Commons Sitting of 9 April 1918

Preamble
The House met—after the adjournment on 21st March, for the Easter Recess—at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Land Drainage (Lotting Fen) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

NEW WRITS.
For the County of York, West Riding (Keighley Division), in the room of Sir Swire Smith, Knight, deceased.—[Mr Gulland.]
For King's County (Tullamore Division), in the room of Edward John Graham, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Patrick White.]

MEDICAL COUNCIL
Accounts presented of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund, for 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
Copy presented of Report of the Proceedings of the Irish Convention [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
Copy presented of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
Copy presented of Annual Accounts of the Ordnance Factories for the year 1916–17, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 37.]
VOTE OF CREDIT (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, 1916–17).
Copy presented of Appropriation Account of the sums granted by Parliament beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament to pay the expenses incurred for general Navy and Army Services, beyond the specific provisions made there for by Parliament, for the conduct of Naval and Military operations; for measures taken for the security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the continuance of trade, industry, business, and communications whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for relief of distress; and generally for all expenses beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament arising out of the existence of a state of war, in the year ended 31st March, 1917, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 38.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 27th March, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance Transfer Values (Amendment) Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
Annual Account presented of Receipts and Disbursements for the year 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, Etc.) ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Return of Pensions granted to Governors of Dominions, etc., during the financial year 1917–18 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS.
Copy presented of National Service Instruction, No. 67 of 1918, made by the

1303
Minister of National Service under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order, dated 9th April, 1918, made under Section 2 of the Act by the Minister of National Service [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION (WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1899).
Copy presented of Report of the Board of Education under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, for the year 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 39.]
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 22nd March, 1918, relative to the Pay, etc., of the Royal Marine Labour Corps [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 22nd March, 1918, with respect to the dates in relation to the preparation of the First Register, etc., to the Forms to be used in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland (Provisional Order, except with respect to Scotland) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
AIR FORCE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Provisional Orders in Council, dated 22nd March, 1918, entitled (1) the Air Force (Application of Enactments) (No. 1) Order, 1918, and (2) the Air Force (Application of Enactments) (No. 2) Order, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD
Copies presented of London and Home Counties (Rationing Scheme) Order, 1918, Imported Canned Condensed Milk (Requisition) Order, 1918, Live Stock (Restriction of Slaughter) Order, 1918, Cocoa-Butter
1304
(Provisional Prices) Order, 1918, Raw Cocoa (Prices) Order, 1918, Dutch Cheese (Requisition) Order, 1918, and Canned Condensed Milk (Requisition) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Order, dated 22nd March, 1918, made under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, 9,917, dated 27th March, 1918, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 1st October, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 517, dated 16th March, 1918, suspending the operation of the Potatoes (Corky Scab) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
Account presented of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof and the interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 40.]
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Regulations for the Register of the Intermediate School Teachers in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Council of the under-mentioned local authority and confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:
County Borough of Cork
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN,
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 65 (Edinburgh, No. 24) (Foundation of a Chair of Therapeutics) and No. 66 (Aberdeen, No. 8) (Institution of a Degree in Education and relative Regulations) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 41.]
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:

1. Bank of England.—Copy of Annual Accounts of Exchequer Bills and other Government Securities purchased and Amount, of Balances of Sums issued for the Payment of Dividends, etc. [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 42.]

2. Public Records (Home Office, Official Press Bureau.—Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Home Office (Official Press Bureau), which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Office [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    KIAO-CHAU.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies or any of them have given an assur-
    1306
    ance that Kiao-Chau shall be returned to China; if so, on what date was it given; and when the promise will be redeemed?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The exchange of Notes which took place in 1915 on the subject between China and Japan was published at the time in both countries and reproduced in the British Press. His Majesty's Government are not aware of any other assurance.
    Mr. KING: Will the British Government inquire of our Japanese Allies the state of this question, so that we may know what is being done?

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy of the Allies still remains that stated by the British Ambassador at Petrograd on 9th December, 1917, when he stated that as soon as a Government is recognised by the Russian people as a whole the Allies would examine with that Government the aims of the War, or whether recent events have led to a with drawal from the position taken up three months ago?
    Lord R. CECIL: The conclusion of a separate peace between the Government at Petrograd and the Central Powers has obviously altered the whole position of affairs.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table Papers relating to the proposals for Japanese intervention in Russia?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.

  HEDJAZ OPERATIONS.

    STATEMENT BY LORD R. CECIL.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement about the state of affairs in the kingdom of the Hedjaz, the Sultanates of Riad and Hail, and the countries adjoining these?
    Lord R. CECIL: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question I will, with the permission of the House, describe as briefly as possible the course which the operations of the forces of our Ally,

    1307
    the King of the Hedjaz, have followed since the declaration of Arabian independence was announced at Mecca in July, 1916.
    At that time the Turks had in Hedjaz an army of 20,000 picked Regular troops with a proportional complement of artillery and plentiful supplies of transport, food and ammunition, besides having a military railway in direct communication with their northern bases. The Arabs, who rallied to the standard of liberation, were neither organised nor equipped with modern weapons, nevertheless the towns of Mecca, Taif, Jeddah, Yambo, Wedj, Akaba and Teima were seized at the commencement of the national movement. Consequent upon this numerous Arabian tribes and a number of officers and men prisoners of war in our hands joined voluntarily the army of the King of the Hedjaz and were organised by him into a permanent and disciplined force for the purpose of holding what had been won and extending the area of Arab independence. The result of the efforts of this national army under the leadership of the Sherifs Ali, Abdullah, Feisal and Zeid, are that the Red Sea coast of the Hedjaz has been completely cleared of Turks along a distance of 800 miles. The military railway has been continuously interrupted and severe losses inflicted on the material and rolling stock. The city of Medina has been blockaded for the last twelve months. The Sherif Feisal's force has advanced its front from Mecca to North of Tafileh on the shores of the Dead Sea, a distance of some 800 miles, and General Allenby's recent raid at Ammaw had the effect of assisting the Arabs to maintain their position.
    The casualties inflicted on the Turks up to date are very considerable, and it may be safely said from the declaration of Arab independence up to the present time the Arab forces have occupied, isolated, or accounted for fully 40,000 Turkish troops and over 100 guns.
    Although engrossed in this difficult military struggle for national liberty, the Government of the Hedjaz have been able to inaugurate a new era of civil order and justice unknown in the Hedjaz since its subjection to Turkish rule.
    The national Arab Government have moreover succeeded in arranging for two consecutive pilgrimages to the Holy
    1308
    Places. On these occasions the pilgrims were, as never before, accorded comfort and medical care, and both pilgrimages were marked by a complete absence of epidemics or any of the usual concomitants of robbery, extortion, and disorder.
    In Eastern Arabia the Emir of Riad Ibn Saud has proved our unswerving ally, and has established the independence of the greater part of Neid.
    The Emir of Hail is still personally under Turkish domination, but has not been in residence in his capital for a year.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (SOLDIERS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is now the practice to press upon soldiers to take War Savings Certificates in lieu of pay when back pay is being settled up; whether further delays occur on soldiers declining to accept these certificates; and whether this is being done at the orders or with the sanction of the Army Council?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Soldiers are encouraged to invest in War Saving; Certificates, and are given facilities for so doing, but there is no foundation for the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman see that no moral pressure is put upon these men—[HON.MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]—to deprive them—[Interruption]—of their perfect liberty—[Interruption]—to have either their money—[Interruption] —
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

  WHITEHALL FARM, COVE.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Whitehall Farm, Cove, near Farnborough, is being cultivated by the War Office; whether this farm is owned by the War Office; how many acres does it contain; how many soldiers are there employed; how many horses are employed; what crops were raised there last season; what amount of potatoes and off how many acres; whether there are about 300 acres in this district owned by the War Office; are beagles

  1309
  kennelled there; and what previous experience in agriculture is possessed by the officer in charge?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Whitehall Farm, Cove, was until the 25th March cultivated by tenants, but on that date was taken over by the military authorities. The farm is War Department property, and its area is 360 acres. Ten soldiers from an agricultural company have been employed, and paid by the tenants under the usual Regulations. Twenty unfit Army horses are employed at present with a view to hardening them for service. The crops raised last season consisted of 573¾ tons of "ware" potatoes off sixty acres. Beagles arc not kennelled on the farm. The officer in charge has been a farmer practically all his life.

  TROOPS (VACCINATION).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under secretary of State for War if soldiers in France are being refused leave to which otherwise they would be entitled unless they can show good vaccination marks; and, if so, whether this restriction will be at once withdrawn and soldiers granted the leave to which they are entitled, irrespective of marks on their arms or elsewhere, good or otherwise?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; instructions to this effect have been issued by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. In view of the outbreak of small-pox in London it is not proposed to withdraw this restriction at present.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman do what is possible for those men who are entitled to leave to enable them to be vaccinated?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does this apply to any area outside London?

  MESOPOTAMIA (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under secretary of State for War if he can give information in detail as to the presence of medical officers and nurses, the provision of hospitals, and the supply of fresh vegetables and fruits to the British and Indian troops stationed at Ramadi and Hit, on the River Euphrates?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No sick or wounded are retained at Ramadi or Hit. They are evacuated by motor ambulance convoy or boat to Dhibban, and thence by ambulance tonga trains to Bagdad, where there is ample hospital accommodation. Medical officers are present with units, field ambulances, and casualty clearing stations, but no nurses for the reasons given above. Fresh vegetables up to full ration scale have been sent from Bagdad, as the quantity available locally is negligible. While troops are on operations no fruit is issued, but there are ample stocks of dried and tinned fruits in the area.

  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (DISCHARGE).
  Mr. WILLIAM WATSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all warrant officers and non-commissioned officers over forty-two years of age are now being discharged irrespective of whether they are desirous of continuing to serve; and, if so, whether adequate arrangements are made whereby such men on discharge forthwith secure suitable and remunerative employment?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and learned Friend has consulted me on this point. I find that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will now let me have the particulars of the case he has, and I will have investigation made.

  RUSSIAN SUBJECT DEPORTED.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether George Sairio, a Russian subject, has now been deported; whether he was brought before the Advisory Committee on 6th February, 1917; how long after that date-did his deportation occur; when brought before the Advisory Committee was he handcuffed to two men; if so, was this usual in such cases; and whether he will assure the House that the delay in deporting this man, who had fought for the Allies, and his being for thirty days in solitary confinement was not in any way due to his evidence being feared by the police authorities in an action for-damages?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): An Internment Order was made in this case under Defence of the Realm Regulation 14 b on the 31st January, 1917. Sairio appeared before the Advisory Committee on the 6th and 22nd February, 1917, and the Internment Order was confirmed on the recommendation of the Committee. In January last, as the hon. Member was informed in reply to his questions on the 21st January, it was decided to send him to Russia, and he left by the first available boat after that date. As regards the rest of the question, he was not handcuffed when brought before the Advisory Committee, but when being conveyed from Brixton to Westminster Hall with two other men a light chain was used in accordance with the usual practice to facilitate their control by the officer escorting them. He never fought for the Allies, nor was he kept in solitary confinement, and the hon. Member's suggestion with regard to the police is without foundation.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (PURCHASES BY FOREIGN SYNDICATES).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been called to recent purchases of agricultural land in Essex by foreign syndicates; what steps the Government will take to protect the interests of the tenant farmers; and whether an alien who would be prevented from residence in the areas concerned would be allowed to purchase land there?
    The PRESIDENT of the-BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I am aware of recent purchases of agricultural land in Essex by a company called the County Farm and Lands Company, the directorate of which is, I understand, to be composed of Belgian and British subjects. I am informed that none of the tenant farmers who were in occupation of the land have been disturbed. The general point raised in the last part of the question is one for consideration by the naval and military authorities. I may add that the War Office has been informed of the purchase.

    FEEDING STUFFS (IRELAND).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
    1312
    whether it is by his authority that an instruction has been issued by the Liverpool Portal Committee to steamship companies trading with Ireland not to accept any cattle feeding-stuffs for Ireland without first making application to the Feeding-Stuffs Department of the Ministry of Food through the portal committee; and, if so, whether notice of this intended stoppage of the shipment of feeding-stuffs to Ireland was given to Irish merchants; and whether he will at once have this instruction withdrawn and a fair proportion of the available feeding-stuffs allocated for Irish farmers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The issue of this instruction was necessary for the equitable allocation of cattle feeding-stuffs between Great Britain and Ireland. Permits have been granted for the shipment to Ireland of all feeding-stuffs for which freight had been engaged, and permits are being issued for the shipment of further quantities on a proportionate basis of the shipments in the corresponding period of last year.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state for each of the last six months for which complete returns are available the amount of cake and cake-meals made in Great Britain; the amount of cake and cake-meals imported into Great Britain; the quantities of these that have been shipped to Ireland; and on what basis the allocation to Ireland has been made?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am sending the hon. Member such figures as are available, and these will be printed in the Official Report.
    The following are the figure referred to:—
    The amount of cake and cake-meal made in Great Britain in the last six months for which returns are available are as follows: —

    1917

    September

    …

    …

    58,129 tons

    October

    …

    …

    61,469 tons

    November

    …

    …

    58,991 tons

    December

    …

    …

    48,686 tons

    1918

    January

    …

    …

    67,643 tons

    February

    …

    …

    64,969 tons

    and the following are the amounts of cake and cake meals imported into Great Britain in the same period: —

    1917

    September

    …

    …

    22,674 tons

    October

    …

    …

    14,119 tons

    November

    …

    …

    21,638 tons

    December

    …

    …

    5,267 tons

    1918

    January

    …

    …

    4,610 tons

    February

    …

    …

    1,248 tons

    No exact statistics are in existence as to the shipments from Great Britain to Ireland, but the following show the amount of cake and cake meals directly imported into Ireland in each of the last six months:

    1917

    September

    …

    …

    250 tons

    October

    …

    …

    251 tons

    November

    …

    …

    29 tons

    December

    …

    …

    342 tons

    1918

    January

    …

    …

    nil

    February

    …

    …

    nil.

    The amount of cattle feeding-stuffs to be allocated to Ireland has not yet been determined, but the question of the allocation throughout the United Kingdom is at present receiving the consideration of the Food Controller.

    CATTLE DEALER'S LICENCE.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what action is being taken on a memorial from Mr. Andrew Beattie, a butcher, of Denholm, in the county of Roxburgh, and for twenty years past a dealer in cattle and sheep, complaining of the refusal of Mr. C. Ritchie, deputy live-stock commissioner at Edinburgh, to grant him a cattle dealer's licence, although Mr. Beattie sent letters from three live-stock auctioneers certifying that he is a regular dealer and extensive buyer of both fat and store sheep and cattle, and although the refusal causes hardship and loss of income?
    Mr. CLYNES: In order to simplify as much as possible the arrangements for the distribution of live-stock, it has been found necessary to reduce to a minimum the number of dealers' licences issued, and it is not as a rule considered advisable that a person carrying on a butchering business should also operate as a cattle dealer. Inquiries are, however, being made into the case described by the hon. Baronet, and any action found to be necessary will be taken.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that one of the largest dealers in England,
    1314
    living in Oldham, with which town the hon. Gentleman is acquainted, was both a butcher and a Catholic?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am fairly familiar with the conditions in that town, but that incident has not come to my notice.

    POTATO FLOUR FACTORIES.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has received representations urging him to set up one of the proposed potato-flour factories in Perth; and whether, in view of the favourable position of Perth both as regards adjacent potato-growing districts and as regards railway communications, he will accede to this request?
    Mr. CLYNES: Representations to this effect have been received. I cannot at present indicate with certainty the precise localities in which these factories will be established, but the intention is to instal them in districts which produce potatoes in excess of their own requirements, for the purpose of economising in transport.
    Mr. WHYTE: Are these factories being established under the control of the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. CLYNES: Certainly.

    CONFECTIONERS.
    Mr. F. WHYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has yet been able to take measures to relieve the position of small confectioners?
    Mr. CLYNES: A scheme has been prepared which would have the effect of diverting supplies of confectionery from large concerns to those whose livelihood is solely or mainly dependent on its sale. Certain objections to this scheme have been urged by the Consumers' Council, and it is intended to consider alternative proposals before definite steps are taken to afford relief.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman give preference to the small British shop-owner as distinct from the alien shop-owner?
    Mr. CLYNES: That matter will be considered by those who finally have to determine what will be done.
    Colonel BURN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has prohibited the

    1315
    sale of sweets in cinemas, theatres, and such places in order to help the small dealer?
    Mr. CLYNES: That step has not been taken. It has been found that many of the contracts for the sale of sweets in cinemas are in the hands of poor people, and not in the hands of the big traders.
    Mr. WHYTE: To what extent are the small shopkeepers represented on the Consumers' Council?
    Mr. CLYNES: On the Consumers' Council there are representatives who represent collectively the general interests of the consumers.
    Mr. BILLING: Is there one small consumer on the council?
    Mr. CLYNES: I think there is nobody coming under that description on the council.

    SALMON AND TROUT (VALE OF TWEED).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received representations from the associations of anglers in the county of Roxburgh and other parts of the Vale of Tweed as to the need of making the salmon and trout in its waters and tributaries available as human food in the present time of restrictions for those who wish to go forth with rod and line; and whether he is taking any sort of action in this matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have received the representations referred to, and I have been in communication with the Fishery Board and with the Scottish Freshwater Fisheries Committee regarding them. Both of these bodies are of opinion that no material addition to the food supply would result from the course of action suggested. I see no reason to differ from their conclusion.

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that there are about 4,000 acres of un-tenanted and non-residential lands in the Creggs district, near Roscommon, less than 200 acres of which are under cultivation and less than 40 acres of which are unfit for cultivation, all the rest having been tilled heretofore with advantage though now, it is understood, represented to the Department as unarable;
    1316
    whether he is aware that representations have been made to the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) by the Creggs district branch of the United Irish Tillage League on behalf of five or six hundreds of uneconomic landholders in that district on the look-out for conacre lots; whether he is aware that the Department has been requested by this branch to have those lands inspected by the Department's inspector and the Tillage Regulations enforced thereon; whether he has received copies of such requests from the honorary joint secretary of the Creggs district branch; and whether he will direct the Department, should they not have already done so, to commandeer for tillage purposes all lands referred to herein, as affected by the Department's Tillage Order, 1918, and remaining unfilled on 15th March, so that persons in need of tillage and anxious to cultivate the soil can have an opportunity of helping the Government and the Department in their cry for more food?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Department of Agriculture have received communications from the branch of the Tillage League referred to in the question to the effect that certain occupiers of lands in the district were not complying with the Tillage Orders, and asking for inspection of the lands, with a view to letting in conacre. Inspection has been made, and the results are under consideration. In all cases in which there is reason to believe that occupiers are not complying with the Tillage Orders the Department take, and will take, action to enforce the requisite cultivation; but they have no power to take possession of land unless the occupier fails to comply with Tillage Orders.

  SHIPPING LOSSES
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the official estimate still holds good that 75 per cent. of our tonnage is employed for Governmental purposes of which 12 per cent. is used for the carriage of iron ore and food; and whether it would be a correct inference that losses from war and navigation which are not replaced by building fall on the shipping which is left over?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The figures quoted by

  1317
  my hon. and gallant Friend are not official estimates, and if he will refer to the speech which I made on 14th February, 1917, he will find that the 12 per cent. was merely named, as an illustration, as accounting for ore, wheat, and sugar. It is, however, unnecessary to go into the figures in detail, as the position is now fundamentally altered by the fact that practically the whole of the available British ocean-going tonnage is now requisitioned for war service, which therefore bears the burden of losses except so far as they are made good by new construction, by the more effective employment of neutral tonnage, or in other ways.
  Mr. CORYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with the view to providing an incentive to the men in the shipbuilding yards to do their best work in this time of crisis, he will cause to be regularly posted up in those yards in a prominent position and way the shipping losses through enemy submarine action?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We have discussed this matter carefully, and the shipbuilders and the unions are considering various forms in which information might conveniently be given to the industry in order to stimulate emulation between the various yards, as well as to inform them of the national position.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can supplement the figures of losses in the White Paper by stating the average tonnage under repair or awaiting repair for a period during this year?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has considered very carefully whether it would be possible or advisable to give detailed figures of tonnage under repair or awaiting repair. There are two main objections to giving these figures—firstly, they would give information to the enemy as to the extent of the damage to vessels which he hits but does not sink; and, secondly, it is exceedingly difficult to frame a return which would make a fair distinction between minor and heavy repairs. We have, however, already given the House on other occasions an indication and figures as to repair work which is being successfully carried out. These figures, of course, included vessels which only occupied the dry docks for comparatively short space of time. I can only add that the rate of repair work is being consistently maintained.

  FIRST-CLASS RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION.
  Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will again make representations to the Railway Executive Committee with regard to the extent to which present first-class accommodation on trains is unused; and whether he will draw the Committee's particular attention to the train leaving Sevenoaks for New Cross on the South-Eastern main line at 7.27 a.m., in which the third-class compartments are overcrowded while the first-class compartments rarely have more than one or two occupants?
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is often impracticable to alter the make-up of trains in accordance with the variations which may occur in the relative number of first and third-class passengers travelling at different periods of the day. I have no reason to think that railway companies provide more first-class accommodation than is necessary to meet general requirements, but I have called the attention of the Railway Executive Committee to the matter. As regards the particular train referred to, I understand that the overcrowding of the third-class compartments occurred on Monday mornings, and that this inconvenience has been remedied by the provision of additional accommodation.

  LABOUR RE-SETTLEMENT (IRELAND).
  Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken in Ireland to deal with the problem of labour re-settlement there after the War; whether it is proposed to set up any special machinery to deal with the separate conditions which prevail in that country; and generally can he state the proposals for the prompt resettlement of Irish soldiers and sailors who have voluntarily given their services in the War?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Roberts): I am not at present in a position to make a detailed statement on this point, but I may say generally that the proposals with regard to re-settlement of

  1319
  ex-Service men will apply to Irish sailors and soldiers in the same way as to men enlisted from Great Britain.
  Captain SHEEHAN: When may we hope for a detailed statement?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I hope to be able to announce it in due course.

  SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the tonnage of the new ships completed in March?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As announced in the Press on 4th April, the new merchant ships completed in United Kingdom yards in March amounted to 161,674 gross tons.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the gross figures of the shipbuilding efforts of the British, Allies, and neutrals for the War up to the end of 1917, aggregating 6,606,275 tons, includes sailing vessels which do not enter the war zone; and whether he can state the amount and the corresponding loss in steamers of over 1,600 tons such as are used for supplying this country and Europe?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; sailing vessels are included. They are, of course, also included in the losses. My hon. and gallant Friend is not correct in saying they do not enter the war zone. I am afraid the information asked for in the last part of the question is not available.

  ALLIED TONNAGE, BLACK SEA.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the amount of the Allied, Russian, and Roumanian tonnage in the Black Sea; and whether this tonnage, which is not available for war purposes to the Allies, is included in the 31,500,000 tons which remains to the British, Allies, and neutrals?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The tonnage referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question was included in the 33,000,000 ocean-going tonnage (other than enemy) estimated as being afloat in August, 1914. The amount is small in relation to the total figures, but it would not be in the public interest to state the precise amount.

  SUBMARINE CAMPAIGN.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the intensified U-boat war started in October, 1916; whether since then the outstanding facts are a large reduction in the ships sunk by mines, a large reduction in the neutral tonnage frequenting the war zone, and a large increase in the numbers of British and Allied ships sunk or damaged by the direct attack of submarines in recent months as compared with the earlier months of this campaign; and, if so, whether these facts and the increasing success in sinking U-boats and the successful Dover barrage point to the desirability of increasing the offensive campaign in place of the defensive methods which have failed to suppress the menace?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not considered desirable in the public interest to reply to the several points in this question. All information regarding the submarine menace which it is possible to give without supplying intelligence to the enemy is furnished to the House from time to time.

  PILFERING ON RAILWAYS.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the increase of pilfering at docks and on railway transit of goods, especially foodstuffs, in course of transport; and whether he can announce measures being taken to stop this growing evil?
  Mr. D. WARD: I am aware that there is an increase in pilfering on railways, and am informed that railway companies are taking measures with a view to its suppression. As regards docks, the Board of Trade have received no representations in the matter, and I think the powers of the dock authorities are sufficient to deal with any cases that occur.

  MUNITIONS.

    SHELL MANUFACTURE (ABERDEEN).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether charges have been brought to his attention that an engineering firm in Aberdeen engaged in the manufacture of munitions were faking 6-inch shells and were in the possession of

    1321
    special marking tools for this purpose, a consignment of shells costing £4,000 being involved; whether Colonel Stansfield, of Woolwich Arsenal, was sent to Aberdeen by the Ministry; whether it was discovered that discarded shells were being marked as if they had been passed and approved; whether these engineering works have since been taken over by the Government after a military investigation had taken place; whether he is aware of the name of the electrical engineers in Aberdeen who produced a tool for markings similar to the inspector's mark; and will he say whether there has been or will be prosecution of any or all concerned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The answer to the first parts of the question is in the affirmative. No definite information has been obtained as to the manufacture of a tool for reproducing an inspector's mark. The question of a prosecution of the persons concerned has been under consideration, but the Ministry are advised by the legal authorities whom they have consulted that, owing to the circumstances in which the works were taken over as a national factory, they are, unfortunately, precluded from instituting a prosecution.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, having regard to the seriousness of the charge made against this firm, he will afford the firm an opportunity of producing the ample evidence which they have to rebut the charges made at an independent inquiry?
    Mr. ANDERSON: In view of the seriousness of these charges, will the hon. Gentleman have a full investigation made into all the facts of the case involved?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I quite agree as to the serious nature of the charges. They were, in fact, investigated at the time the arrangement was come to. As to whether any further investigation is required, I will consider.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the result of the investigation made at the time the changes were carried out was. in fact, to substantially substantiate the charges involved in the question?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that the investigation was made by the Minister of Munitions, and nobody else, and that the firm had no
    1322
    opportunity to meet these charges, which they say they have ample evidence to rebut in every detail?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The firm had full opportunity of stating their side of the case when it was investigated by the local committee, and the decision was come to. On the other point, I will consult the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) as to whether further action should be taken
    Mr. HENDERSON: Is it not a fact that when the local question arose the investigation was made by an inspector of the Ministry of Munitions, and that they had no appeal?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not aware of that.

  RE-HOUSING (IRELAND).
  Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether the Government have made, or are about to make, a sufficiently substantial Grant to enable local authorities in England to place in hand without further delay the work of preparing designs for laying out sites and for the purchase of land for housing schemes to be undertaken immediately after the War; if so, whether any similar provision has been made to meet the case of Ireland; whether special designs have been prepared for England and £5,000 granted by the Government to the Royal Institute of British Architects for this purpose; whether it is proposed to provide for the building of 300,000 dwellings in England and Wales and 50,000 in Scotland, but no mention is made of Ireland; and can he state the number it is intended to build there?
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to himself and to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on the 21st February and on the 14th February, respectively, to which I have nothing to add at present.
  Captain SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny any statement in the question, and is the treatment for Ireland going to be different or is it to be the same as for England in regard to housing? That is the question I want to be definitely answered.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am not concerned in the statement on the Paper, but the report of my right hon. Friend, and I have not yet received it.

  IRISH PEAT INQUIRY.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now received the Report of the Irish Peat Inquiry under the Fuel Research Board; and whether it will be published?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Report of the Irish Peat Inquiry Committee has been received, and is under consideration by the Fuel Research Board. I do not know what recommendations that Board will make as to publication.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to resolutions passed by the quarterly meeting of representatives of the Audley Wesleyan Methodist Circuit, comprising six churches, urging the Government to increase the power of the Central Control Board, with a view to the further restriction of the liquor traffic and the sale of drink in munition, transport, and military areas throughout Great Britain, also asking the Government to take the steps necessary to prohibit entirely the traffic in drink during the remainder of the War and the period of demobilisation, and to make provision for the equitable treatment of those persons at present engaged in the traffic, and also urging the Government to take steps at once to establish a Health Ministry to safeguard infant life and the health of the people of the country; and if he will indicate the intentions of the Government respecting the same?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Resolutions passed by the various Wesleyan Methodist Circuits with regard to the matters referred to in the question have been received. I am, however, unable to add anything to statements already made.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the various Departments have
    1324
    now considered the questions connected with the position of Russians in the Army and resident in this country; whether a decision has been arrived at by the War Cabinet; whether Russians will be conscripted here or deported abroad; and whether a full statement can now be made as to whether Russia is a neutral or an Allied State?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Russians of military age who were transferred to the Reserve in September were given the alternative of military service or repatriation to Russia, and they deliberately accepted the first alternative. I can add nothing in answer to the last part of the question to statements already made.
    Mr. BILLING: In approaching this problem will the Government appreciate that they are not dealing with the Russian nation as Russians, but that Russia is now under the heel of the international Jew?

