§ (1) There shall be an Irish Exchequer and an Irish Consolidated Fund separate from those of the United Kingdom.
§ (2) The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland, whether under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Irish Parliament, shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, but subject, as hereinafter provided, there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof in each year to the Irish Exchequer a sum (in this Act referred to as "the Transferred Sum") consisting of—
- (a) such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board) to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services; and
- (b) a sum of five hundred thousand pounds, diminishing in each year
528 after the third year of payment by the sum of fifty thousand pounds until it is reduced to the sum of two hundred thousand pounds; and - (c) a sum equal to the proceeds as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board of any Irish taxes imposed in Ireland by the Irish Parliament under the powers given to them by this Act.
§ (3) Provision shall be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost of Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any Grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament, of the United Kingdom so far as made for those services shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund.
§ The CHAIRMANI think it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I point out that owing to the restricted form of the Resolution passed by the House a number of Amendments on the Paper would be outside the powers of this Committee. The Amendments I refer to are one in the name of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), one in the name of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien), one in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott), one in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor), and two in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell). The Amendments which I propose to take are, first, one in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) [Sub-section (2), after the word "taxes," to insert the words "and all other revenues"]; secondly, the one in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) [Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "consisting," and to insert the words "which, subject to the following deductions—
shall consist"]; and one in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Hewins).
- (i.) the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services; and
- (ii.) a contribution of one-thirtieth to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland thereto—
§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, that in Sub-section (2), after the word "taxes" ["The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland"], to insert the words "and all other revenues."
There are two consequent Amendments, one adding the words "or raised" after the word "levied," in the same line, and the second adding an extra paragraph to this effect—
(b) a sum equal to the proceeds of all revenue other than taxes raised in Ireland; and.
I feel that the Government ought to welcome any possible safeguard which can be put into the Bill, and that they ought also to do their best to stop any possible gap or loophole in the financial provisions which possibly might add some unforeseen burden upon British taxpayers in the future. I submit that this is a very reasonable and a very moderate Amendment. The Government have actually drafted their Bill so as to allow for the proceeds of taxes only to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer, but in the White Paper which accompanied the publication of the Home Rule Bill the Treasury Estimate allows for items which really are not taxes at all. For instance, they estimate £112,000 for miscellaneous revenue, and this sum includes £81,000 for stamps collected by the Irish Post Office and £31,000 for other items of revenue, which certainly cannot be considered as taxes at all, and which therefore would remain in the Imperial Exchequer under the Bill, although they are due to the Irish Exchequer under the Government's own scheme. The latter sum of £31,000 includes £29,000 for the expenses of administration of local loans, £500 for old age pensions—I do not know exactly what it means—£500 for sundry small items, and another item of £1,000. Therefore, really this omission from the Bill makes some such Amendment as this really reasonable and necessary if the Government want to carry out their intentions under the scheme they put before Parliament. But there is really a more important point than this. If this Amendment is accepted by the Government, the effect would be that all future Irish revenues, of whatever kind, whether raised by taxation or otherwise, would be paid into the Imperial Exchequer. If this is done, the revenues from the Post Office would, therefore, pass into the Imperial Exchequer also, and the whole payment of the cost of the Post Office would be included in the Transferred Sum. As the Clause stands it is not at all clear how 530 much is going to pass over to the Irish Exchequer in the Transferred Sum in respect of Post Office expenditure. In fact, it seems to me that unless this Amendment is accepted, the Irish Exchequer might collect the whole of the Post Office revenue in Ireland and yet receive the whole cost of the Post Office expenditure in Ireland in the Transferred Sum as well. This cannot possibly be the intention of the Government. In fact, I am certain it is not. In the financial statement which accompanies the Bill it appears that the Post Office in Ireland costs about £1,600,000 a year and the revenue is only £1,354,000, thus leaving a deficit in the expenditure of £246,000. Presumably the Government will say that they intend to include in the Transferred Sum an amount equal only to this deficit, thus enabling the Irish Government to balance Post Office expenditure and Post Office revenue, but by a later provision in the Clause a sum equal to the net cost of Irish services is to be handed over to the Irish Exchequer. It is quite clear that if the net cost is interpreted as the total cost the Transferred Sum would include not merely the postal deficit of £246,000, but it would be increased by a sum equal to the whole cost of the Post Office in Ireland, amounting to an extra £1,600,000, thus raising the Transferred Sum by an enormous amount. The Government cannot possibly intend that that really should be the case under their Bill. Any way, I do not think any doubt ought to be left in the matter, especially when immense annual sums are concerned and especially seeing that in the future there will be forty-two representatives from Ireland in this House to interpret the various Clauses of the Government of Ireland Act.
4.0 P.M.
There is another point which I think is more important than either of the other two. Under the Bill the Irish Parliament may reduce Imperial taxes and, if the proceeds diminish in consequence, the Transferred Sum is to be reduced by a like amount. The Government apparently think that that provision will safeguard the interests of the Imperial Exchequer. I am not at all sure that it will. The more the Transferred Sum is reduced the less security will there be for all the various contingent charges upon it under the provisions of the Bill, and these charges after all are extremely important. In addition to any reduction which is to be made in the Transferred Sum, supposing the Irish Parliament choose to reduce the Imperial tax, you have the whole of the charges on 531 the Transferred Sum in respect of land purchase falling upon the Imperial Exchequer and the Guarantee Fund. You have all the expenses connected with the service and management of loans. You have all the expenses in connection with pensions and with existing Civil Servants, and you have all the expenses in connection with any possible loss on the Irish Church Fund and various other contingent charges to which the Transferred Sum may be liable. The Government may say that there is no chance of the Irish Parliament materially reducing Imperial taxation, because the Irish Exchequer would suffer by the diminished sum. But it is quite conceivable that the Irish Parliament might be able to find a quid pro quo for that reduction of the Transferred Sum if they choose, as they can quite well under the Bill reduce Imperial taxation to any extent, and if they did take this step Imperial revenues from Ireland might very largely disappear altogether. For instance, the Irish Parliament might raise money—in fact they could raise money—under the Bill which might never pass into the Imperial Exchequer at all, and if that was the case these sums of money would escape the burdens of having to act as a security for the contingent charges to which the Transferred Sum is now liable. For instance, all kinds of monopolies might be created by the Irish Parliament—a subject which the Government were very careful to guillotine and not allow the House to discuss when Clause 2 was under discussion, and which certainly in the last two days they absolutely failed to deal with satisfactorily. Other countries have set up monopolies. In France you have the tobacco monopoly, as well as the match monopoly. In Turkey you have the tobacco monopoly. In Germany you have the potato spirit monopoly, and, as the Postmaster-General pointed out the other day, you have also in that country the forests monopoly, which brings in about £20,000,000 sterling a year. In Germany they have also State railways which are another very important monopoly. In fact no less than 30 per cent. of the railways of the world are owned by the different Governments, as an expert pointed out the other day in a letter to the "Times." Last, but not least, the United States of America are going to have a great canal monopoly, and it seems to me that in Ireland it would be equally easy 532 to set up monopolies. Monopolies might be set up for the sale of spirits, matches, tobacco, and various other products. These products have been extremely productive of revenue in other countries, and I do not see why they should not be made equally productive in Ireland, if established. As in Turkey they could arrange one price for internal consumption and another for export, and if they did not do that, they could make other arrangements under which revenue would be derived. If still further revenue was required the railways might be nationalised and run for the purpose of providing a very large revenue to the Irish Exchequer. Waterways and harbours might be treated in the same way. Harbour dues might go into the Irish Exchequer in exactly the same way as canal dues will probably go into the Exchequer of the United States in future.
It is quite clear that if such a course is taken in Ireland the Irish Government could starve the Imperial Exchequer by reducing Imperial taxation, and at the same time supply the loss on the Transferred Sum through these other sources. By doing so they could diminish the security for the various charges on the Transferred Sum to practically any extent they liked. Therefore, I do feel on these grounds that it is enormously important that all Irish revenues should flow into the Imperial Exchequer, whether tax revenues or non-tax revenues. After all there is nothing in the least revolutionary in the Amendment. At present the whole of the revenues go into the Imperial Exchequer, and this Amendment asks that the same procedure should be followed in future as has been followed in the past. Under the Bill new Irish taxes have to be paid into, the Imperial Exchequer, and so I really cannot see that Ireland would have any valid objection to the other revenues going into the same locker, especially as a consequential Amendment has been carefully put down in respect of the same Clause providing that these revenues after going to the Imperial Exchequer should be paid out again to the Irish Exchequer. It seems to me it would add very little work to the Imperial Exchequer, and that it would give very little administrative difficulty to the Irish Government. It would be merely a matter of bock-keeping from start to finish, and therefore I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)The hon. Member has moved the Amendment in terms so moderate and enticing that it is a matter of regret to me that I am unable to accept it. The Bill as it stands provides that the tax revenue of Ireland shall flow into the Imperial Exchequer, but that so much of the revenue of Ireland as is not derived from taxes—that is to say, in the main the Post Office revenue, and the revenue from such things as Court fees—should not first go into the Imperial Exchequer and be paid out again, but should be collected by the Irish Government itself and should remain in their hands. I do not think the hon. Member has in any degree succeeded in showing that there is any reason for the additional complication which would occur by requiring that all the revenues should be brought into the Imperial Exchequer and paid out again. Of course, if the hon. Member were to advance the argument that it is inadvisable that the Post Office should be in the hands of the Irish Government at all, that is an arguable matter which has been discussed on several occasions; but that point does not arise on this occasion, and the question is, assuming that the arrangements under the Bill will be as proposed by the Government, and, assuming that the Post Office for internal purposes will be in the hands of the Irish Government, whether it is advisable that the drawings of the Irish Post Office should be paid into the Imperial Exchequer and paid out again into the Irish Exchequer. The hon. Member suggests that there would be some danger of the Irish Government finding new sources of revenue other than from taxes, and that they might get a considerable independent income of their own which would make them independent of the Transferred Sum, and which would enable them to repeal Imperial taxes to such an extent as to greatly diminish the Transferred Sum. Is that really a conceivable hypothesis?
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI said it would diminish the security.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELYou can only diminish the security by diminishing the sum itself. So long as the sum remains, the security remains. It is the sum that is the security. The hon. Member gave some illustrations as to the creation of monopolies. He mentioned the possibility of getting revenue from canals. The total revenue of the Irish Government is estimated at £7,500,000, and of that the Post Office revenue is £1,300,000, 534 which is already allowed for. Fee stamps amount to £300,000 and they are already allowed for. The Transferred Sum is over £6,000,000. Does the hon. Member really ask the Committee seriously to imagine that the Irish Government once in office would replace that £6,000,000 of revenue, or any appreciable proportion of it, by such devices as those he has mentioned, and diminish the amount to be paid over to them from the Imperial Exchequer to such an extent as to render the Transferred Sum no longer adequate security for the payment of the pensions of judges, and possible purchases under the Land Purchase Act? Surely the hypothesis is altogether inconceivable. The hon. Member has further suggested that the Bill as it stands might bear an interpretation which would enable the Irish Exchequer to receive in the Transferred Sum all the cost of running the Irish Post Office, and also as non-tax revenue the revenue of that Post Office—that it would be receiving from the Imperial Exchequer all the outgoings on the Post Office in Ireland, while at the same time it was receiving all the income of that Post Office, and therefore making a profit of about £1,500,000 a year. That is, of course, equally impossible, for the Bill clearly says that the amount to be embodied in the Transferred Sum is to depend upon the net cost, and not upon the gross cost, of the services transferred to the Irish Government. That is inserted specially to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding on this point. If we had said merely the cost, it might have been said that we were to pay over the whole of the Post Office expenditure, which is £1,600,000. Instead of that we are to pay £250,000, to enable their accounts to balance on that head of administration. I think those are the only arguments which the hon. Member has really advanced.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONWill the right hon. Gentleman deal with miscellaneous revenue which is not tax revenue?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIf the miscellaneous revenue consists of Appropriations in-Aid, which arises from such things as Court fees and any incidental small heads of income that come from the administration of any Irish service, they go automatically into the Irish Exchequer. That would be a very small amount. I do not remember any items at the moment, but there may possibly be some. Anything 535 else would automatically fall into the Imperial Exchequer, and it would not require special legislation. I do not think any modification of the Bill is required to meet any particular point. If the hon. Member has any particular head of revenue—
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI mentioned some.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI was not able to detect in his speech any head of revenue which would not automatically and as a matter of course fall into the Imperial Exchequer. If it would fall into the Imperial Exchequer as a matter of course, it is unnecessary that the Bill should provide specifically for that.
§ Earl WINTERTONAs I gathered the point of the right hon. Gentleman in referring to sources of revenue which might be created under the Irish Parliament, it was that these sources would be very small indeed compared with the sum of about £7,000,000 at issue. It is conceivable that the Irish Government might nationalise such things as railways and harbours. I have a case in point. There have been during the last ten years very considerable alterations in the ports of Ireland owing to the extension of the ocean services. If these harbours were nationalised, the revenue of the Irish Government might be considerable indeed. There are some ports in England where the revenue is £250,000. I do not see anything in the Bill to prevent the railways being nationalised in order to bring a considerable sum of money to the Irish Government. In France and other foreign countries there are sources of revenue from monopolies, and the right hon. Gentleman denied that that was the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was part of his case that there were not monopolies created in foreign countries and from which large revenues were received. There are such monopolies as the match monopoly in France. Everyone knows that you are unable to obtain decent matches in France because of the Government monopoly. They raise a large sum of money there from that monopoly. They have even forbidden the use of automatic lighters owing to this monopoly. We on this side of the House want to know what safeguard we have under the Bill as it stands that the creation of monopolies will not be encouraged by the Irish Government. This is a much more important point than 536 hon. Members seem to imagine. The mere fact that the total revenue is only £7,000,000, and that you can raise such a large sum of money from revenue producing things of this kind gives very considerable strength to the case of the Amendment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have answered more fully the point of my hon. Friend. What is the logical difference between revenue which is raised from Crown land, court fees and things of that kind and the revenue raised by taxation? From the point of revenue there is no logical difference. Unless this Amendment is adopted the Bill leaves open a very large hole for the Government of Ireland to get out of their obligations and raise a large sum of money under certain circumstances from things which the Committee would not sanction if the matter were fully before them. I hope that before we go to a Division we shall have the case of harbours and railways dealt with.
§ Mr. KINGI think it rather early to go to a Division and therefore I venture to take up the challenge of the Noble Lord and say with regard to monopolies that many of us would like them Personally, I think they are an extremely good kind of taxation and I should not mind having even the matches a monopoly, just as they are in France, if I knew that I was paying less Income Tax. I think that that is the opinion of a good many people. With regard to the proposal as to canals is it at all likely that canals in Ireland would ever be a large and important industry, with harbours all round the coast and no inland mines or large manufactures. I think the prospect of a large income from Irish canals may be put out of court at once. Hon. Members opposite are always telling us that this Bill will never become law. If that is so, why do they trouble us with terrible, suspicions of what is going to happen immediately when it does come into law? I cannot see it. I should rather suggest to them that if they really do not believe that this Bill will ever become law they should take up other matters in which they profess themselves to be interested.
§ Mr. LARDNERThe scope of this Amendment is entirely a question of non-tax revenue. Under that head the services dealt with are Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone services amounting to about £1,020,000 per annum, and added to that I think are Crown lands and miscellaneous 537 sums amounting in all to £135,000, so that when we come to examine the Amendment we find that the materiality of it is really a very small matter if we exclude the bogey which hon. Members have tried to raise, that the Post Office will be paid for by the Transferred Sum, and that then we in Ireland will collar the whole of the Post Office revenue, and that we will say, "Because you did not accept this Amendment we are entitled to keep it, and we will pay the expense out of the Transferred Sum." That is the meaning of that argument with regard to the Post Office, if I understand it aright, and if I do not understand it aright I should be very glad to be corrected at this stage, because I understand the suggestion is that we are going to get paid twice for the Post Office—first out of our Post Office, without coming through the Imperial Exchequer, and then we are going to ask the British people to pay for it in the Transferred Sum. Such a suggestion is so grotesque and ridiculous that it is absolutely unworthy of comment or answer at this stage. The only material aspect of this Amendment is in regard to two items: first, Crown land rents, a sum of £25,000, and a further sum of miscellaneous services, £110,000. The suggestion of the hon. Member above the Gangway is that the £110,000 of that revenue collected from purely Irish sources should be transferred to the Imperial Exchequer and then paid back by the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer. That in the first place would require us to have a staff at this side for dealing with purely Irish items of a most technical character, and amounting to very small sums, and I presume that the cost of that staff would, in the hon. Member's view, be a charge on the Irish taxpayer.
The most remarkable thing in connection with this £110,000, which I do not think has occurred to the hon. Gentleman, is this: hon. Members above the Gangway say they think we will create monopolies in railways, matches, and canals with this money, which is raised from purely Irish sources; because, if anyone takes the trouble to look at the item Miscellaneous Revenue, 1911–12, he will find that the items covered by this £110,000 are entirely in respect of Irish objects and derived from purely Irish sources, and which have got no British counterpart whatever. The first item, Bankruptcy Courts, is a sum of £2,000, derived from purely Irish sources, which has no counterpart on the same 538 financial basis in Great Britain. The next item, County Courts, Ireland, £17,000 from the Fee Fund has no counterpart in British finance. Judicature, £34,000 has a counterpart in England, where there is a fund derived from similar sources amounting to £360,000. Land Commission is £2,000, derived entirely from Irish sources with purely Irish objects and no British counterpart. The next item, Land Registry, £6,000 has a counterpart in England amounting to £53,000. The Lunacy Fee Fund, £500, has no counterpart whatever in Great Britain. The next, £2,000 Public Record Office, has a counterpart with the amount of £500, and the last one £12,000 in respect of Registry of Deeds has no counterpart from similar sources in Great Britain. To show how ridiculous this proposal would be, I may point out that this income is derived from Irish sources in respect of purely Irish objects from fees, stamps, and taxes contributed by the services in respect of which the contributions are made, and the suggestion is that these stamps and taxes should be collected in Ireland and transferred to the British Exchequer and then transferred back again from England to the Irish Exchequer.
To show how ridiculous that would be, the hon. Member, if he takes the trouble to look at the sub-heads will see that one of the items to be dealt with is a sum of £29 8s. 7d., being the amount of the remissions of the price of photographs and catalogues in the National Gallery of Ireland last year. This is the kind of thing to be checked by the Department which is to be set up here to deal with these subjects. There is not much danger of creating monopolies with this £110,000, because the misfortune always has been in respect of every service dealt with under these miscellaneous heads that they find it very hard to pay their way. You started them so well, and paid salaries so high, and gave such pensions that it has always been a straggle to keep the Departments, going. Canals have been mentioned, and I am sorry I have no opportunity of discussing the question at greater length. I have in mind a derelict canal in the North of Ireland where a boat has not gone for years, and it is above all other places in that prosperous place known as Ulster. That is the canal which we are told is going to make a monopoly. Why! a Government Department, when the party of the right hon. Gentleman was in power, had this very canal under control and could not make it pay, and handed it over, body and bones, to a private contractor 539 who cannot make it pay; and yet we are told that there is a danger in allowing us to collect this £110,000 directly in Ireland, which is paid by the services from which it is collected, and that we might make a monopoly in canals. It shows the sort of Amendment which is being proposed. I am always very nervous when I hear the hon. Member, who proposed this Amendment proposing one of his very attractive Amendments which be says are designed to make the Bill work more effectively and to give greater protection to the British taxpayer as well as I make it safer for the Irish taxpayer. I am always afraid that there is something behind it, as is the case with the present Amendment, designed to make the Bill more difficult to work, to make it oppressive to the Irish taxpayer, and to give no protection whatever to the British taxpayer.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has destroyed the necessity for my giving any lengthened answer, because he says that this is a very trifling affair altogether, and that the total amount of money is very small.
§ Mr. LARDNERI said that excluding the Post Office, telegraphs, and telephones, the sum involved is only £135,000.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe hon. Gentleman says that it is not worth bothering about, but the Postmaster-General objects on the ground that to institute the system which my hon. Friend suggests would mean an immense amount of additional work to the Exchequer.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELA great quantity of detailed work.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI do not agree that it would involve any large amount of additional work. I agree with the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that at the present moment there is a very small sum involved. The hon. Gentleman was not exactly right in his figures, which he gave, I imagine, from the Return presented at the request of the hon. Member for North Kildare. He was zealous to point out that the items in that Return of Miscellaneous Revenue were drawn from purely Irish sources for purely Irish objects, and had no counterpart, in England. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at page 6 he would have seen there are some miscellaneous revenues which have 540 counterparts in Great Britain. I might explain to the Postmaster-General in reference to the small branch of the hereditary revenue in Ireland, the expenses of administration and old age pensions, £500, that I do not know whether under the Bill they would be paid to the Imperial or to the Irish Exchequer.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELTo the Imperial Exchequer.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIn regard to those headings, Miscellaneous Revenue, my hon. Friend's contention is entirely justified, because those are going to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer. Why are those going to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer and the others are not? I cannot see the logical distinction which the hon. Gentleman seems apparently to be able to draw between, on the one hand, tax revenue and non-tax revenue. On the other hand, apparently, now there is a distinction between certain branches of non-taxed revenue and certain other branches of non-taxed revenue, and it really does appear to me that the additional amount of work involved to the Exchequer would be comparatively small. It is quite evident the Exchequer has to keep up a branch to check the payments of very small sums which are to go into the Imperial Exchequer under the Bill, and I do not think the extra work involved by my hon. Friend's Amendment on the present basis would be anything very large. The case does not stop there, and, as my hon. Friend said, we have not only to consider the present basis, but the future. He took the instance of the Irish Government, going in extensively for monopolies. A monopoly may be a very big thing. We know that the match monopoly in France produces over a million. That is not a small figure. The hon. Gentleman suggested that a monopoly might be a very small matter, but that is not a small figure, and the point with regard to the creation of a monopoly is that you thereby reduce automatically the taxed revenue, you diminish the Transferred Sum, and you diminish the security of those people who own prior charges. The existing prior charges are variously estimated under the Bill. I estimate them at over a million; the Government estimate them at £280,000.
There are certain sets of charges which may be laid on the Transferred Sum, and which may be very heavy liabilities upon that sum. Under Clause 23 the Irish Government has full borrowing powers, and 541 there is a very extraordinary provision that the loans are to be trustee securities. The Irish Government will have full power to borrow on the security of the Transferred Sum, and the cost of the Sinking Fund and management can be charged agaist the Transferred Sum. If the case did arise and the Irish Government did create a monopoly, it might be a big monopoly or a series of monopolies, which would diminish the Transferred Sum and increase the non-taxed revenue. The non-taxed revenue, not being paid into the Imperial Exchequer, would not be at all adequate, the Transferred Sum would be diminished, and the security of the bondholders under the loans would have entirely vanished. That may be said to be a very far-fetched case. I agree. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his Bill is going to be a stable proposition which will endure for all time; but we have got to look a long way ahead, and consider these possibilities in order to avoid their occurrence, and I think there is ground for adopting the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWhen it is said that there is little chance of a monopoly being established, I would point out that the Russian Government has established a monopoly in spirits, and I ask the Postmaster-General to say whether it would not be possible for that to be done under the powers of the Bill; if so you would get a very large monopoly.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIs it in order, Sir, to discuss the question of monopolies on this Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANI did not intervene when the Noble Lord first raised the question as part of his argument, but I think the discussion of the powers of the Irish Government to establish monopolies would not be in order on this Clause.
