objection? But the principle objection really is that Ulster is the most bleedable part of the whole of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament looks forward to getting more money from the people who live in that part of Ireland than from any other. Certainly the financial proposals in this measure make it not only likely, but almost certain, that the financial legislation of the Irish Parliament will be so framed and the raising of new taxes will be so ordered, that the burden will fall principally on the manufacturing districts—that is to say, to a great extent on Ulster, and not on the rural and agricultural parts of Ireland. The second question which affects the position of Ulster is to what extent the power of this Parliament will be maintained for protecting the individuals who inhabit that part of Ireland from unfair treatment from those who inhabit the rest of Ireland. The question is whether the so-called supremacy and safeguards which you propose to introduce into this Bill are of any real value at all. It is extremely doubtful, no matter what nominal or verbal safeguards you introduce, whether you can really do anything effective short of employing force, which of course, you do not for a moment contemplate. We all know that, theoretically, we retain supremacy over the

803
Dominions of the Empire. We know that legally we can raise money and impose taxes in those Dominions; but we know equally well that practically we can do nothing of the kind, and that as for any kind of interference in their local legislation, we are as absolutely powerless as if we had no legal authority.
The question is whether this House is to have the power to maintain certain big features of administrative machinery which will tend to the safety of all the inhabitants of that country. Can this Parliament be assured that such a thing as trial by jury will be maintained in Ireland? So far as I can see, it will be competent for the Irish Parliament to do away with that method of trial and to substitute some other. I fail to see how the Imperial Parliament could interfere, short of using force, in carrying out that interference. What is to be done if Ulster is treated unfairly by the Irish Parliament? What can the Irish Parliament do to resist interference of that kind? It can do what has already been done on several occasions. The Irish Parliament can put the Lord Lieutenant in an immediate difficulty by resigning office. That has been done on previous occasions. We know that attempts were made to interfere on one occasion in the question of the trial of the Zulus in South Africa, in 1906, and that when this Parliament endeavoured to interfere, in a very reasonable and just cause, in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, public opinion in that country was so strong that this country had to climb down. There was another case in which the interference of this country in the affairs of a Dependency was shown to be equally unreal, although nominally strong; that was the question of the Newfoundland contract, in which this country endeavoured, through the Governor, to refuse the Royal Assent to a certain proposal for the sale of certain property to individuals. The question of the sale was, of course, a very improper one in that Colony. But still it was one which concerned the people of that country alone. But the Colonial Secretary was obliged to refuse to act in the way he had originally desired, on the ground that the matter contained in the proposal of that Legislature was a matter entirely of local administration, and one that affected Newfoundland alone. The point of my argument is that in all these cases which arise, and which will undoubtedly arise between Ulster and the Irish Parliament it cannot be said that
804
they are questions which are not local to Ireland and not Irish questions alone. But if that is the case, and if this Parliament here is not to interfere for the reason that these matters are purely Irish matters, all the social safeguards and offers of protection to the Protestants of Ireland as against the Irish Parliament are so much waste paper, and might as well be not introduced at all. I do not believe for a moment that, short of using force, it will ever be in the power of this House or this Parliament to interfere in the interests of a particular part of Ireland against the rest, and the sooner the House and the country realise that the so-called safeguards are, some of them, a fraud, and most of them incapable of being put into effective action, the better for all parties concerned.