  EARLY CLOSING ORDER (HOUSE OF COMMONS SITTINGS).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister what arrangements the Government propose to make with regard to the Sittings of the House when the new Closing Order comes into force for public places to close at 10.30, and the trains, tramcars, and omnibuses are to stop running at an earlier hour than at present; and will he also consider the advisability of proposing a time limit on the speeches of Members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the Early Closing Order will not interfere with the means of locomotion to such an extent as to render it necessary that the House should close earlier than eleven o'clock.

  GERMAN BANKS.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the Convention between Great Britain and Germany, signed on 27th March, 1874, under which the German banks in London claim to carry on business in this country; whether that Convention has been abrogated by the outbreak of war, and, if not, whether the Government will give the requisite year's notice to revoke that Convention; and whether it will be possible after the abrogation or revocation of the Convention for German banks to carry on business in this country after the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Anglo-German declaration of 27th March, 1874, relating to joint stock companies and the additional declaration on the same subject of 25th March, 1913, are regarded by His Majesty's Government as having been terminated by the War.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Am I right in concluding that owing to the abrogation of these Conventions it will be impossible for the German banks to establish themselves in this country in future without some new Convention being made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; that is not the case. It is not possible to keep out any foreign bank except by special legislation.
  Mr. FABER: When are we once for all going to get rid of these Gentian banks?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as now is concerned, my hon. Friend knows that every step has been taken. As to the future that must depend upon what is decided by the country.
  Mr. FABER: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say "as the hon. Gentleman knows"? The hon. Gentleman knows nothing of the sort.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. Friend does not know it is not for want of my having told him.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that directly peace is signed these banks are to continue as before?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the law stands, any bank can be started unless legislation is passed preventing it.
  Mr. BILLING: What are the Government's views in this matter, and do they propose to introduce legislation at an early date to prevent German banks being opened immediately peace comes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say that that is a problem which any Government must consider when the time arises, but I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at this moment when there are other matters of more immediate importance which claim our attention.
  Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dresdner Bank is still being carried on with open doors, with about forty clerks in its employment?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that it is being carried on under the strictest control of the British Government.

  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAGES).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Minister of Labour if he will announce the decision of the inquiry into the claims of insurance agents for a living wage?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The inquiry has made material progress, and I am awaiting a communication from the Committee.

  IRISH CONVENTION.
  Mr. DILLON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the Reports of the Irish Convention, and, if he has received these Reports, when they will be made public, and on what day he will be in a position to make a statement as to the Irish policy of His Majesty's Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I intend to deal with this subject in my speech this afternoon.
  Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will make public the Reports of the Convention?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that they will be laid on the Table of the House to-day, and they will be made public as soon as they can be printed.
  Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is more than one Report. Has a Minority Report also been received, and, if so, will that be laid on the Table?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Whatever Reports there are will be laid on the Table of the House.
  Mr. BYRNE: Why has the Report of the Convention been coupled with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Military Service Bill?

  GERMAN OFFENSIVE (BRITISH LOSSES).
  Mr. G. LAMBERT(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the disquietude caused by the claims made in the German military communiqués, he will state, so far as can be ascertained, the British losses in men, munitions, and materials since the 21st of March in France?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend had better leave me to deal with this matter in my speech.

  "WESTMEATH INDEPENDENT" (SEIZURE).
  Mr. T. M. HEALY(by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information as to the cause of the seizure of a printing business in Athlone and the suppression of the "Westmeath Independent," whereby many printers have been thrown out of employment, and who is responsible?
  Mr. DUKE: I have not had any notice of my hon. and learned Friend's question.
  Mr. HEALY: I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman last night, and put on an extra stamp. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his attention has been called to this matter, and to the fact that many printers have been thrown out of employment in the town of Athlone by reason of the seizure of these printing works?
  Mr. DUKE: My hon. and learned Friend had better give me notice of that question. I know that the plant of the "Westmeath Independent" has been seized, but as to the other parts of the question I cannot say.

  Death in Winchester Prison.
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether Paul Leo Gillan died in Winchester Prison on 16th March; whether the inquest showed the cause of death; whether the medical officer had already reported this case as one of acute heart disease; and whether the Home Office possesses and exercises the power to release from prison any prisoner whose continued detention is likely to have grave consequences?
  Sir G. CAVE: Gillan was admitted to hospital on the 12th March but serious symptoms only developed on the 16th, the day of his death. The inquest showed that death was due to heart failure following on pleurisy. The medical officer had not previously reported the case, and there were no symptoms to show that the prisoner's heart was affected until the day on which he died. I have no reason to think that removal from prison during his illness would have been in any way beneficial to the prisoner.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is there any evidence to show that this man died as the result of ill-treatment, and was he ill-treated because he was an Irishman?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is no evidence of any ill-treatment of any kind.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to why the medical officer did not report the condition of this man's health?
  Sir G. CAVE: The matter was thoroughly gone into at the inquest, and it appears that the medical officer had no reason to suspect serious illness until the actual day of the death.

  Imported Boots (France).
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the action of French boot manufacturers, who are stated to be bringing pressure on the French Government to prohibit the importation of boots into France, is causing anxiety to the boot manufacturers of Leicester and doubtless of other towns as well; and whether he will now recommend the Government to at once put a Customs duty on French-made boots imported into this country equal in amount to the Customs duty levied by the French Government on British-made boots imported into France, in order to put the Leicester boot manufacturers on an equal footing with the French manufacturers and to give them something to bargain with?
  Mr. D. WARD: The importation of boots into France is already prohibited except under licence. I have no official information as to any movement in that country to induce the French Government to withhold licences. The position of this country is in any case safeguarded by a reciprocal agreement between the French Government and His Majesty's Government, under which with certain specified exceptions licences are to be given for the importation of all French goods into this country and all United Kingdom goods, including boots and shoes, into France. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Colonel YATE: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman received representations from the Chamber of Commerce of Northampton, as well as Leicester, on this subject, and is he going to take no action on these representations?
  Mr. WARD: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

MR. GINNELL (CONVICTION).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received two letter relating to the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Laurence Ginnell, a Member of this House, which he read to the House, as followeth:—
"Metropolitan Police Courts,
Inn's Quay,
Dublin,
23rd March, 1918.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Laurence Ginnell, a Member of Parliament, has been arrested at Kilkenny and brought before me this day upon a warrant issued by Mr. T. C. Drury, one of the Divisional Justices of the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, charging that Mr. Ginnell did unlawfully incite and labour to persuade a large number of persons to commit the crime of unlawful assembly.
I have remanded Mr. Ginnell in custody until Tuesday next, when he will again be brought before this Court.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Ernest G.SWIFTE, K.C.,
Chief Divisional Justice of the Police District of Dublin Metropolis.
The Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons, London."
"Metropolitan Police Courts, Inn's Quay,
Dublin.
5th April, 1918.
Sir,
I have the honour to report that on the 30th ultimo Mr. Laurence Ginnell, M.P., was brought before me at this Court on remand charged, inter alia with having, at Sooey, in the county of Sligo, unlawfully incited and laboured to persuade certain persons to commit the crime of unlawful assembly.
Having heard the evidence I was satisfied that there was a danger of a future breach of the peace by Mr. Ginnell, and I required him to find sureties to be of the peace, himself in the sum of £500 with two sureties each in the sum of £1,000 for the term of one year, and, in default of finding sureties as aforesaid, I directed that Mr. Ginnell be imprisoned for a period of six months unless in the meantime he shall find sureties.
Mr. Ginnell declined to find sureties and was committed on my warrant to the Mountjoy Prison, Dublin.
I would have reported the committal to you in due course but for the fact that a circular dated the 24th October, 1902, from the then Under-Secretary, Sir D. Harrel, appears to require that the arrest only should be reported.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
T. C. DRURY,
Divisional Justice of the Police District of Dublin Metropolis.
The Right Honourable the Speaker, M.P.,
House of Commons,
London."

MESSAGE FROM SERBIAN PARLIAMENT.
Mr. SPEAKERalso informed the House that he had received a telegram from the Serbian Parliament expressing their admiration of the heroic resistance of the British Army to the onslaught of the enemy, their sympathy with the spirit of determination and sacrifice of the British nation, and their firm belief in the final victory of the Allied forces.
Mr. SPEAKER: The House will probably desire that I should send a suitable reply. [Cheers.]

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
William Archer Redmond, Esquire, for the Borough of Waterford.
Thomas James Stanislaus Harbison, Esquire, for the County of Tyrone (East Tyrone Division).

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

    PRIME MINISTER'S REVIEW OF PICARDY BATTLE.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with regard to military service during the present War."
    We have entered the most critical phase of this terrible War. There is a lull in the storm, but the hurricane is not over. Doubtless we must expect more fierce outbreaks, and ere it is finally exhausted there will be many more. The fate of the Empire, the fate of Europe, and the fate of liberty throughout the world, may depend on the success with which the very last of these attacks is resisted and countered. The Government, therefore, propose to submit to Parliament, to-day, certain recommendations, in order to assist this country and the Allies to weather the storm. They will involve, I regret, extreme sacrifices on the part of large classes of the population, and nothing would justify them but the most extreme necessity, and the fact that we are fighting for all that is essential and most sacred in the national life.
    Before I come to the circumstances which have led up to our submitting these proposals to Parliament, I ought to say one word as to why Parliament was not immediately summoned. Since the battle began, the Government have been engaged almost every hour in concerting, with the Allies, the necessary measures to assist the Armies to deal with the emergency. The proposals which we intend submitting to Parliament required very close and careful examination, and I think there is this advantage in our meeting to-day, rather than immediately after the impact of the German attack, that we shall be considering these proposals under conditions which will be far removed from any suggestion of panic.
    I shall now come to the circumstances which have led up to the present military position. It is very difficult at this time to present a clear, connected and reliable narrative of what happened. There has been a great battle on a front of fifty miles—the greatest battle ever
    1338
    fought in the history of the world. Enormous forces have been engaged. There was a considerable retirement on the part of the British forces, and, under these conditions, it is not always easy for some time to ascertain what actually happened. The House will recollect the difficulty we experienced in regard to Cambrai. It was difficult to piece together the story of that event for some time, and Cambrai was a very trivial event compared with this gigantic battle. The generals and their staffs are naturally engaged, and have to concentrate their attention upon, the operations of the enemy, and until the strain relaxes it would be very difficult to institute the necessary inquiries to find out exactly what happened, and to furnish an adequate explanation of the battle. However, there are two or three facts which stand out, and in stating them I should like to call attention to two things which I think, above all, must be avoided. The first is that nothing should be said which would give information to the enemy; nothing should be said which would give encouragement to the enemy; and nothing should be said which would give discouragement to our own troops, who are fighting so gallantly at this very hour. And the second fact is that all recrimination at this hour must be shut out. [An HON. MEMBER: "And all prejudices!"] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no one here afraid of criticism, and he understands the responsibility of the present Government.
    What was the position at the beginning of the battle? Notwithstanding the heavy casualties in 1917, the Army in France was considerably stronger on the 1st January, 1918, than on the 1st January, 1917. Up to the end of 1917—up to, say, about October or November—the German combatant strength in France was as two to the Allied three. Then came the military collapse of Russia, when the Germans hurried up their released divisions from the Eastern Front, and brought them to the West. They had a certain measure of Austrian support, which had been accorded then. Owing to the growth of the strength of our Armies in 1917. when this battle began, the combatant strength of the whole of the German Army on the Western Front was only approximately, though not quite, equal to the total combatant strength of the

    1339
    Allies. In Infantry they were slightly inferior; in Artillery they were inferior; in Cavalry they were considerably inferior; and, what is very important, they were undoubtedly inferior in aircraft.
    Mr. LYNCH: They had unity of command.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am coming to all that. The Germans, therefore, organised their troops so as to produce a larger number of divisions out of the slightly smaller number of Infantry and the slightly smaller number of guns. They had fewer battalions in a division—fewer men in a battalion. That is entirely a question of organisation, and it yet remains to be seen that their organisation is better than ours. It is necessary to explain that, in order that the House may realise why, with approximately the same number of men, the Germans have a larger number of divisions on that front. According to all the facts which have come to hand as to the losses of the battle, that roughly represents the relative strength of the combatants on both sides at this moment.
    The Germans had, however, one or two important advantages. The first, the initial, advantage, which is always commanded by the offensive, is that they know where they mean to attack They choose the ground, they choose the location, they know the width of the attack, they know the dimensions of the attack, they know the time of the attack, and they know the method of the attack. All that invariably gives an initial advantage to an offensive. The defence has a general advantage. Owing to air observation, concealment is difficult. At the same time, in spite of all that, owing to the power of moving troops at night, which the Germans exercised to a very large extent, there is a large margin for surprise even in spite of air observation, and of this the enemy took full advantage.
    I should like to say one word here as to the difficulty with which the Allied generals were confronted in this respect. Before the battle the greatest German concentration was in front of our troops. That was no proof that the full weight of the attack would fall on us. There was a very large concentration opposite the French lines; there was a very considerable concentration—I am referring now to German reserves—on the northern part of our line after the
    1340
    battle began. Immediately before the battle the Germans by night brought their divisions from the northern part to the point where the attack took place. They also brought several divisions from opposite the French in the same way, and brought them to our front; but it would have been equally easy for them, whilst concentrating troops opposite our front, to manœuvre them in the same way opposite the French.
    I am only referring to that in order to show how exceedingly difficult it is for generals on the defensive to decide exactly where, in their judgment, the attack is coming, and where they ought to concentrate their reserves.

    SIR HENRY WILSON'S FORECAST.
    This problem was considered very closely by the Military Staff at Versailles, and I think it is right, in justice to them, to point out that, after very close study of the German position and of the probabilities of the case, they came to the conclusion—and they stated their conclusion to the military representatives and to the Ministers in the month of January or the beginning of February—that the attack would come south of Arras, that it would be an attack on a very wide front, that it would be an attack on the widest front that has ever yet been assailed, that the Germans would accumulate ninety-five divisions for the purpose of making that attack, that they would throw the whole of their force and their strength into breaking the British line at that point, that their objective would be the capture of Amiens and the severance of the British and the French forces. That was the conclusion to which Sir Henry Wilson came, and which was submitted at that time—two or three months ago—and I think it is one of the most remarkable forecasts of enemy intentions that has ever been made. As a matter of fact, the attack was made up, I think, by about ninety-seven divisions; it was an attack on the widest front that has ever been engaged; its object undoubtedly was the capture of Amiens and the severance of the British and the French Forces; so that, almost in every detail, that very remarkable forecast has been verified in the event.
    Mr. BILLING: Were preparations made to meet it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must really allow me to speak in my own way. I propose to give a narra-

    1341
    tive of the events as they happened. Another remarkable prediction was that it might probably succeed in penetrating the British line to the extent of half the distance of the front attacked. They came to that conclusion from a close examination of the offensives of the War.
    There was another advantage, and here I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Lynch). There was, first of all, the advantage which the Germans had from having the initiative. There was the further advantage they had—and this is undoubtedly the greatest advantage—from having a united Command opposed to a dual one. The Germans undoubtedly relied on this to a very large extent for their success. They owe much of their success in this attack to unity. It was reported to me on good authority that the Kaiser informed the ex-King Constantine, "I shall beat them, for they have no united Command," which shows that that was what they were relying in the main upon—that, although their numbers were slightly inferior, they knew the importance to be attached to the fact that there was a perfectly united Command. And that is an obvious advantage, for if the risks in one particular part of the line be great and in another part of the line great but substantially less than in the former, with one Command, there is no hesitation in the mind of a Commander-in-Chief as to which risk he will make the greatest provision against. With two separate Commands the problem is a different one. It is more difficult to adjust the balance of risk, and a general is always naturally inclined to give to himself and his army the benefit of any doubt there may be, because if anything should go wrong there he, and he alone, will beheld responsible by his own countrymen for the safety of the army.
    The enemy had another incidental, but, as it turned out, a very important advantage—that of the weather. The exceptional weather favoured his designs. It was both dry and misty. The attack which succeeded was made on a part of the line where, under ordinary spring conditions, the ground would have been almost impassable. A wounded officer told a friend of mine to-day, a general, that tinder ordinary conditions no one could walk across the part which was traversed by the Germans this time of the year. But it just happened to be absolutely dry and firm, and they were enabled to walk across the ground, which no one had any
    1342
    right to expect at this time of year would be in that condition. Not only that, but the fact that it was warm increased the mist, and the Germans were in some parts actually within a few yards of our front line before anyone knew of their approach—it was quite impossible to observe them. This was a special disadvantage to us, inasmuch as our scheme of organisation in that particular part of the line depended largely upon cross-line fire of machine guns and artillery. They had therefore that very special advantage, of which they made the fullest use.
    With regard to the battle itself, as I have already stated, it will take some time to ascertain the whole of the facts. At one time it was undoubtedly very critical. The enemy broke through between our Third and Fifth Armies, and there was a serious gap. The situation was retrieved owing to the magnificent conduct of our troops. They retired in perfectly good order, re-establishing the junction between the two armies, and frustrating the enemy's purpose. The House can hardly realise, and certainly cannot sufficiently thank—nor can the country—the troops for their superb valour and the grim tenacity with which they faced the overwhelming hordes of the enemy and clung to their positions. They retired, but were never routed, and once more the cool pluck of the British soldier that refuses to acknowledge defeat saved Europe.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: What about the generals?

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL CABBY.
    The PRIME MINISTER: When I am referring to the Army, I am referring to the whole Army—generals, officers, and soldiers—I mean the whole Army, and I draw no distinction. Their conduct has been one of incredible courage, and great coolness under the most trying conditions. I do not think any distinction can be drawn between officers and men. I am referring to the British Army and that means all. I might specially refer to what one brigadier-general did—some reference has been made in the Press already to it—where at one point there was a serious gap which might have let the enemy into Calais, and in the confusion of retreat things of that kind happen on a very wide front. He gathered together signalmen, engineers, a Labour Battalion, odds and ends of machine gunners—everybody he could find—and threw them into

    1343
    the line and held up the German Army, and closed up that gap on the way to Amiens for about six days.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: Name!
    The PRIME MINISTER: Brigadier-General Carey. I think he deserves special mention, for one of the most brilliant achievements in the history of the British Army.
    Mr. JONES: What about General Butler?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If I were to name all the generals who have distinguished themselves in this battle, it would take me a very long time to deal with them. Until the whole of the circumstances which led to the retirement of the Fifth Army, and its failure to hold the line of the Somme at least till the Germans brought up their guns, and perhaps the failure adequately to destroy the bridges—until all these are explained, it would be unfair to censure the general in command of the Army—General Gough. But until those circumstances are cleared up, it would be equally unfair to the British Army to retain his services in the field.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is he to be court-martialled?
    4.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was necessary to recall him until the facts have bean fully ascertained, and laid before the Government by their military advisers. After the retirement of the Fifth Army, the French Reserves came up with remarkable rapidity, when their position before the battle is borne in mind. In fact, when the final decision was taken as to the real designs of the enemy, the speed with which the French Reserves were brought up is one of the most remarkable feats of organisation in this War. And between the courage of our troops and the handling of the Army, the way the Third Army held, never giving way 100 yards to the attack of the enemy—I think it is right that that should be said about the Army commanded by General Byng. Their retirement took place in order to conform to a retreat on their right flank—what between the efforts of our soldiers, and the loyal assistance given, in the true spirit of comradeship, by the French Army, the position is, for the moment, stabilised. But it is clear that the Germans, having gained an initial success, are preparing another—perhaps even a
    1344
    greater —attack on the Allied Armies. The result of the fighting up to the present is that the enemy has undoubtedly obtained a great initial success. There is no good in not accepting facts. It is from; this basis that we must begin to build. But he has failed so far in his main object. He has failed to capture Amiens. He has failed to separate the British and French Armies. But we should be guilty of a great, it might be a fatal, error if we were to underestimate the gravity of the prospect. The enemy has captured valuable ground, which is too near Amiens for comfort or security, and he has succeeded, for the time being, in crippling one of our great Armies

    REINFORCEMENTS.
    I will now tell the House something of the measures adopted by the Cabinet to meet the emergency. I have already explained what was done about the French Reserves. The Cabinet took every step to hurry up reinforcements, in order to fill up the gap in our Armies.
    Mr. HOGGE: Where was the Army of Manœuvre?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No such large numbers of men have passed across the Channel in so short a period of time. As the emergency was great, it was impossible to allow those who were summoned to France the usual leave to visit their relatives. It was with the greatest regret that we found it necessary to cancel that permission. Nothing but the gravity of the position would have justified so harsh a proceeding. But the troops accepted the position in a manner which is worthy of the fortitude, courage, and patriotism that they have shown throughout. There was an understanding as to boys under nineteen years of age, that they would only be used in case of emergency. We felt that that emergency had arisen. In so far as those who were over eighteen and a-half were concerned—those who had already received four months' training—we felt it necessary that they should be sent across to France.
    As to the guns and machine-guns which were lost, the numbers are grossly exaggerated by the enemy. I am assured they have also very considerably exaggerated the number of prisoners which they have taken. The Commander-in-Chief himself assured me last week that it was a

    1345
    gross exaggeration. I am very glad to be able to say that the Ministry of Munitions were able, not merely to replace those guns and machine guns, but that they have still a very substantial reserve. The same remark applies to ammunition. There is an ample reserve of ammunition, both in this country and in France. Our Aircraft strength is greater now than before the battle, and we all know what brilliant service our airmen have rendered in this battle. Until the whole story of the battle is told it would be almost impossible to estimate the services they have rendered in retarding the advance of the enemy, in destroying his machinery, and in making it difficult for him to bring up his guns and ammunition. We feel confident that our armies—generals and soldiers—will be quite equal to the next encounter, whenever it may come.

    AMERICAN CO-OPERATION.
    The next step to which I should like to call the attention of the House is the material and dramatic assistance rendered by President Wilson in this emergency. It is one of the most important decisions in the War. In fact, the issue of the battle might very well be determined by that decision. In America there was a very considerable number of men in course of training, and the Allies look forward to having a large American Army in France in the Spring. It has taken longer than was anticipated to train those soldiers into the necessary divisional organisations. If America waited to complete these divisional organisations, it would not be possible for these fine troops, in any large numbers, to take part in this battle—in this campaign—although it might very well be the decisive battle of the War. This was, of course, one of the most serious disappointments from which the Allies have suffered. It is no use pretending it was not one of our chief causes of anxiety. We depended upon it largely to make up the defection of Russia.
    For many reasons—reasons, perhaps, of transport, reasons connected with the time it takes, not merely to train troops and their officers, but to complete the necessary organisation—it was quite impossible to put into France the number of divisions which everyone had confidently expected would be there. Under the circumstances, we, therefore, submitted to the President of the United States of America a definite proposal. We had the advantage of having the Secretary of State for War for
    1346
    America in this country within two or three days after the battle had commenced. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) and I had a long conversation with him upon the whole situation, and we submitted to him certain recommendations which we had been advised to make to Mr. Baker and to the American Government On the strength of that conversation, we submitted proposals to President Wilson, with the strong support of Monsieur Clemenceau, to enable the combatant strength of the American Army to come into action during this battle, inasmuch as there was no hope of it coming in as a strong separate Army. By this decision, the American battalions will be brigaded with those of the Allies. This proposal was submitted by Lord Heading, on behalf of the British Government, to President Wilson, and President Wilson assented to the proposition without any hesitation, with the result that arrangements are now being made for the fighting strength of the American Army to be immediately brought to bear in this struggle—a struggle which is only now beginning—to this extent, and it is no small extent. It has stirred up the resolution and energy of America beyond anything which has yet occurred.
    I must also call the attention of the House to another important decision taken by the Allied Governments. It became more obvious after the battle even than before that the Allied Armies were suffering from the fact that they were fighting as two separate Armies, and had to negotiate support with each other. Valuable time was thus lost. Some of us had for some time been deeply impressed by this peril and had done our best to avert it. But the inherent difficulties to be overcome are tremendous. I have repeatedly pointed thorn out to this House. There are national prejudices, national interests, professional prejudices, traditions. The inherent difficulties of getting two or three separate national armies to fight as one are almost insurmountable. It can only be done if public opinion in all these countries insists upon it as the one condition of success. Versailles was an effort as a remedy. How were the Versailles decisions carried out? The extent to which they were or were not carried out—this is not the time to inquire. I respectfully suggest to the House that no good would come at this stage in discussing that question. If anyone needed conviction as to the wisdom of that policy, this battle must have supplied it. The peril we passed

    1347
    through by establishing that conviction without challenge may, I think, be worth the price we have paid for it.

    STRATEGIC UNITY.
    A few days after the battle commenced; not merely the Government, bat the Commanders in the field—we had not merely the Field Marshals, but all the Army Commanders present—were so convinced—and the same thing applied to the French—were so convinced of the importance of more complete strategic unity that they agreed to the appointment of General Foch to the Supreme Direction of the strategy of all the Allied Armies on the Western Front. May I just say one word about General Foch. It is not merely that he is one of the most brilliant soldiers in Europe. There is this to be said about him: General Foch is a man who, when we were attacked, and were in a similar plight at the first battle of Ypres, rushed the French Army there by every conceivable expedient—by buses, cabs, lorries, anything he could lay his hands upon. He crowded French divisions through, and undoubtedly helped to win that great battle. There is no question about the loyalty and comradeship of General Foch, and I have no doubt that this arrangement will be carried out not merely in the letter, but in the spirit. It is the most important decision that has been taken in reference to the coming battle. This strategic unity is, I submit to the House, a fundamental condition of victory. It can only be maintained by complete co-operation between the Governments and the Generals, and by something move than that—by unmistakable public opinion behind it. Why do I say that? For this reason: A Generalissimo in the ordinary and full sense of the term may be impracticable. There are three functions which a Generalissimo wields—the strategical, the tactical, and the administrative. What does the administrative mean? It means the control of the organisation, the appointment and dismissal of officers and generals, and that is a power which it is difficult, or almost impossible, to give to a general of another country with a national army. Therefore, in spite of all the arrangements made, unless there be not merely good will, but the knowledge that the public in France, Great Britain, and America will assist in co-ordination
    1348
    and in supporting the authorities in the supreme strategical plans chosen by the Governments, and in supporting the Governments in any action they may take to assert their authority, any arrangements made will be futile and mischievous. I make no apology for dwelling at some length upon this point. I have always felt that we were losing value and efficiency in, the Allied Armies through lack of co-ordination and concentration. We have sustained many disasters already through that, and we felt that we should encounter more unless this defect in our machinery were put right. Hitherto I regret that every effort at amendment has led to rather prolonged and very bitter controversy, and these difficulties, these great inherent difficulties, were themselves accentuated and aggravated. There were difficulties of carrying out plans and other obstacles, and, what is worse, invaluable time was lost. I entreat the nation, as a whole, to stand firm for a united control of the strategical operations of our Armies-at the front. We know how much depends upon unity and concentration. We are fighting a very powerful foe, who, in so far as he has triumphed, has triumphed mainly because of the superior unity and concentration of his strategic plans.
    Mr. BILLING: No political interference!