§ Mr. J. HOPEOn the assumption that monopolies can be established, the non-taxed revenue would amount to a very large sum. I wish to ask the Postmaster-General what is actually going to be done with the receipts of the Post Office. Surely a great part of them will be Imperial receipts. It has been admitted in the earlier discussion that cable terminals will be in the hands of the Imperial Post Office, and therefore I presume that receipts from overseas telegrams will be Imperial receipts. Ireland will have some share in the mail contracts for the carriage of mails between 542 this country and Ireland, and that will be an Imperial charge. Presumably as against that will be the share of the Imperial Government for the transferred mails, and the Irish Government will have to make contribution. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what actually will happen in regard to these matters. It has been pointed out in earlier discussions that there will have to be two sets of postal services. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, no; we can easily make arrangements under Clause 40 whereby all the duties may be undertaken by the Irish Post Office." But there would have to be some adjustment of accounts, and who is to make that adjustment? In any case there will have to be a substantial contribution from the Post Office to the Imperial Exchequer. If that be so, would it not be a much simpler plan to pay all the receipts straight into the Imperial Exchequer, and then have an adjustment. I do not know who would perform that work, or whether it would be done by the Joint Exchequer Board, letting Ireland have the benefit of receipts purely Irish. Another reason which may be adduced in support of this Amendment is that unless it be adopted the accounts will be shown in a confused form. Some years ago the accounts of this country appeared in an unsatisfactory form because payments that went to the local taxation account did not appear in the national annual balance sheet. Great exception was taken to that by the celebrated Mr. Bowles and others, and after some argument on the subject, the present Government changed the mode in which the accounts were presented, so that these items now do come into the Imperial balance sheet. I submit that in this instance some form should be adopted, for surely there ought not to be items of Irish expenditure which are not shown in the balance sheet when it is annually made up.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI would refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 44, paragraph (c), which states that under an Order in Council Regulations may be made "with respect to the relations of the Irish and British Post Offices …. and for apportioning any receipts and expenses in respect of foreign mails or other foreign postal services (including telegrams and telephones), between the two Post Offices." That is the procedure provided under the Bill by which that can be carried out. The actual money would go into the till of the Irish Post Office on the foreign telegrams, 543 and then the whole would be allocated subsequently between the two Post Offices under the ordinary system of adjustment of accounts which prevails between them. I should like to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member opposite, who asked on what system do we distinguish in this Bill between taxed revenue and non-taxed revenue, and why do we distinguish between various kinds of non-taxed revenue. The distinction between the two is because it is a part of the general financial framework of the Bill that the collection of taxes is retained as an Imperial service. Therefore, naturally the taxed revenue, being collected by Imperial officials, will go in the first instance into the Imperial Exchequer. The natural course would be that in any country it would flow into the local Exchequer directly, but for reasons which arise on a later Clause, it is proposed by the Bill that the revenue from taxes should be collected by Imperial officers, and therefore it naturally goes into the Imperial Exchequer. With regard to non-taxed revenue, the distinction is that non-taxed revenue which arises in connection with an Imperial service would naturally and automatically go into the Imperial Exchequer. For instance, there are the hereditary revenues of the Crown which is a reserved matter that would come into the Imperial Exchequer. There is such a case as the cost of collection of local loans, and, since the cost of collection is an Imperial matter, this recoupment also goes into the Imperial Exchequer. On the other hand the National Gallery of Ireland will be an Irish service, and any sum received on the sale of catalogues for the National Gallery would naturally go to the Irish Exchequer, although under the hon. Member's Amendment it would necessarily have to come to Westminster, and come under the purview of the Treasury. Similarly, if an Irish Government Department in Ireland took a new building for its offices and let off a certain part of the building to private firms, the amount so derived would as a matter of course go into the Irish Exchequer, although under the hon. Member's Amendment it would have to come here. The non-taxed revenue follows the services, and that is the natural and proper course.
§ Mr. LONGI think the whole of this subject is mixed up and involved in inex- 544 tricable confusion. I think it means immense trouble to the Irish Exchequer if it ever comes into existence, and that it will lead to certain conflict between the Irish and Imperial Exchequers in future. In the early part of his remarks the Postmaster-General practically admitted that the ordinary course would be better, namely, that the revenues derived from a particular source and intended for a particular service should flow into the particular Exchequer, for which it is intended. But the Government, think it very much better to establish a system in future for Ireland for which there is no precedent, and which is extremely confused. The Postmaster-General has practically admitted that my hon. Friend's Amendment follows the more usual and simpler course, and that justifies me in voting for it. Further than that, the Postmaster-General has proposed in this Bill a system of finance which I think is without precedent, and is as confused a system as has ever been invented.
§ Mr. FELLI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Joint Exchequer Board will not have the duty of doing the work twice over unless this Amendment is carried? In Clause 47 the definition of the expression "tax" includes "duties (other than duties of postage) and fees (other than fees which are charged in respect of any special Irish service, and the receipts from which are, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, of a character to be properly treated as Appropriations-in-Aid)." If these items are not to come over to England, and are to be retained in Ireland, in every case it would have to be decided by the Joint Exchequer Board as to whether they were Appropriations-in-Aid, such, for instance, as the sum realised on the sale of catalogues at the National Gallery. There may be very many other doubtful points as to whether revenue derived from a particular source is to be treated as an Appropriation-in-Aid. In that case the Joint Exchequer Board would have to decide in every instance which that was. Whether the money came over here, or did not come over here, as the case might be, they would have to decide how much would go back to Ireland; whereas if all the money came over here, they could decide that so much was Appropriation-in-Aid and so much was to be treated as actual revenue. Unless some such words as these are inserted, I believe the work will have to be done twice over. 545 If this Amendment were accepted, it would avoid a great source of trouble.
§ Mr. HEWINSI venture to make an appeal to the Postmaster-General to accept this Amendment. I confess when I first saw it on the Paper I thought it was merely in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Many of us on both sides have had some experience with regard to the financial position of different States, and it would never have occurred to anybody acquainted with this subject to omit the non-tax revenue. When we heard the Postmaster-General make such an admirable exposition of the position yesterday, we were under the impression that he meant, under the Financial Resolution, to have a scheme that was financially watertight. We find that there is a certain deliberateness in omitting non-tax revenue, and that lets in all sorts of opportunities to stray from the paths of strict financial rectitude. I do beg of the Postmaster-General to consider this question, especially in view of the great uncertainty in which this would leave the House in regard to the powers to be exercised by the Irish Government when it is set up. We have had no proper discussion, and we do not know where we are with regard to this question of monopolies, and with regard to a great many of the economic activities which may be undertaken by the Irish Government. We all have the highest possible opinion of the ability of Irish Nationalists, and, looking back at the history of Ireland, who would venture to put any limit upon what those Gentlemen may attempt in the future when they have full control of the destinies of Ireland? I, myself, feel certain that one of the first consequences of what we are about to do, if the Government succeeds in carrying this Bill, will be to give to Irish Nationalists a great opportunity, at any rate, of exercising their ingenuity in devising some kind of fiscal and economic system which they think particularly appropriate to their needs. In view of that, and in view of the uncertainty of the position in which we stand as to the powers to be exercised in Ireland in regard to monopolies and other sources of national profit, I do appeal to the Postmaster-General to make us feel more comfortable by accepting the Amendment.
§ Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHI do not feel enthusiastically in favour of this Amendment. I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. If there is anything in the omission of these words that would enable the Irish Government to make profits I, for one, would be the last to deprive them of the opportunity, because I think under the financial scheme of this Bill Ireland is extremely badly treated, and if this Clause as drawn enables Ireland to make any profits which my Friends here have been suggesting I, for one, think it a great advantage. Until I heard the Postmaster-General's speech on the finance of this Bill, I never really understood that there was one additional reason, and I think a very shabby one, for the policy of Home Rule. We hear of cutting the losses, but we never heard of cutting the profits as long as the revenue of Ireland exceeded the expenditure. As soon as within the last few years the expenditure of Ireland exceeded the revenue derived from Ireland, immediately we have a scheme to cut the losses without any proposals to make restitution of the profits which were made in earlier years. Therefore, I am unable to feel enthusiastic in support of this Amendment, so far as it attempts to limit the sources of income which the Irish Government might be able to obtain. I say this on the assumption, which to my mind is a very far-fetched assumption, that this Bill ever can become law. If it did I should naturally wish that the Irish revenue should be as large as possible, but as I do not believe that the Bill ever will become law I rather agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Somerset who said that the discussion of these Amendments was a good deal of waste of time, but I suppose the Parliamentary game has to be played according to Parliamentary rules. But if the Bill ever became law I would wish to see all those sources of revenue that have been foreshadowed secured for the benefit of an Irish Government.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 294.
549| Division No. 317.] | AYES. | [4.55 p.m. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Balcarres, Lord | Barnston, Harry |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Baldwin, Stanley | Barrie, H. T. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Goldsmith, Frank | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Moore, William |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Goulding, E. A. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Bird, A. | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Harris, Henry Percy | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Quitter, Sir William Eley C. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Rawson, Col. R. H. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Butcher, John George | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hills, John Waller | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Horner, Andrew Long | Stanier, Seville |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Hunt, Rowland | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stewart, Gershom |
| Clyde, James Avon | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Swift, Rigby |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Knight, Captain E. A. | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Croft, H. P. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Fell, Arthur | Lee, Arthur H. | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Lewisham, Viscount | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Lloyd, George Ambrose | Winterton, Earl |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Macmaster, Donald | |
| Gilmour, Captain John | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | Magnus, Sir Philip | G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Chapple, Dr. William Alien | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clancy, John J. | Gill, Alfred Henry |
| Adamson, William | Clough, William | Ginnell, L. |
| Addison, Dr. C | Clynes, John R. | Glanville, Harold James |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Goldstone, Frank |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon Sir J. | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Armitage, Robert | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Cotton, William Francis | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Crooks, William | Hackett, J. |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Crumley, Patrick | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Cullinan, John | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Delany, Wiliam | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Barton, William | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Devlin, Joseph | Hayward, Evan |
| Bentham, G. J. | Dickinson, W. H. | Hazleton, Richard |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Donelan, Captain A. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Doris, William | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duffy, William J. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Boland, John Pius | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South) |
| Brace, William | Elverston, Sir Harold | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Hinds, John |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Essex, Richard Walter | Hodge, John |
| Burke, E. Haviland. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hogge, James Myles |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Falconer, James | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Farrell, James Patrick | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ffrench, Peter | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Field, William | John, Edward Thomas |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., (Heywood) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmer (Sw'nsea) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Fitzgibbon, John | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Jones, William S. Glyn. (Stepney) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Jowett, Frederick William | O'Connor, John (Kildare N.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Keating, Matthew | O'Doherty, Philip | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Donnell, Thomas | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Kelly, Edward | O'Dowd, John | Sheehy, David |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Ogden, Fred | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe) |
| King, J. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | O'Malley, William | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Snowden, Philip |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | O'Shee, James John | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Leach, Charles | Outhwaite, R. L. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Parker, James (Halifax) | Sutton, John E. |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lundon, Thomas | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Lynch, A. A. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| McGhee, Richard | Pointer, Joseph | Toulmin, Sir George |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Power, Patrick Joseph | Verney, Sir Harry |
| M'Callum, Sir John M. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wadsworth, John |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spaiding) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Pringle, Wm. M. R. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Radford, G. H. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wardle, G. J. |
| Meagher, Michael | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wason, Rt. Hon E. (Clackmannan) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Reddy, Michael | Watt, Henry A. |
| Molloy, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Webb, H. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Mooney, John J. | Rendall, Athelstan | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Richards, Thomas | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Morrell, Philip | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Morison, Hector | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Muldoon, John | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Munro, Robert | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid) |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Robinson, Sidney | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Nannettl, Joseph P. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Neilson, Francis | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Roe, Sir Thomas | |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rose, Sir Charles Day | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Rowlands, James | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI beg to move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "consisting," and to insert instead thereof the words "which, subject to the deduction of a contribution of one-thirtieth to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland thereto, shall consist."
I may explain the effect of the Amendment briefly in this way: The sum to be transferred to Ireland is to have deducted from it before transfer one-thirtieth of the expenditure on Imperial subjects as the contribution of Ireland towards that expenditure. Our present rate of expenditure is about £105,000,000; so that if the figure I have suggested were adopted, the contribution of Ireland would be £3,500,000. 550 In every previous Home Rule scheme the liability of Ireland to contribute to Imperial expenditure has been recognised and provided for. In the 1886 scheme the total contribution of Ireland towards Imperial expenditure was £4,400,000, against which Ireland was to get a somewhat precarious set-off of £2,000,000, the difference between the collected and the actual revenue. In the first financial scheme of 1893 Great Britain was to retain the Customs Duties as an Imperial contribution, and the amount of those duties was about £2,400,000. In the reconstructed financial scheme of that year Ireland was to contribute one-third of the true revenue of taxes levied in Ireland, the amount being estimated at £2,276,000. Those are the three precedents for asking that Ireland 551 should contribute towards Imperial expenditure. Under the present Bill the only indication of a recognition of responsibility on the part of Ireland for a portion of the Imperial expenditure is contained in Clause 26, the short effect of which is that, after the accounts of domestic income and expenditure have balanced for three years, a report to that effect is to be taken as a ground for the revision of the financial relations between England and Ireland with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. We have that recognition that Ireland ought to make a contribution towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom, but there is no provision in the Bill such as was contained in the three previous financial schemes for an actual contribution by Ireland.
I will explain why I have taken one-thirtieth as the basis of contribution. It would, perhaps, be more logical to take a larger contribution; but one must feel that, although we may establish the principle of a contribution, it is another thing altogether to get the money. Therefore we have to fix the contribution on as low a basis as possible. If the Income Tax basis were taken, Ireland ought to contribute about one-twenty-eighth; on the Death Duties basis Ireland's contribution would be about one-twenty-sixth; while on the population basis she would pay about one-eleventh. The Committee will therefore realise that the suggested contribution of one-thirtieth is extremely moderate and fair. The Government will probably say, "It is all very well to say that Ireland ought to make a contribution towards Imperial expenditure. We admit that, and the Irish people themselves are anxious to do it." I have frequently heard it stated by the Front Bench opposite, but I have not heard it stated in a practical fashion by the Irish Members. They have said it, but they have not taken any steps towards giving it practical effect. It would be a great deal better to pay to Ireland a larger sum with one hand and take back with the other something in the nature of an Imperial contribution, thereby establishing the principle that Ireland is to contribute to Imperial expenditure. You would at least be honest with the country in this sense, that you would say at once the exact amount that you are contributing. As the Bill stands, we are to make up the deficit of about £2,000,000 a year, and post- 552 pone for an indefinite period any request for an Imperial contribution from Ireland. I would far rather see put into the Bill a provision that we should pay over to Ireland annually £5,500,000 and take back from Ireland, as a definite contribution towards Imperial expenditure, £3,500,000. It may be said that that is a long way round to get at exactly what is being done in the Bill. I regard it, however, not as a mere matter of form, but as a matter of substance. If Ireland contributes at once to the Imperial expenditure there will be less feeling of separation and a greater feeling of continuity in the government of the United Kingdom. It will be no answer to this Amendment for the Government to say that there is no fund, because, if they were honest with the country and desirous of establishing the principle of a contribution, they could meet the position by giving £5,500,000 and taking back £3,500,000 as an Imperial contribution.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman is serious in proposing this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain why. If the Amendment were adopted, Ireland would pay to this country £3,500,000, and we should, under the scheme of the Bill, pay Ireland £1,500,000 and £500,000 as a surplus, making up a total of £2,000,000. That would leave us in hand £1,500,000. I am dealing with the Amendment as it stands, and not with what the hon. Member said in regard to it. We should practically be receiving £1,500,000 without contributing anything, and, in consequence, Ireland would really have to double her taxes. The revenue of Ireland is about £7,500,000. If you deduct a contribution of £3,500,000, you will leave her with only £4,000,000. Nobody will suggest that that is a workable or just scheme. That is what the Amendment proposes, but the hon. Member says that that is not what he really intends. He says, "I do not really mean that; that would be too absurd." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He did not use those words, but I think that is what he meant; otherwise he would have left the Amendment as it is. He has explained that he does not really want Ireland to contribute £3,500,000; he wants her to pay £3,500,000 and receive in return £5,500,000. It is very difficult to follow what possible benefit you would derive from such a procedure; you would not really advance one step in the matter. As the hon. Member quite rightly said, you would be taking 553 back with one hand what you have given with the other, and in that way he thinks you will be making the tie between Ireland and Great Britain closer and more cordial than it would be under our scheme, by which it is proposed to make good the deficit and provide a surplus, without requiring any contribution at all from Ireland until she is in a fit position financially to contribute towards Imperial expenditure. We say, "We do not intend to call upon you to pay any contribution at present, because you cannot afford to do it in consequence of the scheme of taxation which we have imposed upon you during the last few years, and, of course, not only can you not afford it, but you would not be paying it at the present time, or in the next year if there is no Home Rule." Ireland would not be practically contributing this sum. What we are doing is handing Ireland this £2,000,000. I really do not understand on what ground it is suggested that you should alter, not the scheme of finance—because it seems to me what you are doing here is juggling with figures; for if you accept what the hon. Member says it is nothing else but a kind of conjuring trick. He says, instead of properly facing the problem, "We will do it in this way, and the effect will be the same, and it will be as if you are doing something which you are not really doing. Ireland will think she is contributing towards the Imperial Exchequer when she really is not, and knows she is not." We can hardly consider the Amendment as a serious one.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGThe right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that he cannot understand my hon. Friend's scheme. That inability in regard to this finance is shared by both sides of the House. The more often I listen to the arguments produced by every Minister in turn in connection with suggested Financial Amendments of this Bill the more impossible it is to understand the frame of mind of the Government. But I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has carried the matter even further than we have been carried hitherto in the disclosures which come by degrees from the Front Bench opposite. He tells us that he does not regard my hon. Friend's Amendment as a serious one. That, of course, is a mere matter of opinion. I submit that the arguments by which my hon. Friend supported his Amendment were most serious, whereas the observations of the right hon. and learned Geneltman were not serious, nor 554 he has advanced one argument in opposition to the Amendment. What my hon. Friend asks the Government to do is the very thing they say they want to do, but which, when they are given the opportunity to do, they always refuse to do. That is to say, he wants them to give some reality to their protestation that they want under this Home Rule Bill to, at all events, procure an appearance of union between Great Britain and Ireland. Under his Amendment my hon. Friend wants to have a system which will leave Ireland to pay a contribution towards any Imperial expenditure to which this country is liable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "No, it is merely a sham; Ireland cannot pay this money, and if the hon. Member's Amendment were taken as it stands it would mean depriving Ireland of £2,000,000 of money, leaving her £2,500,000 short." The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is the common practice in this House to move certain Amendments, and if they are carried to follow them up with others that are consequential. Therefore, the argument against this Amendment simply because it only fulfils a portion of the work it is intended to fulfil is not to the point. It occupied a great part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think I pointed out what the effect of the Amendment would be on the basis of what I understood the hon. Member to say. I did not shirk the point.
§ Mr. LONGThe hon. Member need be under no feeling of alarm. I am not accusing him of shirking anything. All I say is that a great part of his speech was addressed to meeting a position which my hon. Friend does not intend to create. The Committee know perfectly well in dealing with an Amendment, that if you establish a principle and it is accepted, you follow by other Amendments to make the thing complete. As I have already said, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted at the latter part of his speech, all my hon. Friend's Amendment intends to do is to meet the immediate question of whether or not part of the Union is to make a contribution. When you have settled that in a reasonable, logical and businesslike way you can then go on to that which is a totally different question, which is to apportion the amount of her expenditure at the present time when she is going to start a Parliament of her own. These 555 are two totally different questions. Where the Government have failed in this, as in other proposals, is to give effect in this Bill, as they are now putting it to the House, to their suggestions that this Bill goes to cement the Union and not to create separation. We say that if you start as now by saying that Ireland cannot pay, and therefore because we are going to give her the right of self-government, because we want her to have certain money by which she can develop her own resources, that we are therefore going to exclude her as though she were not a part of the United Kingdom from any share in our common expenditure—that by doing that you are laying the foundation, not of union, but of separation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I cannot understand why you want to do this, because it is really a sham." It comes back to really this argument—of which I am sick to death—that if we do as we are doing, that under Home Rule there will still be that sum which the Government calls a deficit. The argument is one which, outside of this House the Government's best supporters are constantly pouring contempt upon. There is a most interesting letter in to-day's "Times" from a Noble Lord from whom I entirely disagree in politics, whose views I do not share, so far as I know, on any question connected with Home Rule, except this one phase in which I find myself entirely in agreement with him and the direction that his argument takes. I do not share the particular views upon which his arguments are founded. He has proved himself a most efficient, a most powerful, and a most destructive critic of these financial proposals. In that I entirely and cordially agree with him. What view does he take of the line taken up by the Government in regard to the deficit? He does not find the term "deficit" which they are using, the right term. I agree with him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we ought not to do what we suggest because we are now paying more than Ireland towards the common expenditure. It is not a deficit. That is what it comes to. Under the modern system of taxation for which they are responsible—not we—Ireland is reduced to this position under the Union: she does not pay her share of common expenditure. I do not want to repeat the point, but in the name of heaven surely the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is all the difference in the world between accepting for 556 ourselves an additional share of the common burden of the Union when we have control, so long as it rests with this House to decide what shall be done, and so long as full power is deposited in this House, and relieving Ireland from her share of her contribution when you are relieving and absolving yourself from all part and control and all powers of direction?
I cannot discuss that point now; we shall be discussing it in a moment, but it is a very difficult thing to discuss part of this section without dealing in some measure with the rest. But the very next Amendment, referring to the next words in the Bill, raises the question which is so closely connected with this and so germane to it that it is very difficult not to refer to it. The right hon. Gentleman asks us not-only to take this extra burden upon ourselves, not only to lose the control which we now have, but also in a subsequent part of the Bill to hand over the whole decisions of the future to the body over which neither the Government, nor the House, nor the Irish Parliament will have any control or any jurisdiction whatever. I submit to the Attorney-General that he has not answered my hon. Friend's Amendment, and that if my hon. Friend's plan were carried, and followed by a consequential provision, it would restore to Ireland money which Ireland requires in order to enable her to carry on self-government. This would be a businesslike and proper way to do it, and not only would it be a businesslike way of doing the thing, but if the Government are sincere in their constant declaration that this Bill is to cement the Union the thing ought to be done in this way. To adhere to your own plan is to make it clearer than ever that while talking about Union what you are really doing is to lay firm the foundation for separation.
Captain CRAIGIt is a very strange thing, as has just been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Long), that the only place one ever hears the financial scheme of the Government commended to the House and the public is by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite. Every financial expert that ever criticises this Bill in Ireland, England or Scotland—I am glad to say Scotland, and very freely there in the Press—and every public body, so far has proved that the financial proposals of the Government are quite unworkable. Lord MacDonnell, to whom my right hon. Friend 557 has just referred, has been perhaps the strongest critic of the Government finance. But we must not neglect the fact that other bodies, the general council of the county councils of Ireland, have referred to this very subject—and they are all Nationalists. They have criticised most ably and most effectively this particular part of the Government's programme. Then I think I am right in saying that those who have gone into the financial part on behalf of the school teachers—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is a specific Amendment, and not the general question of the finance of the Bill. The proposal is that from the Transferred Sum there shall be deducted a contribution of one-thirtieth to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland. Let us keep ourselves to the question.