Mr. COWAN: I have been particularly struck by the docility with which Members-representing constituencies in the four counties affected by the Amendment have allowed their case to be stated and argued for them by their colleagues representing English constituencies. At the same time I assume that the Ulster representatives who will take part in the Division will vote for the Amendment, and if I could be assured that they really are in favour of it, and would accept it as an entire settlement of the claim of Ulster, and, that concession being made to them, that they would thereupon facilitate the passing of the Bill into law, I should be well content to support the Amendment myself, because, although I do not attach so much importance as hon. Members opposite appear to do to the threats of armed rebellion in Ireland, some Members on this side of the House possibly unduly minimise them. I do not think it would be too great a price for us to pay to consent to the temporary—because I believe it would be purely temporary—exclusion of the four counties from the provisions of the Bill. We could thereby ensure the putting into force of this great and long-controverted measure without any danger of armed resistance on the part of any section of the people of Ireland. I had expected—and I do not think I was alone in that expectation—the Government itself to have made some proposal of this sort, and I based that expectation mainly upon the remarkable speech which many of us heard with great interest some weeks ago from the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think he indicated some intention on the part of the Government, for he

805
certainly spoke as a leading Member of the Government, to hold out an olive-branch of this sort to hon. Gentlemen representing Ulster, and I regret that the Government has not done so. But my difficulty is to know whether the settlement proposed in this Amendment would really be satisfactory to the party opposite, and particularly to hon. Gentlemen representing the four counties. I have listened very attentively to the Debate, and shall listen to the rest of it, and if I can be assured on that point I propose to cast my vote in support of the Amendment.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Gentleman says we want to hear Ulster. What we want to hear are the Nationalists of Ulster. He said there had been a striking silence on the part of Ulster. There has been a still more striking silence on the part of the leaders of the Nationlist party. They are only vocal when they interrupt. The hon. Gentleman wants to know not only the answer which Ulster would give to his question, "Would this be a final settlement?" but he wants to know the answer that the great majority of the Irish Members would give. Would it, from their point of view, be a final settlement if the Amendment were carried, or if a still larger Amendment were carried embracing the whole of Ulster? I understand the Prime Minister thought he put us on the horns of a dilemma as to how we should vote on the Amendment. I do not think there is much difficulty. I admit if I had the power to exclude anybody in Ireland from the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament, it would be rather the scattered elements of Protestant and Unionist opinion all over the South and West than the compact and strong body of opinion in the North of Ireland. But at the same time I know that if this Amendment is carried it kills the Bill. That is why I am going to vote for it. If it is carried, why stop at these four counties? Why not include the rest of Ulster? We at least know the province of Ulster. If these four counties were excluded you would exclude from the Irish Parliament something like twenty-four representatives. That would weaken the protection, no doubt, of the Protestant and Unionist minority in the rest of Ireland. If the Amendment were carried, another Amendment would be carried enlarging this Amendment to include the whole of Ulster. If that Amendment were carried and if this House were to exclude the whole of Ulster, would the Bill then be acceptable
806
to the Nationalists? Are we to have an answer to-night on an important question like this?
Mr. DEVLIN: Ask Moore.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: Now we have the view of this organiser of the United Irish League, and of other Nationalist organisations in Ireland. I asked, "Do you know anything about Ulster?" and the hon. Member replied, "Ask Mr. Moore." We do ask the representatives of Ulster who are here. That is exactly what we are doing. Hon. Members from Ulster do represent Ulster. The hon. Member does not represent Ulster. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who sold the steamboats?"] There will be enough accommodation on the boats to take hon. Members back to Ireland. After all, this is a serious question. This is the first Amendment which has been moved by any supporter of the Government. It is the first Amendment which has found support from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and therefore it is worth while giving it consideration. If Ulster is excluded from this Bill, will it be a final settlement of the Irish question? Many a man in this House, and many a voter in this country, is going to support this Bill because they believe it will be a final settlement of this eternal question. They would not vote for it on any other consideration. I think we shall hear to-night before the Debate closes that if the Amendment is carried, and an Amendment to exclude Ulster is carried, this Bill never could be carried. But if the Bill was carried with this Amendment it never could be a final settlement of the Irish question. Look at the dilemma in which the hon. Member is placed. I have no doubt as to his motive in moving this Amendment. He has to justify himself to his constituents. I do not think the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has any more intimate knowledge of the hon. Member's motive than I have.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Liberal Association in the hon. Gentleman's constituency voted against him.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: At all events, the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division will contradict me if I am wrong. He has assured his constituents that he will do everything he can to protect the Protestants in Ireland, and this is his way of showing his method of protecting them. I tell the hon. Member that if his Amendment is carried, he will do the very best thing to protect the Protestants in

807
Ireland, because he will absolutely shatter any hope of the passage of this Bill. From any point of view you look at the matter, it must have that effect. Financially the whole Bill will have to be recast if the Amendment is carried. The Prime Minister says we ought not to vote for this Amendment. Yes, we shall vote for it. We want to kill the Bill, and we shall kill it most effectually by voting for this Amendment. How is Ireland to be financed under the Bill? There is to be transferred a sum equal to the sum of money expended on Ireland during a recent period. If the Amendment is carried, you would have to except all the sums expended on these four counties. Take the new powers granted to Ireland. The Irish Parliament is to have power to levy extra taxes. If the Amendment is carried the Irish Parliament would then only have power to levy taxes in that part of Ireland included in the Bill, and not in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry. Further it is to have power to impose Customs Duties, but it would not have power to do so in those counties. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would in Londonderry."] Yes, but not in Londonderry county. The financial chaos would then be more hopeless than it is at present. Take the case of the police. In six years' time, if that Clause of the Bill be passed, the Irish Executive is to have control of the police, but Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry would all have their own police. The Dublin police might be ordered to march into these counties to meet their police. What a splendid country for a fighting man to live in! If this Amendment be carried, almost every Clause of the Bill will have to be recast. [Cheers.] Hon. Members agree with me in that. Why are we going to vote for the Amendment? It is because we know that by voting for it we will break up the Bill.