    EASTERN CAMPAIGNS.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and it is the suggestion that our forces have been dissipated on subsidiary enterprises. Not a single division was sent from France to the East. With regard to Italy, had it not been for the fact that there were Italian, French, and British divisions there, the Austrian Army would have been free to throw the whole of its strength on the Western Front. If there were not some there now, the Austrian Army would be more powerfully represented than it is on the Western Front. With regard to Salonika, the only thing the present Government did was to reduce the forces there by two divisions.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You increased them at first.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The present Government reduced them by two divisions. In Mesopotamia there is only one white division, find in Egypt and Palestine together there are only three white divisions; the rest are either Indians or mixed with a very, very small proportion

    1349
    of British troops in those divisions. I am referring to Infantry divisions. I want the House really to consider what that means. There is a menace to our Eastern Empire through Persia, because through Persia you approach Afghanistan, and through Afghanistan you menace the whole of India. Had it not been for the blows inflicted upon the Turks, what would have happened? Before these attacks, I want the House to remember, there were Turkish armies were destroyed. Had we Russia. They would have been helping the Germans now on the West, exactly as they helped them in the East. But what has happened? They were attacked in Palestine and in Mesopotamia, and two Turkish armies were destroyed. Had we remained in Egypt, and defended Egypt by remaining there on the Canal, allowing the Turks to hold us with a small force whilst they were putting the whole of their force in Mesopotamia, and menacing our position in India by that means, the Turks could now have been assisting the Germans in the West, as they did in the East.
    What is happening now? Instead of the Turks sending divisions to help the Germans, the Germans have sent battalions to help the Turks in Palestine After all, if you have a great Empire, you must defend it. There was an Empire which withdrew its legions from the outlying provinces of the Empire, to defend its heart against the Goth, and those legions never went back. The British Empire has not been reduced to that plight yet. We can defend ourselves successfully in France, and we can also at the same time hold our Empire against anyone who assails it in any part of the world.
    May I, before I leave this topic, say how much gratitude we owe to India for the magnificent way in which she has come to the aid of the Empire in this emergency. It is not the fact that we have got three British divisions in India and Palestine and one in Mesapotamia that has enabled us to hold our own, but that we have had these splendid troops from India—many of whom volunteered since the War—and that they have been more than a match for their Turkish adversaries on many a stricken field.
    I regret to have taken up so much of the time of the House on these matters, but I now come to the point put by my right hon. Friend opposite about losses. It is too early to state yet with accuracy our losses, because in the case of a battle over
    1350
    such a wide front, fought with such intensity for over a fortnight, with vast numbers of men engaged, the losses sustained must be considerable. The claims; of the enemy as to prisoners have been grossly exaggerated, and Sir Douglas llaig assured me that they were quite impossible from the figures at his disposal, which he showed me. The enemy's claims seem quite preposterous from the statement which he made to me. But, still, our losses are very great, and our reserves have been called upon to a considerable extent, to make up the wastage and refit the units. And if the battle continue on this scale, the drain on the resources of our reserves of man-power must cause the deepest anxiety, unless we take immediate steps to replenish it. The immediate necessity is relieved by the splendid and generous way and promptitude in which America has come to our aid. But the American troops are simply lent to receive their training, with a view to their incorporation, at the first suitable moment, in an American Army in France; and even if they remain with the British right through the battle, the time will come when we shall need large reinforcements, should this battle continue.
    I want the House to consider for a moment what the plans of the enemy may be as they are now revealed. It was never certain that he would take this plunge, because he must know what it means if it fail, but he has taken it. The battle proves that the enemy has definitely decided to seek a military decision this year, whatever the consequences to himself. There is no doubt he has overwhelming reasons. There is the economic condition of his country and the critical economic condition of his Allies. He is now at the height of his power, and Russia is at its lowest, while America has not come in yet in its strength. So that this year the enemy may put forth something which approaches his full strength. But soon he will grow feebler and weaker in comparison with the Allied Forces. Everything,. therefore, points to the definite determination of Germany to put the whole of her resources into seeking a military decision this year, and this means a prolonged battle from the North Sea to the Adriatic, with Germany and Austria throwing in the whole of their strength. There are still seven or eight months during which the fighting can continue, and everything depends upon keeping our strength right to the end, whatever may be the strain

    1351
    upon our resources. With American aid, we can do it, but even with American help we cannot feel secure unless we are prepared ourselves to make even greater sacrifices than we have made hitherto.

    MAN-POWER: GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    I know what the Government propose. I know also what will happen if the demand which the Government is putting forward is not responded to. It is idle to imagine, as some people very light-heartedly seem to think, that you have an unlimited reservoir of man-power in this or in any belligerent country. We have already raised in this country, for military and naval purposes, very nearly 6,000,000 men. We cannot raise here the same proportion of men per population as you can in other belligerent countries. I have repeatedly emphasised that in the House of Commons. We have the greatest Navy in the world. The command of the seas, not merely for ourselves, but for our Allies, depends upon the efforts that we put forward. That is not only a question of manning the Fleet. It is also a question of building. It is a question of adding to the numbers of the ships. It is a question of repairing the ships. Then you have the Mercantile Marine, without which the Allies could not continue the struggle for a single month. All that must be borne in mind, and, whatever may happen, and whatever proposals we put forward to-day, it would be folly to do anything which would interfere with that one fundamental condition of success for the Allies—that the Navy and Shipping must be first. We have also to supply coal largely to our Allies, as well as steel, but, owing greatly to improved organisation in the various industries, to the way that they are adapting themselves from day to day to new conditions, and to the increased numbers and increased efficiency of women labour, there is a reserve of men which, consistent with the discharge of those obligations, may yet be withdrawn in a great emergency for our battle line, not without damage to industry—I do not for-get that—not without weakening, to a certain extent, the economic strength of the country, and not without imposing restrictions, perhaps privations, but without impairment to the striking power of the country for war. Nothing could
    1352
    justify such drastic action except an overwhelming emergency, precipitated by a great military crisis.
    I want to point out specially why steps taken now are steps which will be useful in this battle. First of all, it is a battle which may last for months. The decision may be taken, not now or next month, but months hence. The Allies at the present moment have the same reserves of man-power to reinforce their Armies as Germany has, without taking into account these great reserves in America. The Germans, however, are calling up another class which will produce 550,000 efficient young men. These will be prepared to be thrown into the battle line.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: What class?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The 1920 class. [An HON. MEMBER: What age—seventeen?] No, eighteen and a half.
    Mr. JARDINE: We are calling up men of eighteen and a half—what is the difference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These can be thrown into the battle line before this fight is over, and we must be prepared for their advent in the struggle this year. Therefore, I have to submit to Parliament the proposals for increasing, and increasing very materially, the reserves which will be available for reinforcing our Armies in the field during this prolonged battle, upon which we are only just entering. If the House will bear with me, I will now give, roughly, some of the proposals which we intend to make, in order to increase the number of men available. We have already raised for the armed forces during the first quarter of the year more than that quarter's proportion of the original number of men which was estimated as the minimum required for the present year. We are also, as the House is aware, effecting a very strict comb-out of some of the essential industries. Very large levies have been taken from the munition works. They will amount, I think, to something like 100,000 Grade 1 men. That has been done already this year. It will, of course, involve the utilisation of other labour to a very large extent in the munition works.
    A call of 50,000 men has been made already on the coal industry, and these men are being rapidly recruited. I regret to say that, the military needs will necessitate the calling up of another 50,000 men

    1353
    from this industry. We are convinced, after entering into the matter very carefully, that these men can be spared without endangering the essential output of coal for national industries. No one is likely to forget the fine response made by the miners at the beginning of this War, or the splendid part which they have taken in hundreds of battles since then. They are loyal in meeting the present demand of 50,000 men, and I am confident that they will meet the further call upon them in the same spirit, in view of the great national emergency under which we are making it. The transport services are also being called upon to release the greatest possible number of fit men.
    Further calls are to be made upon the Civil Service. I do not think that it is realised how much the Civil Service has done already. On the one hand, it has had to release a large number of men for the Army, and on the other hand it has had to meet, and is meeting, an increased strain of work. But, even at the risk of some dislocation, we must call upon it to do more, and a clean cut of young fit men must be made. It is proposed that no fit men below the age of twenty-five should be retained [Hon. Members: "Thirty- five!" Other Hon. Members: "Forty- five !"] Twenty-five. That is the clean cut. We comb out beyond that. That is what is called the "clean cut." I shall ex plain it later. It is proposed that it should be applied to other industries as well. When we are adding to the age, and when we are extending the military age, it should not be said that there are fit young men of twenty-five who are employed in the various industries of the country. This will bring the Civil Ser vice into line and on a general level, as far as the clean cut is concerned, with the munition industries.
    Under the Act passed in January this year, we are issuing Orders cancelling all occupational exemptions by age blocks in specified occupations. That is the clean cut. The first of these Orders is being laid on the Table of the House to-day, and other Orders of the same power will follow. I know the House will appreciate that it is necessary not merely to have men, but to have them quickly. It is no use raising them unless they are raised in time to take part in the struggle this year, when we shall be short of drafts if the battle be a prolonged one. The Government, therefore, have shortened the length of the
    1354
    calling-up notice from fourteen days to seven, and have authorised the serving of the notice by whatever method is most expeditious and convenient. It may be necessary even to curtail rights of appeal on medical grounds, but for the moment it is not proposed to do so. We have had a good many frivolous appeals, which have wasted a good deal of time, and if that should go on, it will be absolutely necessary, in the interests of the security of the country, that the rights of appeal should be curtailed in this respect. There is another consideration. The strain upon the medical profession has already been great. We are very short of medical men, and we may be driven to do it by the hard necessities of the case.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Why have any medical examination at all?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about the conscientious objectors?

    RAISING MILITARY AGE.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I now turn to the new proposals embodied in the Bill which I beg leave to introduce to-day. Our first proposal is to raise the military age up to fifty, and in certain specified cases we ask for powers to raise it to fifty-five; but that is only where men with special qualifications are needed. For instance, it may be necessary to do it in the case of medical men, in order to secure their services. It may be necessary in certain special classes, with special training and special experience, to secure their services for the Army. When you come to the question of raising the age up to fifty, it does not mean that men between forty-two and fifty are necessarily to be taken, in order to put them into the fighting line. It may be that there are men of that age who are just as fit as men of twenty-five, but I am sorry to say they are the exception, and we cannot therefore depend upon men of that age altogether to make the finest fighting material. There are a good many services in the Army which do not require the very best physical material, and it would be very helpful to get men of this age to fill those services, in order to release younger and fitter men to enter into the fighting line. There is also to be borne in mind the fact that we have to prepare for Home defence, so as to be able to release men from this country, and to fill their places by men between forty-two and fifty, who, I have no doubt, will fight very tenaciously for

    1355
    their own homes should there be such a thing as an invasion. The proportion of men from forty-two to fifty whom we expect will be available is not very high—something like 7 per cent., that is, only 7 per cent. of the men from forty-two to fifty will be available for the Army. I hope I have made that clear.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can you give us the number?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot do that.
    Mr. HOGGE: You have already given us the number up to forty-five.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have given the numbers of men raised up to the present time, but I do hope the House will not press me further. After all, we must not assist the intelligence branch of the enemy.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes—
    The PRIME MINISTER: I only wanted to reassure the people between forty-two and fifty that all the men of that age are not going to be called to the fighting line. I gave a sort of rough estimate, that it would be only a small percentage of the men of that age who would be likely to come under the provisions of the Bill.
    Now I come to the question of exemptions from military service. It is known to everyone who has experience of the difficulty of obtaining man-power that one of the many obstacles to success is the number of exemptions which have been granted, often for reasons which at the time appeared sufficient, but which should no longer be effective at the present time of crisis. The Minister of National Service already has power, under an Act passed this year, to cancel certificates granted on occupational grounds. It is proposed to make free use of this power by means of a Proclamation, and there will toe several of those exemptions which will be cancelled under a power which has already been conferred on the Minister of National Service. But when the existing powers have been used to the utmost, it may be necessary to go further, and to deal with exemptions granted on other grounds. Accordingly, it is provided by the Bill that His Majesty may, by Proclamation declaring that a national emergency has arisen, direct that any certificate of exemption from military
    1356
    service of a nature specified in that Proclamation shall cease to have effect, and that while any such Proclamation remain in force no exemption shall be granted which would fall within the terms of the Proclamation. It will be obvious that under this provision it will be open to the Government to cancel exemptions in respect of men under an age to be specified in the Proclamation. This is another means of arriving at the "clean cut," so as to secure men of military age, fit young men, for the purpose of the Army, under an age to be specified in the Proclamation. Any existing exemptions granted to such men will be superseded, and the men will be taken or left on medical grounds only. [An Hon. Member: "Tear up every pledge"'] The hon. Gentleman takes a different view of the War from the one which I take. We have to choose between either submitting to defeat, or taking the necessary measures to avert it. We will never submit to defeat.
    Mr. KING: Why not resign?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I need hardly say that this provision will not be used to set aside pledges given to discharged soldiers; they will be carefully observed. It is proposed, further, to make a change in the constitution of the Appeal Tribunals in dealing with exemptions, and to speed up their procedure. I want again to emphasise the fact that time is of the very essence of this emergency. The existing tribunals have done very admirable work, but they will be the first to admit that their work has been hampered by a number of circumstances—the number of tribunals themselves, the facilities for unnecessary and repeated applications, opportunities for delay under recurring rights of appeal, and so on. In these circumstances, it is proposed to take power by Order in Council both to reconstitute the tribunals and to regulate the areas in which they shall work; to standardise the grounds of exemption, and limit the rights of appeal. It is impossible now to specify the precise nature of the changes to be made, but I may indicate the nature of the changes we have in mind. Firstly, the areas within which tribunals may act will be reconsidered, and, in some cases, adjusted; secondly, local tribunals, like the Appeal Tribunals, will become nominated bodies, and will be reduced in size. This does not mean that use will not be made of the assistance of the existing members

    1357
    of tribunals who have rendered admirable service and will be willing, I hope, to continue to work under the new conditions. Further, the continuity of these tribunals staff, and officers will, of course, be preserved. We propose to make an attempt to standardise more accurately than is now done the grounds of exemption, and to prevent conflicting decisions on these matters—different decisions in different localities—which is one of the great grievances felt in the country. Changes will also be made in the procedure, but upon these I do not intend to dwell at the moment. There is also, as I am reminded, the question of the extension of the Act to ministers of religion for non-combatant purposes.
    Mr. STANTON: Why not also to the conscientious objectors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is a shortage of fit men very largely for the service of the sick and wounded, and I am perfectly certain that ministers of religion would not care to feel that they were exempted from the obligation to serve, and especially to render service of this kind on the battle field. We have consulted several authorities on the subject, and some of them with whom it has been my privilege to communicate seem to feel that ministers of religion would be the last men in the world to claim exemption from an obligation of that kind. It is obvious if this change be made, care must be taken not to put an end to religious ministration in the country, and it has been arranged for this purpose that the Minister of National Service shall endeavour to act in concert with the authorities of the defferent denominations, so that in every denomination an adequate staff shall be reserved.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why not also deal with the conscientious objector?

    CONSCRIPTION IN IRELAND.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I now come to the question of Ireland. When an emergency has arisen, which makes it necessary to put men of fifty and boys of eighteen into the Army in the fight for liberty and independence—
    Mr. DEVLIN: And small nationalities.
    The PRIME MINISTER: And especially, as my hon. Friend reminds me, to fight for the liberty and independence of small nationalities—
    Mr. BYRNE: What about Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: —I am perfectly certain it is not possible to justify any longer the exclusion of Ireland.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about Wales?
    Mr. DILLON: You will not get any men from Ireland by compulsion—not a man.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As to Wales, may I just say that before the Act came into operation, Wales showed the highest recruiting record in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No.
    5.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: What is the position? I hope hon. Members will allow me to state my case. No Home Rule proposal ever submitted to this House proposed to deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power of dealing with all questions relating to the Army and Navy. These have invariably, in every Home Rule proposal I have ever seen, been purely questions for the Imperial Parliament, so that it is no more a derogation of any national right ever claimed in this House than was the Defence of the Realm Act, which was also extended to Ireland. The character of the quarrel in which we are engaged is just as much Irish as it is English. May I say it is more so—it is more Irish and Scottish and Welsh than it is even English Ireland, through its representatives at the beginning of this War, assented to it—
    Mr. DEVLIN: Because it was a war for small nationalities.
    An HON. MEMBER: Why would not you fight for small nationalities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Ireland, through its representatives, assented to the War, voted for the War, supported the War. The Irish representatives, and Ireland, through its representatives, without a dissentient voice, committed the Empire to this War. They are fully as responsible for it as any part of the United Kingdom. May I just read the declaration issued by the Irish party on the 17th December, 1914, shortly after the War began?
    Mr. BYRNE: We have had a revolution since then.
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is the declaration of the Irish party:
    "A test to search men's souls has arisen. The Empire is engaged in the most serious War in history. It is a just War. provoked by the intolerable military despotism of Germany. It is a war for the defence of the sacred rights and liberties of small nations,

    1359
    and the respect and enlargement of the great principle of nationality. Involved in it is the fate of France, our kindred country, the chief nation of that powerful Celtic race to which we belong; the fate of Belgium, to whom we are attached by the same great ties of race, and by the common desire of a small nation to assert its freedom; and the fate of Poland, whose sufferings and whoso struggles bear so marked a resemblance to our own. It is a war for high ideals of human government and international relations, and Ireland would be false to her history, and to every consideration of honour, good faith and self-interest, did she not willingly bear her share in its burdens and its sacrifices." [Interruption.]
    Captain REDMOND: "Willingly!"
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I also refer to a speech delivered by the late Mr. Redmond at the Mansion House, Dublin, when my right hon. Friend was addressing a recruiting meeting there:
    "The heart of Ireland has been profoundly moved by the spectacle of the heroism and the sufferings of Belgium. The other day, in London, I met the Cardinal Archbishop of Mclines-Cardinal Mercier—and I took the liberty of promising him then that Ireland would bring her arms and her strength to avenge Louvain and to uphold the integrity and independence of Belgium—aye, yes, Belgium, Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, France—those are words to conjure with by the Irish people. There never was—this is, I believe the universal sentiment of Ireland—there never was a war in which higher and nobler issues were at stake.….I have heard some people speaking of this War as an English and not an Irish war. That is absolutely and definitely untrue. Ireland's highest national interests are at stake."
    The fact that America is in this War is the best proof of that. There are more Irishmen in the United States of America than there are in Ireland. They are all subject to Conscription.
    Captain REDMOND: Not by England.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Irishmen in Great Britain and in Canada are subject to Conscription.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Are Irishmen in Australia?
    Mr. BYRNE: We would not have it in Ireland!
    The PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Redmond, in addressing this House on the Military Service Bill, 1916, said:
    "Let me state what is my personal view on this matter of compulsion. I am content to take the phrase used by the Prime Minister in his last speech. I am prepared to say I will stick at nothing, nothing which is necessary, nothing which is calculated to effect the purpose, in order to win this War, and this is the view, I am certain, of the people of Ireland."
    Then he was opposed to that particular Bill. But he said that with him Conscription was not a question of principle; it was purely a question of the necessity for the raising of men I think my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) took
    1360
    substantially the same view in a speech which he delivered at the same time:
    "We are now engaged." he said, "in discussing an important political proposal for this country. Like the hon. member for Waterford, I view the thing from the point of view of necessity and expediency in the particular circumstances. I would not hesitate to support. Conscription tomorrow if I thought it was necessary to maintain liberty, and if there was no Conscription, we ran the risk of losing the War."
    Mr. DILLON: That was conditional on Ireland having the liberty to decide her own fate, and if Irish liberty were at stake I certainly would not hesitate to support Conscription.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to enter into a controversy as to what my hon. Friend meant, but that is what he conveyed to the House, and if he will take the trouble to read that speech, he will see that that is the case. Mr. Redmond himself, on the Third Heading, in delivering his speech put it on the ground that we were fighting for small nationalities.
    Mr. DEVLIN: We found that that was not true.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend never challenged the justice of the War. On the contrary, he supported it, he voted for it—
    Mr. DEVLIN: Who?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo. He voted for the War, supported supplies, voted for the declaration of war.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman is going too far. I never challenged the justice of the War. I believed in the justice of the War, and said so. I never voted for supplies, nor did anyone else in this House, for a vote was never taken. I never challenged the justice of the War, and I do not now challenge it. The right hon. Gentleman is going too far when he says that. Most certainly. I did not vote for the War. I hold very strong opinions about the origin of the War.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am satisfied with the statements made by my hon. Friend that he supported the justice of the War. If he believed that it was an unjust War, he would never have voted for it?
    Mr. DILLON: Certainly not.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, that's settled May I say, quite respectfully, and after a good deal of reflection and hesitation, because after all one does not want to propose anything to raise controversy

    1361
    and trouble when Heaven knows we have as much trouble as we can possibly deal with —
    Mr. FLAVIN: You will get more of it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would not do it unless I felt, after great reflection, that it is indefensible that you should ask young men of eighteen and a-half years of age, married men of thirty-five and forty with families, and even up to fifty, in England, Scotland, and Wales —that you should compel them to fight for the freedom and independence of a small Catholic nationality in Europe, whilst young men of twenty to twenty-five in Ireland are under no obligation to take up arms for a cause which is just as much theirs as ours. It is not merely illogical, it is unjust.
    Mr. BYRNE: You will have another battle front in Ireland.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is such a thing as justice for England and Scotland and Wales, and the emergency which Mr. Redmond contemplated —and which I still respectfully suggest my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo also contemplated — that we shall not win the War without taking this measure, has arisen. President Wilson's dramatic decision in the last few days is the best proof.
    And there is a special emergency with regard to Ireland. Irish battalions and divisions, according to all testimony, have maintained the high honour and repute of their native land. But those battalions are sadly depleted, and they are now filled, or half filled, with Englishmen. If it were merely England's battle, the young men of Ireland might regard that fact with indifference. But it is not. They are just as much concerned as the young men of England. Therefore, we propose to extend the Military Service Act to Ireland under the same conditions as in Great Britain. As there is no machinery in existence, and no register has yet been completed in Ireland, it may take some weeks before actual enrolment begins.
    Mr. FLAVIN: It will never begin. Ireland will not have it at any price.
    The PRIME MINISTER: But there must be no delay.
    Mr. FLAVIN: You come across, and try to take them.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as arrangements are complete, the Government will, by Order in Council, put the: Act into immediate operation —
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: That is a declaration of war against Ireland.
    Mr. FLAVIN: And against Irishmen all over the world.

    HOME RULE BILL.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Without delay. Meanwhile, we intend to invite Parliament to pass a measure for self-government in Ireland.
    Mr. BYRNE: You can keep it!
    The PRIME MINISTER: Let there be no misapprehension. Both questions will not hang together. Each must be taken, on its merits.
    Mr. BYRNE: You can keep both!
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, if that be the view of Home Rule, it is a new view for Ireland.
    Mr. BYRNE: Political tricksters!
    The PRIME MINISTER: Whilst Great Britain is fighting for national rights in Europe — [An Hon. Member: "The Prime Minister is trampling on the rights of Irishmen!"] —with all her reserves of strength, she is prepared to concede the same rights in her own sphere of government. The Report of the remarkable Convention which has been held in Ireland, which has just brought its proceedings to a termination, affords the British Parliament another opportunity —
    Mr. BYRNE: Of breaking their word!
    The PRIME MINISTER: — of approaching this vexed question with more hope of success.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Will he read to the House of Commons the Declaration unanimously carried by that Convention, recommending a Report of a Sub-committee consisting of the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Dysart, and including the names of two soldier Nationalists, on Conscription?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt that if that is in the Report it will be available to-morrow. [Hon. Members: "Read it!"] I really must ask to be allowed to reply to the courteous question put to me. The Report will appear to-morrow. The Report of the Convention was laid upon the Table of the House to-day, and I hope it will be printed and circulated to-morrow.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will that Report, unanimously adopted by the Committee to

    1363
    which I have referred, and subsequently unanimously adopted by the Convention, be incorporated in the self-government proposals of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That I do not know. I am sorry to say I have not had time to read the Report, which only arrived yesterday.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I press the right hon. Gentleman? [Hon. Members: "No!"] This has a very vital and an important bearing upon the discussion in which we are engaged. We are now discussing the question of the application of compulsory service to Ireland. I want to know whether, when the House of Commons is called upon to give a decision upon the question of the application of compulsory service to Ireland, the Report unanimously passed by the Committee and by the Convention will be presented to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is asking me about a Report which I have not seen.
    Mr. DEVLIN Mr. DEVLIN rose —
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) is not treating the Prime Minister fairly. The Prime Minister is in possession of the House, and is entitled to state his views. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying to him.
    Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. This is not a matter of petty controversy; this is a matter of the most vital importance to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not a point of Order !"] My point of Order is this —you need not try to howl me down, because I will not sit down. You may try-Prussian methods in Ireland, but you do not crush us here.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member says he has a point of Order, will he address me upon that?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, Sir, with all respect to you, I do desire to address you. I want to know now, on a point of Order, whether I am entitled to move, 'That the House do report Progress" in dealing with a matter referring to Conscription in Ireland, until such time as the Report of the National Convention on Conscription and on Irish government is presented to the House of Commons?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be entitled to move the Adjournment of
    1364
    the Debate during the course of the Debate, at the conclusion of the Prime Minister's speech, but he certainly could not interpolate a Motion of that sort in the middle of the Prime Minister's speech.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was saying that this Convention had just terminated its labours. The Cabinet, of course, has not had time to consider that Report, because it has only just arrived. I understand that it reported by a majority, but I fear that the majority is not such as to justify the Government in saying that it. Represents "substantial agreement." That means that the Government must accept the responsibility of submitting to Parliament, with such guidance as the Convention's Report affords, such proposals for the establishment of self-government in Ireland —[An HON MEMBER: "As the Castle wishes:"] —as they think just and as can, in their judgment, be carried without violent controversy. [An HON.MEMBER: "Rasputin!"] We propose, therefore, at an early date to introduce such a measure into the House of Commons, and to invite the House to pass it into law with the least possible delay. When the young men of Ireland have been brought in large numbers in the fighting line —
    Mr. BYRNE: Never!