Captain CRAIGI only wanted to point out that it is necessary that the answer which we have received from the Government comes like a parrot cry. No matter what observations are made from these benches. What is said is that the financial proposals of the Government, which are most complicated, are the best possible arrangement for Ireland. That we absolutely deny. To come to this particular Amendment, I would like to point out, first of all, although I shall vote against the Government in all of these cases—out of habit and inclination—to the Member for Colchester, who moves this Amendment, that I am afraid the object, the very laudable object, at which he aims, that is that a contribution from Ireland should be made towards the upkeep of the Army and Navy, if carried, will possibly produce an awkward position in this House itself. When you ear-mark a certain sum of money towards the Army and Navy the logical conclusion will be that the forty odd Nationalists here will claim the right to criticise your conduct of your Army and Navy for all time. As the matter is left now, as a rule their contribution towards a Debate of that kind is certainly not towards the increased efficiency of either of the Services. The consequence of the carrying of the Amendment would be that the hon. and learned Member and his friends would find themselves in perpetuity faced with the adverse criticism of the Nationalist party on the benches behind when it came to making larger Grants for one or other of the Services. So I think it will be far better not to 558 advance that argument for a claim of one-thirtieth to be granted by Ireland towards Imperial services. I wish to criticise also the statements made over and over again by the Attorney-General. He says—and of course the Chief Secretary for Ireland takes his advice from the right hon. Gentleman—that there is no contribution made by Ireland towards those Services now, and therefore that the financial part of the Home Rule Bill is really not altering in any way the existing circumstances. I would point out that is not a correct statement of the case at all. The correct statement of the case is that Ireland, like other parts of the United Kingdom, is divided into what may be called revenue-producing areas and large areas which are non-revenue producing. No one denies that if you take an entity such as the prosperous part of the North of Ireland, you will find that it contributes just as much to the upkeep of the British Army and Navy as Yorkshire or any other county, and therefore it is only right when the right hon. Gentleman is arguing this matter, that he should look at it in this way, and then he would see that the South and West of Ireland is comparable more or less with the East Riding of Yorkshire, and that Ulster is comparable with the West Riding, and therefore that this particular entity of Ulster really contributes towards the national services. We, in Ulster, are delighted that we pay towards keeping up the Army and Navy, but if the Amendment of the hon. Member is carried, it simply means putting a further burden upon the taxable end of Ireland, that is to say Ulster.
Nationalists know perfectly well that Ulster pays between two-thirds or three-fourths of the Customs revenue of the whole of Ireland, and that consequently we have vast areas south of the Boyne, where practically only between one-fourth and one-third of the revenue is paid. Out of that small proportion from that part of Ireland, naturally no contribution ever reaches one of the Services here. We, in Ulster, are not complaining, and never have complained. We say you must take these matters the same as we take our meals, you must take the fat with the lean, and the poor with the rich, and you must cast your net wide over the whole area of Ireland so long as it remains part of the United Kingdom. But when you begin to pick out entities and put your finger upon special spots and say that they are to be cut off from the United Kingdom, then you 559 find not only the sentimental side and the religious side, but you find the commercial instincts of all classes in the richer parts of Ireland immediately pointing out that the whole burden eventually of the blunders of the Nationalist party must be borne by the revenue-producing parts of the North of Ireland. That is where right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends misrepresent the case. They take, for the purposes of revenue, the whole of Ireland, instead of ignoring the part south of the Boyne, and taking Ulster only as the part that produces the revenue with which we are dealing under this Bill. I make one exception, and that is with regard to the salaried class of officials. Of course, Dublin being the capital, whether a man is resident in the North of Ireland or not, his Income Tax is deducted at the source, and that does make a slight increase in the Dublin area. It is quite clear to anybody that this Amendment to add on taxation to the extent mentioned for the purpose of actually raising contribution towards Imperial services means that that amount of money, if it is to be found on the same basis, and from the same sources from which revenue is produced in Ireland at the present moment, will come from Ulster, and will be a very heavy burden upon the North of Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman only brings it forward in order to couple up the interests of the people in the National Parliament in Dublin with your great services here, I am perfectly certain that would react, as I said in the beginning, against this House in the long run, having, as it will have, forty or forty-two Irish Members coming over to take part in these Debates.
The next point I want to make is this. Criticisms from these benches have been answered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and those behind by the statement that we are only advancing these arguments because we say there can be no Home Rule, and therefore it does not matter how we argue. I deny that absolutely. I think everybody who heard the Chief Secretary last night will agree that the sum total of his amusing and laughable contributions to the Debate was that he was satisfied that no more severe criticisms have been brought forward. One after another we on these benches have criticised the Bill, and that is the right hon. Gentleman's only answer. The truth of the matter is that the Government have really shirked 560 their duty in not putting the financial statement properly before the House, and they should be ashamed of themselves for bringing in a measure so large and intricate and leaving us entirely in the dark as to how they arrived at their figures. If we had had the White Paper properly elucidated, if we had been told how these figures were arrived at, it would be far easier to criticise more fully and accurately the intentions of the Government so far as this Bill is concerned. I, for one, recognise that criticism is not wanted by the Government either upon the financial or upon any other Clauses of this Bill. It was with deliberate intention of preventing us showing what the true relations are that they held back their Returns so long and refused to supply us with the evidence given before the Committee they set up to inquire into this matter, and refused to answer the questions put upon this Paper with a view to elucidating some of these matters. That is not treating the Committee respectfully or properly. And not only that, but we find everybody is put up to answer our criticisms except those who really have any knowledge of Ireland at all. I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), who has been through all these battles in the past, and who could elucidate many matters much better than right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has not done so. He might have risen, but those who are in control of the right hon. Gentleman say, "No, you must not open your mouth upon this Bill. You must keep quiet, because you know far too much." That is the reason the right hon. Gentleman does not get up and give us the criticisms he made in 1886 and in 1893, when he was able to tear these Home Rule Bills to pieces, and I have no doubt, so far as the financial scheme of this Bill is concerned, his ability would enable him also to tear it into shreds and tatters.
§ Mr. LEES SMITHI think it would be a mistake if no unofficial Member upon this side of the House rose to express the feeling of surprise existing amongst those of us who follow this Debate, at the contortions and contradictions in the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I heard only yesterday that one of the great effects of these financial Clauses was that they were unnecessarily complicated. The hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment would, for no genuine object, and no practical effect, introduce another 561 complication. I have heard in Debate after Debate accusations from hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill was full of pretences. I heard it contended that Clause after Clause and paragraph after paragraph had no real meaning, but was put into the Bill only for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the British electors. Now hon. Members opposite themselves come forward with an Amendment, the only effect of which would be to deceive the British electorate into thinking that something was the case which they themselves acknowledge would not be the case. Suppose this Bill had originally been framed on the lines suggested in this Amendment. What would hon. Members opposite have done? We know, and they know, they would have moved to strike this pretence out. Speeches of the character which we heard when we were discussing the question of the supremacy of this Parliament would have been delivered once again. They claim that the Clauses dealing with the Imperial supremacy are fraudulent deceptions. If this Bill had been framed upon the lines of this Amendment I can imagine their righteous indignation. All their speeches would be made over again, and they would simply have said, "Here is a deception more flagrant than ever. Here is a Government attempting to persuade the electorate that the Irish people are making contributions for Imperial purposes, but if you examine the complications of the Bill you will find that so far from that being the case the British people are making contributions to Ireland." Everybody must know that this is the line of argument that would have been adopted.
§ Mr. LEES SMITHI think it would have been a great deal better if the hon. Member for Colchester had argued this Amendment on the lines it naturally suggests, and had not gone outside the Amendment to support it by arguments which contradict most of the arguments which his own Friends have used in connection with other Amendments.
§ Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNI should like to address myself closely to the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester as to whether Ireland ought to pay a contribution to the Imperial resources of the Empire. The hon. Member thinks the principle ought to 562 be established from the very beginning, and he attaches so much importance to it that he proposes an Amendment which would have the effect, if carried, of charging Ireland with £3,000,000 extra, I think under this Resolution it would be wholly impossible to effect the change he proposes, and we should have to pass another Resolution. I think the House has had enough of Financial Resolutions. I wish to put to the Committee something of the historical aspect of the case as to the reason we think it is not right that Ireland should be asked at the present time to make a contribution even in principle to the Army and Navy and general Imperial services of the country. I want to look back to the partnership between Great Britain and Ireland as set forth by the Treasury to-day. The Treasury has given us an estimate for the last fifteen years of the Imperial contribution and the deficit on the relations between England and Ireland, and they have also struck a balance sheet between the two countries. The general purport of that balance-sheet is for the first fifty-three years of the connection under the Union, during which the taxation of Ireland was arranged by this House and the expenditure of that taxation was also arranged by this Parliament. Everybody knows that in the first half of the nineteenth century Ireland was a country almost like a derelict farm, and no country needed money worse for its development. It was decided then that out of the total revenue two-thirds of the whole should be applied to the Imperial services, and Ireland should be left with one-third of her own taxation for Irish purposes.
That seems to me to be a maladministration so gross that it has left us with a whole harvest of controversies and wrongs which Ireland has never recovered from. Take the Treasury Return given decade by decade for the first part of the period I have named. I find that between the years 1820 and 1870, in those fifty years the total amount raised from Ireland was £287,000,000, and out of that sum £195,000,000 were taken for Imperial purposes, and Ireland was left with £ 92,000,000 for Irish purposes at that period. That was at a time when you first had a great growth of population, which grew without, economic or industrial resources, and it was in that period that Ireland experienced the most serious disaster that has ever occurred in any European country—the terrible tragedy of the great 563 famine. Let us consider what happened in the famine years. In the year 1848 when 500,000 Irish people died of famine or famine fever, £2,750,000 were taken for the Army and Navy. In those days what did Irishmen know of the British Army and the British Navy? We knew the British Army as soldiers who guarded the grain from Ireland on its way to pay absentee landlords in this country. Four years after that this House, in its wisdom, decided to raise enormously the burden of Irish taxation. Whilst Ireland was still broken down under this terrible visitation, and although the revenue so raised from Ireland was enormously increased, there was no corresponding increase in the cost of Irish administration. Ten years after the famine in 1859 you had a total revenue raised in Ireland of £7,700,000, out of which £5,400,000 were taken as an Imperial contribution. Surely those figures leave a long leeway to be made up. From 1870 onwards when England really did begin to apply her mind to dealing with the question of the waterlogged state of Ireland, you find a change in the financial relations. If you take the thirty years between 1870 and 1900 you find that the total taxation raised from Ireland was £224,000,000, and it is only fair to say that actually something more than half that amount was spent in Ireland. The sum of £124,000,000 was so spent, but £100,000,000 during those years came from Ireland as a contribution to the Imperial purse. Therefore it is no extravagant statement to say that Ireland during those thirty years did not get value for the £100,000,000 she paid for the Imperial connection.
Since 1900 the matter has changed. You raised, up to the publication of the last of these Returns, a total of £101,000,000 in this century, and out of that sum £86,000,000 have been spent in Ireland. Even in this century Ireland has contributed £15,000,000 towards your Imperial purse. At the present time it is perfectly true that for the last two years Ave have been a charge upon you, and that is admitted. We hear a great deal of that, but I can remember the time when we were told that Great Britain was treated by Ireland as her milch cow, and we were then contributing £3,000,000 a year. We have this taunt now with more justification, but we had it then when there was no justification whatever. As things stand now, I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester, apart from the technical objection I have alluded to, is unreason- 564 able. It is unreasonable to propose the establishment of a principle by a complicated book-keeping transaction of this sort. I think I may say for all Irish Nationalists that the principle put forward in this Clause is one which we fully accept, and it is necessary to our self-respect that we should put ourselves in a position to be able to take our fair share with our fellow subjects in the maintenance of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I say here what I have said on a hundred platforms both in Ireland and in England. We recognise the existing position, and we say that this House is responsible for it. For my own part, what I like in the financial proposals now before us is the fact that they fully recognise that that is a provisional state of things, and that a new and more permanent settlement is contemplated when Ireland has been given time to straighten out her own affairs. For the moment we say that Ireland has paid enough in blood and treasure towards the building up of your Empire, and I think we are entitled to say that, even in principle, there is no necessity at the present time to assert the idea which is associated with the hon. Member's Amendment.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI do not intend to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into the history of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. That relationship has been a matter for many years of much dispute, but were I to do so I should certainly have to traverse many of the statements made by the hon. Member. It is sufficient for me now to say that Mr. Gladstone in both his Home Rule Bills recognised that a substantial contribution could be paid by Ireland, after Home Ride was given, towards Imperial expenditure.
§ Mr. S. GWYNNIt was Mr. Gladstone who raised the taxation of Ireland four years after the famine.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI do not think that is a very relevant remark. The statement I was making was that, after all, not only Mr. Gladstone, but the present Prime Minister, whose name was on the back of one of those Bills, thought that Ireland ought to make a contribution—and that that contribution ought to be actually named in figures—towards the Imperial expenditure on the Army, Navy, the National Debt, and Imperial services. For my own part, if I were an Irishman, I do not think I should regret that I had been 565 making contributions towards the Imperial expenditure, or that Ireland is still going to make contributions in this respect. If I were an Irishman I should resent the reproach which has been levelled against Irishmen by the learned Attorney-General this afternoon, that they make no contribution under the present system towards Imperial services. You cannot, under our present system, with one Exchequer and under the system by which our taxes are levied, allocated, segregated, or earmarked, fairly say that the Irishmen do not contribute something to Imperial services when they pay taxes on income, Death Duties, or through the commodities which they consume. You cannot fairly and accurately say that they do not contribute substantially towards the Army, Navy, and Imperial services. If I were a landlord in Ireland, or one who paid Income Tax or the heavy taxes in the North of Ireland, upon industry, I should resent it being said that I did not pay quite as much towards Imperial services as any landlord in Caithness or Cork.
6.0 P.M.
If we are going to have this fine, geographical distribution, and say what every portion of the United Kingdom pays, let us make the division a little more marked. Let us divide it up into counties and boroughs and parishes, and then we can point to certain people who live in certain places and say, "You pay nothing; you do not pay even a 'bob' towards the Army or the Navy for Imperial expenditure." That is a most grossly unfair way of putting the question, and I think the Attorney-General now sees that it is unfair. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it does cause very great resentment amongst Irishmen when they are taunted with not paying their fair share towards Imperial services. You have a system under which you definitely allocate certain revenues to certain expenditure, and you so allocate those revenues that you leave no part of the revenues of Ireland to be appropriated towards Imperial services. I admit that those gentlemen in the North of Ireland and some in the South will be open to the reproach under your system that no portion of the taxation which is taken from them will go either to the Army, the Navy, or Imperial services. That is one reason why, if I were an Irishman, I should bitterly resent the particular financial proposals of this Bill. I should say it helps to point the finger of scorn, as it were, against me, because I, being a Belfast man, say, with a large ship- 566 building industry, pay nothing towards the upkeep of the Navy, whereas large sums of money are paid by my brother shipowners in Glasgow, though the Navy is just as necessary for Belfast as it is for Glasgow. Ireland will be in this peculiar position if these financial proposals are ever carried. Ireland will in all probability be the only part of the Empire which makes no contribution, during the next few years at all events, towards a common and Imperial need. Canada will be making her contribution—we are all expecting a large contribution from Canada—Australia will be making her contribution, South Africa will be making her contribution, and to our great rejoicing we heard in this House the other day that even the Malay States are now going to give us a ship and they will therefore be making their contribution. Yet everyone living in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and the Malay States will, if these financial provisions are carried out, very soon know that Ireland is the only portion of the British Empire which contributes nothing towards the upkeep of the Army and Navy and Imperial services, and, as my hon. Friends reminds me, Ireland will have her representatives here. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has been reproached this afternoon for not making this proposal with any seriousness and for taking the whole thing, much as the Chief Secretary treats the Bill, as a huge joke. That is not the spirit in which we approach this question at all. I do not say this is the very best method of carrying out our purpose, but I do say it raises the whole principle, and, when the Attorney-General accuses my hon. Friend of juggling with figures, I tell him he is in this Bill presenting a false and misleading balance-sheet of the whole situation for the consumption of the English electors.
If you want to put the true case before the British electors, you will show in your Bill that we are not only asked to contribute £500,000 as a kind of housekeeping account towards the new Irish nation you are going to set up, but that there is a sum of money due from Ireland, it may be one-thirtieth or a little more or a little less, for the annual upkeep of the Army, the Navy, and the Imperial services. My hon. Friend would have gone on to propose that this sum of £500,000 which we are giving under paragraph (b) of this Clause should be enlarged. He himself says he wants to present the whole account, 567 showing on the one side what Ireland ought to contribute, £3,500,000, for this purpose, and on the other side what we give back to Ireland. I acknowledge we must give back to Ireland a very large proportion if not the whole of this sum. That would be a proper presentation of the case; that would be a true and not a false and misleading balance-sheet such as is presented by the Government. It would have the great advantage of preserving the principle we ought to lay down, and which has been accepted by the hon. Gentleman who has spoken for the Nationalist party (Mr. Stephen Gwynn). He himself says he accepts the view that Ireland ought to contribute something towards the general expenditure of the British Empire, and he is hoping the time will come when she is able to do so. He belongs, however, to' that school which teaches and preaches that the British taxpayer owes Ireland something like £300,000,000. What is the good, therefore, of his accepting the principle? It is perfectly obvious that neither in our lifetime nor in the lifetime of our children or grandchildren will Great Britain ever see a single sixpence contributed by Ireland towards any of these Imperial Expenses. If he is going to set off that remarkable figure I have so often seen quoted in Nationalist literature—
§ Mr. S. GWYNNI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not put into my mouth words I did not use. We cannot pay an Imperial contribution until we pay our own way.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI will not put into the mouth of the hon. Gentleman the statement I have constantly seen in Nationalist literature, that Great Britain owes to Ireland something like £300,000,000. That, no doubt, will be the teaching of many hon. Members representing Irish constituencies, so I say the principle is not worth much unless it is acknowledged there ought, as a recognition of the principle, to be some contribution, however small, made at the start. I think this is one of the most vital principles, not on account of the money value but on account of the fact that it would be a symbol and a recognition of the unity of the Kingdom and the solidarity of the Empire of which Ireland is still to remain a part. For that and other reasons, I am very glad my hon. Friend has raised the whole of this case, and I hope before the Debate concludes we may have some 568 speech from the Front Bench opposite going further than the Attorney-General in the direction of recognising that principle and expressing the full hope and intention of the Government of taking from Ireland at the earlist possible moment that proportion which she ought to give towards Imperial expenditure.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) because he seemed to me to be genuinely desirous of meeting the arguments which were put forward by my hon. Friends. I cannot say that was the impression I received from listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lees Smith) or even to the speech of the Attorney-General. The hon. Member below the Gangway told us that in the year 1800 to 1870 Ireland was practically a waterlogged or derelict farm, and yet during all these years Ireland contributed a very large sum to the Imperial Exchequer. Afterwards, from 1870 down to 1900, Ireland still continued to contribute very largely to the Imperial Exchequer, and for the first twelve years of this century Ireland has contributed no less a sum than £15,000,000. I draw a totally different conclusion from that drawn by the hon. Member. What is the condition of Ireland? Is she a waterlogged and derelict farm? Is it not admitted on all hands that Ireland at the present time is in the most prosperous condition she has ever been in her history, and is it not a great tribute to English government that Ireland is able to contribute to the Imperial Exchequer? The Government therefore ought to have followed the precedent of the 1886 and 1893 Bills and have made Ireland contribute something to the Imperial charges of the United Kingdom, of which I hope she will Ions remain a part. I disagree entirely with the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member, and I venture to say his speech is distinctly against Home Rule, because he showed without doubt that Ireland under English rule has progressed in a most extraordinary way.
§ Mr. S. GWYNNI never said that.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs it denied that Ireland is now in a state of exceptional prosperity?
§ Mr. S. GWYNNAn argument used continually by representatives of Ulster is that in the provinces outside Ulster there 569 is no such thing as prosperity and solvency in Ireland.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not aware of that, and I do not think, if the hon. Member will look at the Savings Bank, he will be able to substantiate that statement. With regard to the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite who said the Amendment was not genuine, if he will forgive me I do not think his speech was in the least degree genuine. It was devoted to showing that if the Amendment had been brought forward by any one on that side of the House we should have said it was an improper Amendment calculated to deceive the British elector. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is not going to deceive the British elector in any way, and it is because hon. Gentlemen opposite want to deceive the British elector they will not support it. My hon. Friend says Ireland ought to contribute a certain sum of money to Imperial expenditure on the Army and Navy and to the National Debt, and he puts it at £3,500,000. At the same time there would be a deficit in Ireland, and he says therefore that for a certain time we ought to contribute something towards that debt. What is there not genuine about that? It would be a balance sheet which would show that amongst the charges Ireland had got to meet was a certain sum to Imperial Defence. On the other side it would show there was a deficit which had been met by an Imperial contribution.
Why have not hon. Members opposite followed the precedent of both the former Bills? They have not done so because it would have appeared that the real contribution by the English taxpayer to Ireland for the sake of Home Rule was £5,500,000, and not £2,000,000. It is, therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite who are not genuine and who are endeavouring to cast dust into the eyes of the British electors. It is absolutely clear my hon. Friend meant his proposal to be followed by some qualifying Amendment. I am not at all sure the actual sum he mentioned is the right one. The sums have varied. My hon. Friend says the sum in 1886 was £2,400,000, and in 1893 £2,200,000, and he now makes it £3,500,000. I do not think we need go into the question of the actual figures because it is the principle my hon. Friend desires to emphasise, and it is that principle which I shall support when we go to a Division. We have heard from the hon. Member below the Gangway, and I think from the Attorney-General, that even- 570 tually no doubt Ireland will contribute something towards her share of the Imperial expenditure, and we know perfectly well the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) stated only a short time ago at York—I think last week—that it is the ambition of Ireland so to do. I have been twenty years in this House, and I am sorry to say I have lived a great many years in the world, and long before I had the honour of a seat in this House it was my pleasure, and it gave me great interest, to study the political history of Ireland and the political speeches of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I find that they have always been profuse, when any Bill is coming forward from which they hope to gain advantage, in their assurances that something is going to take place as soon as the Bill has been passed. When the Bill of 1893 was being debated we were told that every cause of dispute between Ireland and England would vanish. Have those assurances ever come off? Never once in the long history of the contentions between England and Ireland have the assurances of hon. Members below the Gangway been realised. They have always been forgotten or pushed aside. They have been used, indeed, as a stepping-stone to gain something more.
If the principles of my hon. Friend's Amendment is rejected we must be careful not to be led into thinking that under Clause 26 we are going to get something in the same direction. Clause 26 provides that if the Joint Exchequer Board finds there is a surplus, then the whole financial arrangements shall be reviewed. Why, seeing that we are discussing these financial arrangements at the present moment, should they be not now settled definitely—while we have not yet departed from the control we possess over Ireland? Why should they be put off for an indefinite period? Let me point out what is going to happen at a particular period under Clause 26. There will be a fresh incursion of hon. Members below the Gangway. We shall not have to be content with forty-two; we shall have a very much larger number; and, looking back on past experience, I do not think that seventy or eighty Irish Members, or whatever the number may be who may come over here, will ever consent to fresh taxation being put on Ireland or to any surplus she possesses being taken away from her and handed over to England. I was not impressed by the concluding remarks of the Attorney-General, 571 because the right hon. Gentleman went back to the old argument that if we do not pass this Bill we shall still have to pay a certain amount of money to Ireland. What is the use of saying that something is going to happen if something else does not happen, which, as a matter of fact, is not going to happen? I might just as well say that if we had not this Bill before us, if we were not sitting here discussing impossible Clauses, we should be doing our business or enjoying ourselves in the country, and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite would be looking after the affairs of the nation, and doing much more good for the nation than they can possibly do by trying to pass impossible and bad Bills. I hope, therefore, we shall hear less of that argument in the future. We are not concerned with things which may happen. We are dealing with the Bill itself, and not with what will happen if the Bill is not passed. I have endeavoured to show good reasons why we should support the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I would like to hear the hon. Member for Coventry give us a real debating speech, not a speech full of jokes and jests, or dealing with something which does not arise, but a speech dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend, showing, if he can, where we are wrong. If the hon. Member will undertake that task, he may make a valuable contribution to the Debate and set a good example to the hon. Members who sit around him.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONAfter the invitation of the hon. Member for the City of London, I feel bound to offer a few observations on this Amendment. I have, as many hon. Members have, a very high regard for the financial ability and astuteness of the hon. Baronet, but I think that on this occasion he has rather got into a hole, and I hope I shall be able to show he has done something which will take away from that great financial reputation he has hitherto enjoyed. Surely any Amendment which may be proposed by hon. Members opposite should have regard to the Financial Resolution which this House has already passed. Whether hon. Members opposite agree with that Financial Resolution is another metter. Of course they do not agree with it; they opposed it. But the fact remains, it is now part and parcel of the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt can be rescinded.