What is the real difficulty in which the Government find themselves, and in which the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Cowan) finds himself. Many a Member on the Government side of the House does in his heart believe that the Protestant minority are likely to be oppressed by the majority in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They do, and they tell you so. They believe in their hearts and consciences that Ulster men will be oppressed, and that, being in a hopeless minority, their liberties and privileges will suffer. Holding these views, hon. Gentlemen
808
opposite support an Amendment of this character because they want to do all that lies in their power to protect the minority. If that is their object, they ought to have measured all that up on the Second Reading of the Bill. That is when they ought to have given proof of their sincere interest in the minority. That was the time when they could have effectively prevented this measure from being oppressive. You cannot exempt Ulster or any part of Ulster from this Bill so long as you frame the Bill with the intention of making Ireland a nation. You might have proposed an enlarged measure of local government which might have had some support on this side of the House from Members of the party to which I belong. I speak only for myself. I thought we might have proceeded on the lines of giving more extended county administration, but it is perfectly hopeless under this measure to adopt the position of making a separate nation. Once cast your lines on the principle of making Ireland a separate nation, and there is no hope that under this Bill you can exempt Ulster or any other portion of Ireland. Therefore, so far from having any difficulty in voting for the Amendment, I rejoice that I have the opportunity of voting for it. Believing that it is not possible to advance on the lines of making Ireland a nation or federating the Empire in this way, I shall vote for this Amendment, because I believe that in so doing I take one step to defeat the Bill which I believe means disaster not only to Ireland but to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment will not be very grateful to the hon. Member who has just sat down for the support which he has extended to it. I think that Ulster's protests are so genuine and her claims so just that any proposals put forward for consideration should have our earnest thought. I think that the Ulster problem is our pons asinorum I think that the Government of a people capable of governing themselves can only be justified by the consent of that people. Ireland's complaint has always been, not that she, being Catholic, is being governed by a Protestant Government, but that she is governed without her consent. It is a genuine protest. It is a protest that has always been considered as valid among nations. But you are going to perpetuate that very evil if this Bill passes, because you are going to govern Ulster without her consent. Ireland has

809
been a thorn in Britain's side. If this Bill passes Ulster will be a thorn in Ireland's side. Therefore we are justified in considering any project for giving Ulster special treatment; and if we can get over that difficulty all the arguments against Home Rule for Ireland fall to the ground. We have been for many years granting self-government to our Dominions, but we have been giving it upon their own unanimous request.
Mr. JOHN WARD: What about Natal?
10.0 P.M.
Dr. CHAPPLE: Natal came in. We have never had an instance in which there have been two sections of the people, one demanding self-government and the other rejecting it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Canada."] It is not true of Canada. Here we have an instance in which a large compact section of the community—a million in number—of different antecedents, different religion, and different commercial connections; a wealthy section, differing from the rest of the community which is poor, and therefore dreading that their riches may be taken advantage of; a geographically isolated community, and a people as distinct from the others in antecedents and history, and conditions as from any other section of the United Kingdom. Therefore I say if she makes a demand, a genuine demand for special treatment and consideration, we ought to give it our earnest support. Now we are told that this Bill is only an initial step towards a general scheme of devolution, and that several Home Rule Bills are to come before us in succession. If that is so, Ulster could get special treatment in quite a different way, for if provision were made by which Protestant Ulster, after Home Rule were granted to Ireland and Scotland, could have a Boundary Commission set up so that she would be separated from the rest of Ireland and by a referendum of her people could determine to send her representatives to Edinburgh instead of to Dublin, it would provide a way of escape. I am anxious that Ulster should not be governed against her consent. I am anxious that the present state of affairs should not continue; and that if, after Home Rule is granted Ulster's fears are realised, and that she still thinks that she is going to be unduly taxed, or going to be persecuted because of her religion, she should have some way of escape. I am not in favour of this Amendment. I am opposing it on the
810
ground that it is not the best solution of the difficulty. For if Home Rule is granted to Ireland with Ulster included in the Bill, and provision is made for her subsequent escape on a referendum of her people in order that she may be governed from Edinburgh when Home Rule is granted to Scotland and if both countries agree, then I maintain that Ulster has no reason whatever to complain. She need not take advantage of that provision unless she likes. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland?"] Scotland may not consent. I feel satisfied that unless the Ulster difficulty is settled Home Rule for Ireland is impossible. I am opposing this Amendment because I am looking forward to a better solution.
Lord HUGH CECIL: What solution?
