HC Deb 11 June 1912 vol 39 cc704-44

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 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 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.

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.

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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)
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), 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 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.]