    HELP FROM DOMINIONS
    The PRIME MINISTER: —it is important they should feel that they are not fighting to establish a right and a principle abroad which is denied to the land in which they live. I ought to say that the appeals we have addressed to the Dominions —
    Mr. BYRNE: We know it is all nonsense !
    The PRIME MINISTER: —have produced a fine response. The Dominions have already furnished the Empire with something like 1,000,000 magnificent fighting men. They are each and all taking the necessary steps to send more. The proposals in the Bill which I am submitting to the House, and to which I ask the House to give a First Reading, I hope it will be possible to get through the House this week. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] Time presses. Every day is a matter of importance.
    Mr. FLAVIN: The House will have to get us out first
    The PRIME MINISTER: We regret having to propose such extremely drastic recommendations, which will injure so many trades; but, having regard to the emergency, I say that no Government could accept the responsibility of proposing less. If, by any chance or mischance this colossal battle went against us, I do not say the War would be over, any more than it was in the days when Britain fought against another attempt at military dominancy —when Napoleon, having overthrown the armies of Europe, had the Continent at his mercy. As long as we have a ship afloat, we shall not accept a German peace. But if the battle be won, as I believe it will be, the doom of Prussianism is sealed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except in Ireland!"] The enemy has attacked at the height of his strength. We have been deserted by one powerful Ally. Another, and a more powerful, Ally is not yet ready to put forth one-tenth of his might. But, on the other hand, this battle must exhaust the German reserves. The enemy's last call must be thrown in before this battle is over, and America is only now putting in the first instalment of her first call. If we wish to avoid a war lasting for years, this battle must be won now, and, to win it, we must be ready to throw in all our resources. The men we propose taking to-day may well be the means of winning the decisive victory of the War, and with these measures, and with the promise of America, we have no fear of the ultimate issue. We shall pass through many fluctuations of hope and despondency, perhaps, even in this battle Let us go through the vicissitudes of this tremendous struggle with a stout and a steady heart. We have had critical days.
    Mr. FLAVIN: There are worse to come
    The PRIME MINISTER: In those days we had no ground for panic. We have had days when the outlook was brighter. Make no mistake —there is no cause yet for exultation, except in the valour of our troops. For a long time there will be cause, grave cause, for deep anxiety. There will always be, to the end, cause for exertion and for sacrifice, and if these be given with the unstinted devotion with which our brave men in France are affording, there will be cause for confidence in this country.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Mr. Speaker —
    Mr. DEVLIN Mr. DEVLIN rose —
    Mr. SPEAKER: I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition
    1366
    first, and he is entitled to address the House.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am sorry to intervene, Mr. Speaker, even for a moment, between my hon. Friend and the privilege of catching your eye, but I shall not intervene very long between this moment and his opportunity of addressing the House. I desire to reserve —and I think hon. Members in every quarter of the House will do well in that respect to follow my example —I desire to reserve judgment in regard to the specific proposals of this measure, which has just been explained to the House, until we see it in print, and are able maturely and deliberately to consider its provisions. I would only say in general terms that from the beginning of the War I have always regarded the various proposals either submitted to or submitted by successive Governments by one test —not a test of principle, because these are expedients in regard to which principle hardly applies, but of whether or not they were calculated, as I am sure they were intended, to promote the prosecution of the War to a successful issue. I myself, as is known to many of my old colleagues —and I never made any concealment of it —was strongly indisposed to the application of compulsion in any shape or form. Some of my colleagues from the first took a different view, and others shared my view. I am not in the least ashamed of it, because I repeat it to-night as my conviction —the question of compulsion is not a question of principle but of expediency, and I myself, gradually, I admit, came to the conclusion that it was possible and practicable to apply compulsion in this country without producing more evils than the benefits which would result from it. It is in the recollection of the House that we carried the Military Service Act of 1916 —which was preceded by much consultation with all sections of opinion —with something like practical unanimity. That is the test I always apply, which I applied then, which I have applied since to subsequent proposals, and which I apply to-day. The only test I apply is this: Will the military results —I use the word "military" in its largest and widest sense —to be secured by the measures proposed outweigh such considerations as can be set on the other side of the balance —dislocation of industry, and whatever other considerations there may be? I strike a balance. If I am satisfied

    1367
    that the balance is in favour of the proposals in the sense that, subtracting all the disadvantages from the advantages, you get a net result which will facilitate the progress of the War, then I am with you. That I believe to be the only real common-sense, practical and patriotic action. I say that in general terms, reserving my right of judgment in regard to the specific proposals.
    There is one point I should like —and here I think I am in agreement with the Prime Minister —very strongly to emphasise, and to press upon the House. Never, in my judgment, since the War broke out, has this country been face to face with anything like so grave a situation as that which at this moment confronts us. The collapse of Russia, and the consequent release of hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, who thereupon became available for employment in any of the other theatres of War, made it certain, in the opinion I think, not only of strategists and experts, but of all intelligent people, that by far the most probable direction in which that enormous accession of the effective strength of our enemy would be employed would be the Western Front. So it turned out to be, and the great attack which began the battle that is still going on was fore seen, and ought to have been, and we hope it was, prepared for by all the means that strategic foresight could adopt — co-ordination of command, proper control, distribution of reserves, and so forth. And yet, as we all know —it is no good in the least hiding it from ourselves any more than from the rest of the world —that attack, in its earlier stages, came within a measurable and perilous distance of success. A large area of territory, which only eighteen months ago, at infinite cost and sacrifice, we had rescued from the German invader, has been re-occupied by him. and is held by him at this moment. The amount of our casualties, my right hon. Friend says, it ! would not be expedient to disclose. I dare say he is right, and I am quite prepared to believe also that as regards the estimate of the number of prisoners and guns captured by the enemy, the state: ments put forward by them are exaggerated. But when all that is allowed for and discounted, unquestionably it is the most serious casualty list in the whole of this War.
    1368
    These are the conditions under which we meet to-day. Here, again, I am not saying anything which it, not obvious to the whole world. Amiens, and all that Amiens means to Great Britain and to France, is seriously menaced, and if, as I not only confidently hope but firmly believe, the cause of the Allies, never so seriously imperilled, can hold out and prevail, it can only be by a supreme and sustained effort. We cannot discuss the question of responsibility in the middle of a great battle. It would be idle and futile to do so, and in the highest degree inexpedient. Whatever may be the verdict which, when the time for investigation comes, will have to be arrived at in this matter, I desire to say —and I am sure I am expressing the opinion of the whole House, and I believe of the whole country —that that gigantic onrush in which our men were confronted by three, four, five, sometimes even ten to one —very nearly that in some cases, and three or four constantly —was stemmed, and is at this moment stemmed by the indomitable tenacity of the British soldier. I had a letter just before I came to the House from a near relative of mine, in fact, one of my own sons, who is an officer in the Artillery, and he tells me that from 21st March, when he was at St. Quentin, for twelve successive days his battery, covering the retirement of our troops, took part in no fewer than twenty-one engagements. That is only a sample of the work which the Artillery has been doing all along the line. I doubt very much whether, in the glorious history of that illustrious corps, the Royal Artillery, there is a more splendid page than that which will recount how. in this retreat, they deliberately covered the Infantry, exposing themselves to capture and to destruction. As long as that spirit of self-sacrifice, discipline, devotion, and courage animates the humblest of our rank and file and our officers, I for one will never despair of our prospects of victory.
    That is the sole reason why I wished to say a word or two on the First Reading of the Bill, reserving all criticism of detail until the Second Reading. If we be confronted, as I believe we are, at this moment with the gravest peril which has ever menaced our Empire —and through our Empire, and through our Allies something that is greater than any Empire or any material fabric that man has ever built up, namely, the fortunes of liberty

    1369
    and humanity —there is no sacrifice which this House, representing the people of this country, ought not and is not prepared to make to preserve the world from the worst catastrophe which could ever befall it. As one who has been as responsible as any man during the initiation and the early part of this War, I should like to appeal to the House to approach the consideration of this measure from that point of view, and I make a similar appeal to the Government. At a time like this, and in a crisis like this, agreement, as far as it can be obtained without the sacrifice of the ends we have in view —concord, give and take — are all important.
    I am not going into the question of Ireland to-day, but take the question —I am not going into the merits of the question —of the men between forty-two and fifty. They are among the most patriotic men in the country. They have given their sons —vast numbers of them —freely and ungrudgingly to the service of the State, and have seen them shed their blood in the course of the conflict. They have seen the disappearance, first under voluntary enlistment, and afterwards under the Military Service Acts, of the younger men employed in their own businesses, and upon them has fallen, as it lies every day, the stress and burden of carrying on, really as my right hon. Friend said, the economic side of our task. Do not suppose, therefore, that it is from any lack of patriotism, any spirit of lethargy, any sense of indifference or self-indulgence that these men look with the gravest, I will not say suspicion, but with the gravest apprehension upon the application of compulsory service to them. I am not for a moment expressing any opinion. I do not say it is not right; but do let us have a perfectly free and frank interchange of opinion, and let us —I am now especially addressing myself to the Government —keep our ears and our minds accessible to reasonable arguments. When that has taken place —and I believe it is only in an atmosphere of that kind that legislation such as this can really be carried through efficiently —I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give a little more time for the consideration of this measure.
    It is quite right to say that time is of the essence of the matter. No one is more alive to that than I am, but after all, any reservoir of reserves upon which you propose to draw cannot be made effectively available for the purpose of this great
    1370
    battle for weeks, and possibly for months. I speak as a very old Parliamentarian, and as one who has had a great deal of experience in the conduct and management of the business of this House, when I say that I believe that it is found in the long run best to give sufficient time for consideration. I speak only from the point of view of getting legislation through in a form in which the country will be satisfied that all reasonable objections and arguments have had a full opportunity for debate. I should, therefore, strongly advise the Government, in the interests of their measure and, of what is much more important, in the interests of the country and of the War, if possible, to give us a little more time for the fullest consideration of the details of the Bill.
    I finish as I began, by urging upon the House, with all the earnestness, and, indeed, almost with all the solemnity of which I am capable, to realise that never before in the experience of any man within these walls, or of his fathers and his forefathers, has this country and all the great traditions and ideals which are embodied in our history —never has this the most splendid inheritance ever bequeathed to a people been in greater peril. or in more need of united safeguarding than at this present time.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    I ought to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for having stood for a moment in his way when he wished to address the House. I rose simply in accordance with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that at the close of the Prime Minister's speech I would be in order in moving the Adjournment of the Debate. Therefore, in accordance with that ruling, and accepting that ruling, I rose to discharge what I thought was a responsibility and an obligation which I owed to my country. I do not propose at this stage to enter into the merits of Conscription as applied to Ireland. That will be a matter that will be fully and freely discussed from these benches before any decision is arrived at. The Prime Minister adopted the somewhat characteristic and subtle course, not of proposing his policy of Conscription in all its nakedness, but of proposing it concurrently with some suggestion about the decision of the National Convention which has lately been held in Dublin. There is only one particular

    1371
    recommendation of that Convention which is germane to this discussion, and that is the recommendation of the Convention in regard to the application of Conscription to Ireland. That matter was referred to a Committee of five of the most distinguished of its members, the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Desart, and Mr. Powell, three Unionists, and Captain Gwynn and Captain Doran, two Nationalists, who are soldier members of the Convention. To that Convention they made this recommendation:
    "We have already submitted an ad interim Report, which it will be convenient to produce here on the practical aspect of Conscription in the event of the establishment of a separate Parliament and Executive for Ireland."
    As none of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench has read the Report of the Convention, I would ask them respectfully to listen to the recommendations of that Committee, and I would also ask the House to remember that this was a Committee not of Nationalists, but that three of them were the most important and some of them the most anti-Home Rulers in Ireland when in this country, and two of them were Nationalists who are serving in the Army. They say:
    "Assuming that a scheme of self-government for Ireland be adopted, including the establishment of an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive Government responsible thereto, we think it would in practice be impossible to impose a system of compulsory service in Ireland without the assent and co-operation of the Irish Parliament. As to whether as an abstract proposition it would be desirable by vesting these powers in the Imperial Parliament to secure united and simultaneous action in this direction in both Islands, we think it unnecessary for us to express an opinion, as we think it would be impracticable effectively to enforce such a demand except with the approval of the Irish Parliament, without which action the efficient co-operation of the Executive could not be secured. Indeed, it seems to us the direct consequence of the creation of an Irish Parliament that any measure of this character must be submitted to the Irish Parliament before it can be enforced in Ireland."
    When Conscription was applied to this country every Member representing English constituencies was consulted as to whether it should be applied or not. We felt in the position of men who were representatives of another nation, that we ought not to interfere, and we left it for English Members to decide whether Conscription should be applied to their country or not. Have we been consulted about these proposals which have been submitted from the Front Bench? Has the Prime Minister ever taken into
    1372
    consultation a single representative from Ireland upon this question, as to whether an unemancipated race should pay its blood tax to another. If we had our self government, as they have in Australia and as they have in Canada, we should be consulted through the agency of our representatives in that self-elected Parliament. You put upon us a dual insult. You deny to us the right of self-government and then you will not allow us to determine whether the sons of our nation are to be conscripted into your army to fight your battles. I tell you that such an insult will not be put upon Ireland and such a stigma will not be borne upon our brow. I say further that we are entitled here and now to have this discussion concluded and this matter raised again when the Government have gathered not merely Irish opinion, but when they have taken into consideration the Report which has been issued by some of their own chief supporters and some of the pillars of Unionist strength in Ireland and here.
    6.0 P.M.
    The ex-Prime Minister has just said that this is not a matter to be rushed through in a spirit of frantic determination on the part of the Government. You will not be allowed to rush it through. It has come to a nice condition of affairs in a nation and in a Parliament fighting for civil and national liberties and rights, that you are going to impose Conscription on people under the guillotine, and that you are going to adopt in this Parliament the methods of Prussia and that the Prime Minister is to set himself up as a Parliamentary Kaiser. So for as we are concerned we will not stand it The right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that at the commencement of the War we were in its favour. We believed it a just War. I have never changed my mind since. I have never changed my mind about the merits of the War, but I have changed my mind about the standard bearers of liberty. How do I know, and what guarantee have we that when the War is over, and when the fields of Europe and France are red with Irish blood, that your declaration of devotion to small nationalities is anything more but a scrap of paper, like that which has caused this War. Yes, Sir, we are in favour of this War. We believe it a just War. We believe it a War for small nations in every part of Europe, except that small nation that you control. We believe it is a War for human liberties

    1373
    and against the worst despotism the world has ever known, but if you expect us to go out and fight for these things, you expect us to be fools. We want a guarantee of your good faith. At the commencement of the War our word was not only our bond. We went out and we did the most unpopular thing that Irish politicians could do in a country that had borne the whips and scorpions of your misrule. There was not a Sunday for nearly two years that I did not stand on Irish platforms, appealing not for recruits, because there was not any need for it, but appealing to the sense of chivalry, the love of liberty and the fighting spirit of our race, to take their stand. The response was magnificent. You cannot deny it. The rally to the flag was greater in Ireland I believe, comparatively, than in England, Scotland or Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was — comparatively. If you remember that Ireland is a pastoral country and that from a pastoral country you do not gather such legions of soldiers in time of war as you do from great industrial communities, it was ten times better than in the agricultural parts of England, but you mishandled it. You want to conscript Ireland because you poisoned the national life of the country by the methods by which you handled the question of voluntary recruiting.
    We offered you then, and we will give you now if you do justice to Ireland, the free gift of a free people. That is what the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister asked Ireland to give, and that is what Ireland offered. But I tell you frankly, as your friend in this War, that in this matter of Ireland, who has contributed so much out of her splendid manhood and her insuperable courage, which has played so glorious a part for the cause of the Allies, you are entering on a course of madness if you endeavour to enforce Conscription on Ireland, and I can only come to one conclusion. Those whom the Gods intend to destroy they first make mad, and you will be mad if you enforce Conscription in Ireland. I will not go into the logical reasons. I will not state any of the irresistible points that I could make against this policy which you are attempting to impose upon us in a moment of panic, without thought or consideration of this House. I shall have other opportunities of doing it. But I ask you to harken to the appeal that has been made from that bench, by a statesman who has
    1374
    wisely given you the advice, that you had better think, not once but twenty times, before you attempt this thing, and you had better make sure that instead of getting Ireland on your side you will not organise Ireland against you.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I beg to second the Motion for Adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: As an independent Member of this House I welcome the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for West Belfast. I have sat in this House now for some years, and I have seen England bullied by Ireland during the whole of that time. I have watched the proceedings of this House during the last three and a half years. I have watched the condition of affairs in England and in her Colonies. I have seen the sacrifices which have been made by England, Scotland, and Wales. I have seen the way in which Ireland has refused to bear her fair part in this great War, and I am pleased that at last she has thrown off any idea of being loyal to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame'"] She has. come out in her true colours.
    Mr. HAYDEN: How dare you say that? How dare you insult us?
    Mr. SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. Member that the question now before the House is the adjournment of the Debate?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was endeavouring, and I hope that I was in order in doing so, to answer the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, who went fully into the reasons why there should not be Conscription for Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not speak on the main question in moving the adjournment of the Debate, and speeches must now be confined to the question of the adjournment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: By this Bill certain obligations are being placed on the men of the United Kingdom, and the hon. Member for West Belfast now comes and asks that the whole question should be adjourned, apparently because the same obligation which is being placed on Great Britain is also being imposed on the men in Ireland. As an independent Member I hope that the Government will be no party to the adjournment of this Debate, and in carrying through this Bill, as it has been outlined by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he will have the full support of the people of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England,

    1375
    and with that support I ask him to go forward, to pay no respect whatever to those who desire this Debate to be adjourned. This is merely an attempt to get out of the provisions of the Bill, to whittle down in this grave hour of the crisis of our country what the right hon. Gentleman said we absolutely need in order to win the War. I ask him. to make a definite statement that the Government will decline this adjournment and that the Bill as it has been outlined will be carried through successfully.
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I say one word in answer to my hon. Friend. This Is purely asking leave to introduce the Bill. Unless that leave is given the Bill cannot be printed, and I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend will see his way not to press the Motion for Adjournment, because the only effect will be to prevent the Bill being printed.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In response to that invitation, I am quite prepared to agree, provided that the right hon. Gentleman takes out the Clauses referring to Ireland.
    Captain GWYNN: I do not think that the Prime Minister need have troubled to explain. We understand perfectly well what we are doing. We are offering all the opposition we can to this Bill, from the start, and those who are offering it are Nationalists of every sort and every group in Ireland, and not least those Nationalists who have served. I have spent the last eight months or more practically away from this House on the business to which I was sent by the Irish party at the Prime Minister's invitation, in taking part in the proceedings of the Irish Convention. The Prime Minister has made allusion to that Convention. He has coupled in his speech the proposals in the Report of the Convention with the proposals in this Bill. I admire the skill with which the Government synchronise their movements. You have to-day heard that after some eight months of labour this body of Irishmen had reached what you might call the heads of a Bill for the better government of Ireland, not unanimously, but, still, in a manner to give guidance. I could scarcely believe my eyes when I saw that this was coupled with the announcement that the Government were going to introduce Conscription in Ireland. Were they so much afraid of what the Convention had been doing or that they might really have done some good and that the
    1376
    Government might have had to take their courage in their hands and say what they were going to do about this Irish question? The Report will be in the hands of this House to-morrow, as I understand.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not.
    Captain GWYNN: To-morrow or this week, and when the Report comes into the hands of this House, if this is done, it will be no more than waste paper. That is the result which I see after working at it in a manner in which I never worked at anything in my life and working with more hope than I ever worked at anything for Ireland.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire to ask your ruling as to whether this speech is in order on the question that this House do now adjourn? I submit that I was only answering the hon. Member for West Belfast when you ruled me out of order, and that the hon. Member is now arguing on the main question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member was arguing on the main question. I dare say that his remarks might have been slightly more relevant. The hon. Member, as I understand, is giving reasons why it is desirable to postpone the consideration of this Bill until the.Report of the Convention has been submitted.
    Captain GWYNN: I am much obliged to you for your explanation. I think that my remarks had as much relevance to the Motion for the Adjournment as those of the hon. Member, who was, I think, chiefly occupied in accusing my countrymen of cowardice. —
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Hear, hear!
    Captain GWYNN: —and of neglecting their duty. But there is little to say on this matter. One has little heart to say anything. I have only to add my voice to the appeal which came from the Leader of the Opposition, the late Prime Minister. This is a matter for consideration, and I think that it is evident from the Prime Minister's attitude that, although he attached importance to the document which comes from this Convention —and it would, perhaps, be singular if he did not attach importance to it —he has not read it. I doubt whether he has read one page of it. I am quite certain that he has not read that part of it which deals with this particular matter, and does not know how the deliberations of the Convention on

    1377
    that matter stood. All I have to say is that the Committee, on which I served, was a Committee, as my hon. Friend has said, in majority Unionist, in majority consisting of soldiers, and there was not a shadow of disagreement among us. Setting aside altogether the academic question whether Great Britain had or had not the right to impose Conscription in Ireland and in Australia and in Canada, we dealt with the matter simply as a practical proposition, and we accepted the view that if there was an Irish Parliament it would be impossible to impose Conscription without the consent of that Parliament, and therefore it would be insane to attempt it, and I should like especially, since these two issues have been so strangely coupled in the Prime Minister's speech —the promise of liberation for a nation, the promise of the right of self-determination with the determination to settle for that nation that question of all others which cuts most deeply into the vitals of a people, the question which if determined would sweep away the whole tablet of freedom —that before these things are considered, since our Report has been brought into question, at least the House should have time to consider it, and for that reason as a member of the Convention, as an Irish Nationalist and as an Irish soldier, I support this Motion.
    Mr. DILLON: In supporting this Motion I do not think, in all my long experience, that there has been a more glaring illustration of the methods by which Ireland has been governed, or the methods which have made Ireland so terrible and insoluble a problem to this country, than that which is presented to us to-night. I was in the House during the whole of the discussion in connection with the application of Conscription to Great Britain. I remember it well. I heard all the speeches. I heard the speech made by the ex-Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, in which he laid down this principle, which I have never forgotten. He said:
    "In my judgment, when it comes to be a question of applying Conscription or forced military service to a free nation, you must have practical unanimity, or the thing is impossible."
    That was universally accepted in this House, and how did the ex-Prime Minister proceed? I remember well at the time, stating to some of his Friends, who perhaps may recollect it, that if the then Prime Minister passed Conscription, he being the only man alive in this country who could
    1378
    have done it, the War Office, and certain Gentlemen in this House, would kick him out. And the intrigue began the day after the Conscription Act was passed. However, that is another matter. The point I wish to put is this, that when the late Prime Minister laid down this principle he said that circumstances did not justify the Government in applying Conscription to Ireland. Now the Government have decided to apply it to Ireland. I want to ask the Prime Minister this question, Whom should he consult before he came to this decision? Have the War Cabinet consulted one single Irish representative? If so, let him name the man. Is that his idea of liberty, that he is to apply Conscription to Ireland, and the War Cabinet are to decide on that question, without consultsting one solitary representative of the people of Ireland? That is worse than Prussianism. No Prussian Government would dare to embark on such a course as that; and I say that if anything could add to the force of this illustration of the methods which have made, the situation, in Ireland what it is to-day, this would do it. I have never known in my long experience of public life, which now extends to nearly forty years, the position of Ireland to be so serious as it is to-day. If anything could add to the force of this illustration of the methods which have been adopted by Governments in the past, and are being improved on by the present War Cabinet, it is the fact that the Government appointed a Convention about which they have talked a great deal, which sat for a very long time, and was undoubtedly a very remarkable body. The Government nominated members of that body, and they attached very great importance to its decisions. Here we have it admitted, from the mouth of the Prime Minister himself, that this supreme and important decision affecting Ireland, in a way of which I clearly see he has not the faintest idea, was come to by the War Cabinet without taking the trouble of reading the decision of their own Convention.
    Was there ever, in human history, such a method of governments You take a decision which plunges Ireland into bloodshed and confusion, and opens up a new war front, in addition to the Eastern and Western Fronts. You do that with a light heart, without consulting one solitary representative of Ireland or without reading the Report of your own Convention, composed not only of Nationalists but of representatives of every section and in-

    1379
    terest in Ireland —a Convention which has sat for a year, or ten months, and has debated every aspect of the Irish question. You do not take the trouble to read their special Report on this matter which is to decide this question. And that is what is called government, I hope that for the sake of the country, and for the sake of this Empire, that the methods of the War Cabinet are somewhat different, in dealing with the War, from their methods in dealing with Ireland. I strongly support this Motion. If the Prime Minister had the courage and the manliness to deal with this Bill, which in my opinion is a preposterous Bill; if he had the courage and the manliness to deal with the Bill on its merits, I dare say he would get it rapidly through the House, though I do not think he deserves to pass it at all. But that is another matter. If the Prime Minister had really considered the Report of the Irish Convention and had informed himself, which apparently he has not done, or had taken the smallest trouble to inform himself, of the state of Irish opinion on this whole question, and then had come down like a man and said, "I have decided with a full sense of responsibility, and a full knowledge of the facts, to apply Conscription to Ireland," we could then have fought it out on the floor of this House on its merits. But he sneaks it into an English Bill. He proposes, so far as I can gather, not to pass it forthwith, but to hang it like the sword of Damocles over the Irish people for an indefinite period, during which the poison will work, and every hope of Irish settlement will vanish. In the long history of the fatuous mistakes which have cursed the connection between these two countries, and embittered our race, in the long history of the blunders which have destroyed good feeling in Ireland, and which have brought out the rebellion and all the troubles which followed from that unhappy enterprise, nothing has been done more silly, more unthinkable, more unworthy, than the proposal which we are now considering.
    Mr. PETO: I rise to express the hope that the Government will begin as they mean to go on in the matter of their proposals, and will not listen to the appeal, however wordy, from below the Gangway, or imagine for one monment that this House is composed entirely of Irish members. Representatives of interests of all kinds, English, Scottish, and Welsh, in this House, have got to support proposals
    1380
    which are essential if we are to succeed in this War. We have got to see even handed justice; we have to make clear to the country that this is the day when the Government have a chance of showing that they mean to do something like even-handed justice. I do hope that the Government will not listen either to-day or any other day to pleas for delay, no matter how worded, no matter where they come from, whether from the right hon. Member for East Fife or from below the Gangway and the Irish benches, but that they will go straight and take all the steps necessary to ensure that these proposals will be passed before the week is out, as the Prime Minister asked, and the Bill actually carried into law. This is a dilatory Motion which, frankly, the Irish Members only intend as part of the tactics of delay, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that this measure goes through, and so make it clear to the country that the Government intend to stand by proposals which are essential to the successful carrying on of the War.
    Mr. DENMAN: I think that hon. Members opposite should agree to the appeal of the Prime Minister by allowing the introduction of this Bill. I am in favour of that course, as are others, because by voting for the introduction of the measure we do not commit ourselves to any particular part of the Bill. We will have an opportunity on the Second Reading to study its details, and, for myself, I do not see how I could pursue the course of refusing the First Reading of a Bill whose details I wish to consider. The measure contains a good many other Clauses than those relating to Ireland, and by accepting the introduction of the Bill we are not committed to any specific method of dealing with the Irish question. I think it is. desirable that the Government should not be refused leave to introduce the Bill; otherwise we should not be able to see the. contents of the measure and be in a position the better to discuss it. There is.. however, a question which I wish to put to the Government in regard to certain figures, which I trust they will give us. Whenever we ask for figures we are liable to be told that to give them would be conveying information to the Germans; then, the next moment—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now proceeding to discuss a subject which has no relation to the Motion before the-House.
    Mr. DENMAN: If the Debate be adjourned, I should not have an opportunity of getting those figures for which I ask?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The demand of the hon. Member for figures is only a specious one, which he uses as an expedient, and he must confine his observations to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. He will have a further opportunity to ask for the figures he wants.
    Mr. DENMAN: I rely upon that then, and will not pursue the matter further.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: In supporting the Motion I desire to denounce the incredible meanness of the Government in coupling the introduction of a measure of self-government for Ireland with the question of Conscription for Ireland. It is taking an unworthy advantage of the situation. I can only say that at present, throughout Ireland, there is a feeling, commonly expressed, that the Government in all its dealings with Ireland since this War broke out have followed the same mean and contemptible course. In connection with this matter let me recall the speech made in this House on the 3rd August, 1914, by my late leader, Mr. Redmond, who on that evening ranged his country, speaking for, us, on the side of Great Britain in the War which is now taking place. I ask the Government to consider this: Did Mr. Redmond make any condition? No. Was his loyalty and support expressed that night made conditional upon granting Home Rule to Ireland? No. He never mentioned the words "self-government for Ireland" that night. He never huckstered, he never bargained; and this is his return! My late leader, Mr. Redmond, made himself unpopular in Ireland by not striking a bargain. He had been denounced in Ireland by men in high places, men of great learning but with inferior morale, for not making a bargain, for not taking advantage of the position in which he found himself placed, and, as it were, seizing the enemy. No, Sir, he made no bargain. He did not huckster. He spoke for us He spoke for a nation, and an honourable nation, and he made no bargain. He made a pure offer. He made a voluntary offer; and this is how he is rewarded ! I have reason to comment upon the mean, the ineffably mean, conduct of the Government here to-day. I rose to denounce it, and I will do so also in their own interest. I was walking through the streets of Dublin last week and I met a Constituent of mine, a man of considerable
    1382
    influence and importance in the county which I have represented here some fourteen or fifteen years, and I asked him how his district was politically. He said, "Our district is becoming all right. It will become all right if the Government will not, by some act of stupidity, drive them back again into chaos." Such-and-such principles are on the wane, said he. They have been on the wane before, but they have been pushed forward always by the stupid acts of the Government. Here is another. It is an ungenerous act. It is a mean act. It is worse; it is a stupid act. I was engaged—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's speech is relevant to the main question. It is not relevant to the question of Adjournment, which is now the one before the House.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I will endeavour to follow your suggestion. The Motion for the introduction of this Bill is coupled with the suggestion from the Prime Minister that it will be accompanied by a measure of amelioration of the condition of Ireland. I would like to know, Sir, whether I am wrong in alluding to another occasion when, as I have stated, Mr. Redmond made an offer to this country, which was accepted, which was not accompanied by any condition whatever. However, Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House any longer. I can scarcely express the indignation that I feel. I complain that the Government is playing us false every time. We have tried fairly and honourably to keep our country in the straight path of constitutional agitation, and by the sinister conduct of the Government our hands are constantly being weakened. It is for that reason that I have risen to support this Motion, so that I may be able to express to the Government and to this House and to the whole people my indignation at the unworthy and ignoble conduct that is exemplified by the conduct of the Government here to-day.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I do not think the indignation is entirely on one side. Personally, I feel indignation that at a moment like this a Motion to adjourn the House should be moved. Do the hon. Members who desire to delay our legislation by moving the Adjournment of the House suppose that the Germans are going to adjourn the offensive on the Western Front? And, if not, if the Germans are not going to adjourn their offensive