Dr. CHAPPLE: The solution which I mentioned. A federal system, under which we will grant Home Rule for Scotland, England, and Wales with an option to Ulster. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It would be hurried up if Ulster were being persecuted, and we would get Home Rule for Scotland and the other Kingdoms much sooner. There is no difficulty whatever in dividing up your territory and in adjusting your boundaries. It has been accomplished in other countries, and the only objection here is the objection of a narrow strip of water between Belfast and Glasgow. The separate treatment which Ulster should have should be the option to separate after Home Rule is granted to Ireland and to Scotland, and provision should be made in the Bill for that separate treatment, so that Ulster should be enabled to send her representatives to Edinburgh.
Mr. BALFOUR: I should not have intervened to-night, but have reserved myself for Thursday, only unfortunately I have to be away fulfilling an engagement then, and I have therefore intervened before my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, who will take part in this Debate, and deal with this question from the Ulster point of view. I propose to deal with it simply as an ordinary Member of the Unionist party, looking at it from the Unionist point of view. I understand that the Prime Minister, in a speech made earlier in the evening, at a moment when the House was necessarily empty and I was not present, said that the objection to this Amendment was that if it was carried the Protestant minority in parts of Ireland outside of Ulster would be left

811
without the protection which Ulster would give. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the Prime Minister in what I gathered was his argument. That argument is one of those which I propose to meet. So far as I am concerned, never shall it be said that I, at all events, was ready to weaken their position or to desert the minority in the rest of Ireland. My own view, as the House knows, of this Bill is that every Irishman, whatever his religion may be, and to whatever section of the population he may belong, should certainly desire to relieve every Irishman who thinks as I think to-day, and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway know as well as I do there are scattered through other provinces in Ireland a minority, in some cases important, in some numerically unimportant, who cherish, dislike, and fear this Bill, and who are assured that its consequences will be evil to the Empire and evil to Ireland as any other Member of the Unionist party. If I thought by voting for this Amendment, as I mean to do, I am doing anything of which they have the smallest right to complain, I should certainly hesitate to do it. Their position is quite different from that of the North-East of Ireland. In Ulster there is a homogeneous, relatively homogeneous, population, in which the majority are entirely of one way of thinking. I do not say that there is not a minority, but the great majority are of the one way of thinking. Those we can protect, those we can withdraw, from the effects of this Bill by accepting the Amendment now before the Committee.
Nothing can relieve Unionists in the rest of Ireland except the defeat of the measure as a whole. We are not dealing, and we cannot deal in Committee, with the measure as a whole. We are precluded from the very nature of the stage in which we are engaged and at which we have arrived from attempting to defeat the Bill as a whole. We attempted to do so on the First Reading and on the Second Reading, and we shall attempt it on the Third Reading. In the meanwhile our duty and our only duty is to make the Bill as little intolerable as it can be made, and to relieve as large a portion of the population as we can relieve in Ireland from the burdens which, in our opinion, would inevitably be thrown upon them. Therefore, the Prime Minister had no right whatever to suggest that this was desertion of the Unionists in other parts of Ireland out-
812
side Ulster. What was the argument of the Prime Minister, and what does it come to? It comes to this, that the protection of Ulster, as the Bill is, is to hand over the minority to the rest of Ireland, to the repressive action of the Parliament which it is proposed to create. Now we know what the value of the safeguards is, with out the organised forces of Ulster, at any rate under the so-called provisions of this Bill, for protecting the minority in Ireland, are, in the opinion of the Prime Minister himself, of the most dubious character.
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman was not here when I spoke. I said the exact contrary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My argument was based on the assumption of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the loyalist minority in every part of Ireland would be handed over to the persecution of the rest. That was the assumption, and I said I believed it to be entirely unfounded.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying I was not present when he addressed the Committee, but it appears that his argument was argumentum ad hominem, and had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the case. His argument was an argument against the Amendment, and it was an argument which was not intended to persuade the great body of the House that anything at all would be gained either for the minority outside Ulster or in Ulster itself by accepting the Amendment now before the House. That leaves us rather at sea as to what is the real argument for rejecting the hon. Member's Amendment. Is it not a very remarkable fact that so far no Irishman from—
Mr. DEVLIN: Ulster.
Mr. BALFOUR: From the West and South of Ireland have explained exactly what their position is as to this Amendment. I have always understood that the Irish view of Home Rule was that British legislation, and legislation in this House, was unsuited to Ireland; that the laws passed in this House for Ireland had been deleterious in their effect, and that if you look at the history of Ireland from the time of the Union down to the end, at all events, of the nineteenth century, the whole course of Irish history proves how unfitted this House was to deal with Irish problems, and over and over again, almost ad nauseam, we have had the great and

813
unhappy relations between landlord and tenant, all the agrarian and social difficulties which we know too well—we have had them trotted out in this House and on the platform as conclusive proof that this House was not really competent to deal with Irish questions, and that Irish questions must consequently be handed over to an Irish Parliament. That is really the sum and substance of the great body of argument from the time of Mr. Butt downwards, and of all the eminent men, Gladstone, Parnell, and the whole succession of Home Rulers that have addressed this House. The reason I appeal to the Irish Members below the Gangway to make their statement on this subject to the House, is that I want to know how far they think those arguments really apply to Ulster. Ulster does not think that this House is incapable of legislating for Ireland. Ulster looks back on the course of legislation in the last 100 years, and finds no cause of complaint or quarrel with representatives of all parts of the United Kingdom dealing with Irish questions as they think fit, but after this long experience they welcome it and adhere to it.