§ Mr. D. MASONIt has not been rescinded, and it is not likely to be withdrawn. It has become part of this Bill, and, therefore, any Amendment suggesting that Ireland should contribute in the manner suggested in this Amendment cuts across that Financial Resolution, and its adoption would necessitate the carrying of another Financial Resolution. The hon. Member for the City of London is first and foremost a financier. Surely when supporting any Amendment, whether he is in favour of Home Rule or not, he should have some regard for his reputation as a sound financier. This Amendment in itself is absurd.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI said I supported the principle of it.
§ Mr. D. MASONI am glad to have that admission, because that saves the reputation of the hon. Baronet. I submit he should go further and not make himself ridiculous—I say that with all respect—by walking into the Lobby in support of an Amendment which would make this Bill financially ridiculous. Undoubtedly this Amendment cannot be made square with the finance of the Bill. Therefore we can only discuss the principle of it. Hon. Members opposite, when the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said Ireland will contribute nothing, seemed to forget that Ireland still is, and will remain, a part of the United Kingdom. She will be liable to taxes; she will still have to contribute to the upkeep of the Army and Navy, and it is absurd to imagine that this Bill will cut her off from all that. Let us look at this matter from a business point of view. We have great investments of British capital in Ireland. Is it not to our interest to treat Ireland very generously, so that we may be able to look after our investments? Is it not to our interest that she should be prosperous?
§ Sir J. LONSDALEWhy do you not leave her alone?
§ Mr. D. MASONIf we leave all our investments alone they will probably come to a bad end. We want to make them reproductive. We want to make Ireland prosperous, so that we may get back the capital we have invested in land purchase. We want to make Ireland a good customer of our own, and we believe that this Bill will help to do that. We want our methods 573 to be financially sound and business-like, and we are putting forward a scheme which we believe to be financially sound and which we believe also will lead to ever-increasing prosperity in Ireland. Have not hon. Members opposite some other scheme than a policy of despair. Can they not suggest something else than that we should leave Ireland alone? We on this side are first and foremost Home Rulers, but we also look on this matter as a business proposition put forward in the interests of the prosperity of Ireland. I submit that in carrying out the scheme of this Bill and in negativing this Amendment we are doing that which is in accordance with the Financial Resolution that has been made a part of the Bill, and we are carrying out the highest principles of statesmanship which will lead to greater prosperity, not only in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. MOOREOf course we have had the customary gibe that we are complaining both that too much is being done and too little—too much from the English point of view and too little from the Irish point of view. As a matter of fact my natural inclination would be to vote for as little as possible being given to Ireland. It does not hurt me to be told that I am voting for a reduction of the proposed Grant to Ireland. I would cheerfully vote to give nothing at all to Ireland, and I know my Constituents hold the same view, because they are aware that a Grant to Ireland would be coupled with a proposal to put the Government of that country into the hands of the new Tammany Hall, to be set up in Dublin, which would mean nothing but corruption, jobbery, and disaster for the whole country. Why should I advocate that? On the other hand, I could vote without feeling the least inconsistency for making a Grant of ten times the amount to Ireland, because if the sum suggested were multiplied by five or by ten its inequity and injustice would become so apparent to the British elector that he would turn like the proverbial worm. He only wants to be made aware of the mean shifts and illusory draftsmanship to which the Government have resorted in order to conceal the true nature of their proposal. When you put it to Englishmen who will have to pay the bulk of the taxation, that they are being bled under this Bill, in order that the Government may retain Nationalist support in the House of Commons, they do not like it, and that is why 574 the proposals of the Government are-wrapped up in this manner.
I should like to come to the actual words of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Galway professed that nothing would delight him and his party so much as to be in a position to make this annual contribution. He said he had stated that on many platforms in Ireland and in England. It is quite possible he has said it in England, but I have never seen a speech of that character reported in Ireland. If he is in earnest I can only say that it is quite at variance with the general policy of his party. I am not aware that when there was a call on his countrymen for money for Imperial necessities, very much help in either men or money was forthcoming from his party. I know they had a meagre subscription to send out a nursing expedition front Dublin, to help not the British but the Boers. As I have said, we often have had these professions of a desire to contribute to Imperial services, but, personally, I have never seen any tangible proof in that direction. The hon. Member said he wants Ireland to contribute towards the Imperial expenditure, and trusts she will be able to do so at a later date. We, in Ulster, want to contribute also. We have paid cheerfully and ungrudgingly in the past, and we are willing to do so again. We would rather multiply our contributions to Imperial expenditure by ten fold than be handed over to a Nationalist Tammany Hall in Dublin. Let there be no mistake. The hon. Member says that he is willing that his party should contribute towards Imperial expenditure. We, on our part, are willing that Ulster should. If that is to be done, and I take it that hon. Members on the other side of the House are also willing it should be done, surely the only way you can secure it is by voting for this Amendment, because it gives you a statutory power of deduction in the Bill for ever, before one penny comes to Ireland. My hon. Friend, the Member for Colchester, was perfectly right in wanting to secure this deduction put in the Bill. It will meet the money justice of the case, and it is a business proposition, but if you leave the power of deduction out of the Bill now, when do you think you are ever going to get it back? One thing is quite certain; you will never get a Nationalist Parliament to eat all their words and go back on the past, and you will never get a contribution 575 from Ireland until you get the consent of the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin.
It is all very well talking about the Exchequer Board you are setting up to control the Irish Executive, but after six years you part with executive control, as you hand over the police services to the new body. Suppose there is any balance, how, in the first place, would you get the consent of the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin to handing it over? It is unpopular to impose taxes, and it will be more unpopular to impose taxes for the British Army with Members of that Parliament composed of members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the United Irish League, and some of the Irish Boy Scouts, who are now growing up, all pledged never to take service in a British Army. Do you think you will ever get in a House of that sort a Resolution agreeing to extra taxation for Imperial purposes. Getting it is the first obstacle, and the second is that, after you have handed over the entire executive control of the country to that same body when a balance can be struck—I do not believe it ever can be—or when, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, there ought to be a contribution from Ireland, you will have to begin to bargain and haggle over it. I do not believe you will ever be able to get it if you ask for it. All these difficulties will be obviated—they are very real difficulties—if you put into your Bill now what my hon. Friend suggests, and make an annual deduction a statutory power which shall be exercised every year, leaving no room for future trouble and bargaining. You would be able to make up for the seven lean years which are to come by increasing the annual contribution. The reason why the Government do not do it is one of the reasons which guides the Government in everything, the fear that the electors' gorge might rise at the increased yearly contribution to Ireland. I do not pretend not to be a party man, but no party man who wants to get fair dealing between the parties can have any option, putting aside party interests, but to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. BIGLANDOne of the few Members on the other side of the Committee who have spoken on this Amendment, said that we had no genuine object in bringing it forward. I wish to refute that. I wish to say that every honourable man who is handing over the Government in Ireland 576 to others must, in his own mind, stipulate, when they become prosperous and wealthy again, what percentage they should pay to us. I believe the time will come when Ireland will again be able to pay out of her prosperity a fair share towards the upkeep of the services of the United Kingdom. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moore) spoke about the poverty south of the Boyne. During the last fifty years there is no doubt whatever that wealth has come through industry, and I am not at all sure that still greater wealth will not come through the land during the next fifty years. We have only to look at the marvellous rise in prices since 1895 in all the commodities which Ireland produces. A man like myself, who is intensely interested in business and in following all the fluctuations of the markets of the world, when he comes to consider what the products of Ireland are worth compared with fifteen to twenty years ago, sees the possibility of this thirtieth part of our expenditure being paid by Ireland. I think it will only be honourable for this Committee to fix in principle the percentage that she should pay. I remember the days when lard was selling in Liverpool at 16s. 4d.; to-day it is 70s. Can you not imagine the difference in value of raising hogs in Ireland to-day compared with twenty years ago? Cannot we see the same thing in the price of butter to-day, and in the possibility of the rise in value of these rich lands of Ireland—and they are rich lands; there is enormous wealth in the South and West of Ireland, and that wealth under a sound fiscal policy will grow. I say without any hesitation that when the present Leader of the Opposition sits on the other side as Leader of the Government, and when we have had ten years of sound fiscal policy for Ireland, she will be able to meet this thirtieth part of the necessary cost of the upkeep of the United Kingdom very easily.
I am a great believer in the possibility of the soil of Ireland, carefully cared for by a Government which understands business, becoming valuable. I believe we are doing a most insane thing. We are taxing food at the same rate that we are taxing the foreign food that comes in. If you grow sugar in Ireland to-day you have to pay an Excise Duty equal to the duty paid on foreign sugar. [Interruption.] I may be a little off the line, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown it in our teeth over and over again that when we propose something we never say how 577 the money is to be raised. I object to being talked to as the Front Bench opposite have talked to us in regard to fiscal matters. They first of all talk to us as if we were children, and then as if we were gods. They appeal to us and say, "Surely, out of the greatness of our hearts we should forgive Ireland all necessity of contributing towards the services of this country in the future!" Then we are talked to as children, as if the proposals we made were simply gibes and jeers. I am reminded of one line of Rudyard Kipling:—
We are neither children nor God, but men in a world of men.This fiscal proposition is just as a man should meet a man, and as men should speak to men. It is that when they come into their income, when again they are prosperous, they will be willing to accept 1he principle proposed in this Amendment. I believe that if any race is honourable, Irishmen are honourable, and when they are able to pay I believe they will pay. Then, surely, they should go into the Lobby with us, so that in their children's time, when this prosperity has come to them they will honourably take up again the position they know and feel is theirs in the United Kingdom, and so accept the principle of paying one-thirtieth part of the total cost of the necessary services of this country. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and sincerely trust that the principle involved in it, even if it is difficult to carry out under the fiscal arrangements that have already been passed by this House, will be adopted. Surely we have in the vast number of Clauses yet to follow, a possibility of so readjusting the account that, if the Committee accepts the Amendment as a principle, it will be possible to readjust matters in such a way that a principle which will not come into force for many years shall still be laid down in the Bill.
§ Sir J. D. REESWith the indulgence of the Committee I should like to reinforce the arguments used in favour of this Amendment by an illustration from a question to-day. A question was put as to the procedure by which a "Dreadnought" from India would be accepted by the British Government, and the Prime Minister, if I may say so respectfully, very properly answered that India paid her full share towards the defence of the United Kingdom, as she does in regard to the Army. Nobody suggested then—it was taken as a matter of course—that 578 India should contribute towards Imperial defence. Why not Ireland? And why not now? Why wait? Clause 26 of this Bill provides that on a certain occasion there shall be a proper contribution secured from Irish revenues. Why not now? The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) said, "Has not Ireland given enough?" Ireland gives a great deal in giving men, and they are good men, the best of men. I am sure everyone feels that; but she should also give money. The hon. Member said, "Have we not shed enough Irish blood to build up your Empire?" Why "your Empire"? He forgets what an Imperialist his leader is when speaking in the United Kingdom. I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) on 27th May, 1911:—
Whose Empire is this? Yours? No, it is ours, as well as yours. We, as Irishmen, are not prepared to surrender our share in the heritage which our fathers created.Then why not at once shoulder a proportionate contribution towards the expenses of maintaining that Empire? It was argued by the Attorney-General that this was a mere matter of account. Matters of account are extremely important as between different portions of the same Empire. I was sorry he suggested that my hon. Friend's Amendment is not a serious one. He did it with perfect courtesy. He always does. His courtesy is only equalled by his capacity. I think it is one of the most serious Amendments we have ever had in the House of Commons, because the principle involved is also involved in the very foundations of our Empire. When he suggests it is only a matter of account and is therefore not important, let the Committee consider what has arisen out of the want of a proper system of accounts between Ireland and Great Britain in the past. Lord MacDonnell has been quoted to-day, and I should like to refer to one statement made in his letter to the "Times" this morning. I am glad to be able to quote from one whom I am proud to have served with as a brother officer, though I do not agree with his policy. He says:—Great Britain got £325,000,000 over and above the money spent on the Irish Government.And the hon. Member (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) allots that out and says so much of that was for the Army and so much for the Navy. I cannot imagine how he arrives at those figures. So far as I know 579 there never was any allotment for these figures between the Army and the Navy, or any other Imperial purpose. The fact is that in the absence of a kind of book-keeping settlement such as the Amendment would introduce into this Clause, it is impossible to say what contributions were ever made, or if any were ever made by Ireland towards the defence of the United Kingdom. What is the objection to introducing it? The hon. Member (Mr. D. Mason), who undertook to deal with this matter in the light of dry financial reason, said the Amendment could not be brought within the four corners of the Financial Resolution. He laid that down with much confidence without explaining why, and it seems to me that when you have a Financial Resolution set up no mere figures can be at variance with the Financial Resolution. The Financial Resolution consists of blank columns, into which figures may be entered at will. At least, in such book-keeping as I have seen a sum may be objected to as being incorrect—you may object to the figures, and so on—but you cannot say that the introduction of figures into a Resolution which provides columns for figures is not within the four corners of the Resolution and cannot properly be moved, as in my hon. Friend's Amendment. He also tried to put the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) upon the horns of a dilemma—an extremely difficult thing to do. The hon. Baronet did not say that he admitted that this Amendment was not within the four corners of the Resolution. He says he is going to vote for it, anyhow, and that is the main point.
§ Mr. D. MASONThe hon. Baronet said he admitted he was only supporting the Amendment because of the principle involved.
§ Sir J. D. REESI think myself the hon. Baronet was a little incautious in what he said, but I think he was by no means caught out by the hon. Member (Mr. D. Mason). When it comes to voting, you will find he will vote as he always did. Then the hon. Member, having speedily got off the high and dry financial line, began to argue that Ireland will still be a part of the United Kingdom. If it is a part of the United Kingdom, why cannot it remain there? The point is that under this Bill the United Kingdom is to be disunited, and Ireland is to be a separate financial entity. I submit that this Amendment is quite in order under the Financial 580 Resolution, that it postulates a principle of the utmost Imperial importance, that instead of deserving only the somewhat perfunctory treatment it received from the Attorney-General, I believe it is worthy of all the attention which the Government can give it, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in which case I shall vote with all my heart for it.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe hon. Gentleman said of the Attorney-General that his capacity was only equalled by his courtesy. We might very well say of the hon. Member that his self-confidence is only equalled by the rapidity with which he changes his opinions.
§ Sir J. D. REESDoes the hon. Gentleman mean to assert that I have ever, in any way whatsoever, in my life given the slightest support to any Resolution, Bill, or any other statement, in favour of Home Rule? I quite admit that he may not be aware of the actions of so humble an individual, but he should abstain from making insinuations which he cannot substantiate.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYIf the hon. Gentleman asks me to withdraw the statement that he has not changed his opinion on this or any other subject—
§ Sir J. D. REESCertainly, on this subject.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe reservation is so important that I do not think it is necessary for me to withdraw anything I have said in regard to him. Many Members on this side of the House were glad to hear the speech that fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland). He certainly showed a better temper in regard to the character of Irishmen than has characterised many speeches on that side. It was pleasant to hear the testimony to the high honour of Irishmen, but how sharp a contrast that was to the speech made only a few minutes before by an Irishman, in which, speaking of his fellow-countrymen, he referred to them as a lot of men only worthy of belonging to a Tammany organisation. If we could only get more of that temper which was shown by the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland) we should find that we were much nearer agreement on this great question of Irish finance than the appearance would seem to show. But the value of this Amendment is not in the extent to which it is a contribution towards the finance of this Bill. The real interest is in the extent to which it reveals what is the Tory 581 financial policy. It has added one more complication to the variety of contradictions which have characterised the proposals from the other side in regard to the settlement of the Irish financial position. Speaker after speaker on that side has made suggestions with regard to the financial proposals which have been mutually destructive, and that was shown by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig), who said he did not agree with the Amendment, that it would put an unjust burden on those who had sent him to the House, but by force of habit he felt compelled to vote in support of it. I am afraid there is a good deal of support given to Amendments on the other side which is given, not on their merits, but by force of habit.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI hear a cry of anguish. There is another hon. Member who feels that his conscience is not quite easy in that regard. So far as this has been argued on its merits by speakers from the other side, I think their case has come down to this, that in the previous Home Rule Bill a contribution was demanded towards Imperial expenses. Is it inconsistent now, in a new financial position, when for the first time a Bill is brought in dealing with Ireland, which is now a charge upon Imperial resources, which is not under the present system making a contribution, to bring in a new proposal for dealing with that situation? What we are doing is to take the facts as they are, honestly face them, and put
§ down proposals which everyone can see and whose merits can be tested. But this Amendment is a sham from beginning to end. It was admitted by the hon. Member who moved it that if it were carried he would have to carry a consequential Amendment under which there would be an increase in the bounty which is given to Ireland of several millions. Let it be recognised outside that that is the Conservative proposal to-day, that instead of granting Ireland £1,500,000 for the present deficit and a bounty of £500,000 they propose to grant a bounty of £5,500,000, and in order to get over the difficulty they are going to have a little bit of jiggery-pokery in the book-keeping in order to pretend that something is not being done which is actually being done. Your proposal comes to exactly what the Government are proposing, except that the Government does it honestly and you do it by a system of book-keeping which disguises the fact. It is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When you ask us to believe that Ireland now ought to make a contribution because at last she is prosperous and that her prosperity is due to the application of Unionist ideas to the facts of Ireland, you are asking us to forget the whole, history of the Irish question. The prosperity of Ireland is not due to the application of Unionist ideas to Ireland, but to the fact that the Unionist party and the Liberal party alike have adopted Nationalist ideas and have applied them to Ireland.
§ Question put, "That the word 'consisting' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 135.
585| Division No. 318.] | AYES. | [7.0 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Black, Arthur W. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Boland, John Pius | Cotton, William Francis |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Booth, Frederick Handel | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Adamson, William | Bowerman, C. W. | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Crooks, William |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Brace, William | Crumley, Patrick |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Cullinan, John |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, E. William (Eifion) |
| Armitage, Robert | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Burke, E. Haviland. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dawes, J. A. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | De Forest, Baron |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple) | Byles, Sir William Pollard | Delany, William |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Devlin, Joseph |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Chancellor, Henry George | Dickinson, W. H. |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Clancy, John Joseph | Dillon, John |
| Barton, W. | Clough, William | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Clynes, John R. | Doris, W. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Duffy, William J. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. {Bradford, E.) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Leach, Charles | Pringle, Wm. M. R. |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Radford, G. H. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lundon, T. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Falconer, J. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Reddy, Michael |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lynch, A. A. | Redmond, John E (Waterford) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | McGhee, Richard | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Field, William | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Richards, Thomas |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Macpherson, James Ian | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | M'Curdy, C. A. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Gilt, A. H. | M'Kean, John | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Ginhell, L. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Robinson, Sidney |
| Glanville, H. J. | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Manfield, Harry | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G, | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meagher, Michael | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Hackett, John | Menzies, Sir Walter | Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Millar, James Duncan | Sheehy, David |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Molloy, M. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithnessshire) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Mooney, John J. | Snowden, Philip |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Morgan, George Hay | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Worrell, Philip | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morison, Hector | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Hayden, John Frederick | Muldoon, John | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hayward, Evan | Munro, R. | Sutton, John E. |
| Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Needham, Christopher T. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Neilson, Francis | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Nolan, Joseph | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South) | Norman, Sir Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Hinds, John | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Wadsworth, J. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Hodge, John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Hogge, James Myles | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Doherty, Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Donnell, Thomas | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Dowd, John | Wardle, George J. |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Ogden, Fred | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh) | O'Grady, James | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Webb, H. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Malley, William | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn. (T. H'mts., Stepney) | O'Shee, James John | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P. |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Whyte, A. F. |
| Joyce, Michael | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Wiles, Thomas |
| Keating, Matthew | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Kelly, Edward | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| King, J. | Pointer, Joseph | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Young, William (Perth, E.) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade) | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| NOES. | ||
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Beckett, Hon. Gervase |
| Baird, J. L. | Barnston, Harry | Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth). |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Beresford, Lord Charles |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Bigland, Alfred |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) |
| Boyton, J. | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Moore, William |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Bridgeman, W, Clive | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Nield, Herbert |
| Burn, Col. C. R. | Hamersley, A. St. George | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Butcher, John George | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Harris, Henry Percy | Peel, Captain R. F. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Campion, W. R. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Cassel, Felix | Hill, Sir Clement | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Cautley, H. S. | Hoare, S. J. G. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Horner, Andrew Long | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stanier, Beville |
| Croft, H. P. | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Stewart, Gershom |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Kerry, Earl of | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Swift, Rigby |
| Fell, Arthur | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir element | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Knight, Captain E. A. | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Larmor, Sir J. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Lewisham, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Gibbs, G. A. | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Malcolm, Ian | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Wheler. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
§ The CHAIRMANI should point out to the Hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins), whose Amendment is to be moved next, that he cannot raise here the question of the constitution or the general powers of the Joint Exchequer Board. That comes properly on Clause 22. I understand that the hon. Member desires to raise the question whether the Transferred Sum should be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
§ Sir E. CARSONWill we not be entitled now, in view of the particular conditions under which debate is taking place, to raise the whole question whether there ought to be an Exchequer Board or not? Otherwise, if we do not raise the question now, we shall really have set up the Joint Exchequer Board, and it would be impossible to go back upon that decision.
§ The CHAIRMANThere have been similar cases before where there has been a reference to a body in a Clause, while later on the Clause constituting the body has to be discussed. I think I have ruled myself that the passing of words in an earlier Clause would not prejudice the discussion at a later stage. I think the dis- 586 cussion of the constitution and powers of the Joint Exchequer Board should come on Clause 22. It would be a pity to takeaway from the discussion of the question of finance, in which we are now engaged, the time necessary to discuss the constitution of the Joint Exchequer Board.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI understand from your decision that you yourself have ruled that it would be in order later on to discuss the proposal to set up a Joint Exchequer Board, in spite of our putting in these words at this stage.
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly. The passing of these words hero will not in any way prejudice the discussion on Clause 22 whether there should be a Joint Exchequer Board or not.
§ Sir HILDRED CARLILEI would point out that Clauses 22 and 23 are to be taken on the same day before half-past Seven.
§ The CHAIRMANYes. The question that both these Clauses stand part of the Bill will, on the allotted day, be taken at half-past Seven, but Clause 22 comes at the beginning of the day.
§ Mr. HEWINSOn the point of Order. I should like to know precisely where we stand before I move my Amendment. In Clause 14, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), these words occur:
"the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board."
It is really impossible to discuss what the Joint Exchequer Board may do with regard to the Irish services without at any rate referring to certain other parts of the Bill. I entirely bow to your ruling that it is not desirable at this stage to raise the question of the constitution of the Board or to discuss with any particularity the functions which are handed over to the Board, but certain references cannot possibly be left out.
§ The CHAIRMANI have informed the hon. Member what can now be discussed. I am quite certain that I can rely upon him in dealing with the matter not to travel too wide.
Captain CRAIGAs far as this particular Clause is concerned there depends upon the certificate given by the Joint Exchequer Board what the representation shall be by Irish Members in the House of Commons here. May I ask whether it would not be in order on this particular Amendment if the Joint Exchequer Board certify in one direction or another as to the revenue collected by Irish taxation, to raise the whole point as to Irish representation. Is not that question immediately raised?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that that has anything to do with this Clause. That refers to the power of the Joint Exchequer Board to decide when a revision of the financial arrangements is due. That comes on Clause 26, and it ought not to be referred to now.
§ Mr. HEWINSI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board)," and to insert instead thereof the words "Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom."