    1383
    against us, surely it would be criminal for any Member in this House to delay the passage of legislation that is necessary for the Government of this country to take any means and every means in their power to meet and avert the threatened danger. Complaint has been made that the Government have not consulted Irish opinion. Not; but,, in my humble opinion, the Government have done better than that, for they have consulted the facts of the case. They have consulted the necessities which face the nation, and those facts and those necessities must have a greater effect than any opinions of any section of the country. For these reasons I would urge, the Government also not to falter, not to listen to any suggestions of delay, with whatever motive they may be made, but to press forward, remembering that necessity sometimes teaches stern lessons and that there are times when necessity must take precedence to speeches. I do hope every Member of this House will remember that the Germans are not going to adjourn their offensive, that they are not going to delay, and that anything that we do to delay the Government is in its small way a betrayal of this country, a direct playing into the hands of the enemy.
    Mr. WHYTE: It may be presumptuous on the part of one who must describe himself as a Parliamentary youngster to charge the hon. Member for East Mayo with a tactical error. I am convinced that in putting this Motion before the House he has committed a tactical error, and that when we come to discuss the merits of the application of Conscription to Ireland he will not receive the same support which he might have received had he not taken this action at this moment. The Motion to adjourn is an expression of disgust, if you like, at the action of the Government, but it has no relation to the merits of the case. The House as a whole is every bit as anxious to see the whole measure in print as the Irish party can possibly be to see that part which specially concerns them and while my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife has warned us not to jump to conclusions, not to commit ourselves in advance before we have seen the specific proposals of the Government in print, I think that applies equally to the attitude which the Irish Nationalist party have taken up in relation to this Motion for Adjournment. I sympathise with them in a very large degree. I should be out of order if I proceeded to argue my own par-
    1384
    ticular convictions in relation to the application of Conscription to Ireland, but I for one do not feel that anything is to be gained by obstructing the Motion to see this measure in print by a Motion for the Adjournment of this House.
    It may be that the Government has mishandled the situation in Ireland. It probably has. But, I think, if the Irish party had realised the temper in which the House as a whole proposes to approach this new Military Service Act they would not have taken the particular action they have taken and moved this Motion for Adjournment. They will not lack support, I can assure them when it comes to arguing the case of the application of compulsory military service to Ireland on the merits of the case and on the facts of the case; but they do tend to alienate a certain amount of support in this House by the action they have taken this afternoon. After all, it is not action on the merits of the case. It is action taken very largely as an expression of feeling and not; based on the true merits of the case at issue. Therefore, I hope the Irish party will see their way to reconsider the action they have taken and to allow the Motion for the introduction of the Bill to pass early this evening in order that we may get to the real business to-morrow.
    Mr. FARRELL: I would like to recall the attention of the House to what the hon. Member who has just sat down called the facts of the case. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast intervened in the course of the Prime Minister's speech, and called attention to a certain decision of the Convention. The Prime Minister admitted that he had not. read the Report containing that decision, and the hon. Member for West Belfast said, and said fairly, I think, that the Debate on the application of Conscription to Ireland should not proceed until Members of the House werein possession of the decision of the National Convention on this question. It was for that reason that the hon. Gentleman moved the Adjournment of the Debate, and I think it is perfectly reasonable. We have been treated to-night by the Prime Minister to a speech the ferocity of which I have never seen equalled in this House before, so far as Ireland is concerned. It makes one despair of any hope of any relief of any kind from this House when a subject of that kind is launched suddenly, and is received in certain quarters of the House as it was received this afternoon with what I may

    1385
    call uproarious applause. This War has lasted nearly four years, and at the end of four years the Prime Minister thinks that the situation is so critical for the Empire that unless he gets 200,000 —which, I think, is the maximum he hopes to get —young Irishmen conscripted, the cause is lost, I read in a newspaper coming down from Holyhead last night that the Government admit that they have 7,500,000 men under arms. Of what material assistance, supposing you get the 200,000 Irishmen, would they be to the 7,500,000 men already under arms?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That argument does not seem to be relevant to the Adjournment of the Debate. It seems to be more applicable to the main question.
    Mr. FARRELL: Of course, that is the way we are faced here, constantly, with points of Order; but I say that the Motion made by the hon. Member for West Belfast is a Motion really in the interests of this House, for the members to inform themselves of an important decision arrived at by a Sub-committee of the Convention which did not consist of Nationalists, which had a minority of Nationalists on it, and those two both Service members, who, therefore, may be assumed to be at least able to give expert opinion on the question. That my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast wants the House to be seised of, because he thinks —and, I believe, rightly thinks —that it would lead to a more favourable consideration when this question of Conscription for Ireland comes up again. I have listened to all the speeches in the Debate. The late Prime Minister, in a temperate, statesmanlike speech, made an appeal for delay. He has been sneered at by some hon. Members. At least two of them went out of their way to sneer at him for making that suggestion. I think anyone who listened to the speech dispassionately will admit that his was the better way to carry this measure into law with the most speed; but if the tactics of forcing it down our throats, whether we like it or not, is persisted in, it can only lead to fierce resentment on the part of those who represent Ireland in this House. We are only a small fragment of this House —sixty or seventy votes out of 670 —and, of course, you will vote us down, but that will not settle the question. If you want this Bill to apply, and with effect, you are going the very worst way you can possibly go to see it have any effect at all, except
    1386
    one of fierce and bitter resentment in our country. I entirely endorse everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kildare. I think the way in which our late lamented leader, Mr. Redmond, was treated during his life, and is even being treated after his death, is a shocking commentary on any dealings whatsoever by Irishmen with the British Government. It justifies everything said in Ireland against the Constitutional movement which we have been supporting. I do not know whether the Government or Members of this House above the Gangway really understand the efforts that the Irish Parliamentary party have been making to keep the people in the Constitutional movement, and to prevent those scenes, which, we fear, this Bill will very much more exasperate, which, unfortunately, have occurred in other parts of Ireland during the last four or five months.
    I should like to hear the honest, candid opinion of the Chief Secretary on this question, whether he approves of this policy of madness —because it is nothing but a policy of madness —whether he faces the situation with the same calmness: as the Prime Minister, who is far away from the scene, and who has not yet visited Ireland and will take precious good care not to go there to enforce his Conscription Act? But if the policy outlined by the right hon. Gentleman is pursued, we at all events in this House representing Ireland will take advantage of all the forms of the House to obstruct word by word, and line by line, the passage of the Bill. [A laugh.] You may laugh. You can force your measure through by weight of numbers, just as the Germans forced you back on the Western Front, but you will not touch the hearts or the minds of Irishmen by such a policy. You will only exasperate and create worse feelings than those feelings which our late leader, Mr. Redmond, did so much to-allay as between Ireland and England You will only create far worse feelings in the future than have even existed in the past if you pursue this policy, and if you persist in applying this unwarranted, unworkable, and, I believe, wholly illusory Act in Ireland against the. wishes of the Irish people.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Since this War began, so far as one humble Member of the House could go, I felt it was my duty to assist in my own country to do everything in my power to beat the German

    1387
    ambition. I felt at the time, in August, 1914, when the German hordes invaded Belgium and tried to enslave Europe, that Ireland would be acting a brave and an honourable part in sending her sons in the great struggle for liberty. At that time we were practically finishing the old struggle between this country and Ireland. After many and toilsome years an Act was placed on the Statute Book by which we felt that our liberty was going to be a reality, and that a free Ireland was ready to take her part in defending the Empire, into which for the first time she was to be allowed to enter. Ever since that time Ireland undoubtedly has sent her men. She did for the first year send them freely and cheerfully. I stood on many a platform, and the enthusiasm and the spirit of the people was something glorious. It was damped and destroyed by the misconduct and the folly of the men you sent to Ireland. You sent over to our country men who were dug-outs, hopelessly incompetent for any work in any capacity whatever, devoid of any sense of real, true patriotism.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Those arguments do not really apply to the question of the Adjournment. If the hon. Gentleman would allow the question of Adjournment to be got out of the way, then all the arguments he is bringing forward would be relevant.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: I wish to say to the House, if I may, that this proposal, applying Conscription in its full force and to my country, instead of assisting the War, will be one of the worst strokes this Government has ever done.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Those arguments, as I pointed out, will be relevant on the main question, but they are not relevant. to the question of Adjournment
    Mr. O'DONNELL: I understand the difficulty of dealing solely with the question of Adjournment, and the sole point which I wish to bring before the House is this: I say that Ireland for the first time is being conscripted, although she has not been consulted. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion stated that a body of Irishmen sat for seven months repre-
    sentative of all parties, all classes, and all interests in Ireland. They know Ireland well; they know what can be done by Ireland to assist in this War, and they are most anxious to assist. That body of men has reported to this House. That Report is not before the House. The Prime Minister has not read that Report, and, without reading that Report, without consulting Irish opinion of any kind whatever, he comes to this House, he disregards Ireland, he disregards Irish opinion, and he tells us here and now that Conscription is to be applied without any consultation. I say it is absolutely essential that this question should be adjourned until there is full consideration, until this House has some idea of the effect of this in Ireland, and the feeling that will be aroused of indignation and disgust. Why, Sir, what is the War for? Have we not been told ad nauseam that it is to free Europe from tyranny and Prussianism. I say deliberately this act of the Prime Minister is one of the worst acts of tyranny and Prussianism. I would appeal most earnestly, as one who would be most anxious to assist in this War, and to see Ireland take her part, that this is not the way to do it, that this is not the way to appeal to the sentiments and devotion of Irishmen. Were you to appeal to the Australians and Canadians in this way, what would be the answer? Give us our native Parliament and the right to manage our own affairs, but do not attach the degrading and insulting condition that we shall not get it unless we send our men to fight side by side with you. I would beg and implore this House, before it rushes into this most fatuous and foolish policy, to realise that they are not serving the War, but are playing the game of Germany. They are not assisting England, though they might have the satisfaction of seeing Ireland strewn with blood, and worse scenes enacted in Ireland than could be enacted by the Germans in Belgium or Poland.
    Sir G. CAVErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes. 310; Noes, 85.

    Division No. 3.]

    AYES

    [6.57 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Amery, Capt. L. C. M. S.

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Barlow, Sir M. (Salford, S.)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Ganzoni, Francis J. C.

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, N.)

    Macleod, John Macintosh

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

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Macmaster, Donald

    Beach, William F. H.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Macnamara Rt. Hon Dr. T. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gilbert, J. D.

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Goldman, C. S.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Grant, J. A.

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Bigland, Alfred

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Gretton, Col. John

    Meux, Admi. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Blair, Reginald

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fredk. (Dulwich)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mills, Lieut. Hon. Arthur R.

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brassey, Major H. Leonard Campbell

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Brookes, Warwick

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Burn, Col. C. R

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Butcher, John George

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Ogden, Fred

    Carnegie, Lieut.-Colonel D. G.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Cator, John

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E,

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Hinds, John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Clynes, John R.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'ampton)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin. Midlothian

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Horne, E.

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

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

    Ratcliff, Lieut.-Col. R. F.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Rawson, Col. R. H,

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Denison-pender, Capt. J. C.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Dennies, E. R. B.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Willoughby H.

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Dixon, C. H.

    Kerry, Lieut.-Col., Earl of

    Rowlands, James

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Keswick, Henry

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Falconer, James

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Smallwood, Edward

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Lloyd, Captain G. A. (Stafford, W.)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    1390

    1391

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H.(Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

    Starkey, Capt. John R.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Wilson, Col. Leslie G. (Reading)

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Stewart, Gershom

    Waring, Major Walter

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wood, S. Hill- (Derbyshire, High Peak)

    Swift, Rigby

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Sykes, Col. sir Alan John (Knutsford)

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H.

    Younger, Sir George

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Weston, J. W.

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Menmouth, S.)

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    NOES

    Anderson, W. C.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Morrell, Philip

    Arnold, Sydney

    Glanville, Harold James

    Muldoon, John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Guiney, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hackett, John

    O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Buxton, Noel

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Byrne, Alfred

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Malley, William

    Clough, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shee, James John

    Cosgrave, James

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Crean, Eugene

    Kelly, Edward

    Outhwalte, R. L.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cullinan, John

    King, Joseph

    Reddy, Michael

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, Capt. W. A.

    Dillon, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Donovan, John Thomas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Donnelly, Patrick

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Sheehan, Colonel Daniel Daniel

    Doris, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Field, William

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Molloy, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Boland

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned.
    The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes., 323.

    Division No. 4.]

    AYES.

    [7.9 p.m.

    Anderson, William C.

    Guiney, John

    Muldoon, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hackett, John

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Buxton, Noel

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Byrne, Alfred

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shee, James John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Crean, Eugene

    King, Joseph

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Cullinan, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Redmond, Capt. W. A.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowntree. Arnold

    Dillon, John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Donovan, John Thomas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Donnelly, Patrick

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Snowden, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Field, William

    Molloy, Michael

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Mooney, John J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Boland.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morrell, Philip

    Glanville, Harold James

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Willoughby H

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Amery, Capt. L. C. M. S.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kerry, Lieut.-Col. Earl of

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

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

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen, S.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Barrie, H. T.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lindsay, William Arthur

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

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W,)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Macleod, John Macintosh

    Blair, Reginald

    Goldman, C. S.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S.T. Griffith-

    Greenwood Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gretton, John

    Maitland, Sir A. G. Steel-

    Boyton, Sir James

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Brookes, Warwick

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Middleman, John Throgmorton

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mills, Lieut. Hon. Arthur R.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Butcher, John George

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

    Harris, Sir Henry P, (Paddington, S.)

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Cator, John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert(Herts, Hitchin)

    Henry, Denis S.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Clynes, John R.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ogden, Fred

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Hinds, John

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

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Horne, E.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

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

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    1394

    1395

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Splcer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Ratcliff, Lieut.-Col. B. F.

    Stanler, Capt. Sir Beville

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Starkey, John R.

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Weston, J. W.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wheler, Major Granville C.

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Swift, Rigby

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Robinson, Sidney

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col Hon Claud

    Rothschild, Major Lionel lie

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

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

    Rowlands, James

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Wood, S. Hill- (Derbyshire)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Young William (Perthshire, East)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Younger, Sir George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain F. Guest and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Sharman-Crawford. Col. R. G.

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

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool)

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Whether wisely or unwisely, politicians, both English and Irish, have done their worst to deprive my friends and myself of any very effectual power of interfering in Irish affairs, but so long as I retain my seat in this House I shall not shrink from the duty of making my protest, no matter how powerless it may be, against the mad and wicked crime which you are proposing to-night to perpetrate on Ireland. For forty years now Ireland has been pleading and hungering for peace with England upon the most moderate terms. For the last eight years the Irish people have had sovereign power of life and death over this Parliament under two successive Governments, and the only fault to be found with the Irish people was, perhaps, that they trusted you too much, and they allowed their representatives in this House to use their tremendous powers, the greatest powers that Irishmen over had, only too feebly and only too mercifully in your interests. Even when this War broke out Ireland could have destroyed you. One of your own statesmen then acknowledged that Ireland was the one bright spot on the horizon. What is Ireland's reward? Now, when in your wild ignorance of Irish affairs, you have taken it into your heads that the three latest Irish elections show that the spirit of Sinn Fein is dying away; now, when you have disarmed the country, and when you are holding it only under martial law and suppressing Irish newspapers in every part of the country;
    1396
    when you have your gaols packed with political prisoners, whom you are treating as common felons for the self-same offence of drilling volunteers, two of the most distinguished soldiers of the Ulster Volunteers have been promoted to be Cabinet Ministers. This is disgusting treatment.
    We have witnessed to-night the mixing up of a sham milk and water Home Rule with a brutal military coercion proposal. You offer us a shadow of a sham Home Rule and the reality of a naked military despotism presented to us at the points of your bayonets and the muzzles of your machine guns, and it is to be enforced in Ireland by the self-same methods by which the Germans have endeared themselves to the people of Belgium, and which, when they are the acts of the Germans, you are able so eloquently to denounce. One thing I admired about the speech of the Prime Minister to-day is that at last he has thrown off the mask. I have no hesitation in saying after his speech to-night that his Conscription measure is at best an attempt to pick a quarrel with Ireland in order to drop Home Rule, and the right hon. Gentleman has had the audacity to ask the Irish people to shed torrents of their blood by way of expressing their gratitude to him for flinging to the winds, as he did to-night, another violated treaty of their liberties. If you expect anything like co-operation or gratitude from Ireland for this proposal for your sham attempt to deal with Home Rule, coupled with your coercion sequel, all I can say is that you will receive nothing and deserve nothing

    1397
    but the detestation of people, who only a few months ago were down upon their knees proffering you their friendship and their allegiance.
    I say this with bitter regret, because I find myself compelled to renounce those dreams of a true and permanent reconciliation between those two countries with which I can truly say my thoughts have been occupied night and day for the past fifteen years. It may be an unpopular thing to say, but at the time when the War broke out I made a proposal to my hon. and gallant Friend who sits behind me to suggest to Mr. Redmond's most influential supporters in Cork that we should have joint action by every party in Ireland, Nationalist and Unionist, in order to raise an Irish Army Corps by voluntary methods upon the one condition that if you really meant business with Ireland we should have some solid guarantee that the Home Rule we should get would be something worth fighting for. There would be no use now in recalling the fate of that proposal. The result has been, instead of one great united national policy, that we have had a policy of vacillation and of contradiction, combined with all the disadvantages of co-operation with England.
    I do not want on an occasion of this kind to accentuate differences amongst Irishmen. You have perhaps by this proposal to-night done something to lessen those differences. You may rest satisfied of one thing. Whatever our differences have been and are—and they are most serious —on this one question of resistance to Conscription you will find all Irish Nationalists all over the world who are worth their salt standing shoulder to shoulder. You are proposing to do this thing against Ireland because she is a weak and small country when you dare not do it against Australia or Canada or South Africa without their consent. I dare say that you have machine guns enough to beat down armed resistance, but you may depend upon it that as soon as you have beaten it down, and it may not be quite so easy as the Prime Minister imagines, your troubles with Ireland will be only beginning. Your own experience ought to have taught it you. You have spent 800 or 900 years at it, but you have never completely conquered Ireland yet, and you never will. What you will do I am afraid will be to drive resistance into other channels, with which, with all your military power, you will never be
    1398
    able to deal, and you will all the time be digging a gulf between the two countries that no living man will ever see bridged over again. I hate to say it in your presence, but in my solemn belief it is the truth. By this Bill you are calling down upon your heads the execrations of the entire Irish race in America, in Australia, and in Canada as well as in every honest Irish home, if not possibly in your own military camps. You are driving and you will drive millions of the best men of our race to turn away their eyes for ever from this Parliament to a Peace Congress, and it is just perfectly possible that from this tribunal they will not look to a Peace Congress in vain.
    Mr. D. MASON: I hope the House will agree that the speech to which we have just listened, spoken from the heart, gives some idea how the proposals of the Government will be viewed by Irishmen. It is insanity that in this time of stress and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) and the Prime Minister himself have told us, in this period of crisis, the Government should ask the House of Commons to subscribe to a measure to carry out which will entail the sending of a large number of troops to Ireland. It is an insane proposal, and it takes one's breath away. It does really seem, as one hon. Gentleman has said, that "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad." We are asked to subscribe to a measure which, as the hon. Gentleman in a most eloquent speech has just emphasised, will turn Irishmen against us all over the world. Irishmen, whatever their political opinions, are clannish, and if there is a cause of quarrel it will be duplicated in America, and the very troubles which President Wilson has warned us against will be accentuated by this act of folly. An Irishman is entitled to look at the matter from a national and perhaps from a more selfish point of view, but we English Members who look at it from an impartial point of view appeal to the Government to pause before going forward with this most insane and absurd proposal. We who represent constituencies in this country are entitled to offer some opinion with regard to this Bill as it is likely to affect England. After all, it is not only a measure for Ireland. It is a measure which, at this late hour, proposes that men of fifty should be brought in to redress the balance. It really makes one

    1399
    wonder if this Government have any sense of humour. Imagine middle-aged gentlemen of fifty redressing the balance ! One admits that we have suffered one of the most severe reverses that we have had in this War, but the bringing in of this 7 per cent. of middle-aged gentlemen is not going to redress the balance. In the nature of things they cannot be fit for the fighting line for some weeks and possibly months. We know that we are strained in our economic relations, and these very gentlemen, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has pointed out, are giving their brains and their lives—I know hundreds of cases of men in the City who have seen all their young men go off to the War —slaving and undermining their health in order to maintain their businesses. These men are to be called into the Army and made to give up the support of these businesses which constitute, surely, some of the most important parts of the fabric of industry and of trade and of commerce upon which the success of the War depends. There has been no case for the Bill made out by the Government. I wanted to move a Resolution which in a sense has been anticipated by the Irish Motion. It was to the following effect:
    "That this House declines to proceed with a Bill which gives to a Government in which it has lost confidence the power to control an additional number of men for military purposes."
    I base that appeal —and I make it to many Unionist Friends—on the ground that we decline any longer, apart altogether from the question of Conscription in Ireland, or of the merits or demerits of this particular measure, to give this Government, any further power We have come, to this pass, that we have lost confidence in the Gentlemen on the Front. Bench. We decline to give them any further credit either in men or money. ['An HON. MEMBER: "What do you mean by 'we'?"] I say many Friends for whom I speak. I have not the honour to speak for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There are many of us who decline, and the Division Lobby has already demonstrated it, any longer to grant this Government any further power. I am appealing, as I hope, to many Unionists. They may very properly feel strongly that Conscription should be applied to Ireland equally as to England. It is a feeling which I can appreciate and with which in a sense I am prepared to sympathise. Apart altogether whether that is right or
    1400
    wrong, those who do not support this. Government decline to give them any further powers. It may be asked why this House of Commons or a large number of Members have lost confidence in the Government. I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend whether he will not be honest enough to confess that many of his Unionist Friends support this Government because it is the Government? But this is not the only possible Government. There are other Governments. and I suggest that we should not grant these additional powers without a reconstruction or a change of the Government.
    Take the record of the Government in any Department over the last three or four years. It is always said that something is going to happen. If we go back on the tragic record of these three or four years, we shall see that there was always something fundamental which was going to enable us to smash our way through to victory. Here we are in the fourth year of the War, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister comes down and tells us that the Americans are not quite in but that they are coming in, and that when they come in in strength and force, then something is going to happen. What is going to happen? What can happen? I have never been a pessimist, and have never in the darkest hour believed in our overthrow. We have not been defeated by Germany. We have had to retire, and I admit that we have suffered a very severe reverse, but I do not for a moment believe that we are going to be overwhelmed by Germany. Equally, I do not believe that we are going to overwhelm and crush the Central Powers. Is there any man who believes Is there any man who believes that this Bill is going to enable us to do it? It is ludicrous to suppose so. When shall we ever take a true measure of the position, not being unduly pessimistic or optimistic? I say that there has been no case made out for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, can deceive us, as he has deceived and humbugged us, and he. can put us off with these wonderful things that are going to happen. I think it was Lincoln "who said, "You can deceive part of the people part of the time, and possibly part of the people all of the time, but you cannot deceive all the people all the time. Neither can the right hon. Gentleman the Prim Minister. He has been able by wonderful gifts to persuade this House, in the interests, as he says, of liberty and justice,

    1401
    to grant him money and men, but I decline to grant him any more. We have come to the time when we refuse to grant these additional powers to this particular Ministry, and I say that they have got to give us some cause for increased confidence.
    It does not follow that because we vote against this particular measure we are not prepared to support some other measure. I am prepared to do that if brought forward by a Government in which I have some confidence and if they tell me they think it to be a right and proper sacrifice called for in the interests of this country. But the measure which it is proposed to bring in to-day has been demonstrated by the speeches we have heard from hon. Members from Ireland to be the reverse of that. I think even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) will admit there is a considerable section in Ulster opposed to Conscription. If he were prepared to come down here and, speaking with his knowledge of Ireland, tell us this is a good and wise measure, he would be entitled to be listened to on the subject, occupying the distinguished position he docs. But I believe there is no voice from Ireland that recommends this Bill. No one suggests that it is in the interest of the country or that it is just to call upon Ireland to submit to Conscription. It is incredible that we should be asked to support such a measure as is now proposed. Let me recall a few of the political crises with which the present Prime Minister has dealt from time to time. At one period there was a lack of shells, and he appealed to us to enable him to provide those munitions which were going to bring the War to an end. On another occasion he came down and told us that our lack of success was due to the drinking habits of the working classes, and he advocated a measure for curtailing opportunities for drinking. On another occasion he complained of the loss of time in various works. Then when he wanted a Corn Bill introduced he emphasised the terrible menace of the submarine. Yet shortly after that he came here again and declared that we had overcome the submarine menace, because five submarines had been sunk in one day; and when one of my hon. Friends taxed the right hon. Gentleman with the inconsistency of his speeches ho actually treated it as a joke that he should be able to make speeches to fit in with particular cases.
    1402
    This is the man in whom we are asked to place our confidence—a man who is prepared to play any part, to turn political somersaults, to make a speech at one moment describing the submarine menace as a terrible thing and at the next moment telling us we have overcome the trouble, and all because the Government are afraid of the unpopularity which would reflect upon it in the event of disaster. We have proof upon proof that this Government does not deserve the confidence of the people. Some reference has been made to the expeditions we have undertaken in outlying portions of the world, thereby frittering away our resources. At a moment when the country is distressed with regard to the position on the Western Front the right hon. Gentleman seeks to console it by telling us our troops have crossed the Jordan. One of our most distinguished soldiers. Sir William Robertson, told us that this War would be decided on the Western Front. The right hon. Gentleman, in his versatile manner, at once declared it was necessary to have co-ordination, and set up the Versailles Conference. The result has been the reverse we have just sustained. We have lost the services of one of the greatest seamen of the Empire, Lord Jellicoe; and Sir William Robertson is kicking his heels in an Eastern Command. On the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), Sir William is the greatest soldier we possess. He, at any rate, understood strategy, and would probably have been able to prevent the reverse which we have just suffered. We have lost the services of these two great men at a period when great men are scarce and when brains are scarce, and the right hon. Gentleman now seeks to console us by proposing to conscript men of fifty years of age! God help a country which is governed by such men—men who have no statesmanship and who are without appreciation of the real problem to be solved!
    I congratulate my hon. Friends from Ireland on jumping into the fray on the introduction of this Bill. If they believe the Bill to be a bad one it is their duty to oppose its introduction, and I think they have shown political genius in at once starting their opposition. But I have an appeal to make to hon. Members of this House. This is not an Irish Bill. This is a question which the whole United Kingdom must consider. Is this a wise and statesmanlike proposal? No case