Neither I suppose will any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway assert that whatever the effects on the rest of Ireland British legislation may have inflicted—on Munster, Connaught, and Leinster—none of them will pretend that the economic condition of Ulster has been other than satisfactory, does otherwise than reflect credit both on their own enterprise and industry, and also upon the laws under which they have lived and flourished for all those years. Then, it seems, according to the Nationalist critics below the Gangway, that Home Rule is to be accepted because this House is incapable of legislating, not for Ireland but for the other three provinces of Ireland; or, to be more accurate, that part of Ireland which is outside the north-east corner. They say we are incapable of legislating for them, and on what grounds do they come down and say they are capable of legislating for Ulster? They say that we have not got that sympathetic insight into Irish needs and Irish feelings. And I quite admit—I do not wish to put the claims of this Parliament too high—we may have failed in both those great problems of the past, but we have not failed as regards Ulster.
They come down, and promise to succeed as regards Ulster. What claims have
814
they to take up that position that they are capable of understanding Ulster? If we, not through want of good will, but through want of ready appreciation of their point of view, have, it may be often and it may be seldom, failed to deal with Irish problems as Irishmen would wish them dealt with, what claim have they to say that they are able to do for Ulster what we have failed to do for them? We have done it for Ulster. Ulster is content, Ulster is wealthy, Ulster is prosperous. You claim for yourselves that knowledge of and sympathy with the North-East of Ireland which you assert we lack in your case, and if you do make that claim, which, as it seems to me, is a most extravagant claim, surely you ought to get up in this House and justify it to Ulster and justify it to those who have hitherto legislated for Ulster. The Prime Minister, in one of the speeches made at an earlier stage on the proceedings on this Bill, really rested his case in the main upon the reiteration of Irish demands time after time during the last thirty or forty years since Mr. Butt, and Mr. Parnell, and Mr. Gladstone introduced the modern phase of this question. That persistence and that continued demand is, I agree, a fact which it is impossible to forget, impossible to ignore, impossible to overrate, and which we have to take into account, and which I personally have always taken into account in trying to form a judgment upon this perennial controversy. Has the Prime Minister ever thought of Ulster's persistence? Is it only the persistence of Leinster and Munster and Connaught which is to be taken into account when you are dealing with the reconstitution of these Kingdoms? The determination of Ulster has not been merely persistent; it has been growing. I am one of the few Members of this House who remember all three Home Rule Bills. In 1886 Ulster expressed quite clearly its dislike of the measure. The dislike of 1886 had grown to detestation by 1893, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, unless all the information that reaches me upon this subject is utterly erroneous, the detestation of 1893 has grown into incalculable loathing.
Ulster has had this question before it all these years. The most industrially advanced and the wealthiest part of the whole community in Ireland has given its attention, irrespective of class, to this problem ever since Mr. Gladstone in 1886 brought in the first Home Rule Bill. Every consideration and every reconsideration

815
has increased the horror with which it views this proposal. Is the Prime Minister's argument to be wiped out when you deal with the North-East corner of Ireland? Are the wishes of the people there to be ignored? I do not know whether many Members now present heard the speech delivered earlier in the evening by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He pointed out in a manner which I believe to be unanswerable, and which at any rate so far has not been answered, that every single argument yet brought forward in favour of Home Rule for Ireland can be used with redoubled force when you are dealing, not with the relation of Ireland to Great Britain, but with the relation of Ulster to the rest of Ireland. Until you answer that argument, until somebody gets up and tries to answer it—because no one has yet tried to do so—do you think that this House ought to come to a decision adverse to a million of your fellow subjects, not the least worthy of your consideration, who appeal to you and ask that they shall not be extruded from the system in which you have for more than a century included them and of which they regard themselves as an integral part?