This is the first reference in the Bill to the Joint Exchequer Board, and if we try to find out what duties that Exchequer Board is to discharge we find that by referring to Clause 22. Without going into the question of the constitution of the 588 Board, we find that it has to make the inquiries and investigations entrusted to it, and that then its decision is final and conclusive. We find further that this Board is not directly or indirectly responsible either to the existing British House of Commons or to the Irish House of Commons which it is proposed to set up. My Amendment, therefore, raises the whole question of Parliamentary control of the finances of the country. I want to know how this extraordinary provision has got into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often show considerable restiveness when it is suggested that there is some doubt in our minds as to their Convictions. I would like to reason with hon. Gentlemen opposite and to investigate the question as to where precisely conviction is found on that particular subject in their minds. A considerable part of last year was devoted by them to passing the Parliament Act. The very object of that we all understood was to assert the absolute and complete control of this House. If it did not mean that what did it mean? Here we find in this particular Bill this same party, after all these provisions, after doing their best to destroy the Constitution in order to carry out their views, now proposing in this Bill to set up a body above and beyond this House of Commons. They do that by establishing this Joint Exchequer Board. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they are brought face to face with the difficulties of this Bill, remind us somewhat of the difficulties which faced the Congress of Vienna, and the establishment of the German Empire, and when in doubt, the people who took part in these Congresses thought they would refer the matter to a committee. You have these gentlemen brought face to face with the difficulty, and we are referred to some other Clause. Now we are referred to the Joint Exchequer Board.
I realise fully the significance of your ruling about the subjects which we can bring into the present discussion. But the logical deduction of most of the functions of this Board are summed up in its first function which we are now discussing—the determination of the cost of services transferred at the passing of the Act. That is part and parcel of the whole fiscal system of the United Kingdom at present. You are taking out of that complete system one portion, and you are leaving it to this body of gentlemen to draw up rules and make investigations, and come 589 to a decision which binds this House, the Irish House, and the country with regard to that particular section of our national activity. If you take any one part of the function which we are at present discharging as a United Kingdom, and if you subject that part to an investigation of a body called the Joint Exchequer Board you are really giving the Joint Exchequer Board control, not only with regard to those particular services and subjects, but of all the related subjects, because you have got to consider the financial and fiscal arrangement of the country as a whole. How is this Joint Exchequer Board going to perform its duties? I have the highest opinion of the financial experts who may be at the service of the Government, I do not know who they will be, or how the Board is going to be named, or what sort of people will be on it. But everybody knows that a Government has the possibility, at any rate, of getting into its service the greatest financial experts of the world. But what are the problems? I will not say they are insoluble; but it is quite impossible to come to any conclusions which are not founded upon certain hypotheses which are highly controversial. We have had experience of various inquiries which have been held into Irish affairs. I take the great Financial Relations Inquiry of 1896. They carried on investigations into topics which the Chief Secretary would call topics of the same class, and yet there is not a line, not a conclusion in the report, and even in the investigations of the Financial Relations Commission which was not the subject of the greatest amount of controversy and contradiction. The Government did not accept it; the economic experts did not accept it; nobody accepted it as a final and conclusive decision.
Take your own Committee of Inquiry. You have just had a Committee of Inquiry, yet you will not let us see the evidence, that is, you will not let us see the hypotheses which witnesses put forward in giving their evidence which we would very much like to know. You have rejected your own Committee. Take the subject which has been discussed on the financial Resolution. The Postmaster-General cannot tell what his own Bill means. The Attorney-General does not know; we do not know. Take the discussion this afternoon. We have had subject after subject started; there is the greatest fog on the Benches opposite as to what these provisions mean. Yet we are 590 going to select five gentlemen apparently without any of the equipment of a great public Department. There is no provision for that here, simply' five excellent experts selected by the Government. These gentlemen are going to cast a general view over the cost of Irish services, one of the most complicated things they could possibly inquire into. We do not know how they are to investigate, when they are to begin and when to end, who is to institute it and draw up its terms of reference. None of those things are in the Bill. I suppose that the five gentlemen will meet, comfortably discussing things and deciding questions. There is no definition of how, when, and where this particular thing is to take place, and they are to investigate it. They have got to come to conclusions about the cost of different Irish services which are binding on the country, on this House, and on the Irish House of Commons. Could anything be more absurd? Some of us have had comparatively minor problems to investigate. Take the simplest things, the simple collation and comparison of the statistics bearing upon the Irish services. You could not get a number of experts to agree how those statistics should be interpreted. It is a perfectly well-known thing in all these investigations that you cannot merely take a number of tables supplied to you by other Departments and jot down the figures and come to some definite, final conclusion. Very often, before you know what particular group of figures or facts should be taken, you have got to collect evidence on the widest scale. This Government never collected any evidence at all, so far as I can see, about this Bill. They have not got any information to enable us to judge about these very items. Yet they expect this body of men, without any equipment and inquiries into these delicate financial subjects, to come to final and complete decisions. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that if they set up a body whose conclusions bind the House of Commons in such a way as I have described, they are setting up a body which, if it is to carry out this work at all, is to cut across all existing Departments.
They have got to get the assistance of the Board of Trade, of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland, and of a great many other bodies, and of figures drawn from different sources, and constructed from different points of view, and they will have to have a complete expert staff to see how 591 these various matters should be arranged, and what conclusions are to be drawn by these five excellent gentlemen. They cannot sit down before tabular figures of this kind and come to a decision which this House or any other House can adopt. We certainly shall not do so, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London pointed out yesterday, it is not merely a question of giving an expert decision upon the meaning of certain, let us say, carefully prepared and perfectly accurate statistics. At every stage they have got to take decisions which affect policy. By the decisions of this Board you may find this House and this country plunged into the throes of some violent controversy. Did anyone hear of such a body being set up in this country, a body extern to this House, not responsible to this House, whose reports are not laid on the Table of this House, acting in accordance with terms of reference which are not drafted by this House, but are drawn up by themselves, inventing hypotheses which happen to suit the atmosphere of the moment, coming along and arriving at conclusions and telling the British House of Commons it is to have a revolution? That is what it comes to. The idea is perfectly absurd, and if we were actuated in criticising this provision by merely party motives, we could not have a better case here. All over England during the last year and the year before, hon. Gentlemen opposite were stumping the country, speaking against the House of Lords, and crying up the power of the House of Commons over all these proceedings, and exaggerating the power of the House of Commons, and now these very gentlemen, just as they swallowed Free Trade yesterday in voting for the Financial Resolution, so now they are going to abandon the very life principle of all representative institutions. There is no period of our history, so far as I am acquainted with it, in which if you made a proposal like this to set up an extern body not responsible to this House, and yet to bind its decisions on points involving policy, such a proposal would not have been strongly resented, and in some periods would have led to revolutionary outbreaks.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELPerhaps, in the first place, it would be as well to call the attention of the Committee to what is really the proper scope of this Amendment. The hon. Member has addressed the Committee as if he had been raising 592 some great question of constitutional importance. What is it that the Joint Exchequer Board is asked to do under this Clause? Later on, when we come to other Clauses in which the Joint Exchequer Board is asked to deal with questions of some complexity, I can understand that some discussion may be raised and reasoned arguments may be required if relevant in support of our proposals. Whenever the Joint Exchequer Board is mentioned in the Bill, hon. Members opposite are at liberty to raise the particular point which is dealt with by that Clause. Here we are dealing with the function which is thrown upon the Joint Exchequer Board by Clause 14, and I will ask the Committee to consider precisely what the task is which they will be called upon to perform. It is to determine what sum represents the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services. That is purely a question of fact. The hon. Member who has moved this said that the functions which they are asked to perform involve the decision by them of questions of policy which ought properly to be retained in the hands of the House itself.
§ Mr. HEWINSI do not confine it to that. I say that the purely financial proposals of this Bill are exceedingly objectionable and contrary to the British Constitution.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member said that the functions that they are called upon to perform, the decisions which they will be asked to make affect policy. If it were true that their decisions were to affect policy and the decision of policies was entrusted to them then I should agree with every word which the hon. Member has said. I think it would be in the highest degree improper to depute to any outside body of financial or other experts the consideration of questions of constitutional or financial policy. It is in the provisions relating to the Joint Exchequer Board that in every case they are asked to decide what are questions of fact. In no instance is that clearer than in relation to the question now under consideration. They are asked to decide. Nothing more than this. What, at the time of the passing of the Act, is the actual cost to the Exchequer of the services transferred to the Irish Government? It does not rest with them to determine what those services are. That is Clearly set out by Parliament in the Act itself, 593 which declares what the Irish services are, and the sole function of the Board is to say what is, at the time of the passing of the Act, the cost of those services to the Exchequer. The task raises no question of policy, raises, indeed, no question of difficulty, though it does involve the examination of a very considerable number of points of detail, and surely points of financial detail. It is a task which, as a matter of fact, is already performed year by year by the Treasury, and the results are laid before Parliament year by year from a White Paper.
The Paper of this year is No. 190, and is beaded, "Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland)," and in this Paper there are seven pages of statistics showing the present cost of the various national services, in so far as they relate to expenditure in regard to England, Scotland, Ireland, and the general expenditure of the United Kingdom respectively. The sole function which the Board has to discharge under this Clause is to check the figures in going through this Paper, to on sure that the figures are accurate, that the division is properly made, with, of course, due regard to the provisions in the Bill which determine what are Irish services and what are services common to the United Kingdom. I have said that they are to ascertain the cost of the services at the time of the passing of the Act, and there are plenty of precedents in Acts of Parliament where a similar course has been adopted. We are dealing in this particular matter by way of giving additional security, and not leaving it merely to a Government Department, but setting up what is in the nature of a Commission of the most authoritative character to decide any disputed point. I have just had handed to me an Act of Parliament passed by hon. Members opposite. The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which provides that there is to be a Commissioner of Valuation who is to decide the amounts to be taken for the purpose of this Act as having been raised in the whole of Ireland by Poor rate and county cess on agricultural land and of any other hereditament, respectively; the portion of each of those amounts which is to be taken for the purpose of this Act in each administrative county, (i.) in respect of county at large charges; and in respect of union charges, urban and district charges." The Local Government Act of 1888 also contains a similar provision, and I could quote a score of Acts of Parliament 594 in which this House has very naturally and very properly devolved to some experts outside its own body the determination of matters of facts in circumstances of this kind.
§ Sir E. CARSONAll those questions come before the Treasury or the Local Government Board, or whatever the Department may be, and the Departments are responsible to this House.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThat may be so, and this House, as a matter of tact, always accepts the determination of this Department. I think it would be a very unusual course for this House to say that such and such things shall be dealt with: that the figures are to be determined by the Treasury, and, the Treasury hating determined them, that then the House should reverse their decision. That, I venture to say, has never been done. But what is the proposal in this Amendment? The hon. Member is not content, with taking this function, which is little more than an arithmetical function, out of the hands of the Joint Exchequer Board, but he proposes an alternative, and what is the alternative? That the House of Commons itself, a legislative assembly of 670 gentlemen should go through the seven pages of statistics, and shall determine whether or not the pensions for official services paid in Ireland really amount to £12,000 or £12,500 or £11,500; whether certain inspectors will receive £500,000—I am taking the items haphazard —and whether the surveys of the United Kingdom really cost £67,500 in relation to Ireland, while they cost £999,000 in relation to England.
§ Mr. HEWINSMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the House of Commons discusses the Estimates?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe House of Commons discuss the Estimates because they involve policy and can be varied from year to year, but here you are not giving the Joint Exchequer Board any power of variation or any power of determining policies; they merely have to open the books and to see what are the figures contained in those books. That is the function devolved upon them. The hon. Member gave us the illustration of the Parliament Act, and he said that we spent weeks in defining what a Money Bill is under that Act. What did the House of Commons do under the Parliament Act? The hon. Member's illustration tells precisely against his contention. It did not reserve to itself the determination of whether or 595 not a particular Bill did or did not conform to its own definition; it laid down the definition, and deputed the decision to the expert authority of Mr. Speaker himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I remember that the Bill was modified in that direction by giving Mr. Speaker two assessors, whose advice he might accept. The Bill, as originally introduced, if my memory serves me aright, devolved that power on Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member's interruption was made in error, and his illustration tells against his view and not in favour of it. Supposing the suggestion of hon. Members opposite had been adopted by us in drafting the Bill, and supposing in drafting the Bill we had inserted a provision by which the House of Commons itself had to go through these seven pages of statistics, and to decide whether or not they are accurate, or in what particular they err, would not hon. Members opposite have said, "Have you ever seen such a ridiculous proposal as actually to expect this House of 670 Members to wade through all these figures and decide whether or not they are accurate?" The only result of the hon. Member's Amendment, if it were accepted, would be to devolve upon the House of Commons, instead of relieving it of business, an additional task, which, by its very constitution, I venture to say it is totally unfitted to perform.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWObviously—and I am sure hon. Members opposite must realise it—there is great difficulty in discussing this question within the limitation which is imposed upon us. The whole point made by my hon. Friend is that in what we are doing we are depriving the House of Commons of a power which has always been regarded, and by nobody more than the party opposite, as the essence of constitutional government. We are to transfer to another and irresponsible body powers which have always been jealously guarded by the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman begins, first of all, with what I might venture to describe as a very trivial argument, that 670 Members cannot perform this work. The essence of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that this work ought to be done in some way over which this House can have control; and when the right hon. Gentleman puts to ns instances of other Acts of Parliament where the work is done by the Treasury, or some other Department, he knows perfectly well that these very instances are 596 in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because the Treasury or other Department is under the control of the House of Commons, not through 670 Members, but as a corporate body which would exercise and keep control over everything that is done. This really does raise a constitutional question which goes to the root of our whole procedure. The right hon. Gentleman made this admission, and when we come to the discussion of other functions of the Joint Board of Exchequer we shall take good care to remind him of it. He said that if this Joint Board of Exchequer had in any way to deal with policy, then it would be improper. I am going to pin the right hon. Gentleman to that admission, is it policy if the effect of the decision of the Board is to vary the Budget Is not that policy? If the action of this Board is to alter or control in any way the arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for meeting the financial needs of the country, is not that policy?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIf the Custom House tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the revenue has fallen off by a million, their function is not one of policy, but is one really of determining the facts.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe Customs are entirely under the control of the House of Commons, they are strictly under our control; but since the right hon. Gentleman puts that illustration, suppose the Custom House were an entirely irresponsible body, and it could produce results which affected the Budget, would that be policy?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNot if the functions they are asked to perform were purely a statement of the facts, and they were not concerned with what might result from those facts.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe right ton. Gentleman denies that the variation of the Budget is a question of policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It must be one way or the other. If an external body can cause the House to vary its Budget, is that, or is it not, policy?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is not the body that causes the variation; it is the facts that cause it. If the Customs fall by a million they do not fall by any action of the Joint Board of Exchequer, and if the Statistical Board of Customs simply records the fact that the Customs have fallen by a million, and you have to vary 597 the Budget in consequence, it is ludicrous to say that the Board of Customs have varied the Budget.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe right hon. Gentleman ignores the whole case I have put. In that case the actual falling off in revenue is a question of fact, but if it is a question of opinion and a decision is arrived at, when a different opinion was possible, it is a question of policy. That is the point I am going to prove, that it is not a question of fact even under this Clause, but that it is a question of the interpretation of facts, and the right hon. Gentleman, I think, cannot deny that if an external body by the way in which it interprets those facts does cause us to vary our financial procedure, that that is in a vital way affecting the policy of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman contends that under this Clause all that this body has to do is to certify facts. He knows perfectly well, nobody better, that that is not a clear statement or a true statement of the facts. He knows perfectly well that if it were merely to ascertain facts about which there was no doubt, that you do not need a body of this kind. He knows perfectly well that the only justification for such a body is that the matters are open to dispute, and that they are open to differences of opinion, and that they are not questions for account. What he is doing is setting up this irresponsible body which, by its opinion one way or the other, will determine financial considerations. It is a question merely of fact even under this Clause, and there are other clauses which make the point much stronger if it were possible to discuss them. The right hon. Gentleman read out:—
"Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board……to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services."
That really tells us a question of figures. I ask anyone who has a copy of the Bill to turn to Clause 4, Sub-section (6), which tells us the definition of Irish services—
"For the purposes of this Act 'Irish services' are all public services in connection with the administration of the Civil Government of Ireland, except the administration of matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament have no power to make laws, including in the exception all public services in connection with the administration of the reserved matters (in this Act referred to as 'reserved services')."
598 What is it that this Board, which has only to deal with ascertained facts, has got to do? It has got to interpret your Act of Parliament, and on its interpretation the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country must inevitably depend. I will go further. Under Clause 11 the right hon. Gentleman referred only to its first duty, but it has got another duty—
"A sum equal to the proceeds, as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, of any Irish taxes imposed in Ireland by the Irish Parliament under the powers given to them by this Act."
They have got to determine what the proceeds of those taxes are. Is that a mere question of fact? Take the case which was given by my right hon. Friend. There is a duty now on tea of 5d., and suppose the Irish Government put on an additional penny, the Joint Exchequer Board has to determine how much of that goes to the Irish Exchequer. Very likely the fact of putting on that additional penny will be that the consumption will fall off, and that the proportion will not be the same as if the tax had been fivepence. How is that to be determined? The Solicitor-General told is what he would do. There is nothing in the Act to say what should be done. He would first of all make an estimate of what the proceeds would have been if the duty had remained at fivepence. Having made that estimate, he would then take the whole sum, and, as I understood him, give the Irish Government not the penny, or not the amount that would have been raised, but the proportion that would have been arrived at if there had been no falling off in consumption, and we are told that that is a question of fact. It is perfectly evident that what this Board has got to do is to decide not questions of fact, which could be settled by any accountant, not questions of figures, which could be settled without the need of such a Board, but it has got to decide questions the decision of which depends on opinion on which there is bound to be differences of opinion, and it is their opinion, and theirs alone, which will determine the financial policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman treats this Amendment as if it were of no consequence. It is going back on the vital function of the House of Commons. Why is it being done? It is being done for the simple reason that the Gentlemen below- the Gangway will not. trust the Treasury. They do not put in, as has been done in other Acts, "as may be determined by the Treasury" leaving the 599 power in this House. They put in an irresponsible body because the Members for Ireland, on whom they depend, are not willing to accept the decision of this House; that is the reason, and the sole reason. I venture to say that of all the provisions of this Bill there is none which shows more clearly what has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend, that from the first line of this Bill to the last the Government are not influenced in making arrangements which they think are best for England or for Ireland, but they are influenced solely by making arrangements which will secure them Parliamentary support.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELPerhaps I may be allowed to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very sorry indeed to occupy the attention of the House again, but I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech requires some reply. The replies are indeed very obvious. He mentioned that the Joint Exchequer Board would have the duty of interpreting our Act with respect to what are Irish services, and he quoted the definition of Irish services in an earlier Clause, and said, "Those are the problems which are to be left to the decision of this body." That is not so. The Joint Exchequer Board, it is true, will have to interpret what are Irish services, and will have to assess the expenditure upon those services according to their interpretation; but the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that it rests with them to decide what are and what are not Irish services without any control and within their absolute determination. That is a matter for interpretation, if there is any dispute, by the judicial authorities, provided for under the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There is a Clause undoubtedly which the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of and will not deny, that if there is any dispute as to whether or not particular functions are within the powers of the Irish Parliament—
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt has nothing whatever to do with the Irish Parliament. 'What control is there in the Bill over the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI venture respectfully to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. The question of what are and what are not Irish services is the same as the question of what is and what is not 600 within the function of the Irish Parliament, and that matter is not left in any degree to the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to propose it, and there is no Clause in the Bill which suggests any such thing.
§ Sir E. CARSONWill you tell us what Clause you refer to?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELMy right hon. Friend the Attorney-General wall find it. I was not aware that this question was going to be raised. Of course it does not in the least degree arise on this Clause. Whether or not a Court of Law is to determine what is and what is not within the function of the Irish Parliament I submit the Bill does not relegate that to the Joint Exchequer Board, and unquestionably it is decided by a Court of Law whether or not a particular service is a function with which the Irish Parliament, has power to deal. If any dispute arises it will not be the Joint Exchequer Board which will decide it, but it will be the Court of Law by a case taken before them, or by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The second point of the right hon. Gentleman was this. He referred to the latter part of this Clause to which I did not refer because this Amendment does not touch it. He said the Joint-Exchequer Board will have to decide what are the proceeds and the yield of Irish additions to Imperial taxes, and that if they put on an extra halfpenny on tea they would have to decide what is the yield of that halfpenny. Certainly that is not a question of policy; they have not got to act as statesmen or as a legislative assembly in determining what is the amount of yield belonging to one portion of the tax, and what is the amount which is the product of another portion of the tax. When we come to that Clause we have under consideration the question whether or not it is necessary in the wording of the Clause to give a particular indication to decide the point now raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I submit that is a matter which can only be decided by the Clause. In any case the right hon. Gentleman cannot for a moment contend that the decision of whether a particular five thousand pounds is the product of one part of a tax, or the yield of another part, or rate of tax, is in any degree a question of policy, or is at all a matter for the determination of a legislative assembly.
§ 8.0 P.M.
Mr. BALFOURI am rather surprised that the galaxy of learning on the Front Bench was not able to find a Clause so vital to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as that which he declares is to determine whether a service is an Irish service or not. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply to my right hon. Friend accepted the conclusion of my right hon. Friend supposing his premises were right. The right hon. Gentleman said if this body is indeed to determine what are Irish services, that, is a question for which they are completely unfit. He admitted that. Then, we ask, who is to determine it, and he said a Court of Law. We asked, "Under what Clause is a Court of Law to determine it," and up to the present moment the learning of the Attorney-General has not been able to find out. I suppose he does not refer to Clause 29, in which there is power given to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State to determine whether any Irish Act or any Irish Bill is outside the purview of this Act. Then there is, no doubt, an appeal to a Court of Law, but I am not aware, or at least we have not yet discovered, by what machinery and by what provision in this Bill the Joint Exchequer Board are to refer any doubtful point to a legal tribunal. I may incidentally remark that there is no provision in this Bill either for giving them a staff or for paying them. Presumably, therefore, the Government do not mean to give them a staff, and do not mean them to have a staff. Those five gentlemen meet with no clerical assistance, and they come to the conclusion that this or that or the other is an Irish service. That conclusion, says the right hon. Gentleman, of course they ought not to be allowed to make if it is a doubtful point. It ought to be referred, if it is a doubtful point, to a legal tribunal; and, says he, there is machinery for referring it to a legal tribunal. Who is going to compel them to go to a legal tribunal, even supposing there is a provision in the Bill, about which I must confess I am extremely sceptical. Can the Attorney-General even now tell us where it is to be found?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not think there is a provision in the Bill; it is the general law. If a Board goes beyond the powers which are given to it under an Act of Parliament, of course there is a power in the courts to interfere and restrain them. There is no doubt about that. It is a general power of law in the Courts of 602 Justice. I think my right hon. Friend said that he thought it was actually in the Bill. But that particular provision is not in the Bill; it depends on the general law which applies to every Board set up.
Mr. BALFOURI am not surprised that the industry of the whole Front Bench did not find the provision in the Bill, because it appears to be part of the common law, and not a part of the legal scheme of the Government. Now let us take it on the new basis of the common law. Under the common law, according to the Attorney-General, if any Board comes to a decision to which objection is taken—
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNo, if it goes beyond its powers.
Mr. BALFOURIf any Board goes beyond its powers, there is an appeal to the law. But the powers of this Joint Exchequer Board are to decide. It is what the Board is told to do under the Clause we are now discussing. It is to come to a decision upon a point upon which there may be differences of opinion. As far as. I can discover, there is no machinery in the Bill enabling anybody in this House or outside of it, in the Irish Parliament or in the British Parliament, in the Irish Treasury or in the English Treasury, to go before a legal tribunal and to say, not that the Board has exceeded its powers—that is not the point; that may be under common law, but it has nothing to do with this question. The question is, not whether the Board has exceeded its powers, but whether it has given a right decision on a doubtful point. That is the question. The Attorney-General has now admitted that these gentlemen will have to decide this very question without any appeal.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI did not say without appeal.
