Commons Sitting of 22 October 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords](by Order).
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Eastbourne, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the closing hour on the several days of the week for certain Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Calne, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hour on the several days of the week for certain Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Bournemouth, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hour on the several days of the week for certain Shoos [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to meeting places of Approved Societies and Branches thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the application of the Transfer Value of a married woman electing not to become a Voluntary Contributor [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection—That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Denman; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cecil Harmsworth.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee—That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Bee Disease Bill): Mr. Secretary M'Kenna; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Runciman.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee—That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Bee Disease Bill): Mr. King, Captain Waring, Mr. Robartes, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Nicholson, Sir John Spear, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Douglas Hall, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Patrick Meehan, and Mr. Albert Smith.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered "of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland on the 1st day of November, 1912, showing their names, ages when appointed, former vocation, present district, salaries on appointment and at present, and dates of appointment (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 277, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  International Sea Fisheries Convention (English Channel).
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is in a position to report any progress in connection with the negotiations for the conclusion of an International Sea Fisheries Convention for the waters of the English Channel?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I have recently been informed that the text requires further examination, but that everything is being done by the French Government in order that their examination of the question may be concluded as rapidly as possible.

  Canada (Naturalised Subjects).
  Captain CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether subjects of foreign nations becoming naturalised citizens of Canada, and thereby subjects of the Crown, are denied the right to require of British Consuls proper assistance when traveling abroad; and, if so, is he prepared to take steps to ensure that such British subjects may claim such assistance?
  Sir E. GREY: The effect of naturalisation in Canada is to make the person so naturalised a British subject within the limits of the Dominion only, and it is so stated in their certificates. Consequently they are not, strictly speaking, British subjects when beyond the limits of the Dominion. They are, however, in pursuance of the general Consular instructions, accorded the good offices of British Consular Officers in all countries. It is one of the objects of the measure foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the present Session of Parliament to remove such inequalities in these matters as at present exists.
  Captain CAMPBELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many naturalised Canadians who even hold His Majesty's Commission are debarred from enjoying the full privileges of British subjects; does he think that is just and equitable, and will he endeavour to rectify it?
  Sir E. GREY: I was not aware of the particular details the hon. Member gives me, but I think he could not have caught the last part of my answer. We recognise all these inequalities ought to be removed, and legislation is foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne in order to remove them.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether any proposal has been made for the appointment of a new financial adviser in Persia; and whether any negotiations are still proceeding to enable the Persian Government to obtain an adequate loan?
  Sir E. GREY: During the recent visit of Monsieur Sazenow to this country the need of the Persian Government for securing an adequate loan was fully recognised. The matter is still under careful consideration. The question of a new financial adviser was-not specifically raised, but it was recognised that, if financiers made stipulations as to strong Treasury control a condition of lending money, the Persian Government would have to take them into consideration.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Swedish gendarmerie are actually being disbanded for want of funds?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, I do not think we have that information, but if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper I will inquire.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the difficulties of the situation in Persia and the anxiety that is felt, he will arrange to take an early opportunity to make a statement to this House on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot make a long statement in answer to an oral question and I cannot, of course, say what other opportunities will be available.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the hanging and butchery of Persians in Tabriz were perpetrated by order of Shuja-ud-Dowleh, one of the ex-Shah's generals, because the victims took part in the revolution that led to the dethronement of the ex-Shah; whether he is aware that Shuja-ud-Dowleh is still nominally assistant-governor of Tabriz, and is kept in that position by pressure from the Russian Government; and will representations be made in the proper quarter that Shuja-ud-Dowleh shall be brought to trial before a Persian tribunal?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the negative; the answer to> the second question is that Shuja-ud-Dowleh is nominally Governor of Maraga, a place many miles away from Tabriz and, although he has been temporarily acting as Deputy to Sipahdar, who arrived at Tabriz on 1st September, there is, so far as I am aware, no foundation for assuming that he is kept in that position by pressure from

  1893
  the Russian Government; the answer to the last question is in the negative; if we undertook to do what the hon. Member asks in the last part of his question it would be an extension of our responsibilities that would be very undesirable. As I am informed that some charge has been made that I am responsible for Shuja's proceedings, I should like to take the opportunity of stating that it as entirely untrue that I have taken any action in support of him or his appointment. An inquiry was made early in the year of the British Minister at Teheran respecting Shuja's disposition towards the Persian Government, but it was not followed by any action on our part.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that requests were repeatedly made by the Russian Government to the Persian Government to actually appoint this creature the Governor of Tabriz, and they refused to do so?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot tell what may have passed between the Russian Government and the Persian Government, but, if the hon. Members wishes, he might put down a further question.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the White Book published by the Government does not contain proof that the Russians had great provocation in the murder and mutilation of their own subjects in Tabriz?
  Sir E. GREY: As the White Book has been published, hon. Members can study it for themselves.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state, approximately, what is the total number of Russian troops now in Persia; and whether he has any official information showing that 3,000 more Russian troops have recently been sent there?
  Sir E. GREY: There were 12,400 Russian troops in Persia in July last. Since then I have heard from His Majesty's Consul at Tabriz, who has reported that Russian troops had begun to withdraw, and that about 2,300 had left Tabriz in the last two days. I have also heard that a Russian force is at present proceeding to the neighbourhood of the Turco-Persian frontier.
  Mr. MORRELL: May we assume there is no truth in the statement that the Russian forces in Persia are being strengthened?
  Sir E. GREY: As far as we are aware, they have not been strengthened. Two thousand three hundred were actually withdrawing from Tabriz, but it is not quite clear where they were going, possibly they were the force going towards the Turco-Persian frontier.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India was consulted before the Government decided to withdraw from the Brussels Sugar Convention; and whether that Government approved such withdrawal?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): No, Sir. The Government of India was not an adherent to the Convention and was not consulted as to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do I understand from that statement that the Secretary of State holds India was not vitally interested in this question?
  Mr. BAKER: No, I do not think that follows.

  Indian High Courts.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under Secretary of State for India, what steps, if any, have been taken to compensate Mr. Clark, the judgment against whom in the Calcutta High Court was reversed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and what steps, if any, have been taken to amend the system under which barrister judges are now appointed to the High Courts in India and to introduce reforms into the composition of the High Court of Calcutta?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether it is the fact that under the provisions of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, not less than one-third of the Judges, including the Chief Justices, must be barristers or advocates, that no responsible person has impeached the impartiality or the competence of this branch of the Indian judiciary, but that many tributes have been borne to its efficiency?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is correct.
  Sir J. D. REES: No, I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait for the reply.
  Mr. H. BAKER: Mr. Clark was obliged to be present in England in connection with the hearing of the Privy Council appeal, and was therefore placed on deputation instead of furlough. As regards the latter part of the question, no steps of the kind suggested have been taken.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if in saying the hon. Member (Mr. Swift MacNeill) is correct, he has not exceeded his brief?

  Khan Hotimardan.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government propose to publish any further Papers regarding the case of the Khan of Hotimardan?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I then ask the hon. Gentleman whether the India Office associates itself with the Government of India in its repudiation of the base and cowardly attacks made upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am quoting.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If it is a quotation, that is all the more reason for it not being used for the purposes of a question.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I point out—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will put it in black and white, I will look at it.

  Indian Students.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the names, duties, and salaries of such persons as are employed at the expense of the Indian revenue for the purpose of affording assistance to Indian students and other Indians sojourning in this Kingdom, in London, and elsewhere?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The names of the officers in question and their annual salaries are as follows: Mr. Mallet, Secretary for Indian Students, £1,000; Mr. T. W. Arnold, Educational Adviser in London, £800; Mr. Cheshire and Mr. Mohamed Rahman, assistants to Mr. Arnold (the latter acting temporarily), £400 and £5C0 respectively. As regards the duties of these officers, the Secretary of State for India has nothing to add to
  1896
  the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India on 30th July last and to the reply given to my hen. Friend on the 15th instant. The Secretary of State for India in Council has also authorised the payment of a fee of £100 a year to Mr. Campion, expert adviser on engineering questions, and of £50 to Sir Edward Candy, correspondent at Cambridge. Mr. Mallet and Mr. Arnold are provided with the necessary clerical assistance.

  Army Ordnance Factory, Selby (Fair Wages).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the wages paid to the labourers occupied at the Army Ordnance Factory near Selby are at a lower rate than the rate prescribed by the Resolution of the House of Commons of 10th March, 1909; and whether there is any reason why these labourers should not receive a minmum wage of sixpence per hour, especially in view of the fact that their occupation is of a dangerous character?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The wages of these men have recently been increased, and I am not aware that they are now not in accordance with the Resolution of this House. I shall be happy to consider any evidence to that effect that may be given me by the hon. Member.

  British Army (Officers Retiring Allowances).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the Committee which was inquiring into the question of the retiring allowances for officers has finished its investigations; and, if so, whether any alteration of the Army Order 237 of 1911 has been decided upon, in the case of those officers whose retiring allowances were cut down from £300 a year to £200 a year by this Army order, notwithstanding the fact that when they joined the Service the pension of £300 a year was promised to them under the Regulations then in force?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I hope to be able to make an announcement on this subject before long; but I cannot admit that the pension of £300 a year was promised to the officers concerned under the Regulations in force when they joined, as the Royal Warrant in its preamble expressly reserved to them the rights only of their rank at the time of issue.

  Baden-Powell Military Kite.
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War in what essential details the Baden-Powell military kite supplied to the German Government differed from he apparatus now adopted for the British Army and for which the reward of £5,000 was given?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish the information required.
  Colonel BURN: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the latest improvements of the equipment, and will he take into consideration the fact that it costs about one-third the price of the other apparatus?
  Colonel SEELY: All those considerations have been taken into account, but one cannot make public statements about these matters without jeopardising the interests of the public service.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men who attended the 1912 camp for fifteen days; the number who attended for eight days or for a shorter period; the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men who were absent from camp this year with leave; and the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men who were absent from camp this year without leave? Colonel SEELY: The figures are as follows:—

  Officers.

  N.C.O.'s and Men.

  For 15 days and over

  6,851

  154,800

  For 8 days and less than 15

  1,006

  66,195

  For less than 8 days

  46

  314

  Absent with leave

  1,317

  27,236

  Absent without leave

  37

  6,010

  The figures for the London Electrical Engineers who do not complete training until the end of October are not included.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked (15) what numbers of the same forty-one officers and 6,755 men of the Territorial Force mentioned on page 117 of the General Annual Report of the British Army, published in 1912, for the year ending September, 1911, as absent without leave from camp in the year 1911 were again returned as absent this year; and, if any of these officers and men were
  1898
  so absent for the second time, whether any steps have been taken or will be taken to have their names removed from the Territorial Force; and (16) the number of officers, of non-commissioned officers, and of men now serving in the Infantry of the Territorial Force who have been absent with leave and without leave from the training of their battalions on two or more occasions according to the records kept at the headquarters of each battalion?
  Colonel SEELY: The information required by this and the next question is not available at the War Office, and could only be obtained by calling for a special return, which would involve considerable labour in compilation. It does not appear that the advantage to be derived from the return is sufficient to justify the additional work thrown on to the Territorial staff.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates any proposal, and, if so, what, intended to make employers of labour more disposed to granting to their men facilities for service in the Territorial Force?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of compensating employers of men serving in the Territorial Force is under consideration, and inquiries are being made as to the most satisfactory form that this could take. I shall be glad to receive any suggestions that the hon. Member may desire to make on the subject.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of forwarding this undertaking by making modifications in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Insurance Act?
  Colonel SEELY: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I do not know that that would be a very wise method to adopt.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Is it not a matter for the right hon. Gentleman also?
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing a certain exemption in Income Tax to employers for the employés who go to camp, for instance, an exemption of £10 per year?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot expect an answer now to a question of that kind, of which notice should be given.

  Waterloo.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked (18) whether, in view of the approaching centenary of the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the War Office contemplate any scheme of celebration on its account, or is giving its official patron age to any private undertaking, particularly in view of the fact that there is no memorial to the nation's arms as a whole on the field of Waterloo.
  Mr. KINGasked (21) whether, in case of any celebration of the approaching centenary of the battle of Waterloo, whether by erecting a monument on the field of battle or otherwise, representations will first be made to the German Government with a view to possible co-operation in the celebration and in order to mark the historical fact that the victory of Waterloo was due to the joint military operation of the British and Prussian armies?
  Colonel SEELY: The War Office has no such proposal under consideration.
  Sir H. CARLILE: May I ask, bearing in mind the long period since the battle, whether the Army Council will take it into consideration?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, is he aware that the celebration of the anniversary of Waterloo was many years ago discontinued in deference to the wishes of the highest authority in order to promote feelings of peace and to let bygones be bygones?

  Special Reserve Battalions.
  Captain PEELasked (19) when it is proposed to alter the designation of the Special Reserve Battalions in the "London Gazette" from Special Reserve of Officers to Special Reserve or Special Reserve Infantry, thereby making it more clear to the general public that this force may contain men as well as officers; and (20) whether he intends, now that the fourth extra Reserve battalions have been deprived of their Regular engagement officers, to reintroduce the appointment of a Special Reserve Officer as instructor of musketry, as used to be the custom in former days, instead of attaching some strange officer to a battalion for the musketry period, which appears to be the present practice?
  Colonel SEELY: This question is now being considered.

  Land Value Duties.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the tables issued with their Annual Report by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue show a comparison between the yield of Income Budget Estimates, but no such figures are given in respect of the Land Taxes; and can he state to the House what his Budget Estimates were for Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty for the years 1910–11 and 1911–12, respectively?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I regret that the figures relating to the several Land Value Duties, which had been made public in my Budget Statement for the year 1911–12 were inadvertently omitted from the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I am having them circulated with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. PRETYMANasked why no reference is made in the Annual Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to the decisions given by Referees on appeals heard by them upon cases arising out of the valuation for the Land Taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The decision of a Referee has no binding effect apart from the particular case which is referred to him; and it is not the practice to publish decisions of this character in the Annual Report, of the Commissioners.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That the decision of the Referee not a binding effect on the parties concerned?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. As I have said, it has a binding effect in the particular case.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it not, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, very important for parties who have similar cases with the Inland Revenue to know what the decisions of the Referees are, and in that way get information?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is a good deal to be said for publishing cases bearing on some question of principle. I have been considering that question. I do not think it would be advisable to publish the decision in every case, and I am not sure that the parties would really care for that. At any rate, I do think there is a

  1901
  good deal to be said for publishing the decisions in cases which involve matters of principle.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Then I will repeat my question a little later on, when the right hon. Gentleman has had a little time to consider the matter.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will be glad if the hon. Member will do so.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked whether 2,240 valuations made in Ireland on occasions when Increment Value Duty was presumed to be payable have only yielded £34 to the revenue; and whether, in view of the unremunerative character of these proceedings, he will issue instructions that the valuation of land in Ireland be no further proceeded with?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Two thousand two hundred and forty occasion valuations were made in Ireland in the year 1911–12, but they were made without consideration whether duty was, or was not, presumably payable. In the same year £34 was collected out of £119 assessed as Increment Value Duty on occasions of transfers on sale and leases of land. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it not the case that in every transfer, whether in England or Ireland, a valuation has to be made on the presumption that Increment Value Duty is payable or may be payable?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer I have given is that the valuations were made without consideration whether duty was or was not presumably payable.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the yield to the revenue of Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty, respectively, for the first six months of the current financial year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Oswestry.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the number of occasional valuations on 30th September, 1912, for which particulars have been duly lodged, but for which valuations have not yet been made?
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked whether there are any, and, if so, how many, valuations arising on occasions for which particulars were lodged before the 31st December, 1910, and which are still outstanding; and when are these to be finished?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To obtain the information asked for would involve an expenditure of labour and time in valuation offices all over the country that I hardly think is justified by the object.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether any valuations are being made by unqualified valuers, that is to say, by men who are not members of the Surveyors' Institution or of the Auctioneers' Institute?
  Mr. NEWMANasked the number of qualified valuers on the valuation staff on 30th September, 1912?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No valuations are being made by unqualified valuers. The number of valuers on the valuation staff for England and Wales on the 30th September was 758. Of these, 466 hold certificates of the Surveyors' Institution or Auctioneers' Institute; of the remaining, none were appointed who were not found to be, fully-qualified valuers by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What is the standard of qualification?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the number 758 refer to the number of principal valuers or does it include assistant valuers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it includes the whole of the valuation staff.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that those who are found not to be qualified have not been employed to make any valuations?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the number of occasional valuations made to the 30th of September, 1912?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number of occasional valuations made in Great Britain, up to and including 30th September, 1912, was 403,527.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the number of, and area included in, the valuations made to the 30th of September, 1912?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number of provisional valuations made and served in Great Britain, up to and including 30th September, 1912, was 2,583,453. These valuations related to 3,256,568 hereditaments, and included approximately 7,243,764 acres.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: are there not over 11,000,000 hereditaments, and if so, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect the valuation will be completed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer a question of that sort without notice.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked out of what fund is the compensation for cattle slaughtered in Ireland in consequence of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease paid; what is the expenditure already incurred under this head up to the present date; and, if the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, out of what fund will such expenditure be met, and whether out of the pockets of the Irish taxpayers or otherwise?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture): Compensation is payable out of the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account of the Cattle Diseases Fund under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and that fund consists partly of contributions from local rates and partly of monies provided by Parliament. When the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, the existing system of providing compensation will continue unless and until the Irish Parliament think fit to alter it, subject, of course, to the modification that the Irish Parliament will as regards the provision of money be substituted for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The amount of the expenditure already incurred under this head in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is £15,847.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what proportion of that £15,000 was paid out of Irish rates and out of Imperial funds respectively?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I rather think the proportion is a small one.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The right hon. Gentleman says the proportion paid out of the rates is very small—can he tell me the amount?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend state how much this fund amounts to, and whether there is statutory authority for applying it in this way?
  Mr. RUSSELL: It is annually made up by contributions from the rates. Every county council in Ireland is liable for a rate. That is the way the fund is made up every year, and it has been applied in the past in connection with outbreaks of swine fever. The prevalence of swine fever last year rather depleted the fund.
  Mr. LOUGH: What is the amount of the fund?
  Mr. RUSSELL: About £20,000 per year.
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the importation of Irish store cattle into the port of Glasgow?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am in communication with the Glasgow local authority on this subject, but no definite arrangements for the landing of Irish store cattle there have yet been made.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" to-day, that several fresh cases of foot-and-mouth disease have been reported in the Mullingar district, and whether the announcement that forty milch cows in this small area are affected is well founded?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have not seen the newspaper report in question, but the latest intelligence I have is that twenty-six animals have been affected in the Mullingar district, and 200 animals were in contact. These are all either slaughtered or will be slaughtered. I think that the report is probably accurate with regard to milch cows, because the outbreak has taken place in the town parks of Mullingar, and these are reserves of milch cows.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: In view of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has put before us, does he still adhere to the

  1905
  opinion that he expressed yesterday, that there is no reason for supposing that the disease has been for a considerable time in existence at Mullingar before it was known?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The report of the veterinary officer states his belief that it is about four days old.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: In all the different animals?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Were they all infected at the same time?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Entirely.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are not these town parks in the neighbourhood of Mullingar where the outbreaks took place in the immediate vicinity of the Mullingar Barracks, and, in view of the fact that the outbreak at Ballysax, county Kildare, was due to straw packing that was given to Mrs. Behan from the barracks, will the right hon. Gentleman investigate whether the outbreak is due to a similar cause in Mullingar?
  Mr. RUSSELL: All the facts will be investigated, but, as I said yesterday, there is no evidence to connect the barracks with the outbreak.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can make provisions for the safe use of the foreign animals wharf of the Manchester Ship Canal for the landing of Irish animals for the supply of local needs?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under an Order issued on the 4th inst. Irish animals are allowed to be landed at the foreign animals wharf at Old Trafford, Manchester, but they must be detained there for inspection and supervision and removed from the wharf in accordance with the requirements of the Order, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to my hon. Friend.

  Estate Duties.
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the number and value of Estate Duty cases which were outstanding for any causes on 30th September, 1912, 30th September, 1911, 30th September, 1910, and 30th September, 1909?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the 30th September, 1912, the number of Estate Duty cases outstanding by reason of valuation was 13,895, and their value £64,675,000; on the 30th September, 1911, the number and value were 18,970 and £73,109,000; on the 30th September, 1910, 8,127 and £40,695,000; and on the 30th September, 1909, 110 and £4,675,000. On each date there were, in addition, about 1,000 cases (being two days' receipts), which were outstanding from other causes-than valuation. I have no information as to the value represented by these cases.
  Mr. WATTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department has come to any decision as to the retention or sale of land received by the State in payment of Estate Duties under Section 56 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; if so, what is the decision; and will he say how much land has been so received by his Department, and is it an increasing quantity, in view of the present unremunerative nature of the holding of land?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the first part of the question, it has been decided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall act as intermediaries for the conveyance of property to other public Departments or authorities who might desire to purchase it. As regards the latter part, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 17th instant to a question on the same subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle.

  Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Commissioners claim that Undeveloped Land Duty is payable on sites which are held in trust for the erection thereon of places of worship pending the erection of the edifice?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A body of trustees holding land in trust for the erection of a place of worship is deemed to be a governing body constituted for charitable purposes, and the land is held to be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty under the provisions of Section 37 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, provided it satisfies the condition laid down in that Section that it should be occupied and used by the charity for its own purposes.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that claims are being made for Undeveloped Land Duty on land exactly in that situation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me specific cases. I could not answer the question without some information.

  Land Values Committee.
  Mr. ESSLEMONTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, an view of the complaints which have been made by and on behalf of landowners regarding the method and character of the Land Inquiry which is being carried out at his request he can arrange that schedules will be sent to those owners who express a desire to furnish information?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt that the Committee will gladly comply with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I understand that a number of landowners have already sent in very valuable replies.
  Mr. WEIGALLasked whether copies of the evidence and Reports of the Departmental Committee on the position of tenant farmers, etc., which sat last year, have been or will be supplied to members of the secret land committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a matter that rests with the Land Inquiry Committee itself to determine.
  Mr. WEIGALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any reason why the information sought for could not be obtained either by means of a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That surely does not arise out of this question. It simply asked for information upon a specific point.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does it not arise from the fact that, if it were a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee it would naturally be in a position to call evidence from the Committee which has already reported?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not the faintest doubt that they will possess themselves of all the information available.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Quite apart from all this, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself will take steps to see that this information is furnished to the particular body in question? He has the power to do it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman makes is very valuable. I will communicate it to the Land Inquiry Committee as coming from him.
  Mr. PEELasked the right lion. Gentleman whether he will exercise his influence in persuading the hon. Member for Halifax to remove from the Order Paper his blocking Motion, which prevents any discussion in this House upon the proceeding and operations of the secret Land Inquiry Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I said yesterday, no one would welcome the removal of this notice more than myself, and I have already made representations to that effect to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. PEEL: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, until the matter is discussed, agree to withdraw these land spies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Discussion of the matter in the House does not rest with me. If it did, I should certainly welcome a discussion. I had nothing whatever to do with putting the Motion down, and, as my hon. Friend knows, I have done my best to have it removed.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman, in answering question 40, dealt with the precise point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University?

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet ascertained whether a pledge was given that the evidence before the Irish Finance Committee should be published, provided a considerable section of the House expressed a wish to that effect?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Prayer Book Alterations.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister what notice has been taken by Convocation of the Church of England of the letters of business issued by the Crown in 1907 inviting and enabling Convocation to make alterations in the prayer book; and whether it is intended to urge Convocation to hasten its action?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matters referred to the two Convocations in 1906 were of great intricacy and importance, and required lengthy and careful deliberation. I understand that a special session of Convocation has been fixed for 19th November and the following days, at a time of year when it does not usually meet, with the object of expediting the business.

  State-Aid for Housing.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:asked the Prime Minister whether he has now communicated with Lord Strachie with regard to the speech he made at Sherborne last month, in which he is reported to have advocated the adoption in England of the principle of State-aid for housing, which has been so successfully applied in Ireland under the provisions of the Labourers Acts; whether Lord Strachie was speaking on behalf-of the Government; and whether State-aid for housing is now the policy of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand from Lord Strachie that he expressly stated that he was only expressing his personal views on rural housing. The policy of the Government on the subject will be announced in due course.

  Imperial Trade Commission.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether, when the Imperial Trade Commission takes evidence, the trade of India, our only Empire, will be excluded from consideration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The resolution of the Imperial Conference, in accordance with which the Royal Commission has been appointed, related to the natural resources and trade of the parts of the Empire represented at the conference. In so far as the trade of those parts of the Empire is concerned with the other parts of the Empire and with foreign countries, it is for the Commission itself to determine what evidence it will take.
  Sir J. D. REES: If India is excluded, should not the title "Imperial" be deleted? Can it properly stand when India is excluded from the purview of the inquiry?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This was a Commission appointed in pursuance of the unanimous resolution of the Imperial Conference.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that the recommendation of the Imperial Conference did not exclude India, but that it was arranged by the Ministers who sat at the conference?

  Public Services Commission.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to inform himself of the opinions held in India as to the appointment of the hon. Member for Leicester to the Public Services Commission, and particularly of the criticisms upon that appointment contained in that section of the Indian Press which represents more particularly the opinions of the Europeans in the public services in India?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have a general knowledge of the character of the criticisms to which the hon. Member alludes, as of criticisms of a different kind directed against the appointment of some other members of the Royal Commission, but they do not consider that in any of the cases there is reason to submit for approval any modification in its composition.
  Sir J. D. REES: Would the Prime Minister allow, for instance, the "Pioneer" or certain papers in India representing the British services, and in that case does he decide to proceed with this appointment in spite of the statement of that representative of Europeans in India that it is regarded as an insult—I quote the word—insult?
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these particular papers mentioned-in the question, not only object to the appointment of the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), but to the whole composition of the Committee?

  United Kingdom (Separate Parliaments).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered on their merits the proposals made in the

  1911
  recent speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty for the creation of ten or twelve separate Parliaments in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether he will communicate to the House the results of such consideration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have naturally considered the tentative suggestions made by my right hon. Friend. For my own views on the subject I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the speech which I made on the introduction of the Bill for the better government of Ireland, and to which I have at present nothing to add.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that that statement of his was vague can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite answer to the present question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have given it.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is there any precedent for such a great constitutional change as is now proposed, of which the country knows the first steps, being taken while the country is kept in profound ignorance of the intentions of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's question contains a great deal of controversial matter. I shall be very glad to meet him at the proper time.
  Mr. PIRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to the country or to the House of Commons?
  Mr. MOORE: How could the right hon. Gentleman consider on their merits in June proposals which were not made until December?

  Land Reform.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that there is a desire among persons of all shades of political opinion for some measure of practicable land reform which will result in greater prosperity of agricultural industry, an increase of agricultural output, and improvement in the conditions of life of agricultural workers, he will, in lieu of the present private inquiry, appoint a Royal Commission on the lines of the United States Country Life Commission to take, evidence from persons belonging to all classes interested in agricultural land and its economic development, and report publicly to Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I promised the hon. Member that I would consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, his suggestion that a Royal Commission should be appointed on the lines of the-United States Country Life Commission. I have not yet come to any decision in the matter.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Bearing in mind this new inquiry that is progressing in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate his consultation with the President of the Board of Agriculture on the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no need for acceleration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do the classes interested in agricultural land mentioned in the question include both those who farm the land and those who farm the farmers as well?

  Marconi Agreement.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked if the Marconi agreement was entered into by the Postmaster-General on his own responsibility and not as the result of a decision of the Cabinet as a whole; whether the Committee of Defence were formally consulted with regard thereto; and what practice obtains generally in determining matters of this nature with respect to which individual Ministers may act without reference to their colleagues?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not the practice to state what matters are brought before the Cabinet. Nor is it usual to say what subjects are discussed at the Committee of Imperial Defence, but in this occasion I may remark that the Committee of Imperial Defence was formally consulted on the matter on 14th December, 1911, and was informed of the course of the negotiations with the Marconi Company. It resolved that the negotiations should be continued. The terms finally agreed were communicated to the Committee of Imperial Defence after the tender had been accepted and to the Cable Landing Rights Committee before acceptance. These facts do not, of course, affect the constitutional responsibility for the agreement, which both my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet accept in full.

  Civil Service (Ministers' Secretaries).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister in how many cases during the

  1913
  last five years private secretaries of Members of the Government have received permanent appointments in the Civil Service without open competition; the particulars of such cases; and whether he will consider the advisability of abolishing a practice which operates to the detriment of the officers in the Civil Service, who have obtained their position as the result of open examination at expense and trouble to themselves, and who by their training and experience have established a special claim to promotion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Particulars of all appointments which were made from 5th December, 1905, to 28th February last without competitive examination to posts in the Civil Service will be given in the Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle on the latter date. So far as I am aware, there are not more than four instances of private secretaries to Members of the Government, who were not previously Civil servants, being appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service. These four are:—

  Mr. Mark Sturgis, Special Commissioner of Income Tax.

  Mr. F. N. Rogers (who had ceased to be a private secretary), Small Holdings Commission.

  Mr. M. S. Green (who had previously been a Civil servant), Chairman of Irish Prisons Board.

  Mr. Lionel Earle, Secretary to the Office of Works.

  It has been by no means the normal practice to appoint members of the Civil Service in the ordinary course to any of these posts. As the lion. Member is aware, a Commission to inquire into the method of making appointments to the Civil Service is now sitting, and I prefer to await the Commission's Report before expressing any opinion on the point raised in the last part of the question. I am, I need not say, anxious that Civil servants should not be kept out of the prizes of the Civil Service, but in the case of all these appointments the public interest is the governing consideration.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether, as the completion of land purchase in Ireland has been admitted to be more important than Home Rule, he intends, whatever may be the fate of the Government of Ireland Bill, to
  1914
  facilitate and accelerate land purchase; and whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill for that purpose next Session?
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce fresh legislation or to expedite the working of the Land Purchase Acts, 1903 and 1909, by the methods already provided by any Clauses of the said Acts; and whether, should fresh legislation or an amending Act be contemplated, he can give the probable date of its introduction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government fully recognise the importance of the question, and are now giving it careful consideration; but I am unable at present to anticipate the legislative programme of next year.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Has the Government any serious intention of proceeding with land purchase in Ireland, or is the matter no more than a debt of honour which does not brook delay.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is not a very polite question, and had the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer, it is a totally unnecessary one.

  Office of Works (Designs of Public Buildings).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the criticism usually directed to de signs accepted and plans adopted for public buildings and other undertakings by His Majesty's Office of Works; and whether, in order to give public confidence in the work of that Department and to ensure the best value, taste, and style in all future public works, he is prepared to introduce some method of securing the best possible advice and general approval, either by appointing a representative consultative committee or otherwise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The First Commissioner is responsible for the designs of all public buildings, the erection of which devolves upon his Department; and he is satisfied that, so far as ordinary buildings are concerned, no useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a consultative committee such as that suggested by the hon. Member. The First Commissioner feels that he can rely with confidence upon the experience of his trained staff. In the case of exceptional

  1915
  buildings, such as the War Office and the new public offices, it has been the practice to seek the assistance of architects of eminence outside the Department.

  Congested Districts (Scotland) Board.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the late Congested Districts Board (Scotland) to 31st March, 1912, will be presented?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Report was issued Inst week, and is now obtainable.
  Mr. MORTON: Why did it take nearly seven months to bring out the Report and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by keeping it back we Were deprived of the opportunity of discussing it on the Scottish Estimates?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Some of the officials of the Board were actively engaged in new work and that caused the delay in bringing out the Report.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will there be any opportunity for Scotch Members to discuss the Report?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not a question for me.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Housing).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of Dr. J. R. Currie, medical officer of health for the Dunfermline District Committee, on the housing of Rosyth workers; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Local Governmént Board for Scotland have made further inquiry into the matter. I am informed that the district committee meet to-day to consider the medical officer's report; and upon learning their views I hope to be in a position to decide what further action is called for.
  Mr. CROOKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housing conditions at Rosyth are absolutely unspeakably bad, worse than anything we have ever known in London?
  Mr. PARKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the excessive price of land at Rosyth prevents housing experiments on an economic scale1?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe the price of land is rather high in the neighbourhood.

  Ostrich Farms, Scotland.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that, in the opinion of experts, certain parts of the Scottish Highlands are admirably adapted for rearing ostriches, and that, if ostrich farms were started in the Highlands, the feathers of the birds would be even better than the feathers now obtained from South Africa; and whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to consider the advisability of taking steps to establish in a suitable spot in the High ands a Government ostrich farm on an experimental basis?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board of Agriculture has been so much occupied with small holdings and other pressing matters that they have not yet devoted their attention to the possibilities of ostrich farming. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will submit the expert evidence to which he refers, I shall be glad to obtain expert opinion upon it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are not the Scottish landlords quite able to feather their own nests?

  Applications for Land (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked what is the total number of applications to date for land to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and the total amount of land which so far has been allocated?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The total number is about 4,500. As regards the second part of the question, I can only say that negotiations are in progress for a number of schemes for land settlement.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is it possible to give a detailed list of the applications?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, a list will be published.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the ques-

  1917
  tion, "The total amount of land which so far has been allocated"?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did answer that question.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are all these people who have applied suitable for landowners, and have they all to pay their £170 before they are given a small holding?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I never heard of that condition. Of course, it is not reasonable to expect that all the applicants would be able to fulfil it.

  School of Forestry, Scotland.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what arrangements he proposes to make with regard to the School of Forestry in Scotland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have nothing at present to add to previous answers.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said the same thing four months ago, and are we to understand that the Scottish Office does not move at all until four months have passed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member seems to have forgotten that some time ago I appointed an Advisory Committee on the subject. I have not yet received a Report from that Committee.

  Committee of Council on Education, Scotland.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he would state the reason for the special notification in the Gazette of the 15th instant concerning the composition of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, who are known as My Lords; and would he give the date of the last meeting of that body and the number of meetings, respectively, which its various members have attended?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The issue of a new Order in Council was rendered necessary by the change in the designation of Lord Haldane, one of the members of the Committee. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his question of 6th August last.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when that question was put on that occasion he did not answer this part of the question. There was no-reply?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask a definite answer to the portion of the question to which my hon. Friend refers?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was answered.
  Mr. PIRIE: No, Sir, it was not answered. Are we to understand that the-Secretary for Scotland refuses to give the date of the last meeting of this so-called body?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That may arise out of the answer to the next question.
  Mr. PIRIE: I will raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
  Mr. PIRIEasked with reference to the duties imposed upon the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, and which are supposed to be performed at its meetings, if he would state whether minutes of these meetings are kept; who is responsible for such minutes; who is the chairman of the committee; and what is the number of members that constitute a quorum?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The questions, of my hon. Friend are founded upon a misapprehension of the functions and constitutional position of the Committee of Council referred to, which are similar to those of various other bodies in other Departments of the Government, like the English Board of Education, the Board of Trade, the English Local Government Board and the English Board of Agriculture.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in years past this committee frequently met, and that minutes of the meetings are preserved among the archives of his; Department, and is there any reason why he should not be advised of the meetings?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of frequent meetings, but I am aware that meetings have been held on important subjects. There is no reason why they should not be held again when occasion calls for them.
  Mr. HOGGE: How does the right hon. Gentleman remove the misapprehension we have about this committee when he refuses to give any information?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot enter into this difficult question of constitutional history. I would refer my hon. Friend to the well-known work by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson). This committee is a growth in the progress of the Constitution. I cannot discuss it.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I say that if the right hon. Gentleman would give the date of the last meeting, we could look it up for ourselves?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My impression is that I gave the date. If I did not give it I will inquire and let the hon. Member know the date. If I did give it, I will give it again.
  Mr. PIRIE: Who is the chairman of the committee?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Lord President of the Council.
  Mr. PIRIE: Does he know he is president of it?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe he does. My hon. and gallant Friend would not ask the question if he read the Minutes of the Department, because they are all signed by the president.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked what are the duties to be performed by the new Council on Scottish Education; and whether a representative from the School Board of Scotland will be appointed to the council?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that a new Council has been appointed. An Order in Council dealing with the constitution of the existing Committee of Council on Education in Scotland has recently been issued for the reason stated in the answer which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeenshire, but no change whatever has been made in the personnel of the committee.

  Scottish Education.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to
  1920
  the address delivered at the general meeting of the Scottish School Board Association, in Galashiels, by the president of the association, the Rev. Dr. Smith, of Govan, in which the appointment of an advisory committee on education was advocated with the approval of the meeting, such an educational council to be composed of members representative of the various interests involved, and appointed for a term of years irrespective of Government changes, and to act as an advisory committee on Scottish education; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction with the existing educational situation, he is prepared either to advise the creation of such a committee, or to appoint a committee of inquiry into the effect of the recent numerous changes in the educational system brought about by recent legislation?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have seen a report of the address referred to. I am not prepared to advise the creation of a committee such as that outlined in the address, nor do I see sufficient occasion at the present time for the appointment of the committee of inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the universal dissatisfaction which is felt in Scotland with respect to the administration of education, and has he seen the views which have been expressed on the subject by Sir James Donaldson, Professor Ramsay, and others?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Universal dissatisfaction does not exist. There is dissatisfaction among certain people, and there always will be in regard to any system of education in any country.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion as to meeting the unofficial Scottish Members of this House as an advisory committee as a beginning?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.

  Government Offices, Edinburgh.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the proposal for the erection of Government Offices in Edinburgh and the removal of the existing Calton prison, if he will make representations to the proper authorities of the

  1921
  desirability that provisions should be made for the housing in that city of a Scottish Parliament; and if he has considered the propriety of encouraging the scheme for the utilisation of Calton Hill for that purpose?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the site named will be fully occupied by the permanent offices.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that we have already been informed that there is no present intention of putting offices on that site? How, therefore, can it be occupied by offices?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member's information is inaccurate.
  Mr. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what the Government's intentions are about the housing of the Scottish Parliament when we have one?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That does not arise out of the answer.
  Mr. PIRIE: The right hon. Gentleman's mind is a blank on the subject.

  Small Holdings, Scotland.
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that over 46,000 acres have been applied for under the new Scottish Land Act in the county of Ross and Cromarty alone; whether any attempt has been made to satisfy the applicants; and whether, in view of the fact that in the other Highland counties the demand is equally great, he will provide at once additional and effective machinery to deal with this demand?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Board of Agriculture is negotiating with a view to making land available on the mainland of the county, while special officers have been instructed to make inquiries in Lewis forthwith. I am advised that there would be no advantage at present in increasing the permanent staff.

  Voluntary School Teachers (Scotland).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received representations from various associations in Scotland on the subject of
  1922
  the position of teachers in voluntary schools; whether such teachers do not enjoy the same rights as their colleagues in the public schools; if so, whether it is in his power to put the matter right without legislation; and, if not, whether he will introduce such legislation as may be necessary for the purpose?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received representations of the character referred to by the hon. Member. It is the case that the provisions of the Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers Act, 1882, do not extend to teachers in voluntary schools, nor do such teachers enjoy the right of appeal to the Department against dismissal by managers conferred upon teachers in public schools by Section 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908. No change in this respect is possible without legislation, but I am not in a position at present to give any undertaking as to the introduction of such legislation.

  State Loans for Fishermen.
  Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state when the Report of the Committee which is sitting to consider inter alia the question of State loans for fishermen may be expected?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the evidence with reference to loans to fishermen, which has been the cause of delay, is not yet completed, but when it has been concluded the Committee will proceed to consider their Report at once.
  Mr. MUNRO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the date when that Report will appear?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; I am sorry I cannot state the exact date.

  Kirkwall Educational Trust.
  Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland, whether he has considered a petition from the ratepayers of the parish of Kirkwall and St. Ola on the subject of the Kirkwall educational trust; and looking to the substantial unanimity of their desire that the funds of the trust should be exempted from the pro visions of Section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and to the purposes which these funds now serve as compared with the more limited purpose which they would serve were an exemption order refused, he will favourably consider the propriety of issuing such an order?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As explained in my reply to the petitioners, under date 13th May, 1912, I have very carefully considered this matter in all its aspects, but I cannot see my way to depart from the decision already intimated in terms of Section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908. I cannot accept the view that the purpose to which Parliament has directed the money to be applied is more limited than that of the previous scheme.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Do we understand that it is practically not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to grant the prayer of this petition?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Well, I do not put it quite so high as that.

  Ice-Cream Shops, Hawick.
  Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now given his approval to the by-laws sent to him some months back by the town council of Hawick for the purpose of regulating the conduct of ice-cream shops in that burgh?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not been able to give approval to the by-laws referred to, for the reasons stated in a letter to the town clerk of Hawick last week, of which I have sent a copy to my hon. Friend.
  Sir J. BARRAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that when the by-laws are sent up they will be dealt with with the utmost expedition, seeing that the matter last been outstanding for some time?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly. Perhaps I may explain that when they were sent up they were not in proper form.

  Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, under the provisions of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, a man living in a prohibition area can enter a non-prohibition area, order liquor at a licensed grocer, and have the same delivered at his door in the prohibition area; and, if so, how is this to promote temperance?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Noble Lord is correct in his interpretation of the Bill: it does not prevent a man from purchasing drink where it can legally be sold for consumption in his own house.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?

  Training College (Dundee).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the building of the new training college at Dundee the contract for stone has been given outside the locality, with the result that the cost is greater than would have been the case if the contract had been given to the local quarries; and whether, in view of the fact that the Education Department is bearing the expense, he will bring pressure to bear on the provincial committee to accept stone from the local quarries, the quality of which is adjudged by experts to be equal to that obtained from a distance?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The provincial committee's proposals in connection with the building in question are still under the consideration of the Scotch Education Department. Before coming to any decision, the Department will most carefully scrutinise the whole of the details, including the matter referred to by the hon. Member, with a view to securing the utmost economy that is consistent with a satisfactory result.

  Inverness to London (Train Service).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of a proposal to discontinue the 10.50 p.m. train from Inverness to London, and of the fact that such discontinuance will inconvenience the counties of Rosshire, Sutherlandshire, and Caithness, and would be of far greater inconvenience to Orkney and Shetland, and compel passengers for the south to delay at Inverness and practically lose twenty-four hours; if ho has received a petition from Orkney on the subject; and, if so, if he will give it his attention and favourable consideration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Representations have been made to me as to the great inconvenience that would be caused by the discontinuance of the train referred to, but I have not received any petition from Orkney on the subject. I have been in communication with the Postmaster-General and understand that such steps have been taken as will prevent delay to letters. While I have no authority in the matter, I will make representations to the railway company in regard to the complaints which I have received.

  Royal Commission on Housing (Scotland).
  Captain MURRAYasked the constitution of and terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Housing for Scotland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The constitution of the Committee is as follows:—

  Sir Henry Ballantyne (Chairman).

  The Right Hon. Lord Lovat, K.C.V.O., C.B., D.S.O.

  Sir William Younger, Bart.

  W. F. Anderson, Esq.

  G. F. Barbour, Esq.

  Charles Carlow, Esq.

  J. F. Duncan, Esq.

  David Gilmour, Esq.

  J. Milne Henderson, Esq.

  W. Leslie MacKenzie, Esq., M.D.

  J. Middleton, Esq.

  Mrs. George Kerr.

  The terms of reference are: "To inquire into the housing of the industrial population of Scotland, rural and urban (with special reference in the rural districts to the housing of miners and agricultural labourers); and to report what legislative or administrative action is in their opinion desirable to remedy existing defects."
  Mr. J. WARD: Why are the thousands of navvies excluded, seeing the disgraceful conditions in which they are housed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no exclusion, I can assure you.
  Mr. J. WARD: Miners are mentioned and navvies are not.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reason is a historical reason. There were representations from the miners.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about rural housing?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The terms of reference, which I read, specify "rural and urban" housing.

  Arrest of Miss Jessie Brown (Glasgow).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now taken any action in advising the magistrates of Glasgow that a solatium should be paid to Miss Jessie Brown, wrongfully punished for solicitation on the evidence of two of their constables since found guilty of crimes; and, if not, will he say why he does not propose to move in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am still in correspondence with the magistrates and think it better that I should not enter into further discussion of the matter until I receive their reply to my last communication.

  Helmsdale Harbour (Sutherland).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether he can say why no inquiry has been held concerning the drowning of William MacAngus, fisheman, at Helmsdale Harbour, Sutherland, in August last, whilst employed with the pilot in putting out a steamer from the harbour at the centre quay on a dark night while the harbour was unlighted?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): An investigation was made by the Procurator-Fiscal. The body of the man MacAngus has never been recovered; and the evidence available as to the circumstances under which he disappeared is so scanty that an inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Acts would serve no useful purpose.
  Mr. MORTON: Does not this case come within the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Act?
  Mr. URE: Yes.
  Mr. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not obliged to hold an inquiry?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Trade who is responsible for enforcing the lighting of the harbour at Helmsdale, Sutherland; why the proper lighting of the harbour is not enforced; and whether he is aware that a man employed in connection with the harbour recently lost his life on a dark night while putting out a steamer, when neither the head-light at the harbour nor the quayside lights were lit?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Under the Helmsdale Harbour Order, 1901, this harbour was transferred from Trustees to the Duke of Sutherland, and I understand that, in pursuance of Section 32 of the Helmsdale Harbour Order, 1890, the Duke has leased the rates on certain conditions to Messrs. George Couper and Company. The provisions as to lighting are contained in Section 46 of the latter Order and are to the effect that the undertakers shall at the outer extremity of the works exhibit for all or any part of the time from sunset to sunrise and according to the requirements of

  1927
  the traffic such light or lights (if any) as shall from time to time be directed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. I am making inquiry as to what directions have been given and whether effect is given to them. As regards the latter part of the question, I understand that litigation is pending in reference to the matter referred to.

  Milk Supply.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he favours proposals for organising in this country, as in the United States, a milk supply that is certified as free from dirt, disease, antiseptics, and added preservatives; and, if so, whether, following the recommendations of Sir Thomas Barlow's Committee, he will consider the desirability of constituting a proper authority to certify the milk of those dairy farmers who desire such certification?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the proposals of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers, and I will confer with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the subject.

  Buckingham Palace.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state when it is proposed to commence the refacing with stone of Buckingham Palace and how long the work will be in hand; whether the work will be undertaken by contract or direct labour under the Office of Works; and whether any new architectural features will be introduced or the present elevation left practically unchanged.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): It is proposed to begin the re-facing of Buckingham Palace at the beginning of August next, and to complete the work in three months. The work will be done by contract. I am having a sketch elevation placed in the Tea Boom to-day in order that hon. Members may see exactly what is intended.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    RANGE WARDENS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act, range wardens were entitled to half pay, relative
    1928
    to their position, of from 11s. 6d. to 13s. a week for three months when sick; whether since the passing of the Act 4d. a week is now deducted from their pay in order to-secure to them sick pay at 10s. a week; and whether he will take steps to remedy this reduction in their wages, and prevent a breach of the contract under which they engaged?
    Mr. H. BAKER: Range wardens have been treated in this respect on similar lines to other employés on the wages list. The sick pay of those serving at the time the Act came into force will be made up to its former level from Army funds, and they have also been granted an increase of wages. The hon. Member will see that no question of breach of contract arises.
    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand that the passing of the Insurance Act means a reduction in sick pay to all those officers?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The answer which I have given to the hon. Member disproves that.

    IRISH DOCTORS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that at a meeting of the members of the medical profession resident within the county borough of Dublin, held at the Royal College of Surgeons on 24th September, resolutions were adopted to the effect that the medical practitioners of Dublin were of the opinion that those gentlemen who accept office from friendly societies at terms which have been condemned as inadequate by over 95 per cent, of the medical practitioners of the city are endeavouring to obtain practice by unworthy means, and that all the licensing corporations in Dublin were requested to take official notice of such resolution; whether he is aware that, as the direct result of these resolutions, several doctors have resigned their positions as medical officers to approved societies, and that a number have given notice to terminate their contracts on 31st December, 1912; whether he is aware that the above resolutions were passed with the concurrence of some of the Irish representatives on the General Medical Council; and if, in the case of a medical practitioner being struck off the register, there is no appeal from the decision of the General Medical Council, will he undertake to see that steps are taken to amend the Act of 1858 in this respect?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware of the resolutions passed at the meeting of the 24th September, which, however, related to the licensing corporations and not to the General Medical Council. I understand that the General Medical Council have always held what they could not deal with questions of remuneration, and in any case their decisions are open to review in the Courts.

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I ask your ruling, Sir, with regard to a question which I put on the Paper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for his authority for a statement which he made at Question Time one day last week. The question has been disallowed and I shall be glad to know on what principle this has been done?
Mr. SPEAKER: First of all, I thought that the question was of an argumentative character, and calculated not to ascertain information but to arouse argument. In the second place, it seemed to me to re-discuss a matter which had been discussed already; and, in the third place, because it was not sufficiently precise, and it did not appear from its terms whether the answer which was complained of was given in debate or in answer to a question. The whole matter appeared proper and suitable for argument in debate rather than for Question Time.
Mr. PRETYMAN: May I most respectfully say that the statement having been made at Question Time in accordance with frequent rulings, I did not think it right to continue to debate it at Question Time. It was, however, a definite statement which to my mind demanded recognition, and as to which there has been some public comment. I do not wish to get over the difficulty by mentioning the question now. Rut as the statement was made publicly at Question Time I wish to know whether there should not be an opportunity of refuting it publicly on the floor of the House without resorting to the Press?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not open to Members to make a reply contradicting the Minister when he gives an answer to a question. The question does not show when the statement was made, and that was one of my difficulties in the case.
Mr. PRETYMAN: May I put the question down again?
Mr. SPEAKER: Not in this form, because it would have exactly the same faults.

WAR IN BALKANS.

  CONTRABAND.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Greece and Turkey, or either of them, have bound themselves, or made any declaration, intimating that they accept the lists of contraband and free goods contained in the Declaration of London?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Neither Greece nor Turkey are signatories to the Declaration of London. A telegraphic summary from His Majesty's Minister at Athens of the articles declared by Greece to be contraband was published in Lloyd's List yesterday, and will appear also in the "London Gazette" to-day. His Majesty's Government have not received any information as yet as to what articles Turkey will declare contraband, but have telegraphed to inquire whether the notices issued at the commencement of the Turco-Italian war still hold good. On that occasion His Majesty's Government were given to understand that Turkey intended to observe the principles of the Declaration of London. I may add that all information received as to articles declared contraband is at once communicated to Lloyd's and to the "London Gazette."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can the First Lord of the Treasury state what business will be taken after eleven o'clock to-morrow night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: None.
  Lord BALCARRES: And Thursday night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As regards Thursday I will answer to-morrow, but Wednesday none.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  [Progress, 21st October.—Fifth Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [ME. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Legislative Powers of Irish Parliament.)
    Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Irish Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland with the following limitations, namely, that they shall not have power to make laws except in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof, and (without prejudice to that general limitation) that they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular, or any of them, namely:—

    (1) The Crown, or the succession to the Crown, or a Regency; or the Lord Lieutenant except as respects the exercise of his executive power in relation to Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act; or

    (2) The making of peace or war or matters arising from a state of war; or the regulation of the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign States with which His Majesty is at peace, in relation to those hostilities; or

    (3) The Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force, or the defence of the realm, or any other naval or military matter; or

    (4) Treaties, or any relations, with foreign States, or relations with other parts of His Majesty's
    1968
    Dominions, or offences connected with any such treaties or relations, or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals under any treaty, or the return of fugitive offenders from or to any part of His Majesty's Dominions; or

    (5) Dignities or titles of honour; or

    (6) Treason, treason felony, alienage naturalisation, or aliens as such; or

    (7) Trade with any place out of Ireland (except so far as trade may be affected by the exercise of the powers of taxation given to the Irish Parliament, or by the regulation of importation for the sole purpose of preventing contagious disease); quarantine; or navigation, including: merchant shipping (except as respects inland waters and local health or harbour regulations); or

    (8) Lighthouses, buoys, or beacons (except so far as they can consistently with any general Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom be constructed or maintained by a local harbour authority); or

    (9) Coinage; legal tender; or any change in the standard of weights and measures; or

    (10) Trade marks, designs, merchandise marks, copyright, or patent rights; or

    (11) Any of the following matters, (in this Act referred to as reserved matters), namely:—

    (a) The general subject-matter of the Acts relating to Land Purchase in Ireland, the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911, the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the Labour-Exchanges Act, 1909;

    (b) The collection of taxes;

    (c) The Royal Irish Constabulary and the management' and control of that force;

    (d) Post Office Savings Banks, Trustee Savings Banks, and Friendly Societies; and

    (e) Public loans made in Ireland before the passing of this Act;

    Provided that the limitation on the powers of the Irish Parliament under this Section shall cease as respects any such reserved matter if the corresponding reserved service is transferred to the Irish Government under the provisions of this Act.
    Any law made in contravention of the limitations imposed by this Section shall, so far as it contravenes those limitations, be void.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendments on the Paper to-day I understand that the desire is to take first the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm), which has reference to the Gaelic language; and, secondly, the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Sanderson) dealing with Joint Stock Companies. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery), dealing with Customs and Excise, I am of opinion, cannot come in at this stage and should be raised on Clause 15.
    Mr. AMERY: On a point of Order. Is not Clause 15 a purely Financial Clause dealing with a great controversial financial matter which is not the same thing as a constitutional Amendment, which stands in the name of an hon. Member. Apart from whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss the constitutional question, this Amendment is different in this sense, that, even if carried, Customs and Excise would simply be excluded from Clause 15. Every financial arrangement which is in the Bill is open to revision at a future period. By this Amendment of Clause 2, Customs and Excise would be entirely outside the constitutional purview of any Irish Parliament, and if the question of finance comes up for revision, the question of Customs and Excise could not be raised at all, as it would stand outside the powers of an Irish Parliament, or of a Scottish legislative body, or any other legislative body to be created in future.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think we could not possibly discuss the question on this Clause without discussing Clause 15. We attempted that last Thursday on another Amendment, and within ten minutes we found ourselves discussing Clause 15. As to the second point, that this Amendment would have a superior effect to the one for the same purpose on Clause 15, I have examined the Bill from the hon. Member's point of view, and I do not think that is so. In either case, it would require an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom to alter the arrangement.
    Mr. REMNANT: May I ask you, Sir, whether you can tell us when we shall be
    1970
    able to raise a discussion on the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can see, I propose to take the Amendment dealing with that subject after the two mentioned. It would be the next I should take.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to move, in paragraph (11), after the word "Act" ["Irish Government under the provisions of this Act"], to insert the words, "(12) The maintenance of English as the sole official language in the Irish Parliament, in the Irish Law Courts, and in the Irish public service, and the imposition of tests disqualifying officials or candidates for official positions on the ground of ignorance of the Gaelic language."
    4.0 P.M.
    The Amendment is really and truly to-determine that the Gaelic language shall not be the official language of Ireland in the Irish Parliament or any department, and that no man or woman shall be at the disadvantage that they cannot enter a profession or public life if ignorant of that language. We have found, in the course of this Debate, that many things have occurred since 1893, and that many matters are viewed differently from what they were when Home Rule was last under discussion. I submit that the Gaelic language is just one of those questions which in 1893 was not considered of very great importance, and was not discussed in this House; yet it is just one of those things in regard to which I think opinion has changed, and I submit that the revival which has taken place in the teaching of the Irish language through the instrumentality of the Gaelic League is of quite sufficient importance to make necessary the Amendment that I have put on the Paper. In order to understand the importance and inner meaning of this revival of the Gaelic language through the instrumentality of the Gaelic League, I think it is necessary to know something of the machine which has produced this singular result. What is this Gaelic League which has brought about the revival of the Gaelic language, and which we would prevent, if we can, from becoming the official language of Ireland in future? In its origin it was certainly an intellectual movement of the greatest interest. I remember it being started very well, and, so far as I know, at that moment it had no-political significance whatever. But, like-many other leagues and associations in this country and in Ireland, and especially

    1971
    in Ireland, it has, in its later days, been drawn into the vortex of political warfare. Let me quote one or two proofs of what I have said. There is the Clan-na-Gael, which in its printed circulars in 1905 states that the work of the Gaelic League is on a line with the objects of the Clan-na-Gael. I do not know whether most Members of the Committee are aware what are the objects of the body calling itself the Clan-na-Gael. I would just remind them what the judges of the Parnell Commission said in relation to them. They said:—
    "It was a body actively engaged in promoting the use of dynamite for the destruction of life and property in England."
    I pass from that to another account of the Gaelic League. Its own president, Dr. Douglas Hyde, speaking at Londonderry in January, 1912, said:—
    "The United Irish League and the Gaelic League are working for the same end though by different means."
    He was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in a speech which he delivered at Aughrim on 25th September, 1911, when he said:—
    "The ideals of the Gaelic League are our ideals—the Ideals of the United Irish League—and we will struggle for them in the future. Soon, indeed, we will find that these ideals will be realised, when Ireland will not only be self-governing, and not self-governed as a province of a foreign nation, but in the sense of fully self-governed, and self-reliant nation able to work out her own destiny."
    That shows how an intellectual language movement tending towards a better understanding and comprehension of the language of Ireland has also a very strong political bias at the same time. Then a very brilliant Nationalist, Mr. Shane Leslie, speaking in New York in November, 1911, said:—
    "Let there be stated the truth, naked and unashamed, that we, who have taken upon ourselves to save a dying language, deliberately and knowingly have set ourselves, if I may use a great phrase, to break the last link that lies between Ireland and England."
    I have been very careful, and shall always be very careful, in describing the objects of the Gaelic League not to use any language of my own. I have instead used the descriptions given by those who are authorised to speak for it, and I have torn away the veil which has seemed to shroud its real political ambitions. What has the Gaelic League done, by the revival of the Gaelic language, to achieve its ambitions? In the first place, it has succeeded in persuading the new University in Ireland to make the Gaelic language a compulsory course, after matriculation, for those who have not taken Irish at the matriculation examination. I must say that in these
    1972
    modern days that seems to be a most astounding thing to have done. At an age when men are preparing to be able to earn their bread in and outside the learned professions, to bind them to take the Irish language as a compulsory course before going any further with their university studies is a most extraordinary thing to do.
    In the second place, this League has persuaded the majority of the Irish county councils to make the knowledge of the Irish language a compulsory subject for county council scholarships. That seems to me to be extraordinarily unfair upon those who have not had an opportunity of learning the Gaelic language. It is unfair not only to the individual but it is also unfair to the public service generally, because I think that knowledge of Irish ought not to be the sole qualification for entering into the public service. In the third place, many local bodies in Ireland have already given preference in the appointments which are within their gifts to those who know the Irish language. I have here a couple of instances to prove what I have said. I have a resolution passed by the Central Council of the Gaelic League last November to this effect:—
    "That the Post Office in Ireland continues to be a powerful Anglicising agency: we ask, therefore, that under any scheme of Home Rule the Post Office in Ireland in its working be placed under Irish control: otherwise it will be a grave danger to the Irish language and Irish nationality."
    That resolution, if it means anything, means that preferment in the Post Office is to be given only to those who speak the Irish language. I hold that that does not make for public efficiency at all. As to the local bodies, I have a mass of resolutions which I could read to this House, but I will read only one, and that one of the earliest, namely, a resolution by the Dublin Municipal Council, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" on 8th May, 1906. The report says:—
    "Mr. John D. Kelly, who spoke in Irish, moved:
    "'That it be an instruction to the Town Clerk, the secretaries of the various committees and all other officers concerned, that in future all the correspondence of the corporation and its several offices be addressed in Irish only.'
    "Mr. Clear seconded the motion.
    "The Lord Mayor suggested that the word 'envelopes' be substituted for 'correspondence.'"
    Apparently the object was to annoy the Post Office, but not to embarrass the recipient. Is it conceivable at this time of the day that the chief municipal corporation in Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—well, a corporation which considers itself the chief municipal corporation in

    1973
    Ireland—should do a thing so childish as to suggest, not that its correspondence should be conducted in Irish, but that the envelopes enclosing the correspondence should be written in Irish? Of course that really means, both with regard to the Post Office and in regard to local appointments, that in the future, if the Gaelic League can manage it, in the near future positions in the Post Office and in the public service and on local bodies shall be given exclusively to people who speak this ancient Irish language. I submit that that is a tendency which ought not to be encouraged. But it is encouraged, and if the responsibility, which is a far-reaching one, is to be encouraged at all, it should be done on the sole authority of the Imperial Parliament and not be left to a local subordinate Parliament to do it.
    Of the tendencies I have just spoken, I may say they are threefold. One may be, and I really believe it is, the main tendency in the far or near future that Irish shall be the only language to be spoken in Ireland. That would be a death-blow to the commerce of Ireland and it would be a death-blow to something else which the hon. Members behind me, the Nationalist party, are very prone to press upon us. It would be a great disaster to the comity which ought to exist between the English and Scotch people on this side of the Channel and the Irish people on the other side. It is incumbent that they should understand one another's language; otherwise the estrangement would be fifty times wider than that ever effected by the Act of Union. The other tendency will be to make the Irish people bi-lingual. Let me say, from a considerable study and experience of foreign nations, that it would be quite impossible for the Gaelic League or any other body to make the Irish people bi-lingual; that is an acheivement which has never been accomplished by any race in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about Wales?"] It is quite impossible that the hon. Member is speaking seriously. The commercial part of Wales is not bi-lingual. But it does seem to me a tremendous power to put into the hands of the Irish Parliament when you consider that, after all this agitation, after all this movement, whichever you like to call it, only 0.2 per cent. of the people of Ireland are Irish speaking. I hope I am generally found, outside party politics, on the side of great ideals and great aspirations for all. But I really do not think that this ideal is great enough or good enough for us to identify ourselves with.
    1974
    It will have a most cramping effect on people of Ireland and on the prosperity of that country. It will have the most cramping effect upon those who have to earn their livelihood in other ways than by studying Celtic literature, and the ancient Irish tongue as an art or profession. It is because I feel that we must protect the vast majority of the people of Ireland from the effect of such a power as this, and from the kindly attentions of the Gaelic League, and also because I think that this House must understand now, if it has not understood before, that the Gaelic League is another euphonism for the Clan-na-Gael and the United Irish League, which are the beginning and the end of the claim for the separation of Ireland from this country, that I ask this House, by this Amendment, to tear away the veil from the pretended revival of the Gaelic language, and protect the Irish people and the British Empire from the insidious attentions of the Gaelic League.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: In supporting this Amendment I should like to guard myself against its being supposed that I am in any way out of sympathy with the sentiment that prompts people in Ireland to attempt to keep alive some remnant of the old Gaelic language. I have tried to learn the language myself, but I had to suffer the disappointment and humiliation of finding that my intelligence was not equal to mastering its difficulties; and I cannot help thinking that there may unfortunately be some other people, possibly even some Members of this House, who may spend a considerable amount of time and energy which could possibly be devoted to better objects with the same disgraceful results that attended my efforts. It is very desirable that nothing should be done by the Government of Ireland in the future to stimulate beyond what seems to be healthy, the desire to study a language which has no practical object in view. It is, after all, entirely a sentimental question. There is no real commercial, practical, or utilitarian benefit in the study of the language. I am familiar with a district in Ireland where very considerable efforts have been and are being made to induce the young people to study the Gaelic language. Those efforts are confined for the most part, I think, to well-to-do females of a rather enthusiastic and feather-headed type, and the people for whose benefit the efforts are made appear to me to carry on their studies with the least possible result. The children in the

    1975
    schools, who, after all, have not a great deal of time to devote to education, and the result of whose education is certainly not satisfactory to any party in this House, learn about as much of the Irish language when they have gone through the school as the average public schoolboy learns of Greek. It would be impossible to reduce it to a lower minimum than that.
    Not long ago I was examining in Ireland a youth of my acquaintance who occupies the proud position of driving His Majesty's mails, and I inquired whether he had learnt the Irish language at school, which he had not long left. He told me with great enthusiasm that he had learnt the language as far as opportunity offered during the whole of his school life. I then tried to find out what the results were, and as far as I could gather his knowledge was confined to some half a dozen nouns. Ho knew the Irish for "horse" and for "donkey," but when you got beyond that into more recondite recesses of the language he appeared to be entirely at a loss. It is a feature of this Gaelic revival that in many parts of Ireland you come across this very curious phenomenon. You may go into a part of the country where you are a total stranger—you may have the misfortune to be an Englishman—and you will find, at the corners of the roads, finger-posts directing you to different places; but those finger-posts are written in Irish. Other notices also are written in Irish. That appears to me to be a most misplaced zeal in this matter, because as a rule finger-posts are intended for strangers. In France you very often find notices of that sort in English and in German for the benefit of strangers. In Ireland you find them written in Irish, a language which certainly no visitors or ft rangers are likely to understand, and which is not understood by more than one in a thousand of the natives themselves. May I give another example of the methods by which it is sought to impose this practically dead language upon the people of the country? On 24th May last there was held in Dublin a meeting of the advisory committee under the Insurance Act, when as a business proposition it was seriously proposed by a member of the committee that the insurance cards for all the employed people in Ireland should be printed in the Irish language.
    All this would be nothing more than a certain amiable and harmless lunacy if it were not for the fact that there really is
    1976
    behind it a symptom of the desire for a separate and distinct nationality in Ireland. It is the spirit of nationality, and nothing else, which prompts the desire for the revival of this dying language. I am not in any way condemning the study of the language by scholars or antiquarians. It is a most interesting language and has a most interesting literature. But that is a totally different thing from trying to impose it as an unnatural exotic study upon the bulk of the population. I do not in the least quarrel with the spirit of nationality in Ireland. I have never done so in these Debates or anywhere else. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the spirit of Irish nationality. I would like to think that every Irishman was as steeped in the spirit of Irish nationality as Sir Walter Scott was in the spirit of Scottish nationality, provided that they combined their spirit of nationality with the robust good sense which distinguished Sir Walter Scott, who, after all, exhibted in a superlative degree all the romantic, literary, and sentimental sides of Scottish nationality, combined with the practical good sense which kept him firm in his allegiance to the existing order of things, and his adherence to the House of Hanover. This attempt on the part of an aspiring nationality to re-establish some of its ancient dialect does not find its only example in Ireland. Exactly the same thing has been done, with success from their own point of view, in Bohemia, where the Czech language had practically died out. It was revived in the first place, just as Irish has been revived in Ireland, by a small group of "intellectuals" or literary men. It was then forced upon the people for the very purpose of keeping alive and stimulating a separate nationality in the political sense, and the success which has attended the movement in that country has brought in its train the most unfortunate results, both for the people themselves and from the point of view of the Empire of which Bohemia forms a part.
    In the case of Ireland, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are now professing to be extremely loyal to the British Empire, to be non-separatist in tendency, and to be merely desiring in this Bill a subordinate Parliament perfectly compatible with their allegiance to the British Empire and to the English Crown. It appears to me that in this Amendment hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have an opportunity of showing whether or not there is

    1977
    any real sincerity in that profession; because the Amendment does not propose to damage, and could not have the effect of damaging, in the smallest degree the revival of the Irish language for literary or sentimental purposes. All that the Amendment aims at is to prevent the majority of the Government of Ireland in the future taking hold of that revived language and making it an engine for a separatist policy, or at any rate for carrying on the Government in a language which would be foreign to the rest of the Empire, and to that extent have a separatist tendency. It may be said that this is another case to which applies the only principle which we hear preached from the opposite side of the House, namely, "Trust the Nationalist party." It may be, and I dare say will be, said that it is preposterous—to use a favourite word of the Chief Secretary—to suppose that any Irish Government or Irish House of Commons could ever be so foolish or so extravagant as to insist upon the official language in Irish public life being any other than English. I think we are bound to protest again, as we have protested before, against this principle being hurled at our heads in answer to every argument that we put forward. If that principle is the one which is to govern our procedure in this matter, why has the Government not produced an infinitely simpler Bill than the measure under discussion? It might have been a Bill of two Clauses, the first Clause being that on and after the appointed day there should be a Parliament in Ireland, and the second that the Government of Ireland should carry on the government of the country as economically as possible and that England would stand any deficit that might arise. If we are to trust the Irish or the Nationalists, that would be an ample Bill. You might trust hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to fill in the details in a perfectly reasonable spirit.
    But considering that we have a fairly elaborate Bill, attempting, so far as form goes, to impose a certain amount of restriction and definition upon the future government of Ireland, it would be perfectly legitimate for us to carry a little further the distrust which the Government themselves have to that extent shown of the Irish Nationalist Parliament, and ask the Government to accept an Amendment of this sort, which does offer some security that the Government of Ireland in the future shall be Carried on without the pre-
    1978
    posterous idea of the Irish language being the official language of Parliament, the Law Courts, and the various Government Departments. We are legislating not merely for to-morrow but for a long future. Hon. Gentlemen expect that the Constitution which they are now setting up is to subsist in Ireland for centuries to come. Although it is true that the efforts to reestablish the Irish language amongst the population of Ireland have so far produced very meagre results, if you once got the Irish Government or the Irish House of Commons armed with the power of saying that in future all the patronage at the disposal of the Government would be confined to those who could use the Irish language, and that in future the use of that language would be a passport to advancement in public life, there is nothing absurd or ridiculous in the assumption that, just as has happened in Bohemia, so in Ireland within a comparatively limited period you might have a sufficiently general knowledge of the Gaelic language to make it practicable to carry out the policy which is aimed at by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Does the House proceed with this legislation—very foolishly, as I think—on the assumption that it is going to reconcile old differences; that it is going to reconcile two peoples who have been separated by bitterness in the past? Does this House really believe that if in the future the Government of Ireland and the Public Departments in Ireland were to be carried on by the use of the language which is entirely foreign to this country, and foreign to every part of the Empire, that the result would not be exactly the opposite to what hon. Members profess to expect—that this legislation will have dividing rather than reconciling influences?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): When a very similar Amendment to this, but, I think, rather better worded, was before the Committee on the last occasion, Mr. (now Lord) Morley, who was then Chief Secretary, remarked, "I certainly think that in Amendments like this we are getting down to the dregs of triviality." I am not at all prepared to take exactly the same line as my distinguished predecessor. I am rather pleased than otherwise to be able to take part in a Debate in which the name of Sir Walter Scott has been introduced. But I would like to call attention to a few figures relative to the Irish language, and

    1979
    the number of persons in Ireland who speak it, in order that the Committee may have before them the actual dimensions of this problem. Two things, I think, everybody will agree with: If the Irish language becomes, by adoption and affection, the practice of the people of Ireland; if everybody speaks Irish in the ordinary course of their lives, at the dinner table, at the breakfast table, in the details of life and business, and so forth; if they talk Irish in preference to English, you would not be able to prevent them. People will always talk the language that is easiest to them, and that comes most naturally into their lives, unless it may be necessary, for the purposes of commerce and the like, to learn some other language.
    If, therefore, you are going to contemplate an Ireland in the future where Irish is really the dominant, the prevailing, language, it is not much use putting into a Bill of this kind a proposal that the language which everybody speaks is not to be used in the Law Courts, or in public or official life. If that is going to be the case, this Amendment is useless. If, on the other hand, Irish is always going to remain an exotic, practised by a few learned persons, or, at the most, a language which, owing to the extraordinary domesticity in humble villages, is used there, and is not much used by the mass of the people; then probably Irish would not be known in the Irish Parliament, and the judges, who would not know Irish in the Irish Courts and the counsel practising before them, who would not know Irish, are not in the least likely to use the language. Therefore, really it seems to me that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the language is going to be universal—in which case you could not stop it—or it is not going to make any great impression upon the people of Ireland, in which case it is not much worth talking about.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the third alternative—the process between?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The process between? But just let me give you the figures with regard to this matter. In 1891 in the whole of Ireland there were 38,192 persons who spoke Irish only. That is to say, they spoke no other language. That is a small number, yet at the same time it is a remarkable number. In 1901, owing to
    1980
    the spread of education, the number had dropped from 38,000 to 20,593. In 1911 it had dropped still further to 16,873.
    Mr. MOORE: In spite of your Grant!
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether it was in spite of the Grant or not. But I want the Committee to understand the facts of the case. These are the people that in these particular years spoke Irish only. Now I come to what is perhaps, after all, more remarkable figures, because no one contemplates or desires that the increasing enthusiasm of the people of Ireland should lead to the speaking of Irish only. No well-educated person wishes to contemplate any such notion as that. Therefore we now consider the people who talk Irish and English. In 1891 there were 642,000, a very considerable number of bi-lingual people. In 1901 that 642,000 had dropped—no very great drop, but still a drop—to 620,000. The last figures I have for 1911 show that the drop had been to 565,573.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to ask whether those figures are based upon the Census, or upon an examination which really shows that the people were bi-lingual?
    Mr. BIRRELL: These figures are Census figures. I do not know that it is possible to conduct an examination upon the point. I do not know that either the hon. Member or myself would care to have our exact acquaintance in language put to a test. It is an inquisitorial process which is easier to desiderate than to carry out. [An HON: MEMBER: "Get a Private Committee."] To find out the number of persons who possess to a useful extent a knowledge of the Irish language is a very difficult problem. No one who knows Ireland will deny that there are in Ireland a diminishing number of persons, that is 16,000, who know Irish only. You do meet them. I have met them again and again in the West of Ireland. They are people whom you can easily see are perfectly genuine in their ignorance of the English language, but they can converse with great volubility in Irish, and have a great capacity for making their wishes known. Then there are the large number of persons, certainly over half a million, who are bi-lingual. Some people may regret this, and some not. It depends upon sentiment and the like. Then appears on the scene the Gaelic League, which I think in the fervid imagination of

    1981
    my hon. Friend is associated, even more than necessary for anybody—even the most timid person—with revolutionary proposals. All grammarians are enthusiasts. Many persons who read the book of Dr. Douglas Hyde, a friend of my own, and I daresay of many Members of this House, will believe that he no doubt does really and honestly consider that it is a matter of enormous moment that the Irish language should be more spread over Ireland. You cannot complain of that. I think it is very foolish for anyone to complain of anybody learning anything.
    If hon. Members of this House think they are going to dictate to the Irish people or to any other people what they are or are not to learn, such an attempt will completely and absolutely fail. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to Bohemia and other countries. There has been in a mysterious manner, to the annoyance of a great many decent people, the spread of a desire to re-learn languages that had begun to die out. I am not here to generalise or to account for that fact but anybody can see it. You need only go to Brussels. When I was a boy in Brussels we never used to hear anything but the French language. Now the other language of the country is asserting itself in a manner so distasteful to hon. Members opposite. I quite agree with the observations of the hon. Member opposite, I think it is an excess of zeal of a most unfortunate kind to put the Irish language on the sign posts which are made to direct the wayfarer, who is very likely from a far land. It may be perfectly true, but after all it is really descending into something like trivialities when we are discussing a Bill of this sort, to discuss tendencies, extravagances, motives of this sort.
    Everybody, I think, will agree that it is a desirable thing that the children of Ireland, living in the country, should be able to know what the names of the places signify. If the child has not a knowledge of Irish at all, places, villages, streams, fords, and mountains will have no meaning for it, and life will be dull and prosaic. I have myself been amongst it all, and but for Dr. Joyce's book one might be in the remotest part of an unknown world. With that book; with the knowledge of Irish that you gain from a perusal of its pages, everything becomes of interest—each mountain top, each ford which crosses a stream, every village. Travelling becomes a thing full of interest, and the scenes
    1982
    are embedded in your memory. Therefore Irish has got to be taught in the schools. I am perfectly certain whatever is the fate of this Bill, and whatever happens to the Government of Ireland in the future, no Irish Government whatsoever, however English in its sympathies or its actions, will wish to interfere with the Irish people in their study of the language. Foolish things have been done by the Gaelic League. I am perfectly ready to admit that foolish things are done by most Leagues. It is an excess of enthusiasm. I regret the modified form of compulsion that is employed at the New University. After all we Englishmen have no right, of our own motion, to expect other nations, other peoples across the water, with other notions and other ideas, to accept the opinions which we may wish to thrust down their throats.
    Mr. MOORE: Have minorities no claim upon you?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Minorities! Oh, certainly, every possible claim.
    Mr. MOORE: Minorities suffer!
    Mr. BIRRELL: Don't! I suppose it is absolutely impossible to avoid it, but I submit that these words will be engraven upon my tomb. They are constantly used in reference to Ulster. I made use of them whilst I was pleading the cause of minorities. I was pleading that cause on Clause 4 of the Education Bill, and I was asserting that you ought to do whatever you can for minorities, because when the law has done all that it can do for them, they still remain at a disadvantage because they are minorities. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin understood what I meant. He has stood up as my defender in this case. But all this is by the way; but I do protest, whenever I approach within ten miles of the question of minorities, against being greeted in this way. My case is this: There is no reason whatsoever upon the figures we have to suppose that the Irish language is ever likely within such boundaries of time as we have, to assume the gigantic proportions contemplated by this Amendment, and which it is intended to restrain and restrict. That is really the great question. The hon. Member opposite very good humouredly referred to his own difficulty in learning the Irish language. It is an extremely difficult language to learn, and there are obstacles

    1983
    in the way of learning it except for great philologists, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that it will in any way be at all likely, or can by any possible means, oust English for the purposes of business. All I say is this, if everybody took the Irish language by preference to any other, then that fact, whether you remain under the Act of Union or whether the relations were modified in any way, you cannot prevent. The thing is out of the question.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon spoke of Mr. Shane Leslie and his reference to severing the last link. Mr. Shane Leslie is a very charming young man, full of generous enthusiasm, and on that occasion he made a very foolish observation. I think when many people talk of severing the last link they had better think of the cattle trade, which is a much bigger and sounder link, as we lately had an example of, than any other. I therefore think it is hardly worth while for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon to introduce this matter. We are now dealing with the question. Is there any reason to suppose that Irish will be substituted for England in the State services, in the Law Courts, and in other departments. I say there is no reason to suppose anything of the kind. This Amendment raises again the bogey of the Gaelic League. The list of Amendments in the Paper shows a lot of things that hon. Members are frightened of, and this Amendment shows that the hon. Member for Croydon is now frightened of the Gaelic League.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I am frightened at the Clan-na-Gael.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is not the slightest association between the two.
    Mr. MALCOLM: The Clan-na-Gael is enthusiastic for the Gaelic language.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That does not identify the Gaelic League with the operations of the Clan-na-Gael, criminal and otherwise. The Clan-na-Gael, I daresay, would be very glad to be associated with anything respectable; but to assert that, because the Clan-na-Gael said it was enthusiastic for Dr. Douglas Hyde and the Gaelic League we must accept that as evidence that the Gaelic League is actuated by the same motives as the Clan-na-Gael is quite ridiculous. The Gaelic League has an enthusiastic desire for the spread of a language which is not dead, which still lives, and which is capable of being very
    1984
    usefully spread among the children of Ireland. You cannot stop it, and you say you do not wish to stop it, and that all you wish to do is to draw a line so that if ever the Irish language becomes so widespread and predominant that the people want to talk it in the Law Courts, in the Corn Exchange and the Church Congresses and Presbyteries you can stop them. Then indeed your case is lost. You cannot prevent anything of the sort, and therefore if you are really afraid that that may happen in the future you ought to have the courage of your opinions and say you will not have it and that you will punish people who speak it and that you must have a penal law against it. That is the only course if you want to stop the spread of this language. It is absolutely impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. I will not stop to criticise the language of the Amendment. I really do not understand what it means; but as I ask the House to reject it, it is hardly worth while to criticise its language.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman did not agree with his predecessor, Lord Morley, in thinking that this Amendment is getting down to the dregs of triviality. The right hon. Gentleman certainly in his speech gave us not the dregs but a full cup of irrelevancies. From beginning to end he never even once touched either the speech of my hon. Friend or the object he had in view in moving this Amendment. The whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman from the beginning to the end, in so far as it was relevant at all, was a speech in support of the Amendment now before the Committee. In his speech he pointed out how small were the number of people who know Irish exclusively. How comparatively small, not absolutely small, but that they are even diminishing, are the numbers of those who know it even as a second language, and I should think that these figures lead directly to this result, that in a country where that is the position now, it is not in the interests of anyone, and it is least of all in the interests of the Empire, where one language is mainly spoken, that anything should be done to make it possible that another language under such conditions should be made absolute or official. That would seem the natural thing to deduce from these figures. We all listened; I confess I always listen with interest to the right hon. Gentleman, for whatever other people may feel when the right hon. Gentleman speaks, I cannot