    1403
    has been made out from the Government Bench to show that it is. It has not been proved to be either politic or statesmanlike. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman, after all his failures, proceed to conscript his own Government? Certainly the members of it would make a very goodly company, and when the right hon. Gentleman appeared on the field of battle as the leader of that company I can imagine the Prussian Guards, when face to face with him and his followers, asking "What have we here?" The right hon. Gentleman will reply, "I am the commander of the knock-out brigade. I have Lord Northcliffe on my right and Lord Beaverbrook on my left. Beware of the newspaper circulation of these gentlemen. It runs into millions." That is the sort of argument with which critics of the Government are faced to-day, when they complain that men like these are placed in responsible positions, men who are not statesmen, men who have had no training as statesmen, yet who are placed in positions of high repute and given access to valuable information. I say this House of Commons and the country have a right to complain of these things, and hon. Members will be false to their traditions if they continue to support this Government for another moment after the experience of the past three or four years.
    There is no justification whatever for giving it further carte blanche as regards either men or money. I hope I have said sufficient to show that we are justified in looking upon this Bill as a most grave departure from statesmanship and true policy. Many of us differ from other Members of the House with regard to what we believe to be an honourable way out of the tragedy which exists to-day in Europe. We differ as to the methods which should be adopted, but up to the present we have never refused to give the Government both men and money. This and the previous Government have been treated generously in these matters in the past. But we now feel there should be an end to this. Opportunity after opportunity for negotiation has been lost. We find in the Department of Foreign Affairs that the Secretary of State comes down to this House and shows that he has not even troubled to read certain important dispatches. Members of the Government time after time have proved that they are incapable of making
    1404
    themselves acquainted with the affairs of their own particular Department. I submit there is no case for this Bill. I do not for a moment suggest we should give way on the primary objects with which this country entered upon the War. But when we find Count Czernin making advances, when we find Count Hertling also making advances, we do ask ourselves whether it is not possible for us to discover from these statesmen whether there is not some common ground between us. Is our statesmanship bankrupt? Are we driven to this childish policy of accepting a Bill of this character as the remedy for a position which seems to have arrived at a deadlock?
    I believe we shall carry on this War. No doubt America will come in, and in the late autumn we may have another offensive, and probably do as well as Germany has just done. But how much more forward shall we then be? What is the end to be? Do you imagine we are going to crush Germany or that Germany is going to crush us? Are we to have this experience repeated time and again? Are we going to have the same sort of Bill brought in, at subsequent stages, and the same procedure adopted? Are we to have another offensive in another six months and then a repetition of the same thing? Are we not capable of visualising the whole problem for ourselves? No one suggests that there should be any giving way with regard to Belgium and the claim that she shall be fully restored. But when we come to the problem of the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France and the Trentino to Italy, then I suggest that these are questions which ought to be settled in another way. Cannot we imagine, for instance, that the Germans may regard these demands as examples of aggression and annexation? I deplore, as we all do, the foolish settlement by which Alsace-Lorraine was torn from France in 1870. But we must not forget that these provinces were torn from Germany in the time of Louis XIV. Can we not imagine that Germany in pursuing her aggresive policy in the East has had in mind the secret treaties with regard to giving the Trentino to Italy and Alsace-Lorraine to France? Cannot, we imagine her saying, "If I am to be forced to give way in the West, I will make sure of compensation in the East." I do ask this House to look at this problem as a whole. There are certain things for which we must stand. One is the complete restora-

    1405
    tion of Belgium. But these other problems to which I have referred, could they not be dealt with on lines other than the lines of this Bill? Is it not within the possibilities of statesmanship to produce the, true solution in other directions?
    8.0 P.M.
    Captain SHEEHAN: I cannot let this occasion pass without registering the most solemn protest that it is in my power to make against the proposal to apply Conscription to Ireland. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in laying this proposal before Parliament was brutal in its frankness and absolutely ferocious in its terms, and I agree with the hon. Member for Cork in stating that the one thing above all others which he is succeeding in doing is in uniting all Nationalist opinion in Ireland in resistance against this proposal. I speak myself with some feeling in this matter as one who, with his family, have humbly borne our part in this War, because we believed the principle for which the Allied side were fighting was righteous and just. Conscription cannot apply to me. Every grown-up member of my family has served. I have lost one son, another has been wounded, a third is at this moment in hospital in France, a brother-in-law has been killed, a nephew-in-law is a prisoner in Germany, and a brother of mine is serving in the Irish Guards. Therefore, I am able to speak with some earnestness and solemnity when I tell the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he is heading, absolutely heading, for disaster if he attempts to apply Conscription to Ireland. There is not an Irishman worthy of his salt who will not resist it, and I say that any service we give in this War for this cause will be voluntarily given—it will flow from conscience and never from compulsion.
    We heard that because you applied Conscription to England, Scotland, and Wales there is no reason also why it should not be applied to Ireland. There is every reason in the world. You have never applied to Ireland in the past the same treatment that you have applied to those other countries, and therefore the same argument cannot apply to Ireland as to them. You are not attempting the same treatment to the Dominions that you are attempting to apply to Ireland, and I should like the Government, if they had the power, to attempt Conscription over the Australian people as they propose to do
    1406
    over the Irish. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the reason why he is introducing these man-power proposals is to enable him more vigorously to prosecute the War. I can conceive that if he had given a moment's thought or consideration to the subject, or if he had-taken any well-informed opinion in Ireland, he would have come to the conclusion that the proposals in regard to Conscription, so far from helping him in the least in the prosecution of the War, would have the contrary effect. It would take him three Army Corps in Ireland to get one Army Corps out of it. I wish to see this War ended victoriously for the Allied side as earnestly as any human being, but you are not going to get any men out of Ireland by the methods you are adopting. I think it is a diabolical method on the part of the Government for trying to get out of their responsibilities in regard to Home Rule for Ireland. That is my conviction, and I am afraid that if the Government go ahead with this scheme they will be pursuing a policy of exasperation which must lead to the most disastrous consequences.
    You may, as the senior Member for Cork said, bayonet our people; you may shoot them down with your machine guns, but you will never conquer the spirit of the Irish people by any such means as that, and in the last result you will get far less by your scheme of Conscription than you ever bargained for. You will fill your gaols, you will maintain your standing in the country by martial law, but by no means will you be able to maintain your supremacy over the Irish people, and if you wanted to lose the friendship of Ireland, if you wanted to sever whatever links of loyalty were growing up between the Irish people and this country before the War broke out, you could not possibly go a better way about it. I have never regretted the part which my family and myself have played in this War, but if I ever was disposed to do so it was when I listened to the speech the right hon. Gentleman delivered to us to-day. I did my own part in supporting recruiting in Ireland in 1914–15, and it was at one time one of my proud boasts that I got thousands of recruits for the Irish regiments. If recruiting became impossible in Ireland, as unfortunately it did, it was not due to any cause of temperamental disloyalty on the part of the Irish people; it was due to the blundering and to the mishandling of the situation from

    1407
    this side of the Channel You filled the Irish regiments with English officers, who did not understand the Irish or know how to handle them decently. Why, I remember myself, when we were training with the 9th Munster Battalion, which was raised by myself almost to a man, that the adjutant, an English officer, who was a mere insurance clerk in London before the War, declared, because four cadets were sent to our battalion from the 7th Leinsters, "Four more bloody Irishmen coming to your regiment!"
    That was the way in which recruiting was killed in Ireland. There was a want of understanding. There was a want of proper treatment of the Irish soldier, and so it became impossible for us, with the best intentions in the world, to do all we wished to help you along. Now you are going to commit the greatest blunder of all. I speak with feeling, and with some degree of passion. All the sacrifices which we have made in the past will, by your blundering methods, by your incapacity to understand the country, be rendered nugatory and vain, and you are going to render them more futile than ever. Those of us who have lost our boys believed in the War, and we believed that Ireland deserved better treatment than you are meting out to us in this matter, that we deserved consideration for our national demands. The hon. Member said that the Irish Members looked upon this question from a selfish point of view. I do not look at it from that point of view, but I do regard it from the national point of view, and I say that, as one Member, I will stoutly resist any attempt to impose Conscription upon my fellow countrymen. Give us national self-government. Give us equal treatment with the treatment you give to your Dominions. We demand that at the very least. Give us these things and we will do the rest, for the Irish instinct never failed to respond to generous treatment. Leave Irishmen to make their own contribution to this War, and as it is a just War, and as we are fighting for great and noble causes and the freedom of the world, I do not hesitate to say that Irishmen would then make sacrifices equal to your proud record in this country, and to the record of every righteous war in the history of the world.
    Sir R. COOPER: On the last occasion when I spoke in this House it was on the Third Reading of the Military Service Act
    1408
    in January last—I spoke as representing my colleagues on this subject of Conscription in Ireland, and urged with all the force at my command that the Government should then and there take this step, because I was convinced that they had got to take it sooner or later. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for National Service was in charge of the Bill, and he informed us on that occasion that the Government could not take this step then because it was not expedient to do so. I am not sure what has arisen since then that has made the Government realise that it now is expedient. In my belief it was a pressing expedient in January last, because it was always clear to me that after the military force of Russia was lost to us the enemy must have an enormous number of additional reserves which we of the Allies between us had got to take steps to counteract by additions to our own force. But when in January last I urged so strongly Conscription for Ireland I must confess that it never occurred to me that the step when it was taken, as we knew it would be, would be taken in so unfortunate a manner as has been the case this afternoon. I cannot conceive that any Minister could present a case in a manner that was more calculated to create the resentment of the Irish Nationalists.
    While I am saying this, let me also say that I am one of those who to-day am absolutely opposed to any form of Home Rule which is not equitable to Scotland, Wales, and England. That is my personal view at this moment, and I want to make it clear that I am only doing justice to a very important body of people in this crisis when I say that it is a very great misfortune indeed that this matter has not been put forward in a very different manner. We have learnt to-night to ray surprise, and I think to the surprise of everyone in the House, that to-morrow there will be presented to us an important document bearing very closely on this subject. I do not believe, that fact would justify the Government in giving way this afternoon to the Adjournment which the Irish Nationalists desired, but if they are going to force to-morrow the Second Reading of this Bill they are going to make one of the greatest tactical errors which is in their power. It has been said that it can only be pressed upon us to-morrow and that the First Reading has only been taken to-day, instead of the Foreign Office Vote, because something has arisen which we do not know about—some-

    1409
    thing which has suddenly created a fearful urgency. I do not know of it, and I think that we are entitled to know if there is something more than the right hon. Gentleman has put before us. If there is not, and I think we may safely assume there is not, there is not all this haste for a day or a week. I do not want this matter to be delayed longer than can possibly be helped, and when we are asked to take the Second Reading to-morrow before we understand what this Report is, I do beg His Majesty's Government to change their programme and give us some little opportunity for considering the situation and for finding out, if possible, if there is not some escape from the predicament into which the country is unfortunately being placed by what has transpired this afternoon.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in strong but carefully chosen words has urged upon the Government also that a reasonable time shall be given. I do feel that in this matter the Government will make a mistake if they do not show strength and determination in carrying through the policy on which they have embarked—a policy which I believe is absolutely necessitated by circumstances—but I cannot understand how they have come to this conclusion and brought it before us this afternoon without adopting the most elementary principle in diplomacy or tact in dealing with a delicate situation by consulting some of the loaders among the Irish Nationalists. With these men, or a considerable number of them, with us we can get a force which, Heaven knows, we so badly need. We know that amongst the Irish Nationalists there are a considerable number who have proved their patriotism, and I do not think we have any right to assume that these others who may not have had the opportunity of giving decisive proof, would not have shown a right spirit to respond and help the country. At any rate we in this country should have this enormous advantage: that if it is going to be suggested by His Majesty's Government that it was a waste of time to consult them, then I should like to know if they are the friends of our enemies and not the friends of their own kith and kin in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England? We should then at least know where we were. I have no such thought in my mind.
    I feel that the Government is placing itself in an impossible position by the way in which it is acting. Even now I think
    1410
    they must wait and take the best steps in their power to find out if they cannot get some reasonable support and assistance from the Irish Nationalist party. If they cannot, then in my judgment they are creating, totally unnecessarily, a situation in Ireland infinitely worse than anything that has happened before. Several hon. Gentlemen in the Irish Nationalist party have this afternoon complained that this Bill is a betrayal of Ireland. I cannot understand their attitude on that point, because it is really a betrayal of Scotland, Wales, and England that an equality of sacrifice was not demanded in the earlier days from all parts of the Union. The fact that this step was not taken—whether the reason was good or bad—has meant that every day that has passed since has increased the difficulty of applying the principle to Ireland. I am sure that the Irish Nationalists are, I know they are, at heart loyal to the cause of the Allies in this War, and if in return for proper treatment they are willing to do their full share in helping us through our task, they will all recognise the great injustice to masses of the people, not the rich and not the middle class, but especially the masses of the workers in Britain itself, if Ireland is right through this War exempted from military service.
    Mr. KEATING: An Irish Parliament would remedy that injustice.
    Sir R. COOPER: I was on the Clyde several days last week, and I know for a fact that not the most important but one important cause of industrial trouble on the Clyde arises from the fact that Scottish workmen in the shipyards, in the torpedo factories, and in the machine shops are disgusted at the fact that their sons and brothers have gone to fight and, it may be, are suffering in the present campaign in France, while their places are to-day being taken by burly young Irishmen coming over from Ireland to the Clyde and taking £8 or £10 a week in wages. [Hon. Members: "No!"] I can prove that absolutely. I will not argue it now. I make this definite statement, that these burly young Irishmen are coming to Glasgow and the Clyde at the present time and are taking at high wages, let us say, the places that have been so readily given up by the sons or brothers of the Scottish workmen on the Clyde. There is one other suggestion that has occurred to me, and, for what it may be worth, I am going to express it. I hope that when the

    1411
    Second Reading of this Bill comes on very careful consideration will be given as to the Minister in whose hands the Bill is placed to be carried through the House. The Government has taken this step. It has shown to-night by its action—which is very much to its credit—its determination to carry it through, in spite of the unfortunate way in which it has been done. Having done that, I trust they are going through with it firmly. They have the people of the country with them. The Prime Minister, in the earlier part of his speech this afternoon, emphasised the importance of having public opinion behind the Government in taking a step such as is here contemplated. The trouble has always been that public opinion has been behind the Government months before they have taken action Certainly in this particular matter the British public have been behind, or rather before, the Government some months in recognising the justice of the step which the Government are taking at this late hour, when the country is threatened with considerable danger. I hope that moderate counsels are going to prevail in His Majesty's Government. If this is a sample of British diplomacy or British tact, I begin to understand some of the mysteries of the early days of the War. It is not too late for the Government to adopt a course totally different from that they have taken this afternoon. I pray fervently that such a course will be taken, that an opportunity will be given to the patriotism and best feelings of the representatives of the Irish people to show what they are, and I believe that we and our Allies, who are fighting for our very existence in this War, will not be disappointed in the result.
    Mr. KEATING: I wish to associate myself with the opposition to the application of the principle of military Conscription to Ireland, because I know that the people whom I have the honour to represent will resist its application to Ireland In my judgment, they will resist it successfully. The spirit which has been manifested by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Cooper) is one in which there is some hope for the belief that the Government will be induced to reconsider their position. The hon. Baronet is one whom we all know to be one of the most active and, in some respects, one of the most influential opponents we have in the country and in this House. The spirit of
    1412
    protest which he has uttered this afternoon against the measure coming at this time and in such circumstances should have its weight with the Government in reconsidering their position in this matter. I have been in this House some nine or ten years. I know England fairly well. I have-lived in this country a good many years, and I have the honour to be an Irish representative. Therefore, I think I can give a fairly balanced opinion as to what is likely to happen if this Bill is carried through We are not opposed to the War. When the War broke out, in conjunction with my colleagues, I argued among my fellow countrymen that, for all practical purposes, we, having achieved a measure of liberty which is enshrined in the Statute Book of the realm, and being for all practical purposes a sister nation in a community of nations, that community of independent States which is called the British Empire—I prefer the term used by General Smuts, "the Commonwealth of nations"—therefore it was our duty, our honour, and our interest to be associated with the successful prosecution of this War.
    The spirit that existed for about twelve months was as successful as that which existed in this country, but it has disappeared because the officials at the War Office put forward their malignant stupidities—I think that was the term used by the present Prime Minister. They prevented the Irish flag being utilised for the purpose of recruiting for fear that the Irish Nationalists would get too much kudos in the winning of the War. They put every obstacle in the way which prejudiced stupidity could suggest in order to prevent Irish Nationalists from having too much credit in organising their forces for the successful prosecution of the War. Then the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) joined the Cabinet, and I know men in my Constituency who said, "We know his influence in England, we know his skill as a politician, we know his feeling with regard to Home Rule, and we know very well that that is the end of the Home Rule Act," and consequently they began to suspect both the ability and the patriotism of their representatives. The young men of the country preached the gospel that the Irish representatives were no longer entitled to their confidence, and, like an avalanche, Sinn Fein, which was a mere doctrinaire idea held by a very small number of the community, suddenly developed a giant's strength, and it has

    1413
    been followed by an anti-British sentiment. If that sentiment has been developed to such a strength, who is responsible for it? I say the Government themselves. So you have the position now that, instead of having Ireland the one bright spot in the Empire, it is one of the most doubtful and difficult spots that ever coloured the Empire. As I heard it put once, Ireland might be the brightest gem in the crown of the Empire, but you are making it the dullest piece of stone which is supposed to be embedded in that crown.
    You forget the point of view of an Irish Nationalist. I have had an opportunity of studying Englishmen at close quarters. I have no objection at all to Englishmen. As a matter of fact, I think Englishmen are as good as Irishmen. They are no better. Consequently, there is no prejudice in my mind against the English people. I recognise that our interests are practically identical with yours, but you should remember that we regard our association with England from an entirely different point of view from the way you regard it. We regard ourselves as fashioned by Providence, by nature and by environment, in every way you can examine it, as an independent community and an independent nation. Our history will show you that. We had a Parliament of our own which was co-equal with yours until it was abolished by an Act of this Parliament. We have never acquiesced in that. We still assert our nationality and our independence as a community, and although Irishmen send representatives here to fight for the restoration of their Parliament, they do not send them here to endorse Acts of Parliament passed by this Parliament unless they have the undoubted sanction of the great majority of the Irish people. At all events, I think this question of military service for Ireland can only be settled by an Irish Parliament. We are entitled to that Irish Parliament. We intend to get it, and we have the power to get it, because Governments in this House are like Tennyson's brook. Men may come and men may go, but the Irish cause goes on for ever. If this Government does not settle the Irish question in our way we will get some other Government which will, and I am not at all afraid of the spirit of fair play and the intelligence and justice of the British democracy. I have addressed meetings in this country ever since the Sinn Fein rebellion, and I have got them to see that the attitude which
    1414
    we Irishmen have expressed is one which can be understood, and to some extent sympathised with. The only blame British democracy attaches is that which undoubtedly rests upon the Ministry, which is solely responsible for having changed the spirit of comradeship and friendship and determination to fight shoulder to shoulder which manifested itself for a considerable period in the country to the present sullen, rather suspicious, and certainly hostile attitude which is expressed to anything in the shape of compulsion.
    The British Government can do whatever it likes, or at least whatever it thinks it likes. Put this compulsion Bill into operation and see what happens. You will never get a bigger surprise in your life. In the first place, it will unite every section in Ireland: Sinn Feiners, Constitutionalists, and the various sections of men who are not identified with the big bulk of their representatives. I can speak with some knowledge. I have just come back from East Tyrone, one of the counties which was sought to be excluded. Try Conscription up there, not only amongst the Nationalists, but amongst the Unionists themselves. You will unite a considerable section of the Unionists against you. You will have all the women, who are a very great instrument in every community but especially in Ireland. A woman said that if her boy was going to die she would rather he died fighting for Ireland, where she could bury him in her backyard, than for the British, where he would be buried in some unknown grave in Flanders. The results of this Military Act will be very different from what you think or profess to think. You will get no men, except a very few, and you will have to seize them at once and put them on the railway train and send them across out of the way before any of their friends are aware of it. Try to conscribe men on anything like a large scale. Seventy per cent. of the Irish people live in isolated farms and houses amongst the hills and in remote parts of the country, and if any corporal's guard, representing the British Army, comes to any of these places to conscribe any of these men it will not exactly be an excursion for that corporal's guard. From the purely practical point of view I prophesy that your military Conscription

    1415
    in Ireland will be a complete failure, an abject failure. Look at the moral effect it will have. I am not talking about Ireland at the moment. Every section of Nationalist opinion in Ireland will unite to defeat this military Act, and you are bound to fail if you put it into operation. I do not say that as a debating point in the House of Commons—I speak as a man who is firmly convinced of the certain realisation of the prophecy which I have made, and I warn the Government of the certain effect which is bound to follow the Conscription principle as applied to Ireland. Look at it from your own point of view. What, about the championing of small nationalities that is evidenced in regard to Belgium, Poland, Serbia, and other parts of the world? The only reason that the champions can venture to make such a claim is that they have given some evidence that they have the right to make that claim. I am not denying that they have given evidence to assert that claim. I am not going into the question of whether the British Empire and the Allied Armies are entitled to that claim. I believe that the great bulk of the people are entitled to that claim. But if the Government are misled by the hatred of liberty for Ireland into a false position, and if you have martial law and vain and futile attempts to conscribe the people in Ireland, what becomes of your claim to pose before the world as a disinterested arbiter in the interests of small nations? In the unprejudiced judgment of impartial minds you will appear to be something in the nature of a hypocrite. That is not the position in which a proud and powerful community like this should be placed, and I warn the Government that the people who are forcing them into this position, who contributed very largely to the outbreak of this War, the men who successfully threatened rebellion against law and the Constitution: these are the men who, in order to create and revive the old animosities between England and Ireland, are forcing you into this false position. Men like ourselves, who are animated by feelings of friendship, have given hostages to fortune. I have had several close relatives fighting in this War, some of whom have paid the extreme penalty. We heard the eloquent speech made by one of the Members for Cork who does not belong to our party, in which he recited the services which he and his family have given in this War. They
    1416
    gave them willingly, and we have done it willingly and will continue to do it willingly, but never under compulsion.
    What is the remedy for military Conscription and for re-establishing the friendship that ought to have existed between this country and Ireland? I have never understood why the Irish people and the English people allowed themselves by the craft of interested politicians to be kept apart. The friendship and the community of interests between Great Britain and Ireland ought to exist, and ought never to have been separated but for the malignant stupidities of British statesmen in the past. I very seldom address this House, and on this occasion I do appeal to British statesmen not to repeat the tragedy and the crime of British statesmen in the past. You have the opportunity now. You have had a Convention sitting, and I understand that the Report of that Convention is not at all unfavourable to a basis of union between the Nationalists and Unionists in Ireland, men of good will, so that they might at any rate consider the possibility of a settlement. And at this very moment you commit the greatest crime and the most profound stupidity that any British statesmen were ever capable of by introducing this question of compulsory military service. On that point I do not appeal to you; I defy you. I know what I am talking about; I do not express vague and threatening language with no meaning in it. I never do that, and I never will. I tell you the honest facts. We defy you. You might as well send a party of sportsmen to Ireland to try to shoot partridges. You would get as many partridges as you will get soldiers by Conscription in Ireland. You will entirely fail. The net result will be that you will drive all of us into a sort of intensive opposition. The Government will never be able to live with the Irish party always on the spot, because there are those who will always support the Irish party for their own purposes. I am not afraid of a General Election. Prussianism is not dead in this country.
    Mr. FIELD: It is very much alive.
    Mr. KEATING: There is much more affinity between Irish Nationalists and British democracy in this country than the Government and their friends are aware of. In your own interests you

    1417
    should not go on with this military Conscription. If you do, then we in Ireland will know how to meet it.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I do not suppose that anyone who has listened to the Debate this afternoon has done so without a feeling of disquietude and apprehension. What is the position that faces the country? Sixteen months ago a great Government was thrown out of power and the greatest brain in England was dispossessed of supreme power in the State in order that we might succeed with a Government which was called the "Win the War Government." Sixteen months have elapsed and no miracle has happened, no achievement has been made, and to-day, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) in that memorable speech said, we are confronted with a crisis such as neither we nor our forefathers have ever had to meet before. At this moment it may be that a blow has been struck at Amiens, which may mean the destruction of the British Empire itself, and if that be so, then it will be the greatest calamity to humanity that has ever befallen it. Sixteen months of this new "Win the War Government!" Yet to night there is not a man in this House who does not feel the gravity of the position, and who does not long and yearn for the time to come when some other Government will be in power, some "Wait and See Government." That, at all events, would allow us to sleep peacefully in our beds without thinking that some General Gough would let us down at the front, or that the removal of Sir William Robertson from the War Office or of Admiral Jellicoe from the Navy might bring about disaster to the cause which we all have at heart. Then see the Prime Minister, wielding supreme power in the most powerful Empire the world has ever seen, coming down this afternoon to read a speech which, as I listened to him, suggested that he had never read it before—
    Mr. BYRNE: He admitted he had not.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: —a speech not in his old diction, not couched in his old phrases, not informed with his old spell—a manufactured speech, a typewritten speech, a speech dead, lifeless, soulless, not the speech of the great advocate my right hon. Friend is. I do not know what clerk in Whitehall wrote it—the speech in which he admitted that he had not read the Report of the Irish Convention, and yet
    1418
    upon that Report he was founding his promise to the people of Ireland that they would be some day satisfied in their national aspirations on the lines of a Report which he had never read himself. No Prime Minister ever came so light-heartedly to the House of Commons to propose a measure fraught with so much dislocation of social amenities—yea, it may be, fraught with so much national disaster! Then think for a moment what it means. As far as we are able to understand from the statement which was read out by the Prime Minister—and I am perfectly convinced that he did not understand all that he was reading himself—every man from the age of forty-two to fifty-one is to be called up.
    Sir J. D. REES Sir J. D. REES dissented.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is liable to be called up. My hon. Friend here corrects me perfectly properly, because it is only a question of liability to be called up. But how many of these men from forty-two to fifty-one are going to be called up? Is there a single Member here who understood what the Prime Minister meant when he said that 7 per cent. of these men from forty-two to fifty-one were going to be called up to join the Colours or were they going to call them up to go to the front? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was pressed by several people to explain what he meant by that provision. He failed to make that provision plain, because I am perfectly certain that he never understood it himself. What does it mean? Does it mean that small shopkeepers who have already given their sons to the Army, who are doing the work that their sons would have been doing had it not been for the War—that all these small shopkeepers, small holders, small farmers, and labourers between those years are going to be called up? We are left in the dark. That is why I have not voted against the introduction of the Bill. I want to see what the Bill means, but I may tell my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes) who, I suppose, will be in charge of this Bill when it comes into the Committee stage, that he is up against a very strong mass of opinion in this country. Conscription in the first instance was only carried through this House by stages. It was never raised properly in this House. Ireland was left out. The conscientious objector was to be liberated. The single-man business was going to be respected. The only son of the widow was going to be exempted from the operation of the Act. It was whittled

    1419
    down to the very smallest possible point in order that the House of Commons might be induced by such methods as those to pass the principle of compulsion in military service.
    That day in January, 1916, will be remembered by generations yet to come as the most fatal day in the history of the liberty of this country. No member of the Cabinet, except one, wanted Conscription. There was no military necessity then. Lord Kitchener was against it. I believe that the then Prime Minister was against it. The only man in the Cabinet who was in favour of Conscription was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The "Daily Mail" said in Christmas week of 1915 that the Prime Minister had threatened to resign his office of Minister of Munitions—in the middle of a great war, he, the man who had supplied the sinews of the Army—unless he could get his. Conscription Bill introduced in January, 1916. And the fatal thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife did was to succumb to that threat.
    I believe every word that the hon. Member for East Mayo said this afternoon. He said that he told a friend of his immediately that the then Prime Minister, having done this work of carrying Conscription through—the only man in this country who could have done it—there was no further use for him. Lord Northcliffe and the other people had no further use for him. Within a very short time the campaign against him started, and before the end of 1916 the Member for East Fife was relieved of his office. That was a fatal error on his part. Let me tell my hon. Friends from Ireland that it was a fatal error on their part not to back us up then. They were purposely left out of the first Conscription Bill. Why? Because the Government knew, or, rather, my right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister knew from old experience what formidable Parliamentary fighters the Irish party had been. We were a poor remnant of people fighting for the liberty of the subject in this country, for the traditional freedom of our old land. Yet the voice of Ireland in January, 1916, was mute. I remember well that my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), now Leader of the Irish party—and who is the best Liberal leader we have at present, if he will permit me to say so—did his utmost when the Bill was introduced in January, 1916, to get
    1420
    the Irish party to support our protest. I know not by what unhappy circumstance it occurred, but it was the fact that Irishmen apparently had begun to think that this matter had nothing to do with them, and that they were an independent nation; at all events, no Irish voice was raised to help the protest which we were making on behalf of liberty.
    9.0 P.M.
    If there had been military necessity for that Bill, and if that necessity had been proved, then, in spite of oar own belief in liberty and freedom, and in spite of our hatred of Conscription, we would have submitted to that evil rather than see the enemy successful. But everyone knows now that the Derby Report, upon which this first Conscription Bill was based, was a vague Report. The figures were not ascertained figures, and we were treated with vague estimates. It was a case of camouflage for this House, and to the Irish Members of to-day the chickens have come home to roost. [An Hon. Member: "We will roast them!"] I am not sure; I do not pretend to know Ireland; I have not the intimate knowledge regarding it that is possessed by my hon. Friends opposite, but I do say that it was a misfortune, a grave calamity, that they should have abstained from supporting our protest against Conscription to be applied to the democracy of this country. For my part, I do not believe that the first Conscription Act was required by military necessity. I do not believe that this Bill is required by military necessity, and if there be necessity it should be proved. Who can pretend that anything that is to be done under this Bill can be effective within six months? Who can pretend, if the great struggle which is going on now is to be the last desperate throw of the Germans, that it will not be finished before six months are over? The Prime Minister in his speech stated, with regard to the miners, that there were 50,000 already obtained, and that there was another 50,000 miners to be got, making 100,000 men. He mentioned other industries which are to be combed out, and I think he again gave the figure of 50,000, so that there fire 150.000 new men provided for our forces. I very much question, whatever may be the number of casualties in this terrible struggle during the last fortnight, whether 200,000 would be sufficient to make good the casualties. Then, in addition, we know that our gallant Allies from America are being