Mr. BALFOURWithout any appeal unless they exceed their powers. I admit that on the question of common law the right hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me. Perhaps he will instruct me now; if so, I shall be very grateful to him. May not the position fairly be stated thus? The Postmaster-General admits that if this body could give a decision without control upon the controverted question of what is or is not an Irish service, we should be giving it a power which it ought not to possess. He thought that these improper powers were limited in the Bill, but they are not. The Attorney-General 603 thinks that they are limited by the common law or by the ordinary practice of the Courts. My terminology may be wrong, but that is what it comes to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when asked what the Courts can do, says that the Courts can interfere if this Commission exceeds its powers. Its powers are to make decisions on these very doubtful points of policy. It is not exceeding its powers, therefore, if it gives a decision to which somebody, say the Irish Government or the British Government, objects. Neither the Irish Government nor the British Government, as far as I can see, have the smallest claim to haul this body before a Court of Law unless they are prepared to argue, not that it has given a wrong decision, but that its decision is given in excess of its powers. Therefore you are driven directly back to the situation which, forgetting the contents of his own Bill, the Postmaster-General admitted was an intolerable position, namely, the position that this body is going to give decisions on doubtful points of policy entirely outside the control of this House, which has so persistently, so loudly, and so consistently arrogated to itself the whole control of the financial interests of the country. I really think that no politician was ever worse advised than was the Postmaster-General in making his second speech. He told us truly that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition required an immediate answer. So it did. But I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit not only that he convicted himself of ignorance of the contents of his own Bill, but that, either on the hypothesis that the Bill was as he thought it was, or on the hypothesis of the Bill as it is, he has not given the smallest reply to the arguments laid before the Committee by my right hon. Friend.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe right hon. Gentleman has delivered as usual, if I may say so, a very interesting speech. He has referred to various points raised in the course of the discussion, and dealt with them in his own way, according to his own interpretation of what was said, in answer to them. When I did not interrupt in answer to his request to me that I should get up and, as he courteously put it, instruct him in the common law, the reason I did not respond was that I could not confine myself to the common law, in regard to which, no doubt, right hon. and 604 learned Gentlemen opposite would not differ from me.
§ Sir E. CARSONWe might differ upon its application.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat interruption really illustrates admirably the point between us. There is no difference between us as to the principle of law. Therefore you do not require to go to a Court of Law on the question of how you are going to apply your law to a particular set of facts. There would be a difference; you must ascertain what is the true set of facts. That is exactly what we are doing here. We say that a Joint Exchequer Board should be set up for the purpose of ascertaining the facts as to the net cost of Irish services to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Then comes the difficulty introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, with which my right hon. Friend dealt, I think successfully, except that for a moment when he was asked a question he thought there was in the Bill a provision which was to be found in the common law. I see opposite to me right hon. Gentlemen who have been law officers longer than I have. I am certain that neither of them would attempt to make a point against my right hon. Friend because he thought something was in the Bill which in point of fact he had been told was to be found in the ordinary law. Nobody attaches any importance to that. It was a small debating point with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) dealt in his usual pleasant style. I want to take the point that the right hon. Gentleman did make. If I followed him correctly, what he said was this: "The Postmaster-General has said that this Board "would not have to deal with policy." He went on to elaborate what had been said by the Leader of the Opposition. It was indeed from the Leader of the Opposition that we had the statement which has given rise to this discussion about the control of the Joint Exchequer Board by the Courts of Law. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, "If you come to consider the questions of fact, do they not really mean questions of policy? The answer is, No, certainly not. It was shown by my right hon. Friend that questions of fact were not questions of policy, and that questions of policy could not be decided by a Board which had to deal only with facts and not with policy. An instance which occurred to me in the 605 course of the discussion is this. Suppose the Board were to find as a result of their calculations and on the facts that there is a deficit of £2,000,000. How that deficit is to be met would be a question of policy. Whether there is a deficit is a question of fact. That is the point.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat was not my argument.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNo, but I think it is an answer to one of the points of the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to say, if I followed him correctly, "Let us see what it is that this Board will have to deal with." He then read out that it would have to ascertain what was the net cost of Irish services to the Exchequer at the time of the passing of the Act. He referred to Clause 4 (6), which defines Irish services, and he said that from that he gathered that the Joint Exchequer Board would decide the net cost and decide for themselves what were Irish services. Then he went on to say—and here it was that my right hon. Friend joined issue with him, as I think rightly—that they again decided for themselves, without the Courts of Justice having any control over them, what are Irish services. If they go beyond what are Irish services as denned under Clause 4 (6) there is no doubt at all that the Courts of Justice could, and would, interfere. That is really the whole question which has given rise to this very charming dissertation, if I may so describe it, from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as to the difficulty in which he had placed my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on this question of law. It really only amounts to that. There is nothing inconsistent in anything that my right hon. Friend has said in regard to it. You have to keep perfectly clear what is fact and what is policy. An excellent illustration is afforded, again, by part of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this Board will have to interpret Statutes, and that if they have to interpret Statutes, how can it be said that that is not policy? But the judges have to interpret Statues every day. It is part of the work of the Law Courts to interpret Statutes. No one will suggest that that is policy. If the effect of the interpretation is to produce a different meaning from that intended by the Legislature, the Legislature says that that is not the policy it intended, and it proceeds to alter it by Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat was not my argument.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is involved in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that because the Joint Exchequer Board had to interpret what are Irish services, in order to ascertain the net cost under Clause 14, paragraph (a), therefore it necessarily followed that they would be dealing with policy.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat was not my argument at all. My argument was that their interpretation, which would be a matter of opinion, would influence and determine the amount of money which the House of Commons had to spend, and that the determination of the amount of money was policy.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSReally the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to have proved exactly what I was saying. He says that the determination of the amount of money is policy. I cannot see how you can say that the ascertaining of the sum of money is policy. The ascertaining of the sum of money, whatever way you put it, must be determined by the facts. You may have to apply the law in determining the facts, and it may be that in applying the law to the particular fact with which you are dealing you apply it wrongly and exceed the powers which are given. Then you have the restraining influence of the Courts of Law. But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that all that he has been saying is that the determination of the amount of money is a question of policy, he has absolutely decided the whole question, as it seems to me, against himself. The very fact that you are talking of the determination of the amount shows that you are ascertaining a fact, and the result of that fact may or may not be to cause a change of policy. If it does, it is not the Exchequer Board. The Exchequer Board has to decide what is really the fact, and when the fact had been ascertained it would be for one party or the other to determine whether or not that carried out its policy. I do submit that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has quite correctly answered the point at issue.
§ Sir E. CARSONCertainly the debate which has arisen over this Clause has given rise to a discussion of great interest. It has also given rise to a discussion which I venture to think, without in the least wishing to be offensive, the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared for; because he 607 told us in very clear language that really what we are setting up this Exchequer Board for is for the purpose of making mere arithmetical calculations; to check the various departments who will send in returns; that the Board would then tot them up.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELUnder this Sub-section.
§ Sir E. CARSONYes, under this Subsection. That, of course, is really ridiculous. My right hon. Friend asked if that was all the Exchequer Board had to do, why set it up at all? Why not have this done by some of the Treasury gentlemen. They could tot up the various sums without setting up this Exchequer Board, which is to be immune from the consideration of this House; is to be above both Houses of Parliament, and anything that either House can do. That was where the matter started—a pure question of fact. Now we come to this, that the Board has to consider under the Bill one of the most difficult problems—according to the Government themselves—because under the Sub-section which has been referred to, they have to determine what are matters in regard to which the Irish Parliament has no power to make laws. That is the very basis of the whole jurisdiction of these gentlemen of the Exchequer Board. That is the first thing they have to determine. What is the Government's view of the difficulty? Notice what the Government have done themselves. They set up a Parliament in Ireland, and, when that Parliament, with all their legal advisers, tell them that they have a right to legislate on some question, they put in a whole series of Sections and Sub-sections here for enabling the Lord Lieutenant, or to enable the country to determine whether a law passed is within the jurisdiction of the subordinate legislature at all. Could anything be more important than referring this matter to the Privy Council?
In that case you have the power, without putting in that Section to appeal to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the common law. Because they have passed an Act of Parliament which was outside their jurisdiction you can, when it comes before the Court, say it is outside their jurisdiction, and therefore it has no effect. So difficult, so important, so necessary it is to ascertain what it is the Irish Parliament have the power to legislate upon that you yourselves put in this 608 Clause that the matter is to be referred to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council is to ascertain. All that jurisdiction (in Clause 29) you give to the Privy Council:—
"Upon the hearing of the question such persons as seem to the Judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as, parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were the decision of an appeal; the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open Court."
All that is set up. You provide for the apparatus of litigation; you provide for the method in which it is to be done, and yet you give to this Board of mere calculators, that same jurisdiction without setting up any method whatsoever in the Bill.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELDoes the right hon. Gentleman really say that the interpretation of the wording in Clause 4, Sub-section (6) defining the Irish services is left entirely to the Joint Exchequer Board and that there is no appeal to a Court of Law.
§ Sir E. CARSONThat is not what I am arguing at all. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to follow me, what I am saying is that when it is a mere question with reference to the Irish House of Commons and the Irish Second Chamber—whatever it may be—and the Act passed by the King, after it has gone through all its stages, you set up a special part of the Privy Council to solve the difficulty of determining the question, whereas in the case of these gentlemen who have to determine exactly the same question you set up no appeal at all to the Privy Council.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThere is a Court of Law.
§ Sir E. CARSONThere is no appeal to any Court.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELYes.
§ Sir E. CARSONNot by your Bill. The truth of the matter is you never thought of this question at all or you would not have done it in this way; you would not have thrown a burden of this kind upon a tribunal like this, which, you may say, you are going to set up for arithmetical calculating purposes. You could mot say to 609 them who have no officers, no staff, who are not like the House of Commons, which has its Attorney-General and Solicitor-General and all the powers and paraphernalia of the House of Commons—as I suppose the Irish House of Commons will have—yon give them that power, and the Lord Lieutenant the power to take a matter to the Privy Council, and you make provision here as to the business and who are entitled to be heard—but I say you leave out the whole of this as regards the Exchequer Board. No, Sir, it is an afterthought. I give the Attorney-General great credit for his ingenuity for saying that a matter can be raised before a Court. How is it to be raised? By whom? There is not a word in the Bill. There is not even a word in the Bill about the procedure before this Exchequer Board. Are the Boar going to hear parties? Are they going to hear subjects? Are they going to hear persons interested, and will there be any persons interested? Will they have two Prime Ministers and two Chancellors of the Exchequer? What will be their procedure?
It is all very well to say that if they exceed their powers you can take them up before the Court. Without making any provision in the Bill how are you going to do it? Who is going to do it? Who is he party interested in it? Which Court is the matter to go to, the Irish Court or the English Court, or equally between the two? Is it members of the Board themselves that can take the matter up? Supposing this happens—and this will be an illustration of the absurdity of the Board itself—supposing that the two Irish representatives vote that it is a matter upon which the Irish Parliament has power to legislate and the two Englishmen vote that they have not the power. The Chairman decides it between them, one way or the other. Can the Irishman who has voted against the Englishman immediately proceed to take it up in an Irish Court, or can the Englishmen who has voted against the Irishmen immediately proceed to take it up in an English Court?
No, Sir, there is no procedure set up. You know you cannot determine these constitutional questions in that way. You know perfectly well that the reasons you have set up the important tribunal you have set up with reference to laws passed by the Irish Parliament if they exceed their powers and are ultra vires to the powers conferred by the Bill, is because you know these are great constitutional questions, 610 and you know perfectly well that it would be quite absurd that you should give any chance Court, either by certiorari or mandamus or some of those processes in Ireland or England, power to have it solemnly determined as to whether certain things are within the power of the Irish Legislature or not as a mere side issue arising on a calculation of what are Irish services. Surely, to refer these questions by either kind of procedure, and then afterwards to have probably the same question referred in that way, not to the Court at all, but to the Privy Council, really makes the whole thing as to the determination of these questions absolutely ludicrous, and what we are driven to is this, and the reason we have got into this discussion is because the Postmaster-General said if there was any question of policy or anything different from the mere question of ascertaining the facts, he would have to admit that you were setting up in this Board and in the Act of the Board something which should not be, and could not be removed from the cognisance of the Houses of Parliament. Then when his attention is drawn to the Section which was overlooked, we have then set up a falling back upon the common law rights, something which is entirely different, as I have shown, as to what was meant to the method of determining these great questions between the two countries. I suggest that we might very well adjourn this Debate—we could go on with something else—and after some consideration of the subject, if we come to the view that this matter is to be determined by the Privy Council in the same way as other constitutional questions, we think it ought now to be stated and indications to that effect put into the Bill. Certainly we ought not to pass from the matter leaving it at large and in what I cannot but think is nothing but a muddle.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a suggestion not by any means in a controversial spirit, which is, of course, entitled to receive respect by the Government. He indicates that he thinks it would be advisable that a special appeal should be allowed to the Privy Council in cases where matters are to be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board in which there may be doubt on questions of law. He does not support the view previously expressed from the Front Bench opposite, and which I was trying to controvert that these, matters were left to the absolute determination of the Joint Exchequer Board, from 611 whose verdict as to what was, or what was not, an Irish service there could be no appeal. He does not support that view.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhat the right hon. Gentleman said was that they had only to determine a question of facts, and that so far as the question of fact is determinable there could be no appeal by certiorari or mandamus, or in any other way under the Act; but the original basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that there could be no appeal under this Section.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI did not perhaps make myself quite clear. I was saying they had to determine questions of fact with regard to the amount of the services. I never suggested they had to determine questions of fact as to what was, and what was not, an Irish service. I never suggested that, and I do not think the Bill ever for a moment contemplated that. That would fail to be determined if there was a doubt by a judicial authority under the common law.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Joint Exchequer Board would not do anything in the air. They would be dealing with the Irish Government administering certain functions, and these functions would be those defined in the Act as Irish services. If they were exceeding their functions a Court of Law would be able to challenge them, and the matter is not one that falls primarily within the power of the Joint Exchequer Board to determine. When I said that there was a provision in the Bill dealing with this point—Clause 29, decision by the Privy Council—but, having looked at that Clause quite recently I had not in my mind that it was limited to legislation, and undoubtedly as the right hon. Gentleman said, there may be other matters besides Irish legislation which may perhaps probably be included, such as questions raised by this Clause, in Clause 29. I shall be happy to respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and after consultation with the draftsman—this is a matter that requires careful consideration—the Government will consider in a sympathetic spirit the suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to make that the Clause shall also cover these matters.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI am afraid the response of the Postmaster-General will 612 not be quite satisfactory to my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand he suggested that the Debate should be adjourned, and there is precedent for adjourning such a Debate on an allotted day. If the Postmaster-General would move to report Progress undoubtedly that would meet the suggestion my right hon. and learned Friend has made; but as he has failed to do so I think we must consider the matter upon its merits. I do no profess as a layman to go into the legal question between the two right hon. Gentlemen. I think the House is naturally suspicious when leading luminaries of the law find themselves diametrically in opposition. I put that from the point of view of the ordinary layman. This body is to adjudicate on questions of law or fact, and the line is not always very clearly drawn, and you have here an independent body not responsible to this House or the Ministry in this House or questionable in this House or removable by this House, and they would be able to give a decision which will vitally affect the whole financial policy of the country. What precedent have you for this? Have you any British Constitution appointing a body of this description from whose decisions, which are not judicial, and will have behind them no body of previous decisions such as judges have and no rules or traditions to refer to and which is not bound by any prescribed rule, vitally affecting the financial policy of this country, but from which there is no appeal. Hitherto this House has been particularly jealous of anything that would intrude upon its system of finance. I need hardly refer to the events of the last two or three years. On every occasion, when the finance of this country is involved, the House of Commons has time after time, sometimes I think foolishly and irrelevantly, always asserted its supreme authority. Now the House of Commons is creating a body which will be above itself, as the monster Frankenstein created, over which it will have no control. I have gone through this Bill, and there are no less than eleven great points upon which this Joint Exchequer Board will have the absolute authority of determining under this Bill so long as they comply with the declared provisions of the Statute. Is there anything in British constitutional history which affords a precedent for such a thing as that? I know we have the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but what are his 613 functions? He is recognised as the servant of this House, and all he has to do is to see that the decisions of this House are faithfully carried out, and that money voted for a particular service is not devoted to some other service.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)I know it is a difficult matter to decide how the discussion should proceed in view of the subsequent Clauses in this Bill, but I think the hon. Member is going rather beyond the discussion which is germane to this particular Clause. I must therefore ask him to confine himself not so much to the general policy of the Board as to the operations of that Board in connection with the words of this Clause.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI submit that the arguments applicable to a wider sphere are equally relevant to the narrower sphere, which is whether this House of Commons or the Joint Exchequer Board is to determine the various decisions under Clause 14. I understand it would be out of order to go into the other eleven decisions I have referred to, but under this Clause there are two decisions. One is:—
"(a) Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services."
The second decision is:—
(c) A sum equal to the proceeds as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board of any Irish taxes imposed in Ireland by the Irish Parliament under the power given to them by this Act."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSOn a point of Order. I submit that the hon. Member is not entitled to confine his argument to these two points of the eleven to which he has referred. I submit that the hon. Member is only entitled to deal with one of those decisions. That was expressly laid down by the Chairman, who pointed out that the sole question is whether it is to be the Exchequer Board or the House of Commons which has to determine the net cost to the Exchequer of the Irish services. With reference to the last paragraph, I submit it would be out of order here, because it must be dealt with separately.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIf the Attorney-General presses this point, I am quite willing to confine myself to paragraph (a). 614 The question is whether it is to be this House of Commons or the Joint Exchequer Board which has to determine what is to represent the cost to the Exchequer at the time of the passing of this Act of the Irish services. I contend that that decision will commit this House to the whole policy, and I ask whether there is any precedent for it. If this particular arrow should not find its mark, I have ten others, each of which I am ready to discharge upon a later occasion. Is there any precedent for setting up a precedent of this sort in the British Constitution, which on the one hand is not judicial and has no support from judicial experience, tradition, or methods of interpretation, and yet is more independent than the judiciary itself. There is no precedent whatever for making this tribunal amenable to Parliament in any way. There is not even the provision that the Board may be removed upon an Address to the Crown; there is nothing of the kind whatever, and I challenge the Attorney-General to state any precedent for this Parliament setting up a tribunal which would be superior to itself in a matter of finance. I do not believe he can cite such a precedent.
The nearest approach he can find is the ill-starred omen of Mr. Fox with regard to the India Bill. Mr. Fox proposed to set up a Commission composed of a limited number, and that tribunal was for a term of four years only to have complete control over the finances of India. That was to be independent of Parliament for four years, but at the end of that time their powers lapsed, and the Commission could be filled up by fresh appointments. So tenacious was the House of Commons of its powers, and so jealous of abdicating its functions for four years, and so great was the indignation of the public at the possibility of setting up in a Dependency of ours this kind of autocratic power not amenable to Parliament, that the proposal broke down hopelessly. There was nothing so far-reaching in that proposal as is to be found in this Bill. Mr. Fox's proposal concerned the finances of the Dependency alone, but here you are setting up a Board for life independent of this House, whose decisions may have a fatal and an irrevocable effect on our policy, and yet you do not make it amenable in any kind of way. Already there is a great suspicion of the Judiciary reflected in this House on the Labour Benches. You would not in any other sphere whatever allow the judges to 615 pronounce decisions which vitally affect the finances of the country. What warrant or reason have you for doing this in the present case? You have no warrant from the necessity of the case or from constitutional procedure. You have no warrant for it either in the exigencies of the moment or the traditions of the past; and if you pass this provision as it is, you will, even more than you attempted to do last week, inflict a fatal blow at all the past traditions which have governed the rights and the liberties of this House.
§ Mr. MOOREAs the Attorney-General has pointed out, the question is one of comparison whether we would rather have the tribunal the Bill proposes—that is, the Joint Exchequer Board—or this House to decide these questions. We do not know who or what the Joint Exchequer Board is going to be, and before we can draw a proper comparison between the two bodies offered to us, surely we ought to know how the Joint Exchequer Board is going to be composed. The Joint Exchequer Board is really an Arbitration Court. You are to have Board with two members of it appointed by the Irish Treasury, two by the British Treasury, and there is to be a chairman. Is it not very hard to judge the relative capabilities of a Board whose composition you are not informed of in this House? Again and again in our legislation when Boards of this sort are being set up—I call them Arbitration Boards, because you have got two distinct sides on them, and a chairman—the names of the people who are to compose the Board are put into the Bill and it is not left at large.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have allowed a general reference to this matter, but it would not be in order for the hon. Member on this Clause to develop that line of argument. It is dealt with by Clause 22, Sub-section (1).
§ Mr. MOOREOn that point of Order. If I were satisfied that this was an impartial Board, then I might vote against the Amendment. I cannot tell whether it is an impartial Board or not unless the Government give up the names, and surely it is in order to say we cannot judge which is the best tribunal unless the Government do tell us who will be on this Board.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have, as I have said, allowed a general reference to it, but Clause 22 deals with the very 616 point to which the hon. Member is referring, and I must ask him to pass from it now.
§ Mr. MOOREI want a little latitude from the Chair because under the guillotine and gag we have not the least guarantee we shall ever be allowed to discuss this point on that Clause; and, if this is our only opportunity of discussing the comparative merits of the two Boards, is it not in order to press upon the Government the desirability of following precedents and giving us the names?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the latitude he wishes. A subsequent Clause deals with the very point he raises, and I must again ask him to pass from it now.
§ Mr. MOOREThen I will reserve myself for that occasion, but I take leave to say I shall consider I have a distinct grievance against the Chair if no opportunity is given to me to discuss this matter on Clause 22.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have not the slightest personal feeling in the matter, but I must take exception to any criticism of the kind the hon. Gentleman has made.
§ Sir J. D. REESI will be very careful to try and observe the very stringent rule you have laid down, but I think I can supply the missing precedent. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) said there was no precedent, but I submit such a precedent can be found in the Star Chamber. That was an entirely irresponsible body. It had no responsibility to Parliament. I think, however, my hon. Friend rather guarded himself, because he said there had never been such a body which had performed its functions without running the risk of a revolution. The Star Chamber actually produced a revolution.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThe Star Chamber was responsible to the King. This body will be responsible neither to the King nor to the Commonwealth.
§ Sir. J. D. REESI accept my hon. Friend's correction, but I was not dealing so much with what he said as with what the hon. Member for Hereford said. I am in complete agreement with him, and when you, Sir, called him to order and asked him to get his eleven reasons within the compass of one section I was reminded of a precedent for that in another place. When an hon. Member once rose 617 and said he would divide his discourse into twelve heads, another hon. Member jumped up and said he wished to interpose that which at no other period could be properly said. He said when he was walking home one night he heard Big Ben strike once. A drunken man in front of him stood and counted one, two, three, and right up to twelve, and then he shook his fist at the clock, and said: "Why could you not give us that all at once." My hon. Friend, in that way, managed to keep himself within your ruling, and I shall endeavour to do the same. I should like to ask any Member who has had any experience of administration whether he can hold it is possible to separate, as the Postmaster-General argued, finance from policy. The course of administration is just this. Some proposal is made, perhaps in the Agricultural Department, and that Department makes a note upon it. It then goes to the Commercial Department for a corresponding note, and afterwards to the Revenue Department to see how it will affect the revenue. All these bodies note fully upon the proposal, and finally it goes to the Financial Department, which rules there is no money, and thereby makes all the previous notes waste paper. Can it therefore be suggested it is possible to separate finance from policy? The Postmaster-General admitted Sub-section (2) paragraph (a) would be bad if it could be found the Exchequer Board had any political functions as distinct from purely financial functions to perform. I submit you cannot make that distinction, and, if there is any Minister in whom it would be unbecoming to draw such a distinction, it is a colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose Budget of 1909 was pure politics and no finance.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYou supported it.