    1985
    help feeling sympathy with him. I think the way in which this Bill is being worked in the House of Commons must be very trying to the right hon. Gentleman. Whenever it is possible, as we found yesterday, to make a concession to this 6ide of the House, the head of the Government himself makes it. On the other hand, the nominal Chief Secretary has received his instructions before hand when the Government cannot accept the Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman is placed in the invidious position of refusing a reasonable Amendment and of trying to find reasonable argument for that refusal.
    I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the Irish language was the sole language of a large section of the Irish people, it would be perfectly right that it should be used officially, just as in South Africa, and in Canada, two languages are used officially now. Nobody would have any objection to that; but that is not the point. The point is simply this: Is it desirable for anybody in Ireland to use his official position not merely for the sake of encouraging the Irish language—against which, as I know nothing about it, I have nothing to say—but with the fear that the knowledge of the Irish language may be used as a means of discrimination against others. That is the whole point, and the right hon. Gentleman never touched it. I do not understand why the head of the Government, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford cannot agree to this Amendment. I cannot see why he does not agree to it, and why his Friends who sit around him do not agree to it. They now tell us in every speech they make in this country, and perhaps some they make in Ireland, but never one they make in America, that there are no greater Imperialists in the world than Gentlemen who sit on the Irish Bench below the Gangway. Here is a test case. There is no practical object in using the power of the Government to discriminate against people who do not know Irish. If they do not intend to use that power then what is easier than to say, "The thing is absurd, we would never dream of using it, and because we would never dream of using it, we are willing to accept the Amendment." Why do they not do that?
    5.0 P.M.
    Everybody knows that the real vitality of this movement in support of the Irish language depends on the hone of those pushing it that it may become another factor in the separate nationality of Irish as distinguished from the rest of the
    1986
    United Kingdom. That is its sole object. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford is one of those who think that. He says, "We want Ulster in this Bill, because they are all Irishmen. Everybody is Irish in Ireland, and we want them all." How can he say that when he refuses to accept this Amendment. He says they will never discriminate between one class of Irishmen in favour of another class. Well, whatever else is certain this is certain, that you will never get the people in Ulster to learn Irish, and therefore any discrimination in favour of the Irish language is a discrimination against the minority in Ireland. I ask the Committee to realise what this means. It looks trivial, but do not let us think it is trivial. It is not trivial for this reason, that it is a test of sincerity. It is one thing to have a national langauge and to be proud of it; it is one thing to desire, as Professor Blackie and many people in Scotland desire, to keep up the Gaelic language for the sake of old associations. That is a perfectly legitimate desire which no one would do anything to counteract. But that is a very different thing from using the power of the Government to give favour and to give position to men who know that language; in other words, not to allow the matter to grow in its natural way, but to stimulate it for the express purpose of discrimination in favour of one section of the Irish people as against another. So far as I understand it, that is the whole case. If the position arises which the right hon. Gentleman has put; if through natural causes there was a large section of the Irish people who only spoke the Irish language, then this House would never for a moment refuse to give the privilege it is now asked to give. We have never shown any such narrow-mindedness in any part of the world, and we would never hesitate in giving the use of a second language in Ireland. That, however, is a very different thing from asking this House now to give to the Parliament which you are setting up the right to use the knowledge—and very likely it will be a very slight knowledge, but it will be sufficient—of the Irish language as a means of giving positions to one set of men and refusing them to another set of men in Ireland.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I submit a point of Order in reference to the first part of this Amendment? I wish to ask what would be the effect, if carried,

    1987
    of the governing words in the Amendment. Would the effect not be to preclude the Irish Parliament from maintaining English as its own language?
    The CHAIRMAN: I must confess that when I read the Amendment I had some doubts myself, but it is not my duty to scan Amendments on that ground, and I take them as they are proposed by hon. Members.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I desire to say a few words upon this subject. I have listened with considerable attention to the speeches which have been delivered, particularly to the speech which has just been made by the Leader of the Opposition. As far as I could glean, the main object of the Leader of the Opposition is that the British Empire should have one language and one language only, and that Welsh, Irish, and all other languages which go to make up our Empire are all to disappear. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As far as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, that is what he said. In Canada, when the Act of 1867 was passed, a special Clause was inserted to secure that whoever wished to speak in French or in English in that Parliament could do so; and in addition the debates of that House of Parliament, all orders, notices, etc., were to be printed in French as well as in English. When the South African Constitution was set up under the Act of 1899 special provisions were made for the speaking of English and Dutch in the House of Commons there, and for the printing of the debates in both Dutch and English. In this Home Rule Bill Irishmen have not asked that a special Clause should be inserted providing from the outset that Members should have the right to speak in the Irish Parliament in both English and Irish. We do not ask from the outset that the Debates should be printed in both Irish and English. Therefore, with the examples of the two Colonies I have mentioned before us, and what was done in that period, I think our demand in regard to the Irish language is extremely moderate.
    Some interesting figures in regard to the Irish language have already been emoted, and as I come from a district where Irish is the spoken language, and represent a district in which they speak Irish only, I have some knowledge of what actually does take place in districts such as these. The 500,000 men and women
    1988
    who are called bi-linguists, or at least the greater number of them, know considerably more Irish than English. The amount of English they know is extremely limited, and the main language they speak in their ordinary work is the Irish language. With those figures before me, and with the knowledge of the existence of the Irish language in Ireland, I think it most invidious to carry your reservation in this Bill to such an extent as to insert a special Clause demanding of the Irish people that at no time, under no conceivable circumstances, and no matter what language they naturally use in the ordinary course, shall the Irish Parliament have the right of allowing its Members to speak in the Irish House of Commons in Irish, or for its Debates to be printed in Irish. The Chief Secretary has answered the arguments very fully. Of course, in this matter there is the usual prejudice in the North of Ireland, where they think that the Irish language is part of a wild Fenian separatist movement. I have been connected with this movement from the very beginning, and I repudiate that notion. Anyone who knows Dr. Hyde, the president of the Gaelic League, who is the son of a Protestant minister, and who has devoted his life to the furtherance of this movement, will be ready to admit that the charges which have been made against him as having joined in a political agitation is absurd. I have some knowledge of the North of Ireland and of Belfast itself. I have been in the new University of Belfast, and I have seen the work that is being done there. There are hundreds and thousands of Protestants in the North of Ireland who are ardent advocates of Irish, and who are studying that language every day and are able to-speak it even in the North of Ireland.
    To say that the Irish language is to be the sole possession of the Catholic because the Protestants refuse to learn it is absurd. There are in Ireland some 140 volumes of the most beautiful old Irish manuscript available to every student of history. Many people have gone to learn this language from the professor in Trinity College. I do not understand why our friends in the North of Ireland so readily and cheerfully try to make this question peculiarly a Nationalist question. Are they ashamed of the language of their own country? What are they afraid of in the spread of a language which is at least as old as English—in fact, I would go further and say that it is a thousand years older

    1989
    than English. Is the language of our country going to be the means of breaking away the ties that unite Ireland with this country? That is an absurd argument, and it is only used by those who wish, not to further their own particular argument, but to bring up any argument which will help to destroy or delay this Bill. I do not wish to quote Sections of the Acts of Parliament in regard to the two countries to which I have referred, but the fact that you gave to the Canadians and to the people of South Africa the right from the beginning to speak in their own Houses of Parliament in whatever language they liked, and that you permitted the Debates to be printed either in French or English, shows that you are not justified in seeking to hamper from the beginning the Irish Parliament in this way, when there is not the slightest necessity for doing so. I am sorry to say that when our new Irish House of Commons begins very few of us will be able to speak in the Irish language, therefore I do not think there is any fear of any danger. But that is not the spirit which animates the men who will support this Amendment. I am afraid they have quite another object. This Amendment is meant to irritate, because it is quite a needless and useless Resolution, and I hope the Committee will reject it.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: The hon. Member who has just sat down has really only followed the Chief Secretary in his arguments, if he will allow me to call them such. The hon. Member has just stated that the object of this Amendment was to prevent Irish members from speaking Irish in the Irish Parliament. That is not so, because the object of this Amendment is to prevent Irish from becoming the official language, and to prevent any discrimination in regard to appointments in the Civil Service in Ireland. The Chief Secretary never dealt with the question put to him, for he founded his whole speech, which was extremely humorous and delightful, upon the development of freedom and a taste for languages in Ireland and elsewhere. But we are all in favour of that. There is no one who does not desire to see antiquarian research and precocity of language developed for the cultivation of taste. But this is a Bill which has to do with the Constitution and not with the cultivation of taste. This Amendment does not legislate against the development of the Gaelic language in Ireland. The hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to Canada, Australia, and South
    1990
    Africa. I do not think the analogy is a good one, because it does not touch our case at all. You had in Canada in 1867 a whole province practically French speaking with only about five per cent. of the whole population speaking English, and French has been the recognised language in the country, and had been used by everybody since the time of Jacques Cartier. You had in the case of South Africa a people who could speak no other language. The vast majority of the Dutch could speak no other language than their own, and they could not have entered Parliament unless some provision for speaking their own language had been made.
    In the ease of Canada how could the French have entered the Dominion Parliament and taken any part in its deliberations unless they had been permitted to speak the French language, or, in the case of the South African Parliament, the Dutch language? I do not know that any member of the Irish Parliament, or any gentleman likely to become a member of that Parliament, will be put to any disadvantage from the fact that he speaks Gaelic only. All that we want by this Amendment is to prevent an absolutely artificial demand being made to develop the Irish language for political purposes. The Chief Secretary said that there were only about 16,000 people who spoke Irish, and about 500,000 people who spoke both English and Irish. The Chief Secretary said if the time ever comes when the majority of the people will speak the Irish language in Ireland how can you prevent Irish from becoming the official language of the Legislature? When that time comes Ireland will have passed through all the processes of the destruction of her commerce and industry. In the time between you might have in all the Government departments of the State, with the policy of the Government behind it, an attempt to discriminate against those who were candidates for positions, and by that means you would have an artificial development of the Gaelic language and an artificial use of it, a use not natural to the people, but a thing acquired as you acquire French. You want to guard against that. I venture to say there are as many people in Ireland now who speak French as who speak Gaelic. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] Well, I am on the side of safety. Why not make French compulsory also?
    Does anyone venture to say this is really a concession to Irish patriotism and feeling? I do not believe there is a single

    1991
    hon. Member below the Gangway who is deeply moved by a desire to have Gaelic spoken in the Irish Parliament and made the official language unless to secure a kind of affected artificial prestige. They have to learn it themselves before they can speak it. The right hon. Gentleman gave us no valid reason why the Government did not eliminate the possibility of this interference with a natural and proper competition for places in the Civil Service. They would all speak English in any case; but you will discriminate against those who speak English only and do not speak Gaelic unless you make it clear in the Constitution you are giving that there shall be no such discrimination. The Gaelic language is in fact a foreign language so far as the majority of the people of Ireland are concerned, and so far as all the possible candidates to the Irish Parliament are concerned. You have got throughout the whole of the Empire at the present time an extension of vision, a desire to see further than your own local interests, and to imagine such an organisation of all the elements of our administrations throughout the Empire as to simplify the great objects of civilisation. Such attempts as these are only attempts to narrow the vision of those who throughout the Empire have been struggling since 1867 to enlarge and to develop the vision of every man, woman, and child within the bounds of our Empire. I can remember myself, as a boy, in Canada, how the vision of every lad was stirred by the fact that while before he was a provincial he suddenly became a member of a great federation. I lived in Australia at the time of the struggle made there for federation when the Intercolonial Council was formed, and I can remember there the same feeling and the same spread of an ambition to take a larger view.
    Here you have in this refusal of the Government to remove a possible source of difficulty, friction, and danger within the Civil Service a tendency to reopen the old provincial irritations and feelings which, if Irish Members are to be trusted, they desire not to have preserved but to have obliterated from the understanding and feelings of the people on both sides of the Channel. We support the Amendment because we believe official pressure might be used to develop the Trish language to the detriment of those who speak English and English only. We believe it will mean a return to sectionalism unless you prohibit this use of the Gaelic language in
    1992
    the Parliament of the country officially, and we say if it were permitted it would be uneconomic and wasteful. There is enough expenditure in any Parliament, upon stationery and upon—I was going to say useless things—so-called useful things, without our opening up the opportunity for that wasteful expenditure in the Legislature of Ireland. It is for these reasons, which I think are adequate, that I submit the Government will place itself in a foolish position in the eyes of sensible men if it does not accept this Amendment, which I think must commend itself to everybody on the other side of the House, since not even a Welsh Member, nor a Scotch Member, nor an English Member has risen in his place to defend the position of the Government.
    Mr. E. JONES: We have had no chance.
    Sir G. PARKER: I did not see the hon. Member get up. I hope this challenge of mine will draw some hon. Member on the opposite side of the House to get up and defend the Government, which has not yet been able to defend itself. Certainly the Government was not defended by the speech made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I support the Amendment in the belief that it is a wise one, that it will prevent difficulty, that it will remove the possibilities of friction, and that it does not interfere in the very least with the natural development of all Irish aspirations. I want to see the super-nationality of this United Kingdom made prominent and not the local nationality developed artificially for purely political purposes.
    Mr. E. JONES: I might say, for the information of the hon. Member who has just sat down, that I had intended rising earlier in the Debate, but I have observed the claims of other hon. Members. I want to know where the hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment stand exactly. Do they contend that in a district where the people prefer to speak and are much better able to speak the Irish language it ought not to be regarded for the purposes of efficiency as an extra qualification for a Government official that he would be able to deal with them in the language which they best understand?
    Mr. MALCOLM: The answer is a very short one. We suggest Irish should not be made compulsory for appointments by Local Government Boards or for any public office at all.
    Mr. E. JONES: I do not yet quite understand. Does the hon. Gentleman object to Irish being made exclusive? If that is so, I agree with him.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I object to the knowledge of Irish being made compulsory for public appointments.
    Mr. E. JONES: I think the hon. Member and those who agree with him have gone back a great deal. The people of Wales have known what this is; they have had to fight very hard for years and years to get recognition of the Welsh language. We had it from a Conservative Government. Even a Conservative Government came to recognise that where a whole population speak one language it is not of much use sending there a man who has no knowledge of the language of the people among whom he is going to work. How on earth are you going to secure that unless you make the talking of the language compulsory and a qualification in the appointment of a man? You will otherwise get an Englishman down there, as we have unfortunately had in Wales. I take it now hon. Gentlemen are agreed that in districts where the prevailing language is Irish, assuming for the purposes of argument there are such districts, men who go there as officials of the Government ought to be able to deal with the people directly in that language. Hon. Members have gone further, and I am very pleased to see it, than the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Most hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have said they are heartily in sympathy with the idea of the general spread of the Irish language amongst the people of Ireland as of second or bilingual language apart from political considerations and motives. Suppose in the course of another generation or two this 600,000 odd has in the natural development grown to 1,000,000 or 1,500,000, and suppose they are accustomed in their daily talk to use the Irish tongue, are hon. Members prepared to allow those people to have officials moving amongst them who will converse with them in the language they prefer and can best use? If hon. Members are in favour of that, why put in this Amendment to block the way? I think the position of hon. Members is absolutely inconsistent. Granted their general propositions, then, of course, this Amendment is futile and pusillanimous to the extreme. I was very sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) some abstract observations, very much
    1994
    out of date, which were made more elaborately by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I wonder whether cither of those hon. Members have read the remarkable essay of Matthew Arnold, in which he trounces the "Times" for its intolerant attitude towards the Welsh language. I would recommend them when they talk of Imperialism and high idealism to turn to Matthew Arnold, who was not pro-Irish or pro-Welsh, and read that article. I think they would be very sorry for some of their expressions today. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment made some remarks about idealism and about the learning of a language like this affecting the commercial advancement of a people. I am only just going to contribute this little fact to the Debate.
    Another peculiar thing which we have found in Wales is that as our people have developed industrially and commercially the more keen have they become in acquiring the Welsh language and resuscitating it among themselves. We have recently had most remarkable evidence of that, and I just mention this because it illustrates what very probably will happen in Ireland. The town of Newport used to be regarded as an English town. There they have recently had a plebiscite of the whole of the inhabitants, and they have carried a resolution by a large majority in favour of making Welsh compulsory. This is a spontaneous decision on the part of a big industrial and commercial town. The poverty of the people—the extreme poverty of the people—militates against the culture of language. Where misery is predominant it is found that the culture of language is impossible. Its absence has conduced to growing poverty in Wales, and no doubt the same applies to Ireland. When culture returns, as it will return, it will bring with it a certain minima of prosperity. The people return to the language which is theirs by preference. You cannot stop it or control it. The people will have it in their own way.
    As to commercial success we find in Wales that the men who have distinguished themselves most, I say it without prejudice, the men who have made the greatest names in the Colonies and in different parts of the world, and here in England, in literature as well as in commerce, are men who spoke a word of nothing but Welsh until they reached the age of eighteen or nineteen years. All this talk therefore about industrial success is absolutely out of date. It is absolutely alien to the facts, and altogether unworthy

    1995
    of consideration in discussing a practical matter of this kind. I appeal to hon. Members if they are going to argue this from political motives, not to talk about abstract principles. You may try to stop this. You cannot do it and you will never do it by Act of Parliament or in any other way. If hon. Members merely desire protection from abuse let them keep to that specific point. It really is most exasperating to people in Wales, at any rate, and I think also to the people in Ireland, to hear expressions of the kind that have fallen from speakers in this Debate to-day. If the people will revive their language; if they will make it the language of worship and of domestic talk and conversation; if they will make it general, then it is our duty to give them officials who can speak their language and to make the knowledge of it a test of fitness for service among them.
    Mr. GORDON (Londonderry): I am sorry to find the only hon. Member who has spoken from the back benches opposite has taken his view from the Chief Secretary—a view which is really not before the House. It is not a question whether or not the Irish language is to be taught to the Irish people. No one quarrels with that, and the Amendment does not raise it, and I think the hon. Member might have given some other contribution towards the solution of the real question. Another matter that struck me very forcibly was this: You have always said from the Front Bench, and from the benches below the Gangway, that you are perfectly ready and willing to make any concessions to get rid of reasonable fears on the part of the people of Ireland. Now, if this Bill were to become law, there would be a very reasonable and well-grounded fear amongst a large number of people in Ireland that strong use would be made of this Irish language question to deprive those of them we wish to see protected of any reasonable chance of securing appointments or promotion in the Irish service. We know very well that at the present time the National University has made one of the main grounds of the admission of students a knowledge of the Irish language. We know that the counties in which the United Irish League in Ireland has the greatest interest, make it a condition of their contributing anything towards education in universities that students who get scholarships shall have a knowledge of the Irish language.
    1996
    We know from advertisements which appear from time to time for officials to fill offices under local authorities, that the Irish language is the one thing that the local authorities wish to impose as a condition of appointment. We have knowledge which you have not here in England, and it makes us convinced that if ever this Bill should become law there ought to be something in it to prevent the use of the power which a Parliament in Ireland would have to make appointments incumbent on the possession of a knowledge of the Irish language. If that be not so, why do not the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his colleagues at once accept this Amendment? No one suggests that any one of them, except perhaps the hon. Member for Kerry, could make himself intelligible in Irish in the Irish Houses of Parliament, and no one suggests that they could conduct a case in Court in the Irish language. So far as they are concerned, it is not necessary for them to have the power to conduct their debates in Irish, or to carry on their legal business in that language. Consequently the real ground why they object to this Amendment is that they know perfectly well the power to make knowledge of Irish an absolutely essential qualification for appointment to any office would give them a power which would be unfair and unreasonable to other people in Ireland, who neither know the language nor have any desire to acquire a knowledge of it. It would enable them to prevent these people from getting any appointment, and it would also enable them to give the appointment to their own friends
    It is idle and absurd to say that this Amendment would affect the teaching of Irish in Ireland. It is taught in a great many of the Irish national schools, and it is taught by other people who take a keen interest in it. They would not be affected in any way by the adoption of this Amendment. But why should it be in the power of anyone to compel a person who does not want to learn it, who believes it, would be of no advantage to know Irish, and that it would be more profitable for him to spend his time in acquiring a perfect knowledge of the English language, or of some foreign language which is used by people who carry on trade with this country, or still more in acquiring a good sound technical education—why, I ask, should it be in the power of the Irish Parliament to compel them to do this

    1997
    against their own convictions? There are people in Ireland who prefer these things to the Irish language. There are those who wish and have a sentimental desire that they and their children should acquire a knowledge of Irish. Let them do so, but this is one more test of the hollowness of the professions of the Nationalist party that they are perfectly willing to concede any safeguard which any reasonable person may ask for. It can do them no good. The idea of talking about what might happen when these 600,000 persons who speak Irish have increased to a million or more! As a matter of fact, these 600,000 are diminishing yearly and daily. The number of people who can speak Irish only has in my time fallen off by one-half. The English language is becoming more and more not merely the language of commerce, but the language of the fireside.
    I confess I have not tried to acquire the language—that I am told that it is a most difficult process. It may be possible for a person to obtain a grammatical knowledge and perhaps be able to write the language, but he would require to live to the age of Methuselah before he would be able to speak it. Are these people who speak Irish, or who speak Irish only, going to be the only ones to have to do with the Irish Parliament? Are the debates there going to be conducted in Irish? Is the business in the Law Courts going to be carried on in Irish? No, Sir. The only thing that prevents the hon. and learned Member for Waterford from coming down and accepting the Amendment is that he knows that if he were to do so he would sweep away from the people who desire to retain it that power which would enable them to compete with the only ascendency that exists in Ireland, the ascendency of industry and independence and progress, and they could only compete with it by being able to use a vexatious weapon like this insisting on a knowledge of the Irish language before securing an appointment.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should not have risen had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones), which so completely misrepresented the speeches delivered from this side of the House. Not a single speaker on these benches has advocated anything that he suggested when he said that he had listened with sorrow to the speeches delivered from this side. No one has spoken either disrespectfully or in any
    1998
    way disparagingly of the Irish language and its legitimate spread. The hon. Member himself admitted that a Conservative Government had acknowledged the necessity for recognising the use of the Welsh language in Wales. The object of this Amendment, however, is to prevent the artificial resuscitation of the Irish language being used as a disability to particular people. We do not wish to see the Irish language used as a political disability in order to prevent public officials being appointed. There is no analogy at all between the positions of Ireland and Wales in this respect. I have been in many parts of Ireland and I have never once heard the Irish language spoken naturally among the people, except in one isolated case, and that was in the southwest corner of County Down.
    A very small proportion of the population of Ireland speak Irish. Whenever anybody arrives at the station in Dublin the first thing he sees is a large poster containing an advertisement in Irish. I have asked drivers, porters, and any number of people to translate it for me, but I have never found anybody to translate it. Compare that with the condition of things in Wales. The hon. Member probably knows Merionethshire as well as I do. There you have nearly one-half of the population who cannot speak a word of English. I know other parts of Wales where there are Welshmen who all their lives have never spoken English. Even if they know it, they would die rather than give up the Welsh language. That is an utterly different state of affairs from that existing in Ireland. Yet the hon. Member stood up to make political capital by representing that hon. Members on this side of the Committee had spoken against the Gaelic language. Nobody on this side of the Committee did so. We merely seek to insert the safeguard in this Bill that the Irish language—which is a diminishing language in the number of those who speak it, according to the Chief Secretary's figures, and not like Welsh in any way—shall not be used as a language test in order to impose a disability. I have a very strong objection to language tests being used as disabilities, for I suffered from them once myself, being ploughed at Oxford in responsions, because I had not learned Greek. A language test for an official who has to administer the Home Rule Bill in Belfast is useless, for of what use would the Irish language be there? It is absurd to suggest that Irish should be made compulsory in this sort of appoint-

    1999
    ment. I should like to correct the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil in one matter. He said that where poverty was, there you did not find bi-lingualism.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I am afraid the hon. Member did not follow what I said. I said that poverty in the past caused it.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I dispute that. How is it that it is in the poorest districts of Ireland that Irish is used altogether? It is in Kerry, West Connemara, Clare, and parts of Sligo where Irish has survived. It is in the richer agricultural parts of Ireland that the Irish language has disappeared utterly.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: Representing as I do one of the largest counties in the Highlands, where Gaelic is still the language used, especially in the agricultural districts, I should like to say a few words on this Amendment. I think the Committee hardly appreciates how very important it is that we should wherever we can reasonably do so, keep alive among the people the desirability of their being able to learn two languages from their childhood. It is all very well to say that it would be of more advantage to learn German and French, but when you grow up with two languages from childhood you are able to think in two languages. There is nothing more important from the Imperial point of view than that when we can have children brought up as bi-lingualists from childhood we should do so. We have it on the authority of a Governor-General of one of our Dominions that among the Colonists none were so successful as those who could speak two languages; because, having grown up with two languages they very easily learn a third. I have been told the same thing with regard to the soldiers of the Highland regiments in India. They can more easily learn the native language than those who have not had the advantage of bi-lingual education. Our Colonists and soldiers, and everyone who have to go abroad to other parts of the Empire, should go with every qualification of learning in the language if possible. What better qualification could there be than that of having been brought up from childhood with two languages. In the Highlands of Scotland, and in Wales, two languages are still used. What an advantage it would be for every doctor who goes to see a patient, and every lawyer who goes to make a will, to be able to understand the people in their own
    2000
    language. I think it is a great advantage to make it a test for a public department that the two languages should be known, both English and the native language. Anybody who takes a public appointment is at an enormous disadvantage in the Highlands if he has no Gaelic, or in Ireland if he has no Irish, or in Wales if he has no Welsh. One of the most leading men who ever sat in this House, who is now at the head of the legal bench in Scotland, was a Gaelic scholar. I believe that the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire (the Marquess of Tullibardine) is also a good Gaelic scholar, and you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, if I may refer to you, come from the Highlands, and there is nothing you can be more proud of than that you are a Highlander and know something of the language. I hope the Opposition will see that they are spending their strength for naught in discouraging what would be a great advantage in that part of the United Kingdom whose interests we are now discussing. Far from making knowledge of Irish a matter for contempt, they should look upon it as a great advantage.
    Mr. MOORE: I really cannot quite follow the argument—so far as I could hear it—of the last speaker. He said that two languages are always better than one. Supposing that is so, is it not tyranny to force a man to learn a language if he does not want to? That is what it amounts to. The hon. Member seemed to think that this Amendment was for the purpose of cutting out Irish. It does not affect anyone who wants to learn Irish or prevent him from going on with it. The object of the Amendment is to prevent people who do not want to learn it from being put in an invidious and unfair position. The Chief Secretary read out the figures. These Census figures about Irish are a byword in Ireland. What happened? The Nationalist party, when in Opposition, began speaking about Government assistance for the teaching of Irish. They had to create a demand for it, and then when the year for the Census came round the word went forth in the papers, in correspondence, and in speeches, "For goodness sake let everybody who knows the Irish word for whisky write himself or herself down as an Irish-speaking and an English-speaking person." As soon as this Government came in, they began bolstering up the language with a yearly Grant of £10,000. In every national school where the pupils are not under Protestant

    2001
    management the national school teacher is forced to begin to teach Irish. In spite of these silly returns, in which, if they knew the words "slainte" or "cushla machree," these persons were invited to return themselves as bi-lingualists, the figures have gone down enormously. They are paid by capitation Grants. That is why you have the local branch of the League saying that everyone must know Irish in order to pave the way to greater things, and of course it is taken up in this way. What happens in the North of Ireland? The school teachers there are just as desirous to teach their pupils another language, and we have asked to have French recognised as an extra subject and put on the same footing as Irish. The Chief Secretary refused it, because he had not the consent of hon. Members below the Gangway, so that French, which would really be of use to the child when lie grows up and goes into the world, is penalised, and Irish is unfairly subsidised. We have asked for it again and again. If hon. Members below the Gangway would join with us in the demand we could get it to-morrow from the Government, but they have always refused.
    6.0 P.M.
    Personally, I do not say anything against Irish. I have a certain smattering of it myself. It is quite an interesting language. I am only putting my argument on a political ground, and if it were Hebrew it would be exactly the same from my point of view. I believe it will be the same thing from the point of view of hon. Members below the Gangway. Our distaste in the North of Ireland for Irish—call it Hebrew if you like—is that it is used purely as part of a political propaganda for the purpose of cutting the last link and driving everything that is British and Imperial out of the country. It is run in competition with the English language, which we speak, and which our fathers before us have spoken for years. I heard the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. T. O'Donnell) say that we were neglecting our native language. I am like hundreds of thousands of other people. I do not suppose that any of my own class in the North ever had an ancestor who could speak a word of Irish. They spoke English. They were from England or from the Lowlands of Scotland, and that has been the language of our forefathers. We are to have a bar to our having a share in any way in a Parliament dominated by Members who have been using this language as part of a political propaganda, unless we bow our necks to the yoke and begin to
    2002
    master all the difficulties of this language. If you take up the Irish papers you will see again and again when a man is looking for a collectorship or something in the West of Ireland he has his league card and one will say, "I am as good a leaguer as another. There is my league card with the last subscription paid." A Nationalist rural council advertised for someone and, though it was a public appointment, the applicant had to bring a letter from his priest, which, of course, eliminated all Protestants at once. But the new test is that there is to be a knowledge of Irish. Language tests are as old as the days when it was a matter of "shibboleth" or "sibboleth," and the Irish Unionists and Protestants in the national schools whose teachers will not teach Irish, because they find French or German more useful to the boys in after life, will be penalised. Suppose this Parliament says that no member of the executive down to the smallest doorkeeper is to hold office unless he has a knowledge of Irish—they appoint their own examiners, naturally—I wonder what chance there is under that test for a man whose politics will be distasteful to the majority. This is an attempt to force a new language on a great industrial English speaking democracy under the terms that if they do not submit they are to be ostracised and excluded from everything in Irish life. Is that fair? I heard a case the other day of a Welsh parish or rural council, and there was a Welsh majority on the board, and they wished to exercise their full powers against English-speaking members of the Board and they defeated them at once by passing a resolution that all the proceedings were, to be carried on in Welsh.
    An HON. MEMBER: Name!
    Mr. MOORE: I cannot name it. I could not pronounce it. I read it in the paper, and I am only giving it for what it is worth. I do not profess to know it personally. Probably some Welsh Member could supply the full text and details. In-that particular case, if it happened, it was unfair to the minority and I would condemn it just as strongly as I condemn this proposal which would allow a majority to fasten this extra burden by way of test upon the democracy that we represent. When I look at the Amendment and see that all that is meant is that the English language cannot be abolished—the official language and the Court language—I cannot see why any Member of the House

    2003
    should object to that unless he had his eye on political motives, and those political motives are mainly inspired by not running counter to the eighty voters who sit below the Gangway. If they vote against this Amendment they put it in the power of the Irish Parliament to-morrow to print the proceedings of the House in Irish. You see day by day a column in the "Freeman's Journal" or the "Independent" in Irish characters which no one can read and no one attempts to read. The hon. Member (Mr. Flavin) regretted that at the beginning they might not be able to print the debates. Irish is being used as an instrument of unfairness and discrimination against the Unionist and Protestants minority at the National University now. The Chief Secretary regrets it, but he let them do it. You do not get Protestants from national schools where Irish is taught, and therefore as soon as you make the university only open to those who know Irish you are excluding the Protestants, which is what you intended to do when you handed them over that Imperial money from this House, although he said it was to be an undenominational university. That is going on all round us, and we ask for a simple safeguard, that nothing shall be done on the one hand which will cripple Ireland, and on the other hand, that nothing is to be done which will prevent English being the official language of the country. Surely it is going rather far to say we are unreasonable in that, and I quite agree it is one of the best tests of the anxiety of the Nationalist party and the Government to meet the reasonable wishes of the Irish minority when they refuse such a small safeguard as that is.
    Mr. BRYCE: It is very difficult to reconcile the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore) and the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Gordon). The latter said that in the whole Irish Parliament there would be only one Gentleman who would be able to make a speech or conduct a case in the Courts in the Irish language. At the same time he said he doubted very much whether the number of people in Ireland who were able to speak Irish was anything like as large as the number quoted by the Chief Secretary. If that is the case what kind of probability is there that these tests, which this Amendment is designed to prevent, would be attempted to be imposed? Is it likely that a Parliament in which only a single Member could speak the language
    2004
    would make a test which would prevent any of them getting an appointment? Is that a reasonable thing to suppose? The fact is that this Amendment, like almost all those which have been produced from the Opposition side of the House, is designed not to improve this Bill, but to make it unworkable. It might not affect Ireland very much, but it would irritate Ireland. It is the withholding of the natural powers, which every legislative body ought to have, which is calculated to cause irritation against the governing body of the country which passes the legislation. It would be a certain cause of friction between the two Parliaments. The hon. Member (Sir G. Parker) must have known that perfectly well from the history of Canada. In the original Constitution of Canada there were a great many restrictions which made it impossible to work the Constitution in practice, and it did not work well in practice until those restrictions were removed. The hon. Gentleman called upon some Scotch or Welsh Member to support the Government in its objection to the passing of this Amendment. As a matter of fact, in recent Scotch legislation there is a very excellent instance of the injurious method in which such an Amendment would affect the working of the Constitution. In the Scotch Land Holders Bill of last year a Clause had to be inserted providing that one member of the Land Court must be a person who is able to speak the Gaelic language. The Scotch Members, therefore, if the question of Home Rule for Scotland ever comes up, will be quite unable to accept an Amendment such as this. It would be absolutely impossible to conduct the business of the Land Court in the Highlands if you had a provision of this kind which prevented the imposition of a test, and the same thing applies in the case of Ireland. I only rose because the hon. Gentleman challenged a Scotch Member to support the policy of the Government. All I can say is that when the question of Home Rule for Scotland comes to be proposed, and there is this kind of proposal to impose restrictions upon the legislative independence of the Scotch Parliament, they could not for a moment be accepted.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) told us that he was moved to speak by the challenge given by the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Parker) that some one should get up behind the Government and support them in their policy. The Government is very often unfortunate in

    2005
    the selections made by Gentlemen of their own voices to defend the Government, but never more so than in this case. The hon. Gentleman began by telling us that he could not understand the speeches which have been made on this side of the House or what their purport was. The whole purport of his speech was to show that this Amendment ought to be accepted because, by his own showing, on the evidence of this Debate, it is not a wild improbability that the powers which are sought to be checked by this Amendment would be exercised in the Irish Parliament. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make an amazing statement. He told us with great solemnity that this was an Amendment which was intended and designed to wreck the Bill. So this hon. Gentleman who wants to support the Government in refusing this Amendment believes that an Amendment which says that the English language shall be the language of the Parliament and the Courts and the people in Ireland under this new Constitution—the imposition of this one condition is going to wreck this Bill and to make it impossible for it to succeed. Some people have to go out into the highways and the byways to find material with which to attack the Opposition.
    Surely no one has ever proved himself more hard up in his search than the hon. Gentleman has done when he told us seriously that if the Amendment were carried it would wreck the Bill. He may be qualified to speak for the Government. I do not know. I leave that for him to settle with the Government, but he is neither qualified nor entitled to speak for the Opposition, and when he tells us we are proposing Amendments, which have the support of the whole party with which I am associated, and which are supported by forcible speeches such as those made by the hon. Members (Mr. Gordon and Mr. Moore)—speeches which have not been answered—which are intended to wreck the Bill, and that we are animated by motives of this kind, I suggest to him that he should confine himself to a field quite large enough even for his energies, namely, that of replying for the Government and the party which the Government represents, and leave the Opposition to make their own statements as to their policy. If the hon. Gentleman contents himself merely with saying that we are opposed to the Bill and should be very glad to see it wrecked, I do not differ from him. We are. When he tells us that this Amendment, if adopted, will make the Bill un-
    2006
    workable, that is a perfectly unnecessary proceeding, because in our judgment the Bill as it stands will be unworkable.
    But I desire to say a word on this particular question, because there is one branch of the subject to which only the most partial reference has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have listened to the Debate with very great interest. During the short time in which I was Chief Secretary, I had to deal with this question of the teaching of Irish in the schools. I was amazed to find that the line which I took, and which I am prepared to stand by now and which I maintain ought to be the policy of this House, was not the policy of the Chief Secretary, who is himself the head of the Education Department and who has done distinguished service both inside and outside the House. The line which I should have expected to be taken by the Government, who are supposed to be such keen advocates of all educational work, is the one that we adopted then. If it is sought to teach Irish, if there are people who desire to learn Irish, by all means let them have reasonable facilities afforded them. But to put the teaching of Irish on a separate platform by itself is to do that which is wasteful in regard to the money it costs, injurious to the children upon whom you force this branch of useless education, and destructive, to a very large extent, of the work that you are doing in training them to take their part in the world in the future.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite have quoted the case of Canada. The hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Parker), who speaks with exceptional authority on this subject, told us the true history of the Canadian question. Those who are conversant with Canadian history now know perfectly well that we do not get any further than this. No one will deny that there is a vast number of people who believe that a dual language is a mistake, even in that country. But how can anyone who is really anxious to deal with this question on its merits compare either the Canadian case or the South African with that of Ireland. In both cases you have a very large proportion of your population who are not English speaking. In the early days of the federation of Canada the population of Quebec, who were all French, probably represented at least half of the total population coming into the confederation. In the case of South Africa the proportion of Dutch speaking people was even larger. But further than that there was a good deal to be said for teaching French in Canada and Dutch in

    2007
    South Africa, on the ground that both these languages might probably be of use to the children who acquired them, enabling them to make their way in the world afterwards. Some of the South Africans might wish to come to the country where Dutch is the language, and the French Canadian might desire to come to France. These are both languages of commerce, and the children who learn them might be able to do business with each other. I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) that if there is a section of people in Ireland who can only talk one language, and if they are to be brought into contact with Government officials, there should be someone who would be able to understand them. There is nothing in this Amendment to prevent that. Where it is necessary it can be done. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] At all events, there is no object in quibbling, and we will not fight over the words of the Amendment. If that is the only objection to it, the words can be altered. There is no intention whatever to make that impossible, but we do desire to make it impossible to make the teaching, the learning, or a knowledge of Irish on the part of officials or the people generally, compulsory. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me said, "You have this great mass of opinion in Ireland in favour of the teaching of Irish." Where is the evidence of this great mass of opinion in Ireland?
    Mr. BRYCE: I did not say so.
    Mr. LONG: I thought the hon. Member said so, but certainly if he did not, somebody else did. Even suppose it exists, surely our duty and business here to-day, when framing a new Constitution not only for Ireland, but one which will materially affect the rest of the United Kingdom, is to see that it is so framed, if it ever comes into existence, as to make this a most useful measure, and one likely to do the greatest amount of good. We who have been responsible for the Government of Ireland and have watched the progress of events in that country in recent years know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) did not use the language of exaggeration in the smallest degree when he said that those who desire the teaching of Irish, and to use it in a compulsory way, are advocating something which is popular with a section of the community, because it is regarded as a useful means of weakening the English side of the Irish character, and
    2008
    the English people in Ireland. There are a very large number who do not believe that the teaching of Irish is necessary or desirable, and it is in their interest that the Amendment has been proposed. I am amazed that the Government has not accepted it. There has not been a single argument advanced against it. All experience teaches that it is desirable to have one official language, and certainly in Ireland it is quite evident it ought to be English. We know perfectly well that efforts have been made, and are being made from day to day now, to use the Irish language as a weapon to advance the interests of some people and to injure the interests of others. It is to make that impossible that this Amendment is proposed. When hon. Gentlemen talk as they do about the "olive branch," the "union of hearts," and the new earth this Bill is going to create, they do not give much evidence of the sincerity of their opinions, or the reality of their hopes, when they oppose an Amendment of this kind which, at all events, shows that there is a general desire on this side to meet the views of those who think that there might be an unfair use of Irish which would be injurious to Ireland. Its acceptance would be some evidence of the feeling that so often finds expression. We who not only believe that these ideas as to the future exist only in the imagination of hon. Gentlemen who decline to face the facts, and who decline to make themselves conversant with the circumstances of the case, support this Amendment because we believe that it will be in the best interest of Ireland if she is ever called upon to groan under a Home Rule Bill.
    Mr. BOLAND: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) we remember very well as Chief Secretary for Ireland a few years ago, and we who have worked for the restoration of the Irish language to its proper position remember that when he held that office the movement did not get fair treatment. I refer to the position he took up with respect to grants to day-schools. When the right hon. Gentleman taunts the Irish people by saying that their language is not in the same position in Ireland as French is in Canada, I ask him to remember what has been the policy of himself and his party, and other parties in this country, in the past, namely, deliberately to destroy the Irish language. Now that they have succeeded to a certain extent, and wiped it out amongst all except a few hundred thousand, they come