    1421
    brigaded with our troops—that is to say, whatever may be the number of American soldiers—and we have had various estimates—in France, they are at the present moment brigaded with our troops. Yet at this very time, when these new sources have been tapped in this country, and when there will be a growing influx of American soldiers, we are told that men of forty to fifty-one, and even fifty-five, are to be conscripted. All I can say is that if what the right hon. Gentleman says is accurate, then it is the greatest condemnation possible of the Government of which he is the head. I do not believe that it is as bad as that.
    I may have become sceptical and over suspicions owing to my experience of the last two or three years, but I believe in my heart that what has really happened is that the Government, having regard to the disaster which we now know has befallen our Army, have brought in a. Bill to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and in order to make their own shortcomings disappear—trying to make any excuse, create any sort of controversy, so that the people of this country may not see that the real danger does not lie in a lack of public spirit on the part of our people—our people have responded nobly when any appeal has been made to them—or in the fact that the British soldier has lost his traditional courage and perseverance. That is not the peril. [An Hon. Member: "Who said it was?"] No one has said so, and no one will dare say so in this House. That is not the peril. The peril lies in the incompetence of the men who are at the head of affairs. It is because they are trying to hide their incompetence that they have introduced this Bill, a Bill which they will rue, and rue the very, day they brought it in—a Bill ill-considered—as the Prime Minister has said, he has not even read the Report of the Irish Convention before bringing in the Bill—a Bill ill-considered, ill-conceived, and a Bill which will come to a bad end.
    Mr. LUNDON: The remarks which I am about to make on the question now before the House will not detain Members many minutes. I am speaking as one of the younger members of the party to which I have the honour to belong, and anything that I am going to say I will say with full responsibility and I will say it from my heart. There are times when, in moments of excitement, young men in political life may say things which they do not mean,
    1422
    but on a question such as the one we are now discussing I think nobody has a right to make any assertion except one he is prepared to stand or fall by. As a member of the Convention I challenge the statement of the Prime Minister himself that he had never read the Report of the Irish Convention and that he was not aware that any agreement was come to between the two parties as to the question of Conscription for Ireland. It is a very hard thing to say, but I will not hesitate in calling a spade a spade; and I say, as a member of that Convention, that I do not believe a single word of the statement he made at that box this afternoon, because I am personally aware that day after day and week after week he and the members of his Cabinet were informed of every single act and word that was carried on inside the precincts of the Regent House. Therefore, I say that he was as well aware of the decision of the Convention on the question of Conscription for Ireland as any Member in this House, including those of us who are members of the Convention. The conclusion I come to is this, that when he saw ten days ago the chance of an agreement being come to on 95 per cent. of the various heads on which an Irish Parliament would be constituted, he made up his mind that "after all these men are going to settle between themselves, and it is our duty now to do once again what we have done before so often, and that is to lay our plans for the crushing of the hopes of the Irish people and for the downfall of the decisions of the Convention."
    I do not know what is to be the policy of the Government. I do not know whether they intend to pursue the tactics which were unfolded at that box this afternoon; but this much I do know, and it has been stated here by three or four of my colleagues and by others who have not been for years members of the Nationalist party, that all sections of Nationalists in Ireland will unite in one body and offer their most vigorous protest against the enforcement of Conscription. What is more than that, only three months ago a meeting of the engineers of the City of Belfast was held in St. Mary's Hall, at which 1,800 Orangemen were present, and out of 1,800 Orange engineeer workers, eleven voted in favour of Conscription and 1,789 voted against it. So when the hypocrites go back to their own Constituents they will find they will have men to deal with who will be as good in their opposition to Conscription as the Nationalists from Cork,

    1423
    Galway, or Clare. We have been accused of being disloyal. Some Members, notably the Member for North-West—I do not know what part of Manchester he represents—taunted us to-day with being cowards, and practically with being Allies of Germany, because we refuse to accept the doctrine of Prussian militarism for Ireland. Well, as I said at the outset, I am of military age myself. I have numbers of my own friends in the Army, serving at this moment, and I, too, would be in it were it not for the fact that the Bill of 1914, instead of being put into operation, was hung in suspense, like Mahomet's coffin. But I say now, even at this hour, that if the Government set up an Irish Parliament I would on the following day—and thousands of other young Irishmen would follow my example—rally to the Colours, because then we would know that we would be fighting not on behalf of the plutocrats and tyrants of this country, but on behalf of the liberties of our own land. I am not a pro-German. I repeat what I said a moment ago. Give us the chance of fighting on behalf of the liberties of our own country, and, believe me, you will get more men by such an effort on your part than you will get by the enforcement of Conscription in our unfortunate country.
    On the other hand, you may bring your legions from France to carry this Bill in this House. You may force it down our throats. You may force it upon us in Ireland with your machine guns or tanks and your armoured motor cars. But remember Irish history. Remember that for the last seven hundred years you have kept up British rule in Ireland at the point of the bayonet, and that the disloyal elements are as disloyal in Ireland to-day because of British misrule as they were in the days of Queen Bess or in the days of Henry VIII. If you are going to put Conscription into force in Ireland, then I for one shall return to my own Constituency and tell the young men who have stood loyally by me during the last three years that it is better for them to die on their own doorstep than on the plains of France and Belgium on behalf of a gang of traitors and hypocrites. It is not the first time that you have shown us, "Don't argue, but shoot." Remember Mitchels-town, when the present Member for the City of London telegraphed to the forces of the town, when the Irish peasantry were fighting for their lives against the tyrannical system of landlordism, "Don't hesi-
    1424
    tate to shoot!" Well, they did not hesitate to shoot, but the landlords are gone, the Irish peasantry are redeemed, and we are here to-day as determined to tell you to shoot, shoot, but, by God, we shall shoot, too, when the time comes
    Mr. STANTON: You are getting into bad company, old chap—Bolo !
    Mr. LUNDON: I prefer to be in the company of my fellow countrymen, fighting for the liberty of my own country, than to be allied with renegade Labour men, with tricksters, and with traitors who tell us that they are fighting for the rights of small nationalities, whilst they deny those rights to the nationality which is near at home.
    Mr. STANTON: Have I the right to reply, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
    HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
    Mr. STANTON: Well, let him withdraw what he said.
    Mr. LUNDON: I do not care two pence during this Debate whom I offend here. I conclude by saying that I trust, in the end, the spirit of honesty, the spirit of patriotism, will prevail, and that, instead of the harbinger of evil being sent to spread its wings over our distracted country, we will have the angel of peace. If you choose to send the harbinger of evil, then remember that you will have to meet a united Ireland, and an appeal will go from those sons of Ireland to their kith and kin in your regiments in France and elsewhere, asking that, instead of turning their guns or their bayonets upon the Germans, they should turn them on the traitors who have once again betrayed their country.
    Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Shame!
    Mr. LUNDON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Shame!" What have you done for Ireland? You are always in this House dragging down the name and fame of Ireland.
    Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Never! [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down !"]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Would hon. Members be good enough to remember to address me in the Chair, and not one another across the House?
    Mr. LUNDON: The hon. and gallant Member longs for a chance when he possibly would be able to take revenge upon

    1425
    those who have carried the national flag during the years he has been in public life. I tell him, and the military men who come to Ireland to put Conscription into force, that those of us who are prepared to resist it may not have machine guns and armoured motor cars, but we will have the courage to face them and, as we often said before, we shall have an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I think it rather unfortunate if, when we are faced with big issues which this Bill raises, there should be recrimination. The more we can examine this Bill with cool judgment and without introducing personalities, the more likely we are to get a satisfactory judgment. After all, at the present moment the guns are booming at the front. Men are faced with death—men from all parts of the United Kingdom—and, whatever views hon. Members have to give, I venture to suggest they should be put forward with coolness and without introducing personal feeling in the matter. I think myself it is very unfortunate that the Irish question has been dragged into this Bill at all. It would have been far better, if the Prime Minister desired to reopen the Irish controversy, to have dealt with it in a separate Bill. The Bill as outlined by the Prime Minister deals with quite enough questions, affecting a very large number of sections of the community, without putting into it the very large question of the application of Conscription to Ireland. Personally, I feel that if you are going to force men into the Army in a country that country ought to have self-government. The majority of the people in Canada willingly have com plied with Conscription. The Dominion of New Zealand has done the same. Australia, on the other hand, which is a self-governing Dominion, has chosen the other course, and, after testing the opinion of the electorate by a referendum, has stuck to the voluntary system. If the Prime Minister decides to set up some form of self-government in Ireland, we could safely have left this question of applying compulsion to Ireland to the Irish people themselves, and I venture to say the tradition of Ireland is always rather on the fighting side; as a rule they are always ready to take part in a scrap, and certainly would not object to take part in a scrap on behalf of their traditional friend, France—
    Mr. DILLON: Certainly not!
    Mr. HARRIS: —or to free the people of Belgium and Serbia from the German, yoke. But it is not with the Irish question that I want to deal. The Bill raises very big issues affecting, I think I can rightly say, millions of our fellow countrymen in the United Kingdom. I was very sorry that the Prime Minister, in the very long preamble to his outline of the Bill, did not see his way to give us a little more intimate history of what had taken place. I could not help feeling that his statement seemed to be largely an attempt to defend his Government, rather than to explain to the House what had happened in. France and what had brought about the present position. I would be the last person to suggest that the names of generals should be mentioned in this House. On the contrary, nothing could be more unsatisfactory and more unfair than to bandy across the floor of this House the names of officers who are not in a position to defend themselves. It is the Government to which we must look. If there is failure, on the Government must come the blame. If there is success, they are justified in claiming the credit for it. That is the more so in this particular War, for, for some reason or another—no doubt public policy—the various dispatches from the front are reticent of the names of successful officers commanding the various regiments. So, if there is failure, the Government must take the full responsibility, and admit that any want of success is due to themselves, and not to the officers; because, if a general fails, it is their business to replace him. No fear of wounding susceptibilities should prevent them. There should be no hesitation in replacing men whom they should replace, and who do not succeed in their undertakings. I say the fault is not with the generals, but with the Government, for it is the Government's business to see that the right officers are put in charge of the troops that fight our battles
    Nor can I think that Parliament is to be blamed for any failures that have taken place. The House of Commons has granted every demand that the Government has made, from the very early days when Lord Kitchener asked for his first 100,000, through the times when the age was raised, past Lord Derby's scheme, down to the Military Service Act and its various Amendments. The House of Commons, I say, has always, by overwhelming majorities, given the Government, and the Army, everything for which they have asked. The House of Commons

    1427
    can face this question with clean hands. The House of Commons, indeed, has been so willing to oblige the Government that it is liable to the criticism that hon. Members have become merely the register of the decisions of the Government. When the Government come down with a proposal of this kind, complicated and involved, drawing in a very large new class of citizens into the net of military service, I think the House is bound, in the interest of the people concerned, to give it a very searching criticism. When the Bill comes up for Second Reading I do hope the Government will listen to the demand of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, and give ample time for proper criticism and for Amendments in detail. If there was any need for undue haste the House of Commons could have been called together at an earlier date, a week ago, say, so that the Government could have explained the Bill. It is unfair, either to Parliament or the nation behind Parliament, to rush this Bill through. Nor, I venture to suggest, must we be influenced too much by sloppy sentimentalism. I understand it is seriously put forward as a reason for raising the age to fifty that the French age is fifty. The condition of affairs in France, however, are very different to what they are here. To commence with, every Frenchman has been accustomed to the whole idea of compulsory service. Every French citizen has been through the Army, and has been subjected to military training, so that if a war took place every citizen knew from the start he was liable to be called up, and in regard to his business or trade had already made arrangements for it.
    Matters are quite different in this country. We have always had the voluntary system. Business men and tradesmen have always assumed they could launch out on their own, because there was no idea that at any time they would be liable by compulsion to be called into the Army. I would, therefore, venture to suggest to the Government to consider whether it is a practical proposal to apply compulsion to men as old as fifty. Unless it is going to bring in large additional numbers, is it wisdom to be influenced by the fact that the military age in France is fifty? The Americans have shown more science in this matter. They have faced the question from the purely practical point of view. They have not con-
    1428
    sidered what is the age in this country or in France. They have gone in for the classes of men likely to prove of the greatest fighting value, and have made all their arrangements accordingly. The Prime Minister suggested that the result of raising the age to fifty was not likely to give us more than 7 per cent. of men likely to come inside the military net. Out of an estimated number of 1,500,000 this would give 100,000 men to be added to the Army. This, to my mind, would provoke the maximum of irritation with the minimum result. Every man between the age of forty-two and fifty will begin to think that he is going to be taken. He will not know when he makes an appeal whether or not he will be exempt. He will not know, under the scheme outlined by the Prime Minister, whether his occupation will be considered one of national importance. I am afraid—and I say this with some hesitation, but it is so, I think—I am afraid that the result will be not to increase the war Cover, but rather to decrease it. When you are going to affect a man's livelihood, when he has already reached middle age, he begins to cool in his enthusiasm, and to lose his full ardour in the War. Certainly it is going to upset his business. He cannot carry on his business or trade with skill and efficiency when ho knows that at any moment the military authorities can swoop down upon him, take him from his trade, and bring him into the Army.
    Nor am I certain that the military gain is going to be commensurate with the disorganisation of business that will result. There was a time, not long ago, when it was the custom to say, in relation to the industrial classes, that a man was "too old at forty." Many men after forty found it difficult to get a new job; but, though at forty a man may be all right in his present occupation, if he is at home going on with his trade and practising his craft, it is quite a different thing when you uproot him from the occupation of a lifetime, take him from his regular surroundings, and put him into a camp. The shock to the system and the change in his life may mean his physical breakdown or a serious decrease in his efficiency. I am very doubtful as to how many men between the ages of forty and fifty will stand the strain. Besides, you are bound to admit a very large percentage of claims. A man, when he has reached that age, has usually got personal liabilities and financial engagements, and it is

    1429
    almost certain that he will feel justified in putting a claim before the tribunal. The result will be that men will not be forthcoming very quickly, and there will be a series of very long delays before you get the large numbers of men into the Army to justify your policy. There is another and more serious point of view. Industries are very nearly down to the bedrock in regard to labour. The combing has been going on drastically for the last two years. The present Minister of National Service was specially appointed to that particular job, and he has been very diligent in his work. There are a hundred and one trades that have diluted their staff with women, and resorted to all sorts of means to keep their trades going, and to take another single man from those trades would mean the closing of the doors and the complete bankruptcy of that particular trade. I very much doubt if the industries of the country, not only shipbuilding and munitions, but all staple trades like the cotton trade, will be able to afford a very much larger contribution of manpower than they have already made. This essentially applies to the older men, who are usually the lynch-pin of their trade. They have come to the prime of their industrial efficiency, and to move them now would mean the disorganisation of their trade.
    I hope the House will not think that I am putting unnecessary obstacles in the way, seeing the insurmountable difficulties of providing the necessary men to meet the demands of the Army, but I think there is a better way. I know I put it before the House on several occasions, and I believe that if the Government will survey the field from my point of view they will see a practical solution of the problem without disorganising trades and without causing unnecessary friction. I understand that the older men are mainly required for Home service, and are not to be taken overseas, and that they are going to be used rather to release the present Home Service Army for service in France. There is in existence now a Volunteer Force organised on the basis of spare-time training, and it has now reached a very high standard of efficiency. The men have been well organised, and their training has been done under general officers commanding the districts where they are located; and it is generally admitted by the inspecting officers that these battalions
    1430
    known as the Volunteer Force compare not unfavourably with the Territorials at the outbreak of the War.
    I know during the three and a half years that this force has been in existence that the Army Council has not viewed with great favour spare-time training, and would naturally prefer to have their services for the full time. I can understand that being so, but I suggest that this is not the time for taking such a course. As the Prime Minister admitted, we have come very near to the bedrock of our man-power, and we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, and, if there are not enough men to go round, it seems only common wisdom to see if we can apply different methods more suited to our old traditions. The Volunteer Force has always been the pride of this country, and when there has been a national emergency these men have sprung to arms; but the military authorities, who are too much inspired by German ideas and theory, do not view this kind of force in the light which they ought to do, and if they had been allowed to have their own way this force would not have been in existence. Time after time obstacles have been put in its way, and the War Office has made it clear that it has only permitted this force to be organised because of political pressure. I can tell the House that during the last two or three weeks the military authorities were very thankful to have this Volunteer Force in existence, because, properly organised and in being, it was possible at short notice to rush every available battalion overseas to relieve the pressure on the Western Front.
    I put it to the House and to the Government that if, instead of trying to drag away from their homes every man of fifty years of age, taking them away from industries and upsetting the whole industrial system of the country and seriously depleting the ranks of labour, it would be better to appeal to the whole nation to train in their spare time in the Volunteer Force. They are now required to do fourteen drills per month, and the result has been the creation of a very efficient force, and the men would be likely to suffer far less physically by training in this way than if they were taken into camp with an uncertainty as to what will happen when they return. By these means I believe we could raise, not 100,000 men, as is contemplated by the Government, but from 500,000 to

    1431
    1,000,000 soldiers, ready to take their place in the fighting line to prevent the enemy from effecting a landing on these shores. If necessary, it would not be an unreasonable thing to ask employers to give opportunities during business hours for men to do the necessary training. I believe on the whole that if men were offered the alternative of spare-time training to joining the Army the population would respond like one man and join this force. After all, we must not forget that there is still the Navy, and an invasion on a large scale I believe if it is not impossible is very improbable. It is true that the submarine has seriously affected the position at sea, and just as the submarine has proved effective against our mercantile marine, a transport near our shores would have a very rough time indeed from submarines, torpedo boats and other small craft. As success in war depends upon taking reasonable risks, I think we are justified in depending upon a part-time service force for the safety of these realms and in putting our trust in the Navy to give us security. I would therefore ask the Government to take this proposal into their consideration. If we are to see this War through to a successful end, it is necessary to take a large view, and not only look at one point at a time. I was glad that the Prime Minister stated that whatever proposals were put forward to-day it would be folly to interfere with the fundamental condition that the Navy and mercantile marine must be maintained. We cannot effectively maintain our mercantile marine and our Navy if we still further on a large scale comb out men from our industrial army. It is because I think this proposal of mine is a practical solution that I put it forward for the consideration of the Government. We are told that the Americans will soon be ready to come over and lend a hand to our hard-pressed soldiers. If the Americans are to come over, we must have ships, and if we are to have ships we must have the men to build them. Therefore, I hope that this House, while accepting the Bill in principle, will criticise it in detail, and, if necessary, amend it, and that the Government will view with favour such a proposal as I have outlined to depend for Home defence on part-time service in preference to taking men from their occupations and putting them into the Army.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before considering the proposal of the Government, we first need to ask ourselves: Why is America in the War? America is a nation of 100,000,000 people bound by treaties which exclude her from entangling alliances and from interfering in European affairs, and in any considerations of man-power the first thing that a deliberative assembly of a mixed kind, representing mixed races such as this, should ask itself is, Why did America after three years of war throw in her fortunes with the Allies? Is it not evident that America is lighting for issues that have arisen out of the War, and not for any issue which caused the War? America is fighting for her right of way. She is fighting for the freedom of the seas and for a free passage for her ships, and America, must, willy-nilly, continue that battle until it is settled. The green ocean and its liberties is what America is fighting for. She is not fighting for Belgium, she is not fighting for Serbia, she is not fighting for Britain; she is fighting for herself, for her own dignity and her own freedom. Superadded to the freedom of the seas for her ships, she is fighting for the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine. Under these circumstances, whenever any Bill connected with manpower is brought forward in this House, the position of America should be in the very forefront of our thoughts. Accordingly, needlessly to drag the question of a small nationality like Ireland and its unfortunate children into a discussion of this kind seems to me to portend an utter want of imagination and an utter want of scope on the part of of the Government. Nearly half the American Army and nearly half the American Navy are Irish. How do I know it? I know it by the demand for chaplains for the American Army and American Navy. Accordingly, when you set men of Irish blood who hitherto have been in sympathy with you at variance with you in thought, it can only be justified by the most overwhelming necessity.
    I should like, before I approach the Irish side of this thing, to offer some observations on the speech of the Prime Minister from the point of view of an ordinary Member of this House. For three years and eight months I have not criticised the conduct of the War or the conduct of the Government. When we are attacked, as a Welsh Member attacked some of us, for not opposing Conscription for England two years ago, I only say that we believed the War to be a just war, and one forced upon

    1433
    England. I do not think a more peaceful body of statesmen were ever brought together than the Asquith Government which declared war. I was in the House before any one of them entered it. I watched their career. I. watched the career of Sir Edward Grey and of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Asquith) for thirty years in this House, and a less aggressive, a less combative, and a more pacifist body of men could not have been brought together in any assembly which has honoured this House with its presence since the days of William the Conqueror. To suggest that they needlessly dabbled in blood or needlessly plunged this country into war is so absurd that anybody, looking at the matter from the point of view of a disinterested onlooker, must have sympathised with the Government in its then situation. Believing that this War was brutally and violently forced upon England by an unjust aggressor, for three years and eight months my voice has never been lifted in criticism of the various Administrations that have been formed. To-day for the first time you force us to examine your premises—you drive us to analytical criticism, and the first observation that I would make on the Prime Minister's speech—a very eloquent and able statement—is that it was a wholly unconstitutional statement in so far as it dealt with the late reverses. That defence of the soldiers in the field should, in my opinion have come not from the Prime Minister but in the form of a dispatch from the responsible Commander-in-Chief. Secondly, I consider that the demand for men should also have come in the form of a dispatch from the responsible Commander-in-Chief. For my part, as I am driven to criticism, I am bound to say I look with alarm on the "to"-ings and "fro"-ings of politicians across the Channel to the Army Chiefs, and I view with alarm the returning echoes which we get from those gentlemen, not in the form of dispatches duly signed by responsible generals, but in the form of tittle-tattle, Ministerial or political. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman was ill-advised not to have insisted on a report from the Commander-in-Chief being laid before this House.
    10.0 P.M.
    I give very strong approval to the action of the Government in co-ordinating their strength with the French troops under General Foch. An abler man could not have been selected. His brilliancy, his ability, his good faith, his long experience,
    1434
    and I would add the fact that he was not ashamed to kneel down in the dust before his troops to honour Almighty God—all the facts of the man's long career in my opinion entirely justify the action of the Government in co-ordinating their forces under General Foch, and I feel the strongest assurance that in no sense racially, nationally, patriotically, or in any other way will the troops of this country fail in the most profound loyalty and most perfect obedience. I now come to the third branch of the Prime Minister's speech. He showed that in the year 1917 the strength of the Allies, as compared with that of the enemy, was three to two. He then went on to demonstrate that in the recent battles even with the withdrawal of the German troops from the Eastern Front, the numbers whether in men or in guns were almost at a parity, and that in the air the Allied strength was slightly the better. But, confronted by all those facts, he went on to show that the offensive had the greater value and that it was impossible for the defensive to concentrate the troops at a given area. The design of the offensive was well known, but, in view of the admitted slight superiority of the offensive I am led to wonder why, when the comparisons stood three to two, we did not take the offensive in the year 1917, if there was such a wonderful superiority on the side of those who conduct the offensive. We all know what Kinglake said. He spoke of British troops as lions led by jackasses. I do not desire to use any such phrase to men engaged in this campaign, but I do think that when a general—I am not referring to a Com-mander-in-Chief—has openly blundered and brought about most hideous losses, to put that man again in command of an Army is little better than manslaughter, if not assassination. There came a chaplain from the front to Ireland last summer. I will not mention the name of the general whom he denounced, but he showed that a Lancashire regiment, a Scottish regiment and an Irish regiment had been left practically with only ten or twelve men through the blustering of this particular general. This reverend gentleman went openly through Dublin proclaiming the general as a murderer, and, as Catholic soldiers think nothing of their priests unless they go into battle with them, this chaplain had a better opportunity of forming a judgment than other men could have had. What happened? He

    1435
    was speaking openly in the interests of the Army. The general was promoted; the chaplain was never allowed to go back again to that particular front: someone else was sent. When you are asking Irishmen—and, after all, when it suits you, you call them quick-witted, although at other times you say they are superstitious, and blatherers, and all sorts of things—you should remember that they have, after all, the instincts of soldiers, they are watching, and, when they believe they are thrown away they never forgive it, neither do their priests nor their members forget it. When I consider these facts in conjunction with the Bill as affecting Ireland, I cannot help feeling amazement that any Government should suppose it possible to enforce a Bill of this kind.
    I have come to the conclusion that this Bill, so far as Ireland is concerned—to use the lately fashionable word—is merely camouflage. I believe it is the mere mask from which to stiletto Homo Rule. If you intended giving Homo Rule you would introduce this Clause in the Home Rule Bill; but what you are doing is, you are bringing in a Bill that is certain to pass on the promise of a Bill that is certain to be rejected by the House of Lords. That is what you are doing, and you are making this proposal in all its severity in regard to a measure that has been introduced into England by degrees. In, England, first you took the single men. Their places were filled in many cases, and wonderfully filled, by women. Then, under necessity, you took the married men, but you took them allowing all kinds of exemptions—medical exemptions, occupational exemptions, and a number of other exemptions of that kind. Now you declare that these exemptions are to disappear, and medical certificates are practically to be only regarded as scraps of paper. The tribunals are practically to go, and with one smash, with all its severity, it is the Bill in this drastic shape that is going to be applied to Ireland. I should have thought, of course, that the Government would first have said to themselves, "What has happened in the Convention?" What has happened? Nothing. There is no Report of the Contention, except a Minority Report. Sir Horace Plunkett has signed a document giving a narrative of events, the Orange party have signed a document which may be summed up simply as non possumus, twenty-two Nationalists have signed a Report asking for Colonial Home Rule.
    1436
    And the Prime Minister—who states that he has not read the most important portion of this body's proceedings, namely, that dealing with the matter in hand—says he is going to give us Home Rule as a result of the Convention which must be a blend, as I understand, of two negations and an objection.
    Major BOWDEN: Will he give any of them?
    Mr. HEALY: That is not a rude question, but the answer might be rude. I should like to ask the Government whether they think that anybody on this side of the House, or on that side of the House, is to be taken in by such a plain device as that? No Report from the Convention, two Minority Reports, and the Government declare they are going to bring in a Home Rule Bill. What occurred to me when I heard the astute proposal which has been made that a Privy Council Order is to put in force Conscription in Ireland was that it only requires a Privy Council Order to put the Home Rule Act of 1914 into force. Why not do that? The Privy Council is a most estimable body—I always bow down in reverence whenever I meet a Privy Councillor—and Home Rule is on the Statute Book. The fact is continually dinned into our ears. Even a deaf man could not deny some knowledge of the Home Rule Act being on the Statute Book. Why not, then, bring a Privy Council Order into existence for the purpose of putting that Act immediately into force? You could do it far quicker than you could pass this Bill. To-morrow you could set up on the Liffey a Parliament to which you could submit the question of whether they were willing to give Conscription to Ireland or Irish military forces—tomorrow! The Act is there. Where is the veto? The veto is in Trinity College, where the Convention Reports come from How is it that the Government, which in any ordinary relations, when they meet us in the Lobby, do not treat us as if we were tomfools, or lunatics, or any strange creatures out of menageries, treat us in this House as if we have not one scrap of political common sense?
    That being so, I say that the pretence on which this Bill is to apply to Ireland is worse than an outrage. It is hypocrisy, and the proof of that hypocrisy is to be found in the speech of the Prime Minister, who introduced it. He had two arguments, both absolutely repugnant. His first argument was—and this was in his "Daily