As my last argument on this occasion, I may point out that the fact that you call this the beginning of a federal measure takes away the last possible argument against the adoption of some plan of this kind. If this was in the minds of the authors of the Bill simply and solely an attempt to give to a nation its own self government, quite irrespective of the rest of the United Kingdom, I should not agree with them, but I should think they were not in the absolutely illogical position which surely they are in now. But that is not the argument with which they come down to the House. They come down and say that the United Kingdom should be a federal system on the American, or the Canadian, or the Australian type— not on the South African type, but, at all events, one of the other patterns of federal government, of which no doubt there are plenty of examples. If that is the way you are going to cut up the United Kingdom, I say that you are driven by irresistible logic to make your divisions fit in with the wishes and desires of the population. If it were a fact that the Unionist minority in Ireland were scattered evenly over the whole of the country, I agree that the federal argument
816
would not come in. But it is not scattered equally over the whole of the country. On the contrary, Ulster has a far better claim to separate treatment than Wales. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Why? because, amongst other reasons, there is no suggestion under the existing system, or if Wales were under a federal system made part of England, that Wales would be part of a country from which it feels perfectly alien, and which has dealt with it under a system which, from the religious or any other point of view, is really unfitted for that country. I do not at all desire to minimise the importance of Welsh nationality, but Wales has never as a unit felt oppressed, in any deep sense, by its immemorial conjunction with England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] I suppose that is some Welsh Member who is expressing dissent. Let me assure him that, personally, I am one who greatly values these subordinate and local patriotisms so long as they are compatible with higher unity.
But I repeat that if we are to look at the fundamentals of the situation, the feelings of the population, their passions, their prejudices, their history, that Ulster has a better title to separate treatment even than Wales. Do not you think we ought now to hear at least the beginning of an argument on your own principles for not accepting this Amendment? We have ventured to show to you to the best of our ability that by every principle that you have laid down this Amendment should be accepted. Not one individual, be he Member of the Government Bench, be he supporter of the Government on that side of the House, be he Nationalist, has got up to explain why it is that on certain principles he is a Home Ruler, and that on the same principles he insists that this reluctant and most illused portion of Ireland should be compelled to submit to the new Constitution which you mean to drive through this House by your majority—irrespective of the feelings of the people of this country—and whom you apparently gladly make the victims—this loyal minority—I mean loyal to every tradition of the British Empire—you sacrifice them on the altar of a cause, when by all these vogues, by every one of these admitted principles, you ought to exempt them from the oppressive scheme that you mean to cram down their throats. I cannot believe that any Member who is going to vote against this Amendment thinks in his

817
heart that his constituents agree with him. I do not believe there is a single man who would go round the country whatever the complexion of his own feelings might be, and explain exactly the feelings of Ulster, the history of Ulster, and the broad argument on which he proposed to rest the beginning of your new federal Empire. In so far as we are to have federalism, in so far as we are to give up the unity of the United Kingdom, let us, at all events, carry out federalism logically and justly, and let us give that provincial self-government to a community which, above all others, has shown by its enterprise, by its power of dealing with modern conditions, and by its fine qualities of citizenship, is deserving the honour and the privilege which you propose to give to all Ireland, and which by giving to all Ireland and excluding Ulster you deprive Ulster of in the most complete fashion that can be imagined.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon),who rose amid cries of "Russell, Russell": The right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the Committee an argument and was cheered in his request that that argument should be given an answer. I am sure that such argument as I can put forward in reply should be put forward in conditions that are considered fair. I want to deal at once with what I consider to be the central position presented by the right hon. Gentleman. He put this case. He asked, "How do you justify the proposal by which you treat Ireland as an entity suitable for a separate Legislature and a separate Executive, and, at the same time, why is it that you do not admit that this principle of sub-division goes further?" and he submitted, as he contended, that the arguments which we urge in order to justify the separate treatment of Ireland are arguments, if we are consistent, which ought to justify the separate treatment of Ulster. I note in passing what is, I think, not without its significance, that when the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends say Ulster they mean the four counties included in the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I have listened to the argument, which certainly has been most closely reasoned, and I failed to detect throughout the whole of it the slightest distinction which the right hon. Gentleman wished to draw between the case of these four counties to which he and his Friends are prepared to give separate treatment and the nine
818
counties which compose the province of Ulster.
Let me meet at once, as I think can be met, the main contention the right hon. Gentleman put forward. He says here you are contending upon your own principles that Ireland as a whole should be treated separately in respect of Legislature and Executive, and he says surely that argument upon your own assumption ought to suffice to segregate Ulster, greater or smaller. Let me submit to the right hon. Gentleman what, at any rate, is intended as an argument and an argument that carries conviction to us. What is the fact recognised by our Statute Book and by the daily conduct of legislation in the, House? It is this, that though we up to this moment have a single Parliament dealing with the different parts of the United Kingdom, we do in fact for a great part of our time in every Session assume for the nonce the character of a Home Rule Parliament for some portion of the United Kingdom. There is not a Session that passes but we put on our Statute Book Statutes which apply to Scotland and do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom; Statutes which apply to England and do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom; Statutes which apply to Ireland or to Wales and do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom—
Lord HUGH CECIL: Statutes which apply to London also?