    2009
    and taunt us because, in wishing to retain the vestiges of our own national language, we are doing our best to bring it to a position of honour. I have felt all during this Debate that this Amendment is a direct invasion of the national right of the Irish Parliament of the future to look after its own affairs, because in the words of the Amendment it is proposed that English shall be "the sole official language in the Irish Parliament, in the Irish Law Courts, and in the Irish public service." In other words, they deny the right of a nation to Ireland whose language has been sought to be robbed from it. They deny the right to Ireland to develop in the ordinary way its national life, to bring back again its national language, and to progress along its own national lines. That is to my mind a distinct invasion of the rights which are being created by this Bill to enable Ireland in its own Parliament, subject to the control of the Imperial Parliament, to work out its own destiny.
    The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) referred to the action of the Chief Secretary in connection with the Irish University Bill two years ago. As far as I could understand he deliberately accused the right hon. Gentleman of so framing the University Bill that no Protestant would be able to enter the National University, and he mentioned the fact that Irish is to be one of the subjects in the matriculation examination of that university for next year as a definite proof that the Chief Secretary wanted no Irish Protestant to go to that university. So far is that from being the case, there is nothing at the present moment to prevent a single Irish child from being educated with a view of entering the National University. Notice was given three years ago that in years to come Irish would be one of the subjects of matriculation. Fair notice was given to the whole country, and it is only from 1913 that Irish will become a compulsory subject in matriculation. If any man does not wish to see his child properly educated in Ireland with a knowledge of the Irish language, he has always Trinity College, Dublin, and Belfast University to send him to. But there is nothing in the constitution of the National University, or in the Bill which was passed through this House, to prevent any man from sending his child to the National University if he so desires. A number of the professors in the National University are Protestants. No distinction has been made with respect to their religious convictions.
    2010
    Let me refer to another argument which was used, I think, by the Leader of the Opposition, in whose mind the word "Ulster" seems to loom so largely. He said that in the North of Ireland there was no demand for teaching the Irish language, thereby suggesting that the language is not spoken there at all. I have examined the figures of the last Census, and I find that in Ulster there were 4,700 people who did not know a single word of English, and 91,000 who had a knowledge of English and Irish. What is more remarkable still, Ulster and Leinster were the only two provinces which showed since 1901 an increase of those who have a knowledge of the Irish language. So far, therefore, from its being a fact that Ulster is a benighted province, it has shown an advance in the learning of the Irish language which does it every credit and every honour. So far as I am able to judge from the course of this Debate, I honestly believe that there are some Members of the Unionist party who think that the learning of the Irish language is a backward, instead of a forward, step. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I gather from their cheers that that is their opinion. If I, or any of my colleagues, or anyone who is working for this movement, believed that we were going backward, rather than forward, in having the Irish language taught in our schools and restored to its natural position, we should not be in this movement. We know, as a matter of fact, that any country that gives up its national language is giving up one of its fairest claims to be considered a nation. I, for one, would cease to have regard for the English nation if it decided to take up some other language instead of its own. So far as commercial development and the future of Ireland are concerned, I venture to say that there has been no movement, either educational or intellectual, in the whole of last century in Ireland, which has made such remarkable strides as that, in connection with the language revival—the revival of the drama and literature. The fact that we have established throughout the country voluntary schools for the teaching of the Irish language and phonetics—the fact that we have twelve colleges working on a purely voluntary basis to which teachers go during their well-earned holidays to study the lauguage—shows what progress has already been made. All this has been the direct result of the movement started in 1893. I venture to say there is hardly

    2011
    a country in Europe that has been able to show such an extraordinary revival of interest in its own national language. So far as the future is concerned, I am convinced that the Irish Parliament, left absolutely uncontrolled as it should be, will do nothing unfair or unjust to the people whose misfortune it is that they have looked too long outside their own shores for the means of developing the commerce and intellectual activities of the nation. We believe that by our own efforts we will in future be able to do far more for that development than we could ever gain by relying on an outside Power which has maintained hitherto a position of ascendency.
    Captain CRAIG: The hon. Member jeered at us in the North of Ireland for not cultivating the Irish language and national aspirations in order to build up prosperity, but when we compare the fine industrial centre of Belfast and the province of Ulster with Kerry or any part of the South and West of Ireland, it will be seen that such remarks do not advance the hon. Gentleman's case. But what has his speech to do with this Amendment? Every speaker on these benches has disclaimed emphatically all objection to letting any Irishman spend his spare hours learning Irish. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who spoke of the Welsh language said the same thing, that there was no objection to anyone taking up the Irish language and other nationalist aspirations in order to satisfy private sentiment. But this goes further. This goes to a depth that Nationalist Members do not, or at any rate, pretend they do not, appreciate. The fact remains that Irish was dying out, and that it is only spoken in the very poorest parts of the country, or in the most out of the way places where trade and commerce have not penetrated to the same extent as in other parts of the country; and the whole ideal of the Nationalist party was to encourage the learning of Irish not because it will assist in the encouragement of industries throughout Ireland, but simply that it might be made a political lever.
    Does anyone deny that the modern teaching of Irish has been carried out with no other purpose than to use it as a political lever in the county councils, the boards of guardians, and in other local institutions? We have a very recent example of the way in which this language has been forced upon the people. There is no real demand coming from the people to learn
    2012
    it, otherwise far more people in Ireland would speak it than do so to-day. But the idea thrown out by hon. Members was that if you do not accept this Amendment you crush some of the national aspirations and destroy what he calls the development of Ireland along national lines. This word "national" is cropping up very frequently from the Nationalist Benches in contrast to the humble talk of being subject to Imperial supremacy which is indulged in by hon. Gentlemen outside the House of Commons. Does anyone present imagine that if hon. Members had their way this learning of Irish would not penalise everybody who was not prepared to come to hon. Members and ask for mercy? That is really what it amounts to. The great industries in the North of Ireland were not built up in a narrow spirit of that sort. There is no penalty attached to any language in the North of Ireland.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Nor to any religion?
    Captain CRAIG: Nor to any religion.
    Mr. NANNETTI: What about the shipyards?
    Captain CRAIG: I am not going to be tempted away to a question which is quite outside what is before the Committee, but I am prepared to discuss it with any Nationalist any day. The object of the Nationalist party in opposing this Amendment is to keep open, at all events, the possibility that what has happened in the National University in Dublin will occur if a Parliament is ever established in Dublin. It is true, as hon. Members say, that there is nothing in the regulations of that university that prevents any Protestant from going into it, but still, by this back-handed method, the boys in more prosperous parts of Ireland who desire to learn a language which will fit them for their future life in going into commerce, or some form of industry, are to be excluded unless they throw over some useful foreign language, such as French or German, and take up the dead language—Irish. Hon. Members know perfectly well that these inspectors who test the boys throughout the country on their knowledge of Irish would be the paid officials of the Nationalist party in Dublin, and the test of the knowledge of Irish would be such as to qualify those whom that party decided to qualify, and disqualify all those whom they did not desire to see advanced in any way in Irish life. That being so, we would look forward—it is purely hypothetical, I agree—to seeing every post that could be

    2013
    filled, filled by one or other of the nominees of the Gaelic League, under the control of the Molly Maguires. What a pathetic future to look forward to for Ireland! Instead of having the one official language which has served this country and been the envy of every other country in the world, so that if you have Scotch and Welsh Parliaments, the members might all congregate here, and at all events speak the same language, it is proposed apparently by the Welsh Members, and by one of the Scottish Members, that they should have national languages, and that the whole of the United Kingdom should be split up, so that I do not know if the First Lord of the Admiralty would find enough languages to go round his dozen Parliaments and keep them going.
    But this whole discussion shows the farce of the suggestion that is thrown out, that we should not stick to the official language as in other Parliaments where one language is nominated as the official language, and is understood by everybody. You would have in this case splitting up to such an extent that Ireland, it it were wanted by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, would become nothing but an Irish speaking race, and cut off from all the intercourse and all the sympathy which knit, not only the United Kingdom, but the British Empire so closely together. How do they expect that they would ever go along the same path of prosperity as this country, if they relegate themselves to a back place; especially when they are unable to prosper alongside this country and progress with it in its natural progress? They seem to me all through these Debates to picture an Ireland which is going back instead of forward in the march of nations. They seem to me to be looking forward to what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said were rags and tatters and poverty, and to be going forward with those attributes as long as they have got nationality, whatever that means. And, talking of nationality, how many of the hon. Members sneak Irish themselves? Will one of those hon. Members get up and make a speech in this House in Irish?
    Mr. FLAVIN: Tuigeann tû é a amadan?
    Captain CRAIG: I had forgotten that the hon. Member who had to pass a slight test when he joined the Royal Irish Constabulary, was able to say a few words in Irish. The whole matter shows clearly
    2014
    that when they ask for Home Rule, the Nationalist party are not asking for prosperity, but are simply asking for an ideal which is based on false promises. The hon. Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. Annan Bryce) concluded his speech by what I thought was an unnecessary remark, because he said that these Amendments from this side of the House were proposed not in order to improve the Bill, but in order to make the Bill unworkable. My answer to that is that it will not be the Amendments put forward which will make this Bill unworkable. It will be Ulster.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has told the House the attitude of that portion of Ulster from which he comes, and I find that I understand now his position and that of his party. His mind is full of suspicion of his own countrymen and the use to which they would put self-government.
    Captain CRAIG: The outcome of experience.
    Mr. L. WILLIAMS: To listen to the hon. Gentleman one would have thought that the Bill imposed obligations on every Irishman and everyone who lived in Ireland to learn Irish. There is nothing of the sort in the Bill. The only disability that will be imposed is the disability which is proposed by this very Bill, a disability to prevent the making of a knowledge of Irish a qualification for any public service. The hon. Gentleman cavilled at the expression used by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. E. Jones) when he said that this Amendment sought to impose in Ireland exactly the same sort of disqualification as was imposed in Wales. The law with regard to the Welsh language is the same. It cannot be used in the Law Courts or in the public service. It is true that there are exceptions, and those exceptions have grown up very lately. I remember when the present Lord Chief Justice was Attorney-General twenty years ago, he was asked in this House whether it was lawful for the Welsh language to be used in the Law Courts in Wales, and his answer was that it was not. His answer was that it was not lawful. I know of my own personal experience that occurs. I have known eases where counsel on both sides knew the Welsh language, in which all the witnesses were Welsh-speaking people, and where the judge also know Welsh; yet, because of this disqualification, which is now sought to be imposed upon Ireland by this Amendment, the

    2015
    whole of the proceedings had to be conducted in English, causing a great waste of public money and time. It is a farcical situation. The Welsh witness was asked a question in English by the counsel, who knew Welsh, and the question had to be translated into Welsh, and the answer of the witness in Welsh had to be translated into English—an absolute waste of time, and all because of this disqualification now sought to be imposed by the Amendment. What does this Amendment do? The hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), with his usual common sense, when he came to look at the facts of the case, gave away the whole position when he came to look at the subject from the point of view of practical administration. He said that if there are people in Ireland who prefer Irish to English, then it is only right that the official who administers the law to them should be conversant with the Irish language.
    And that is all this Bill proposes to do. But if this Amendment were accepted that would be impossible, because the Amendment says in terms, "the imposition of tests disqualifying officials or candidates for official positions on the ground of ignorance of the Gaelic language." Therefore it would be impossible for the Administration in Ireland to look to this qualification, namely, a knowledge of Irish as one of the necessary qualifications for an official position. The hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) said this was an attempt to bolster up the Irish language. We have heard a similar criticism before. Whenever we seek to make a knowledge of Welsh a qualification for the public service we get the same kind of criticism—that we are bolstering up the Welsh language. It is nothing of the sort. We want equality of opportunity for the Welsh language side by side with the English language. What happens now with regard to the English language? You say here that an official must know the English language, yet you seek to say, at the same time, that Welsh and Irish shall not be in any sense official languages. Give them the same chance. The Celtic language has existed for thousands of years, and we ask that you should give it the same chance as you give to the modern and rather hybrid English language. I have mixed with Welsh-speaking people who, as an hon. Member observed just now, would rather die than give up their Welsh language.
    2016
    I have never heard in all my life any hostility expressed or felt towards the English language. Of course not. Is it to be supposed for a moment that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) is going to impose a test upon the Irish Parliament, which I hope we shall see opened by the King within two years from now? Is it to be supposed that hon. and learned Gentleman is going to propose a test of membership which will make his, the most eloquent tongue in the Irish Parliament, silent in the National Assembly of his country? I do not think that many counsel in Ireland know sufficiently the native tongue to be able to conduct a case in the Irish language, and are we to suppose that those men will impose a tax which would cut them off from practice as advocates, the majority of the legal profession. Nothing of the sort. All the Bill seeks to do—and I submit it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do—is to allow the Irish Parliament to make provision that, where a knowledge of Irish is required, that knowledge should be a necessary qualification for the public service, whether in the Courts or even in Parliament. I have had experience in Wales of this disqualification which is sought to be imposed by this Amendment, and I know how hard it is to bear. I for one will gladly support the Bill in opposition to this Amendment.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The speeches against this Amendment have taken two forms. I repudiate as much as other hon. Members on this side the charge made by the hon. Member for Inverness Burghs that this Amendment has merely been moved with the object of wrecking the Bill. We consider that a far more important principle is at the bottom of this proposal than the mere question of wrecking even this Bill. The two kinds of speeches we have heard have been either advocating the Government position on the ground of pure scholarship, such as, for illustration, the speech of the hon. Member for Kerry and the speech of the hon. Member for Argyllshire; or, on the other hand, we have had the other kind of speech which is illustrated in the speech we have just heard and in the speech of the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who speak as admirers of the confusion produced at the Tower of Babel. I have some sympathy with the scholarship point of view. I think

    2017
    there is something to be said for encouraging the study of different languages which aids, from the educational point of view, the training of the mind, and so on. But from that point of view you might just as well study Greek iambics or any dead language, such as Sanscrit and Hebrew. It is a very desirable object in its way; but that is not the point which arises here. The point which arises here is to maintain as a qualification for higher promotion—and in a wide degree to the detriment of other candidates—a knowledge of the Trish language.
    I cannot myself see the advantage, from the commercial point of view, of taking up the position, as was done in the last speech we heard, of merely maintaining the existence of a language, even when very few people know it. If you look to our Colonies or to foreign countries I am sure the opposite is the case. I quite agree that it is difficult to find any parallel either in our Colonies or foreign countries that exactly meets the present case. There are very few in Ireland who speak the Irish language as compared with those who speak French in Canada, Dutch in South Africa, or Flemish in Belgium. Surely the disadvantage which arises from dual languages must be great. How can there possibly be any advantage in having the names of streets put in two languages; of having Government Regulations put in two languages; of having the Debates of the House of Parliament produced in two languages; to have the coins stamped in two languages; to have postage stamps bearing two languages? All this tends to confusion, and those who desire to strengthen the bonds of the United Kingdom, would, I should have thought myself, seek to arouse a sense of common interests and to unite under one language, rather than to set up the differences which this Bill would establish.
    I think it is a great misfortune that we should be face to face with this proposal. It cannot do good in the long run to the Empire, it cannot do good to the commercial relationships between different parts of this kingdom, or be good for any purpose whatever. It can do harm. The time that would be spent in learning the Irish language could be used much more advantageously, from the general and commercial point of view, if employed in learning French or German, and I do hope the Government will reconsider their position, and not merely, at the bidding of the hon. Member for Waterford, assist in refusing the principle of this Amendment.
    2018
    The position taken up by the Government is really to make as a qualification for promotion a knowledge of a language which is of no practical use in the world in general, or in commercial matters in particular. It has this further disadvantage, that it would result in the separate institution of a language, a course which would tend to separation rather than to unity. It would stimulate differentiation, whereas we want to stimulate unity; and instead of official languages tending to create differences of feeling and of interests, I would much rather see an official example that would make for the common interests of the community.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Into this very simple and small question there has been introduced by some of those who have spoken a spirit of exaggeration and a spirit of sectarian animosity. With regard to the sectarian aspect that has been put upon it by some of the speakers, a very elementary knowledge of this whole movement would have removed that impression. How did this movement start, and who started it? This movement received its main inspiration from the gentleman who still is its honoured head, namely, Dr. Douglas Hyde, President of the Gaelic League. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Armagh said that certain regulations had been introduced into the National University Bill for Ireland for the purpose of expelling Protestants from that university. They even went the length of saying that was the motive that was behind that violent "Papist," the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, in passing for Ireland the National University Bill. It was, we were told, his hereditary and bitter hatred of Protestantism that induced him to carry this Bill in order to exclude Protestants from the National University of Ireland. A statement like that in face of the fact that this National University has four or five Protestant professors is one of those statements which shows the length of exaggeration to which hon. Gentlemen representing Ulster Constituencies will go. There are four professors of Irish in that university, and an hon. Friend here tells me that three out of the four are Protestants. Dr. Douglas Hyde was the inspiring personality behind this movement. As everybody knows, he is a Protestant and the grandson of a Protestant and one of the very first principles upon which he started this movement, and to which he

    2019
    has rigidly adhered in that movement, is that it should be neither sectarian nor political. It is not sectarian as is evident by the fact that the President is a Protestant. It is not political. I cannot say I am altogether contented with that frigid and unapproachable reserve which Dr. Douglas Hyde has always assumed with regard to political questions. I will not quarrel with that now, but as a matter of fact the Gaelic League has always absolutely and immutably refused to mix itself up with any political issue at all. What has been the fact? This movement denounced by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway as sectarian and political, as dividing north from south, Catholic from Protestant, and Nationalist from Orangeman, this movement, among its many beneficent effects, has brought together Protestant and Catholic, and north and south, on what I think is the issue that will ultimately unite them, the national welfare, the national consciousness, and the national self-respect of Ireland.
    Let me tell hon. Gentlemen from England and Scotland, Welshmen probably will understand our position more readily, what lay behind this movement. Let me go back a little, and if the House will permit me, I will illustrate it by a personal experience. When I was a schoolboy I could tell in an examination paper the disease from which every King of England died, whether it was a dish of lampreys or some other epicurean indulgence. I actually believe I could tell you the names of all the wives of Henry VIII., and that required a certain strain on the memory. What I could not tell you was a single fact in the history of my own people and my own country. I was not taught a word of it until I was able to read and until I was able to direct my own studies. The names of some of the greatest figures of Irish history were absolutely unknown to me. That was one of the features of Irish life in my boyhood. Another feature was this: I am told that in some parts of the country parents were so convinced of the position of inferiority in which their children would be placed by having a knowledge of the Irish language that they were punished when they spoke Irish. There is a tale, though I cannot vouch for it from personal knowledge, that the child used to bring to the school in those Irish-speaking districts of Ireland a small piece of stick. The master made a notch in the stick every time that the child spoke a word of Irish, and when the
    2020
    stick and its notches were examined by the parent when the child returned, the amount of whips the child got was in proportion to the number of notches upon the stick.
    That was the state of things that prevailed with the generation that brought forth Douglas Hyde, who in this movement has sought to restore to the Irish people and to give to the Irish people an interest in their own history, in the language of their race, and the archæology of their race—to make them understand the meaning of all the scenes around them, red with the blood of their ancestors, who had died in the cause of national rights. They had to give to Ireland a feeling of national self-respect, and that they could only do by restoring the interest which another generation had tried to destroy in the literature, the language, and the history of Ireland. Making an appeal on those lines, as Dr. Douglas Hyde did in the Gaelic League, they were able to enlist what I am happy to be able to say is the daily increasing number of Irishmen of all creeds and classes. They had to make an appeal to them to help Ireland towards a profounder sense of national individuality and national self-respect, and, acting on those lines, they brought into the organisation Protestant and Catholic alike. In any sense of the word it is ridiculous to talk of this question as sectarian. In the North of Ireland Protestants speak Irish as well as Catholics, and in the Gaelic League you have zealous Protestants engaged in this great work of giving a new self-consciousness and self-respect to Ireland, as well as Catholics. Therefore, to describe this as a sectarian body is, I think, one of the most absurd misrepresentations I have ever heard.
    I come to the tone of exaggeration which is familiar to all of us. According to the Gentlemen above the Gangway, you cannot give anything with confidence to an Irish Parliament. From their starting-point, in all this controversy, the Irish Parliament must consist of, I may almost say, homicidal and even suicidal lunatics. I have read sermons and speeches in which it has been suggested that Home Rule may even bring the massacre of the Protestants of the North of Ireland. I have read speeches in which it has been suggested that the Bible, which one old Presbyterian carried in one of the processions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), would be closed by an

    2021
    Irish Parliament, and now I hear another form of exaggeration, that the Irish Parliament is not only determined and certain to encourage the Irish language, but to destroy the English language—
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must express my surprise that an English Member, bearing the honoured name he does, should express his agreement with that kind of nightmare, which I thought was confined to the hallucinated dreams of the hon. Gentlemen from Ulster. What splendid party spirit! I am sure the party spirit of many an English Tory like him has been put to a considerable strain during the last few weeks. However, as long as we are at this stage of the fight, I am perfectly sure their party spirit will rise to the most exaggerated demand. Not only, we are told, is an Irish Parliament going to encourage Irish, but that it is also going to destroy English, said the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke a few moments before me, and that this was for the purpose of producing a retrograde Ireland, and that we are going to separate Ireland from the rest of the world, and particularly destroy its commercial relations with England and the rest of the world.
    Let us examine the proposition. As the Chief Secretary, I think very relevantly and rightly, reminded the House, we have had within the last few weeks some object lesson as to the interdependence of England and Ireland in reference to the cattle trade. Religion—or perhaps I should say, so-called religion—may divide us, but the right hon. Gentleman and myself were members of the same deputation the other day. Cattle and pigs bring us together, and the right hon. Gentleman can talk sense, and even something approaching Nationalism when he is talking about cattle and pigs, but the moment he gets to religion his ordinary sense deserts him, And, what is worse, he not only forgets his sense, but he forgets his Christianity. What, then, is going to happen in Ireland? We are going to destroy England; we are going to destroy the English language, and not merely encourage the Irish language, because that is the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me, and of other speakers. Thus we are not only going to encourage Irish, but we are going to destroy English and blot out the names of Swift and Moore and Congreve and Burke from our history and our litera-
    2022
    ture. If we are going to have a Parliament of homicidal and suicidal lunatics, of course we will do that. I do not think the Irish Parliament is going to consist either of homicidals or of lunatics. Then our men dealing in cattle and pigs and sheep in England and coming over to every market in England every week are not to be allowed to learn English, the hybrid language, as my hon. and learned Friend from Wales said, though I for myself must say that the language of Shakespeare is quite good enough for me. Still this hybrid language is going to be denounced as an outrage upon the real proud self-consciousness of Irish nationality, and no man will be allowed to learn a word of it in Ireland, and he will go and try and sell his cattle and his pigs and his sheep in England, and he will have to have an interpreter.
    I have described this imaginary Irish Parliament as homicidal and suicidal. Let me see how suicidal we are going to be according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's contention. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a challenge to me which I am sorry to say I cannot accept. He asked me to address you, Sir, in Irish. I could not do so even if it were in order to do so. I think twenty words would exhaust all the Irish I know. I did understand the interruption of my hon. Friend, "Tuigeann tu amadan," though I am glad to say the hon. Gentleman did not, just as I would understand "Tabhairdham poge cailin og," which I was asked once to say to an Irish speaker. [An HON. MEMBER: "I understand that."] The hon. Gentleman understands everything except about matters from the North of Ireland. I am not going to be tempted by him to translate for other ears the language which he understands. Here you will have a Parliament composed of Members nine out of ten of whom probably will not understand Irish. They are to begin by decreeing that nobody shall be allowed to address that assembly unless he does so in a language of which nine-tenths of the Members are ignorant. In addition to that, we are to use the language as a weapon against hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. What weapon are we not going to use against them? Their lives are not safe; their property is not safe. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to choose between fighting for his liberties and exiling himself from his country. I heard all these prophecies years ago, and I believe I destined some of them to immortality by reporting them for the newspaper

    2023
    with which I was then connected. The Protestants who were to be massacred or exiled from Ireland are there still—an honoured, powerful, and influential section of Irish life; and when all the dust and heat and folly and ignorance of this controversy have passed away we will look to them for being as they were in the past, among the most ardent defenders of the nationality and prosperity of Ireland.
    Mr. AMERY: I cannot hope to follow the eloquence or wit of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). But when he asks the Committee to consider that it is an utterly impossible thing that a Parliament which in its first years may be composed of Gentlemen few of whom know the Irish language, should in course of time set itself to work deliberately and artificially to promote the Irish language and to use it as a means of prejudicing and excluding the English language, I think those Members who believe him have studied very little what has happened in other countries. My hon. Friend quoted the instance of Bohemia. There was a time when the whole of the Austrian empire was bitterly divided over the proposal to make German and Bohemian compulsory on all officials in Bohemia. That proposal was defeated, because it was recognised that this in practice meant the exclusion of all Germans from official positions. Now I remember the Leader of the Czech party telling me at the time that his father used to say that when the Nationalist language movement began some sixty years earlier, only three people in Bohemia knew more than 200 words of the Czech language. It was an entirely artificial revival. I will take another instance, that of the Magyar language in Hungary.
    When the war of 1848 was fought, there was not a single leader of the Hungarian revolutionaries who was in any sense a master of the Hungarian language. The whole of the correspondence between the revolutionary leaders was conducted in German. After they got into power in 1867, a deliberate attempt was made—and nobody had the courage to resist it—to force the exclusive use of the Hungarian language on Parliament, and one of the most gallant of the Hungarian leaders was unable to accept a position as Minister because he confessed that he was unable to speak the language. A few years ago when there was an attempt to act a play in German at Budapest, the play was
    2024
    violently stopped by a public demonstration. The police in Budapest were under instructions not to answer questions addressed to them in German. If I wanted to find my way I always began by saying. "I am an Englishman," and then when I spoke in German they did not mind answering. There you have an instance where a very difficult language, spoken only by a few of the peasants, was for political reasons forced upon a country, and I do not believe that it has made for civilisation or for progress in that part of the world.
    The whole movement under Home Rule is likely to be of the same tendency. This Amendment of ours is not aimed at discouraging the study or the natural spread of the Irish language. It is aimed at preventing the Nationalist movement from using the lever of the Government in order as far as it can, to destroy the English, language and English sentiment in Ireland. This Amendment goes straight to the root of an issue on which we have never had any answer from the Treasury Bench. Is the object of this Bill to set up in Ireland, as an integral part of the British nation and of the United Kingdom, a system of local government; or is it to be the starting point of the setting up of a-new nation with a new language separate from this country? If that is the object, is it one which the great majority of hon. Members opposite really want? It certainly is not a proposal which they have ever commended to their constituents. Not a single speech has ever contained anything about setting up a separate and distinct nation with a separate and distinct language. I do not wish to say a word in disparagement, of the study of an ancient and interesting language, or to prevent—and this Amendment would not prevent—officials, with a knowledge of Irish, being appointed in Irish-speaking districts.
    My hon. Friend pointed out the entire difference which exists between the case of the French in Canada or the Dutch in South Africa, and the case in Ireland. In South Africa, Dutch was spoken by more than half the population, and it was a language which had some use in the world outside. Yet when a year or two ago the present Government made a proposal that it should be compulsory for all teachers in the Union to know both languages, the proposal met with the bitterest opposition and was defeated, because everybody knew that it was

    2025
    unfair. When you have two languages, one a great world language and a great commercial language, and the other a local language—I say nothing against its philological interest or the affection with which it is regarded—to make both languages compulsory means that you practically disqualify those with whom the wider and greater language is their mother tongue. And, in practice, you disqualify capacity. It works on the same principle as the ancient law of economics known as Gresham's law, about the inferior coin displacing the better coin. I contend that we are raising not a trivial or wrecking Amendment, but one which goes to the heart of the question whether you are setting up a system of local government or whether you are dismembering the United Kingdom and destroying it as a nation.
    Mr. PEEL: I wish to say one word in reply to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: May I ask hon. Members to give other hon. Members the courtesy of a hearing.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I call your attention to the disorderly method of cheering adopted by a Member on the Nationalist benches?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged for the Noble Lord's assistance. I intended what I said to apply all round. Hon. Members ought to remember that they themselves require courtesy when they address the House. May I say also that hon. Members will do well to address the Chair rather than to turn to any particular part of the House. Through mo they can address their remarks wherever they wish them to go.
    Mr. PEEL: I will certainly follow your advice. May I ask whether it applies to Ministers of the Crown as well? I have only one minute left. [Several MEMBERS: "Four minutes."] If we are to be Closured, are we also to be denied a hearing? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool said: "What you want to do is to destroy the English language." Nobody made so absurd a suggestion. Bitterly as some of the Irish Members may feel towards this country, that task is too great for them. But what they do wish to do, and what they intend to do, and that is the whole meaning of the resistance to this Amendment, is to put the English language in the second place in the Irish Parliament and in Irish official affairs. We have sometimes been accused, as Englishmen, of not having a sufficiently strong national feeling. I can assure the Government that we do care; all Englishmen care, especially about their own language, and when they find that this Home Rule Bill is being used as an engine not to increase local government powers in Ireland, but to reduce the status and position of the English language, they will give it a reception which I think even the most sanguine Members of the Government never anticipated.
    It being half-past Seven of the clock, the OIAIIIMAA' proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 329.

    Division No. 259.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cave, George E.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bird, Alfred

    Chambers, James

    Astor, Waldorf

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Boyton, James

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bull, Sir William James

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Butcher, John George

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Barnston, Harry

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Barrie, H. T.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cassel, Felix

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Croft, Henry Page

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cator, John

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Denniss, E. R. B,

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Royds, Edmund

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Keswick, Henry

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

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Falls, Bertram Godfray

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Fell, Arthur

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. w. Hayes

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gardner, Ernest

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Stanier, Beville

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Macmaster, Donald

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Gretton, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sykes, Alan John (Cites., Knutsford)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Moore, William

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mount, William Arthur

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nield, Herbert

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Helmsley, Viscount

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

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

    Hills, J. W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Winterton, Earl

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Malcolm and Mr. R. McNeill.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Brace, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Adamson, William

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dawes, James Arthur

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Delany, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Doris, William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Barton, William

    Clough, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    dynes, John R.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Falconer, James

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Boland, John Pius

    Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Field, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Crean, Eugene

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Crooks, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    2028

    2029

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Furness, Stephen

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gladstone, w. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Glanville, Harold James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Kean, John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Greig, Col. James William

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

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Manfield, Harry

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rowlands, James

    Guiney, Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hackett, John

    Martin, J.

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

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scan Ian, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sheehy, David

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mooney, John J.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Snowden, Philip

    Hay ward, Evan

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hazleton, Richard

    Muldoon, John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Munro, R.

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

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Sutherland, John E.

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sutton, John E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Needham, Christopher

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Neilson, Francis

    Tennant, Harold John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Hinds, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hodge, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ogden, Fred

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    O'Grady, James

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Malley, William

    Waring, Walter

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    O'Shee, James John

    Webb, H.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    King, Joseph

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Lansbury, George

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

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

    Radford, George Heynes

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Lyell, C. H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 222.

    Division No. 260.]

    AYES.

    [7.38 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Adamson, William

    Field, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lundon, T.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lyell, C. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    France, G. A.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Furness, Stephen

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

    Gelger, Sir William Alfred

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Armitage, Robert

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McGhee, Richard

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gill, Alfred Henry

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Glanville, Harold James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Goldstone, Frank

    McKean, John

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Barnes, G. N.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Barton, William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Manfield, Harry

    Benn, W. W. (T. Units, St. George)

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Bentham, G. J.

    Guiney, Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hackett, J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.(

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Brace, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, M.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Bryce, John Annan

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Muldoon, John

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

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Munro, Robert

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S)

    Neilson, Francis

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hodge, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, T, P. (Liverpool)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ogden, Fred

    Crooks, William

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    O'Grady, James

    Crumley, Patrick

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Mailey, William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Delany, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Doris, W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman, H. M.'

    Duffy, William J.

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    King, J.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts (Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lansbury, George

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Falconer, J,

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    2032

    2033

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

    Ward, W, Dudley (Southampton)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Sheehy, David

    Wardle, George J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Waring, Walter

    Reddy, M.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmanan)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Webb, H.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Snowden, Philip

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West;

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Robertson, Sir G, Scott (Bradford)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Robinson, Sidney

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rowlands, James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Winfrey, Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

    Wadsworth, John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hills, John Waller

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Craig, E. (Ches., Crewe)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Baird, J. L.

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Dixon, C. H.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Barnston, H

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Barrie, H. T.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Keswick, Henry

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fell, Arthur

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Benn, ton Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Bird, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Boyton, James

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Butcher, John George

    Goulding, E. A.

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Gretton, John

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

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

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Cassel, Felix

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cator, John

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Moore, William

    Cave, George

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

    Chaloner, Col R. G. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Chambers, James

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newman, John R. P.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender I

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Nicholson, William G. G. (Petersfield)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

    2034

    2035

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Valentia, Viscount

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Winterton, Earl

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Royds, Edmund

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Younger, Sir George

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Hildred Carille and Viscount Helmsley.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Touche, George Alexander

    CLAUSE 3.—(Prohibition of Laws interfering with Religious Equality, etc.)
    3. In the exercise of their power to make laws under this Act the Irish Parliament shall not make a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, or give a preference, privilege, or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief or religious or ecclesiastical status, or make any religious belief or religious ceremony a condition of the validity of any marriage.
    Any law made in contravention of the restrictions imposed by this Section shall, so far as it contravenes those restrictions, be void.
    Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Whitley, whether the Opposition will have an opportunity of discussing the fifty-two important Amendments that have been cut out just now?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
    Captain CRAIG: I wish to put it as a point of Order.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not a proper point of Order.
    Captain CRAIG: You can judge afterwards, because I am rather getting past the time, to tell the truth, when I care whether it is in order or not. I wish to ask you, does the fact that you proposed Clause 3 from the Chair cut out all possibility of the Opposition being able to discuss the fifty-two important Amendments dealing with the Royal Irish Constabulary and other things in this Bill which is now brought before the House for the first time?
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the point the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, I think it arises on Clause 5.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask whether it is not the case that of these fifty-two Amendments a very large proportion were duplicates and out of place?
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Before that point of Order is answered—
    The CHAIRMAN: None of these are points of Order, and it is not a very fair use of the position, on my resuming my seat, to get up an argumentative question.
    Sir E. CARSON: It is done by a Cabinet Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: I agree that in both cases it is a matter of argument. I am instructed by a Resolution of the House to proceed in a certain way, and questions of that kind should not be put to me.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I whether your roiling means that in regard to these Amendments, shut out in consequence of the closure at the present hour, we are precluded from putting them down and having them discussed at a later stage?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that the one mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) is pertinent to Clause 5. If hon. Members will put them down where they think they come in, I will consider them. With regard to Amendments on the Paper to Clause 3, the first in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Camlachie) to leave out the word "Parliament" ["under this Act the Irish Parliament shall not make a law"], and insert instead thereof the word "Council," and the second in

    2037
    the name of the hon. Member for Graves-end (Sir Gilbert Parker) to leave out the word "Parliament," and insert instead thereof the word "Legislature"; they have been already dealt with. The next two are out of place, because we must first deal with the subject-matter of the Clause before we propose to add to them. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach), to insert after the word "law" ["The Irish Parliament shall not make a law"], the words, "or vote or grant any public money," is, I think, met by the words in the Bill; and the next Amendment, in the name of the hen. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), after the word "law," to insert the words "requiring or authorising any judge at the instance of the Executive to give a decision upon any question not actually in litigation of," is out of place. The one I propose to call is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), about endowments; but before that I understand the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) wishes to raise a point upon his Amendment after the word "to" ["so as either directly or indirectly to establish"], to insert the words "disestablish or." I do not quite appreciate the purport of that Amendment.
    Sir E. CARSON: Before that Amendment is taken there are certain words that come before which I should like to move to leave out, in order to ask a question of the Attorney-General. The Clause commences:—
    In the exercise of their powers to make laws under this Act the Irish Parliament shall not make a law so as, etc.
    I want to know what is the effect of the words, "in the exercise of their powers lender this Act," and why these words are there at all, and I move to leave them out, because unless there is some other power reserved to the Parliament, the Section will read properly and legally by commencing. "The Irish Parliament shall not make a law." It seems to me these words are either surplusage or have behind them some other meaning of which I do not know. The Bill is so very complicated with all the general powers' to make laws and the reservation to make laws, that one does not actually know what is the meaning of putting in words like these. It occurs to me they ought to be left out.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): These words were inserted to carry out what has already been passed in Clause 2. If you look at the beginning of Clause 2 it says:—
    Subject to the provisions of this Act the Irish Parliament shall have power to-make laws.
    And Clause 3 says:—
    In the exercise of their powers to-make laws under this Act the Irish Parliament shall not make a law, etc.
    It is a restraining Section in the exercise of the powers already conferred under Clause 2.
    Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained what the effect would be to leave these words out, because it would then read:
    The Irish Parliament shall not make-a law so as either directly or indirectly.
    There is no other way that I know in which they could make laws except under the previous Clause. What I want an explanation of is: What is behind these words?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is nothing behind them at all. It is simply carrying out what is in Clause 2 of the Bill as passed, and we begin the third Clause by saying, "Now in the exercise of these powers given the Irish Parliament shall not do certain things." There is nothing whatever behind it.
    Sir E. CARSON: You do not say what the words add. Surely, if the Irish Parliament is going to be restrained from doing a thing, it is not proper to say in the exercise of their powers they shall not do it. What you want to add is "the Irish Parliament shall not make certain laws."
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: In reference to what the Attorney-General said, it is quite clear these limiting words ought not to be inserted in this Clause, because what he said, in effect, is that the Irish Parliament shall not have powers to make laws in certain circumstances. If the words are put in "In the exercise of their powers to make laws under this Act" it would certainly be argued that the limitation in this Clause is only in reference to-the exercise of powers given, and that out-

    2039
    side these powers the Irish Parliament, although a subordinate body, had powers included in this Section 3. It is quite clear that these words ought to be eliminated. If, as I understand the Attorney-General, the Irish Parliament are to be prohibited altogether from making laws with reference to certain subjects, under Clause 3 these words of limitation ought not to be introduced if that is the intention.
    Sir ROBERT FINLAY: From the explanation of the Attorney-General, it is clear to demonstration that these words are absolutely surplusage. They are wholly unnecessary. I do not know what mischief the Attorney-General suggests would be done by leaving them out if they mean what he says. What is the reason for retaining these words on the explanation of the Attorney-General? He says that they are merely a reference to Clause 2, but Clause 2 defines the powers of the Irish Parliament, and what you want to do by this Clause 3 is to impose limitations. I really cannot see the sense of keeping these words in, and I am driven to suspect that there may be something behind them. Why not leave them out if they are surplusage, as the Attorney-General says they are?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I never said any such thing.
    Sir R. FINLAY: But it follows from the explanation that they are mere surplusage.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What has been done by Clause 2 is to limit the functions of the Irish Parliament with regard to legislation. It is provided that, they can only exercise their powers in certain respects, and there are certain exclusions. In Clause 3 you refer again to what has been enacted under Clause 2, and in the exercise of those limited powers there is this further limitation.
    Sir R. FINLAY: Will the Attorney-General say what difference it will make if these words are left out?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot help thinking that all my hon. and learned Friends are getting very angry on both sides about what is really a matter of small importance. The Attorney-General says there is nothing behind these words, and he is perfectly right, because there is nothing behind them, not even a meaning. I respectfully suggest to the Government that whenever they cannot show a meaning to
    2040
    words they would hasten business and smooth the proceedings if they would leave out words, which, although they may commend themselves to those who are masters of drafting English and whose business it is to construct drafting English, are words to which the lay House do not attach the smallest significance. I think it would simplify and smooth the proceedings in this House if the Attorney-General, unless his hon. Friends have been able to find the meaning of the words, would agree to drop those words.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am greatly disappointed with the few words that have just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he rose in the interests of peace. May I make a suggestion? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has conducted a number of Bills through this House, and he knows that it is rather a dangerous thing to drop out words which the draftsman has put in. I suggest that the Attorney-General should consider the words before the Report stage, and if he finds they are necessary, then he can stick to them, and if they are not necessary he can get rid of them. That course would get rid of this difficulty for the moment.
    Captain CRAIG: Should I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in moving to report Progress in order to—
    The CHAIRMAN: My answer is contained in the words of the Motion. I cannot accept any such proposal.
    Captain CRAIG: Then may I appeal to the Government to send for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to come and explain the Bill which he drafted?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the Attorney-General is willing to accept the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend, I will sit down. The words of the Clause are, "In the exercise of their power to make laws under this Act." We will suppose the Home Rule Bill has passed and the Irish Parliament has been set up. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never."] We will suppose also that they have asked for some extension of powers, and those powers have been given to them perhaps in pecunia. If they get such an extension of powers, will the exercise of those new powers be governed by the words of Section 3 or not? If these words are left out, whatever new powers the Irish Parliament get will be governed by Section 3. If these words are left in. any extension they get will not be

    2041
    governed by Section 3, and I ask the Attorney-General to clear up that point.
    Sir E. CARSON: I want to know what is the difference in the Section with those words in and with them out? If there is no difference, then the words ought to come out, and if there is a difference, then the Attorney-General ought to tell us what the difference is. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the difference in the meaning of the Section, if the words are struck out or kept in?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Under Clause 3 you have the limitation of the use of those powers, and if you leave out those words you run the risk of extending the powers. The object of putting in those words at the beginning of Clause 3 is to limit and not extend the powers you have already limited by Clause 2. There as no general power of legislation, and what you are doing by these words is to show that there is a limitation being imposed upon a limited exercise of the powers thus provided for.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I know nothing is more tedious to the Committee than a mere discussion by lawyers, but perhaps the Attorney-General will forgive me for saying that I think his explanation is too transparently absurd. He makes the statement that if these words are not inserted there will be some risk of extending the powers, but there is no such risk, and there is no possibility of any such risk. Supposing the Clause read, "The Irish Parliament shall not make a law to directly or indirectly disestablish or disendow any religion." That provision would be an absolute protection, and I defy the Attorney-General to show how the omission of those words permits any such risk. It is clear to any fair-minded man on either side of the House that if these words are left out the protection is absolute. No hon. Member opposite who has spoken has suggested a single reason why the retention of these words makes the slightest difference.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The Attorney-General said this was a drafting question, but if these words have no meaning, how can it possibly be in the interests of good drafting to put them in? It is good drafting as well as common sense not to put in words which have no meaning at all. The Attorney-General knows quite well that when words in an Act of Parliament come before a judge which apparently have got no meaning, and which ought to have been
    2042
    left out, he looks about for some hidden meaning. We are told that there is no hidden meaning, or any other meaning, attached to these words, and why, in the name of all that is sensible, does not the Attorney-General get up like a man and say, "I will leave them out"?
    Mr. HEWINS: I think there is a meaning in those words. The Clause as it is drafted deals with what we may call the legislative powers of the Irish Parliament, leaving the administrative and executive powers of the Irish Parliament untouched. The Clause lays down that the Irish Parliament in the exercise of their power shall not "give a preference, privilege, or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage." As the Clause stands, it appears to me that the Irish Parliament, in the exercise of its executive power, could give such a preference. Therefore, I think it is important that those words should be omitted.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to my question or else say that he cannot do so. Supposing under some future Statute the Irish Parliament gets additional powers, will the exercise of those powers in the future be limited by Section 3 or not?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Really, I think they must be.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The thing might be passed in pecunia. If you leave those words out the whole Section will govern any future legislation.
    Sir E. CARSON: As I proposed to leave out those words, let me say that I did so in the expectation that I would get some reasonable answer from the other side. I really moved this Amendment because, in reading over the Clause, it occurred to me that the words were absolutely surplusage. We have gone on for a considerable time trying to get some information from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we have not got any. I am going to appeal to my hon. Friends not to prolongs this discussion. I know perfectly well that no Opposition would be treated in the way we have been treated, or could be treated for a moment in this way, but for the fact that the Government are relying upon us spending the short time allotted to us in this way, and it makes no difference to them whether they give us a proper answer or not. If we were discussing this Bill under normal conditions, of course

    2043
    there would be a Motion to report Progress, and that would be the natural way to deal with the difficulty. This is how we are being treated under the Closure, and we shall only have a few moments to discuss a large number of Amendments. Here we are under these conditions having to spend all this time on a point like this
    because we cannot get a single explanation from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who treat us with absolute contempt when we try to raise this question.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 115.

    Division No. 261.]

    AYES.

    [8.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Adamson, William

    France, G. A.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Furness, Stephen

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

    Armitage, Robert

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Glanville, Harold James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Kean, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

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

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Manfield, Harry

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Black, Arthur w.

    Hancock, John George

    Martin, Joseph

    Boland, John Pius

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meagher, Michael

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Molloy, Michael

    Brocklehurst, William B

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bryce, John Annan

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mooney, John J.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morrell, Philip

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Muldoon, John

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, Robert

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

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Needham, Christopher

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Neilson, Francis

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Hinds, John

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Hodge, John

    Nuttail, Harry

    Clynes, John R.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, John (Kildare)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Dowd, John

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Ogden, Fred

    Crooks, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Grady, James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Doris, W.

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    King, J.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crick lade)

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lansbury, George

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Radford, G. H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson 1

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

    Raffan, peter Wilson

    Ffrench, Peter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Field, William 1

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sheehy, David

    Wardle, G. J.

    Reddy, M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Waring, Walter

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Webb, H.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Snowden, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Sutton, John E.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rowlands, James

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon, Alexander

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Wadsworth, John

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Malcolm, Ian

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ashley, W. W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Moore, William

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gastrell, Major w. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Beyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Butcher, John George

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Hills, John Waller

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H,

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cave, George

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chambers, James

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dennis, E. R. B.

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

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

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Younger, Sir George

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Fell, Arthur

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Stanier and Mr. Hewins.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    The CHAIRMAN: I wish to hear the hon. and learned Member for Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) as to the meaning and purpose of his Amendment.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: The meaning of my Amendment is that the new Irish Parliament shall not only not establish or give legislative sanction to any religious body or community, but shall not act prejudicially to any religious institution by disestablishing that institution or by
    2046
    interfering with its existing constitution. I agree my Amendment raises very much the same point as a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), but I think it is properly raised in my Amendment, and that I use the proper expressions applicable to it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. and learned Member's view to be that the meaning of the words "disestablish

    2047
    or" is the same and the proper legal expression for "interfere with the constitution of."
    Sir A. CRIPPS: That is my view.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, I think the hon. Member is entitled to move, but of course the Amendment cannot be moved subsequently in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Dudley.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move, after the word "to" ["or indirectly to"], to insert the words "disestablish or."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to make it as clear as I, can that, so far as the Irish Parliament is concerned, it should not have any power whatever to interfere with the great doctrine of equal religious treatment irrespective of the denomination of the body itself. I want to make it quite clear at the outset, in dealing with this question of religious equality, that I am not throwing any doubt on the intention of the Roman Catholic community, because the proper attitude of anybody as regards religious equality is not to draw any distinction between one denomination and another. Christian people undoubtedly express their convictions most earnestly under different forms. I want to dissociate myself at the outset from the idea that I am finding fault with the Roman Catholic community either in this country or in Ireland. I wish this religious question to be dissociated from the question of Home Rule. I never like religious questions coning into our discussions, and I have the same respect for the sincere Roman Catholic as I have for the Presbyterian or any other Nonconformist. As regards the Section, its object, I take it, is to prevent the establishment of any religion. Of course, one is cognisant of what is meant by the establishment of a religious body, but I have great difficulty in understanding what is meant by establishing a religion. It is a contradiction in terms. It is an absolute impossibility. No Legislature could ever establish a religion. On that most people interested in religious topics will agree with me. But I understand that the word "religion" here is a synonym for religious body or Church, and if we alter the word religion into a meaning of that kind the Clause as it stands is quite intelligible.
    The proposal is that you shall not give State existence or legislative sanction to any religious body or community. I un-
    2048
    derstand that is the meaning of the Clause, if it is to have any meaning at all. But I want to make it clear that if you are asked to give no established position to any religious community in Ireland you are not at the same time to interfere by legislation or compulsion with the existing constitution of any religious body in that country at the present moment. Suppose I take for illustration one of the Nonconformist or Presbyterian bodies. I want to make it quite clear that whatever legislative powers may be vested in the Irish Parliament it cannot have any right or power to interfere compulsorily with the establishment or constitution of any religious community in any part of Ireland. I think it all the more necessary to make that clear because it is rather curious—I am not in any way trying to deal with a subsequent Amendment—that in the latter-part of this Clause you do not prevent legislation giving preference to a particular religious body. What you say is that members of any particular religious body shall not be put under any disability owing to the religious body to which they belong. Unless these words are introduced there is not a single word in the Clause as it stands which would prevent the Irish Parliament interfering with the constitutional establishment of any religious community which happens to exist in Ireland at the present time, or which may exist in the future. I put this to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Irish Office, whether it is not his intention to have religious equality in this sense; that it is not to be in the power of the Irish Parliament either to give preference to a particular body as I understand the word established, or to interfere with the establishment or constitution of an existing body having regard to its powers and privileges, whatever they may be, which exists at the present time.
    I should like to add one word as regards the use of the word "establishment" because it is sometimes used in this country in the sense of a Church established by law and sometimes to refer to the legislation of Henry VIII.'s time. I take an entirely different view of the meaning of that word altogether. I think any Christian fraternity of a defined faith or Constitution is an establishment in the ordinary sense in which we use the word in our religious language and literature. I want therefore to make it quite clear that using the word in that sense neither Roman Catholic, nor Presbyterian, nor Anglican, nor any other religious body in

    2049
    Ireland could ever be preferred by a subordinate Irish Parliament when constituted or put under any disability by having its constitution interfered with. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to make Clause 3 govern the principle of religious equality. I dare say it may be so, but I am quite clear that the words as they stand do not carry that out, and in order to carry out that intention, if it be the intention of the Government, they must either adopt the words which I propose in my Amendment or words of a similar character. I am not discussing a mere question of drafting, but when a Member of the Government replies to this Amendment I would ask him to say whether they intend what' I have denned as the true aspect of religious equality, namely, non-interference with the establishment of any existing constitution.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know if I had time to enter into a long conversation with the hon. and learned Member that I should differ materially from anything he has said. But I feel perfectly satisfied that the introduction at this place of the word "disestablish" in front of the word "establish" would mislead ordinary persons who are not quite so well acquainted with the history of ecclesiastical matters as he may be. The real protection which the hon. and learned Member desires to have for every form of religious body that may be in the possession of property would be much better secured by the careful consideration of subsequent words in this Clause and on Amendments which appear in the name of the hon. and learned Member for York and other hon. Members. What he proposes to do is to say, "You must not disestablish any religious body which is established." He used the word "compulsorily" in his speech, but there is nothing of that sort in the Amendment, and it would be a very clumsy limiting form to put upon a Parliament which might have to deal with religious bodies to say if they came to Parliament, as people have lately done in Scotland, asking for an alteration or confirmation of their trust, that they cannot under this Clause disestablish any Church. Hon. Members opposite are always viewing with alarm the possibility of danger from any Irish Parliament. They never think that the fact of taking away the power to do harm also takes away the power to do good. I am prepared to argue that this is a body capable of doing both harm and good, but I am not prepared to assert it can only do
    2050
    harm. I think the words in he introduction of this Clause preventing the Parliament from ever doing anything to what the hon. and learned Member calls disestablish any Church are sufficient in view of the fact that the Irish Church has been disestablished and that the Clause forbids the establishment of any other Church in place of it. We have therefore got rid of the word "disestablish" altogether in that sense. But the hon. and learned Member attaches another meaning to the word. Ho is not thinking of the Liberation Society. He means by "disestablish" that nobody is to interfere, in any possible shape or way, in this Parliament with the constitution or the property of any religious body.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I only dealt with the constitution.
    Mr. BIRRELL: With the constitution of any religious body. I say that would be a limitation upon the powers for good of that Parliament which might very likely interfere with and do particular damage to the very body whose interests he is seeking to protect. I do not quarrel with the general words used by the hon. and learned Member as to what we intend by this Clause. Although we are quite willing to consider whether our language cannot be improved by some of the Amendments which subsequently appear on the Paper, I do honestly put it to the hon. and learned Member that the introduction of this word "disestablish," which, in minds less clear than his own, has a quite different meaning attached to it, would be rather to cloud counsel and deprive the Irish Parliament of useful powers which the religious bodies might be desirous of its having, and do no good at all.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman illustrates the very great difficulty we are under, thanks to the procedure adopted by the present Government. We are not allowed fully to discuss this Clause or fully to discuss this point. The right hon. Gentleman admits that my hon. and learned Friend has put his finger upon a defect in the Clause as drafted.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not, in the least.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Then what was the meaning of your speech? I presume the words of the right hon. Gentleman had some meaning. He said that the matter might be reconsidered hereafter on a subsequent Amendment.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I said that the points which he urged might better be considered on a subsequent Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is very much what I said. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that subsequent Amendments will not be reached.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is the very next Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The next Amendment deals with disendowment, an absolutely different point altogether. It is quite true there is an Amendment of my own on the Paper, but we have been told that it is not to be reached. The Chairman has already told us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] He said that if the matter were discussed on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, it could not be raised again on my own Amendment. That is the very point the right hon. Gentleman made. My Amendment says that the Irish Parliament may not divert the property or, without its consent, alter the constitution of any religious body. My hon. and learned Friend wishes to prohibit the Irish Parliament from altering the constitution of any religious body now established in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot be discussed later, yet he refuses to consider this Amendment, and asks the Committee to reject it. This is a very important matter. It is all very well to use the word "establish" or "disestablish" in what may be called the ordinary sense of common talk. The right hon. Gentleman knows that every religious body that holds property is legally established.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That, at all events, is a matter of controversy. A great many people think it is not so.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Then ought not the matter to be cleared up? We want to know definitely, and not to leave it vague, whether the Irish Parliament is to legislate on a matter of this sort or not. The right hon. Gentleman now admits that it is a matter of contraversy. Who is going to decide it when the Irish Parliament is set up? In my humble judgment any religious body that holds property is established. I hold that every Nonconformist body in this country, at any rate since the Toleration Act, has been established and is established, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they cannot alter an iota of their constitution without coming to this House.
    Mr. BIRRELL: What is to be their position?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is the point. Are they to go to the Irish Parliament, or to come to this House, or is the Irish Parliament to have the right, whether they come to it or not, to alter their constitution without their wish? That is the most important point of all. The right hon. Gentleman said—I think it is a mere debating point quite unworthy of him—that what is called the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland was disestablished by the Act of 1869. Does he not also remember that by Royal Charter it was re-established, and that subsequently to its new constitution it was set up, and by that charter, which was a definite act of establishing it, it holds its property at the present time. What we want to know is whether the Irish Parliament is to have the right to interfere with the present constitution of that Church? It is not only a question of that Church. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland holds property, and is in that sense established. It holds property subject to a certain definite constitution and definite obligations and duties. It is an endowed church in a very real sense. As the right hon. Gentleman remembers, there was a very large Grant made to the Presbyterian Church before the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. There was what was called the regium donum, a lump sum which was handed over to the Presbylerian Church of Ireland. They hold that property under a certain constitution.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Like every other church, on trust.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Are the rights of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland to be interfered with at the sweet will of the Irish Parliament, or can its constitution only be altered by the act of this Parliament?
    Mr. E. JONES: They hold their property like other churches, under trusts.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: An act of Parliament can override trusts. The question we are arguing at the present time is whether it is to be an act of the Trish Parliament or an act of the Imperial Parliament. I think it is clear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he recognises that something must be done. He thinks that to introduce the word "disestablish" will cause confusion.

    2053
    It may be that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is not the best way of dealing with this matter; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he has admitted a grievance, what is his proposal? Has he any words to bring up, or any suggestion to make, whereby under the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill words can be brought up? If he has, we shall be glad to hear it; if he has not, the only thing for us to do is to support the Amendment, because we hold it will be a monstrous injustice if the Irish Parliament is permitted to interfere in any way with the constitution of any religious body now established in Ireland.
    Mr. BARRIE: I should have preferred if we had had an opportunity of discussing this matter on the wider Amendment which stands lower down. We had an intimation from the Chairman that on this Amendment it would not be open to the House to discuss the later one, so I take it this is the only opportunity the Committee will be afforded of discussing the important matters raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I may be permitted to speak especially as representing the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and I do not think even the Chief Secretary denies that there is grave anxiety amongst the Presbyterians of Ireland as to what their possible fate may be should this Bill ever become an Act. I say it in no spirit of disrespect as regards the Roman Catholic Church, but we have no precedent in the? Colonies for the Constitution to which considerable reference has been made during these Debates, and we know that in the eyes of the Romish Church we are heretics, and therefore our property is not entitled to the respect which the property of other Communions might be entitled to receive. It is well known in Ireland that the Presbyterian body is numerous and influential. Its property is estimated to be worth at least £5,000,000, and I am sure the property of the Episcopal Church is worth very little less and may be quite equal to that. The Chief Secretary, at Bristol, freely and fully admitted that he was setting up a Roman Catholic Parliament in Dublin, and in view of the past treatment that Protestants have received where that Church has been in power, it is only reasonable, and even the Chief Secretary must admit it, that in fair play to the Protestants who will be under the power of that Parliament, if it were ever established, a protective Clause should be inserted in this Bill. How does the Chief
    2054
    Secretary receive this suggestion? He says he would rather have had it raised in a subsequent Amendment. He was in the House when the Chairman ruled that the subsequent Amendment could not be raised.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I am loth to interrupt the hon. Member, but he may be confusing the Amendments. The next Amendment to be called is that in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Butcher), which raises the precise point which the hon. Member is now raising.
    Mr. BARRIE: Under the limitation of time that we are working under, it is quite evident that no further Amendment can possibly be reached this evening. Therefore the Chief Secretary in making that suggestion, is only repeating the tactics the Government have so constantly resorted to during the progress of the Bill under the guillotine Motion of evading difficult problems by suggesting that they might better be raised on some other Amendment. If I am wrong in that suggestion, it is quite easy for the Chief Secretary now to say that at some later stage in these proceedings he is prepared to move words, the insertion of which would give the protection that is called for by my co-religionists, and until we have some such declaration from the Chief Secretary, I think the fears to which I have given expression, will remain and, if possible, increase. I do not know that we need enlarge upon the point further, but I do not think even the Chief Secretary will suggest that I am at all exaggerating the state of feeling prevalent amongst the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists in Ireland, and I think we are entitled to this protection if the Government are sincere in their oft expressed wishes to grant any reasonable safeguard which may be demanded by the representatives of the unfortunate minority in Ireland in the House of Commons. I submit that with all respect to the Chief Secretary. He has now an opportunity which, under the Parliament Act, will not recur of showing that there is some sincerity in all his avowals of a desire to treat the minority fairly.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I have been moved to make a few remarks on this Amendment by the jeers which emanated from hon. Members sitting below the Gangway at some remarks of my hon.

    2055
    Friend. I think the House of Commons is the only place on the face of the earth where Members seem to be determined to ignore the fact that in the main our objection, not only to this Clause, but to the whole Bill, lies in the hostility—I am sorry to say—which exists between the various Churches in Ireland. Everyone who knows anything about it knows perfectly well that if we Protestants, Presbyterians, Churchmen, or whatever we may be, thought for a moment that we should receive fair treatment from our Roman Catholic fellow countrymen, and particularly from the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, we should look upon the proposal for Home Rule in a very different spirit and from a very different point of view. Why do hon. Members below the Gangway make jeering remarks at my hon. Friend when he states the plain truth?
    HON. MEMBERS: "Hope."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: My name has been mentioned by various hon. Members below the Gangway. If that is so, ought not they to state why they mention my name, and what object they have in view? Otherwise I submit they are out of order.
    Mr. C. GRAIG: Hon. Members below the Gangway will not get away from the plain facts of the case by referring to my hon. Friend or in any other way. The fact remains that this religious hostility between the various sects in Ireland is at the bottom of our opposition to Home Rule. Everyone knows that, and what is the good of trying to disguise the fact here? This is a most important Amendment from that point of view. I frankly admit that until I had studied it I was inclined to look upon the word "disestablish" in the other sense than that which has been used by my hon. Friend; but, after hearing what has been said, I quite agree that it would be open to an Irish Parliament to construe the word "disestablish" in the way that he has construed it, and he has opened to me a danger which until he had spoken I was not conscious of. After hearing his speech I may say that this is a most important Amendment, for, without introducing words similar to these, it is quite clear that the Irish Parliament will have power to interfere with the constitution of any Church in Ireland. You may scoff at our fears, but a great many of you know they are perfectly well founded. [An HON. MEMBER: "We know you think so."] I
    2056
    have heard it stated by hon. Members and by innumerable so-called Liberals outside the House. It is perfectly ridiculous to pretend that there are not a large number of Liberals, or so-called Liberals, throughout the country who believe that our fears on this point are well founded. That being so, I say we are entitled to have some such words in the Bill as have been suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I understand from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Irish Office that the question of interfering with the constitution of religious bodies should be left to the Irish Parliament, because as between the two Parliaments he thought that was the proper Parliament to leave it to. That, I think, is a most important matter. There is no matter that ought less to be left to the Irish Parliament than a question of that kind. If there is one matter on which you ought to have limitations, and on which you ought to reserve the right of the Imperial Parliament, it is as regards the constitution of religious bodies in Ireland. I thought I was moving my Amendment on the principle of religious equality. If there is one matter that is more likely to lead to religious strife in Ireland than another, it would be the leaving of the Irish Parliament to deal with the religious constitution of existing bodies. So important do I consider that it should be a matter for the-Imperial Parliament that I will certainly go to a Division on my Amendment.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I cordially support the Amendment, although I do not like the word "disestablish." I believe that as the Clause stands at present there is nothing to prevent an Irish Parliament interfering with the property of Protestant denominations, and having regard to-the cleavage of opinion in Ireland on religious matters, I believe it is the duty of this Parliament to make quite sure in framing the Clause that no opportunity be given to the Dublin Parliament to interfere with the status of Protestant denominations. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on conscientious men anywhere, but any one who has read the history of Ireland must feel that the Protestant minority do require, in stating this constitution, that there shall be complete security for that minority. I venture to-say that no one who has read the oath taken by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and who knows the attitude which they

    2057
    manifest—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no oath."] I have read the oath myself, and I venture to say that if words mean what they are supposed to express it is an argument that they are justified in extinguishing, if possible, the Protestant faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I like the interpretation which I have placed upon the "words, and, that being so, I say that the responsibility rests on this Parliament to see that justice be done to all—Roman Catholic and Protestant alike. I believe that can only be secured by the insertion of the words suggested in the Amendment. It is evident that the Government see the necessity for safeguarding to some extent the Protestant minority because they prohibit any action being taken under the Ne Temere decree. I venture to say that in any country where such a decree as that can be enunciated and have such an effect as it had in the McCann case it is necessary that this Parliament should see that no loophole be left whereby any such persecution as was manifested in that case can be given effect to. I feel confident that this is a simple measure of justice to the Protestant minority in Ireland, not to dictate terms, but to see that in the eye of the law they should have fair play, and that their position should be duly safeguarded by the action of this House.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I was a little sorry, I admit that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on a somewhat technical word came before other Amendments which I wanted to have discussed. I cannot accept the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are two points of substance. One is the property, the vast property, of the Protestant Church and of the Presbyterian Church. That has got to be considered, and that was an Amendment which I hoped would be considered some time ago on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher). We were quite prepared to hear what he had to say, and if it was thought desirable, to introduce language to secure the property. We were willing to consider that with the view of giving hon. Gentlemen opposite the protection they desire. Then there is the question of constitution to which the hon. and learned Gentleman attaches some importance. He seems to think that the constitution of these religious bodies, Presbyterians, or the Protestant Church of Ireland, would be likely to raise in the new
    2058
    Parliament, quite apart from property or any question of that sort, some question of altering their constitution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am arguing the question, and I want you to consider it. I say that the constitution of these churches deals with domestic matters and the determining of the particular form of faith of those belonging to the churches, and apart from property, apart from interference with endowments, apart from taking away from these religious bodies some money or estates that belong to them, I cannot conceive an. Irish Parliament-—except at the instigation of these religious bodies themselves, who might require Parliamentary interference or assistance— interfering of their own motion in matters which do not concern them, such as dioceses, synods, and regulations of the Presbyterians, and the Protestant Church of Ireland.
    Why, in the name of commonsense, should Roman Catholics interfere with them? If you say that you object to the Dublin Parliament interfering with property, I understand your objection. Very well, property touches everybody, and quite properly. But as to this constitutional point, the notion that the Church of Rome would wish for some purpose of its own to interfere with the constitution—[Interruption]—The hon. Member said quite frankly that it is a Roman Catholic Parliament. Can you conceive of anybody coming and asking this House to interfere with the constitution of the Baptists? I could understand you wanting to take the Baptists' property, but can you imagine anyone coming to this House and saying, "I am dissatisfied with the constitution of the Baptists. I do not like their methods or system of teaching their doctrines. I do not like their constitution or their order. I do not like their mode of church government, and I propose in future that the Baptists should adopt the synodical form instead of the congregational form, and that they should require the sanction of the synod of the locality as the Presbyterians do, instead of doing it simply as a congregational matter"? That, to me, is an almost impossible conception. But there are those who think it is possible and that it is of great consequence. I do not think it is of any consequence, but I would say to my hon. and learned Friend opposite, as he and others think it is, that though I cannot accept his words now, I am quite prepared to consider whether we should not insert some restrictive words

    2059
    in the sense of an Amendment which appears later on, that the constitution of religious bodies should not be interfered with by this Irish Parliament except on their instigation or with their consent. I suppose that the hon. Member does not really want to prevent any religious body in Ireland, if it wants some Parliamentary assistance, from going to the Parliament nearest to hand to have effect given to their wishes, but I am quite prepared, though I do not give any pledge on this subject, to consider words with my hon. and learned Friend to secure that the constitution of religious bodies shall, except at their own wish, be removed from the purview of the Parliament. We shall come to the question of property on the Amendment later on and we can then discuss it.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I should like to meet the right hon. Gentleman on this point, because I think it an extremely important one. He says that it is most unlikely that the Parliament would desire to interfere with the constitution of any Church apart from the property of the Church. I cannot accept that, because we have got an instance in which there is interference with the constitution of the Church in what many people think a very vital matter. I take that as an illustration, and say that it is absurd to say that a Parliament may not deal with a question of this sort. Looking to the future, no one can say that, and the only question, if the right hon. Gentleman agrees with what I say, is to take precautions that they cannot do so. I am not dealing with mere voluntary action, because if any religious body in Ireland or elsewhere wishes of its own motion and desire to alter the constitution of its Church, I have nothing to do with that. What I wish to put quite straight is that there shall not be legislative power, at any rate, against the will of a religious denomination, which might under particular conditions be a very small minority, to alter it. I do not think the question of minority and majority have anything to do with religious questions at all. Therefore I want to make it quite clear, as a fundamental proposition outside the power of a majority, that in future the constitution of religious bodies in Ireland cannot be compulsorily altered by the new Irish Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will introduce words to that effect I shall be satisfied. I put it that there shall not be compulsory
    2060
    interference, because I realise what he said about voluntary interference. On the understanding that there will be a provision to that effect in this Clause, I shall not seek to go to a Division.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I cannot bring myself for a moment to conceive how any Parliament would seek to-interfere in the domestic constitution of any religious body. I cannot conceive what gain they could get, what money they could get, or what harm or injury they would inflict on any person. To come to any voluntary body, as all religious bodies in Ireland are, and say, "We are going to alter your constitution; we are going to interfere with your regulations," seems tome to be almost an impossible conception; but, at the same time, though I can see great difficulty in settling how the will of a voluntary religious body is to be determined, whether it is to be a mere majority or a majority of a certain size, yet if it is put to me that if this Irish Parliament claims the right to interfere with the constitution of voluntary religious bodies, I do not think it should have that right, and I am quite willing to give a pledge to introduce words which I think would have that effect.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had gone the whole length when he used the word "consider," but if now he says that he is willing to introduce words to carry out the view which I have expressed as regards compulsory interference, then I withdraw the Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That the Amendment be withdrawn."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: As there has been so flattering a demand for my opinion on this subject, I feel bound to give it. My view as to this whole Bill is that I am against any subordinate Parliament in any part of the United Kingdom, and if there are to be any subordinate Parliaments I want their sphere of action and their power, whatever use they are likely to make of it, restricted in every possible way. That I would apply to a Bill for any part of the United Kingdom in any sphere of activity, and I say with regard to this particular Amendment, though for different reasons from my hon. Friend's, that I am just as much entitled to support it as the blackest Orangeman from Portadown.
    Mr. HAYDEN: You will vote with them in any case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in the first paragraph of the Clause, after the word "endow," to insert the words "or interfere with the existing endowments or property of."
    The object of this Amendment is to prohibit the Irish Parliament from making laws which will have the effect of diverting the property of any religious body to other uses. In the Parliament of 1893 I moved practically the same Amendment, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, then Mr. Morley, admitting that the point was a good one, accepted an Amendment in substantially the form in which I propose it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland first said "the point is quite a good one, but is already provided for in the Bill," and he pointed to two provisions in the Bill which he said met the point. But after Debate he was convinced that the point was not met in the Bill as it stood, and thereupon he accepted an Amendment prohibiting the Irish Parliament from passing any laws diverting the property of any religious body. The present position is in some respects similar to and in some respects a great deal worse than that of 1893, because in 1893 there were certain safeguards in the Bill which do not exist now. The Government are never tired of telling us in answer to almost every Amendment we propose, "You have already got plenty of safeguards in the Bill." With regard to this matter in general they are never tired of pointing to Clause 3, and saying, "Here are ample safeguards for all religious interests," and I doubt not that on many a platform Clause 3 has been read out to an admiring, perhaps, I might add, in some cases, ignorant audience, as though it were an ample provision for every form of religion and every endowment of every form of religion. I assert, and I challenge the Government to contradict me when I say that, as the Bill stands, there is no word or line in it which would in any way restrict the power of the Irish Parliament to divert the property of religious denominations to secular uses. If that be so, I say that it ought not to be allowed to stand as it is. If the Government were disposed to adopt the methods which were largely adopted by the Government in 1893, in dealing with the then Home Rule Bill, why, of course, they would accept my
    2062
    Amendment at once. But they have already in the course of the discussion on this Bill shown that they adopt a very different attitude, and they have already told us—I think the Prime Minister told us in one of his early speeches—that they have expressly left out from this Bill certain provisions which were thought necessary to be inserted in the Bill of 1893. I think the Prime Minister gave some reasons, or alleged reasons, which were totally inadmissible.
    The real reason why they have not inserted these safeguards which were put into the Bill of 1893, and which are not found in this Bill, is that they are more susceptible to the wishes of hon. Members who sit on the Nationalist benches than was the Parliament of which Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister, and which, of course, never submitted to such servitude as that under which the present Government labour. Therefore I am not surprised that on these proposed Amendments and safeguards they give various reasons for refusing them, though they never once give the real reason, that is that they are not permitted by the hon. Member for Waterford and his Friends to answer them. I suppose we shall be told to-night that, after all, this objection is founded on the view that the Irish Parliament will be endowed with a double dose of original sin. We have had that suggestion before. On this occasion it is not necessary to suggest that they have a double dose of original sin, or, indeed, any greater dose of sin, original or otherwise, than have hon. Members who sit on the benches opposite. What, after all, are the Government of the present day doing? They have introduced a Bill into this House for the purpose of diverting the endowments of a religious body in Wales from their original uses, and turning them to secular uses. Is it not possible, to say the least, that the same reasons which have caused the Government to bring forward this Bill for diverting the small endowments of the Church in Wales from their original purposes, might animate the Irish Parliament, and induce or impel them to introduce a Bill in the Irish Parliament for diverting the religious endowments in Ireland from their existing uses. What reasons maybe which are to-day animating the Government to pursue their policy of Welsh Disendowment I do not know and I do not care. It may be original sin, or merely predatory instinct, or, indeed, it may be pressure from a

    2063
    relatively small section of their supporters which they are not able to resist. Whatever their motive may be, it is to say the least of it not improbable that the same motive may animate the Irish Parliament some day, and induce them to bring in a Bill for diverting from their proper purposes the endowments belonging to religious bodies.
    The Irish Government might have, I do not say some justification, but some excuse, for such a Bill, which this Government cannot allege for their Bill for Welsh Disestablishment. The Government do not say that their reason for Welsh Disestablishment is to get money; but when the Irish Government is set up they will be a Government hunting on every side for some means, legitimate or illegitimate, of getting money, and they may say, "We have got no money for the public service; here are funds possessed by different religious bodies; why should not we take some of those religious funds and convert them to our own purposes and enable us to carry on this so-called measure for the better government of Ireland?" That is one of the dangers which I think you run when you set up this Irish Parliament without such a restriction as I suggest. In the case of the Church of Ireland, there is a special reason why this provision which I suggest should be inserted. The Church of Ireland, as we all know, under the Disestablishment Act of 1869, were confirmed in their possession of some of the ancient cathedrals and some of the endowments of the Church of Ireland. As the matter stands with regard to cathedrals, we know that the view of the Roman Catholic Church—I am not complaining for a moment of it—is that, historically, the Roman Catholic Church are entitled to all the cathedrals and ancient churches of Ireland. That is their claim; and they also go further and say that, notwithstanding the long continued relation of these Cathedral Churches with the Church of Ireland, and notwithstanding the fact that the Act of 1869 expressly confirms the right of the Church of Ireland to these cathedrals, their title to those cathedrals is a good one.
    I am not going further into that, but I shall refer the House to a recent speech of Archbishop Walsh delivered in Dublin in October last year, in which, while disclaiming any intention to act oppressively to the Church of Ireland, he condemned as
    2064
    utterly unlawful and utterly illegitimate the process by which St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin had got into the possession of the Church of Ireland. There are numerous other authorities for that proposition. I do not for a moment impugn the sincerity of the Roman Catholic Church in putting forward their claim. I do not discuss whether it is a good claim or not, but that view being as strongly held as it is by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland at this moment, I see great danger that the Parliament in Ireland, consisting largely as it must necessarily consist of Roman Catholic members, might be induced by these Roman Catholic Members to divert some of those cathedrals, and hand them over to the Roman Catholic Church. I say that is a danger which ought to be guarded against. But it is not only with regard to the Church of Ireland itself that this danger arises. There is another Church in Ireland, and a very large Church, mainly in the North of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. The Presbyterian Church of Ireland is possessed of very considerable endowments. Previous to the Act of 1869 the Presbyterian Church of Ireland was endowed out of State funds: but when the Church of Ireland was disestablished then the Presbyterian Church was disendowed as well. The State handed over to the Presbyterian Church at that time a very considerable sum of money by way of commutation. An hon. Friend reminds me that that amounted to £750,000. That sum has ever since remained and now is part of the property and endowment of the Presbyterian Church.
    That is not the only endowment the Presbyterian Church have got. They have got other large endowments which were subscribed for by their own followers, and to those endowments, whether given to them by the State or raised for them by their own followers, I conceive that they have as good and indefeasible a right as any body, public or private, in this country. I ask the Government is it not right that they should insert an express Clause in this Act to prevent the Irish Parliament from even having the temptation to interfere with those endowments? I shall be told, I suppose, as we have been told on former occasions, that to insert such a provision would mean distrust of the Irish Parliament. Let me ask what reason is there, beyond that suggestion of distrust, why such a provision

    2065
    should not be inserted in this Bill? Clause 3 as it stands admits the necessity of preventing the Irish Parliament from interfering with religion. It prevents it from endowing religions; it prevents it from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Does that imply no distrust? If your confidence was so great in the Irish Parliament, or was well founded, would Clause 3 have appeared at all? Clause 3 goes on preventing the Irish Parliament from giving any powers, privileges, or advantages, or imposing any disability or disadvantage on account of religious belief. If it is necessary, as everyone admits it is necessary, to have prohibitive Clauses of that sort in the Bill, what reason can you allege for not having a prohibitive Clause protecting the endowments, such as I suggest by my Amendment? If I may summarise the matter in two or three words, I would put it in this way: If it is to be supposed that the Irish Parliament intends to exercise this power, which they have under the Bill at present, of diverting the endowments or property of religious bodies to secular uses, then I say it is the undoubted and clear right of all those interested in religious bodies in Ireland to prevent them exercising that power. If, on the other hand, you tell us that they have no such intention and that the Irish Parliament would not dream of diverting those funds, then I say this Amendment will do no possible harm and it may do a great deal of good, and on those grounds I beg to move.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, S.): I am most surprised at the temerity of the hon. and learned Member for York in moving this Amendment, which is, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, offensive to the Irish people. It is an insult to the Irish people, in the words of the Solicitor-General, and we are to show our trust in the Irish people and to trust them to do everything right. Those are the views that are put forward, and this is almost contrary to the general opinion of hon. Members on the other side of the House, who, I suppose, consider that it would be quite right that your Protestant cathedrals in Ireland should be handed over to the Roman Catholics, and that the Roman Catholic people should get any moneys which are now in the hands of any Protestant body in Ireland at the present moment because those cathedrals were theirs as of ancient right and the moneys the Protestant people have got were moneys filched from Roman
    2066
    Catholic churches. The people will all believe that and they will send to Parliament Members whom they think will give effect to their wishes. It almost strikes me dumb to hear the hon. Member get up and dare to move such an Amendment as this in the House. But if the Irish Nationalist Parliament does not wish to do this, what reason is there for not accepting this Amendment? It is not taking anything from the Irish Nationalist Parliament. It is only asking to preserve to religious bodies certain funds and certain endowments which they have at the present time. I know the Chief Secretary for Ireland is in a very great difficulty because the master of the Government is not here to-night to tell him whether he will accept this Amendment or not. He is then in this position, that he has to wait for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) to get up and to say this is an Amendment which, really, though it is an insult and offensive to the Irish people, ought to be accepted. And then the Chief Secretary says, "We will accept it," or the Chief Secretary may come down and say. "Well, really we think this Amendment ought to be accepted, but I have to think about it," and the real reason he thinks about it is that he has to consult the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as he did in the last Amendment. "I must," he says, "wait until I see if he will approve of it."
    Mr. BIRRELL: What Amendment.
    Mr. J. GORDON: Here is an Amendment, and a commonsense man like myself and those who are members of the Nonconformist Churches who would like to preserve their own property, ask what justification there is for refusing to accede to this Amendment giving protection to religious bodies for their monies and their endowments. They ask, if you inflict upon Ireland what we regard to be this terrible calamity of Home Rule, that, at all events, you should do something to protect the property belonging to those religious bodies. Are you so utterly lost to all sympathy which your Protestant fellow citizens as to say, "We shall run the risk even in face of their determined opinion that it would be a grave danger, we shall leave them to run the risk of having their property filched and taken away from them by a Parliament which we create, and over which we shall not be able to exercise any control in reference to this matter." I should like to hear from the Chief Secretary or whoever answers on behalf of the

    2067
    Government, what is their objection to putting in these simple words, or what fair reason can they adduce for saying that they shall not provide that the Irish Parliament shall not interfere with the endowment of any religious body. Does an Irish Parliament wish to do so? I am tired of listening to this "Oh, we trust the Irish people." Trust them or not trust them, what are you taking from them by inserting an Amendment of this kind. The Irish Church, when it was disestablished, got a very large sum of money, and a great deal of money which had belonged to the Irish Church, and whether rightly or wrongly is a question I am not entering into, was taken away from them by Parliament, and was handed over to other Imposes in Ireland, and is being used for those purposes. What is to prevent an Irish Parliament saying that the Imperial Parliament did not go half far enough, and here are funds which are ear-marked as part of the funds belonging to that Church which was disestablished and disendowed by the Imperial Parliament, and why should we not take some of it to meet our necessities. Is not that a logical conclusion? And what power would you have to prevent them? Would they not turn to you and say, "We are only following the lesson you taught us in dealing with Church property"?
    The Presbyterian body, in which personally I am interested, have a very large sum of money—£700,000 or £800,000—which has been supplemented by their putting their hands into their own pockets and by people interested in the Church leaving large sums of money under their wills. That money has been invested under the control of trustees, who have the authority and sanction of this Imperial Parliament for their existence. You are going to hand the whole of that over to be dealt with by the Irish Parliament. What answer have you if they say, "We are only following your example when we say that this fund, which was originally public property, and which came out of the pockets of the ancient Irish people, should be taken hold of and put back in their pockets"? Even supposing they do not want to do that, there is nothing to prevent their saying, "You ought to invest these funds by lending them to the Irish Government for certain purposes." How are you to control them in that matter? What is to prevent them from putting the money into the worst securities of the Irish
    2068
    Government? I think that, at all events, men who have any conscience left should see that the religious bodies in the country are protected from any chance of spoliation and plunder which might arise under this measure—more particularly when they are taking away nothing from their dearly beloved friends of the Irish Nationalist party.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John. Simon): If, as I suppose is really the case, the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment desired to commend it to the Government and to present it in a conciliatory spirit, their notions of what is conciliatory are certainly very strange. For my part, before I deal with the Amendment, I must say in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gordon) that he is not the only representative of Nonconformist feeling in this House. I am glad to avow that I, too, come from a Nonconformist stock, and I should indeed be ashamed if it went forth as the real view of the Nonconformists of this country that they entertained these miserable suspicions of every religious opinion except their own. I regret more than I can say, that in the name of religion and charity opinions of that sort should be put forth in such a temper and spirit. As to the Amendment itself, which these two hon. Gentlemen are so anxious to get the Government to accept, I can relieve their anxiety. They both knew before they began to speak that an announcement had already been made, that as it is proposed to modify the Clause in view of protecting the constitution of these bodies, so that is not the slightest objection to making a modification as regards their property.
    Mr. GORDON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to say that I knew perfectly well what was in his mind. I did not.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a statement which I beg to characterise as absolutely unfounded. I had not the slightest notion when I got up to move my Amendment, that he was going to accept it, and it would have been perfectly open for him to have said in two or three words that that was his intention. I assumed that the Government would treat it in the way they have treated other Amendments. Therefore I beg to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that his statement about me had no foundation whatever.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I offer my apologies to both hon. and learned Gentlemen. One of them claims to be a gentleman of common sense, and they both claim to follow the Debate. I supposed therefore that they were aware of what the Chief Secretary had said. Of course I perfectly accept their statement, and they were justified in interrupting me when I attributed to them a state of knowledge which is not theirs. What must be their gratification, surprise, and pleasure to learn that the proposal which they make on behalf of Nonconformists, is one which in principle the Government do not find any difficulty in accepting. I congratulate them on their good fortune. The remaining question is as to the proper form in which this protection should be put. The Mover of the Amendment would be the first to recognise that it vas not intended by asking for this change to make it impossible for a railway company, or for the promoters of some other work of utility to acquire, if need be, under Lands Clauses Act terms, the fabric of a particular church or chapel if good cause is shown. I am not attempting to turn aside from the real proposition which lie put, forward by pointing out that we have to be careful to safeguard ourselves from any such consequence. It is not desired, I presume, by those who support this Amendment, that the Irish Parliament should be debarred from giving authority in a proper case for such an ordinary case of taking over the property even of a religious body. Subject to cases of that kind which we have to be careful to provide for, I can say—and I speak in this matter, of course, with the authority of the Government—that in principle, if this is really, as of course it is, such a satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is no objection to the Amendment.
    Personally, I do not believe that, because the majority of the nation happens to be Catholic it is therefore reasonable and proper to suppose that they are going to behave in an outrageous manner. That is, perhaps, because I am such a poor Nonconformist that I do not understand the real opinion of Nonconformists. Therefore whilst the words which the hon. Gentleman proposes do not appear to me to be the most apt, and while we have to guard ourselves against incidental consequences such as those to which I have referred, it is our intention to introduce a provision which will meet the substance of the case, and secure that in regard to property of
    2070
    religious bodies in Ireland it shall not be within the competence of the Irish Parliament to deal with it in a manner which would amount to its diversion for improper purposes, or contrary to the church trusts. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that that is at any rate a straightforward and clear statement, made quite unconditionally. I must ask him to take my word for it that it is not from a desire to criticise the words, but with the real desire to carry out the intention which he has at heart, that I ask him not to press the Amendment in its present terms in face of the statement I have made.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I want to be quite clear. As I understand the Solicitor-General, the limitation on the words which he thinks are necessary would only really be a limitation to reserve similar to a case of a railway company seeking by private Bill legislation to take a particular property? In this case it would be the property of one of these religious bodies for public purposes. That is the only limitation he suggests?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: That is one which occurs to me; but the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—no one better—the case of a limitation of that kind. I want the Committee carefully to consider limitation similar to the one I referred to which might arise in another direction.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I want to make it quite clear. That would be a case in which in the property which is so taken there was pecuniary compensation. As regards religious endowments, of course, everyone will agree that cases of that kind ought to be provided for. That is the only limitation that is in his mind. One question as regards the general matter. I want to-say, quite shortly, that at the present time, when Members of the Nonconformist bodies in this country are attacking endowments of the Church, that the simulated virtue of the Solicitor-General is rather out of place. I hope when the question does arise in a larger sphere that he will bear in mind what he has said this evening.
    Sir G. PARKER: I think the Solicitor-General imparted unnecessary heat into his remarks. The tone of his speech throughout was rather rasping. But I want to make this point: The Solicitor-General said that my hon. Friends were not justified in casting suspicion upon the intentions, or the possible intentions, of

    2071
    the Irish Parliament; and that they were not willing to trust to the fair play, the honour, and the honesty of their Catholic fellow-citizens in Ireland. I want to recall to the Solicitor-General, who is learned in historical and constitutional law this fact: That in 1791, when French Canada and Upper or English Canada were united, the very suspicion which he speaks of, and that anxiety which he condemns, was the dominant feeling on the part of the French Catholics in Canada. They pressed their point with so much force that when the British Government said that the status of the priesthood of the Catholic Church and the position of the endowments of the Catholic Church in Quebec, the revenues, the tithes, and so on, would not be interfered with, that did more than anything else to produce a good feeling on the part of the French people of Canada—a quarter of a century after the conquest.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: It will be the same here.
    Sir G. PARKER: Well, but then how was the Solicitor-General justified in accusing my hon. Friends of being unduly suspicious? "Miserable suspicion," he called it. My hon. Friends were absolutely justified. They would be lacking in their duty as representing the Nonconformists and the Established Church in Ireland and in this country if they did not put forward this claim which has always been put forward in such circumstances in the British Empire.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A point emerges directly out of the statement of the Solicitor-General, but it is not confined to the particular question which we are now discussing. The Solicitor-General made it perfectly clear—I was in some doubt upon the subject—that it was not the speeches of my two hon. Friends that had influenced him. He intimated that the Government had considered this Amendment—as we know every Government does consider in advance Amendments—and that this was not one of those cases in which the Debate altered the preconceived notions of the Government, causing them to accept the Amendment. That being so, and it having been the intention of the Government beforehand to accept this Amendment, with an alternative, I venture to say that it would be to the convenience of the Committee, and I think it is due to Mem-
    2072
    bers and critics of the Bill, that in a case of this kind the Government ought to put their alternative on the Paper. That is always to the convenience of the Committee in any Bill, and it is specially necessary when we are discussing a Bill under such conditions as prevail at the present time. If the Government had their words waiting they could have moved them as an Amendment to the one we have been discussing; this Amendment would have been withdrawn, and we should have turned the discussion at once, if necessary, on to the words of the Government. The discussion would have been continuous, and the House would have dealt with this matter at a moment when it was prepared to deal with it. But when the Government come down and say they are prepared to accept the spirit of the thing, but must be allowed to produce their own words, and do not produce them till a subsequent time, they must remember that under the circumstances in which we are it is at once a matter of the greatest doubt whether we shall ever have the opportunity to consider them.
    We shall see them some day on the Paper. Very likely they may have to be voted into the Bill when some night the the guillotine falls and discussion may not be possible. My appeal to the Government is that when they are prepared to accept the spirit of an Amendment, and they think it necessary to offer some alternative words, they ought in advance to put their alternative words upon the Paper, so that we may all have an opportunity of seeing what they are, and so discussion may proceed in its regular course, and we may not be asked to withdraw words on which we set a value without knowing in the least what are the words the Government are going to produce in their place. I am not suggesting that the Government are quibbling over words, but very often differences of opinion do arise as to the adequacy, even of Government words. Very often a little debate shows the Government that their words are not wide enough to cover all the cases they wish to cover, or to include cases which they have no intention of including. I make my appeal for Bills which will be discussed in their normal course, but I think the appeal has a special force on an occasion like this, when, if you do not deal with questions finally at the moment they arise, there is a very great probability you will never have an opportunity of discussing them at all.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a very reasonable appeal; and whenever we can meet it we shall be very glad to do so. And we have with that object in mind prepared words which I will read to the Committee, in order that the Committee may see that we are really not only saying that we will meet them, but that we have attempted to do so by drafting words which I will propose as embodying what my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General has said would be inserted in the Bill. The words are to insert after the word "thereof" ["or prohibit the free exercise thereof"] the following words, "or divert property from any religious denomination except for roads, railways, lighting, or drainage works, or other works of public utility."
    Sir HILDREO CARLILE: And that there shall be compensation?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have no objection, if hon. Members think that that is a serious defect in the Amendment, to add the words, "upon the payment of compensation." I have no objection whatever to doing that, but I think it naturally follows. I am very anxious to meet any reasonable objection, and if there is any reasonable apprehension that property can be taken or diverted from religious the words "upon the payment of compensation, I will add at the end of my Amendment the words "upon the payment of compensation." That, I think, would meet any objection. These are the words we suggest as embodying to the full what was said by my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government, and I hope the Committee will think that we have really attempted to meet these points by the insertion of the words I suggest in the Bill.
    Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman add the form of the compensation, because the expression "compensation" by itself is hardly adequate?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will consider that.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not think the words of the Attorney-General are very satisfactory. I think what he means is this, not to divert property from any religious denomination except for such purposes as roads, railways, lighting, or drainage works, or other works of public utility, and then only on the payment of compensation and that the amount of compensation should be invested for the benefit of
    2074
    the same religious denomination. That makes it quite clear I think. I do not want the words or divert property only for certain purposes, but also that the words should be put in, when you get the compensation provided that the money should be used for the same purpose.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who is an authority on these matters, whether he considers it necessary to add such words as he suggests. You cannot divert property for works of public utility except upon the payment of compensation. It necessarily follows that compensation must go to the body whose property was diverted. The Amendment makes it perfectly clear that you have that limitation. I suggest that it will not be necessary to-insert these words.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: As the Attorney-General asks me I think the words are necessary to make it perfectly clear. The Attorney-General says that without the insertion of these words you would arrive at the same result. I do not think that necessarily follows. I ask him to put in those words so that there may be no doubt about it at all. If you put in these words, the question can never be raised afterwards. This Committee will have clearly expressed its intention and no subsequent difference will arise.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I would like to-meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. I suggest that if the Committee thinks fit to-adopt these words we will consider if it is necessary to add them, and if upon careful consideration, we think there is any doubt we will add the words. It does not occur to me at the present moment that they are necessary.
    Mr. HOARE: I should like to know exactly what the Attorney-General means by "works of public utility." It seems to me that they cover a very wide field. I cannot help thinking you might include under that head all the various objects for which you want the property you wish to-take from the Church in Wales. I own that I much prefer the phraseology of my hon. Friend's Amendment as it stands, and I cannot see why the Government should not accept it and all the more so-as the words of the Amendment are almost identical with those accepted in 1893. Mr. Gladstone at that time at once accepted

    2075
    a Sub-section proposed from this side of the House in these words:—
    "divert the property, or without its consent alter the constitution of any religious body."
    These words seem to me to meet the case very much better than the extremely vague words we have here from the Attorney-General. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Amendment, but will maintain his own words which cover the ground much more accurately than those of the Attorney-General, and that we shall have no such vague words as "works of public utility." Let me draw the attention of the Committee to this curious fact. At the present moment there are two prominent Bills before this House. The arguments by which the Government have attempted to justify the one are absolutely inconsistent with the arguments we have just heard upon this particular Amendment. It would be out of order to go into the argument urged in favour of the Welsh Church Bill; but it is relevant to this Amendment to say that the two arguments: first, that the majority has a right to deal with religious endowment; and, secondly, that a nationality has no right to deal with religious endowment, are entirely at variance with the concession which the Attorney-General has outlined. By your concession you deny to Irish nationality what you are claiming as a right for Welsh nationality. Surely the concession we have heard outlined by the Attorney-General is another step in the game of make-believe that we have been playing here for the last fortnight.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: You have disestablishment in Ireland.
    Mr. HOARE: We all know that paper safeguards are no good, and now we are engaged in a task congenial to right lion. Gentlemen opposite, of window-dressing. It seems to me that if we are engaged in that operation, we should do it thoroughly. Accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York and make the proposal complete and not be put off with the vague words suggested by the Attorney-General.
    Mr. MOORE: I object to this word "compensation," and I should like to explain why. Our compensation code in Ireland is under the Railways Compensation Act. The Railways (Ireland) Act is not exempted from the powers of the Irish Parliament, and the Irish Parliament
    2076
    could amend the Railways (Ireland) Act in several ways. They could put in a provision that no religious body shall be paid more than a limited amount of compensation, or they could appoint a number of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as a jury to fix the amount. It is not exempted from their powers, and compensation means exactly what the Irish Parliament chooses to legislate for. Therefore, when the word "compensation" is used here, it should be defined to be in the sense provided for under the Lands Clauses Act or the Railways Acts, and not in the sense in which an Irish Parliament might determine. I think the word "compensation" ought to have after it the words "as at present defined by the Railways (Ireland) Act or the Lands Clauses Act," or otherwise the whole thing may be an absolute farce. I understand that adequate compensation is meant under the law as it stands, and not as it may be altered by an Irish Parliament, whose ideas of justice may be different to ours.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the Government intended to make this concession, why did they not put it in the original Bill? It was in the Bill of 1893, when it was introduced by the present Lord Morley, who accepted an Amendment that it should not be competent for the Irish Parliament to divert the property of any religious body. If that had been inserted in this Bill we should have known where we were. The Government gave us no inkling of their intention, but after the speech of the hon. Member for York and others they improvised words which are unsatisfactory to most of us, and they have asked the Committee to accept them. For my part, I do not in the least understand the exact purpose of the words suggested by the Attorney-General, who said, "Supposing it was found necessary to take the fabric of a church, we do not desire to give the Irish Parliament power to take the fabrics of any religious body in Ireland." It seems to me by far the best course would be to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, and then on Report make any Amendment which was found to be necessary. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) has pointed out very well the absurdly illogical position the Government are in in making this concession at all. In fact we have another Bill before us under which the Church in Wales is to be disendowed simply and solely on the ground that the Welsh nation demands it: and now the

    2077
    Irish nation in their own Parliament are not to be allowed to disendow any religious body in Ireland. I accept the concession, but it makes the position of the Government on the other matter absolutely illogical. Supposing this Bill passes and Welsh Disestablishment does not pass, and suppose, further, that the scheme of the First Lord of the Admiralty comes about, and we have a Home Rule Parliament for Wales, will that Parliament be debarred from disendowing the Church there?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I desire to draw attention to the very marked difference between the speech of the Attorney-General and that delivered by his colleague the Solicitor-General. The speech of the Attorney-General was conciliatory and courteous, whereas the air of supercilious ness and self-conscious superiority of the Solicitor-General was extremely offensive. The right hon. Gentleman prided himself that he came of a Nonconformist stock—
    Sir JOHN SIMON: If I was offensive I am sincerely sorry, and I will endeavour not to repeat the offence. I hope hon. Gentlemen will do the same.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I must acknowledge that that is a very full apology for what was undoubtedly a most offensive speech. With regard to what the Attorney-General has offered us in the way of Amendment, so far as I am concerned I do not think it meets the case at all. My hon. Friend has already pointed out that the expression "any works of public utility" is an extremely wide and varied expression. Although I shall, no doubt, incur the resentment of hon. Members opposite, I say frankly, but perfectly sincerely, that under such an Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has offered I can foresee that under the very terms offered to us, the Roman Catholic church would endeavour to get possession of some of our fabrics in Ireland. Personally I shall not be content with any other words unless they are as strong and conclusive and far-reaching as those contained in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher).
    Mr. BUTCHER: I wish to express my thanks to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for having done as much as they can to meet the very legitimate views which we have put forward. I do not like the words suggested by the Attorney-General. I think, for instance, that the words "works of public utility" are far too wide, and no one knows what they
    2078
    mean. I am not aware that those words have ever occurred in an Act of Parliament: before with similar subject matter. I do not like the provision as to compensation. I think the words "without payment of full compensation" would be better. One-would like to know how this compensation is to be assessed, because this is a very important matter. Is it to be in accordance with some Irish Act of Parliament of which we know nothing, or in accordance with the views of some Commissioners who may be appointed when taking up land and property belonging to different religious bodies. The Clause requires a good deal more consideration, and perhaps the Attorney-General will answer the point as to how this compensation is to be assessed. I understand the meaning is as regards pecuniary endowments and certain structures and fabrics of cathedrals and churches they are not to be interfered with, but as regards any land or other buildings belonging to church bodies they are not to be interfered with unless for railways, drainage, and so on, and in that case there is to be full compensation paid to be assessed in a proper manner.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should be very sorry to have any misunderstanding with regard to the effect of these words. I do not think it is suggested that there should be power to take the church fabric.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Cathedrals.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What he did say was that there should be no power to divert property from any religious denomination—and of course it includes a church fabric—except for "works of public utility." That is a well-known expression, and, though I will not pledge myself the words have been actually used in an Act of Parliament, I should have thought, there was no doubt about them. And, further, that there should be payment of compensation for the property which is taken. The reason I interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman was because he stated the effect of the concession my hon. and learned Friend had promised, and which I had embodied in the words I have read to the House, would be that under no circumstances would the fabric of a cathedral be taken. You might, for example, be going to construct a reservoir in a certain place, and have to take certain property belonging to a religious denomination. There is no reason you should not do that providing you pay compensation for it. That is what is intended by the

    2079
    Clause. It is essential there should be no misunderstanding as to the meaning of the words which we are introducing, and it is for that reason I was anxious to make plain to the hon. and learned Member that what he stated was going a little further than the concession offered by my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are we really to understand that the fabrics of cathedrals are not protected? I agree it may be necessary that some remote country church should be taken for a railway, but I think it is perfectly preposterous to suggest that it may be necessary to take the fabric of a cathedral for some drainage or reservoir. It ought to be made quite clear that is not to be done. May I ask the Attorney-General to answer the other point which I put, and which has not been answered, namely, how the compensation is to be arrived at.
    Mr. PETO: I want to try to emphasise the point which the hon. Member who has just sat down has been making. We understand Church fabrics may be taken for purposes of public utility. The hon. Member has just referred to drainage works, reservoirs, and things of that kind. I want to call the attention of the Attorney-General to a case which much more obviously may be held to be of public utility and of which we have had a recent example in some continental countries. I want to know whether, under the words he proposes to introduce, it would be perfectly legitimate for the Irish Parliament to transform any sacred edifice into police barracks, or something analagous to that. It seems to me that in the words "public utility" you have such a vague definition that almost anything might be included which would seem to the Government in power in Ireland at the time to be of public utility.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What we are doing by this Clause is to limit the powers of the Irish Church and to say what it is they cannot do. The words we are introducing are words which are inserted for the purpose of limiting those powers. We have said there shall be no power to divert property except for works of public utility. We cannot go on to provide how the compensation shall be assesesd, as that would make this Clause absolutely impossible. The words we are proposing will give effect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman desires, and I hope, therefore,
    2080
    he will withdraw his Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I thought we had met all the points raised by the hon. and learned Member. We have done everything we have been asked to do.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not think there is very much difference between us, having regard to the very proper and considerate way in which the Attorney-General has met this question. But there is one difficulty which still remains and about which those of us who know the realities of Irish life and conditions prevailing there are extremely anxious. I do-not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates that. I can thoroughly understand that he is anxious to reserve to the Irish Parliament powers where question of public health, general public convenience, sanitation, and kindred matters may require powers for the compulsory acquisition of churches or churchyards and ecclesiastical buildings more or less important. But what we are anxious to preserve and keep from the operation of such powers are our great national cathedrals. Take, for example, the City of Dublin—St. Patrick and Christ Church Cathedrals. Owing to the change that has taken place in social life in the City of Dublin the areas in which these two great cathedrals are situated have become some of the poorest parts of the city, as the tide of fashion in social life has diverted prosperity from those quarters to other districts. In the close vicinity of these great cathedrals are to be found some of the slum areas of Dublin. Thanks to the generosity of Lord Iveagh, the slums in the immediate vicinity of the cathedrals have been removed and their places taken by great blocks of artisans dwellings and by public parks. But there still remain some slum areas, and what we want to prevent is that under any pretence of public utility or under any scheme for the improvement of the city these Cathedrals shall be taken. In the same way we wish to protect cathedrals such as are to be found at Limerick and Kilkenny—we want to make it impossible in any scheme of suggested public utility that such buildings should be removed, as no money compensation could adequately replace them. We want to safeguard the edifices of these great historical buildings. I am quite confident, having regard to the spirit in which the Attorney-General has met this, that he will be able to solve this difficulty; therefore I hope we shall not go to a Division upon this Amendment, but that we shall

    2081
    accept the pledge given to us by the Attorney-General, and that either in the course of the next few days, or upon Report, he will undertake to provide for this in such a way as will secure to us the continued existence and preservation of these great cathedrals.
    Mr. MOORE: I am not satisfied about this compensation. The Irish Parliament can appoint a Commission consisting of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) and any two of his colleagues to fix the price. They can repeal the Lands Clauses Acts and the Railways (Ireland) Act. There ought to be machinery by which the compensation is made fair compensation, and not compensation fixed in an arbitrary way by the Irish Parliament when trying to acquire an Irish cathedral.
    Sir H. CARLILE: The Attorney-General has said it will be extremely difficult to specify in terms the form which the assessment of the compensation will take. I can quite realise that it might be difficult to do so. There can be no objection to full compensation being given. That, I have no doubt, is the intention of the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the word "full," otherwise the word "compensation" means absolutely nothing?
    Sir E. CARSON: The point that has been made by my colleague in the representation of Dublin University is one about which we feel extreme anxiety. If the right hon. Gentleman knew the many things that have been said—I do not want to go into controversial matters— with reference to these cathedrals, he would understand our fears upon the subject. I do not suppose that anybody would suggest that in any circumstances, say the Cathedral of Canterbury, St. Paul's, will ever be demolished for public purposes in this country. We feel exactly the same with regard to three or four cathedrals in Ireland. What I am going to ask the right hop. Gentleman is this: Cannot he give us an undertaking that he will reconsider this question, with a view to meeting us upon the question of these ancient cathedrals which we are so anxious to preserve? I do not want him at the present moment to give us any words with reference to the matter, but if he can say that the matter will be seriously considered by him, so as to try to meet the very natural objections we feel, I certainly shall advise my hon. and learned Friend not to go to a Division,
    2082
    but leave the matter to be dealt with subsequently.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I certainly will give that undertaking. It is a matter upon which apparently there is very strong feeling and some apprehension. All I desire to say in reference to it now is that, having listened to the Debate and heard the appeal made to us, we will consider the question and see whether we can give effect to the views of the two right hon. Gentlemen who represent Dublin University who have spoken, and see in what form words can be introduced. I can assure them that the matter will receive, not only careful consideration, but we shall attempt, so far as we possibly can, to give effect to them.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Upon that undertaking given and on the understanding that the words will be introduced now or on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. CARLILE: I beg to move, after the word "prohibit" ["or prohibit the free exercise thereof"], to insert the words, "or restrict."
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am prepared to accept these words. It is possible that "prohibit" might have a more limited meaning than we intend.
    Mr. ASTOR: I beg to move, after the word "marriage" ["a condition of the validity of any marriage"], to insert the words, "or whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law in accordance with settled principles and precedents, or may be denied the equal protection of the laws, or whereby private property may be taken without just compensation."
    These words are taken almost verbatim from the Home Rule Bill of 1893. They were inserted by the framers of that Bill and were copied from the Constitution of the United States. They were put into the United States Constitution in order to protect life and liberty and property, in order, that is to say, to protect the civil liberty of the subjects of that country. The words of my Amendment are the words as they were in the Home Rule Bill when it came out of Committee. When first introduced there was a Sub-section in the

    2083
    Home Rule Bill of 1893 which did not have the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents," and those words were added in Committee to strengthen the Sub-section. We have been discussing the protection of religious liberty in that country, and the object of my Amendment is to extend the same security to civil liberty. There is at the present moment in Ireland a real fear as to the consequences of this Home Rule Bill. I will not at the moment discuss whether they are justified or not, but hon. Members would make a great mistake if they did not realise that the fear is genuine. There has in the past been cleavage between landlord and tenant, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Unionist and Home Ruler. Only yesterday we saw the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) state in this House that he was prepared to hand over the industrial population in Ireland, who are a minority, to the control of the majority of the non-industrial population in Dublin. There are many of us who have not the same cheery optimism as to the legislation which will be turned out by the Parliament in Dublin. After all, those of ns in this House and the people in Ireland who have this fear as to the result of Home Rule are justified by the action of some hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. I would only refer to a statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He said:—
    "When we come out of the struggle, we will remember who were the people's friends and who were their enemies, and we will deal out our rewards to the one and our punishments to the other."
    It is because there is a very genuine fear on the part of a large number of people in Ireland that punishments may be dealt out to them that I move this Amendment in order to try, if possible, to protect the civil liberties of the people. We have here in this country certain rights which have been obtained by the people through various charters and after a great deal of struggle. There are Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Bill of Rights, which provide very great liberty for the subject. What I wish to do is to extend to Ireland the same protection as exists in this country.
    The words of my Amendment form a Sub-section in the Bill of 1893. I was reading only to-day the Debate in Committee on this particular Sub-section. There was a proposal to omit the words, and the Attorney-General
    2084
    of that day resisted their omission. He stated that the object of these words was to prevent the infliction of grievous wrong. It is for the same reason that I invite the Committee to insert the words in this Bill. The Solicitor-General in 1893 also defended this proposal, and Mr. Gladstone, in one of his eloquent speeches, explained to the Committee that, in his opinion, it was desirable to have this safeguard in the Home Rule Bill of that year. He said the words were in fact an authentic rendering of a phrase in Magna Charta itself. I could hardly imagine that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept this Amendment if it were only proposed and supported by myself, but when I bring before them the evidence of the support of Mr. Gladstone and his Law Officers for the proposal to insert these words, I certainly hope that they will see their way to accept the Amendment. There are other reasons. One is the constitution of the Supreme Court. Under the Bill of 1893 two Exchequer judges were appointed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom. They were only removable by the Houses of Parliament here in London. Under this Bill the Supreme Judges will be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and are to be removable by the Houses of Parliament in Dublin. That is to say the Supreme Court of Appeal will not be as efficient a safeguard under this Bill as it was under the Bill of 1893. We have here words to protect the liberty of the subject that were accepted and defended by Mr. Gladstone. We have here a safeguard that has proved successful in the Constitution of the United States. The only possible reason why the Government would oppose it is that when the Bill was being discussed in Committee in 1893 Irish Nationalist Members then opposed this proposal, and their opposition has continued and increased.
    Yesterday, in the interests of hon. Members opposite, the Labour party put aside their avowed object to follow the lead of the Liberal party, and I expect we shall have to-day another instance—there have been many of iate—of the Liberal party putting aside their objects and following the lead of the Nationalist party. Hon. Members opposite will probably defend opposition to this proposal in the same way as they justify their position as Home Rulers by the argument that you must trust the Irish. It is an odd coincidence that the amount of trust which the Liberal party have in the Nationalist party increases with the dependence which

    2085
    they have on the Irish vote in the House. There is a minority in this House and a minority in Ireland that have not the same implicit trust in the Parliament which it is proposed to establish in Dublin. The Government cannot possibly injure the framework of the Bill if they accept this proposal, and they will show that they are genuinely anxious, so far as it lies in their power, to do anything which they can to do away with the very real and very genuine fear that we know exists in Ireland as to the civil liberty of the subject under the Home Rule Bill.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. Gentleman has referred to reasons for the Amendment which certainly require consideration, and I want to put to him and the Committee the considerations which occur to us on the other side. Undoubtedly that is an important matter of which we ought to judge fairly. Let me remind the Committee of the points which the hon. Memhas made in support of the view he has urged. He says, and he is quite right, that you may find these words in the Bill of 1893. He pointed out that they were not of British origin, but I think are rather to be regarded as derived from that phrase in the Constitution of the United States. He pointed out further—and I say quite frankly that it is a matter which must press upon anybody who desires to approach this question fairly, as we do on both sides of the House—that the words were recommended in 1893 on authority which will never be suspected by any Irish Home Ruler, because Mr. Gladstone, amongst others, explained why he was himself prepared to accept those words. I think the hon. Member will do me the justice to say that I have stated his points fairly and clearly, and I hope he will believe me when I say that it is not from any desire to shirk those points if I ask him to consider one or two matters the other way. The first thing the Committee have to remember is that what we are engaged in doing now is to limit the powers of this subordinate legislature, and we are consequently raising a number of questions which may involve litigation and judicial decisions hereafter, and I dare say will involve them, though I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite, like myself, will hope that the litigation will be a diminishing quantity. The first thing the Committee have to consider is whether or not the insertion of a limitation of this Clause is really relevant to a question which is
    2086
    reasonably susceptible of judicial determination from time to time.
    How is a Law Court going to decide whether or not the Irish Parliament, in exercising its powers, has been dealing with those topics "in accordance with the settled principles and precedents?" I am sure that those words could not be found in any British Act of Parliament, and while they may be very proper subjects for debate in a deliberative assembly, I very gravely question whether they can be regarded as raising questions capable of judicial interpretation and application, and that would be the case if we were concerned only with the situation of to-day; but when you remember further that we are endeavouring to prescribe the boundaries within which this subordinate legislature is to act, not only now but in future, we have to recollect that the standard in this matter undoubtedly varies from time to time. I do not think it will be open to dispute that fifty years ago legislation now accepted as perfectly reasonable and perfectly proper in connection with such a thing as Irish land purchase would unquestionably have been regarded as chimerical on the one side and pure spoliation on the other. We do regard it as a serious thing to introduce into the Bill matters which, it seems to us, are not really susceptible of judicial examination, which undoubtedly would increase the amount of litigation and disputes, and which really would not lead ultimately, as it seems to us, to definiteness and precision in the powers of this Parliament, but, on the contrary, would raise a series of very grave and very difficult questions, the precise arising of which it is very difficult indeed to prophesy. I say, quite frankly, that it is not possible for me now, and I do not think it is possible for anybody, however carefully they consider it—I do not think it is possible for anybody to say now how, in times to come, a limitation of this sort may raise disputes and how inconvenient, and it may be absurd, it would turn out to be. It is not from any desire to extend unfairly the powers of this subordinate legislature that we oppose the introduction of these words, but it is because we are honestly convinced that introducing those words does not do any real good. It certainly is going to produce a wilderness of questions to be decided. The hon. Gentleman says quite fairly that this is one of the fundamental propositions of the United States, but there they were laying

    2087
    down, just as Magna Charta was laying down in our own country, the fundamental policy, rather than the statutory limitations of their Parliament. They were making as it were a treaty with all who came under their scope. My answer to that is, if indeed we had no other means of restraining outrageous action on the part of a subordinate legislature, there would be something to be said for putting in these words in spite of the inconvenience, but the way in which outrageous legislation on the part of the subordinate legislature is restrained is by the use of the Veto—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and by the power of the Imperial Parliament. I am sorry that view seems to be merely fantastic to hon. Members. At any rate, they do not mind my putting my view.
    It is quite true that the exercise of the Veto in connection with the subordinate legislatures throughout the Empire is unusual, but it is by no means non-existent, and the reason is, and here I am sure we shall all agree, because those subordinate legislatures have shown themselves capable of exercising the powers they have in a reasonable way. On the other hand, if there be any danger that this subordinate legislature is going to act in an outrageous manner, the real way to restrain outrageous action is not to arrange that there shall be a lawsuit in the Irish Courts everytime somebody thinks a law exceeds the limitation, but the real way is to put confidence in this House. For my part for those reasons it appears to us that it is better these words should not be inserted. I make no complaint at all that the hon. Gentleman should have-raised this question, and I make no complaint of the arguments he used with reference to its merits, but I do not think this is a subject which can be regarded as decided by the Bill of 1893. We honestly think that the introduction of those words is not going to improve this Bill, and, at any rate, I shall be allowed to put my view, and is not going to result in less litigation and less doubt, but on the contrary in so far as those fears have to be provided against. They ought to be provided against by the securities to which I have referred. It appears to us real safeguards are safeguards not to be found by inserting -words such as these. Inasmuch as these words, as we believe, cannot do other than lead to fantastic dentations in the Courts of Justice, it is far better that we should avoid these
    2088
    evil consequences and trust to the security which depends, on the one hand, on the good sense of subordinate legislatures throughout the world, and on the other hand, on the power of the Imperial authority in this House.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I think there is a little more to be said with regard to the history of these words than we have heard from the Solicitor-General. Everyone on this side must have been pleased at the way in which the Solicitor-General received the speech o£ my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment, and I trust it is not impossible that the Government may still listen to reasons which may be urged in favour of the insertion of the Amendment. These words were not in the original Constitution of the United States. They were in the first draft, but not in the Constitution as originally-adopted. They were inserted in 1866, after the great Civil War, and ratified in 1868. That is a very important point. It was originally proposed that they should be inserted. No doubt after hearing arguments similar to those advanced by the Solicitor-General, they were omitted-Two generations go by, and then after the bitter experience of a civil war the United Slates, in the maturity of its experience, determines, by a majority of Congress and with the ratification of a great majority of the States, to insert them. The Solicitor-General said he would rather the words were not inserted, because they are not capable of judicial interpretation. The Constitution of the United States has to be interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. That Court stands inferior to no Court in the world. Deliberately, after two generations' experience, the United States sets to its Supreme Court the duty of interpreting these very-words. Shall it be said that another branch of the Anglo-Saxon race has an inferior judicature and one which is not capable of applying itself to the task? The Solicitor-General enumerated some of the reasons which have been advanced by the Prime Minister why this Clause, which was in the Bill of 1893, should not be repeated in this Bill. The final and, as he thought, capping reason was that there were other safeguards. In our belief in times of stress—and it is only in times of stress that these safeguards matter—those safeguards will fail, and we desire, following the experience of the United States, which had gone through a time of stress when they inserted the words, to be able

    2089
    to fall back upon the first principles upon which our Constitution is built. You may very easily have a time of great stress as between this Parliament and the Irish Parliament. We are building for that future. The United States had a Constitution which failed two generations afterwards. The cause of failure had been foreseen when the words were inserted in the first draft. They were omitted, and two generations afterwards what had been foreseen came about. It is our duty to look forward. You may have economic reasons that may very easily cause very great stress between the two Parliaments. Your various safeguards will then utterly fail you. You have the Parliamentary representation for Ireland in this House arranged. That representation has become an utter anachronism; so may all your economic arrangements become anachronisms. You may easily have stress and strain. Suppose, when it happens there is a foreign difficulty, do you think that those safeguards on which the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General rest will have their use? Parliament will hesitate in a time of war to carry an overriding Act. The veto of the Lord Lieutenant will not be used. The Cabinet would desire to have peace in Ireland, not conflict. Appeal to the Privy Council, so far as it rests upon the initiative of the Government here, would not be resorted to if for some reason, in this time of difficulty, there is delicate suspicion between the two countries or the two Parliaments.
    For all these reasons, the one and only remedy that would remain to you would be an appeal to the Privy Council from a private source in Ireland, from some organisation in Ireland, which is defending itself, because the Government on this side, neither by appeal to this House, the veto of the Lord Lieutenant, or reference to the Privy Council on its own initiative, because the Government, for diplomatic reasons, refused to put the machinery of its safeguards into action. We want some words in this Act upon which private organisations in Ireland appealing to the Privy Council in such a time—because the Government will not help them—may rest. There is value, as was seen in 1893, as was found in the United States, in the insertion of these words. The Solicitor-General told us that these words were difficult of legal interpretation—in other words, he repeated the Prime Minister's reason, that they were vague. May I read to the
    2090
    House a statement made in 1893 by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Sir John Rigby:—
    "We can never repeat too often, nor in too many forms of words, those essential doctrines which we intend to guide and govern our own inferior Legislatures, or the conduct of any who are subject to our laws."
    Reference has been made to the fact that the judicature in Ireland will be of a different kind to that contemplated in 1893. Yes, it is a judicature resting on a narrower basis—a judicature appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, removable by address to the two Houses in Ireland. You are preparing a federal Constitution. In Canada your federal Constitution is so framed—framed, remember, immediately after the Civil War in the United States, framed in the light of the experience of those two generations as to the causes of failure—a federation so framed as to place the judicature of Canada on a basis of the whole of Canadian opinion. You are not taking that course. You are not even taking the course proposed in 1893 of having two Exchequer judges, as they then were, in Ireland. All the more reason therefore is it essential that you should have the principles laid down which are to guide your judicature, from which an appeal may be made to the Privy Council in this country. There are two special reasons why at this stage of the discussion we should include these words in the Bill. The first is that you have refused to retain here the residuum of power: you have placed the residuum of power in the hands of the Parliament in Ireland, and it is essential therefore that there should be some general terms indicative of the way in which that residuum of power should be exercised. And the second reason is this: You have thought fit to reserve to this Parliament legislation in regard to land purchase for all time. It is not a service that can be transferred; it is to be retained here. If it be the case that you cannot trust legislation in regard to land purchase to the Irish Parliament, then surely you ought to fear that there will be some attempt to steer round the power you have reserved to this country, some attempt to force sales, some attempt to interfere with property by indirect methods—it is indirect methods that are indicated. The very fact that you have reserved that power to the United Kingdom Government is indicative of the fact that you feel the necessity of preserving it, and the necessity of preventing indirect attempts to interfere with the

    2091
    power you have reserved to yourselves. For these reasons I say the grounds that have been put forward against omitting from this Bill what was felt to be very necessary in the 1893 Bill of Mr. Gladstone by his Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in carefully reasoned speeches, in appeals to the case of the United States—a very remarkable case—not based on a priori grounds, but based on long and bitter experience, these words do merit careful consideration by the Government, and I trust that the words of welcome almost used towards this Amendment by the Solicitor-General will not be wholly meaningless, and that the Government are willing to consider the case put forward in support of the Amendment.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN (Deputy-Chairman) in the Chair.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.— (Continuance of Acts in Schedule.)
    (1) The Acts mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule of this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and shall then expire, unless further continued.
    (2) The Acts mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and shall then expire, unless further continued.
    (3) Any unrepealed enactments amending or affecting the enactments continued by this Act shall, in so far as they are temporary in their duration, be continued in like manner, whether they are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act or not.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There was a little Bill which has been continued from year to year which was passed by the present Government in 1908 for one year. It was a most useful measure called the Local Registration of Titles (Ireland) Act. Labourers cottages have to be registered and in a few cases there is sometimes a
    2092
    failure to register the title at the proper time, and the Government passed this Bill to allow this omission to be put right, although the time had expired. I ask that the Government should renew this Act for a year, and I shall be glad if we can have an assurance that this will be done on the Report Stage.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): As I have stated before, in the opinion of the Government it was not thought necessary to renew this Act and it has been left out intentionally, but if the hon. and learned Member thinks it is desirable to continue this Act for another year the Government have no objection.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "thirty-first day of December" and to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth day of June." This would continue, the Act not for a year but only for six months. It is perfectly clear it is high time that this extraordinary hotchpotch Bill should be thoroughly discussed and overhauled. We go on year after year renewing a large number of most important measures originally passed for one year and intended for full discussion afterwards. There is the Act whereby personal property escapes paying rates, and that ought to be fully discussed under present circumstances. There is the Ordinance Survey Act, 1841, the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear those cheers because they confirm me that I am right in the course I am taking. Then there is the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, passed for one year, under which many endowments have been taken from the poor and given to the middle classes. There is the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, and the Sand Grouse Protection Act, 1888. Year after year the Government come to this House and ask us at the end of the Session—or at all events at the end of the year, because we are not sure that there will be an end to this Session—to renew these Bills en bloc. I suggest instead of giving the Government carte blanche, we should on this occasion renew them only for six months on the understanding that next Session is devoted to discussing these Bills seriatim, and considering them on their merits. There is a great deal to be said for this proposition, having regard to the present state of business. It is perfectly clear

    2093
    that with these great constitutional measures, Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, the Franchise, and Heaven knows what, before Parliament, the Government cannot possibly give the time to discuss this Bill, but next Session they will have nothing to do. They will simply gag Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, and the Franchise in about two days each; the Land Inquiry will not be ready and they will not have that Bill to bring forward.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, I would like to ask whether the discussion which is now going on is in order on this Amendment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see any reason why I should stop it. I understand the hon. Member is adducing reasons why these Acts should only be renewed for six months.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is precisely the object I had in view. I am very sorry if I did not make my meaning clear to the hon. Member, but I really think it was more his fault than my own. Year after year the Government comes here and asks us to pass this extraordinary hotch potch en masse. If we now renew this only for six months, the Government will at the end of that time, on their own showing, have nothing to do, and it will be possible to deal with this matter fully and fairly. I think, having regard to the very important matters in this Schedule, we ought to ask the Government to accept this Amendment and to devote, at all events, some weeks next Session to thoroughly overhauling this measure.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The argument of the right hon. Gentleman rests on one assumption, and I submit if that assumption is inaccurate his argument falls to the ground. His assumption is that the Government will have nothing to do before next June. It would be very much out of Order, and I am not in a position to enter into detail in refutation of that assumption, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman the prospects of this Bill being discussed in detail, as far as we can reasonably forecast future events, would be a good deal greater if it was after June instead of before June. Therefore, I submit no reason has been advanced for altering the unbroken practice of this House, followed by all Governments, of producing the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill somewhere in the autumn, and carrying on the Acts contained in it till
    2094
    the December in the following year. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Bill was discussed on its Second Reading, but we all felt the force of the arguments then presented, especially by the hon. Member for North-east Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), and, if it is possible, I should like to take up the work which one of my predecessors did take up, find which of these Bills are purely non-controversial and could be accepted as permanent, and get such a Bill through if possible.
    Sir J. D. REES: Might I ask how the right hon. Gentleman can say it has been the custom for a very long time to produce this Bill in the autumn when generally there has not been Autumn Sessions. They are new and fearful inventions which did not obtain in the good old times. In the interest of accuracy I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain this.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered any one of the arguments of my hon. Friend who pointed out that with the exception of meeting certain financial necessities this House would have nothing to do next Session and that it might be very much better engaged in considering some of these important Bills which are proposed to be carried on from year to year by a form of Bill intended to be a formality. We had much better decide which of the Bills should be made permanent and which should be repealed altogether. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government in his reply merely said it was usual in the autumn to bring in a measure of this kind. Under the unfortunate lead of the Government we have had too many autumn Sessions, but I hope the practice will not become permanent. The moving of this Amendment has two objects underlying it: the first is to compel the Government to spend the time of the House next year in useful discussions instead of going on with pernicious and useless legislation, and the second is to secure that something useful may be accomplished so that the House may rise with the consciousness of having done something well.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I find myself in entire accord with the speech of the hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment, but I am scarcely convinced that the exact form of words he has used will do very much good. I understand it to provide that these expiring laws shall be

    2095
    continued until the 30th June next year. Some of us have for a good many years been of opinion that these laws could easily be divided into two categories: those which should be made permanent and those which should be repealed or dropped altogether. I have an Amendment down which will raise this point. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government said he was now engaged in investigating this very question and that he hoped if the Government remained sufficiently long in power to do something of a sensible character. We can help him in carrying that out. There are thirteen at least out of these thirty-six Acts which—and on this there will be not the slightest difference of opinion in any quarter of the House—ought to be made permanent. Those Acts are these: the Ordnance Survey Act, 1841, the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The remarks of the hon. Member would be more appropriate on the Schedule than on the Amendment.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I accept your ruling, Sir. We shall have to discuss these Acts in great detail on the Schedule, and I agree it would be a waste of time to give a list of them now. Suffice it to say that thirteen of the thirty-six, which need not be particularised, are Acts about which there would not be the slightest difference of opinion in any quarter of the House that they ought not to be limited to any date next year, but ought to be made part of the permanent Statutes of the realm. I support the Amendments because it calls the attention of the Committee to the anomaly of this Bill, and to the stupid procedure which this Government is perpetuating. We have gained something in the sympathetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government, who is going to do something some day, if he has the time to do it, and if this Government lasts sufficiently long. If the Amendment has done nothing else but to enable us to arrive at the reception of our demand, we have gained something substantial.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I want to ask the Financial Secretary a question in view of the very kind offer he has made, which I think we ought to accept. He has suggested that, in due course, if he has the time, it will be possible for him, on behalf
    2096
    of the Government, to so collate these various Acts as to continue those which are good in a permanent Act. The mover of the Amendment has been rather severe on the Government. He has suggested that this might be done by 30th June. My question is whether, if the time is extended, and the right hon. Gentleman is given another month, he will be able to do the work? It is not a very arduous duty and might easily be completed in another month. Supposing my hon. Friend substituted "July" for "June," could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give a more definite promise that within that time something substantial shall be done? We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. He realises the strength of our case. It is the first time a statement of that kind has been made on behalf of the Government, and we ought to welcome it.
    Mr. PEEL: I think a point of some importance has been raised by the hon. Baronet, but I can assure the Committee that I propose to discuss the matter entirely from a non-party point of view and without any of that bias of party which I am sorry to say has recently appeared in our debates. We have to consider whether we can restore the credit of Parliament which has been a good deal shattered by these guillotine proceedings, by dealing with these measures. I have been some years in the House, and I appeal to those who have been longer in the House than I have, and even to hon. Members who have come into the House during the last year, because, coming in with fresh minds, they are far more capable possibly of seeing the absurdity on any of these points of procedure than are the older Members who have grown hardened in the absurdity of our Parliamentary proceedings. Here are a number of Acts which are renewed from year to year. The whole reason for renewing these Acts is that from year to year, and each year, Parliament should carefully consider whether they are still applicable to the state of affairs then obtaining. But the whole object and force of this peculiar Parliamentary method is entirely discounted if we pass these Acts year after year without any Parliamentary discussion whatever and in that sort of oasis of Parliamentary time which, under the Parliament Bill, we shall enjoy—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is one which shortens the time to six months

    2097
    instead of twelve. Perhaps the hon. Member will confine his remarks to that point.
    Mr. PEEL: That is precisely the point which I was directing myself to. I was pointing out that oasis of Parliamentary time, which will be afforded to Members in the third Session under the Parliament Bill, because it is well known that the first two years are reserved for controversial matters, and the third Session for non-controversial matters. Then we shall have some time in the next Session when we shall be able, exhausted as we are by protracted discussion, to give fresh minds to matters which are less likely to give rise to any violent Parliamentary discussion. There is one point which may have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman. We have got into the habit during the last few years of taking the Budget in the Autumn Session. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here because he is the principal offender in this matter and I should not like my observations to go through even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, though I know he holds very strong views on this abuse of Parliamentary procedure. But you will be placed in a great difficulty on this occasion if you limit yourself to June alone. You will probably have to pass your Budget next year before the end of June because it is common knowledge that a discussion of the courts will be given under which a Resolution of this House can no longer bind the authorities. The result of this has been pointed out by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his recent action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I think it is most strictly relevant to the point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is confining himself within the limits of order. Hon. Members who are calling "Order" may allow me to deal with questions of order.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member was entering into a matter which is sub judice.

    Division No. 262.]

    AYES.

    [11.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Barton, William

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bentham, G. J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Adamson, William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Boland, John Plus

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Clancy, John J.

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Clough, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Banes, G. N.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Mr. PEEL: I have perfect confidence in your decisions on these matters. If the Government are forced to pass the Resolutions and the Budget before 30th June, I am afraid that the hon. Member who is so anxious to have these forty or fifty measures discussed will find it is impossible between 3rd April and 30th June to have adequate time given to them, unless you cut off the Easter and the Whitsuntide holiday, a proceeding so irregular that I am sure he would not sanction it. I agree with his general proposition that time should be given for the discussion of such measures as the Agricultural Rates Act, and the Corrupt Practices Act, and so wipe out what is a Parliamentary scandal and an absurdity in our proceedings.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: An appeal has been made to me to give the Government another month. I will be glad to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend on one condition, namely, that the Government will devote the whole of the extra month to discussing this Bill.
    Question put, "That the words 'thirty-first' stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD(seated and covered): Do I correctly understand that you have put the Question in such a way that other Amendments down to the end of the Clause will not be discussed?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is consequential.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I respectfully point out that I have an Amendment to leave out all the words after the word "until."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will deal with the hon. Member's Amendment when this Division is concluded.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 113.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

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

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    King, J.

    Reddy, Michael

    Doris, William

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lansbury, George

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Falconer, James

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowlands, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    France, G. A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

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

    Goldstone, Frank

    Manfield, Harry

    Sheehy, David

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Shortt, Edward

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Simon, sir John Allsebrook

    Gulland, John W.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Hackett, J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hancock, John George

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harcourt Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sutton, John E.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Munro, Robert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hayward, Evan

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hazleton, Richard

    Neilson, Francis

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Ward, W. (Dudley (Southampton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Waring, Walter

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Webb, H.

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hodge, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Grady, James

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Shee, James John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford S.)

    NOES.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Butcher. John George

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Campion, W. R.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Balcarres, Lord

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Doughty, Sir George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cave, George

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Barnston, Harry

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Chambers, J.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Bird, A.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boyton, James

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    2100

    2101

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stanier, Beville

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Winterton, Earl

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

    Keswick, Henry

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. William Peel.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), dealing with the question "until Parliament shall otherwise determine," is outside the scope of the Bill, which is one for continuing expiring Acts.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is perfectly true that the Bill is one for continuing expiring Acts, but the Bill is expiring now, and it surely does not relate to the question of at what future date an Act should expire, and my proposition is that it should not expire "until Parliament otherwise determine." I submit that is within the scope of the Bill, which is actually expiring at the present moment.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Do I understand you to rule, Sir, that it is impossible to make any of these Acts into permanent Statutes, because undoubtedly the effect of an Amendment which I propose to move would be to pick out, as I intended to do, a number of these Acts and to leave them in the first part of the Schedule, making them permanent statutes of the country.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is a very well established rule, and the last time it was distinctly raised was ten years ago this very day, the 22nd October, and the then Chairman quoted as far back as the year 1854. There is not the slightest doubt about the practice.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I desire to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper— in Sub-section (2), after the word "fourteen" ["nineteen hundred and fourteen"], to leave out the words "and shall then expire, unless further continued."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order, Sir. I have given notice of an Amendment which comes in the line before that in which the Noble Lord proposes to move his Amendment. I respectfully submit that it would not be out of order to pick out a number of Acts and say they should be repealed. According to the Bill the Acts are to continue until the 31st December, and under my Amendment they would only continue until the 30th June. Of course, the effect of my Amendment would be to put an end to them altogether. I have no doubt whatever, Sir, that your ruling, fortified by precedent, is undoubtedly correct. If it is not possible to make any of these Acts permanent, I do submit that it is possible for us to decide that a number of these Acts are not worth continuing at all. The object of this Bill is to continue certain Acts for a definite period and surely we can decide that we will not continue some of the Acts at all. Therefore I respectfully submit my Amendment would be in order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment cannot be accepted, because the real time to have dealt with the point was on Second Reading. With regard to the particular Amendment moved by the hon. Member, the right way to carry out his object would be to take the Acts seriatim in the Schedule.
    Mr. AMERY: Would it be in order for me in line 18 to move, instead of 1913, to insert 2013 or such earlier date as Parliament may determine?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would not accept that, as it would be what I should describe as quite a trifling Amendment.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and shall then expire unless further continued." This is purely a drafting Amendment, but from what occurred this evening it is well to look after the drafting of these Bills. I do not think anybody can deny that these words are purely redundant. After all, if the Act says that a certain Act shall be continued until 31st December, 1913, it is obvious that after that date it expires automatically. What is the use of putting in the words which I propose to leave out. I do not think redundancy is desirable in an Act of Parliament. In the first place superfluous words are occasions for Amendment and therefore I am doing a good service to Governments, and to this Government in particular, in pointing out certain words which have no meaning and which are entirely unnecessary, and the omission of which would improve the Act.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think we had better keep to the same words that have been used for the last thirty years. The Noble Lord has not given notice of this Amendment and I have not been able to follow the exact legal meaning. I think there is no disadvantage in definitely setting out the fact that the Acts will expire unless they are continued. The Noble Lord says he has no objection to the words themselves.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to support my Noble Friend. Those words are, to my mind, most dangerous words, and the fact that they are old and have been used for thirty years does not make them less dangerous or less unfortunate. This whole Bill is a bundle of curiosities and it is unfortunate the Financial Secretary has based his argument on what is an absurdity. Surely if you continue certain Acts down to a certain day they do not continue after that day. If you put in this limitation to their expiration, do you mean that if at some later time you continue them you thereby revive the Acts although they have previously expired? The words are most unfortunate and create confusion in an otherwise plain Clause. For thirty years these useless words have been used. Is it not time we gave them a decent burial together with some of these statutes which are no longer needed. For seventy long years, and more, some of these Acts have found their place in the schedule, and I suppose for another 30 years Secretaries to the Treasury- will ask the House to continue these laws which ought long ago to
    2104
    have been put on a more satisfactory footing. In the interests of clear drafting and Acts of Parliament which can be understood by simple people who are not skilled in interpreting legal enactments, I support the Amendment.
    12.0 M.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is true that every superfluous word in drafting is objectionable and dangerous. I take exception to these particular words because of the dangerous use which may be made of them by lawyers. Every word which is not absolutely necessary to carry out the purpose which the draftsman has set before him becomes a snare, a delusion, and a danger when the statute comes into Court and has to be interpreted by lawyers. That is notorious, and everybody who has been concerned in legislation and in administering the law is aware of the fact. I was amazed at the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury that these words should be retained because they have thirty years' tradition behind them. How strangely that comes from an hon. Gentleman who is a Member of a Government which has called Parliament together in the autumn for the purpose of destroying a constitution which has lasted for more than ten times thirty years! Certainly it must be hard to find an argument for dealing with the Amendment of my Noble Friend if the hon. Gentleman can do no more than to appeal for confirmation to tradition, to depart from which seems to be at the present time the chief end and aim of the Government of which he is a member.
    Mr. PEEL: The hon. Gentleman who answered rather excused himself for dealing with the matter on the ground that he had not been able to consider the matter with the proper legal authorities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman next but one to him (the Solicitor-General) and the right hon. Gentleman next to him (the Home Secretary) could have advised him on the point. But now the matter has been placed on a totally different footing, because very important points have been raised by the last speaker but one, who is acknowledged to be an authority on constitutional law. It is really admitted that it is an exceedingly dangerous thing to put into operation ancient laws which for a long time have not been administered. There is the case of the Blasphemy Laws, dating from the time of Edward VI., which have not been

    2105
    put into operation for a very long time. Here you have a case even more dangerous still, because you may have Acts which have been put into operation, and then get into a state of suspension or limbo. "Ignorance of the law excuseth no man." Well, it is difficult enough to know what laws are at present in force, but if you have two sets of laws, one set in force, and the other set in suspension, and liable by the fiat of Parliament to be called into life again, it becomes almost impossible for the ordinary man to carry on his business. He is left in a state of doubt and hesitation. For these reasons, quite apart from the others given, I strongly urge this change being made if there is any doubt in the interpretation of the law.
    Captain CRAIG: Failing the courtesy of a reply from any of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, may I explain to the Noble Lord, though I shall certainly go into the Lobby with him, the reason why these words are included in this Act. If any one takes the trouble to turn up the Acts that are scheduled in this Bill he will see that in nearly every instance Parliament was desirous of keeping complete control over the special Acts referred to, and in nearly every instance he will find at the end of the last Clause these words:—
    This Act shall continue in force until the 31st December, 1906, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.
    I quote here from the Motor Car Act of 1903, and I think the same remark applies to all the other Acts embodied in the Schedule. The reason of that was that Parliament was desirous of keeping control over these Acts, and the Acts were to be in force for a year and no longer, to allow Parliament at any time to renew them if they thought fit, and, of course, a large number of them have been renewed from year to year by being re-embodied in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I rather differ from those who speak in favour of leaving out these words. If you leave these words out it is possible there may be some misunderstanding on the part of those not learned in the law. It may be that some one not seeing these words at the end might think the Acts were permanent, and it might not be possible to have them renewed each year as Parliament intended, and, therefore, although as a sound party man, I shall certainly vote with the Noble Lord, I think it would be wrong in these circumstances that the
    2106
    words should be omitted. His obvious duty would be, I think, not to press his Amendment to a division, and then when he comes to the Schedule to move that the Acts to which he objects should be left out. At the same time I think we should maintain the general principle of which Parliament is as jealous to-day as ever it was, that it should rest with Parliament to renew or discontinue these Acts as it thinks fit.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I am grieved to hear that the hon. and gallant Member will feel that his party allegiance will be strained by going into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment. The debate shows that there are doubts as to whether these words are important. Some hon. Members think the words are redundant and others think that they really have some meaning and are required in order to carry out the various Acts mentioned in the Schedule. This is a matter upon which we ought to have some legal guidance. My apologies are due to the Solicitor-General for not having placed this Amendment on the paper, but I think his know-of the law is such that he will be able to make an adequate answer and I think the Committee will be inclined to listen with great respect to the legal view he pronounces upon this question. My object was only to raise a question of drafting. It is obvious that whether these words are put in or not these Acts will expire after the date mentioned, but I think it is a mistake for the Committee to go on passing words which have no adequate meaning. If they have any adequate meaning, and express the intention of the legislature then the Solicitor-General ought to inform us what that meaning is, and if it is of importance and satisfactory, I shall be prepared to abandon my Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to say except that I accept the extremely lucid explanation offered to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Craig). As I understand the matter the object of these words is to make it quite certain that although these laws are given a further lease of life, when they have come to the end of that lease they are really dead; I hope also that this Debate may now expire.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 100.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    I move this Amendment in order to call attention to the extremely unsatisfactory character of this Sub-section. If there was no Schedule in this Act containing amending Acts there would be no need to take any notice of the Sub-clause, but inasmuch as there is reference to the amending Acts to the Statutes proposed to be continued, I must say it seems to me a very clumsy way of legislating to insert a provision in the Bill to the effect that should the list of amending Acts not be exhausted and should there be any other amending Acts affecting the enactment proposed to be continued they shall be continued whether mentioned in the Schedule or not. I do not think that this portion of the Bill should be passed without attention being called to the extremely slipshod and slovenly character of this Sub-section, and I hope that the Solicitor-General, who so courteously dealt with another Amendment just now, will now be so kind as to explain why it is necessary to deal in this manner with this question. Surely it is not beyond the resources of those who provide the material for Parliamentary draughtsmen to provide a complete list of the Acts that should be scheduled. It only makes it difficult for Law Courts when called upon to interpret an Act or for a Member of Parliament who may be looking up the law on a particular subject to really know what the law actually is. This sort of omnibus Clause is very inconvenient: it amounts to saying if the list is incomplete, notwithstanding
    2110
    its incompleteness this omnibus Clause is sufficient to bring in any other Act in any way affecting the Statute proposed to be continued. May I ask the learned Solicitor-General to deal with that point.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is a considerable number of cases of the Acts set forth in the second column where there have been Amendments made. Those Amendments have been made in temporary Acts, and those temporary Acts have not been continued because they related to other matters altogether. It would be an exceedingly difficult matter to insert all the small alterations made in Acts of a temporary character, therefore this Sub-section is certainly required. It fulfils important functions, inasmuch as it makes clear that where a portion of one of these Acts has been varied the Amendment is still existing and the Act must be read as amended. My hon. Friend will see there is good reason for the Sub-section, and if we are to pass this Bill in this shape with the Schedule of the Acts to be continued, there is no sensible way of dealing with the point except as is done in Subsection (3).
    Sir J. SIMON: The explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given is exactly the explanation which commends itself to us I am sure the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) will agree that, assuming we are going to have this Bill at all, some such provision is really desirable. I know hon. Members desire to raise questions on the

    2111
    Schedule, and I hope we may pass to that now. The present form of the Sub-section fulfils a useful purpose.
    Sir J. D. REES: Being between two fires, one from the Front Bench and the other from my hon. Friend, I do not wish to trouble the Committee with a Division, and therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.— (Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1912.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    SCHEDULE.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the words "3 and 4 Vict., c. 89, The Poor Kate Exemption Act, 1840."
    I need hardly point out that this Act is a very important one. It is the Act which exempts from rating all personal property. As the Committee no doubt knows very well, by an Act passed in the reign of Elizabeth for the purpose of regulating the poor-rate, everybody was rated irrespective of their property. That Act said that every inhabitant, person, parson, or vicar should pay rates according to their ability, and rates were not confined, as they are now, to real property. Parliament in the year 1840 made a very big change. As a matter of fact, I believe Parliament legalised what was the existing practice, but nevertheless it introduced what was legally a very big change by exempting personal property altogether from rating. Parliament, however, realised that this was a big change and the result could not be satisfactory. Consequently it was determined that the Act was only to remain in force for one year. Obviously it was the intention of Parliament at that time that the whole question of the basis of rating should be rediscussed; but it never has been.
    Year after year this Act has been continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and this extraordinary exemption of personal property from rating has gone on. I am sure the Committee will agree
    2112
    with me when I say that this is a very important matter and one that we ought to consider, because the whole question of rating has been much discussed of late. We have at the present moment a land inquiry going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite cheer that remark. It is generally held that the present basis of rating is too narrow and that some new source of revenue must be found to remedy the existing state of affairs. What is the proposal, as we understand it, of this Committee which is engaged in the land inquiry. It is to extract extra rates from the source that pays practically all the rates now, instead of expanding the basis of rating as we could do by getting rid of the exemption contained in this Act.
    I do not say for a moment that merely by repealing this Act we should thereby put rating on a proper basis, but the Act is a very old one and some Amendment is necessary. When the whole question of rating is being discussed Parliament should consider whether the change made seventy years ago, when personal property was exempted, ought to be continued or not, and whether that kind of property ought not rather to contribute its fair share towards the rates. What did we see the other day? We saw the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, living in a large mansion in the lap of luxury, the guest of a multi-millionaire, who, I believe, does not hold an acre of land; and they were considering the question how they could put additional burdens on landowners. If this part of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill were repealed the question would arise, not how they could rate, for Poor Law purposes, their neighbours who are landowners, but how some of these millionaires who contribute nothing to the rates could be made to pay their just share in the future. Surely, inasmuch as this Poor Rate Exemption Act was originally a temporary Act, it must have been the intention of Parliament to re-open the whole question on a comprehensive basis, and the present is a favourable moment for us to consider it. That is to say, I do not think we could simply move the omission of the Act without afterwards carrying some Amendment of the existing law. But as a first step towards broadening the basis of local taxation and making all forms of wealth contribute, according to its ability, to local burdens, I beg to-move my Amendment.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I should like to add one or two words to what the hon. Baronet has just said about this very curious Act of 1840 which the Government are proposing should be renewed again for a further year. I think that anyone who reads the Act of 1840 with care would feel that he was perfectly justified in going even further than the hon. Baronet has done in his speech, because it appears to me to be quite clear that at the time the Act was passed Parliament did not contemplate its renewal after the first year. It is impossible to tell, of course, exactly what was in the mind of Parliament at the time. It may be that the year for which the Act was passed was fixed upon as a period during which the whole question should be inquired into, or something of that kind. At any rate, it is very noticeable that the Clause fixing the date to which the Act should proceed to operate is very different in the case of this Act from all other Acts which are continued from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act:—
    Be it enacted that this Act shall be in force till the 31st day of December, 1841, and that from the said 31st day of December this Act, and all the provisions hereinbefore contained, shall absolutely cease and be of no effect.
    That is, I submit, a very much more definite expression of intention in regard to the duration of the operation of the Act than anything that is to be found in other Acts, and I do not think it was ever contemplated that this Act should be renewed from year to year.
    It may be said that it is seventy years too late to say that. Perhaps it is, but I think it is worth our while to consider the question now that we are discussing whether or not the Act shall again be renewed for a year. The form in which the basis of rating was settled by the Parliament of that day was very remarkable. Instead of giving an exemption to personal property in so many words, Parliament, for some reason or other, gave an exemption to every form of property except in certain specific cases. It was laid down that nothing in the Act should affect the liability of any parson or vicar, or of any occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriations of tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods to be taxed for and towards the relief of the poor. Those are the only details or descriptions of property which under that Act are entitled to be rated.
    2114
    It must be evident to anyone that it would easily be possible to enlarge the basis of local taxation without meeting with the great difficulties which would be encountered if one tried to include every single form of property, wherever situated, in rating for local purposes. To look at the question from a rather different aspect, there is strong ground, and has been for some years, why we should press the Government to cut out the Act of 1840 from the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Every year the inequality and injustice of the rates upon certain forms of property upon which they are levied grows more pronounced, and the pressure which the ratepayers have to bear in order to meet, not local expenditure, but Imperial expenditure, becomes so grievous that it is time the promise of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was redeemed—as it can be quite well to-night—and some steps taken to broaden the basis of rating, and impose the burden not on a limited class only, but upon all those who are able to bear it. In other words, that the rates should go back as far as possible in the direction of the original intention of the statutes of Elizabeth and Charles II., which imposed the rates, namely, that they should be borne by those who have the ability to pay them.
    To justify the statement I have just made about the hardship of the present system of rating, particularly when so much of the produce of the rates goes to Imperial and not to local expenditure, I would like to give the Committee one or two figures. There are five principal headings about which there is special reason to complain—education, the maintenance of roads and bridges, poor relief, police, and lunatics. These are the principal items which make the rates an almost intolerable burden, and which at the same time are not for purely local purposes. In the last year for which complete figures are available so far as education is concerned—and I think we all agree education is not a local but a national matter—forty-five per cent, of the cost was borne by local rates. Fifty per cent, of the cost of roads was similarly borne, 86 per cent, of the cost of poor relief, and 60 per cent, of the cost of police. I have not got the figures for lunatics, but in that case also an unduly large proportion of the total was borne by local rates. I think these considerations give us very just grounds for pressing the Government to

    2115
    accept this Amendment to delete- this Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and so take a definite step towards the relief of local taxation in respect of Imperial matters.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I am very sorry this very important and possibly rather dry subject should come on at so late an hour, but I can assure hon. Members that certain proceedings on the other side of the House have caused us to consider this subject just now more than others, so they may blame the Government for our discussing it at this hour. The remark made by one of my hon. Friends that this Act was proved to be unsatisfactory to those who passed it and was, therefore, made a temporary measure, seems to me to be a very true one. It is clear it was not regarded as a permanent settlement at the time it was passed, and if that was true then it should be true now. In the days when this Act was passed land "was a very large source of income. When we find the enormous fortunes which have been made since that time in trade and commerce handed down to the descendants of those who made these fortunes by their brains and industry, there is no reason why these men should not pay their fair share of the local taxation of the country. You find that men living in comfortable houses, with large incomes, but without any large proportion of land, paying far less to the local rates than they ought to. That is a common grievance which everyone admits, and there is no question that it is growing greater every day as the rates increase and the burden is being put on one source of income only.
    I have no doubt, whatever that on this question, as on others, the Labour Party will follow as the willing tail wagged by the Government, and will vote on this occasion to relieve many rich men of the taxation they ought to pay. If those engaged in the inquiry, which we hear so much about now, do their business they will establish this one fact, that the rates are a heavy burden which are paid entirely by this one form of property, and that there is a very good reason for altering a system under which so many men do not pay their fair share. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland ought to sympathise with this Amendment. In Ireland I found the one complaint made was the burden of the rates, which is too heavy on the agricultural industry. But we know
    2116
    that hon. Members from Ireland also are tied hand and foot, the same as the Labour Party, to support the Government, and we know such subservient followers will support the Government under any circumstances.
    But I would like to point out that in every part of the country the same grievance prevails. The tradesman is not paying rates on his stock in trade, as the farmer is on his premises. Very often you will find a man with a very much larger income than the farmer next door paying nothing but the rates on his premises while the farmer is paying a large proportion in consideration of his income. The rich stock-broker who lives close to a town and the tradesman in the town are deriving far more benefit from the rates than the farmer in a country district—far more benefit from the highways and other things which are purely national services. It is under this Act that these grievances prevail. It is a perfectly legitimate question to raise now. I think it is an odd thing that hon. Gentlemen opposite, below the Gangway, should wish to exempt many rich men from their bounden duty of maintaining the poor and paying their fair share of local taxation. I am not the least sorry that this opportunity has arisen. I only hope that, even if the Government cannot deal with this subject now, they will realise it is a fair grievance to raise, and that at some future date they will be able to deal with it. At any rate, I hope they will give us some sort of pledge that at an early stage this Act will be taken out of this Bill or that some amending Act will be passed.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As a comparatively new Member of this House, I have suddenly realised the importance of this Bill. I think I have realised the importance of the subject more from the speech we have just heard than I ever did before, and I very much regret that there has not been-during a great part of this discussion some leading official representative of the Opposition present in order that we might know the official attitude of the Opposition upon this most important subject. I am sure we all welcome the presence in this House at this moment of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), whose views on the subject of the taxation of land values and real property will, I am sure, be of great interest to the House if he will only give them to us in the soothing eloquence with which he speaks in the country.

    2117
    I think the last speech in particular should be printed by the Committee of Taxation on Land Values and circulated as a tract. I do not think I ever heard given in more lurid terms the hardships under which the tradesman suffers under our present system of rating, and I think that was a conclusive argument in favour of the Land Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set up. We should have enjoyed it much more if the hon. Gentleman had given us his views on the taxation of hops. I have a serious complaint to make in regard to the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). I certainly do not think he treated this very serious question with the seriousness which it deserves, and especially was I sorry to hear him introduce the note of controversy. He has been so sweetly reasonable all the evening that this lapse into his disestablishment manner was something to be regretted, and I feel sure that in his calmer moments when he reads the report in the morning he will regret his lapse.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What is the particular passage to which the hon. Gentleman objects?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is exactly what I was coming to. He drew us a picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer lolling in the lap of luxury, and asked what would be the views of this conference gathered together—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but it is not really relevant to the subject before the Committee.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I agree, Mr. Maclean. I was tempted and I fell. I thought that if it were in order for the hon. Member to refer to that question it might also be in order for someone on this side to reply to it. I will leave the scene in Gadsby Hall, and point out that there was another gathering held lately where a number of foreign gentlemen assembled to eat foreign food—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I must say I rather regret that so important a question as this should, perforce, have to be raised upon such an opportunity as this, but, after all, we on this side have to take the
    2118
    opportunities as we find them, and it would be remiss on our part not to raise this question when this opportunity, bad though it be, occurs. I for one have always held that the continuance of this Act of 1840, exempting personalty from rating, is a very great blunder on the part of the State. I daresay I shall have a good many hon. Members opposite in agreement with me, more especially those hon. Members who have recently been so conspicuous in this land enquiry, when I say that none of us are satisfied with the rating system. They seem to think they have a monopoly of that view, and that we on this side, because we are opposed to the particular proposals which they adumbrate to deal with the question, are necessarily in agreement with the system which now prevails. That is not so, and I think I can point to many speeches delivered during the last five or six years from hon. Members on this side stating what, in our opinion, are the grievances of ratepayers, and making suggestions as to the way in which we think they ought to be remedied. The fact is you are taxing for purposes of rates a very limited form of property. You are taxing real property only, and a good many of us quite agree with what hon. Members opposite say, that in the taxing and rating of buildings at a higher rate when improvements are made you are acting unfairly, and penalising the person who puts the best buildings upon the land and improves buildings to the best advantage. So far, I think I may say we are agreed, but where we differ is in this: we say that the remedy is not, as hon. Members opposite propose, further to limit the source of revenue from which you get your local exchequer by taxing land only, but to increase the source from which you get your revenue by tapping all that other large source of revenue which contributes nothing to the exchequer for local purposes.
    1.0 A.M.
    Although we admit the grievance and do not defend the existing system, we absolutely differ and entirely quarrel with hon. Members opposite who say that the grievance can be remedied by still further limiting the source of taxation, which at present exists, to land only, because the only result must be to press a great deal more heavily than hon. Members opposite can imagine upon that industry which most people in the country want to encourage, namely, agriculture. Opportunity will no doubt occur later on in the course of this

    2119
    Session, or perhaps of this Parliament, of arguing at greater length and showing by figures that the only effect of the Land Tax proposals by hon. Members opposite to raise the entire revenue for local purposes from rates upon land must operate prejudically upon the agricultural interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because if the rates are put entirely upon land the upshot will be that every aero of agricultural land in a district will pay higher rates than to-day. How that is going to benefit agriculture as an industry, and those who make their living from that occupation, I am unable to see.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Is the Noble Lord in favour of a Municipal Income Tax?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: If the hon. Member would have patience for a minute he would see what I am going to suggest. I think the ideal system of rating is that which I always understood, until this new Land Tax theory was put before the country by hon. Members opposite, was the theory of the Liberal party, and that is, that taxes should be levied according to the ability to pay. That theory is now abandoned by those advanced Liberal Members and they prefer that taxes or rates should be levied upon one form of property and one only. I agree with the other theory that rates and Imperial taxes should be based upon ability to pay. That is the right guide and the course we ought to pursue. I have never been convinced by those who say that it is impossible to raise rates by means of a local Income Tax. At all events let us examine the question and see whether it cannot be done; let us hold it before our eyes; all I say now is that the true ideal is that of raising the rates from the people who are in a position to pay them without being at a sacrifice to the same extent as those who have to pay under the present system. What is the objection to a local Income Tax? [HON. MEMBEBS: "Hear, hear."] I hear that cheer. It was one of the objections which led to the passing of this Act of 1840. It is alleged to be the difficulty of its collection. I do not know that the last word has been said about that difficulty.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is going outside the question before the Committee.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I was going on to say that the Act of which we are
    2120
    debating the continuance excludes personal property from being rated for taxing purposes, and what I was going to suggest is, that it is by no means impossible to tax personal property for rating purposes, and therefore on the Amendment, which suggests that this Act should not be continued, it is open to us to discuss this point. I venture to suggest that it is relevant to this Debate to determine whether or not a local Income Tax is a possible solution. If a local Income Tax is a possible solution then I say it provides a very cogent argument why this House should agree to this Amendment and decide that this Bill should not include the Act in question.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can allow a general argument on the Schedule of this Bill on the basis of taxation, or upon proposals which would require the passing of fresh Acts by this House. Such an argument is outside the limits of the present discussion.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and therefore my argument with reference to a local income tax and the rating of personalty must be deferred to another occasion. At the same time I do think there is a good deal to be said for the taking of this particular Act out of the Schedule. It seems to me that the sooner that Act expires, which perpetuates such injustice in rating with respect to personalty, the better it will be for the country, the more it will leave a virgin field in which we may operate in order to improve the existing system.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: The short discussion which has taken place on this Amendment emphasises the desirability of a rearrangement of the basis of local taxation. It is perfectly plain that the present basis, which is partly maintained by the renewal of this Act, was framed in Queen Elizabeth's time when there was practically nothing but real property to rate. Since then personal property has grown to an amount three times greater in value than real property, and yet the owner of that personal property contributes nothing to the upkeep of the roads, police or sanitary improvements, except upon the value of the house in which the owner of the property lives. The income tax on personal property is levied on £580,000,000 and on land on only £36,000,000, and these figures go to show the inequality of the present system. Unless this Act was renewed it would follow forthwith that traders would

    2121
    have to pay rates on their stock in trade and so also would owners of personal property have to pay on that. I do not want to see the trader more heavily handicapped than he is at present because I think all industries ought to have an advantage and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that the agricultural industry should have every advantage that other industries have. If they do not admit that, it must be from lack of inquiry into the subject.
    I will give a case in point which will indicate exactly what I mean. Take a manor house occupied by a gentleman who has perhaps £4,000 a year from foreign securities. He needs roads and the protection of the police, and he ought to be responsible for contributions towards the cost of education and other local charges, but though he has £4,000 a year all he contributes is on the basis of the rateable value of his house. The farmer who occupies the manor farm of say 300 acres, is rated on £250 a year and his income is about £150 a year and yet he has to contribute to the cost of these local services two and a half times as much as does the occupant of the manor house, who pays only on the value of his rental. This is a great injustice and it militates against the development of the rural districts. I want to see more people living in the rural districts. Members below the gangway will surely vote for this Amendment if they wish to be consistent. You cannot get more people to live in the rural districts unless you make it better worth their while to stay there. If you increase their taxation, if you adopt the form of taxation now proposed, the single tax, or any other unjust method, you will aggravate the evils of rural depopulation. It will tend to lower the status of the agricultural labourer. I want to see him better paid, and I am convinced that unjust taxation of this kind will militate against that object. I want to see the people better housed. If you rate the raw material, the land of the farmer, you will aggravate those conditions which all on both sides of the House desire to see improved. I do hope that either this Government or the next will deal with this question of local taxation—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member has concluded his remarks or not.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: No; I sat down, Sir, in deference to you.
    2122
    This is a point about which we who live in rural districts feel keenly. We do not for a moment wish to shirk our fair contribution to the cost of the upkeep of the country, but we do say that the burden should, in all fairness, be imposed in accordance with the paying powers of the parties affected. I am sorry to say that I cannot vote for the Amendment, because immediately it would mean that the trader would have to pay full rates on his stock-in-trade. I do not want to increase the burden on the trader. On the other hand, I want to see all our industries encouraged to the fullest possible extent, and I think that in this matter of rating we should endeavour to bring in the owners of personal property, such as I have mentioned, who are receiving £4,000 or £5,000 a year. There are a good many of them sitting on the other side of the House. We want the millionaires to come in and to bear their fair share of the cost of the upkeep of the country. Those of us who are connected with agriculture are ready to do our share, but we think that the burden ought to be fairly distributed according to the capabilities of the individual to bear it.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There has, I think, been general misapprehension of the nature of the Act we are discussing. It is a short Act which consisted originally of two sections, one of which was repealed in 1874. Therefore the mention of the whole Act in the Schedule is wrong, because there is only one section of it now in existence. As to the question whether the Act should be omitted altogether from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill I desire to say that, clearly, the Act was passed in the interests of the shopkeepers in the various parishes, and of the farmers who had stock. It does not release personal property from taxation, because personal property as such was never taxed for the relief of the poor at all. It only ought to have been. At the time the Act we are now considering was passed the law stood as contained in the Acts 43 Elizabeth, c. 11, and 13 and 14 Charles II., c. 12. The law was interpreted in a different manner in different parishes, and the speeches which were made when the Act of 1840 was under consideration are clear on the point why it was passed.
    This particular Act was passed because certain overseers in various parishes not only assessed holdings of land and property for the purposes of the

    2123
    poor rate, but also assessed for the same purpose the profits which were being made on the stocks in the shops, thus putting a heavy burden on the industry of the shopkeeper. Likewise they assessed the profits on the agricultural stock of farmers; and the worst of it was that this practice on the part of the overseers was by no means uniform. It was considered that it was a very wrong and unjust thing that in certain parishes there should practically be an income tax on profits made in the parish by parishioners for the purpose of assisting and maintaining the poor, and that in other parishes there should be nothing of 'the sort. The Act of 1840 was passed, therefore, in order to secure something more approaching to uniformity of contribution to the rates for poor-law purposes. It recites that it had been held under the Act of Elizabeth and 13 and 14 Charles II. that the assessment should include the profits of stock-in-trade and all other property. People, that is to say, were taxed on their profits for the purpose of the poor rate in addition to the assessment on the holdings of their property. This Act made it clear that that was irregular and that the practice should accordingly be put a stop to.
    What I desire particularly to point out is this. There is no doubt that if we were to leave the Act out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill now the result would be that our action would have a most disturbing and alarming effect. It would clearly enable the overseers in every parish throughout the country to levy a poor rate on the incomes of parishioners which they ma-de in the parish by way of profits on their stock-in-trade. The shopkeepers, that is to say, would have to pay, and so also would the farmers. I agree with my lion. Friend (Sir J. Spear) that it would be most unfortunate if these classes of people were assessed on the profits of their stock-in-trade. The solution would appear to be on the lines laid down just now by my hon. Friend when he was ruled out of Order. I support this Amendment because I think it is high time that an Act like this, which has been out of date for many years past, should be wiped out, and that the whole subject of rating was dealt with by the Government.
    We have seen in the last few days reports in the Press, reports of meetings of various classes of the community and of different bodies of Members
    2124
    of this House—in one case a meeting was presided over by a member of the Government—in favour of putting an end to the present system of rating There being this desire in existence, surely the first thing to do towards accomplishing that end is to repeal, or not to pass now, a provision in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which would effectually put it out of our power to deal with the matter until the 31st of December, 1913, I do not know whether hon. Members quite appreciate the difficulty. It is this. If we pass the Schedule with this Act in it we shall be bound to keep it in force, I take it, until December 31st of next year. I should like to ask hon. Members if they really wish to deprive themselves of the right to deal with the rating question until the 31st December next year? I submit that there is no man on whichever side of the Committee he sits who would desire to do that. Therefore if hon. Members opposite are sincere and honest in the views they hold they will go with us into the Lobby against the continuance of this particular Act.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): Whatever may be the case for dealing with some of the thirty-four Acts contained in this Schedule, the Act now under the consideration of the Committee has, at least, the merit of age, and it is more innocent than was suggested by the hon. Member who moved its omission. It has the quality of endurance, which shows that there is some inherent merit in the measure, because had things been otherwise it would not have lasted so long. If there were any proof needed to justify that contention it has been advanced by the speeches of the two Members who have last spoken. They indicated clearly that if this Act were abrogated to-night, or six months hence, and we returned to a condition of things which the repeal of this Act would undoubtedly produce, then the object of the hon. Member (Sir Arthur Boscawen) would not be secured, because the effect would be that tradesmen would be rated on their profits and farmers would be rated on their stocks.
    The Committee will, I think, see that the result of that might be that the position of the tradesman and the farmer would be still further worsened as compared with that of the resident millionaire who had no large amount of land attached to his residence on which

    2125
    local rates would be levied. It is obvious from the speeches delivered from the benches opposite that whether one sups with Lucullus in Leicestershire or with Heliogabalus in Park Lane the feeling of the justice and necessity of dealing with local taxation is making great headway and remarkable progress in all quarters. Being a simple man, I do not care personally whether it is from Leicestershire or Park Lane we get suggestions for dealing with some of the difficulties of local taxation. It is a good sign that local taxation is being discussed more and more. If that discussion is continued I am convinced that the millionaire, whether in town or country, is going to be compelled to pay a greater proportion of his accumulation of other people's money towards the relief of local burdens, whether of farmers or shopkeepers. But we are not here tonight to discuss the necessity of a readjustment of local taxation. We are here to consider the particular merits of the Act under discussion, and I am sorry that the hon. Member did not give the real reason why this Act was passed. The origin of the Act is to some extent its justification. The Court of Queen's Bench, as far back as 1839, came to the decision that stock-in-trade should be rated for local purposes. But it was found impossible to rate persons on their profits, which, as commerce grows, are largely secured from districts other than those in which the person lives. The result was that the Act of 1840 was passed to rectify what was considered an error on the part of the Court of Queen's Bench.
    You do not improve the condition of the agriculturist by the proposal in this Amendment. On the contrary, I can conceive he would be considerably worsened by it. What is more, if you carried this Amendment we might not have an opportunity of considering for some time the question of municipal or local income tax. As at this moment we have a Departmental Committee fitting on this very subject it is only fair that the views of hon. Members on all aspects of this question should be brought before them so that they can be guided in their recommendations as to the best way of rectifying inequalities, and as to whether ability to pay should be the condition of contribution. The hon. Member, who moved the Amendment himself admitted that it would not be
    2126
    altogether satisfactory if this Act were repealed, and I sincerely trust the Amendment will not be carried. If it were, grave injustice would be done to tradesmen, to farmers, and to poor rural districts; and the rich man, at whom the Amendment is aimed, would not be compelled to pay that amount of extra taxation which the Mover of the Amendment hopes he would.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have no desire to prolong the discussion or to force a Division. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, I pointed out that the result of repealing this Act would not be altogether satisfactory, but I also pointed out that Parliament passed this Act as a temporary measure, and it was largely due to it that personal property escaped rates altogether. I quite realise the force of the objections of the right hon. Gentleman, and that we should not be able to rate personal property as we should wish. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If I am not allowed to withdraw I will take a Division.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I am quite reluctant to intervene in the Debate at this time of the night, but so startling a proposal coming from the Opposition I think, even at this late hour, should have the i's dotted. This Act, which the Bill proposes to continue, provides two things; first of all, that those who derive property from stock-in-trade are not to be rated, but those who are in the possession of things like coal mines, tithes, houses and land, occupiers of game preserves—
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Austrian game or English game?
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I was not at the dinner. I shall be glad on the proper occasion to ascertain from the Noble Lord which tasted best. But this Act specifically provides that those who derive profits from stock-in-trade are to be exempt, whereas those who own, among other things, underwood, are to be subject to rating. Two more topsy-turvey and amazing speeches in favour of this Amendment I have never heard, than the one from the hon. Member for Devonshire, who is supposed to represent the farmers' view, and that of the hon. Member for

    2127
    Liverpool, who is supposed to represent in matters of taxation what might be called the urban view. One suggested that this Act should be allowed to expire. The hon. Member who is supposed to represent farming interests in Devonshire has in his constituency large game preservers, who possess a great amount of woodland, and there are also farmers who own cattle, sheep, pigs, etc. The effect of the hon. Member's proposal, if carried, would be to exempt from the poor rate the game preservers, the owners of the woodland, and, to the extent that they were exempted, to put the burden on the fanner. So that the effect of this wonderful proposition—this wonderful new taxation doctrine of theirs—is that they—
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: The honourable and courageous Member for Liverpool evidently believes that
    "For he who tights, and runs away,
    May live to fight another day."
    May I now come a little nearer his constituents, and point out that the effect of the Amendment would be to impose the greater burden upon the shopkeeper in Liverpool—upon the woman who keeps the little sweet-stuff shop, the small baker, and the tailor, and would have the effect of exempting the occupiers of the great residences, the great parks, the great villas outside Liverpool (HON. MEMBERS: "The dukes."] It would have the effect of exempting the hon. Member's special friends, the dukes. It would do it in a double sense both as to residence and as to the underwood where the hares run. But from my point of view this Amendment has a much more important and a much more particular application. If it were carried it would have the effect of exempting coal mines from rates. I represent the largest coal-mining Constituency in the United Kingdom, and this Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of transferring from the great and wealthy colliery proprietors the burden of maintaining the poor in that great industrial district, and placing it upon the less able shoulders of the working classes. For this reason I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: We on this side have endeavoured to treat the Amendment with some seriousness. The hon. Member opposite has chosen to turn it into buffoonery.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I ask your ruling, Mr. Maclean, whether the term "buffoonery" is one that should be used?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has no personal application, and I cannot rule it as out of order.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: May I ask whether a mere allusion to a Noble Lord constitutes converting the argument into buffoonery?
    Mr. FLAVIN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether a buffoon is not a good judge of buffoonery?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Member opposite need not think I took any exception to his remarks in allusion to myself. On the contrary, that was the part of his speech which I appreciated most. It appears we have arrived at a stage when it is not convenient or desirable that this debate should be continued to-night, more especially as we have to conduct our discussions in the absence of any representative of the Treasury. It appears-to me that we cannot discuss an important question of taxation without the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We have the presence of neither, because I notice that the Secretary to the Treasury whose name is the only name on the back of the Bill has gone.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is only a momentary absence.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It has extended over something like three-quarters of an hour. That being the case, and because the discussion does not seem, likely to proceed upon serious lines, and having regard to the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway both opposite and behind me, and in view of the perpetual continuance of interruptions, I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 180.

    Division No. 264.]

    AYES.

    [1.45 a.m.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Baird, J. L.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldman, C. S.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne, Sussex)

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

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Haddock, George B.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Horner, A. L.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, East)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Helmsley and Mr. Butcher.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Adamson, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Millar, James Duncan

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Muldoon, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Gulland, John William

    Munro, R.

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hackett, J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Barnes, George N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Neilson, Francis

    Barton, W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Black, Arthur W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Grady, James

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hinds, John

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Malley, William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hodge, John

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shee, James John

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Clancy, J. Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clough, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clynes, John R.

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Keating, M.

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

    Cullinan, John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    King, J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dawes, J. A.

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Delany, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Doris, W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robinson, Sidney

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Roch, Walter F.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowlands, James

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Falconer, J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Manfield, Harry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    France, G. A.

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

    Sheeny, David

    2130

    2131

    Shortt, Edward

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Waring, Walter

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Webb, H.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Whyte, A. F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    A Division having been called, the Deputy-Chairman named as Tellers for the "Noes" Viscount Helmsley and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN(seated and covered): On a point of Order, Sir. I did not hand in my name to tell, and I do not intend to divide. I understand that the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Flavin) called out my name, and I suggest that he should be a Teller.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order, Sir. May I call your attention to the fact that the only hon. Members who called out "No" were the general body of Members below the Gangway on this side, and—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No Member being willing to act as Teller—
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: On a point of Order, Sir, I suggest as Tellers Mr. Kellaway and Mr. Hogge. They are willing to act.

    Division No. 265.]

    AYES.

    [1.55 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clynes, John R.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Adamson, William

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis James

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gulland, John William

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hackett, J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cullinan, J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Barnes, George N.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Barton, W.

    Delany, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bentham, G. J.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Black, Arthur W.

    Doris, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Boland, John Pius

    Duffy, William J.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hinds, John

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Falconer, J.

    Hodge, John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ffrench, Peter

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    John, Edward Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Tellers for the "Noes," Viscount Helmsley and Mr. Kellaway.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order, Sir. I wish to call your attention to the fact that the only hon. Members who called "No" when you put the Question were certain Members below the Gangway on this side and certain Labour Members. I desire to give notice that when the Division is over I shall formally call your attention to the fact that a number of hon. Members have voted differently from what they led you to believe they intended to vote when you collected the voices. In accordance with the ruling given by Mr. Speaker on a previous occasion, that a Member is not entitled to call "No" and then vote "Aye" or vice versâ, I suggest, Sir, that you will probably think fit when the Division is over to call on those Members to stand up and to give their votes in the way they called when—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a speech, not raising a point of Order.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 42.

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    King, Joseph

    O'Grady, James

    Shortt, Edward

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

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

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Malley, William

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutton, John E.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    McGhee, Richard

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waring, Walter

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Webb, H.

    Manfield, Harry

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Munro, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Robinson, Sidney

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Neilson, Francis

    Rowlands, James

    NOES.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Barnston, H.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Stanier, Seville

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Helmsley and Mr. Kellaway.

    Courthope, George Lloyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I rise to a point of Order. I desire, Mr. Maclean, to call your attention to the fact that on this Division a considerable number of Members, when you were collecting voices, called one thing, and some of them, who were particularly loud in their calling, did not vote, while others voted the Apposite way. As this is a very reprehensible practice and contrary to the rules of the House, I ask you to deal with it in the usual way by asking the Members who so transgressed to stand up.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The usual method of dealing with that is for the hon. Member who raises the point to himself indicate to the Chair the names of the hon. Members.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I can give one or two of them. The right hon.
    2134
    Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir J. Dalziel) called out "No," and yet he did not vote. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Flavin) said "No" very vociferously, and he voted Aye. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) called "No" and voted Aye.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy is not bound to vote, and therefore no question arises on that. With regard to the hon. Member for North Kerry, I must ask him whether he voted in accordance with the way be called.
    Mr. FLAVIN: The statement made by the hon. Member is not true. I was sitting in the Gangway, and did not challenge a Division.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I accept at once the hon. Member's statement.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Member for East Edinburgh?
    Mr. HOGGE: It is perfectly true I was applauding the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and was willing to "tell" if hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to run away. If they want my vote among the forty-two, they can have it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member voted "Aye." Then his vote must be reckoned in the "No" Lobby.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: On a point of Order. Are individual Members of the House bound to accept the declaration of an hon. Member as to what he did?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is one of the foundation rules of the House. I should have thought it was a rule that everybody knew.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I intended to move to leave out the words "The whole Act," in the third column of the Schedule referring to the Ordnance Survey Act, 1841, and to insert instead "Section 1." The Act consists of two Sections. Section 2 was repealed in 1874, and it is obvious that the whole Act is not intended. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite could look into the matter and amend it on Report, and then I need not move my Amendment. It is a small matter, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put it right.
    Sir J. SIMON: That which the hon. Gentleman refers to as an Amendment of the Act is really a repeal of one of the Sections. If the Section is repealed the other Section becomes the whole Act. However, I will consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HOARE: I beg to move to omit from the Schedule the "Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act, 1847."
    I have been looking into the scope of this Act and the conditions under which it was introduced, and I think they deserve the attention of the Committee. This Act was, I believe, the necessary result of the institution of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836. I shall look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) an explanation of the reasons why, first of all, it is necessary this should
    2136
    be a temporary measure, and secondly, why it should come up in this Schedule with these other Acts. I have studied this measure with some care. I own that I find it extremely difficult to gather what is really implied by its provisions. I have looked at the Debate in 1847, when it was first introduced. I find that the Conservative party then objected to its introduction at the end of a long Session. Sir James Graham only withdrew his opposition to this measure when informed by Sir George Grey, who was in charge of the Bill, that it was only a temporary measure to last a few weeks, and that one of the earliest Bills in the next Session would be a comprehensive measure in its place. Every year since then, although the Liberal Government of the day gave a specific pledge that it was only a temporary measure, this House has been called upon to renew it. I think the time has come when either this Bill should be included in a comprehensive measure or should be withdrawn altogether from this list of Acts we are called upon to renew this morning. [Interruption.]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members on both sides to allow the hon. Member a patient hearing. It will very much shorten the proceedings.
    Mr. HOARE: I am sorry my remarks are somewhat delayed. I should have finished what I was going to say if it had not been for the interruptions. Let me only say this: I shall look to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir Charles Nicholson) and the Home Secretary, who, I presume, is in charge of this measure, for an explanation of the scope of this Bill; and, secondly, I want to know why a pledge of the Radical Government given in 1847 that this was only a temporary measure for a few weeks has not been carried out.
    Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps the hon. Member will excuse me if I offer a word of explanation in the place of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir Charles Nicholson). The hon. Member asked the Committee to consider what would be the effect of exempting this from the Schedule. The effect would be that there would be certain areas of the country in which there would be no authority who could grant a licence for an ecclesiastical marriage. I am sure the hon. Member would not be content that in certain areas of the country everybody who desired to enter into

    2137
    marriage should have preforce to go to the Registrar's Office, and, assuming that within those areas there may be persons who desire to be married within the next twelve months, we feel it necessary to make provision for their convenience.
    Mr. HOARE: It has only partially met one of my points. I asked, first of all, how it has come about that a measure, which the House was assured in 1847 was a temporary measure and would be superseded by a comprehensive measure the following year, has never been so superseded, and, if it is such a necessary Act as the Solicitor-General implies, how does it come about that it has not been included in the permanent Statute Book?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act of 1847, when you come to read it, simply establishes Bishops' Courts, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there are no provisions in the Act of 1847 that wore continued by the Acts of 21 and 22 Victoria, and therefore it follows that if we do not accept the Amendment this practically amounts to nothing. The Bishops' Courts that were established by the Act of 1847 have been abolished by other Acts since. I am aware that the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is one that is considerably involved, and there are several Acts giving authority to different courts of jurisdiction in which a good many Churchmen do not believe, and from time to time set at nought; but I do not think it matters a pin point whether this particular Act is left in the Schedule or not, because there are no provisions continued by the Act to which it refers.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: May I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, at all events in part? The effect of refusing Clause 1 of the Act of 1847 would be to disestablish the Church and to disestablish the power of the bishops in a number of dioceses. As this would in the most definite way disestablish the Church, or give expression to the principle of disestablishment, I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment in that limited way, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelsea on his courage in proposing the disestablishment of the Church.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move to leave out of the schedule the words, "27 & 28 Vict., c. 20. The Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act, 1864. The whole Act," The
    2138
    effect would be to leave out from the Schedule the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act of 1864. That Act was passed in these circumstances. In 1845 an Act was passed by this House by which bills of exchange and promissory notes should be made void if they were for less than 20s. in value and a penalty was provided in case such bills and notes were issued for less than that sum; and by another Section of that Act bills of exchange and promissory notes for sums between 20s. and £5 were made void unless they were in a certain form and complied with certain conditions mentioned in the Act, and again a penalty was imposed for issuing or circulating bills of exchange or promissory notes which were not in accordance with that Act. In 1864 the Act referred to in the Schedule was passed and the effect was that so much of the Act of 1845, as prohibited or restricted the making or issuing of bills of exchange or promissory notes of 20s. or up to £5 was repealed temporarily. I think it was at first only for one year and then the Act was to be renewed as Parliament might decide. That Act of 1864 has been continued until now under the Expiring Law Continuance Act, but I think a new situation has arisen.
    The present Government have brought in the Government of Ireland Bill. It is not yet passed nor is it likely to be passed. In that Bill they have laid down as the principle of the new Government of Ireland that the new Parliament is to be set up which among other things is to be the sole authority for dealing with bills of exchange or promissory notes in Ireland. It is quite true we put Amendments down for preventing the Irish Parliament from legislating on that subject, but owing to the way in which that Bill was conducted, and the proceedings upon that Bill were regulated, we were not able to move these Amendments; consequently the view of the Government, as expressed in the Bill as it now stands, the Irish Parliament is to be the sole and only authority for dealing with bills of exchange and promissory notes m Ireland. Now I want to ask the Government in view of what they propose under that Bill, do they think it right to legislate for these bills of exchange and promissory notes in the way in which they propose to do by this Schedule? I think the Government, if they are really sincere, so far as leaving these matters to the Irish Parliament, cannot deal with the same matters by this

    2139
    Bill. My main object is to get an expression of their view from the Government on the point.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The effect of the omission of this Act from the Schedule would be to revive the old restrictions of the Act of 1845, and to render void in Ireland especially bills of exchange and promissory notes which are common, reasonable and necessary. Its omission would disorganise Irish trade and industry from one end of the country to the other.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Incidentally, of course, one effect of the omission of this Act would be to render perfectly informal—
    Mr. NEWTON: "Hear, hear."
    Mr. EDWARDS: The hon. Member who interrupts is uttering, I think, the first syllable, which belongs to the utterance of a certain kind of animal [Interruption].
    Mr. NEWTON: As the hon. Gentleman has attacked me, I would like to say that I had to leave my usual seat below the Gangway on one of the two lower benches because of the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen who used the same form of interruption as I did.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think this relevant.
    Mr. NEWTON: I desire to submit that if I am attacked by an hon. Gentleman opposite I am entitled to reply.
    Mr. EDWARDS: What is the attack?
    Mr. NEWTON: The attack was that I had made a certain offensive sound.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I would like some further explanation from the Government—
    Mr. EDWARDS: On a point of Order. I was addressing you, Sir, when I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman opposite and I gave way when he rose. I submit that I am still in possession of the floor. The effect of this proposal, so far as the Bank of England is concerned, is that any perfectly informal document in the nature of a promissory note would be an enforceable instrument in a court of law and that these formalities which, since the passing of this Act have been regarded as securing confidence in the making of a promissory note, would no
    2140
    longer be required. It may be that there have been recent events which have made it—I will not say advisable—but at all events have created some idea in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite of some presumptive advantage from the repeal of this particular Act. Let us take a possible case where you get part of the formula of the ordinary promissory note, "In re turn for value received I undertake to pay £1,000—"
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will forgive me if I point out to him that he is going into quite unnecessary detail. I think these questions of detail are out of Order.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: On a point of Order, Sir. Are we to understand that it is impossible to go into the details of the Acts that we desire to omit from the Schedule of the Bill, because if that be your ruling it appears to me to open up a very important question. If it is impossible to go into details clearly it is quite impossible in some cases for hon. Members to state to the Committee the reasons why they think certain Acts should be struck out of the Schedule.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The ordinary practice in these cases is, as far as possible, to keep the debate on general lines and not to deal with details. Members, of course, are entitled to put forward general arguments as to why an Act should remain in or be outside the Schedule. I must respectfully invite hon. Members to confine themselves to those general arguments.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On a point of Order, Sir. Is it not in order to move to leave out not a whole statute, but any part of it, and in such case would it not be in order to go into details to show why a particular part of an Act ought not to be continued?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is mistaken. It is not in order in this Debate to move to leave out of a particular Act any Sections of it. Hon. Members must move to leave out the Act generally, or deal with some very germane or important parts of the Act taken as a whole.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I think the illustration I was about to give, Sir, is well enough understood, and I will not attempt to labour that particular point. With

    2141
    regard to the proposal to leave out the Irish promissory note, I do not know whether the Committee realised what this really means. As I understand the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), or some of his friends, tried to get in a certain Amendment in connection with another measure.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I was not able to move it owing to the guillotine.
    Mr. EDWARDS: The hon. and learned Member was not able, owing to the guillotine, to get the Amendment in our measure. Now, so convinced is he that the other measure is going to become law, that he seeks to effect his purpose in this particular form.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Perhaps it is hardly worth while to take notice of the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but if he wishes to know it I have not the least anticipation that the Bill to which he refers will ever become law. What I want to know is this. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it would disorganise business in Ireland if the Act of 1864 were repealed, because it would hamper the issue and circulation of promissory notes and bills of exchange under 20s. and £5. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us why, in 1845, it was so necessary to restrict or to prohibit the negotiation of these promissory notes and bills of exchange under those amounts, and why he now tells us it is so very important that bills of exchange and promissory notes of those small amounts should be issued and negotiated. If the state of affairs in 1845 made it necessary to pass that Statute, what has occurred since to make it necessary that Parliament should enable those bills of small amount to be issued and circulated and negotiated?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not know exactly what the conditions were in 1845. The hon. Member has proposed to repeal the Irish Act, but the English Act, which stands immediately before it in this Schedule, he proposes to leave untouched.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to Move to leave out "28 and 29 Vict., c. 46. The Militia (Ballot Suspension) Act, 1865."
    One reason why I want to move the omission of this Act is that I really do not know to what Act the Schedule refers. I
    2142
    have here the bound copy of the Acts from the Library. I have looked up c. 46 of 28 and 29 Vict., 1865, and this is what I find:—
    C. 46.—An Act to suspend the making of lists and ballots for Militia for the United Kingdom, 19th June, 1865.
    Beyond that there are no Clauses or Subclauses, and there is no preamble even. Therefore I want, in the first place, to find out what the Act in question really is, because here, in the bound copy, you have an Act which is only a title. I must say I consider that is rather a good precedent for the Government. I do not know why they do not pass all their Bills like that. What a saving of time it would effect, for instance, on the Home Rule Bill. They would not have any preamble or Clauses, but they could settle the whole matter with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and simply pass the title. It is a very curious thing that while the Militia Ballot Suspension Act apparently has no Clauses, you find that, according to the Schedule, there is an amending Act, 45 and 46 Vict., c 49, which repeals Clause 4 of the previous Act. I cannot, as I have said, find that the previous Act has any Clauses at all, and therefore I fail to understand how on earth Clause 4 can be repealed. I think the Government ought to tell us exactly what this means, because at present the whole thing is a complete puzzle.
    There is a further point that I wish to bring before the Committee. By the great Act passed by Lord Haldane when Secretary for War a few years ago the Militia was abolished altogether, and in its place was substituted the Special Reserve. I do not understand that the Militia Ballot Suspension Act has any application whatever to the Special Reserve, which is a different body from the Militia. It seems to me that this Act is not required at all, because under Lord Haldane's Act the Militia, the ballot for which was provided for in the original Act, has disappeared. I think, therefore, that I am entitled to ask whether this Act has any application at all at the present moment. The law of the land has been for many years that there is a ballot for the Militia. The old theory was that each county or military district provided a certain quota of men—a very sound principle indeed in my opinion—and if the quota was not provided in that way the ballot would apply. That system has been suspended year by

    2143
    year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It is obvious that Parliament never thought that this was a satisfactory procedure, and therefore, instead of making it permanent they put it into the category of Acts coming under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The present is a very suitable opportunity of reconsidering the whole question. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for War present. We all realise how much he has done, like his predecessor, to try to make the army efficient, but even he will realise how tremendously under strength the Territorial Force is.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it in order to discuss the general question of the efficiency of the Territorial Force?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member must direct himself to the question before the Committee—the retention of the Militia Ballot (Suspension) Act. I do not think the question of the efficiency of the Territorial Force arises out of that.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I venture respectfully to suggest that if I can show the present Territorial Force is very much under strength that is a reason why the Militia Ballot should not be suspended. The point I am making is this. The Militia has disappeared. If I can show that the Haldane scheme has broken down as regards the Territorial Force and the Special Reserve which is to take its place, I say that is a reason why we should revert to the system of having a quota of Militia for each county, and failing that a ballot. It is quite impossible under present circumstances without any form of compulsion to get members of the Territorial Force to do a sufficient amount of training—I mean to give the time, for I am not complaining of any lack of zeal on their part—to make themselves thoroughly efficient from the point of view of meeting a foreign army. I think the time has come when we might review entirely our military system, and the first step to take would be to avail of this opportunity to cease suspending this Act. There are still two months before the Act expires, and that would give the right hon. Gentleman time to bring forward a new scheme. I should like in any case to ask what the Act is, for I cannot find it in the Library, and what is the effect of its suspension on the Special Reserve.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I will not go into the general question of compulsory and voluntary service, as I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish me to do, but he suggests we should cease to suspend the operation of the Militia Ballot Act. The point is, should we retain the power to retain the Militia Ballot. With regard to its remaining in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that is not a matter under my control. That is a matter for successive Governments who have continued to leave it in the Schedule to this Bill. But on the merits of the case I would submit that you cannot get the kind of service which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes by retaining the Act which he wishes to suspend. The governing Act is the Act of 1860. That Act enables the various lieutenants of counties to hold a ballot. It is continued by the Act of 1865. The real point is would this be a good thing to do? Supposing we wanted to enforce compulsory service. My answer is that it certainly would not, because if you did have a Militia Ballot you might have compulsory service but with complete means for substitution. Every man could provide a substitute under the Act, and you would have the very thing the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself wishes to avoid, a system under which well-to-do men would be able to provide substitutes because they are well-to-do, by getting poorer men to serve for them. That is the last thing which anyone wishes to see, and I submit, therefore, we would be ill-advised to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered one of the questions put by my hon. Friend, namely, as to whether this Ballot Act docs apply to the new Special Reserve at all.
    Colonel SEELY: No, it does not.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Then what does it apply to? Just let the Committee see what a ludicrous position we are in. We have got no force in existence to which either the Militia Ballot Act itself or the Suspension Act would apply. Then, why on earth should we have the suspension of the Militia Act put into an Expiring Laws Continuance Act when there is no Militia to which to apply it, and no force at all to which it could apply? I should really like an explanation, if not from the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate from one of the

    2145
    law officers who are, or ought to be, here, as to why this Act is put into this Schedule at all.
    Colonel SEELY: By leave of the Committee, if I may clear away this aspect of the controversy, there is no force now existing to which this Act would apply. Therefore we can start on the discussion on a clear understanding that this Act does not apply to any force which we now have. Successive Secretaries of State—Lord Lansdowne and others—decided that it was not desirable to take this out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I confess I do not think that that view was wisely held by Lord Lansdowne.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The Militia existed then.
    Colonel SEELY: It did not even apply to that Militia, or to any force that we have had since, I think, the year 1845, but if the hon. and gallant Member had his way, and the House so decided, it would enable an entirely new force to be created which would enable the lords-lieutenant of counties by ballot to get a certain number of men forced to serve, or substitutes provided by those who could afford them. It will shorten the discussion if I say that this would provide an entirely novel kind of force by which the rich man who is enabled to provide a substitute could avoid compulsory service altogether.
    Mr. AMERY: I think the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly plain, and will simplify discussion, but I think it has been worth while raising this issue, because it does remind the Committee that compulsory service is a standing feature of our national institutions, and is only kept in temporary suspense from year to year by the provisions of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In view of the complete failure—I do not say the failure of the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor—but the complete failure of the existing system, which is affecting not only the standard which his predecessor and he himself have set up, but our national position, it would be an excellent thing if the right hon. Gentleman were brought with a sharp turn face to face with some practical way of dealing with this problem. I perfectly agree with him that if you allowed substitution for richer persons it would be a most undesirable form of compulsory service, and none of
    2146
    us who are in favour of national service would be in favour of such a measure. That is by no means a necessary consequence of the enforcement of the Militia Ballot Act. You have only to put your quota of men high enough so as to include all the youths at the age of eighteen years, and then you can reject for medical or others reasons those you wish to exclude. The moment you exclude the Act of 1865 from the present Schedule you at once start on the basis of a perfectly fair and universal service. I am glad that this Amendment has afforded the opportunity of a reminder that compulsory universal service, though in a state of suspense during the century of security which followed the Napoleonic era, is a normal part of the institutions of this country, especially at a time when we are entering upon another era perhaps, as dangerous and as troubled as any we have gone through in our history.
    Mr. CAMPION: There is another reason, I think, for not passing the Suspension Act. It seems to be in its terms very contradictory. It lays down in its first Clause that all returns and lists in relation to the Militia Ballot need not necessarily be prepared. Then in a subsequent Clause it says His Majesty may by Order in Council make an order for the preparing of these lists and the making of these returns so that the Militia Ballot may be taken. It seems to me that if there is this power by Order in Council, the Suspension Act does pre-suppose the possibility of a Militia Ballot which might have to be enforced. If that is to be done at any time it would have to be done in a time of crisis, a time of real danger, and it might be, and would be, necessary to raise a Militia by that Act as rapidly as possible. If these lists are not prepared, or if they are only prepared hastily under an Order in Council, it would be inefficiently done. I would support this Amendment on another ground, namely, that, so far as I can gather, the Suspension Act would make the object which apparently is in view as difficult of fulfilment as possible.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think with the Secretary for War that we should have a discussion of this subject and I hope we shall also have a Division. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will have the courage to go to a Division and will not run away from the position they have taken up. I know the hon. Member opposite will not tell, for example.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg your pardon, I shall.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then there will be at least one Teller, even though his Noble Friend whom he deserted has gone away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] The Noble Lord did stick to his guns, but he has now gone away, and undoubtedly the hon. Member deserted him. But he at least will be faithful on this occasion. The hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) endeavoured to refute the argument of the Secretary for War that on the abolition of the Suspensions Act the ballot would work favourably for the rich man, and he suggested that it would only require to be for a sufficiently large number and then the rich man would not escape, and only the physically unfit would be rejected. I am afraid that even under those conditions a very large number of rich men would turn out to be physically unfit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Insult."] We would have to have a medical examination. I welcome not only the discussion but the Division which we are now assured of, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will be courageous for once.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I desire to ask one more question. If we take these lines out of the Schedule will the effect be that the original Act still remains on the Statute book, and is not the effect merely that the Suspension Act which holds up the original Act, is removed? In that case it seems to me it would be a desirable thing to do. The Militia in the old form no longer exists; we have now the Special Reserve and the Territorial Forces. It is perfectly unnecessary, therefore, to have a Suspension Act. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for War, says there would be power under an Order in Council to raise some other force, an entirely new force, which is unknown at the present time. That might be an exceedingly desirable thing to do, even if by an Order in Council, for you could get a new force which would have the effect of filling up the Territorial Forces or Special Reserve in case of emergency.
    If you pass this now you have not got the power without a special Act of Parliament of putting the ballot in force for a whole year. On the other hand, if you dropped the Suspension Act and kept the original Act, it could not apply to the Militia, because it does not exist; but there is power to apply it
    2148
    to some new force if needed. In that case you might have a valuable power in case of emergency for filling up the Territorials or the Special Reserve. That would be in agreement with the whole idea of the Territorial Forces, and the plan of working through the County Associations and the Lord Lieutenant, and the endeavour to interest each county as a whole in the filling up of that force. We all know that it is largely below strength and that there is extreme difficulty in getting recruits, and the Secretary for War should be only too glad to have some power which would help him to fill it up. Would it not be valuable, not only in a time of national emergency, but entirely in agreement with the whole theory of the Territorial Forces to be able to put this Act into force by means of an Order in Council?
    Colonel SEELY: Before going to a Division I wish to make some short reply to the courteous report just made to say, whether, if this Amendment were carried, it would be possible by an Order in Council to bring the Act into operation, and then we should be enabled to form this new militia, which, as I have said, I do not believe most of the Members of this House would wish to see established. Under the various sections of that Act, a well-to-do man would get a substitute, who might be a poor man, to serve in his place. I am sure no party in this House would wish to see that. The result of the passing of this Amendment would be that we could have introduced into this country that most undemocratic idea and the most inefficient kind of army we have ever seen.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The remarks just made show to my mind that it is most important that we should divide on this Amendment. It is perfectly clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said and from what he said before that the Act has no application to any existing force. I do not quite follow his statement with respect to the Act of 1845. The Act was passed in 1865.
    Colonel SEELY: That is the latest Act.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:It could not apply to an Act which did not then exist. If the Act does not apply to anything now in existence why on earth should we suspend it? The right hon. Gentleman does admit that it would give power by means of an Order in Council to call into being some new force. It does

    2149
    not go beyond that. It seems to me to be most important that we should have the power to create a new force by means of an Order in Council. The only objection the right Hon. Gentleman has is that the new force would not be the sort of force which we would require. To allow substitutes, I quite agree, would be a shocking business. But if we should need to ever exercise the power, why should we not get the sort of force which is desirable? Why cannot we leave this out of the Schedule now and retain that power of calling into being a new force, and by passing a new Act, define what the new force is to be? It seems to me that is the way out of the difficulty and that it would be a valuable thing for the Government

    Division No. 266.]

    AYES.

    [3.15 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Adamson, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hazleton, Richard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Barton, W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bentham, G. J.

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Jones, W. S. (Glyn- (Stepney)

    Reddy, Michael

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brady, P. J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    King, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Clough, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lewis, Herbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lundon, T.

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dawes, J. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Delany, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutton, John E.

    Doris, W.

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duffy, William J.

    Manfield, Harry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Trevelyan, Charles Philip

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Falconer, J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Waring, Walter

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Munro, R.

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

    Flavin, Michael

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    France, G. A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Gill, A. H.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Neilson, Francis

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Young W. (Perthshire, East)

    Gulland, John William

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hackett, J.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Geoffrey Howard and Mr. Webb.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Malley, William

    to have this power, if the Secretary for War finds that the Territorial Army falls further in strength or the Special Reserve requires it, we could define the character of such a force by a new Act, and we would now give the Secretary for War a power which is very much wanted. It is quite open to us to avoid the creation of any undemocratic or inefficient force.
    Mr. HOGGE: I only rise to ask a question. As there is to be a Division I want to know whether we are voting on the retention of the suspension or the suspension of the retention.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 39.

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Baird, J. L.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Butcher, John George

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Sykes, Alan, John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Campion, W. R.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Amery.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to move to leave out "51 and 52 Vict., c. 55, The Sand Grouse Protection Act, 1888."
    This is a comparatively new Act, and it was passed almost sub silentio by the present President of the Board of Trade, when he was a private Member in 1888. I daresay hon. Members do not know much about this Act, which enacts that any person knowingly or intentionally killing or wounding a sand grouse shall be liable to certain penalties. It is a very short Act of one Clause, and on the First and Second Readings there was no discussion whatever upon it. In Committee and on the Third Reading the proceedings were so brief that they occupy only a quarter of a page of Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton), I see stated that the reason he wanted the measure passed without discussion and put into immediate operation was owing to the intensity of the evil if was designed to check, which was growing day by day. The evil was that on a certain date about March, 1888, there was a blizzard, and a few sand grouse came over to this country. Because of that, this Act was passed in a panic. No sand grounse have been seen since. But since 1888 this Act has been solemnly kept on the Statute Book. The Secretary to the Treasury said at the beginning of this discussion that he wanted to lighten the things included in this Bill, partly by making some of the Acts into permanent measures, and partly by omitting those which were obsolete. I would recommend to the hon. Gentleman the lightening of the Bill by omitting the Sand Grouse Protection Act.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The sand grouse is a rare and beautiful wild bird. On the general principle on which this House must always
    2152
    act, desiring to protect wild birds, we propose that this law should continue for one year longer.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: These birds arrive in this country at very rare intervals. Their natural habitat is Siberia. On inquiring as to the date and manner of passing of the Act now under discussion, I find that it was passed after the sand grouse of that particular year had left, and they have not been seen since.
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes; they have been seen since.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The position is this: Supposing these sand grouse were to arrive in this country in large quantities, anyone who took one or exposed it for sale would be liable to be fined a sovereign. The object of the Act was that these rare visitors to our shores should be protected. It is obvious that the sand grouse which would come back here after forty years would not be the same bird as was here forty years before, and I say if the sand grouse arrives, let us have a shot at him while we have the chance. It is absurd to protect the sand grouse of Siberia—to protect the bird of some Eastern gentleman whom we have never seen. Why we should be prevented next year from having a go at these sand grouse is more than I can understand. Good heavens! What have we to do with Siberia? I say, let us have their grouse.
    Mr. AMERY: I should like, on the contrary, strongly to oppose this Amendment. There is some hope that if this law is kept in force, and if the sand grouse arriving on another occasion is not shot, this bird may become acclimatised, and add one more to our beautiful wild birds in this country.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: If this Act is retained it would be interesting to know whether it would be honoured in the breach or in the observance. It is a farce to ask us to protect birds which scarcely ever appear in these islands.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are fully cognisant of the importance of the request they are making. We have heard the voice of Liverpool advocating the withdrawal of this Act, and the voice of Birmingham has replied that it is strongly in favour of preserving it. I want to approach this from the humanitarian side. I am assured by experts that, owing to the fact that these birds are raised on sand, they suffer from a form of opthalmia. The Act was passed in 1888, when the destinies of this great nation were controlled by a Conservative Government. I want to ask our Front Bench what they mean by coming down at this hour of the morning and asking us to perpetuate panic legislation passed by a Tory Government?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move to leave out "3 Edw. 7, c. 36, The Motor Car Act, 1903, The whole Act."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to call attention to the present state of things with regard to the Motor Car Act. There is no doubt that since that Act was passed it has been proved by ample, and, I am sorry to say, sad experience, to be totally inefficient for the purpose of restraining accidents in connection with the use of motor-propelled vehicles. In answer to a question the other day the Home Secretary said in the year 1911 893 drivers of motor-cabs and motor omnibuses, and 3,556 drivers of other motor vehicles, were prosecuted in the Metropolitan Police district for offences connected with excessive speed and dangerous driving. Now that is a very serious state of things. I do not think the number of convictions was given, but that this number of people should have been prosecuted under the Act shows a very serious state of things indeed. I think the Home Secretary a short time ago gave the figures of fatal accidents and injuries caused by motor vehicles. I have not these figures by me at the moment, but I remember that they were alarmingly large. A conference was held the other day at the Home Office
    2154
    purposely to see what better restrictions for traffic in London could be made, so as to diminish the number of accidents.
    We all know how often country districts, too, are harassed, annoyed, and put to the most serious inconvenience and danger by the excessive driving of motor-cars. I think the time has come when these matters ought to be inquired into and legislation passed. We are now being asked to renew the Motor Car Act up to the 31st of December next year, without any alteration whatsoever. If the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that he will at the earliest date possible introduce legislation for the purpose of amending this Act and so diminish the danger with which the driving of motor vehicles is attended, I shall at once withdraw my Amendment, but, if he will not give that assurance, may I put to him that it is very desirable in the interests of the public to cut out this Motor-Car Act from the Schedule of the Bill, because the result would be that the Home Office would be forced immediately to introduce legislation to deal with this important subject? However, I hope the Home Secretary will give me an assurance that the matter is under consideration, and will be undertaken before long.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the question of dealing with the dangers of street traffic in London is engaging the attention of the Home Office very seriously at the present time. Of course, I know the hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that this Act should be omitted from the Schedule. He knows as well as, or better than I do, that the effect would be that everybody driving a motor car would require to have somebody walking in front with a red flag. I assure him, however, that I am considering this matter very seriously.
    Captain CRAIG: I only want to ask the Home Secretary one question with regard to promised legislation. He says that the present inquiry is being made in regard to London, and I presume that would also cover other large towns throughout the country. Has the Home Office taken into consideration the question of doing away with the artificial noises—horns, whistles, etc.—used by motor vehicles, because a great number of accidents are occasioned by the fact that drivers are given to bluffing the foot passengers out of the

    2155
    way? Would it not be possible to compromise the matter by permitting these horns, whistles, and syrens to be used in the country districts to warn carts a long distance off; but that immediately on entering the towns the driver of any car of a certain size which made use of any of these noises would have to pay a penalty?
    I am sure that every Member of the House will agree with me that in the streets of London especially, and in other large towns very often, the taxi-cabs and private-owned vehicles dash round corners and across squares, relying absolutely on the fact that they have a powerful horn to chase foot passengers off the road, and I am perfectly convinced that if there was some restriction put upon these people they would have to drive as a man has to drive a horse, that is, pull up if anyone is in the way. I believe accidents would be greatly reduced if the drivers of great heavy vehicles knew perfectly well that nobody would get out of the way while proceeding on his ordinary avocation. I understand the law of the land is that every foot passenger has just as much right to the road as any vehicle, and the very fact of preventing the use of these obnoxious horns would add, not only very much to the comfort of life in the towns, but, I am confident from my experience of motor cars, would lead to a very large reduction of motor accidents.
    Captain MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that I introduced a private Bill dealing with the matter, and use his influence to have it considered?
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
    Mr. RUSSELL: I beg to move to insert in the Schedule the words:—
    The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1908.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: What is the effect of this Amendment? What is the title of the Act? We have not heard it.
    Mr. RUSSELL: On a previous occasion I said that this Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1908 had been left out by the Government this year, but the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) made a request to have
    2156
    it continued for another year. I consented on behalf of the Government that that should be done. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork had to leave the House, but before he left he asked me to insert it, and I am moving to do so.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Even the name of the Act did not reach us. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork may be fully apprised of the value of the Act, and it may be perfectly right to insert it, but we should like to know what is going on.
    Mr. RUSSELL: It has already been explained three times.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Even if it has been explained three times, surely the right time to explain an Amendment is when it is proposed to the Committee. We are not supposed to be here all the time when the Government chooses to ask us to sit from three o'clock in the afternoon until four o'clock in the morning. I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation of the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman will give an explanation at once if necessary. This was an Amendment which was promised on the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cork then drew attention to it, and it was then discussed and everybody knew about it.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: We did not know the nature of the Act.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is the Registration of Titles (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1908. It was in last year's Schedule and was dropped this year, but at the request of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork it is now moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Russell) to insert it for another year.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Surely the Government did not drop it or do not put it in again without some reason beyond the behest of the Member for North-East Cork. We desire to know why it was left out and why it is put in.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Act was in fact not being used so far as the Government knew, but the Member for North-East Cork informed us that in some cases in his experience it was being used.
    Mr. RUSSELL: If I may further explain the matter to the Noble Lord, this measure was passed, on the Motion of a private Member of this House, to deal with certain cases that arose in connection with the registration of titles for labourers' cottages in Ireland. It was passed for that specific purpose. We think that specific purpose has now been fulfilled. The Member for North-East Cork thinks there still are some occasions that may be covered by it and he asked us to-night to renew it for another year, and we have agreed to that.
    Captain CRAIG: If the Government give in to the Nationalist party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is the Member for North-East Cork if he is not a Nationalist? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in courtesy to the Ulster Members, he
    2158
    will accept an Amendment to this Bill to reinstate the Peace Preservation Act?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEK, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes before Four o'clock; a.m. Wednesday, 23rd October, 1912.