§ Sir J. D. REESI am merely speaking by way of illustration, and am saying nothing offensive. I say the right hon. Gentleman, in the history of his own Government, will find a complete refutation of the principle he has laid down. The Postmaster-General also said they cannot determine anything; they merely have to accept the figures laid before them. But in the Clause the very word "determine" is used: "Such sum as may be determined." And again, "A sum equal to the proceeds as determined." The Postmaster-General actually said this body was not to determine that which by the phraseology of the Clause concerned they have to 618 determine. How can it be said this body has merely to accept the figures laid before it? If they merely have to accept columns of figures, presented to it by other authorities, then for what are they created? The Postmaster-General will not accept the explanation which might possibly be suggested by hon. Members on this side of the House, but we know bodies are sometimes created for the benefit of those bodies themselves rather than for the use of the functions which they are supposed to perform. The Postmaster-General practically said the Joint Exchequer Board has no functions to perform except to accept the figures laid before it. This body has no subordinates of its own to feed it with figures. Everybody knows that what a Minister says has all been provided by capable officials, and that it might be possible even for those not gifted with acknowledge of finance to scrape through the most exalted functions of this House by using the information placed before them. This body is to have no subordinates to feed it with figures, and yet it is to perform the most important functions. I do not think the Postmaster-General, unless he had been driven into a corner, would have argued it has no functions to perform. What is the use of creating a body if it has no functions to perform except to receive figures?
Who are to be the members of this Exchequer Board? I suppose I should not be in order in discussing this point, but I will venture to hazard one conjecture, and that, is that Sir Henry Primrose will not be one of them. It has been stated that, since 1872, upwards of £325,000,000 has been exacted from the Irish people. The members of this Board, as I understand it, will have to decide upon figures of a corresponding character; they will have to allocate them and to decide under what heading they shall appear. If that is not to be their function I would like to know what function they will have to perform. We have been repeatedly told by the Postmaster-General that they have no powers of policy, but that they have merely to take figures from others, and that such figures are always accepted. In Parliament figures supplied may be accepted by the Secretary to the Treasury, but they are by no means always accepted by this House, and time after time they have been turned upside down and inside out, and most important changes of policy have been made by this House as a result. Is this Joint Exchequer Board to perform functions 619 analogous to those performed by the House of Commons? If so, then I suggest that those functions would be better performed by the House, which knows what it is doing, and which is responsible to the constituencies. If the Board is to perform such functions, I say it is not fit to do so, and, if it is not fit, then it is not fit to live at the expense of the Irish or the British taxpayer. What would be the good of Estimates coming before the House under such circumstances? That is the most, important function Parliament has to perform, and if Estimates were to be treated in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman says the Joint Exchequer Board are to treat the figures laid before it by somebody, we do not know who, what good can result? It is the function of the Board apparently not to reason why, yet the members are to receive some thousands of pounds a year by way of salary. That, I note in passing, is a provision which is never absent from a Bill of this kind.
9.0 P.M.
The Attorney-General stated that interpretation of the law was not policy—that the interpretation of the law by the Exchequer Board would not partake of anything of a political character. He had to put forward that argument because the Postmaster-General had sought to establish it in his speech. I am glad to see some Labour Members present. I do not think that is the view which they held in regard to the Taff Vale judgment, and I believe that is not the view they are strongly impressing upon the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the present moment. It was argued by both the Attorney-General and the Postmaster-General that there was no need to introduce a power of appeal, because there was an appeal at common law. I submit there is no kind of resemblance or analogy whatever to be established in regard to this appeal where an official body receives its powers in this way. It may be there is an appeal to a Court of Law, but that is not the kind of appeal we want. We want an appeal against a decision of the Board. It may be that there is power at common law to correct this body if it should exceed its exceedingly nebulous powers — powers which nobody so far has been able to define, and which the Postmaster-General says do not exist at all. It is clear that, unless they do exceed their powers, there is no redress; but it is not the exceeding of their powers that anybody fears. What 620 is feared is that the manner in which they exercise their powers will not be satisfactory to those who are affected by such exercise, and in respect of that matter, which, after all, is the whole point, there is no appeal provided. The Postmaster-General has not shown any indisposition to object to explain points, and although he may not have always done so with success, he has done it with complete complacency. I have no doubt he will again rise to explain this matter. But it is a perfectly amazing thing that a Minister should base his defence of a Clause in the Bill on the fact that the body created by it has really no functions to perform, and that, therefore, there is no need to provide for any appeal against its irresponsible decision because it has no decision of any importance to make. Absurd as that seems, I submit it is a précis of what the right hon. Gentleman said. During the long hours which hon. Members who regularly attend the House spend here many of us have acquired different methods of spending the time; but in the hope that I may learn the gift of concentration in expression and speech so valuable in the Member of Parliament and so much appreciated by the Chair, I have acquired the habit of making a précis of the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I submit to the Committee I have rightly interpreted the speech of the Postmaster-General, and I hope he will do me the honour of correcting me if my précis does not accurately represent the view he put forward.
§ Mr. HUME WILLIAMSIn the early part of this Debate the Postmaster-General justified the creation of this Exchequer Board by the fact that its function would be practically confined to ascertaining the various amounts which would go forward to the Houses of Parliament—either the Irish or this House—and that really they would have no power of determination, but that all they would do would be to act as a board of accountants. If that be true, why have a Board of Exchequer at all. A mere accountant would be ample. We do not want five people to simply go through a list of amounts and determine what the totals are. That argument is obviously wrong, for if you turn to the Section under discussion you will see at once what this Joint Board has, in fact, to do. Let us for a moment imagine that a sitting of this Exchequer Board is taking place. The 621 first thing that the chairman will point out that what they have to do is to determine what is the amount represented by the cost of an Irish service. Obviously some member of the Board will say, "What are Irish services?" The chairman will direct them to turn to Clause 4, Sub-section (6), which says:—
"For the purposes of this Act, 'Irish services' are all public services … except the administration of matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament have no power to make laws."
Then someone will say, "This is one of the matters in respect of which the Irish Parliament has no power to make laws, and consequently the law which has created the service is inoperative and void." If he has read the Act carefully, he will then turn to Clause 4 and find that if the Irish Parliament has in fact passed a law which contravenes an English Act of Parliament relating to Ireland, in so far as it contravenes the English Act of Parliament it is void, and consequently he will say, "This so-called Irish service is authorised by an Irish Act of Parliament which contravenes an English Act of Parliament, and is consequently void." You can imagine the discussion which is likely to take place. We are told that that will be put right because there is going to be an appeal to a Court of Law. It was news to me to find that in any section of this House there were those who are glad to have appeals to the Courts of Law. I thought the tendency, with which I have every sympathy, on both sides of the House was that, so far as possible, matters should be left to the determination of this House, rather than to the determination of the Courts of Law either in Ireland or in England. Let us suppose that this discussion having taken place, somebody desires to avail himself of the right which the right hon. Gentleman is going to give of an appeal to a Court of Law. First of all, how are you to know what has been done by the Joint Board? Is their sitting to be in private or in public? All you are going to get as the report of the Joint Board is the amount they assess in respect of Irish services.
In order to bring a matter in proper form before any Court of Law you must know what the argument was, why they determined it to be an Irish service, and under what Act of Parliament they determined it to be an Irish service. You cannot go to a Court of Law and simply take a schedule of amounts, saying, "This is what the Joint Board has determined, and it 622 appears in some instances to contravene an Act of Parliament." We know there is no staff provided for this unfortunate body—at any rate, it is not provided in the Bill—and unless the sitting takes place in public, and is open to be reported by the Press, and unless the public and the Irish Houses of Parliament can follow the discussion and know upon what basis the decisions are grounded, the appeal to a Court of Law will be absolutely useless. Is it not a better and a simpler plan to let these Irish Estimates come before the House of Commons exactly as the English Estimates do at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Consider the unfortunate position of this House. They will have to consider pages of estimates and determine whether or not they were justly assessed by the Joint Board." But that is what is done in this House every day when the Estimates come before it. We have pages upon pages of amounts to consider, and we are enabled to put our hand upon any particular figure with which we do not agree, and say, "This raises a question of policy, and we desire to have it discussed in the House of Commons," thus keeping its legitimate control over the finances of the country. Why should that not be done in this case? What possible difference is there between estimates drawn up by the Exchequer Board and those presented to us? Instead of sending somebody who objects to a Court of Law why not, in the name of commonsense, pursue the plan we are accustomed to in this House, which has been legitimised by the practice of this House for a century, and lay these estimates before this House and let us, after proper discussion, determine all questions of principle they may involve—not questions of amount—and whether or not the amounts they represent are properly apportioned to Irish services, or whether, in fact, they are apportioned to services which are not purely Irish, but which are partly Irish and partly English. Let the right hon. Gentleman, instead of burdening the Privy Council with further jurisdiction under Clauses 29 and 30, reserve those privileges we have preserved with so much jealousy, and adhere to the recognised practice of this House and retain its control over the finance of the country. Let him adopt the simpler plan of allowing the estimates to come before the House of Commons for discussion, instead of giving an irritating and often abortive appeal to the Courts of Law.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reply to a question I put to him before, namely, whether there is any precedent for setting up a body like this, which will be independent of Parliament and will yet exercise control over its finances?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am not aware that there is any precedent for the circumstances of the case.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 108.
625| Division No. 319.] | AYES. | [9.15 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Field, William | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Fitzgibbon, John | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Adamson, William | France, G. A. | Manfield, Harry |
| Addison, Dr. C. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Gill, A. H. | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Allen, Arthur A, (Dumbarton) | Ginnell, L. | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Glanville, H. J. | Martin, Joseph |
| Armitage, Robert | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Goldstone, Frank | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Meagher, Michael |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Greig, Col. J. W. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Barnes, George N. | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Molloy, M. |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Barton, W. | Hackett, J. | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Boland, John Pius | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Muldoon, John |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Munro, R. |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Brace, William | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hayden, John Patrick | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hayward, Evan | Neilson, Francis |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hazleton, Richard | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Nolan, Joseph |
| Burns, Rt. Hon John | Hemmerde, Edward George | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hinds, John | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Hodge, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Clancy, J. Joseph | Hogge, James Myles | Ogden, Fred |
| Clough, William | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Grady, James |
| Clynes, John R. | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Malley, William |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | John, Edward Thomas | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, H Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A, | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Shee, James John |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jones, W. S. Glyn. (T. H'mts., Stepney) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Crooks, William | Jowett, F. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Joyce, Michael | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cullinan, John | Keating, M. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Kelly, Edward | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pointer, Joseph |
| Dawes, J. A. | Kilbride, Denis | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Delany, William | King, J. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Dillon, John | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Primrose. Hon. Neil James |
| Doris, W. | Leach, Charles | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Duffy, William J. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Radford, G. H. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lewis, John Herbert | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Reddy, Michael |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Lundon, T. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Richards, Thomas |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | MacGhee, Richard | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macpherson, James Ian | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Ffrench, Peter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Robinson, Sidney | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Webb, H. |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Sutherland, J. E. | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Sutton, J. E. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Tennant, Harold John | Whyte, A. F. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Thomas, J. H. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B. | Toulmin, Sir George | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Sheehy, David | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Verney, Sir Harry | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wadsworth, J. | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | |
| Snowden, P. | Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| NOES. | ||
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gilmour, Captain J. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goldsmith, Frank | Nield, Herbert |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Barnston, Harry | Goulding, E. A. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Peel, Captain R. F. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Grffith. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Harrison-Broadley H. B. | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Boyton, James | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Cassel, Felix | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon, G. F. (Preston) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Stewart, Gershom |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Ingleby, Holcombe | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Jardine, E. (Somerset, East) | Swift, Rigby |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kebty-Fietcher, J. R. | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Knight, Captain E. A. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Croft, H. P. | Larmor, Sir J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Denniss E. R. B. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lee, Arthur H. | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Lewisham, Viscount | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Lloyd, George Ambrose | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fell, Arthur | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Mr. H. Barrie and Mr. Moore. |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment I call upon is that in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury.
§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move in Sub-section (2) paragraph (a), after the word "the" ["to represent the net cost"] to insert the word "average."
There is a consequential Amendment which will make the paragraph read, "Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act to represent the average net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom for the three years immediately preceding the passing of this Act of Irish services." The first is that 626 we do not really know in the least how much the Transferred Sum is going to be. All we know is that it is going to include the cost of Irish services when the Bill comes into operation. Therefore the more expensive the Irish services are when the Bill becomes law the greater will be the sum handed over to the Irish Exchequer. In fact there will be every inducement to the Irish party and to the Government, if they want to please the Irish party, to keep up the expenses of the Irish services before the advent of the fateful day. I think everyone will agree that this Bill in all probability cannot really pass, or at least come into operation for about two years. I think the 627 Irish party, backed up by the Government, can do a great deal in two years' time, and I should really like to know whether hon. Members below the Gangway are going to dun the Government for more money during that time in respect of the expenditure upon what will be Irish services under the Bill. If hon. Members succeed by bringing pressure in getting money out of the Government in regard to what will be transferred services under the Act, the Transferred Sum two or three years hence will be an entirely different sum from that which is in mind at the present moment. For instance, Irish education stands in need of an addition of £300,000 annually at the least. Everybody knows that the Chief Secretary has been very hard pressed indeed for extra Grants during the last few months by everyone in Ireland who has the interests of Irish education at heart. What about harbours, public works, and the Congested Districts Board? It is quite conceivable that the expenses of the Congested Districts Board will be very largely increased during the next two years. Further Grants may be made to that Board for harbours, fisheries, and improvements in general. Again, it is quite likely that large additional sums of money may be given to the Department of Agriculture for research and experiment. The point is this, that the whole of this additional expense will have to be added to the Transferred Sum when the Act comes into operation. Another thing may happen. In the years just before the Act comes into operation there may be quite conceivably a very heavy exceptional additional expenditure which in ordinary circumstances would not be recurring expenditure. There may be expenditure like that we have seen this year in connection with the outbreak of cattle disease, although I hope such a thing will not occur.
Nobody wants to rob Ireland of her fair share from the public Exchequer, but as the Bill stands it is quite possible that when the Act comes into operation the Transferred Sum will work out at an immensely greater amount than anybody in this House has in his mind at present. We are asked to vote on the Transferred Sum, but it is quite likely that the Transferred Sum actually handed over will be far greater than the amount would be when the vote is taken upon it in this House. I submit this is a fair Amendment, and if it is accepted, we shall, at any rate, know 628 more or less in rough figures what the Transferred Sum will eventually be. The Amendment provides that an average of three years' expenditure shall be taken as the basis of the amount on which the Transferred Sum shall be paid, the three years being those preceding the coming into operation of the Act. This seems to me very much fairer than the proposal contained in the Bill. After all, this House is asked to vote for a Transferred Sum of absolutely indefinite amount. I do not think the Government has any right to ask the House to vote a sum of absolutely indefinite amount. When the time comes for the Transferred Sum to be handed over, this House may find that the Transferred Sum has been increased by many hundreds of thousands of pounds beyond the expectation at present. I do not think it is at all a democratic proposal to come from the present Government, who look upon themselves as the special representatives of the proletariat. Therefore, I submit that the Government ought to accept the Amendment. If they do so, one effect will be that it will prevent the deliberate inflation of expenditure on the part of the Government at the instigation of hon. Members below the Gangway, and certainly if the Amendment is refused by the Government we shall have a pretty clear intimation of what their unconfessed intentions are.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member who moved the Amendment has suggested to the Committee that an indefinite amount may be paid over to the Irish Exchequer as the Transferred Sum, but I would point out that the amount which will be paid over will be precisely the amount which the British Exchequer has been paying before the advent of Home Rule—precisely that amount and no more. It will be the amount which in the opinion of the Exchequer Board is the cost of the Irish services at that time. Therefore it is not likely that the hon. Member will be able to persuade the Committee that any great evil can be done to the British Exchequer if they are asked to pay over to the Irish Treasury precisely the same sum as the Irish services have been costing us. That, of course, is the principle of the Bill. We shall say to the Irish Parliament. "Here are certain services handed over to you. You are responsible for the administration, and you have to maintain them by your own charges. To enable you to meet the cost of these services we place in 629 your hands the amount which the same services are costing us." It seems to me a perfectly reasonable and natural proposition that we should take these matters as they are at the time the new Government is called into being, and that we should make the financial arrangements on the basis of the existing situation. The hon. Member suggests that the Irish Parliament shall receive in respect of these services, not the amount which they are costing, not the amount which is actually being spent upon them, but the amount that might be spent during the average of the three previous years. They are to take over, so to speak, a going concern, but they are not to have the money to keep that concern going on the footing existing at the time of the transfer, but on some quite different footing.
I have not asked the Treasury to prepare the figures on the basis of the transferred services, but if you take the transferred and the reserved services, you find that for 1909–10, the cost was 10.7 millions; for 1910–11, 11.3 millions; and for 1911–12, 11.5 millions; an average of £11,160,000. If all these services had been transferred to the Irish Government—of course the Committee knows that many of them are reserved services—in its first year would have found it obliged to carry on services which cost the Imperial Exchequer £11,500,000 the previous year, while they were only to be provided with £11,160,000, because that is the average of the three previous years. Consequently in the very first year they would find themselves faced with the very serious deficit which they would be obliged to make good immediately in the very first year, either by cutting down the cost of the services transferred to them, which would usually be impossible in view of the vested interests protected under the Bill, or else at once imposing new taxation to make good the deficit. I can imagine hon. Members opposite saying, as they have said from the very beginning of these discussions, "You ought not to have Home Rule at all." That is a comprehensible and easily understood position. But I do suggest to hon. Members that it would be very unsound statesmanship if this country were to grant Home Rule in the hope of reconciling Irish opinion and of securing a higher degree of loyalty than hitherto have been obtained there, at the same time to transfer certain services to Ireland and set up the new 630 Government in such a way as to cause intense irritation and dissatisfaction, and in fact compel the Irish Parliament in its very first year, owing to the constitution under which it was acting, immediately to burden the taxpayers with fresh taxes. For those reasons I suggest to the Committee that the right course is that which is proposed by the Government.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech in support of the Amendment. He has said that the amount would be the amount which the Irish services would be costing. That is what my hon. Friend desires to ensure. What the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten is the terms of his own Bill:
"To represent the cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom—
not "now," as the right hon. Gentleman says, but—
at the time of the passing of this Act.The Financial Resolution passed yesterday is worded in accordance with the terms of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not say when the passing of this Act was going to be, but the whole thing turns upon that. If we were certain that the Act were going to become law within the next four or five months, we should know exactly what the sum was going to be. But I may remind my right hon. Friend that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, with the knowledge and the power of which they possess, will during the next three years—because this Bill is not going to become law before 1914. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because the sense of the country will not allow it to become law. There is an easy way of its becoming law sooner, and that is by the right hon. Gentleman persuading the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament, and if that is done, I will undertake on the part of the Opposition that we will allow the Bill to pass next year, if the country returns hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to power again. But we know perfectly well that they are not going to do that unless we can compel them to do so, which we hope we shall. If the Bill cannot become law until 1914, what is my hon. Friend afraid of, and what is every business man afraid of who follows the history of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway? I do not blame them for it, but they are on the make, and they are very cute people on the make. They know exactly where to put the pressure, and they know what they want. What we are 631 afraid of is that between now and 1914 there will be very many reforms which are absolutely necessary for the welfare of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House beaming over with philanthropy and love of their fellow men and the desire to redress wrongs which the wicked Tories imposed upon Ireland will come forward and say, "We will give £500,000 or a million or two millions, or anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway may desire." If that be so, the Transferred Sum or the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the passing of this Act will not be the net cost to the United Kingdom at the present moment, but may be anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to make it.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWill not the House of Commons have to vote the money?
§ Sir F. BANBURYYes, the House of Commons will have to vote the money, but it will have to vote it in this way, that if by any chance the House of Commons does not vote the money, there will either be a rescinding Resolution when hon. Members from Ireland will have their fares paid and are over here to vote with the Government, or the vote will be withdrawn, and another vote will be produced, and everything will be arranged, so that the Divisions will occur at 7.30 or some fixed time when it is convenient for hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to attend. We know perfectly well that the control of the House of Commons over finance is gone, and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt it will be reported in the Radical papers that the right hon. Gentleman said that the control of the Hon Be of Commons over finance remains.
§ But even the most Radical elector of the Kingdom knows that that is all nonsense, or it will not be our fault if they do not know. Therefore I pass by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is sincere he will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because his sole desire—he has told us so himself—is that the sum shall be the net cost at the present moment of Ireland to England. If so, I cannot understand why he does not accept the Amendment, unless there is a secret arrangement between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman looks as if he never heard of such a thing, and that he has no communication whatever with the Front Bench opposite. We on this side of the House are foolish people, but we are not quite so foolish as to believe that. We believe that there is some way, some underground means of communication by which the hon. and learned Gentleman is able to reach right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. I have endeavoured to put in a plain and simple way the facts as they are, and I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to deny them. I see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), who is, not only a great authority on this Bill, but has written a pamphlet about it, and, with his superior knowledge of Irish finance, perhaps he will show me where I am wrong. If he does not, then I am bound to come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer my argument, and I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'average' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 274.
635| Division No. 320.] | AYES. | [9.45 p.m. |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith. | Cooper, Richard Ashmole |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Boyton, James | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Bridgeman, William Clive | Croft, Henry Page |
| Balcarres, Lord | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Denniss, E. R. B. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Butcher, John George | Doughty, Sir George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood. | Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Campion, W. R. | Fell, Arthur |
| Barnston, H. | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Barrie, H. T. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Cautley, Henry Strother | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Gardner, Ernest |
| Bigland, Alfred | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Bird, Alfred | Clyde, James Avon | Gilmour, Captain John |
| Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | Kerry, Earl of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Kimber, Sir Henry | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Larmor, Sir J. | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Lewisham, Viscount | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Lloyd, George Ambrose | Stanier, Beville |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Stewart, Gershom |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Swift, Rigby |
| Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Hill, Sir Clement L. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Moore, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Nield, Herbert | Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford) |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Hunt, Rowland | Peto, Basil Edward | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Pollock, Ernest Murray | |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel. |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Rees, Sir J. D. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dawes, J. A. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Adamson, William | De Forest, Baron | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Delany, William | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Devlin, Joseph | Hinds, John |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Dillon, John | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Armitage, Robert | Donelan, Capt. A. | Hodge, John |
| Arnold, Sydney | Doris, William | Hogge, James Myles |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Duffy, William J. | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barnes, George N. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | John, Edward Thomas |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Elverston, Sir Harold | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Barton, W. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Essex, Richard Walter | Jones, W. S. Glyn. (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Boland, John Pius | Falconer, J. | Joyce, Michael |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Farrell, James Patrick | Keating, Matthew |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Ffrench, Peter | Kelly, Edward |
| Brace, William | Field, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Fitzgibbon, John | Kilbride, Denis |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | King, Joseph |
| Bryce, J. Annan | France, Gerald Ashburner | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Burke, E. Haviland. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gill, A. H. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ginnell, Laurence | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Glanville, H. J. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Leach, Charles |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Goldstone, Frank | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Greig, Colonel James William | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Griffith, Ellis James | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Lundon, Thomas |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset. E.) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Clough, William | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Clynes, John R. | Hackett, J. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | McGhee, Richard |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Cotton, William Francis | Haslam, Lewis (Monmoth) | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Crooks, William | Hayden, John Patrick | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hayward, Evan | Manfield, Harry |
| Cullinan, J. | Hazleton, Richard | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Parker, James (Halifax) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Martin, Joseph | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Snowden, Philip |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) |
| Meagher, Michael | Pirie, Duncan Vernon | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Pointer, Joseph | Sutherland, John E. |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Sutton, John E. |
| Millar, James Duncan | Power, Patrick Joseph | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Molloy, Michael | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Mooney, John J. | Primrose, Hon, Neil James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Pringle, William M. R. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Morison, Hector | Radford, George Heynes | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Muldoon, John | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Munro, Robert | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Wadsworth, John |
| Murray, Captain Hon, Arthur C. | Reddy, Michael | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Neilson, Francis | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Richards, Thomas | Wardle, George J. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Norton, Captain Cecil William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Webb, H. |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Robinson, Sidney | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P. |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| O'Dowd, John | Roche, John (Galway E.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Ogden, Fred | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| O'Grady, James | Rowntree, Arnold | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| O'Malley, William | Scanlan, Thomas | |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sheehy, David | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| O'Shee, James John | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "services" ["of Irish services"], to insert the words "subject to the deduction in each year of the deficit as defined in this Act."
I seek to deal with this magic word "deficit" which plays such a large part in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whenever we point out some great defect or deformity in the Bill we are always told it is the deficit. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that they have been all along Free Traders, and have never held any other opinion except those of the most complete Cobdenites, yet they are willing to set up separate Customs and Excise in Ireland, though with one accord they attempt to make the one excuse that it is the deficit which has driven them away from their Free Trade moorings. I propose to deal with this deficit which, although it plays so very large a part in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is not defined in the Bill. I propose to define it in a subsequent Amendment to Clause 41. I define deficit to mean the amount by which the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland falls short 636 of the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the services transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government at the time of such transfer and the net cost at the time being to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the reserved services. My Amendment provides that any increase in that deficit as so defined shall be deducted from the amount paid under Clause 14 as part of the Transferred Sum to the Irish Exchequer. After all we have to see who is really responsible for any increase on that deficit. The increase in the deficit will be much more under the control of the Irish Parliament than it will be of the British Parliament or of the British Exchequer.
10.0 P.M.
Let us look at the reserved services and see what they are. The first of the reserved services is old age pensions. The Primrose Committee found that there would be an increase of £600,000 on the amount for the year 1910–11, and that Committee found that the pensions must continue to grow for many years to come. Therefore, we may look for a large increase in the cost of that reserved service, and all the more so because, as I happen 637 to know, being chairman of the local pensions committee of the county of London, the cost of those pensions very largely depends on administration. It depends, in the first place, on the pension officers, and, in the next place, on the pension committee, and, in the third place, on the Local Government Board. The Post Office and the Local Government Board will not be under the control of the British Parliament and the British Exchequer, but under the control of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Exchequer. The pension officers will be appointed by the Irish Parliament, and not by the British Parliament, I imagine, and the pension committee most certainly will be appointed by the Irish nation, and not by the British nation. Therefore, we can have no safeguard whatever against the rise in the costs of those pensions. Every safeguard we have now will be removed. Every incentive to extravagance will lie with the Irish people, because it does not matter how much those pensions rise, it will be the British Exchequer that will have to find the money for every single increase. Therefore, I say we are only protecting ourselves when we seek to carry some Amendment of this kind, by which the increase in the deficit shall be carried to the account of the Irish Exchequer, and shall be deducted from any sum that shall be handed over to them under Clause 14. There are many other examples. National insurance, again, is a reserved service, and there cannot be any doubt that the cost of national insurance must to a very large extent depend on insurance committees and on insurance councils, and those again will be appointed, I imagine—and I hope the Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong—not by the British Parliament, but by some Department of Irish administration. Again, every one of those Gentlemen will, I think, want to make the National Insurance Account as big as possible for the people of Ireland. There will be no incentive to economy, but every possible incentive to extravagance. I should like to know this from the Postmaster-General. In the case of the Insurance Act, until we have Home Rule, the British Treasury will be called on to pay half the deficiency, the county councils paying the other half, on any amount. The deficiency may arise on account of the action of some insurance committee. Is that going to be the case with Ireland after the Bill has passed? As far as I can read the Bill 638 there is no safeguard whatever, and the British Treasury will have to find half of any deficiency which is caused, possibly, by the very extravagant action of some Irish county councils or some Irish insurance committees. I see nothing in the Bill to protect us from charges of that character, but I see every possible incentive to an Irish Government and Irish boards and Irish committees to run up the Bill against the British Exchequer. The Irish Parliament will pay nothing, the deficit will be swollen, and the British Exchequer will have to find the swollen deficit. My Amendment seeks to prevent that, and to put some kind of incentive before the Irish Parliament for economy as regards the cost of those reserved services.
Another instance is unemployment insurance. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, thinks that if we were to pass this Home Rule Bill there would be no unemployment in Ireland. Our view is that there will be a great deal more than at present; but in any case there is no incentive under this Bill, as drawn, to the Department that administers unemployment insurance in Ireland, and which must be composed of Irishmen, to promote economy as regards unemployment, or to be careful in the administration of that portion of the Act. It will be known throughout Ireland that the British Exchequer will have to pay any deficit; but the money goes to Ireland, and will be spent in Ireland. There is every incentive to extravagance and no inducement to economy. Take a fourth instance, the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Postmaster-General imagines that there would be growing peace and prosperity in Ireland from the passing of this Bill. Many of us on this side think there is much more likely to be rioting and bloodshed as the result of the Bill, particularly in the North of Ireland. I do not think that the Postmaster-General is altogether free from anxiety on that score. The whole of the administration of the Irish Parliament may be of a most provocative nature towards the North of Ireland. It is very likely that on account of the provocative nature of the Irish administration more men will be wanted in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the cost will in consequence go up. What will that matter to the Irish administration? The British Exchequer will have to pay. Again I say there is no inducement to economy but every incentive to extravagance.
639 The more so is that the case because when the Irish Parliament take over these reserved services they will take them over at the actual cost to the British Exchequer at the time of the transfer. The more they can run up the cost of the services the more money they will get into their Exchequer; the more money they will be able to save by reducing the expenditure on these services when they get control of them, and the more money they will have for other purposes and other services. And then with regard to the extra taxes. A curious feature in such balance sheet as we are able to extract from the Government is that the cost of the collection of taxes is stereotyped by the year 1910–11; the amount put down as the cost of collection is £298,000. That takes no account of what has been happening in Ireland for many years past, namely, that the cost of collection of taxes has been gradually increasing and not going down. It will be far more expensive to collect taxes under the new fan-dangled system adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. It takes no account of the fact that the collection of taxes will not be only the collection of Imperial taxes but also the collection of such Irish taxes as may be imposed by the Irish Parliament. That will undoubtedly lead to a very large increase in this item. It will be almost the duty of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the cost of these services one by one, because in that case there will be more money coming to Ireland. He will be bound to look after the interests of the Irish Exchequer. He may be short of money. Undoubtedly there will be little or no money under this Bill for the development of various industrial undertakings in Ireland. Finding himself short of that money he will probably say, "We have not the money that we ought to have got from the British Exchequer. Let us run up the cost of these services. It is nothing to us. When we have run it up to a giddy height we will take the services over, as we are entitled to do under the Act." The method which I propose is the only one we can possibly devise by which the British Exchequer will be safeguarded against the undoubted temptation to the Irish Parliament to run up the expenditure on these various services. After all, this House is composed far more of Members representing English and Scottish constituencies than of Members for Irish 640 constituencies, and we are bound to look after the interests of British taxpayers quite as much as those of Irish taxpayers. If we do our duty we are bound to safeguard the British Exchequer against these extravagances on the part of the Irish Parliament and to insert some such provision as that which I suggest, namely, that any sum handed over to the Irish Exchequer shall be subject to a deduction for any increase in the deficit, which I have defined under an Amendment to Clause 47.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe right hon. Gentleman proposes on a later Clause to define the Irish deficit, and with the form of his definition I have no quarrel. He defines the deficit as being the difference between the total yield of all Imperial taxes levied in Ireland on the one hand, and on the other hand the addition of two elements—one the net cost of the Irish services at the time of the passing of the Act, and, secondly, the cost of the reserved services retained in the hands of the Imperial Government.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI leave them the £500,000. I take no notice of that. I consent to making a present of that to the Irish Exchequer.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELPerhaps that is one reason why I do not object to the definition as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman proceeds from that to assert that the Irish Government will have it within their power of their own action to increase the amount of the deficit which will remain on the Imperial Exchequer. Clearly they cannot increase the first head of expenditure—that is to say, the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the services transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government at the time of such transfer; in other words, the Transferred Sum. They cannot increase that, because it is fixed after the Act passes and remains the same, subject to some small variations which I need not go into in this connection. Any increase in the expenditure that the Irish Government may make on their own services—education, such land questions as they are empowered to deal with, Poor Law and other matters of that kind, which are transferred to the Irish Government—they have to bear themselves, and the deficit resting on the Imperial Exchequer is not increased by a single penny. That is clearly stated in the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the deficit. He agrees with me there.
641 The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say with regard to reserved services—old age pensions, insurance, constabulary, and two or three more—that it would be to the interest of the Irish Parliament, as soon as they are established, to increase the cost—"to run it up," to use his own words—that they would be in a position to do so, and that in consequence the British taxpayer would have to pay an additional sum. I think I have correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman. Again he acquiesces. Can that really be so? He mentioned, first of all, old age pensions. If his presentation of the case were accurate I would agree that Irish Departments might increase the charge respecting old age pensions, because he says that the conditions of the granting of old age pensions rest partly with the Post Office and partly with the Irish Local Government Board, both of which Departments will be transferred to the Irish Government, and that necessarily the Treasury will have no protection at all. What are the facts of the case? In the first place, the Post Office has nothing whatever to do with the amount of old age pensions paid. The Post Office is merely the conduit pipe through which the money flows, and no officer of the Post Office has any voice whatsoever in determining whether or not any particular individual shall receive a pension. The pensions committees in Ireland will be precisely in the same position after the Act has passed as now.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERUnder whom will they be?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELUnder the Local Government Board, and they will be in precisely the same position as they are now. There will be no difference.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe pensions committees will have the same powers precisely as they have now, and I imagine that the Irish Pensions Committees representing the inhabitants are just as eager to secure pensions for the old people in Ireland now as they would be under an Irish Government. Further, the hon. Member has left out the fact that a very important person in the determination of the pensions is the excise officer, who is the pensions officer, and who really represents Imperial control. He will remain an Imperial officer on precisely the same footing as now, and appointed by the same 642 people. Lastly, there is an appeal now to the Irish Local Government Board. It is quite true that if that appeal remains with the Irish Local Government Board that the Treasury would be deprived of protection which it now has, because the Irish Local Government Board is now an Imperial Department under the control of the Imperial Government. But the hon. Member has credited the Government with less foresight or less honesty than I think we are entitled to claim, for he has omitted to observe that this particular point is specifically dealt with in the Bill, and that provision is made for continuing protection to the Treasury. In regard to appeals in connection with old age pensions which now exists, Clause 44, Sub-section 1, paragraph (b), says that an Order in Council may—
(b) Make such adaptation of any enactments as appear to him necessary or proper with respect to the execution of the reserved services, and in particular provides for the exercise or performance of any powers or duties in connection with 'services,'old age pensions amongst others—by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom or officer of that Government where any such powers or duties are under any existing Act—such as increase of the rates—to be exercised or performed by any Department in Ireland—such as the Local Government Board—which will cease to exist as a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom.So that the point is specifically met. If the Local Government Board is transferred to the Irish Government, then the powers exercised by it in respect to old age pensions will be transferred to the Department representing the Imperial Government.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhere is that in the Bill?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThat is the intention by the Bill.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is really very important. If the right hon. Gentleman means we ought to leave it optional to the Privy Council, why not put in the Bill that the claims will be submitted by this Parliament or somebody appointed by this Parliament?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is a general Clause, following in this case a number of similar cases which may, or may not, arise. The Clause is framed in the ordinary way in which all such Clauses are framed in Acts of Parliament dealing with Orders in Council, where the word "may" almost invariably appears. I am prepared to give a Parliamentary pledge, on behalf of the Government, that if these circumstances do arise that the appeal in regard to old age pensions shall be retained in the hands of some Department of the Imperial Government.
§ Mr. NEWMANWhat is a Parliamentary pledge?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not know how long the hon. Member has been in the House, but if he has been any length of time he will be well aware that whatever Government is in power, when a Minister, on behalf of the Government gives a pledge it is the custom of hon. Members to accept that pledge.
§ Sir E. CARSONIt is better than a preamble.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI cannot go into that. With regard to the position of insurance. The insurance officers who are now Imperial officers, will remain Imperial officers after the Act has passed—and they are an important part of the machinery. After the passing of the Bill the powers of the Irish county councils will be exercised as they are exercised to-day. I am not aware that any great change in the complexion of the Irish county councils is likely to follow upon the passing of this Bill. So with regard to the services generally. The position in regard to the reserved services, their control, and the determination of their expenditure, remains in the hands of the Imperial officers and the Imperial authority on precisely the same footing as they remain to-day, and is so treated, and no difference whatever is made. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly altogether mistaken when he suggests that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position, even if he wished to do so, to send up by a single sixpence the cost of the reserved services to the Imperial Exchequer. We are to retain control of these services precisely on the same footing as now, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is that if we, having that control, 644 determine by our action to raise that expenditure, we are not to pay the bill, but that the Irish Government, which will have no voice or part or lot in determining or controlling the Imperial services, are to pay whatever additional expenditure may be incurred by the Imperial Government. That is clearly a proposal it would not be fair to embody in the Bill.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSMy right hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, clearly wished the Committee to know that the class of increase in the deficit to which he was referring was of a double nature. First, there was the administrative increases, and, secondly, the automatic increases in the various Votes that make up this deficit. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, dealt only with the administrative increases—the increases that might occur in the maladministration of the Irish officials—and he did not in any way deal with the automatic increases. I propose to deal with the automatic increases in a moment. But, first, may I call the attention of the Committee to the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman stated exist to prevent, for example, any increase in old age pensions. He referred to Clause 44 of the Bill, but Clause 44 is distinctly a transitory provision. It says:—
"His Majesty may make Orders in Council for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act, and may, by any such Order, make or direct to be made, such arrangements as seem necessary or proper for setting in motion the Irish Parliament and Government."
This Clause 44 is the counterpart of Clause 78 of the Insurance Act—the power to remove difficulties in bringing the Act into force.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELRead on.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI will read the whole, if the right hon. Gentleman likes. When we objected to Clause 78 in the Insurance Act, giving powers to the Commissioners to alter the Act, we were told it was nothing of the sort, and that it was merely for bringing the Act into force and operation, and now when we say the safeguards are not in this Act which we think should be in it, the right hon. Gentleman points to this Clause and says it gives continuous protection right through, whereas, it is, as far as I have read it, only a transitory provision. The 645 right hon. Gentleman wishes me to read on, and I will do so:—
"And also for any other matter for which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision for the purpose of bringing this Act into full operation or for giving full effect to the future transfer under or by virtue of this Act of a reserved service."
That is for bringing the Act into operation for the future transfer of the reserve services. How does that protect the British taxpayer against slack administration by the Irish Local Government Board or the Irish Post Office, whose interest it may well be to give more or greater pensions to their Irish constituents at the expense of the British public?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWhen the Act is brought into full operation it will be brought into full operation by transferring certain functions to the Irish Local Government Board, but at the same time the function of acting as a Court of Appeal now possessed by the Irish Local Government Board will be withdrawn from them.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman says that, and, of course, one wishes to accept what he says, but I cannot find it in Clause 44. It seems to me to be a temporary Clause for bringing the Act into operation. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the other point, which, to my mind, is even more important, and that is what is going to constitute the deficit? One suggestion is that the deficit may be increased by maladministration and the other by foreseen increases in the actual cost, even under the best administration of the various services. Old age pensions cost £2,664,000, and, at any rate, according to the Primrose Committee, they are going to go up to £3,000,000—that is to say, there is going to be an increase of £366,000.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL dissented.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThen right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he will find that in the Report. He always shakes his head when he does not like the Report of the Government's own Committee, but that Committee has warned us that the increased cost of old age pensions is going to be £336,000 a year. I know it has also been stated that at some future date old age pensions may be reduced by £200,000. I will, however, take the balance of £136,000, and that is 646 a known increase in the deficit. Is it fair that the English taxpayer should be saddled with that sum, or should a limit be put upon our liability, especially in view of the argument that we are "cutting the loss?" In addition to that, there is land purchase, the cost of which the Primrose Committee say will increase by £450,000. That is another known increase which the right hon. Gentleman does not deny. Then there is to be an increase in National Insurance of £350,000, as well as a certain increase in the cost of collection.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNo.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman denies that. The increase during the last ten years was £74,000 in the cost of collection. There is not only the ordinary natural increase of the rising salaries of those employed to collect taxes, but there are other matters, because the Irish Parliament may put on for their own purposes as many taxes as they like, and we have to pay the piper. It is certain that there is not only the ordinary natural increase, but in addition a very special reason why the cost of tax collection should be increased. If the right hon. Gentleman will total up these sums he will find they amount to about £1,000,000. Therefore, we have a known deficit of £1,500,000, and a foreseen increase upon that of another £1,000,000. So that when the right hon. Gentleman talks of a deficit of £1,500,000 he is ignoring the facts which have been found by his own Committee. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend is right when he says that the only way in which this House can protect itself at all is to put in words to the effect of the Amendment now before the House. The known increases are to be £1,000,000. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I have given the figures in detail. There is a known increase of £1,000,000 and a possible increase from maladministration, whatever value may be given to Clause 44, which the taxpayers of the United Kingdom ought to be guarded against. The Postmaster-General does not deny the natural increases, but he does, apparently, deny the administrative increases, although he does not offer us any protection against them. Under these circumstances I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 304.
649| Division No. 321.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Foster, Philip Staveley | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Gardner, Ernest | Moore, William |
| Baird, J. L. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Gibbs, G. A. | Newman, John R. P. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gilmour, Captain J. | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. | Nield, Herbert |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London) | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goldsmith, Frank | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banner, John S. Harmood. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peel, Captain R. F. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Barnston, Harry | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Barrie, H. T. | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth) | Rawlinson, J. F. P. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamersley, A. St. George | Rawson, Col. R. H. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Harris, Henry Percy | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bird, A. | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Boyton, J. | Hills, John Waller | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Hoare, S. J. G. | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hohler, G. Fitzroy | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Sassoon, Sir Philip |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Butcher, John George | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Horner, Andrew Long | Stanier, Beville |
| Campion, W. R. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hunt, Rowland | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Ingleby, Holcombe | Swift, Rigby |
| Cave, George | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Down, North) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kerry, Earl of | Touche, George Alexander |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Kimber, Sir Henry | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Knight, Captain E. A. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Larmor, Sir J. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lewisham, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lloyd, G. A. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Winterton, Earl |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Croft, H. P. | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Duke, Henry Edward | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Malcolm, Ian | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Hayes-Fisher and Mr. Cassel. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George) | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bentham, G. J. | Chancellor, H. G. |
| Adamson, William | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Chapple, Dr. W. A. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Black, Arthur W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Boland, John Pius | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Booth, Frederick Handel | Clough, William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bowerman, C. W. | Clynes, John R. |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Brace, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Armitage, R, | Brady, P. J. | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cotton, William Francis |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Burke, E. Haviland. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot |
| Barnes, George N. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Crooks, William |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Crumley, Patrick |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Byles, Sir William Pollard | Dullinan, J. |
| Barton, W. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dalziel, Rt. Hon Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | King, Joseph | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Radford, G. H. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| De Forest, Baron | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Delany, William | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'tb) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, Charles | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Levy, Sir Maurice | Reddy, Michael |
| Dillon, John | Lewis, John Herbert | Redmond, John E (Waterford) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Doris, W. | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lundon, T. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Richards, Thomas |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lynch, A. A. | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | McGhee, Richard | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Macpherson, James Ian | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Robinson, Sidney |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Roch, Walter F. |
| Falconer, J. | M'Curdy, C. A. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M'Kean, John | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Ffrench, Peter | Manfield, Harry | Rowlands, James |
| Field, William | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Flavin, Michael | Martin, J. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| France, G. A. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Gill, A. H. | Meagher, Michael | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Ginnell, L. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Sheehy, David |
| Glanville, H. J. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Millar, James Duncan | Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Molloy, M. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Snowden, P. |
| Greig, Col. J. W. | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Mooney, J. J. | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Morgan, George Hay | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Morrell, Philip | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Morison, Hector | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hackett, J. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutton, John E. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Muldoon, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Munro, R. | Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Nannetti, Joseph | Thomas, J. H. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Needham, Christopher T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Neilson, Francis | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Nolan, Joseph | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Norman, Sir Henry | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Hayward, Evan | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Hazleton, Richard | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Doherty, Philip | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Henry, Sir Charles | O'Donnell, Thomas | Wardle, George J. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Dowd, John | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Higham, John Sharp | Ogden, Fred | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hinds, John | O'Grady, James | Webb, H. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Hodge, John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Hogge, James Myles | O'Malley, William | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Shee, James John | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Wiles, Thomas |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Parker, James (Halifax) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| John, Edward Thomas | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.) |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Joyce, Michael | Pointer, Joseph | Young, W. (Perthshire, East) |
| Keating, Matthew | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Kelly, Edward | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk. E.) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Kilbride, Denis | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
§ It being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.
652§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 169.
655| Division No. 322.] | AYES. | [10.40 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | King, J. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Adamson, William | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Elverston, Sir Harold | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Leach, Charles |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Essex, Richard Walter | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Falconer, James | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Armitage, R. | Farrell, James Patrick | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lundon, Thomas |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ffrench, Peter | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Field, William | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Barnes, George N. | Fitzgibbon, John | McGhee, Richard |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | France, Gerald Ashburner | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Barton, William | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Gill, Alfred Henry | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Ginnell, Laurence | M'Curdy, C. A. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Glanville, H. J. | M'Kean, John |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Black, Arthur W. | Goldstone, Frank | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Boland, John Pius | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Manfield, Harry |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Brace, William | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Martin, Joseph |
| Brady, P. J. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hackett, J. | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. O. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meagher, Michael |
| Buckmaster, Stanley Owen | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Molloy, M. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mooney, John J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hayden, John Patrick | Morgan, George Hay |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hayward, Evan | Morrell, Philip |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hazleton, Richard | Morison, Hector |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Muldoon, John |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Munro, R. |
| Clough, William | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Clynes, John R. | Henry, Sir Charles | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Higham, John Sharp | Neilson, Francis |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hinds, John | Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hodge, John | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hogge, James Myles | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crooks, William | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cullinan, John | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | John, Edward Thomas | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Dowd, John |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Ogden, Fred |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Grady, James |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| De Forest, Baron | Jowett, Frederick William | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Delany, William | Joyce, Michael | O'Malley, William |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Keating, Matthew | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Kelly, Edward | O'Shee, James John |
| Doris, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Duffy, William J. | Kilbride, Denis | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Robinson, Sidney | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Roch, Walter F. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wadsworth, John |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Pointer, Joseph | Rowlands, James | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Rowntree, Arnold | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Scanlan, Thomas | Watt, Henry A. |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Webb, H. |
| Primrose, Hon. Neil James | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton | White, James Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B. | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Radford, G. H. | Sheehy, David | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.) | Whyte, Alexander F. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Snowden, Philip | Wiles, Thomas |
| Reddy, Michael | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Redmond, William (Clare E.) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Sutherland, J. E. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worc., N.) |
| Richards, Thomas | Sutton, J. E. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tennant, Harold John | |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Thomas, J. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Croft, H. P. | Kerry, Earl of |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Denniss, E. R. B. | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Baird, J. L. | Doughty, Sir George | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Duke, Henry Edward | Knight, Capt. E. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fell, Arthur | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Banner, John S. Harmood. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Lloyd, G. A. |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Foster, Philip Staveley | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R |
| Barnston, Harry | Gardner, Ernest | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee |
| Barrie, H. T. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Gibbs, George Abraham | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Gilmour, Captain J. | MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Goldman, C. S. | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Goldsmith, Frank | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Bird, A. | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Moore, William |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Boyton, James | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Newman, John R. P. |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Nield, Herbert |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Harris, Henry Percy | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Butcher, J. G. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Peel, Captain R. F. |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Campion, W. R. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hills, John Waller | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Cassel, Felix | Hohler, G. F. | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Horner, Andrew Lang | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Hunt, Rowland | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Ingleby, Holcombe | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Sassoon, Sir Philip |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Tryon, Captain George Clement | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Stewart, Gershom | Valentia, Viscount | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Swift, Rigby | Wilder, Granville C. H. | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Talbot, Lord E. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) | |
| Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud | |
| Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) | Winterton, Earl | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) | James Mason and Mr. Stanier. |
| Touche, George Alexander | Worthington-Evans, L. |
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (25th instant).