Sir J. SIMON: I assure the Noble Lord I am not embarrassed by his interruption, but allow me to put my point. When we do that, and every time we do it we admit in point of fact that Ireland is an entity which from the public legislation point of view has got constantly to be dealt with. We do that so constantly and in matters so important that we conceive we are justified in saying that the daily practice of this Imperial House of Commons is in itself a justification for recognising that Ireland requires separate treatment in legislation. Now I put this point, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am dealing with the argument he put. Although that must be admitted by any man who studies our Statute Book fairly, can anybody suggest it is our practice, and that we do find it necessary to pass Statutes which apply to Ulster and which do not apply to the rest of Ireland? Can anybody suggest that we find it necessary to put upon the

819
Statute Book public Acts of Parliament which apply to these four selected counties? It is not so in fact. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Wales?"] I agree that Wales does show, as Ireland shows, a case for separate legislative treatment. I do not dispute, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has much too clear a conception of logic to wish me to dispute, that there may not be cases when dealing with smaller areas, but the extent to which we deal with these separate portions by separate legislation, and concede in our daily practice that we are not legislating for the whole of the United Kingdom, but for Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, that fact alone is enough to show that although this Parliament has hitherto proclaimed that it will not have this separation of legislatures this separation of legislation is accepted. But legislation is not the whole work of Government. There is the Executive. Is there any Unionist in this House who contends that the administration of Ireland should be a portion of the administration of Great Britain? [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly."] Does anybody suggest that the English Home Secretary is to be responsible for the internal affairs of Ireland? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO" and "Try again."] I am sure if I try again I shall have a patient hearing from hon. Gentlemen opposite. That fact must be palpable to any man who considers the circumstances. It is not suggested by any hon. Gentleman opposite who has been Chief Secretary for Ireland that in practice and in fact the administration of Ireland is the administration of a country which for that purpose is merely part of the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wales."] Well, Ireland is the case we are dealing with now; I am putting what I conceive to be a serious argument. In point of fact, every Unionist in this House every Session that he sits here admits day by day and week by week that the work of legislation in Ireland and the work of administration in Ireland must in fact be separate from a great part of the legislation and administration of the United Kingdom. Who suggests, except, indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson), that there should be a separate administration for a certain part of Ulster? Who has ever in our experience thought that the natural and proper sub-division of areas is to deal with Ulster as a separate area for the purposes of legislation and administration? Nobody has ever suggested it. It
820
does not, in fact, correspond to the experience we have all had in this matter. That is the first answer, and it deserves to be considered an answer, to what the right hon. Gentleman has been putting.
Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Gentleman challenges me as to whether I would have a separate Executive for Ulster, of course, as I do not like the federal system I would not; but, if we are to have the federal system, then I would.
Sir J. SIMON: I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman, in supporting the Amendment, is merely supporting it because he thinks it is a wrecking Amendment. The argument I was endeavouring to put, under certain difficulties, does not depend the least in the world on the opinions, or the preferences, or the choice of a given right hon. Gentleman opposite. It depends upon the known facts and experience of the British House of Commons. I would point out that by our experience in the past we do recognise that Ireland is an entity for legislation and administration, and we do not recognise that Ulster or any part of Ulster is. Now let me come to another way in which this argument is put, and which finds great favour with hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are very fond of talking of the two nations. The island of Ireland is said to consist of two nations, one of which is to be provided for in this Amendment, and the other of which is to be left behind. I entirely dispute that classification has the slightest correspondence to facts, and I put this as a very simple and convenient test. If, indeed, Ireland does consist of those two nations, one of which is found within this area and the other of which is outside of it, to which of those two nations does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) belong? I am not desiring to make a merely trifling point. It represents in the view of some of us—and we are as serious about this as hon. Gentlemen opposite—a real truth.
Sir E. CARSON: I shall tell the hon. and learned Gentleman my pedigree when I speak.
Sir J. SIMON: It represents in our view and in the view of many Members of the House of Commons a real fact, namely, that we see far more resemblance between different Irishmen in this House than they appear to see among themselves. I think if we scratched the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy) and

821
got a little below his skin we should see there are great points of resemblance between him and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who sits immediately opposite me (Sir E. Carson). We think Irishmen look on these problems in a very different way to ourselves. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the time when he proposes to take part in this Debate. I am sure I express the opinion of everybody when I say that, while we were all interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, the most interesting point in this Debate is to be found in connection with the people who have not spoken. I can quite understand a certain hesitation on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak, for we have been told that Home Rule is a thing which may shipwreck the position of the loyalists in Ireland; they feel a little hesitation in taking to their boats when they are leaving the most defenceless part of their body behind them.
Sir E. CARSON: Why defenceless?
The CHAIRMAN: I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was listened to with great patience. He asked for a reply to certain questions, and I hope he will be listened to with equal patience.
Captain CRAIG: No insult.
Sir J. SIMON: There is no intention of insulting. I was only replying to an observation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
Sir E. CARSON: The only observation I made across the Table was, "Why defenceless?"
Sir J. SIMON: What I was stating was that there is an assumption on the part of the Unionists in Ireland that Home Rule is going to make loyalism shipwreck. That is not our view. There was a great and, no doubt, a most striking demonstration in Belfast, and in the course of it the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated a possible plan by which Ulster might take her cause into her own hands. What happened? Immediately afterwards the right hon. Gentleman went to another demonstration in Dublin. I am sure I would never think of insinuating that the people at the Dublin meeting came from Belfast. I prefer to assume that the people at that meeting were Unionists of Dublin and from the South and West of Ireland, and the right hon. and learned
822
Gentleman assured them that there was not the least idea of abandoning them; they need not fear that Ulster would take any step to completely separate herself from the rest of Ireland.
Sir E. CARSON: Allow me to say that I also added that Ulster never would accept Home Rule.
Sir J. SIMON: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman said that. I do not think he is in the habit of contradicting himself in that regard. He has often said so. But that has nothing to do with my particular point. My particular point is that he assured the Unionists of Dublin, and of the south and west—and I think they will read with interest this Debate— that, whatever happened, Ulster would never think of deserting them. Now that is all over, the Ulster Unionist Members propose to vote for an Amendment which, if it has any effect at all, is going to take away the four counties where they are strongest, and leave the rest inside. Let me just point out, if I may, the way in which the Ulster claim presents itself to the mind of an English Liberal. Putting aside for the moment accusations of evil motive or accusations of stupidity, this is how it presents itself to the minds of men such as myself. They appeal to us to have regard to the arguments they put forward because they say that Protestantism is in danger, and because they say their liberty is in danger.
Mr. MOORE: So it is.
Sir J. SIMON: Do they really suppose that English Liberals and English Nonconformists are likely to turn a deaf ear to a claim of that sort? [Interruption.] I hope they do not think that English Liberals and English Nonconformists are likely to turn a deaf ear to them?
Mr. HORNER: What about the "British Weekly"?
The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. Members to listen to the Solicitor-General.
Lord HUGH CECIL: He put a question.
Sir J. SIMON: I will do my best to avoid putting it into interrogative form. I say they make that appeal to us, and we are entitled to say, on our side, if an argument is presented to us in the name of liberty and Protestantism, which must appeal to our very hearts, that the difficulty in which we find ourselves is this.

823
These Gentlemen, it is quite true, have extremely strong feelings. They sometimes use extremely strong language. But what we require is strong arguments. I find myself in this difficulty. I find, all over the world, that an increase of local responsibility, an increase of individual responsibility, has not been ill for those causes which Protestantism has promoted. I find that wherever that solution has been tried that result has followed. An hon. Gentleman sitting behind me said, not very accurately, that in the past where local government had been granted, it had been granted where the demand had been unanimous. Had he never heard of the loyalists of Canada? It was in spite of those protests—
Sir GILBERT PARKER: What year?
Sir J. SIMON: Has he never heard, does he not recollect how in the case of self-government being granted to the Transvaal there were those who called themselves loyalists who refused the benefit? The real truth is that there is no case in which there has been a privileged minority who have not been content with equal rights, and who have not, very naturally from their point of view, believed and insisted that the change which was about to be made—
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: There was no religious difficulty in South Africa.
Sir J. SIMON: I submit to the Committee and to some of my hon. Friends on this side who have shown some friendly interest in this Amendment, that it is perfectly plain at this moment that it is proposed to be supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, not because they believe in it—
Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. Has any Member of the House a right to impute motives to other Members?
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said that he was going to vote for the Amendment.
Sir J. SIMON: There are many on that side who for reasons best known to themselves—and they know quite well that I am making no imputation of motives against them—propose to vote for the Amendment, not because they believe in it, not because they think it makes the Bill better, but because it destroys the Bill,
824
and that being so, I ask hon. Gentlemen on this side who are sincere in their desire to see the policy of Home Rule carried out, to think twice before they join in a plan which is being exploited by hon. Gentlemen opposite in order that they may defeat the Bill. I ask them am I not right in my impression that the Order Paper some days ago contained substantially this Amendment down in the name of a Member of the Opposition, and I ask whether I am not right in my inference that it was not an accident that it was withdrawn from the Order Paper? If that is the case, I call on those who sincerely desire to apply the principle of self-government to Ireland to see that it is not defeated.
Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next (13th instant).
Adjourned at Three minutes after Eleven o'clock