    1437
    Mail" style—flow can we, when we are increasing the age up to fifty for the Britisher, allow fine strapping young Papists of twenty-one to idle about in Ireland? A splendid argument, and so convincing in this House—though not to the Irish portion—that what other argument do you want? What do you want with Home Rule if that is a good enough argument? If it is right and in accordance with the justice of things that before the Britisher of fifty is called out of his bed the young, strapping, lusty—whenever you want him for a soldier he is splendid—young Irishman of twenty-one should not be allowed to remain in Ireland—if that is so complete an argument, and if the case be a parity, what connection has it with Home Rule? If Ireland be an integral portion of this Kingdom, bearing equal burdens, sharing equal privileges, entitled to your loyalty—the men of Devon, the men of Cornwall, the men of Lancashire, are compelled to give you their loyalty—what is the need of Home Rule? But if Home Rule be a necessity to awaken the warlike spirit, the loyal spirit in the breasts of these young men, what is the value then of this false and delusive argument about the old man of fifty being called up in England and the young man of twenty being allowed to disport himself in Ireland? No, Sir, it is the uneasy conscience of the ex-Home Ruler that is at work. Nobody of Celtic blood, as the Prime Minister is, and I would add of Celtic courage—nobody who knows the Welsh case but must understand the Irish case. Nobody who knows the Irish case but must understand the Welsh case. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman used the argument of the Englishman of fifty and the Irishman of twenty-one, it was not an argument he believed in. He got it from the "Daily Mail."
    Having discussed the case—I trust without heat or passion—I now come to look at it from a practical point of view. I am not without sympathy for certain members of the Government. They are in a most difficult position. I know that if they had their way, many of them would not be there. I know they are serving their country loyally and generously, and it is most unfair to make some of them the butt of needless attack in the middle of this War. But the Prime Minister has asked for it. He has turned out one Government and he has assumed the headship of another. He therefore must take upon himself the burdens and responsibilities of
    1438
    this proposal in a way that no other Minister can. I therefore ask him, Is this a practical proposal from the point of view of man-power? Let us consider it coldly. You have Ireland under martial law. You got it, at the beginning of the War, a perfectly loyal country thoroughly with you. I have had three nephews killed in this War;. I have plenty of other relatives serving. There is hardly a man who has not some member of his family either killed or wounded. I do not think that in the whole history of Ireland, were it understood, was there ever such a case of spiritual abnegation, generosity and forgiveness as Ireland showed at the beginning of this War. It was the one bright spot. Poor John Redmond! You killed him, and you are using the election of his son in Water-ford the other day practically to carry Conscription. Of course, had the election gone the other way you would never have dreamt of Conscription.
    Let us take this question of man-power. Has the Chief Secretary been consulted? I believe he was no more consulted than when the newspapers made him Master of the Rolls. There was another Minister who retired on the ground that he read in the newspapers that his job was offered to Lord Northcliffe, and that was the first he had heard of it. Of course, that afforded a good precedent for Ireland. I have known the Chief Secretary now since I was a student, and I look upon him as a friend, as far as one can be friendly on opposite sides of the House, especially when a man becomes Irish Secretary. I should like to see his name at the foot of this Bill showing that he approves of it, and that he assures the Government that this demand for manpower which they are making will be fully warranted and implemented by the Irish people. There are military authorities in Ireland who are there for the purpose of what is called martial law. They have county Clare now at their mercy, and they are principally there for the purpose of staying there. They do not want to go to France. They have splendid dinners of three courses, with no Food Controller and—the teetotalers will be sorry to hear it—unlimited whisky. So for the remainder of this War county Clare will be a place out of which there will be no redemption for these gallant men. There is a little village in the county of Clare so small that its name is much longer than its population. It is called Carrigaholt. There were some twenty boys drilling in

    1439
    a little room not more than 20 feet square. Soldiers called on them to disperse for drilling. It was an illegal act. As they did not immediately disperse, having a great reverence for the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), a company of soldiers with fixed bayonets were sent into this little room. I do not say they all went in at once. Even the military genius of the Irish Commander-in-Chief is not equal to that. As the soldiers went in, the drilling men went out. This may be a matter of laughter for hon. Members, but the fact is that they bayoneted four of these men, killing one on the spot and left three seriously wounded. Their own evidence shows that there was no resistance and no attempt to combat them in any way. The men were stabbed in the back because, of course, being Papists, they are all cowards, except when they are put into British uniforms, they can stand that. The result in this little village is that you have four bayoneted Irishmen as a sort of overture to Conscription. All the letters of everybody entering the place are opened. The fairs have been practically abolished, beasts are unsaleable, and threats have been made to extend this system in order to popularise Conscription all over the country. Five weekly newspapers have been suppressed by the military within the last three weeks. In the town of Athlone, in the centre of Ireland, one of the most peaceful towns in the whole country, where there is a barracks where the Connaught Rangers are stationed—it has been a barrack town as long as my memory serves—there was a paper called the "Westmeath Independent," owned by an Irish Protestant Conservative called Chapman. I suppose his editor was a Nationalist. Mr. Chapman had the largest printing establishment in any country town in Ireland, and in open competition he used to take the printing contracts for the county council in Cork, in Wicklow, Dublin, and places far distant from Athlone. The military thought that as they were seizing his newspaper, it would be a good thing to seize all his job printing presses, and to throw 100 printers—that is the newspaper statement, I do not vouch for it—out of employment.
    What I have told the House is going on deliberately in every town and county in Ireland. You have only to get Dublin Castle to twist the screw and the district inspectors, who were the chief allies of
    1440
    the right hon. Member for Trinity College, are ready to do the work. With a turn of the screw from Dublin Castle you can have a stage storm in any part of Ireland, with the assistance of the constabulary, at twenty-four hours' notice, just as on the stage you can have stage thunder or a stage storm. This is in a country where it took 30,000 of your soldiers to suppress a rebellion got up by 950 young boys, without machine guns and without cannon. You had to burn down Dublin and its principal streets and to bring 30,000 men over in order to put down these young boys, and you are going to multiply these instances a million times over in order to provide sport for the Germans and man-power for the British Army. What will be the effect upon the Protestants? Of course, as regards them—I use the religious term because it is short, though it is not strictly accurate—I did not notice any great enthusiasm from the Member for South Tyrone or the Member for South Derry, or the Members from Down, and all these other places where their hearts are throbbing for the Empire, when this Conscription Bill was announced. You are the British garrison. You have got all the benefit of the British connections for hundreds of years. You were in possession of all the spoils. You have had all the offices. You have had the Church for three centuries. You are the garrison. You boast of it. Why do not you garrison the British Army in France?
    This brings me to the machinery of the Bill, and I say that the most infamous thing connected with this proposal is the suggestion of machinery. The priests of Ireland are to be called out to attend the hospitals, men who have protested again and again against some of these terrible hospitals being set up in their localities, hospitals connected with sexual diseases which were proposed in decent localities. You are to have priests going to these hospitals. Have you asked them? Have you asked their cardinals? Have you asked their bishops? The Prime Minister stated that he had consulted, I do not know whether it was some leading Nonconformists or the Archbishop of Canterbury—I do not know who is the head of the English Church at the moment. Has he consulted anybody connected with our Church? And remember this: It is the fixed opinion of common people in Ireland that the cause of your disasters in France is due to the fact that promotions have gone not by merit, but by Free-

    1441
    masonry. You do not like it. But if you are going to force this Bill down our throats you must hear what common fellows like myself think, and if you are going to put Catholic Irishmen under Orange and Freemason officers they will not believe that they will get fair play. [An HON. MEMBER: "Humbug!"] You have got to convince the people of that. I may tell you something of what is called in France Carson's Army. When it was drilling at a camp in county Down they sent over an English officer, and the moment it was found that he was a Catholic the War Office were compelled to withdraw him, for these soldiers would have no other than Protestant officers. I am not blaming them. We have heard of Rome on the rates. That was a grand cry during the Education Bill campaign. Are you going to provide for Catholic priests and Catholic soldiers the elementary principles of fair play? In England Freemasonry is the merest social organisation. It is untinged with politics. So far as I know there is nothing objectionable in the organisation as it exists in this country. But what is it in Ireland? There is no leading Orangeman who is not a Mason, and it is through Masonry that all the Curragh revolt was worked. And a nice job General Gough has made of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Who provoked this Debate? You want here the representatives of the people to speak for the people, and tell you what they think. I am telling you what they think. Bead the "Daily Mail"; they know all about it. Where have we in any instance, in connection with this War, ventured on any criticism? The only criticism I have offered was that the Admiral who allowed the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" to escape should be tried and the facts should be published. I think if that were done there would be fewer blunders. Now, when thousands of our people are to be torn from their families, and we tell you what these people are thinking, we hear cries of "Shame!" at some elementary account of facts, because your ears have been plugged and your brains have been closed for the last three and a-half years through the operations of the Censor, and you know of what is going on in Ireland about as much as I know of what is going on in Japan. What will happen? I hope there will not be bloodshed. I have too many connected with me serving in this War, to see our people in Ireland needlessly conscripted.
    1442
    Much will depend upon the men whom you have recently had in your gaols. I always tell those men that they were mercifully treated, and that the Government had shown them clemency. I was afraid to offer to these men the language I hold in this House; but you have made a start with some three thousand criminals who are the most respected men in the country. You hanged men at Tyburn three centuries ago, and one of them has just been canonised at Rome. Forster, I remember, spoke of "village ruffians" and "criminals," and he put Mr. Parnell in Kilmamham University. You are now out to gather man-power in Ireland. I believe the mass of Sinn Feiners will refuse to be registered, will refuse to be drilled, will refuse to be conscripted; and you have not gaols enough to hold them. [An Hon. MEMBER: "They will fight!"] Some of them may fight. I do not know. I will not answer for that, but I think I can say there will be a strike en masse by the Irish people. One man may bring a horse to the water, but twenty men cannot make it drink; and if they should come to you, if by some subtle advice on the part of the Sinn Feiners, supposing De Valera said, "Join in; throw yourselves into the Army," can you rely on them when you have got them to the Front? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] You say "Yes."It is very painful to me after this long period of silence to have to tell you these home truths, but you ought to know them yourselves. It is as much your business to have known them as it was the business of the late Government to have known the strength of Germany before they declared war in August, 1914. Then what would happen? Irish-American soldiers, Irish-American sailors, would be affected. Irish troops at the Front would be affected. I touched a moment ago on the Irish Protestants. Will they go? How will they enjoy seeing all the Nationalists in gaol, refusing to go, when their children are being driven into this welter? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about our children?"] The Hon. Member is not the only one who has children.
    It must be remembered that Englishmen are fighting for a free country. Are we to continue to fight for the enslavement of ours? What have I been doing in this House for thirty-eight years? I have been trying to convince Englishmen that the system under which my country was governed was bad for us and bad for them.

    1443
    We are here by compulsion. The Act of Union was an Act obtained by fraud, obtained by bribery—bribery as to which a parish council election could not stand in England to-day. And now, in a Parliament which has long overspent the seven years of its legal tenure, a revolutionary Bill of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—I quite agree. Perhaps I have detained the House too long, but, of course, I must be excused, as it is my first speech in three-and-a-half years, and in very exceptional circumstances. Therefore, I would only say in conclusion that, without the most overpowering necessity, which has not been demonstrated, without the signatures of the Commander-in-Chief abroad, the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—without their high approval, to bring in a measure of this kind is a mistake of the deepest kind. That being so, I would, even now, fondly hope that it is only brought in, not as a measure to work, but as a stiletto to be used for other purposes—the destruction of Home Rule. That you may succeed in. If so, we have only failed, as eight centuries of Irishmen before us have failed, and we have no regrets; but, at all events, those of us who would like, as ardently as you would, to see the monstrous power of militarism ended in Europe, are entitled when this country, to use a legal phrase, is "challenging the array," to tell you some measure of the truth as to the chasm into which you are precipitating the country.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I desire to offer only a very few observations upon this discussion. If I remained silent, having regard to many of the observations which have been made, the position of myself and those with whom I act in Ireland might be entirely misunderstood. The only thing that influences me on the present occasion is the present urgent necessities of this country in relation to the War. I am not going to refer to any of the observations that have been made either with reference to myself or to the party with whom I act in Ireland. I want to fight no one at the present moment except the common enemy—the Boche. We have had these Man-Power Bills before the House on various occasions. On every occasion on which the subject has come before the House I have felt it
    1444
    my duty to say that no distinction ought to be drawn between any part of the United Kingdom, and I have supported on every occasion the application of these Bills to Ireland as well as to other parts of the United Kingdom. I think it is a great misfortune that any distinction has ever been drawn throughout the whole of this War, and for reasons which I will state in a few moments. But when I am told that the enemy is at the gates, that the position of this country is one of peril and danger, that the whole structure of liberty and freedom in relation to the whole human race to which we belong is at stake, I ask myself what right have I as an Irish Member to give my adhesion to a Bill which calls for sacrifices of the most terrible and harassing character from the inhabitants of Great Britain, and ask that my own part of the United Kingdom should be absolved? If such a thing could happen, I would go about hanging my head in shame. After all, let us put aside our controversies for the moment. I can indulge in them quite as fiercely as anybody else, as the House knows. But, after all, what is the ambition of Members from my own country sitting opposite? They desire, just as much as I do, that the Germans should be defeated in this War. That is the only question before the House at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It is the only question! What does Unionism matter? [Interruption.] What does Home Rule matter? What does Free Trade matter? What do all the other controversies matter in which we have been engaged? They matter nothing compared with the advance of the Germans, overrunning with their Prussianism the whole of the civilised nations.
    The one thing I regret in this Bill is that the Government should have mixed up with it the question of Home Rule. I agree there with the Members from Ireland. I do not see why it was introduced—unless as camouflage. I will tell you why. No local Parliament that has ever been proposed has suggested, nor have hon. Members opposite ever suggested, that any local Parliament should undertake Imperial Defence. Therefore, I myself do not understand what was the object of introducing the question of Home Rule. Anyway, let us be honest with each other. Conscription for Ireland is either right or wrong. If it be right, it is not propped up by Home Rule. If it be wrong, it is no longer propped up by

    1445
    Home Rule. I warn the Government that they may be raising two agitations—one against Conscription and a second in regard to Home Rule—both of which may equally affect the operations of the Act which they have in mind. For my own part all I care about is that the country is in danger. No man who has equal privileges in the United Kingdom has the right to say, "I can shirk when my country is in danger." [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not doing it!"] Equal privileges! Has Ireland equal privileges? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do not forget that the other day you passed a Franchise Bill in which you gave two votes to every Irishman for one vote that you gave to the Englishman; and is the man with two votes to do nothing to defend them?
    I do not know what the opposition to this Bill may be in Ireland, but I say with all sincerity—and I think that they trust me—that the greatest contribution that they could make towards an Irish settlement is that the men in the trenches should learn to trust each other. My hon. Friend opposite, who has just spoken, talked of "Carson's Army." What you call "Carson's Army" has just gone into action for the fourth time, and many of them have paid the supreme sacrifice. They have covered themselves with glory, and, what is
    more, they have covered Ireland with glory, and they have left behind sad homes throughout the small hamlets of Ulster, as I well know, losing three or four sons in many a home. You may, if you like, call it with contempt "Carson's Army," but at the commencement of the War I rode at the head of an army of 800 men at seven o'clock in the morning, when they went to the recruiting sergeant and left me, and I am more proud of that act than anything I have ever done. "Carson's Army," as you call it, went to France, and, Orangemen as they were, they fought for a great Catholic country, because there was a common freedom between them. They were told, "You must recollect that you are going to a Catholic country, and therefore you must take care of every word you say." What did they do? They attended Catholic worship at a Catholic church, and these are supposed to be bigoted Orangemen. For my own part, I am glad and proud to think that at last my country will take its proper place in the battle for freedom which we are waging.
    Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to Military Service during the present year."
    The House divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 5.]

    AYES.

    [10.59 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Amery, Capt. L. C. M. S.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

    Brassey, H. L. C.

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

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

    Archer-Shoe, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Brookes, Warwick

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Willoughby H

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bull, Sir William James

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Butcher, John George

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Carew, Charles R. S, (Tiverton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Barran, Sir Row. Hurst (Leeds, North)

    Cator, John

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon, W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Barton, Sir William

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robt. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Collins, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, N.)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Goldman, C. S.

    Bird, Alfred

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Grant, J. A.

    Blair, Reginald

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fertescue

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Craig. Ernest (Cheshire, Crews)

    Greig, Col. James William

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

    Gretton, Col. John

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Haddock, George Bahr

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Rowlands, James

    Hali, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

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

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon. Lord C. J.

    Macmaster, Major Gilbert

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool)

    Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

    Malcolm. Ian

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Haslam, Lewis

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (Asht'n-u-Lyne)

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Starkey, Capt. John R.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Staveley-Hill Lieut.-Col. H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, George Hay

    Swift, Rigby

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hinds, John

    Mount, William Arthur

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Tryon, Capt. George Cloment

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Horne, E.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wards, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

    Peace, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H.

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Weston, Col. J. W.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.,

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pretyman, Rt. Horn. Ernest George

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

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

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Lane-Fox. Major G. R.

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Randles, Sir John

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

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

    Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H.

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Ratcliff, Lieut.-Col. R. F.

    Wood, S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Wright, Capt. Henry Fitzherbert

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharsen

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Younger, Sir George

    Lloyd, Captain G. A. (Stafford. W.)

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. Geo. H. (Norwich)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt. Gueet.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Roberts. Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    NOES.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Doris, William

    Hoarn, Michael Louis

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Buxton, Noel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Byrne, Alfred

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Ffrench, Peter

    Keating, Matthew

    Clough, William

    Field, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Kilbride, Denis

    Cosgrave, James

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    King, Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Guiney, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Cullinan, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Dillon, John

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    McGhee, Richard

    Donovan, John Thomas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Donnelly, Patrick

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    1448

    1449

    Meagher, Michael

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    O'Leary, Daniel

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Molloy, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Snowden, Philip

    Mooney, John J.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walsh, J. (Cork South)

    Morrell, Philip

    O'Shee, James John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Muldoon, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Nugent, J.D. (College Green)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Boland.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Reddy, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Redmond, Capt W. A.

    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, Sir G. Cave, Mr. Barnes, Sir A. Geddes, and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

    MILITARY SERVICE BILL
    "to make further provision with respect to Military Service in connection with the present War"; presented accordingly, and lead the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  "WESTMEATH INDEPENDENT" (SEIZURE).
  Mr. BYRNE: I regret very much that the Chief Secretary is not here, as I desire to read a telegram I have just received from Ireland:
  "On behalf of the workers, skilled and unskilled, the members of the Typographical Association, bookbinders, lithographers, etc., of the Athlone Printing Works Company, Limited, we ask you to enter a strong public protest against the shockingly cruel action of the Military Governor of Ireland, who last Friday morning seized with soldiers and police the company's plant and flung out of employment in this starving Irish town over 100 workers, many of whom had dependent upon them large families of young children. The reason assigned was that one of the many publications printed by that firm contained a paragraph or report, unspecified, to which the authorities took exception. Eighty-five per cent, of the hands victimised were not employed directly or indirectly on the paper in respect of which the seizure was made, and the entire business closed down. The brutal and callous conduct displayed in thus depriving a large body of workpeople of their means of subsistence should be made to ring throughout the labour world of the Kingdom. Is this the liberty for which men are laying down their lives?
  (Signed) MICHAEL J. SMULLEN,
  Secretary, Athlone Branch,
  Typographical Association."
  I would ask the Home Secretary if he would kindly see into this matter, and at the earliest possible moment, allow this printing establishment to resume its ordinary duties.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish to add a few words-to what my hon. Friend has said because of what has taken place in county Clare where a paper called the "-Clare Champion"was suppressed, and although that paper advocated the Sinn Fein policy—and I may say, in parenthesis, was always opposed to myself—yet looking at the part issues of that paper, and especially those immediately preceding the seizure of the plant, I was unable to find anything in the paper which could be reasonably held to justify such a measure. In the last issue I saw of the paper, the "Clare Champion" distinctly and formally repudiated pro-Germanism. In the same number, I believe, it argued against rebellion. Therefore, taking these two elements, which are not necessarily associated with Sinn Feinism, at all, and, according to the "Clare Champion," are very seldom associated with Sinn Feinism, there is nothing left which could not form part of a perfectly constitutional movement. Therefore, as one who has been often attacked in this paper, and who is consequently not naturally in sympathy with its aims, I beg to make a formal protest in this House to the Chief Secretary against their arbitrary proceeding, which tends to influence and embitter public feeling in county Clare, and to make the work of any kind of reasonable Government more and more difficult.
  There is only one other small matter, which I will refer to again and again if something satisfactory is not done. That is in respect of an answer which was given to me in this House over a matter which is in itself relatively unimportant, but which therefore, for that very reason, perhaps, shows the want of wisdom with which Ireland is being administered. I asked in this House if school girls usually

  1451
  resident in county Clare require passports in going to and from school if they leave the county? I was assured not. Since that time I have had several letters from Clare, from the parents of these girls, who tell me that passports are required for a schoolgirl with her hair down her back—I mention this detail to give an indication of age—who leaves Clare to go to the neighbouring place of Limerick, and that not only are these passports required, but that the police and military officers, in their supposed duty of ascertaining whether the girls have been provided with passports, are rude and often insulting in their manner. I would like to know how it came about that an answer from the Government Bench was given entirely denying that such a state of things existed? Are the authorities really informed, or, if they are not informed, do the military exercise their great and almost unlimited powers in Ireland with an utter disregard not merely of public opinion in Ireland, not merely in violation of elementary right and justice, but with an absolute disregard even of common-sense? That is all I will say at this moment because, perhaps, the Chief Secretary has been a little taken by surprise, but I shall return again and again to this question unless this particular cause of unrest is dealt with.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to ask the Noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury a question. Stories have been going round among Members of the House that to-morrow a time-table for the discussion of the new Military Service Bill is to be the first Order of the day, and there is some doubt whether it is to be taken to-morrow or the following day. It will be for the convenience of some hon. Members to know tonight, before they leave the House, whether the Second Reading is to be the first Order to-morrow; whether the Government contemplate getting the Second Reading without suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule or by suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule; and whether a time-table is to be proposed?
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Government have decided, in response to the appeal made to them to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the
  1452
  Opposition, that they should give a longer time for the discussion of this Bill, and that time will now be extended until Tuesday next week. To-morrow the Government hope to take the, Second Reading of this Bill and to get it by eleven o'clock without suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule. On Thursday the Government will bring in a guillotine Motion, of which the details will be put down later.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will that be on the Paper to-morrow?
  Lord E. TALBOT: No, on the following day. The Committee stage will be proceeded with on Thursday, as soon as the guillotine Motion has been disposed of.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRE-LAN D (Mr. Duke): I was not in the House at the time the questions were raised with regard to the newspapers in Ireland, but the hon. Member (Mr. Byrne) has handed me the telegram relating to the newspaper at Athlone and the plant of the printing business. I can only say that any suppressions of newspapers at Athlone or in county Clare which have taken place are in respect of the publication in the newspapers of seditious matter—not an individual incidental publication of seditious matter, but a systematic publication of matter tending to incite disaffection. I have not the details in respect of the "Clare Champion" and the "Westmeath Independent." The matter the hon. and learned Gentleman raised in regard to the printing establishments of Athlone is, of course, entirely separate. I am quite sure there is no intention on the part of the military authorities by the seizure of a newspaper to put unoffending printers out of work. Having been brought to my notice, I will have inquiries made. The hon. Member (Mr. Lynch) made a complaint in respect of what he called the requirement of permits and the attendance of children at school. He said some answer had been given from this bench which was contrary to the facts. I was not aware that any question had ever been asked in regard to the issue of permits for going in and out of county Clare. Certainly it was not asked of me.
  Mr. LYNCH: A question was put down, but it was not reached. I afterwards found it answered among the Written Answers.
  Mr. DUKE: Probably it was asked shortly before the House rose, when the

  1453
  duties of my office required my presence in Dublin. I was not aware that it had been asked. I really do not precisely know how the issue and the points raised would affect the transit of children from, for instance, Clare into Limerick. One of the irksome inconveniences of the system of the creation of a special military area such as Clare has been declared is that permits may be required for passage in and out of the county; but I cannot imagine that there is any desire that children who are going to and from school should be made the subject of a requisition for a permit, but if the hon. Member desires I will inquire about it. He has called public attention to it, and I have no doubt it will receive the attention of the officers. From the criticisms I have heard coming from the county itself, the conclusion I draw is that Clare is distinguished generally for remarkable urbanity and mildness, and the officers are on uncommonly good terms with the local population.
  Mr. LYNCH: With regard to the seizure of the "Clare Champion," the right hon. Gentleman says that has been done on account of some seditious publication. Who decides whether any publication is seditious, and is it ever referred either to him or to his own office?
  Mr. DUKE: Certainly; in many cases the seditious publications are referred to my office, and in some they come under my particular notice. There is no general scheme of interference with newspapers because they are newspapers. Where certain newspapers are published regularly and distinctly with the object of spreading sedition and provoking disaffection, and as part of a revolutionary propaganda, I cannot shut my eyes to the facts. I do not say the "Clare Champion" has come within that category. I do not profess to have details with regard to the suspension of the "Clare Champion."
  Mr. BYRNE: The right hon. Gentleman says 85 per cent. of the work which the machinery used to do has now been seized. If the machinery is taken away altogether it deprives the employés of all their other work which they used to do outside the newspaper work. They have taken the machinery with the intention of suppressing the newspaper, but the newspaper only represented 15 per cent. of the work done by these men.
  Mr. DUKE: The effective mode of suppression of the edition of a seditious newspaper is to withdraw the material and operative parts of the plant. That has been done in London. It is very often the case that the publisher of a seditious paper is a prosperous jobbing printer. If you are to stop the publication of this seditious paper by withdrawing the operative parts of his printing plant, and unhappily there are people who are not affected by the sedition, but who suffer by the suppression, I am sorry, but they must bring the inconvenience of it home to the person who is really at fault. I am afraid that, in the absence of other or more effective means of preventing the publication of a seditious newspaper, the loss and inconvenience which innocent persons may suffer must be attributed to those who devote their machinery and their time to mischievous purposes.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Surely there is sufficient intelligence on the part of the military authorities to know the difference between a printing press and a newspaper press! Mr. Chapman contracts for the printing of the jurors' lists, and the printing press for job printing is a wholly different article from the printing press for a newspaper. Surely the military authorities ought to have sufficient intelligence to know that the producing of newspapers has to be done on one kind of press and that you prepare jurors' lists, bills, etc., on a machine of a wholly different character! To make your objection to what appears in his newpaper an excuse for ruining an individual without notice is wholly wrong. Even under the Coercion Act of Hicks-Beach, in 1875, notice was given, and under the Defence of the Realm Act the Preamble recites that as little interference as possible with property should be made. It is intolerable that under the Defence of the Realm Act these gentlemen, on the pretence of stopping a newspaper which represents only one-tenth, apparently only one-hundredth, part of this man's business, should sweep away the whole of his business without notice. I do not think the English newspaper illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman is a true comparison. I do not know that there was attached to the "Globe" newspaper or to the "Morning Post" a huge, well-known printing business or job printing works. I do not think it would be tolerated by people in this country that without notice you reach this state of things, that you

  1455
  destroy the whole of a man's business, and act punitively as regards his business because you take offence at a particular branch of it. You expect people to give their lives and blood, and you act in this way. The right course would have been to give notice to the editor: "The course you are taking is a perilous one, and if we have to act we shall not be able to distinguish between your job printing works and your other works. Be on your guard." I do not think that a gentleman whom I know to be a Conservative and a Protestant should have his business ruined because he may have a fiery editor. Many newspaper proprietors, I agree, do not exercise sufficient supervision over the whole of their business. It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman to compare
  1456
  London and Athlone. A London printer who loses his job can walk into some other employment, but that is not the case in Athlone, and there is no comparison between the two cases. I say respectfully that the right hon. Gentleman has not been criticised severely at all in connection with newspapers. I have not read these newspapers. As regards some of them, I did not even know that they were in existence, but what the right hon. Gentleman says is, "Because you have a corn on your foot I will cut off the whole leg."
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th February.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock