Commons Sitting of 16 April 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Brixham Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report, from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Lancaster Corporation Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Nitrate Railways Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL (CONSCRIPTION IN IRELAND).
Sir T. ESMONDE: I beg to present a Petition, signed by 500 inhabitants of Ballindaggen, protesting against the imposition of Conscription upon Ireland.
Petition brought to the Table.

SCANDINAVIA AND HOLLAND (IMPORTS)
  (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 8, 1918).
  Copy presented of Statistics of Imports into Scandinavia and Holland during the years 1916 and 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
VOTES OF CREDIT, 1918–19 (NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.
Copy presented of a Statement of the Estimated Cost of Services to be provided for in the Votes of Credit, 1918–19 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the under mentioned local authority, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
Borough of Plymouth
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCANTILE MARINE UNIFORM.
Copy presented of Report of the committee appointed by the Board of Trade to advise as to the uniform to be adopted as the standard uniform for the Mercantile Marine [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Cocoa Powder Order, 1918, Margarine (Distribution) Order, 1918, Persian Dates (Retail Prices) Order, 1918, Beer (Prices and Description) Order, 1918, Flour (Restriction) (Ireland) Order, 1918, Dried Fruits (Distribution) Order, 1918, Oils and Fats (Restriction) Order, 1918, Notice in Shops (Ireland) Order, 1918, Pigs (Prices) Order, 1918, and Order amending the Meat (Maximum Prices) Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR

    CHINESE LABOURERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Chinese labourers have been recruited at Tsinanfu; and how much money is being each month paid as separation allowances and pay to their dependants?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): It is not desirable to give the information asked for in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the latter part, the information is not available.

    PROPAGANDA (ITALY).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether passports have been given to Mr. Wickham Steed, Dr. H. W. Seton Watson, and Mr. Nelson Gay to proceed to Rome for a conference with persons claiming to represent nationalities in Austria: whether any of these gentlemen are or recently were in the service of the Government; whether the conference has been undertaken at the desire of the Foreign Office; whether these gentlemen are attending it as representatives of the British Government; and whether the objects and results of this conference can be communicated to the House?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Lord Northcliffe, after consultation with the Foreign Office, delegated Mr. Steed to proceed to Italy as his representative to study there certain aspects of questions relating to propaganda. I understand that Dr. Seton-Watson, whose services have been utilised in the past by the Ministry of Information, has been in Rome with Mr. Steed, and that Mr. Nelson Gay, an American citizen, is also there. I have no further information as to the conference referred to in the question than has appeared in the Press.
    Mr. KING: Then we may gather that, as far as the Government is concerned, it is Lord Northcliffe, and not the Foreign Office, who is in any way responsible for this conference?

    POLAND.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked whether the Government can say whether the National Democrat Polish Army raised under the auspices of the Polish National Committee, of which Mr. Roman Dmouski was president, has now gone over to the German side?
    Lord R. CECIL: The description does not apply to the Polish Army as a whole, although a certain portion of it has been compelled, by force of circumstances, to accept a modus vivendi with the Germans.
    Mr. BUXTON: Can the Noble Lord explain how it came about that Mr. Dmouski's party, which proved to be the most disloyal section of the Poles, was selected by the Foreign Office as the most loyal section?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it would be fair to Mr. Dmouski to identify him with the most disloyal section.

    EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain definitely whether the Greek Government has recently reduced the pension payable to ex-King Constantine; whether Constantine is believed to have instigated the plot discovered in Greece for the overthrow of the present Parliamentary system there; whether he has been in communication with his son, King Alexander; whether King Alexander has

    189
    means of communicating with him; and whether he proposes to intervene in this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I understand that the Budget Committee of the Greek Chamber have recommended the cancellation of the allowance allotted, though never in fact paid, to the ex-King. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative; that to the third and fourth parts is, as far as is known, in the negative. As regards the last part, the answer is also in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if that is not in some slight disaccord with the statement from the Front Bench opposite that no such allowance was paid?
    Lord R. CECIL: If the hon. Member will look at the answer he will see that what I have said is that no such allowance has ever been paid.

  PEACE TERMS.

    EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA'S LETTER.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Emperor of Austria in March, 1917, sent a letter for communication to the President of the French Republic promising to support the French just claims regarding Alsace-Lorraine, the re-establishment of Belgium in her sovereignty, keeping the whole of her African possessions, and the re-establishment of Serbia in her sovereignty, with access to the Adriatic; if so, whether that letter was at the time communicated to His Majesty's Government; and whether any, and, if so, what steps were taken as a consequence of that letter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Hanley.
    Mr. HOLT: Will the Noble Lord go so far as to say whether there is any doubt as to this letter being genuine; and, secondly, whether the Foreign Office was cognisant of the existence of the letter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member, I think, will see that if I once began answering questions there would be no limit to the answers I might give.

  BRITISH ENVOY AT VATICAN.
  Mr. COOTEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government still continue the services of a special Envoy at the Vatican; if he will state the annual cost of the mission and the advantages to be derived from it; and if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain a permanent Legation there?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; that to the last part is at present in the negative. The annual cost of the Mission is £4,500, and the advantages which it is expected to derive there from were clearly indicated in Command Paper No. 7736 of 1915.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is the present Envoy a Roman Catholic, and must he be so?
  Mr. COOTE: Is the Noble Lord aware of the very strong feeling in this country against the continuance of this Envoy?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am not aware of it, and I trust it is not true.
  Mr. COOTEasked if and when the appointment of the Envoy to the Vatican received the sanction of Parliament; and what is the form of civil government existing at the Vatican and warranting the presence of an Envoy?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, as it is not customary to submit diplomatic appointments for the sanction of Parliament, except in so far as they figure in the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to any usual work of reference such as the "Statesman's Year Book."

  PRINCE LICHNOWSKY'S MEMORANDUM.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether it is intended to publish the statements of Prince Lichnowsky as a White Paper for public circulation?
  Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to publish such information as she has been able to

  191
  obtain about the Lichnowsky Memorandum, or the text of the Memorandum itself, as a Parliamentary Paper?
  Lord R. CECIL: A full translation of the Memorandum will be placed in the Library, and it will be given wide publicity. I do not think any further action is required.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether, on account of the desirability of getting reliable information, the Government will issue either the entire statement or some précis of it of a character useful for propaganda purposes?
  Lord R. CECIL: I think a translation of it is being issued—I rather think it is issued to-day—but I do not think anything would be gained by laying a White Paper on the Table. As far as translation is concerned, I think that meets the whole case of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: But can the Noble Lord take the responsibility for the authenticity of the translation?
  Lord R. CECIL: It is very difficult indeed for the Government to make itself responsible for the authenticity of every word.

  COTTON EXPORTS TO SWITZERLAND.
  Colonel YATEasked whether the embargo on the export of cotton to Switzerland has been raised; and, if so, for what reasons?
  Lord R. CECIL: An embargo was placed on the import of cotton into Switzerland pending the negotiations which were being carried on between the Allied Governments and the Swiss Government with the object of reducing the export of certain Swiss exports to enemy countries The object of these negotiations having been attained, the Allied Governments have now removed the embargo.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the Noble Lord aware that cotton is very useful in the manufacture of aeroplanes?
  Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir; I am perfectly aware of that.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Germans are building a large air fleet?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War to what category men of the Royal Defence Corps belong; what duties they are now carrying out; the present strength of the corps; whether a certain number of them were employed up till recently in constructing coast defence works; whether these works have since been abandoned in an unfinished condition; and, if so, whether, in view of the shortage of men, he will explain why the Royal Defence Corps was put to this use?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is Category B2. The remainder of his question cannot be answered without giving information of value to the enemy. I cannot, therefore, give it.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view the great use to which these men can be put, and will he consider the question of brigading them with other divisions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECT.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private A. Toni, G 25206, 3rd Buffs, now at Dover, is a Russian subject, speaking and understanding English imperfectly; that he spat blood for sixteen days at Western Heights Military Hospital, to which place he was carried on a stretcher; that on being returned to duty he dropped his rifle from sheer weakness and was punished; that his medical history sheet cannot be found, and his friends believe it to have been wilfully destroyed to prevent his case being considered properly V that, driven to extremities by illness, punishments, and harsh treatment, he has attempted suicide; that independent persons who have seen him declare that he is mentally deranged owing to his treatment; and that he is now anxious to return to Russia; whether he will have independent inquiry made, not merely by calling for reports from persons who have mismanaged this case; and whether he will release this man on condition that he leaves this country for Russia?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made in this case, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course

    MONTENEGRINS.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he received on or about 16th December, 1917, information that some thousands of Montenegrins capable of bearing arms were, owing to political intrigue, interned in various places on the Continent; that these men, some of them veteran soldiers, are eager to enrol themselves as a Montenegrin corps under their national flag and fight under the command of English or French officers; and whether he has taken action in order to secure the help of these fighting men or whether he will appoint a commissioner, preferably a military officer, to visit these men and make a Report upon their condition?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Statements of the nature indicated by my hon. Friend were received on the 17th December, but on further investigation it appeared that they were exaggerated, particularly as regards numbers. The internment of any individual Montenegrins on the Continent, and arrangements affecting Montenegrin subjects there, are the concern of other Allied Powers, and not of the British military authorities.

    LEAVE (YOUNG SOLDIERS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the young men under nineteen years of age who were sent out to France in the recent emergency without having been given draft leave could, when the immediate pressure is relieved and leave from France is resumed, be given preference in the granting of Home leave?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Sympathetic consideration will, I hope, be given to the cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

    RETIRED OFFICERS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under secretary of State for War if he will state, in the event of the Military Service Bill becoming an Act, what will be the position of an officer who, though of not more than fifty years of age, has, owing to reasons of health or because considered too old for work suitable to his rank, resigned his commission; and will such an officer be deemed to have been duly enlisted and be held at the disposal of the Minister for National Service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SER-VICE (Mr. Beck): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. An officer who has ceased to hold a commission on the ground of disablement or ill-health will be entitled to the benefit of the general provisions regarding disabled soldiers which have been inserted in the first Schedule to the Military Service Bill. The position of other officers referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question is being carefully considered by the War Office and the Ministry of National Service.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a, number of officers, relieved on medical grounds, are being called up now, and would he say what redress they have, and to whom they have to apply?
    Mr. BECK: I do not think the hon. Member is correct; perhaps he will read my reply.
    Major NEWMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware of the number of officers of not more than fifty years of ago who were either serving in or who rejoined or obtained commissions in the Army in the earlier stages of the War, and who have since, owing to their age or physical incapacity far further active service on one of the fronts, been placed on half-pay or resigned their commissions to make room for younger men; and will he say what steps are being taken in the present man-power crisis to find employment for such officers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Whenever possible posts are found for these officers, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the number of such officers is large, and the number of posts for which they are suitable is very small. I think that I should state that no officers are employed at home unless they are —

    (a) Specially selected in view of their personal qualifications;

    (b) Medically unfit for service abroad;

    (c) Sent home from a, theatre of war for a temporary period of rest.

    SOLDIERS OF NINETEEN YEARS.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the pledges repeatedly given in this House and by letter to Members of Parliament that young soldiers would not be sent out of this country until they had attained the

    195
    age of nineteen years and had sufficient training have been broken; will he state at what age and with what training such soldiers are now sent abroad; will he state whether he is aware that complaints are made by letter from many fathers and mothers that their soldier sons, in many cases of the age of eighteen years and some even under that age, are now being sent abroad without even getting any leave to visit their homes and relatives; and, if this is so, will he make it clear to the House and the country what is really being done by the military authorities in this matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday last.
    Mr. JOYCE: Would not the hon. Gentleman make that statement publicly in the House? Also has any complaint been made to him that a boy of sixteen and a half years has been sent to the front within the last fortnight?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In regard to the last part of the question, I have had the case presented to me by my hon. Friend of a boy of sixteen and a half years who was unfortunately sent to the front. I am investigating that case, and I believe it will be found to be the case of a very gallant youth who gave his age at higher than it really was. I feel sure, however that once the boy's birth certificate is produced the military authorities will see that he is sent home.
    Mr. JOYCE: Has not this boy's father another son who is only nineteen years and two months whom he is willing to leave at the front?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, I believe those, are the facts of the case.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say that as the Rule now stands boys of eighteen and a half may be sent to the front, but not into the fighting line till they are actually nineteen?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I cannot say that the Rule at present is as stated by the hon. Member. I understand that the Rule is that a boy of eighteen and a half can be sent abroad for any purpose, but not sent to the front till fully trained.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a common practice, which shows the grit and pluck
    196
    of a lot of these boys, that they have very often given a higher age than they are, and that when this is brought to the notice of the commanding officers the necessary steps are taken to return these boys?
    Mr. REDDY: Why do not you show your grit and pluck?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, it is the fact as stated by the hon. Gentleman. I have-come across hundreds of these cases.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is it not the Rule that boys under eighteen and a half years-are returned now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I do not think that is the Rule; a boy under eighteen and a half who was untrained, would not be sent to the front line, but would be kept for useful purposes behind the lines.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, WOOLWICH
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man named E. Clifton, aged thirty-two, Category Al, employed in Section 16 b, Machine Gun Store, Army Ordnance Department, Royal Arsenal,. Woolwich, received his papers to join the Colours on 18th March, 1918; that he has not been called up; that in the meantime-he has been appointed a foreman at Woolwich; and whether this man will be released for service with the Colours and his work at Woolwich done by a discharged and wounded soldier?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This man has been employed on work of considerable importance, and, as such, has been in possession of Army Form W. 3,476, which exempts him from being called up. Arrangements were made some time ago to replace him, in the event of further calls for men of "A" category, and he is now being released for service.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Would this man have been released for service if a question had not been asked in this House?

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Financial Secretary (1) whether he is aware that agricultural workers in low medical categories have been compulsorily enlisted and returned after a few weeks' military training in this country to work on the land, and that such-men are now receiving full civilian

    197
    pay for their work, while their wives are being paid in addition full separation allowances, even in cases where the man has returned to his own home and is working on precisely the same work as before enlistment and at advanced wages; whether he contemplates altering this arrangement; (2) if he will state how many soldiers are now engaged in agricultural work of any kind drawing full civilian pay for this civilian work and whose wives are at the same time drawing separation and children's allowances; (3) whether he is aware that the payment to soldiers, after a few weeks' military training in this country, now engaged on agricultural work of full civilian pay with separation allowance to their wives is the cause of much discontent among soldiers engaged in combatant service who receive only military pay with separation allowance, and among civilians engaged on similar agricultural work who receive only civilian pay and no separation allowance; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to these cases of unfairness?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I can assure my hon. Friend that the references he recently made in Debate to this subject are receiving full and careful consideration.
    Mr. MASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman an idea as to the cost to the country which this arrangement is creating or the amount of unrest and disturbance which this unfairness is also creating in the country?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures without making an elaborate inquiry, which would involve a very great deal of time, but I can assure him that the War Office realises fully the feeling that exists in reference to this question.

    LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
    Mr. J. MASONasked whether, seeing that many employers have kept the cottages and homes of employés who have joined the Colours available for them on their return, and consequently have no house for a substitute, he will arrange that where a soldier is returned for employment on the land similar to the employment upon which he was engaged before enlistment, such soldier shall be returned to his former employment instead of to similar
    198
    employment in a different part of the country away from his wife and family and under a different employer?
    Mr. FORSTER: The detailed allotment of individual soldiers to farmers is carried out by the Food Production Department. I do not doubt that the considerations advanced are duly borne in mind, so far as is practicable.

    EMERGENCY POWERS ACTS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if some provision can be made in the Ministry Service Bill to protect men who are called up and are proprietors of businesses in premises under long leases at heavy rents, say suspension of lease while called up or provision of rent while serving?
    Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Government do not feel that it is practicable to insert in the present Military Service Bill such a provision as my hon. Friend suggests. It must be remembered that wide powers are vested in the Courts by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts for granting relief, and that the Civil Liabilities Commissioners are also empowered to afford financial assistance in appropriate cases.
    Mr. WING: Am I to understand that this difficulty is really covered by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, and, if not, ought it not to be covered, as this is a very serious matter?
    Sir F. FLANNERY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether his attention has been called to the new Clause which was suggested, and which was only ruled out of order on the ground that it was outside the scope of the Military Service Bill; that the Clause purported to amend deficiencies in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts so as to do justice to men called up, and who are under contractual obligations which at present could not be made good by them without legislation; and will the Minister of National Service consider the introduction of separate legislation so as to do justice to men who by serving their country have had their contracts destroyed?
    Mr. BECK: From the answer I have given, it is obvious that it is not within the scope of the Military Service Bill to introduce a provision of the sort suggested. It is a Man-Power Bill, and has nothing to do with things of that sort. If there

    199
    is a flaw in the law, and new legislation is required to deal with cases of hardship, it is obviously a question that should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, having heard the question, he will consider the desirability of introducing separate legislation to remove this very great and widely extended hardship?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is the first consideration I have given to the matter. I will see that the point is examined.

    CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that, at a meeting of the Episcopal Standing Committee, held in Ireland on the 9th instant, the Irish bishops passed a resolution of protest against the application of Conscription to Ireland; whether the Government propose to pay any attention to the bishops warning; (2) whether representatives of labour in any part of Ireland were consulted before the Government decided to enforce Conscription on Irish workers; whether he recognises the danger of the stoppage of all trade, trams, and boats, and a general downing of tools in Ireland; (3) whether he intends to take any heed of the warnings of all parties in this House against the proposal to enforce Conscription on Ireland; if he is aware that the Irish people are opposed to Conscription, and that all parties and Labour organisations are solidly united to prevent its operation in Ireland; if he is aware of the effect on the Allies, especially America and France, if the Government should use their machine guns, artillery, and tanks now in Ireland to enforce military service on the people; and if he will now consider the advisability of withdrawing the proposals and submit the question of military service and settlement of the Irish question to a tribunal representing the Allied and neutral States, selection of tribunal and terms of reference being left in the hands of President Wilson or the Emperor of Japan?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the statements already made in debate.
    Mr. BYRNE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first question at all. Can we have any answer from him as to
    200
    whether he intends to pay no attention to the bishops' warning against Conscription?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been answered many times in debate. We have carefully considered all the reasons for and against, and the decision of the Government has been clearly stated.
    Mr. BILLING: If it is not the intention of the Government to enforce the power which the House has given them under the Bill, will they make an early announcement to that effect, and thus prevent disturbances taking place in Ireland?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making the same bargain with the bishops as he is making with certain other parties in Ireland?
    Mr. FLAVIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication in any shape or form from any elective public bodies or boards in Ireland in favour of Conscription, and how many of such communications he has received?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I personally have not received any communications, but it is not likely that they would be addressed to me.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chief Secretary how many he has received?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be glad to ask him.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any attempt has been made to negotiate with the Turkish Government for the repatriation of British prisoners of war of over two years' standing; and, if not, whether he will initiate negotiations to that end?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): On the general subject of negotiations with the Turkish Government with regard to prisoners, I would remind my hon. Friend of the fact that an agreement was signed between British and Turkish delegates at Berne some months since, but has not yet been ratified by the Turkish Government. The basis of this agreement is repatriation on grounds of health rather than length of captivity; and until this agreement is carried out it would seem premature to start fresh

  201
  negotiations on another principle, apart from the inherent difficulties of the course suggested in the question.

  AMENDED SCALE OF RATIONS.
  Major NEWMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the scale of dietary for enemy prisoners of war in this country now conforms, both in quality and quantity, with that which, under the rationing system at present in force, is possible for an adult British civilian; and, if not, will he give the scale allowed to enemy prisoners of war?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the scale at present in force which has been approved by the medical authorities.
  The following is the scale referred to:
  Prisoners of War. (Amended Scale of Rations.)

  Daily (except where otherwise shown) —

  Bread

  9

  ozs.

  Broken Biscuit

  4

  ozs.

  Meat

  4

  ozs.

  (5 days a week. Pickled beef will be issued on 2 of these days, if available.)

  Salt-cured or smoked herrings

  10

  ozs.

  (2 days a week.)

  Tea

  ¼

  oz.

  or

  Coffee

  ½

  oz.

  Sugar

  1

  oz.

  Salt

  ¼

  oz.

  Potatoes

  20

  ozs.

  Other fresh vegetables

  4

  ozs.

  Split peas or beans

  2

  ozs.

  Rice

  1

  oz.

  Oatmeal

  1

  oz.

  (If full ration is not obtainable, an equal quantity of rice may be issued in lieu.)

  Jam

  1

  oz.

  Cheese

  1

  oz.

  Pepper

  1/100

  oz.

  Maize Meal

  ½

  oz.

  Weekly—
  Either 8 ozs. salt-cured herrings and 2 ozs. oatmeal; or 4 ozs. salt-cured herrings, 2 ozs. oatmeal and 2½ ozs. broken biscuit.
  When men are not employed on work, the following items of the daily ration will be deducted unless the medical officer advises to the contrary in any particular case—

  Bread

  …

  …

  4

  ozs

  Oatmeal or rice

  …

  …

  1

  oz.

  Cheese

  …

  …

  1

  oz.

  Maize meal

  …

  …

  ½

  oz.

  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Undersecretary of State for War what is the condition, so far as known, of the British prisoners in the hands of the Turks; what facilities are afforded them by the Turks for receiving communications from their friends and relatives in this country and for receiving parcels of comforts or money assistance; are any proceedings being taken with a view to exchange of prisoners with the Turks; and, if so, when is any such arrangement likely to be put into operation?
  Mr. HOPE: In regard to the condition of British prisoners in Turkey, I may say that their treatment by the Turkish authorities would appear to have somewhat improved, if anything, but that they are suffering very considerable hardship owing to the economic conditions prevailing in Turkey.
  There is no limit on the amount of correspondence, parcels, or money which British prisoners of war are allowed by the Turkish authorities to receive, although money is not issued to the prisoners in large amounts at a time, and the delivery of everything sent from this country is subject to the irregularities and delays characteristic of Turkish administration. In regard to the repatriation of prisoners, I would refer the hon. Member to my recent replies on the subject of the ratification of the Berne Agreement by the Turkish Government.
  Sir F. HALL: In view of the terrible privations through which these prisoners are passing, will the hon. Gentleman see if it is possible to take any steps to accelerate the deliveries of parcels sent out to them?
  Mr. HOPE: Every possible step that can be thought of has been taken and is being taken.

  WAR SPEECHES TO TROOPS (KING'S REGULATIONS).
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 19th March last a number of the troops at Blackpool were marched to the Palace Theatre and there compelled to listen to a speech on the War, by an officer in uniform, containing political statements of a controversial and provocative character; and whether this was a violation of King's Regulation 451?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with exact information as to the statements which he deems to have been political and of a. controversial and provocative nature, I will consider as to whether or not the provisions of paragraph 451 of the King's Regulations have been violated.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask whether a speech dealing with the subject of why we entered the War, and why we are still at war, would not come within paragraph 451 of the King's Regulations?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Not necessarily.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: If someone, not an officer in uniform, went to Blackpool and addressed a meeting on that subject, and soldiers attended, would that come within the Regulation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any of the organisations representing women were consulted before the enactment of the new Regulation 40 d, under the Defence of the Realm Acts, by which women can be arrested for soliciting intercourse with soldiers and sailors while suffering from venereal disease?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that it was considered unnecessary to consult women's organisations, as their views are perfectly well known from their attitude towards the similar provision in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the Regulation affect soldiers in the same way?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can add nothing to the answer given by the Home Secretary the other day.

  MUNITIONS.

    MILITARY GUARD FOR WORKS.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is a guard at certain munition works of approximately 300 soldiers; and, if so, whether he will explain why these men could not render more effective military service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will furnish me privately with the name and. location of the munition works to which he refers, I will have the matter inquired into.
    Mr. HOLT: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the name of the place was in the original question and was struck out by authority?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I am not; I know nothing about that.

  HALF-PAY OFFICERS (REEMPLOYMENT).
  Major NEWMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any list is kept at the War Office of officers placed on half-pay, owing to age or other reasons, who have applied for re-employment; if so, how many names does the list contain; and will he give the name of the special officer to whom the keeping of such list is entrusted or to whom inquiries with a view to re-employment should be addressed?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The names of all unemployed officers are noted in the Military Secretary's Department. There are many lists arranged in accordance with the rank and qualifications of the officers concerned, but I do not think it is desirable to give a total. Inquiries as to re-employment should be addressed to the Secretary of the War Office,
  Mr. REDDY: Has the hon. Member who put this question retired to safer ground or has he left the Army

  PROMOTION TO RANK OF GENERAL
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether the recent Army Order dealing with promotion to general's rank means that hitherto seniority and not selection has been the principle upon which such promotions have been made?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Army Order in question refers solely to promotion to the rank of full general, which, apart from special cases of distinguished service in the field, has been governed by seniority. In future all promotions to that rank will

  205
  be by selection, which has for many years been the sole principle upon which promotions to the ranks of lieutenant-general and major-general and appointments carrying the rank of brigadier-general have been made.

  OFFICERS' NAMES (PUBLICATION).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can arrange that officers' names, either in honours or casualties lists, published in the "London Gazette," shall have attached to their name's their locality or residence, in the same way that it is attached to that of the non-commissioned officers' and men's lists, so as to enable persons interested to select the names belonging to particular districts?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: This proposal has already been very carefully considered, but, in view of the fact that the only information readily available in this connection is the address of the next of kin, and as in very many cases this address does not coincide with the locality or residence of the officer concerned, it was regarded as impracticable. I shall be happy to explain to my hon. Friend, if he so wishes, the difficulties which stand in our way.

  MILITARY OFFENCE.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will look into the case of Private J. Bartly, now in No. 5 Military Prison, S. 73, A.P.O., France, for a trivial offence; and if he will direct his release?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with Private Bartly's regimental number and the name of the unit to which he belongs, I will have inquiries made.

  ARMY PAY OFFICE, EXETER.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that discharged and disabled soldiers employed in the Army Pay Office, Exeter, are receiving only 31s. per week as compared with £2 3s. per week paid to temporary employed clerks who, in a number of cases, have avoided service with combatant units by taking employ-
  206
  ment in this office; that discharged and disabled soldiers are given no opportunity of reaching the position of supervisor, as these positions are already occupied by young girls of twenty-three years and upwards; and whether he: will take steps to have an inquiry instituted as to the general conditions of employment at the Army Pay Office referred to?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am having inquiries made into these allegations, and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (MESSENGERS).
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether ho is aware that a feeling of dissatisfaction exists among the discharged soldiers who are employed as messengers at Head quarters, Southern Command, Salisbury; that this is due to their exclusion from the recent Grant, under Army Council Instruction No. 247, of 19L8, of 6s. to men and 4s. to women, who were employed as civilian temporary clerks; that the messengers have only had a total war bonus of 7s. per week; and whether, in view of the cost of living, he will grant an increased bonus to the men referred to?
  Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made, and I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

  ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Territorial Army chaplains, who before the War served their country in the Territorial Force and have served since the out break of the War, are now, when de mobilised, given no gratuity whatever, whereas temporary Army chaplains who entered the Service after the outbreak of War are given a gratuity of sixty days' pay at the end of each year of their service?
  Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with details of the case in question, I will communicate further with him.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that the general statement is as put forward in the question?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not able to give a general ruling on the question, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it depends upon the circumstances of the demobilisation of the chaplains. I do not know what were the circumstances of demobilisation.

  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (PAY).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Financial Secretary whether he can now make any statement as to the non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Defence Corps not receiving the extra pay already paid to other branches of the Army, and can he state if they have now been granted the new rates of pay and from what date it has been effective?
  Mr. FORSTER: Warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the Royal Defence Corps have, by the Royal Warrant published in a special Army Order of 27th March last, been granted the extra 3d. a day for which similar ranks of the Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry are eligible, with effect from the same date, namely, 29th September, 1917. The privates have throughout been entitled to the higher rate of 1s. 6d. under Army Order 1 of 1918.

  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Financial Secretary if the Navy and Army Canteen Board and the Expeditionary Force Canteens are conducted on commercial lines and if profits are made; if so, can he state the amounts made in 1917 or other complete year; can he state in what manner the profits made are allotted and if they are given to any special objects; and, if so, will he state what they are?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Navy and Army Canteen Board and the Expeditionary Force Canteens are independent organisations controlled by the Army Council, and are conducted as commercial undertakings on the co-operative system for the benefit of the Navy and the Army; it is understood that profits have been made by both organisations, but no detailed reports have as yet been published. Any profits which may eventually be made will be duly apportioned and handed to the Board of Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council for distribution, as they may direct, for the general benefit of the three Services.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will inquire into the case of Private M. Dunne, No. 52215, Northumberland Fusiliers, whose parents in Cooldong, Abbeylara, county Longford, are getting no Government allowance in his respect, only the sum granted out of his pay, and who are both in a very poor state owing to war prices and having no means of support?
  Mr. FORSTER: I informed the hon. Member by letter in December last that Mrs. Dunne's claim to separation allowance was disallowed by the old age pension authorities because dependence on the soldier could not be established, but that she might appeal against this finding on a form obtainable at any post office. I will inquire further and communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. FARRELL: As this case has been under consideration for some considerable time, will the right hon. Gentleman act promptly?
  Mr. FORSTER: As promptly as possible.
  Mr. HECTOR MORISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention was called on the 5th February last to the case of Lance-corporal J. Laurence, No. G 32185, Middlesex Regiment; if so, whether anything definite has been done in the case and, if not, whether the delay in dealing with it has been caused by the inaction of the local committee; and will he give the name of such committee?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): This is an appeal case in which there has been, as the hon. Member suggests, considerable delay on the part of the local committee whose recommendation it was necessary to obtain. I do not know why it has not been possible for the committee to report earlier, but until this is explained I think it reasonable to assume that there has been some real difficulty. I am informed that the committee's report will be sent to the Ministry either to-day or to-morrow.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of J. Ashton, at pre sent an inmate of the Long Grove Mental Hospital, Epsom; whether this man joined the Army in July or August, 1916, and, as

  209
  a result of his service, is now a lunatic, and that it is proposed that he shall become chargeable to a London parish; and whether it is the practice for men who have become mentally deranged through Army service to be treated as pauper lunatics?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot at present find any record of this man having served in the Army and consequently no application to have him classified as a service patient has been made. If the hon. Member will give me details of the man's military service, I will see that the matter is fully investigated.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Mr. E. H. Vant, formerly an officer in the Lincoln Regiment, was taken seriously ill with rheumatic fever on 8th May, 1917, some months after he was gazetted out of the Service; that the War Office authorised his admission to the Royal Herbert Hospital; that, by reason of neglect or carelessness on the part of an official of the Department concerned, this authorisation never reached him; and that, in consequence, he had to pay for his treatment, costing £73, out of his own pocket; and whether, in view of the circumstances, he will take steps, in accordance with a promise made on 18th March, 1918, to have inquiries made with a view to the refunding of this sum to Mr. Vant?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have again considered this ease, but I cannot add materially to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member's question of the 18th March. Mr. Vant did not incur medical expenses through any carelessness on the part of the Ministry of Pensions, and as those expenses were in respect of an illness contracted a considerable time after his retirement and not attributable either directly or indirectly to his service, I am not able to authorise any refund.
  Colonel ASHLEY: From the public point of view, the Minister of Pensions does not say to whom he is to apply in order to get his just dues?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I understand that treatment was offered by the military authorities, and the application should be made to the military authorities. From the pensions point of view, the illness was not contracted in the Service, and not for a long time afterwards, and the Ministry of Pensions is obviously not responsible.

  WOMAN ENEMY AGENT.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Madame Marie Edvige de Popowitch, who went to Malta in November, 1915, to aid refugees, is a Serbian lady of a well-known wealthy family, that she came to England in 1916 under promise from the Governor of Malta that she should be well treated, provided with funds, and lodged in a good hotel, but on arrival she was taken to Scotland Yard, then to Holloway Prison, and subsequently interned at Aylesbury, that she was not allowed to communicate with her friends nor consult a lawyer, that she declares that she was vilified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, that Madame Popowitch has suffered in eyesight and teeth and was not allowed to see oculist or dentist, and that her mental balance after two years of inexplicable persecutions and privations has given way, and she is now insane; and whether he will consider the release of this woman, who has never been charged with any crime?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): This woman went to Malta not to aid refugees, but as a German agent. She was arrested, and sent to England in December, 1915, and was interned here under Defence of the Realm Regulation 14b. She made representations to the Advisory Committee, and was heard by them in person, and the order for her internment was confirmed on their recommendation.
  I have no knowledge as to whether her family is well known or wealthy, or as to the promises alleged to have been given by the Governor of Malta. She was not prevented from communicating with friends or consulting a lawyer, and there is no foundation for her alleged statement with regard to the Assistant-Commissioner of Police. She received all necessary medical attention during her internment. She is now in an asylum and, apart from her present insanity, could not be set at liberty in this country during the War, as she was a very dangerous enemy agent.
  An HON. MEMBER: Keep her there…
  Mr. KING: As this woman was so notoriously a criminal, why was she not brought before a Court of law and given amps; fair trial?
  Mr. BRACE: She was heard by the Advisory Committee, which is the authority

  211
  set up, and that Committee was presided over by a very learned and distinguished judge.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is one thing to be heard in camera without the assistance of a lawyer, and another thing to have a fair legal trial in a court of law?
  Mr. BRACE: I can add nothing to the answer I have given.

  LLANGADOCK CAMP.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the men employed at Llangadock Home Office camp have to work six miles from camp, start work at 5.30 a.m., return at 6.30 a.m., and have no meal provided in the thirteen hours; that they have uncooked oats, raw peas, and potatoes given for food and loose tea for drink, but no cooking utensils are provided; that some of the men have had no new clothes or boots for twelve months and have only what they stand up in; that their washing place is the stream at some distance; that the demands of nature have to be performed along hedgerows, which stink and are unhealthy; that men are constantly leaving to be sent to prison, taking that alternative as the only means to preserve life; that no orderlies or workers' committees are permitted as in other work centres, but discipline is enforced by frequent beating by agents and gangers; and whether an independent person, preferably a Member of the House, not member of the Home Office Committee, will be allowed to visit this camp, or whether other independent investigation, other than asking questions by letter from the agent, will be made?
  Mr. BRACE: The suggestions contained in this question are inaccurate from beginning to end. The work places are all within a mile and a half of the camp. Work begins at six-thirty and ceases at five-thirty. There are two five-hour spells, with an interval of one hour for lunch, including a hot drink prepared by orderlies attending for the purpose. All the necessary cooking for the 103 men concerned is done by three cooks. Clothing is issued whenever it is required. There are adequate facilities for washing and bathing, and four latrines for the camp and outyling sleeping places. No man
  212
  has left for prison this year. Discipline is not enforced by beating. The conditions of the camp are well known at the Home Office. It has been visited by the inspector and members of the Committee and its staff, and I see no ground for further inquiry.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not a well-known custom and Rule of this House that hon. Members who put down questions have to make themselves responsible for the facts contained in them?
  Mr. KING: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not know that it is human to err, and that he is just as human as I am?
  Mr. BRACE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to say that on this occasion it is he and not me who has erred. I have gone into the matter personally, and after most careful inquiry what I have given is my answer.
  Mr. KING: Are we to take the answer as meaning that the right hon. Gentleman has himself recently visited this camp? [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not answer…"]
  Mr. BRACE: I have not visited this camp recently, but my secretary has.

  ENEMY ALIENS (MIGRATION).
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Home Secretary if he proposes to take any steps to restrain the migration of aliens and naturalised foreigners from their homes in the East End and other parts of London to neighbourhoods where they think they will enjoy greater security from any possible personal danger; and if he will, under the Defence of the Realm Act, forbid them to move their families and themselves about the country during the War, to the disadvantage of native-born subjects?
  Mr. BRACE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given on the 11th instant by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Hoard to the hon. and gallant Member for the Ludlow Division. The inquiries which have been made show that the reports which have appeared in the Press have been much exaggerated, and, as regards some, at all events, of the districts to which there has been migration, that the majority of the migrants are neither aliens

  213
  nor naturalised persons. I have no power to take the action suggested in the last part of the question.
  Sir A. FELL: If the Home Office has no power, could they not induce the War Office to exercise the powers they have to stop this migration?
  Mr. BRACE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question down.
  Mr. BILLING: Could the right hon. Gentleman not take the opportunity of running down to Brighton to see the Regulation office?
  Mr. BRACE: No.

  HEREDITARY PRIVILEGES AND TITLES.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the feeling in British countries, in France, in the United States, and all democratic countries against hereditary privileges and titles, and that this feeling has found recently strong expression, especially in Canada and the United States; and whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the limitation of peerages and baronetcies to three successive holders?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that at this time it is -quite unwise to embark upon a new policy which will cause friction in any part of our Colonies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know to what new policy the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. KING: Is it not a new policy to make hereditary titles in families which are exclusively located and domiciled in our Colonies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not a new policy, but I think I am right in saying that no title of that kind has been conferred except with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister of the country concerned.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the advisability of sending the hon. Member for North Somerset to another place?
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received an intimation from the Government of Canada advising against the creation of hereditary titles in Canada; whether he is aware that in other Dominions objection exists amongst the majority of the people to a system tending to create invidious distinctions in regard to citizens; and whether he will assure the House that the practice of bestowing hereditary titles upon men who are citizens of Dominions shall cease?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I am in communication with the Canadian Government on the subject, but not with other Dominion Governments. I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject at present.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the War Cabinet saying that if it is necessary to appeal to a democracy, detriment may be done to the cause by introducing these invidious distinctions?
  Mr. HEWINS: I do not know that it is necessary to make such a representation to the War Cabinet.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (TIME OF ADJOURNMENT).
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the suggestion that the House should adjourn at ten o'clock instead of eleven each night, having regard to the closing orders and the impossibility of obtaining conveyances to many parts of London and the suburbs when the House adjourns at 11.40, as on the 10th instant?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the suggested change would be generally desired.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    POTATOES.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether in the event of farmers responding to his urgent appeal to increase substantially the acreage under potatoes, he can give some definite assurance that the necessary labour will be available later in the year for lifting and clamping them, and that railway transport

    215
    will be available to carry them from glutted areas to those where the supplies are inadequate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Every possible effort will be made by the Government to secure the result desired by my hon. Friend.

    GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the shortage of beef and the price of all kinds of fish, steps have been or will be taken to modify the Game Laws, thereby making available for human consumption a larger supply of rabbits, hares, and game?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): A number of Orders have been made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under powers contained in the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which Orders, although designed primarily for the protection of crops, have incidentally increased the amount of rabbits, hares, and game available for food. This policy will be continued, and, if necessary, extended.

    COUNTY WAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.
    Colonel Sir ALAN SYKESasked the President of the Hoard of Agriculture by whom the county war executive committees were appointed; and what were the qualifications considered in making the appointments?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): County war agricultural committees were appointed by the county councils at the request of the Board on the recommendation of the Milner Committee in 1915. The object was to constitute a body of agriculturists representing the county council and the principal farmers' organisations in the county. Under the Cultivation of Lands Order, 19th January. 1917, it is provided that each county war agricultural committee should appoint not less than four, and not more than seven, of its members to form an executive committee, and that additional members might be appointed by the Board. Under this Order the original members of the agricultural executive committees were appointed. In selecting additional members the Board have endeavoured to secure that the interests of both owners and cultivators of the land are adequately represented,
    216
    and that the committees should be composed of the best practical agriculturists in the counties.

    POULTRY FOOD.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the shortage of food for poultry, he will consider the advisability of importing barley from Northern Spain, where a large surplus is reported; and whether he has considered bringing this barley into the Channel ports and conveying it to England in ships now returning in ballast?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The importation of foreign cereals engages the constant attention of my Department. It appears, however, that even were there barley for export from Spain, shipping would not be available, as no steamers discharging at Spanish ports return to this country in ballast.

    BACON.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of bacon has recently been landed in Liverpool in excess of the now regulated demand; how much of this has been lost or allowed to become: unfit for human food, and what steps are being taken in. the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. In regulating the demand by fixing the bacon rations it was necessary to consider not only the present rate of importation, but the anticipated rates of the next few months. As is stated in answer to the hon. Member for Longford last Saturday, it is necessary now to place in store as much bacon as is not needed for immediate consumption, so as to cover the requirements of the summer period during which importation is diminished. I am not aware that any bacon has been lost or allowed to become unfit for human food.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Can the hon. Gentle-man say whether any of this bacon has been allowed to go through to Ireland, where it used formerly entirely to go?
    Mr. CLYNES: I should require notice of that question. I could not say whether any recently imported bacon has again found its way to Ireland.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Food Controller, now that there is a surplus of American and

    217
    Canadian bacon in Liverpool and throughout England, that he should take off the restrictions and allow some to be sent to Ireland, and, vice vers â, send from Ireland hams that the people in Great Britain want, and, indeed, take off these restrictions altogether?
    Mr. CLYNES: There is only a surplus in the sense that it will be required in the months when we cannot continue to import it. So far as I know, Ireland will have its opportunity of sharing in these quantities like any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that these restrictions are an abuse upon trade in general?
    Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir; they serve a very useful purpose indeed. We imposed restrictions on the exportation of bacon from Ireland which Ireland wanted. If Ireland now wishes to secure some of the quantities received from foreign countries, that is a matter for arrangement.
    Mr. O'SHEE: Are there at present cargoes of bacon at Liverpool which are not allowed to be discharged?
    Mr. CLYNES: I hope there may be, but I am not quite certain of it. Every step is taken consistent with the available labour and opportunity of discharge to get the bacon out of the boats as quickly as possible into cold storage.
    Mr. O'SHEE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement made by a leading official of the Docker's Union calling attention to undischarged cargoes of bacon at Bristol and Liverpool?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes; and if the hon. Member sees the papers this evening he may see some answer to the statement.

    IRISH CATTLE.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that the price paid for cattle belonging to the Irish farmer is unrestricted and frequently exceeds 100s. a live cwt., whilst the price paid to the British farmer is restricted to 76s. a live cwt.; will he say on what grounds this financial advantage is accorded to Irish farmers; does the British taxpayer pay the difference; and what is the estimated cost to the Treasury for 1918 of this privilege?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to this question was printed in Thursday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain WRIGHT: Was not a guarantee given to the wholesale butchers, and has not something like £45,000 a week been paid under that guarantee?
    Mr. CLYNES: A considerable sum has been paid. As to the exact sum per week I should require notice.
    Sir F. HALL: Does not it amount to this, that the British farmer as a taxpayer is subsidising his Irish competitor?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not able to argue the matter, but I do not for a moment accept that construction.
    Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that farmers have been asked to produce a maximum amount of beef, and that, owing to the unrestricted prices of cattle in Ireland, the usual number of two and three-year-old store cattle are not coming over from Ireland, he will fix similar prices for cattle in Ireland as in England and Scotland, so that farmers may obtain the raw material for beef production without which a famine in beef in the autumn and winter months is probable?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is not practicable to fix maximum prices for live cattle in Ireland, owing to the difficulties involved in setting up a grading system in the markets in that country. Steps are, however, now-being taken to set up at the British ports to which Irish cattle are consigned the necessary machinery for their grading and allocation. When this system is fully operative, prices for fat cattle in Ireland should fall automatically to the level of the controlled prices in Great Britain, and the price of store cattle should be correspondingly reduced.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman mean in this answer that the prices fixed by the Food Controller for bacon and butter will not apply to England any more than to Ireland?
    Mr. CLYNES: No; that is a different matter altogether untouched either by question or answer.
    Mr. BUTCHER: To what Minister is the duty entrusted of fixing the price of cattle in Ireland?
    Mr. CLYNES: The price of cattle is fixed by the Food Controller both in the case of Ireland and of this country.
    Mr. DIXON: Would it not be far better to raise the price of English cattle as well as Irish? You are afraid to do it.
    Mr. CLYNES: It would not be better for the great mass of consumers in this country.
    Mr. DIXON: Is it not the general producers you have to consider rather than the Irish Members in this House?
    Mr. CLYNES: We have taken action on the line which alone considers the mass of the consumers.
    Mr. DILLON: Is it not more important to get the food and encourage production?

    HOME-PRODUCED MEAT (DERBYSHIRE).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the county of Derbyshire is limited to its own area for its supply of home-produced meat; whether he is aware that the county has a large industrial population engaged in coal mining and the icon, steel, and textile industries; that the system of agriculture is mainly that of dairying, with littlemeat or corn production; and that the county formerly depended on the neighbouring counties of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, and Lincolnshire for its meat supplies; and whether he can organise the various supplies of the province of which Derbyshire is a part as a whole, so that a fair share of the fresh meat supplies of the province may be allocated to Derbyshire?
    Mr. CLYNES: Under the present scheme for the distribution of livestock Derbyshire is limited to its own livestock area for its supplies of home-produced meat but as this area includes the adjacent counties of Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire. Nottinghamshire, and Rutlandshire, the latter part of the question does not arise. I may, however, state that both the Derby butchers and the local food control committees express themselves satisfied with the arrangements made.

    TUBERCULOSIS CONFISCATIONS.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food under what conditions compensation is granted for tuberculosis confiscations; and out of what fund the money is provided and the amount already paid?
    Mr. CLYNES: Compensation is now paid in respect of all cattle condemned
    220
    as suffering from tuberculosis, except in the case of cattle placed by grading committees in the fourth grade. All claims for such compensation must be accompanied by certificates from the chairman, or deputy-chairman of auctioneers at the grading market, and the inspector by whom the meat was actually condemned. Payments are made from the Central Live Stock Fund. The amount paid to 15th April, 1918, was £5,470.

    PERISHABLE FOOD.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether traders have frequently been left with a considerable surplus of perishable food which has gone to loss; and will he say if any compensation is provided by the Government or are any steps about to be taken in the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have no information to support the suggestion made in the first part of the question, and I know no reason why traders should suffer a loss on the-grounds alleged. If the hon. Member refers to the possibility that traders may find themselves unable to dispose of stocks of rationed foods of a perishable nature, I may point out that food control committees have power to grant strictly temporary licences to traders to sell such foods-without coupons where it is clear that it might otherwise be wasted. It is essential, however, that such licences should not be granted regularly, and it is the business of traders to adjust their supplies to their rationed demands.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman call upon the food committee for a Report in this connection, and I think he will discover that a great deal of food has perished in this way?
    Mr. CLYNES: The committee are not slow to report any of these things without asking for information.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    SERVICE OVERSEAS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause a Return to be issued without delay giving the number of officers and men up to the age of forty years, fit for service overseas, who are employed in the various Departments of the Admiralty, War Office, Royal Air Force, Ministry of Munitions, Ministry of National Service, Food Ministry, and

    221
    the Civil Service; and whether instructions will be forthwith issued to the majority of these officers and men to proceed abroad and their positions refilled by those who have been wounded or are unfit for general service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Steps are being taken to prepare a Return from such information as is available. But I fear that no Return of this nature could be complete or more than approximately accurate.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I shall put the question down in a fortnight's time.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in existing circumstances more than the usual time is taken in verifying claims for old age pensions, with the result that where a person is in receipt of benefit under the National Insurance Act the benefit ceases when the age of seventy is reached, but weeks elapse before the old age pension becomes payable; and whether, in view of the hardship caused, the pension could be made payable either from the time the applicant reached the age of seventy years or from the date of the application?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am not aware that in existing circumstances more than the usual time is taken in investigating claims for old age pensions. A claimant may by law prefer his claim at any time within four months in advance of the date of his fulfilling the statutory conditions for a pension, and unless he does prefer his claim in advance of that date the pension cannot under the law be made payable from that date. If the right hon. Member is aware of any case in which an eligible claimant has preferred a claim four months in advance of the date of fulfilling the statutory conditions, and yet has not obtained payment of the pension as from that date, I should be glad if he would furnish me with the particulars, so that I may have inquiry made into the matter.
  Mr. WING: Is it possible for intending applicants to give notice some time before, so that their cases may be dealt with. Many complaints are made.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think the answer deals with that question.

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

    EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS.
    Mr. D. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether irregular and excessive payments have been made for account of the Ministry of Munitions-and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and when such statement of accounts will be obtainable by-Members of this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report referred to of the Comptroller and Auditor-General has already been presented to Parliament, and will in due course come before the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. ARNOLD: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that there are many chartered accountants now occupying unimportant positions in the Army who could render most valuable service to the Ministry of Munitions, and will he have that looked into, so that large sums of public money may be saved?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That Department like all other Departments, has tried to get the services of those best suited to give them help. The matter will be brought before the notice of the Ministry of Munitions.
    Mr. MASON: Is it not the case that this. Report has recently come into the possession of the Vote Office, and will the right hon. Gentleman state that the House shall have an opportunity of discussing this most amazing and grave Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Supply can be taken, if the desire is expressed to me in the usual way.

  LOCAL EXPENDITURE FOR IMPERIAL PURPOSES.
  Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he can give the amount of revenue other than local expenditure contributed for common Imperial purposes by the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, for the last financial year available; what percentage the contribution of each country bears to the whole revenue contributed; and (2) whether the total cost of the Irish services, such as old age pensions, national insurance, and Labour Exchanges, which the Irish Convention recommend shall be continued to be paid by Great Britain in the event of

  223
  self-government being conferred on Ireland, remain substantially at the same figure as in the year 1912–13, or has there been an increase or decrease during the past five years?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that for the moment I cannot do more than refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Financial Relations Return (H.C. 134) of August last, and to corresponding Returns for previous years.

  CANALS AND INLAND WATERWAYS.
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he pro poses to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1909 on Canals and Inland Waterways?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Reconstruction on the 14th November last to a question on this subject, of which answer I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. In present circumstances it is not possible to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  AMERICAN BOOTS.
  Mr. COOTEasked the President of the Board of Trade why large consignments of American boots for civilian trade purchased by merchants in Belfast and other centres are placed in bond and will not be permitted to reach the market until after the War: is he aware of the shortage in supplies: and what advantage is to be gained by holding up these stocks?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Forty-three firms, of whom ten are in Belfast, have been concerned from time to time in the irregular importation of boots and shoes. Such irregular importations are in strictness liable to confiscation, but these firms have been allowed to give bonds for the release of their consignments, subject to conditions which would deprive them of commercial advantage from the irregularity. Had it been decided to allow any importation of boots and shoes, the firms would have been released from their bonds after a period of waiting, but it has now been arranged that they shall be offered the
  224
  opportunity of disposing of the consignments under a scheme which will provide for only a small profit.
  Mr. COOTE: If we can prove to the right hon. Gentleman that these goods were in transit at the time the embargo was put on, what answer will he give us?
  Sir A. STANLEY: J would ask the hon. Gentleman to let me have more detailed information, and I will go into the matter further.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the Government in this, as they are in the buying of tea, making money at the expense of wearers of boots and the users of tea?
  Sir A. STANLEY: No, Sir; we are making no profit whatever.
  Mr. FLAVIN: You are out of the tea, certainly…

  RAILWAY AND TRAMWAY SERVICES (CURTAILMENT).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before sanctioning any curtailment of the railway and tramway services within the Metropolitan area, steps will be taken to ensure that the travelling facilities at present available for the workers employed upon daily papers and others whose work is necessarily continued until the early hours of the morning the majority of whom live long distances from their respective places of employment, shall not be curtailed?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I fear that I cannot say more at present than that, as far as the Board of Trade are concerned, every endeavour will be made in imposing such travelling restrictions as may be necessary to avoid the infliction of undue hardship on workers.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the awkward position in which hundreds upon hundreds of men will be placed if the night services are curtailed to any extent?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am quite aware of that, and it will be borne in mind. So far as I know, it is not proposed now seriously to curtail the night services.

  FORAGE COMMITTEE.
  Colonel Sir A. SYKESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture why the Forage Committee was appointed, and what the salaries or other emoluments of its members are; if it still continues to perform the duties for which it was appointed; and how many times it has met and the dates of meeting during the twelve months 1st March, 1917, to 1st March, 1918?
  Mr. FORSTER: The Forage Committee was appointed by the Army Council.
  "to keep in touch with and advise the farm Produce County committees on all questions arising in conjunction with the acquisition of farm produce for His Majesty's Forces, and on all matters relating to the constitution of the said committees, and to the regulation of the scheme in general."
  The members of the Committee have always acted in an honorary capacity. They continue to perform their duties, and they have held thirteen meetings during the twelve months ended 1st March, 1918.

  COUNTY FARM PRODUCE COMMITTEES.
  Sir A. SYKESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what were the duties for which the county farm-produce committees were appointed, and it they still continue to perform those duties; what were the reasons for the compulsory taking over of hay for civil supplies; whether the scheme for civil supplies was submitted to hay-dealers and had their approval, and to county farm-produce committees and had their approval; why the whole of the hay for civil supplies is compulsorily taken out of the hands of producers who have habitually been retailers and placed in the hands of dealers; and why a commission of 5s. per ton is taken for the dealer from the producer who has habitually been a retailer, seeing that the dealer is compulsorily inflicted on the said producer?
  Mr. FORSTER: The County Farm Produce Committees were appointed to "facilitate the purchase by the military authorities of farm produce such as forage and vegetables from the farmer," and they still continue to perform those duties. The chief object of the Civil Supply Scheme, which is still in an experimental stage, was to organise the distribution of available supplies when and where wanted
  226
  by consumers. The scheme has the full support of the hay trade. Up to the present the county farm produce committees in four out of the five English administration areas have approved it and the fifth is to consider it before the end of the month. I understand that this hay is not being taken out of the hands of producers, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, and commission is only collected from producers when they elect to avail themselves of the prices and conditions which dealers are empowered to impose.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does that answer mean that the War Office have undertaken the distribution of all fodder and farm produce in question?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. The object of the scheme is to enable the hay, which is not wanted for military consumption to be distributed for civilian consumption through the ordinary trade channels.
  Captain WRIGHT: Why may not the farmer himself sell hay to his neighbour and so save the commission of 5s. a ton?
  Mr. FORSTER: I must ask for notice of that question.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Trustee Savings Bank Bill, without Amendment.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the House is to be asked to sit on Friday, and, if so, what the business will be; and, further, can he say when the Budget will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I expect to be able to introduce the Budget on Monday. As regards a Friday sitting, I cannot say definitely now. If we make good progress with the two Bills down for to-morrow, it may not be necessary to sit on Friday.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Irish Home Rule Bill will be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I cannot give a date for that to-day.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not announced to a Labour deputation to the Prime Minister yesterday?
  Mr. BILLING: What does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand is good progress on the two Bills referred to?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Good progress is getting through them.

  MILITARY SERVICE BILL
  As amended, considered.
  MILITARY SERVICE BILL

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Revoke or Vary Orders in Council.)
    Any Order in Council or Proclamation made under this Act may be revoked or varied by any subsequent Order in Council or Proclamation made in the like manner and subject to the like conditions.—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Regulations and Orders in Council.)
    Every Regulation and Order in Council, other than an Order in Council made in pursuance of Section one, made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Regulation or Order is laid before it, praying that the Regulation or Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation or Order, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    This new Clause was proposed last night, and the Home Secretary intimated at once that he was disposed to consider the insertion of the Clause in the Bill, and requested that I should put it down for to-day, and that he would give us his opinion to-day. I trust it may be possible to pass the Second Reading of this new Clause and add it to the Bill without further discussion. It simply gives to this House the right to control certain matters undertaken by the Government under the powers of this Bill when proceeding under Order in Council. If an Order in Council is issued under this Bill within twenty days of Parliament sitting it would be open to Parliament to pass a Resolution setting that Order in Council aside. The Order in Council would become operative, and anything done under it would not be rendered illegal, even if the House decided to take such a course. It simply, therefore, ensures that the Government of the day, acting under an Order in Council, will have the approval and sanction of the House of Commons in its procedure. This is so reasonable and constitutional in practice, and so consonant with what, I believe, must be the feeling in every part of the House, that I ask the Government to accept it.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to second the Motion.
    This Clause, if accepted, will apply to two Clauses in the Bill. The question, of Orders in Council arise in Clause 2, which proposes to apply Conscription to Ireland. Clause 1 is accepted in this new Clause, as provisions have already been made by a special stipulation. This would cover the application of the Clause to Ireland. In regard to Ireland, nobody knows how, or under what circumstances, it is proposed to extend the Act to Ire land. If we pay any attention to the declarations of Ministers, it may be a very considerable time, or it may not, before the Act is extended to Ireland, when circumstances may be very different from what they are at present. In addition to that, the Order in Council has got to pro vide certain modifications and adaptations. They are not going to have the Act applied to Ireland simplicita, as at present, but with modifications and adaptations. We understand that this Act is to be applied to Ireland by de grees—that is, the unmarried men will be

    249
    called first, then the married men below a certain age; then, finally, all classes above that age. We understand that this Act will apply to Ireland in very much the same way as Conscription was brought in for England. If that is so, this House ought to be consulted as to the successive stages by which the Act is to be brought into operation in regard to Ireland. But the Order in Council does more than this; it does something about which, I think, every lover of law must feel a little amount of anxiety. It can make special provision in respect of the constitution of the civil Court, and when we are told that it is proposed to make special provisions in respect of the constitution of the civil Court, one pricks up one's ears, and thinks that it is about time that the House of Commons had some thing to say about that constitution before the Order in Council is put into force. There arc, therefore, reasons why those Orders in Council should be submitted to this House as other Orders in Council are before they are made irrevocable. The Home Secretary has taken the power not only to make these Orders in Council, but to revoke them or vary them at any time or in any way. It is just as necessary to see what these new Orders in Council are as to see what the original Orders in Council are.
    Then we come to Clause 4. The House will remember that there was a very considerable discussion in Committee yester day, and the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to seriously consider whether this Clause should not be incorporated in the Bill in respect of these Regulations. First of all there is a Regulation affecting the constitution of the tribunals. That is a matter which excites the warmest possible interest in this country, and I do submit that we ought to have an opportunity of considering Regulations which affect the constitution of tribunals before they become an irrevocable part of the law. There are Regulations establishing special tribunals, for regulating the making of applications and the grant or renewal of certificates and other things. All these are matters in which the public are greatly concerned. They are matters which affect the happiness, the lives, the liberty and security of a very large number of people, and they are matters which the House of Commons ought to consider, and which should not be left to the absolute unfettered dis-
    250
    cretion of the Government. The right way of dealing with these matters is by securing that both Orders in Council and Regulations shall be submitted to this House as is done in other cases.
    4.0. P.M.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The main object of this proposal is no doubt to secure that an Order in Council applying the Military Service Act to Ire land shall be laid upon the Table of the House, and that there shall be power within a limited period to move in either House an Address for the annulment of such Order in Council. That proposal is, of course, of great importance, and one on which I obtained the leave of the Committee yesterday to consult my colleagues, and I am quite prepared now to announce our view. The object is to obtain opportunity for debate upon such an Order in Council. We are not anxious to avoid discussion of any step which we as a Government take. No Government worth its salt would endeavour to prevent criticism of its actions in the House of Commons, and, even if we did desire to obtain that end, I think that I know the House of Commons well enough by now to be quite sure that the attempt would fail. If we had not the support of the House of Commons in our action, we could not attempt to carry things through. Wheat happens is that if any substantial body of Members differ from the Government, especially on an important matter like this, their views can be made known. Either a vote of want of confidence or a Motion for the Adjournment may be moved, and the Government may afford an opportunity for debate, or the matter may be raised in some other manner. If a substantial body of Members desire it, they must needs be put in a position to debate the action of the Government For those reasons, and mainly for the first, that we do not desire to avoid discussion of our action, we are prepared in principle to accept this Clause so far as Orders in Council are concerned. The important Clause to which this new Clause would apply is Clause 2, the Irish Clause, though it might possibly come in with regard to the details of other Clauses. But, as regards the time suggested, we think that twenty-one days is too long. If the House is prepared to take fourteen days, that would give a sufficient opportunity for a Motion for an Address.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Fourteen days after the Orders are made?
    Sir G. CAVE: Fourteen days after the House has first sat after the Order in Council is made. I do not think that we could apply this to Regulations. They deal with matters of procedure, some of them of importance and some of them of very small importance indeed. They must be put into operation at once. Under the old Military Service Acts Regulations are made without this permission, I am pre pared to accept the Clause, provided that a change is made in the number of days and provided that it is confined to Orders in Council.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Many of us welcome very cordially the announcement of the Home Secretary. So far as this proposed new Clause relates to the application of the Bill to Ireland, it is agreed that there should be a Parliamentary opportunity, if opportunity is desired, of discussing the provisions to be made. No difficulty will be found with regard to restricting the number of days to fourteen, which is, if my recollection serves me aright, the more usual form of the Clause than the longer period of twenty-one days. With regard to the other reservation of the Home Secretary, I must confess that I have a considerable feeling of doubt. Under Clause 4 very wide powers are conferred on the Executive to reconstitute all tribunals throughout the country, and greatly to modify their powers and procedure. I think it was felt in most quarters of the House that there ought to be some sort of opportunity, if opportunity was desired, to consider the course which the Government propose. So far as the distinction drawn between Regulations and Orders in Council is concerned, I think that I am right in saying that it was proposed when the Bill was introduced, as Clause 4 was originally drawn, that this should be done by Order in Council, and in order to meet the views of one or two hon. Members that was altered in Committee to Regulations. I was not quite sure why it was desired to alter from Order in Council to Regulations, but if the consequence of that, which was apparently quite a trivial Committee verbal alteration, is that the House is to be deprived of its formal opportunity of discussing and considering any proposals that are made by the Government in the
    252
    exercise of powers under Clause 4, I think that that would be a most unfortunate circumstance.
    Sir G. CAVE: If that change had not been made, we could not have agreed to apply this new Clause to Clause 4.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Home Secretary a few minutes ago said that Regulations were not, as a rule, submitted to Parliament. I think that there is a certain number of precedents—the Old Age Pensions Act; and I think there are some dealing with education. I am fairly sure that that is so. I believe that one Regulation made, if I remember rightly, under the Old Age Pensions Act, was rejected on an Address to the Crown. How ever that may be, the fact remains that the Government, in introducing the Bill, originally considered that the matter of Clause 4 was a matter for Order in Council. That has since been altered by Amendment in Committee. I think that we should be well advised to go back on that, and that it would be well, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Regulations should not be laid on the Table of the House, and calls the document issued by the Government under the Clause an Order in Council and not a Regulation. The right hon. Gentleman said that in a matter of such importance as the extension of the Bill to Ireland an occasion can be found either by a formal Motion of Adjournment of the House, or in some other manner to raise debate, if debate is desired. That is true, but with respect to comparatively minor matters, such as those dealt with in Clause 4, that does not apply, and those are precisely the kind of subjects with respect to which it is proper to insert words such as those now before the House. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider their intention with regard to matters dealt with in Clause 4, and with regard to affording the House opportunity for discussion if it is desired.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think that the Order in Council ought to be discussed within fourteen days of the day on which it is submitted. With regard to Regulations, whatever we want now we do want some speeding up in connection with appeals, and that sort of thing at the present moment. The Regulations under which we are working were prepared originally in connection with the Derby scheme. These Regulations were issued by

    253
    the Local Government Board and changed from time to time as circumstances required, and were never submitted to the House of Commons. The effect has been that endless opportunities were given for asking for reviews of decisions by tribunals. It is not at all unusual for a case to have gone from the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal and from that to the Central Tribunal, and for the members of the local tribunal to find that after a certain lapse of time the case comes back to them again on some other point of view and with some new fact, and people have run through all these tribunals very often two and three times, which was a perfect absurdity. The opportunities for appeal were too extensive and were much too easily availed of, and clever solicitors in very many cases have, been able to keep men out of the Army for very long periods after they should have been there. I hope that, so far as Regulations are concerned, they will not be subject to debate in this House.
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is no delay. The Regulations come into force immediately. They are not held up for consideration by the House. If the House desires subsequently to debate them and secure modification it can secure such modification, but without prejudice to anything that has been done meanwhile. That is the course that has been adopted with respect to the Schedule of Occupations under the Order in Council which has been issued by the Minister of National Service which comes into operation at once.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: But during that whole period of fourteen days, or what ever it is, everybody remains in a condition of uncertainty. Nobody knows what may happen. That is not right. There has been no objection in the past to those Regulations. We have less reason now to change them than ever there was. Above all things we ought to see that those Regulations do provide some reasonable and fair appeal, but not the unfair appeals that are so common now.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Under this Clause some of the work to be done is described as being done by Regulation made by the Local Government Board. But later on the Clause says that any Order in Council made under this Sub-section may be revoked or varied by any subsequent
    254
    Order in Council. It will be within the recollection of the Home Secretary and those who listened to the Debate yesterday that there was a general understanding that important Regulations or Orders made under this Clause were to be laid on the Table of the House. This is under stood by this new Clause. I listened to what the Home Secretary said, and that was the impression left on my mind. I can quite see his objection to have Regulations delayed, as was referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire, by being subject to this provision. But I think that there might very well be Regulations regarding these tribunals, in which there is great public interest, which affect very seriously the interests of many individuals in this country and many important classes which really should come under the provisions which the Government have now agreed to of laying them on the Table of this House, and I would suggest to the Home Secretary that when considering it he should give us some understanding as to what class of Regulations should be made by the Local Government Board, and what class should be made by Orders in Council which would be subject, if he accepts the Amendment, to the provisions of being laid on the Table of the House. I think that it would get over the objections to which my right hon. Friend has referred and which he pressed him upon, if he would say that important Regulations, such as Regulations affecting the attitude or constitution of the tribunals, or matters of that kind, would be made by Orders in Council, and that it is only matters of administrative detail such as technical questions connected with appeal and things of that kind which would be left to the Local Government Board. I make the suggestion, because I think that it will meet the matter.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I desire to sup port what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend. There are two quite distinct kinds of Regulations. There are Regulations for speeding up the proceedings, and I agree with my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) that there is no special need for those to be laid upon the Table of the House. The method adopted with regard to those has, on the whole, worked well and no case has been made out for a change, but under Clause 4 the Government are taking power to deal with much more important and more organic matters than they did in previous Acts. There is

    255
    the power to constitute nominated tribunals everywhere, instead of those appointed by the local authorities, and there is the power to appoint special tribunals. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend as to whether it could not be made clear whether they are Regulations or Orders in Council which are to be made by the Local Government Board—I want them to be made by that Department— affecting the constitution of tribunals, or the appointment of special tribunals, that they should be laid upon the Table of the House. I quite agree that those which have to do with speeding up procedure on all the matters referred to by my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) need not be laid upon the Table of the House. They are strictly matters of detail and of procedure. The others deal with matters of far greater weight and interest and are matters of which Parliament ought to have an opportunity of taking cognisance.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I think that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) was slightly inaccurate when he referred to this particular proposal as unequalled by our previous procedure. If he will cast his mind back on previous Bills dealing with this question, he will remember that the main provision of those Bills received statutory sanction. This is a wholly new Clause, in which the real sub stance of the Bill is put in the form of Regulations. Anyone who will glance at the power given to the Minister in the execution of this Bill to proceed by way of Regulation will realise at once that he has power to do everything that is really substantial under the Bill in the form of a Regulation. That is a power which, in such serious matters, should not be dele gated by this House to any Minister or Department. The Home Secretary said that we were making a demand that was really unprecedented. May I remind him that to-day we stand at some advantage by reason of our experience? It is simply because experience has shown us that Ministers and Departments may transform the whole spirit and intention of an Act by the form of their Regulations that it becomes necessary for this House to be on its guard against delegating its powers to any Minister or Department. I hope that the Home Secretary will seriously consider the question of modifying the proposal by adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend. Certainly, on the weightier
    256
    matters dealt with in these Regulations, we ought to have greater security than that which the Home Secretary at present proposes to give us.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This concession by the Government may be either substantial or illusory. The previous Acts in no form applied to Ireland, and therefore the Order in Council, if genuinely issued, should take the form of an Act of Parliament. If it takes the form of an Act of Parliament, it will have to embrace not merely the application of the Act to Ire land, but every Regulation which the right hon. Gentleman says is to be dealt with by means of this procedure in regard to England, because the Regulation Section as now framed does not apply to Ireland. It is the English Local Government Board that will have to administer it. You are therefore in the extra ordinary position, if you mean honestly as regards Ireland, that you must give us in that country something that you refuse to give to England, namely, the power to challenge these Regulations. That is a most repugnant and inconsistent position. You state to the English Members. "We will not lay upon the Table of the House the Regulations, because they are not within the Order in Council," but you cannot apply any Regulation to Ireland without an Order in Council, and there fore, as I construe the Statute, if you mean genuinely by Ireland, you are giving us something which you are refusing to England and Scotland. That is an absurd position.
    Sir G. CAVE Sir G. CAVE indicated dissent.
    Mr. HEALY: I say "if you mean genuinely by Ireland." I start with that proposition. But as you do not mean to submit the English Regulations to the House, you do not mean genuinely by Ireland. Section 4 contains the provision as to applications for certificates of exemption and as to calling up. How is Section 4 to be applied to Ireland? Am I to be told that the Government are going to enact by Order in Council that the Irish Local Government Board may make Regulations upon matters wider than you have allowed the English Local Government Board to make in regard to England and Scot land? We will not have that. You must say upon what subjects the Irish Local Government Board is to make Regulations. We cannot entrust to the Irish Local

    257
    Government Board power to make Regulations of a wider kind than are given in the case of England and Scotland, nor can we entrust the Irish Local Government Board with power to make the Regulations which you are allowing the English Local Government Board to make. I will tell the House why. This is a matter of vital substance to us. After a fight which lasted twenty years, a solemn compact was made between both sides of the House that prisoners in Ireland should not be compelled to give evidence, or to submit themselves to cross-examination. If ever there was a bargain made solemnly by a Minister it was that made by the present Foreign Secretary that never would any attempt be made in Ireland to subject prisoners to the horrors of cross-examination by Crown prosecutors. This Bill for Ireland is essentially a criminal Bill, and, as regards Ireland, you are taking power to create special Courts. In England the ordinary magistrates will act under the Reserve Forces Act and the other military Acts, but in Ireland you have taken power by this Section to take away from the ordinary magistrate the ordinary power to inflict penalties and punishments for offences under this Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 reads:
    "If any question arises at any legal proceedings under the Reserve Forces Acts, 1882 to 1907, or any Orders or Regulations made there under, whether any certificate of exemption has been withdrawn, or has otherwise ceased to be in force, the Court may require the holder of the certificate to give evidence on the Section, and if satisfactory evidence is not given to the contrary the certificate shall be deemed to have been withdrawn or to have otherwise ceased to be in force."
    In other words, if any man in Ireland says, "I have an exemption paper," you throw the burden of proof upon him, and you compel him to go into the box and give evidence in his own defence. And before what Court? Before the drum head courts-martial which you are setting up under Section 2, which says:
    "An Order in Council under this Section may, as respects the civil Court before which proceedings in respect of any offence punish able on summary conviction under the Reserve Forces Acts, 1882, the Army Act, the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, or this Act; or any Orders or Regulations made there under are to be brought in Ireland—

    (a) make special provision with respect to the constitution of the Court; or

    (b) assign any such proceedings to such civil Court or Courts as may be specified in the Order."

    You are going in Ireland—a country which is already practically in arms against
    258
    this Bill—to set aside the ordinary justices and the whole of the ordinary tribunals of law. You are going to take away trial by jury and all matters of that kind. If you like, you can take away trial by judges. You have taken power to do away with the King's Bench under this Sub-section. You are going to subject a prisoner in Ireland, unless these Regulations be modified, to a state of things to which no English prisoner would be subjected. It is not merely that you are working against the sentiment of the country, but, while you are pretending to parity and equality, you are giving us practically ascendancy, tyranny, and slavery. There is no Act passed for England and Ireland together which receives the same treatment in both countries. On the sham cry of equality of sacrifice, you are going to give us drumhead courts-martial. Accordingly, when the right hon. Gentleman objects to the Regulations being laid before the House, I ask, Is it intended that the Irish Order in Council should be plenary in its character? In other words, will the Order in Council as laid before this House be a complete code of law, as is the Act which applies to England? We know already from the right hon. Gentleman. He says that is impossible, because yester day he made the statement, which certainly rather capsized me, that there was to be no Registration Act for Ireland. There is a Registration Act for Ireland. The English Registration Act, so-called, applies to Ireland. Yet, at that box yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman made the astonishing statement that there was no necessity for registration to be applied to Ireland.
    The effect of that, as I understand it, is that the police in every district, without any legal fetter, are to be allowed to say, "All you Catholic fellows are the lusty fellows we want. Your superstition is intense, but you would make splendid brigadiers or privates. Superstition will stop a bullet just as well as the Thirty-nine Articles." Accordingly, as there will be no registration, as I understand it, the local police will select recruits just as the sheriffs long ago selected juries. If you are to have no Registration Act in Ireland, is the Order in Council, which the right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to lay upon the Table as regards Ireland, to be a complete code or not? They have just inserted a provision to this effect: "Any

    259
    Order in Council or Proclamation made under this Act may be revoked or varied by any subsequent Order in Council or Proclamation made in the like manner, and subject to the like conditions." If you bring forward an Order in Council simply saying this, "Clauses B, C and D shall apply to Ireland," there would be nothing to attract the attention of Englishmen to the frame of that particular Order. The Government may be even luxuriant in their response to our demands for time. They might say ''We will give you three days, if you like, for the discussion of this matter," and then, when this House has had its fill of this discussion about Ireland, and settled the matter by an enormous majority, on the somewhat harmless-looking provisions of the Government, and when you are all thoroughly sick of Ireland, which you generally are, from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, then an amended Order may be made. I admit that would also have to be laid on the Table, but it would come before a wearied, tired and stale House, and Members would say, "Hav'nt we had all this before? We gave them three days last month, and here they are again. Was there ever such an unreasonable lot of superstitious Papists as these Irish?"
    My question to the Government is, "Is this a real concession or a sham concession? Will this Order in Council contain the plenary application of all these Acts to Ireland, so that the House may be apprised, and know the length, breadth, height, depth and scope of your intentions as regards our country?" That is a plain question. I find myself met, as regards England, with the statement that the Regulations are not to be submitted. Why, I could, in a morning, I venture to say, completely baffle all the Irish Members if I were the draftsman under this Act. I will tell you what I would do. There is nothing more simple. It is as easy as lying. I would have an Order in Council applying the Bill to Ireland. There you are. I would then have in that Order power given to the Local Government Board to make Regulations. Nothing more than that the Local Government Board make Regulations. Remember that these things have the effect of Statutes. You cannot certiorari them; you cannot go to the King's Bench and apply that these Regulations shall be annulled, or done away with, on any
    260
    ground, and if you did it would be no use. The judges would be against you. I am not complaining of the judges; they are doing their duty, or what they think is their duty, in construing these Acts of Parliament in what the old patents call "the most benignant manner to the Crown." I am not criticising the way in which these Orders and Regulations are construed in the Courts; I am only pointing out the powerlessness of the Irish people against such a procedure, which I say would be so facile and so easy. Therefore, I end as I began, by saying if this be a genuine concession, as I acknowledge it to be in form, is it the intention of the Government to decant into the Order in Council, for the benefit of the Irish people and the enlightenment of their representatives, the whole of the law—the law relating to magistrates, the law relating to age, the law relating to exemptions, the whole of the laws? Conditions are different in Ire land from what they are here. If you turn the handle of a board in Dublin there is an enemy behind the counter. Accordingly, it is not too much to ask the Government, is the Order in Council intended to be what I call plenary and sufficient, or is it intended to be illusory and unsatisfactory?
    Mr. DENMAN: There is one class of Regulation which I should like to ask the Home Secretary to allow to be submitted to Parliament. Under Clause 4 there is a type of Regulation with which the law can hardly be very familiar—the Regulations which have the power of overriding Acts of Parliament, and in so far as there is inconsistency between a Regulation and an Act of Parliament, the Act of Parliament goes under. When you make a Regulation of that kind is it clearly a slight concession to the House to place it on the Table so that it may be subsequently revoked, even though it has full validity for the time being. This, I submit, might be included in the Amendment we are now discussing.
    Mr. HEALY: Am I going to get any reply?
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "Regulation and."
    I have listened to the arguments which have been used in favour of keeping Regulations in this Clause, but I do not

    261
    see my way to accept the suggestion. You cannot distinguish one Regulation from others. I think you must apply the same test to the whole of Clause 4. The present Regulations are not subject to this condition. There is no provision at all in the first Military Service Act for the laying of Regulations. There are numbers of them. The House knows perfectly well they have to be altered from time to time. They are made by the Local Government Board, as these Regulations will be. They deal with procedure, with form, with machinery at all events, and I venture to submit they are different entirely from Orders in Council. I have tried to meet what I believe to be the general wish of the House, and I do sincerely hope that the concessions will be accepted as meeting the justice of the case, and that this Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. HEALY: Then I am right.
    Question proposed, "That the words ' Regulation and' stand part of the proposed Clause."
    Mr. HOLT: May I ask you to put the word "Regulation" only, so as to admit an alternative Amendment, of which I have given notice?
    Question proposed, "That the word ' Regulation ' stand part of the proposed Clause."
    Mr. HOGGE: I hope the House will oppose the Amendment of the Home Secretary. I think he ought to under stand that the country does not trust the Local Government Board or any other Department of the Government in the making of these Regulations. Members of the community have had sufficient experience of Acts passed in this House and of the interpretation of those Acts by the Departments concerned. Men who have been called up for the purpose of serving in the Army have been subjected from time to time to a series of Regulations which could not and have never been made knowledgable to them. Over and over again men have been taken into the Army simply because they did not know the Regulations, and those responsible for drawing these Regulations in many cases have not even taken the trouble to point out to the men concerned what powers they had under the Regulations. There are so many cases that I am quite clear in my own mind that certainly I will not support, the Government in this Amendment. I would not give to any Govern-
    262
    ment Department power to draw Regulations affecting the lives and property of so many other people in the country; and I hope the House will resent this attempt, after putting this Act on the Statute Book, to place further autocratic powers in the hands of men who have abused them consistently ever since they got them.
    Mr. HOLT: I am sure we are all grateful to the Home Secretary for having met us as far as he has, but I do not think we can accept it as complete satisfaction. I do hope it may still be possible to come to what I call an accommodation with the Home Secretary by distinguishing between Regulations which are to be laid before the House and those which are not. There is in particular one Regulation to be made in pursuance of Section 4, Sub section (1), paragraph (a), dealing with the constitution of tribunals, which is a Regulation to which I think everybody attaches the very greatest importance. Nothing can be more important than the constitution of the tribunals before which you are going to take the cases. If the Home Secretary can see his way to allow that particular Regulation, at any rate, to be one which has to be laid on the Table of the House, and approved by the House, I think we may regard the matter, if not as satisfactory settled, as a compromise. Therefore, if this Amendment of the Home Secretary's is not carried, I should be ready to move after the word "Regulation" to insert the words "made in pursuance of Section 4, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a)."
    If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to agree to this suggestion, then I shall be willing to accept the rest of his proposal; but if he does not see his way to allow the reconstitution of the tribunals to be a matter to be reviewed by this House, then I am afraid I must press my opposition to a Division.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I wish to support my hon. Friend in the appeal he has made to the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced certain arguments why this proposal should not be accepted. He says, in the first place, it is impossible to distinguish between the various matters to be dealt with by the Regulations, and that some are comparatively trivial, and not such as the House is accustomed to have laid before it. But my hon. Friend has made a proposal which will enable us to distinguish between the various matters. Clause 4,

    263
    Sub-section (1, a), deals with a topic which is of very great importance, namely, the reconstitution of the tribunals through out the country which are to deal with military service questions. I think the House will agree that if the Home Secretary will go so far as to accept the application of this Amendment to that one paragraph, and to restrict it to that particular paragraph, we can agree to the rest of his proposals. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman states that the Regulations may have to be altered from time to time. That may be so, but the Amendment need not interpose any difficulty or delay in the alterations which can be effected just as the original Regulations was made, and no delay therefore need be involved, although it will afford an opportunity for the House subsequently, if it so desires, to propose an Address with regard to the alteration. Further, the Home Secretary told us that these were Regulations which, in their nature, were not suited to be of a statutory character. I submit to him, however, that the particular Regulations reconstituting the tribunals are Regulations dealing with matters previously dealt with by the Statute itself, and not merely by Regulations or Orders in Council. To show that that is necessary we have this very remarkable provision in the Bill, which has been already referred to:
    "Any Regulations made under this Sub-section shall have full effect notwithstanding any thing in the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, and those provisions, so far as they are inconsistent with any Regulations so made, shall be repealed."
    This Regulation absolutely overrides the existing statutory provision. May I quote an authority on this point to whom we are accustomed to defer? I find that Erskine May, with regard to Orders and Regulations which have to be laid before Parliament, in order to allow an opportunity for an Address to be moved with a view to their amendment or cancellation, refers specially to the Orders and Regulations made for factories and workshops under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature. Surely if it is customary for this House to require Orders and Regulations determining the conditions of work in factories—important as they are—to be laid before it, it ought also to have before it the Regulations under which it is proposed to constitute the whole machinery for requiring military service from hundreds of thousands of our
    264
    fellow citizens. This is a matter of primary importance, and I would respect fully urge upon my right hon. Friend that he should give the small concession which is desired by my hon. Friend who proposes to move a subsequent Amendment.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I should like to support the appeal which has been made to the Home Secretary. It is well known that a great deal of unrest has been caused in the country during the last two and a half years by the Regulations which. have been issued, and not only by the Regulations themselves, but also by the way in which they have been interpreted by the bodies set up to administer them. Anything that this House can do to pre vent unrest and discontent ought to be done. I therefore join with the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke in appealing to the Home Secretary to make the Amendment suggested, as I am assured that he will be the gainer and not the loser as a result of the concession.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend has shown this afternoon the disposition which he has always shown to meet the wishes of the Committee if he can possibly do so. But on this matter I do want to submit how extraordinarily difficult it is to-distinguish between one group of Regulations and another group. It has been suggested by one of the speakers that some of these Regulations are organic. I suppose others are, consequently, inorganic. We have been asked to make an exception in a particular case, but my right hon. Friend feels he must adhere to the view that these Regulations should not be laid on the-Table of the House—even those for re constituting the tribunals and for creating new areas. I would point out that it is extraordinarily difficult to separate these particular Regulations from the others. I contemplate that we shall, at all events, start by nominating, to a very large extent, the old tribunals.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Who will have the nominations?
    Mr. FISHER: The Government will have the nominations.
    Mr. M. HEALY: What?
    Mr. FISHER: The Appeal Courts are now nominated by the Government.
    Mr. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who will have the power under this Act to nominate the tribunals in England, and who will have the power to nominate them in Ireland? Will it be in the power of the Local Government Board, if it chooses, to make a Regulation saying that the tribunals may be appointed by the military authorities?
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Appeal Courts are nominated now by the Local Government Board in consultation with local opinion. There is consultation with chairmen of county councils and with other local government bodies, and every effort is made to obtain a local view as to the personnel of these Appeal Courts. The Appeal Tribunals will be nominated, therefore, by the Local Government Board, a body which has, per haps, far greater knowledge than is possessed by any other Department of the material to be found in each locality which is suitable and valuable for service on these tribunals. It is the Local Government Board which, to a large extent, will be responsible for these tribunals. While I contemplate that a very large user will be made of the old material, which has acted so well and done such good service, it will undoubtedly be necessary to change the personnel of some of these tribunals and also to change the areas over which those tribunals will operate. On these matters Regulations will have to be made, and they will have to be framed sometimes very quickly. They ought not to be subject to any period of uncertainty, such as would result if they had to be laid on the Table of the House, and to be made liable to reversal by the House by Resolution. I do not think the House will altogether lose its control over the Regulations, even if they do not have to be laid on the Table.
    There are many ways in which questions can be raised with regard to this machinery. The Regulations will be circulated as quickly as possible to every Member of this House, so that they, at any rate, may be informed of their nature, and then it will be possible by means of question and answer here, or by Debates in the Chamber, to discuss their merits or demerits. I have no doubt it will be found that the House will have a good deal to say about the Regulations, and no doubt it will help us, as it
    266
    has hitherto done, in generally governing the action of these tribunals. In view of that, I think my right hon. Friend is right when he says he is not prepared to lay the Regulations on the Table of the House. The result of doing so would be to create great uncertainty for a period as to whether or not the House was going to move an Address with regard to them. I am confident it is the desire of the Government, and it certainly is the desire of my Department, to make these Regulations as widely known as possible. I believe a very great deal of the unpopularity which might have attended Conscription in this country has been avoided, thanks to the work publicly done by the local tribunals. It would have been very difficult in this country to have imposed Conscription on our fellow countrymen unless we had at the same time given them opportunities for publicly stating their case before the tribunals, which, I repeat, have done their work uncommonly well.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir T. WALTERS: The attitude taken up by the Home Secretary on this question is exceedingly disappointing. I do not, of course, read any sinister motive into the views he has expressed or into those of the President of the Local Government Board, but I must say that their reluctance to invite an expression of opinion by the House of Commons as to various sections of their work is very strange. With great respect, it is, I suggest, a gross exaggeration to suggest that to leave it within the power of the House to present an Address upon any of these Regulations will involve any undue delay or any element of uncertainty with regard to the Regulations for establishing the tribunals to be set up. Nothing of the kind would result. If the Regulations are such as to satisfy the House that they adequately protect the interests of the citizens of this country, no difficulty will be raised in regard to them and no uncertainty need be felt. I support this particular suggestion of the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) because I want to give stability and confidence to these tribunals, and not because I want to produce unrest or uncertainty. The most important thing that will have to be impressed on the minds of the people of this country is that these tribunals have been properly constituted, and that Parliament has control over them. There is a peculiarly

    267
    sensitive disposition just now on the part of the people against government by officials. I do not know how far it is justified, but nothing would do more to undermine public confidence in these tribunals than the suggestion that they are the creation of officials and that the House of Commons is prevented from exercising proper control over them. If we desire the tribunals to work efficiently, we must remove all cause of distrust regarding them amongst the people, and I would press upon the Home Secretary and upon the President of the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision and not be so prejudiced against the suggestion which has been put forward. We are pressing this urgently, because we believe it will be of supreme importance, and that if they will only concede this one point, that the constitution of the tribunals and the definition of the areas shall be subject to be laid upon the Table of the House, so that the House may give its opinion where necessary, it will give confidence and do much to make the working of the tribunals smooth and efficient.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I agree with so much of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has said that I regret the more I cannot accept fully the rest. I desire to point out to him and to the Home Secretary that this distinction was drawn in the Bill of 1916, and that yon then put on the Statute Book the composition of the tribunals and the area in which they were to act. The Committee, some with more willingness than others, but the Committee as a whole, accepted the substitution of nomination for the method put in that Act. Surely it is fair that those particular Regulations constituting the tribunals and defining their areas should be distinct from other Regulations as similar ones were in the Act of 1916. In other words, that you should have the opportunity by laying upon the Table of this House or in the other place of raising the question of composition and areas, and that these should be subject to revision, and that the other things in the amended Clause 4, in the rest of Section A, in the whole of Sub section (b), and what may be properly interpreted Sub-section (c) and (e), because (b) goes out, should be left to Regulations which are not subject to be laid upon the Table of the House. I do hope my right
    268
    hon. Friends will allow the same distinction to be drawn in this Bill as was drawn in the Act of 1916, because the composition and the determining of areas are permanent things, while the others, being matters of procedure, are on an entirely different plane. I therefore join my earnest appeal with those which have already been made, and I know that my right hon. Friends are aware that I do so not to hinder but to help them in their work.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I should like to join in the appeal which has been so generally made that this Amendment may be acceded to. I think, as has been said again and again, that it will help the Government rather than hamper or hinder them. The President of the Local Government Board seemed to see difficulties in the way, but his difficulties have relation to more general Regulations, and I cannot see that the difficulties which he makes apply to the special character of these Regulations. It will meet the desire of the House, and I am sure it will be accepted in the country, and I sincerely hope that even now the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have listened to the case which has been put up both by the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the Amendment, and most Members who have been endeavouring to ascertain the intention of the Government will agree that they have not been very fortunate in the arguments they have put forward. The House has been told by the President of the Local Government Board that it will be difficult to disentangle the words of the Regulations which it will be necessary to lay upon the Table of the House from the other Regulations in respect of which this is not required. If anybody takes the trouble to look over former Regulations made by the Local Government Board he will see perfectly clearly that all these are divided, as it were, into special compartments dealing with the special subjects which naturally arise. There is no crossing between the different Regulations even as they are at present issued, and if the President of the Local Government Board were asked at present to divide the existing Regulations into the parts which it would be necessary to lay upon the Table of the House and those which it would not be, he could do so very easily.

    269
    Indeed, the fact that such a puerile argument is put forward seems to be evidence of the poor case which the Government have.
    The other point was the question of time. In respect of the matter of the constitution of the tribunals this can hardly apply at all. The existing tribunals would go on working until the new tribunals are ready to take their place, so that there cannot be any possibility of delay. Surely, therefore, the contention that was so forcibly and yet so moderately put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton must be accepted by the House As the law stands at the present time these tribunals are constituted under the Second Schedule of the first Military Service Act. There is ample provision and ample protection there in respect alike of the areas and of the persons who are to be selected as members of those tribunals. Why, then, in moving this statutory provision, do they refuse to allow Parliament the right to veto, as it were, in respect of the new arrangements which they are setting up? I think if at any time it was necessary to have this statutory protection it is now, when for the first time you are going to call up men in respect of whom special difficulties will arise. There were difficulties in regard to those who came within the former military age, but those difficulties are small compared with the difficulties which arise in respect of the men between forty-one and fifty-one—in regard to their business interests, and so on. It is precisely at the time when you are going to create these difficulties that you are going to set up tribunals in which there will be less public confidence. At least, you are creating a suspicion that there will be less public confidence in them because you refuse to Parliament the right to say who these tribunals are and in respect of what areas they are to act. I think that though it is comparatively a small concession for the Government to make, if they now hesitate to make it it will be the duty of the House to mark their resentment of the course they are taking by dividing on this Amendment.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Government surely must have expected that some Amendment would be made to this Clause. They have deliberately provided in this Clause that there shall be done by Regulation what would in ordinary cases be subject to express legislation by this House. The right hon. Gentleman the
    270
    President of the Local Government Board sought to suggest that there is some analogy between the class of Regulations provided for in the first Subsection of Clause 4 with the class of Regulation which the Local Government Board has power to make already. Nothing could be more false. At present the constitution of the tribunal is determined by express legislation put on the Statute Book. Now for the first time the Government take power by this Act to constitute the tribunals by Regulation. They have not given us the smallest information as to how this is to be done. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman by interruption to tell us who was to constitute the tribunals. I thought he was somewhat gingerly in his answers, and I do not know that he expressly pledged himself to the proposition that the Regulations would provide that the tribunals would be constituted by the Local Government Board.
    Anything is open under the Act as it stands. The Regulation may provide that the appeal should be to a tribunal suggested by the competent military authority. That would be perfectly within the four corners of this Act; for what does the Act say?—that the Local Government Board may make Regulations providing for applications for certificates of exemption being made to such tribunals constituted in such manner as may be authorised in the Regulation. Everything is left at large. We are not told whether Regulations will name A, B, C. and D, and say that these shall be the gentlemen who will form the tribunal for such an area, or whether the form of the Regulations will be such that the county council in any area, subject to the veto of the Local Government Board, may select so many persons to constitute it. I put the extreme case, though I hope it is not a possible one, that it is within the four corners of the Act that the Local Government Board might in their Regulations say that the tribunal shall be selected by the competent military authority in any area. I want to know why, if the Government did not intend to leave this at large, they have not put some limiting words in their Sub-section (a)? They could very well have put in tribunals constituted by the Local Government Board" or in some way have indicated the manner in which the tribunals are to be constituted.
    My interest in this matter is an Irish interest. I know perfectly well that the Government have not the smallest inten-

    271
    tion of doing in England anything which would shock English public opinion, but we have no such protection in Ireland, and I am bound to say that the view expressed by the Home Secretary last night as to the form in which the Order in Council extending this Act to Ireland would take is not one which, distinguished lawyer as he is, I would have any confidence in an Irish Court accepting. It is suggested that under Clause 2 of this Act extending the Act to Ireland no other modifications can be made except modifications, as we used to say mutatis mutandis, to adapt the Act to Irish conditions. That is not the Act at all. It says," with such modifications and adaptations as may be made by the Order for the purpose of making it applicable to Ireland." Consequently it is perfectly possible that even though the Local Government Board in England may have the appointment of the tribunals and may draw them from the classes which the right hon. Gentleman indicated, in Ireland the Local Government Board may well say, "In Ireland we have not the material for creating tribunals such as you have in England, where the Military Service Act has been in operation for several years."
    Tribunals have been working in Eng land, and, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, as many as eighteen hundred have been sitting there already, so that the work of selecting the tribunals has been done. In Ireland the Local Government Board may very well say that they have no such materials in Ireland and that they cannot work this Act in Ireland as it has been worked in England and Scotland. Consequently the tribunals in Ireland may be constituted on entirely different lines. Surely when the Government deliberately
    selects as matters for Regulation this which is normally a matter for express legislation in this House, the least we may ask is that when the Regulation is made it shall be laid on the Table of the House as an Order in Council would be, so that if any thing outrageous is done we shall, at any rate, have the opportunity of coming before the House to criticise it, attack it, and condemn it. I cannot but think that this extraordinary method of drafting, adopted for the first time, has one thing alone in view, namely, the situation in Ireland, and that while my English Friends, who express apprehension here, will find they have no cause to fear, when this Act comes to be extended to Ireland, they will see why it was drawn in this particular way. Then we shall know that the reason for taking this extraordinary and unusual course is that they shrink from the possibility of having their work submitted to the open criticism of Parliament.
    Mr. KING: I shall only call the attention of the Government to one fact. We have been discussing this question for over half an hour, and the Government have not had one voice speaking in its favour except the two Members who have spoken from the Treasury Bench. Members from every part of the House without exception have spoken against the Government's proposal. In view of that fact, and believing that, after all, the Government wish to have the general support of the Committee, I hope they will, even at the last moment, withdraw their Amendment.
    Question put, "That the word 'Regulation' stand part of the proposed Clause."
    The House divided: Ayes. 156; Noes, 249.

    Division No. 24.]

    AYES.

    [5.18 p.m.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Anderson, William C.

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Crean, Eugene

    Field, William

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Finney, Samuel

    Billing, Noel Pemberton

    Crumley, Patrick

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Cullinan, John

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Bliss, Joseph

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Boland, John Pius

    Denman, Hon Richard Douglas

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Geddard, Rt Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dillon, John

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Brocklehurst, Col William B.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Donovan, John Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Donnelly, Patrick

    Hackett, John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Doris, William

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    Buxton, Noel

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Byrne, Alfred

    Duffy, William J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duncan, Sir J Hastings (Otley)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork City)

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

    Molley, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morrell, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Muldoon, John

    Smallwood, Edward

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hogge, J. M.

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nuttall, Harry

    Snowden, Philip

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth. S.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Ogden, Fred

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Grady, James

    Tootill, Robert

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Leary, Daniel

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Kiley, James Daniel

    O'Malley, William

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir Henry

    King, Joseph

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    O'Shee, James John

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    London, Thomas

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falkirk)

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

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

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Redmond, Capt. W. A.

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Mcagher, Michael

    Roch, Walter F.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rowlands, James

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Holt and Mr. Sherwell.

    Millar, James Duncan

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

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gretton, John

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Clyde, James Avon

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones

    Agnew, Sir George

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

    Colvin, Col.

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

    Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. A. St. George

    Astor, Major Hon Waldorf

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

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

    Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

    Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

    Cowan, Sir William Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Barnston, Maj. Harry

    Craig, Ernest (Crowe)

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

    Barrie, H. T.

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

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

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Haslam, Lewis

    Beach, William F. H.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hewins, William Albert S.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Denison-Pender, Capt. J.

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Denniss, Edmund R Bartley

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Bigland, Alfred

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bird, Alfred

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Blair, Reginald

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid.)

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

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Boyton, Sir James

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Hunter. Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Fiennes, Hon. Sir Eustace E.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

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

    Brookes, Warwick

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

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Fletcher, John S.

    Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Butcher, J. G.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Kerry, Lieut.-Col., Earl of

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gastrell, Lt.-Col. Sir W. H.

    Keswick, Henry

    Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

    Cator, John

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

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

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Grant, James Augustus

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

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

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Cheyne, Sir William W.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    274

    275

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G (Gravesend)

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. Knutsford)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Parkes, Sir Edward

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Lonsdale, James R.

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Chas, (Brighton)

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    MaCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C.A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Philipps, Maj-Gen. Sir Ivor

    Walker, Col. W. H.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Philipps. Sir Owen (Chester)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Macleod, John M.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Ward, A. s. (Herts, Watford)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

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

    Quitter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Waring, Major Walter

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

    Randles, Sir John

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Marriott, John A. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Weston, John W.

    Meux, Admiral Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

    Meysey-Thompson, col. E. C.

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

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

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood)

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

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

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Spear. Sir John Ward

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

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

    Morrison-Bell, Colonel E. (Ashburton)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Newman, Major John R, P.

    Stewart, Gershem

    Younger, Sir George

    Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield)

    Stoker, Robert B.

    Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

    Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

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

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Subsequent word "and" left out.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in the proposed Clause, to leave out the words "the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next," and to insert instead thereof the words "four teen days."
    The Address must, therefore, be presented within fourteen days after the Order has been laid before Parliament.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to ask the Home Secretary what would happen if the House did not sit during the fourteendays? Ought not the words "on which that House has sat" be left in?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment would mean that the Order would remain for fourteen days when the House was sitting.
    Mr. SHERWELL: We must look at the possibility that the Order might be laid on the Table of the House on the eve of the Adjournment of the House, when there might be no effective opportunity of the discussion of this Regulation. That is an eventuality for which we must allow. Sup posing the Government were, I do not say by desire, driven by circumstances to introduce and to lay on the Table of the House Regulations on the eve of Adjournment, it might so happen that this House would never have one moment's opportunity for debate.
    Sir G. CAVE: The words of the next Amendment, I think, cover that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "Regulation or" (three times).
    Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next pro posed new Clause, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) [Orders in Council], has been covered by the provision already made. I think the same also refers to the next Amendments on the Paper. I call upon the Home Secretary.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Obligation to Military Service.)
    (2) Where any person, who under this Section is deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve, is a man in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination, he shall not on being called up for service with the Colours be required, except with his consent, to perform combatant service.
    If any question arises as to whether any per son is a man in Holy Orders or such a minister as aforesaid, that question shall be referred in the prescribed manner to the Central Tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, whose decision on the question shall be final and conclusive.
    (3) The proviso to Section two, and Section eight, of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), shall cease to have effect:
    Provided that the foregoing provision shall be without prejudice to any undertaking recognised by His Majesty's Government and for the time being in force, whereby it is provided that any released or exchanged prisoners of war shall not serve in His Majesty's Forces during the present War.
    (4) All the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, as amended by this Act, shall, so far as applicable, extend to men to whom this Section applies in the same manner as to men to whom Section one of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), applied.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2). I move this Amendment as I promised last night.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you are passing over Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) and myself in regard to age?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That was Mr. Speaker's intention, and I am following the selection he indicated.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This will not apply to what the old English law used to call" a religious man." It will apply to religious men who are Nonconformists, though I do not know whether that will include Presbyterians. [An Hon. Member: "It will…"] I should like humbly and respectfully to say that the Government ought to have regard to the religious men in "the Catholic Church other than ordained clergymen. As far as my experience goes—and I wish to give the Government this recognition — in my opinion the old Act has been fairly ad ministered as regards religious men. I have never, except as regards one student who was very near his ordination, received a complaint as to the administration of the Act in England. I think you have acted fairly in England. I trust that that will be the verdict in future when this Act is in force, though one cannot say. But I might be allowed to say as regards monks, some of whom have been engaged for twenty years in teaching, that it is the height of absurdity if you expect to make any military use of any of these men, no matter what their age. Really, I am rather tired of talking on matters in connection with this Bill, or against the production of such a Bill as this, howled for by the English newspapers, which have said that it is the business of the Government to shoot, and not to argue with those opposed to them. Shoot us; do not argue with us… This Bill, having such consequences, is to be discussed at the
    278
    point of the bayonet… That such should be the case is, to my mind, the setting back the hands of the clock something like 100 years. By this Bill you may, in your action against religious men, excite prejudice against yourself. And the Government are doing all this at the suggestion of narrow and prejudiced people in London, some of whom are themselves of military age, who think that the monks ought to be brigaded in France and Flanders, but who themselves prefer to be brigaded in Fleet Street.
    Mr. DENMAN: I beg to thank the Home Secretary for accepting this Amendment, which I moved in the Committee stage. His object, however, is directly opposed to the object with which I moved the Amendment in Committee. We are at least agreed that compromise is not satisfactory. The only question that now remains is whether the clergy should be wholly exempted, or whether they should be wholly included. I will not delay the House by repeating the arguments I used in the Committee stage, but I do want to-express my regret at the decision of the Government. At a time when they are imposing, and I think rightly, this very difficult Bill upon the country, they are refusing to except a class. This alteration means some hundreds of Grade 1 men lost to the Colours. The Government should realise the extreme hardship, in practice, that must necessarily be imposed by this Bill. There will be no good feeling produced towards the Churches by the absolute exemption of the clergy from the obligation of military service. The Churches themselves, I believe—certainly the Church of England—has not asked for this. Whatever, of course, may be at the back, I am sure the great mass of the Churches want to play their part in this War as ordinary citizens.
    An HON. MEMBER: They can do it voluntarily…
    Mr. DENMAN: There is every difference in the world between doing it voluntarily and coming within a compulsory Clause. Especially those who have fought in France will bear in mind that—whether with their will or not does not matter— ministers of religion have not borne the full and equal burden imposed upon other classes of the community. That will be remembered against them after the War, and will stir up ill-feeling which, I, personally, would have been most glad to avoid.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to express my cordial agreement with what I conceive to be the ultimate object of the Home Secretary in moving this Amendment. I understand that this Amendment is the first necessary to remove persons in Holy Orders and regular ministers of other religious bodies from the Bill, and that this Amendment is to be followed by another exempting them in the Schedule of the Act. I have always opposed the conscription of the clergy and ministers—as indeed I have opposed the conscription of anybody and everybody—and I should be sorry for the Home Secretary's Amendment to be inserted in the Bill, without the House being asked to consider what are the grounds for exempting the clergy and ministers.
    The history of this question in this House on this Bill is a remarkable one. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle two or three nights ago, on the Committee stage, moved the same Motion as the Home Secretary has now moved. He moved it in order to conscript the clergy and ministers for combatant service in precisely the same terms as everyone else under the Bill. The hon. Member's Motion was defeated by a majority of about 300 Members of this House desiring to retain the Bill in the form in which it was introduced by the Home Secretary. On that occasion mine was the only voice raised in this House to protest against the conscription of the clergy. I cannot believe, as I said before, that the Home Secretary has conic to his present attitude in consequence of the remarks that I made on that occasion.
    HON. MEMBERS: Of course he has…
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It is extremely gratifying to me to be able to record that that is the only logical explanation of the attitude of the Home Secretary, and I am very glad to be interrupted to be told so. But I think I know the Home Secretary too well—perhaps I should say I know the Government rather too well—to believe that they have proceeded as they have for any such reason. What has happened is this: There has been a great revolt behind the scenes. I have read the letters which have been appearing in the "Times" from the Bishop of Chelmsford and others. I remember some time ago the Bishop of Chelmsford was actively sup porting service for other people, and, indeed, in the course of his address he stated that he himself was going to take,
    280
    in private, lessons in physical training. In yesterday's "Times" the Bishop of Chelmsford protests altogether against the conscription of the clergy. He states in this letter what I reminded the Committee on a previous occasion, that the clergy would be very useful at home because of the increasing lawlessness of the children of soldiers—a most amazing statement to make, a most extraordinary statement to make, and I think a most improper one … He said further that they will be useful at home" in assisting the piling up of spiritual munitions." I am quoting the words of the bishop. I was sorry when the Home Secretary came down and, with out any relevancy to the discussion, announced that he was going to exempt the clergy, that he gave as one of his reasons that the Bishop of Chelmsford had mentioned the great help they would render. These are not the grounds which those of us who appeal for the exemption of the clergy from this Bill desire to urge. The right of clergymen and ministers to accept exemption under this Bill is precisely the same right which is claimed by applicants of exemption upon the grounds of a conscientious objection to military service. The same right exists in each case. I have always appealed for the rights given by Statute to conscientious objectors, and I know how extremely unpopular that subject has always been in this House. We know now that the clergy and ministers have put forward the same objection. We know that at the great meeting called yesterday various considerations were urged, but I want it to be made quite clear that the only ground we put forward for exemption in this case is precisely that which we put forward for other citizens of this country, namely, that the clergy have a conscientious objection to military service. I regret such reasons as those which were put forward by the Bishop of Chelmsford and by the Home Secretary yesterday. Whilst I very heartily support the exclusion of clergy and ministers, I do soon precisely the same grounds that I have supported the exclusions of other citizens of this country.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not wish to enter into the general considerations which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitehouse) has just put before the House. I have always regarded exemption of any ministers of religion as quite illogical, and I has risen to ask for an explanation. I

    281
    think it is well for the House to understand why the Government is doing this. It is not on account of the eloquent speeches of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark or the Member for North-East Cork, neither is it on account of the conscientious objection of the clergy, but it is because there has been an agitation on this subject in Wales. It is very significant that the concession was made after a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, and why was that speech made on the Committee stage? Because there had been a revolt amongst the Nonconformist ministers in Wales. They went to hear the Prime Minister at the Free Church Council meetings, and there the Prime Minister asked them to pray—
    Mr. ANDERSON: The Prime Minister is past praying for.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think when the history of this question is elucidated it will be found that I have given the correct explanation. Everybody who knows the grounds upon which this Government usually proceeds will agree that I put for ward an explanation which is certainly very probable. We had the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and immediately after that we had the reply of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for East Cork got no reply, but he only represents a small party in Ireland.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That is not so now …
    Mr. PRINGLE: That may not be so now, and in that case we may see more attention paid to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member.
    Mr. HEALY: Not a bit…
    Mr. PRINGLE: The other point I wish to raise arises in regard to the Amendment which the Government has put down on the Paper to the First Schedule, to insert the words "men in holy orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination." The proposal has caused a great deal of trouble, and in some cases it has been necessary to take the matter into the Court. Some men have claimed exemption on the ground that they have been regular ministers of a religious denomination. I think it is only fair that the Government should state precisely what these words mean. It is true that under the Sub-section in the Bill as it stands it is left to the Central Tribunal to interpret, but I think it would be an advantage to
    282
    have guidance from the Government itself, and we should know what instructions the Minister of National Service is going to give to his local representatives through out the country. There are a number of very obscure denominations in the country of which most of us have not heard, and while not having a ministry in the sense of the Baptists or the Congregational Church, many of these men who act as ministers still exercise their secular occupations, and that fact does not, so far as those denominations are concerned, deprive them of the character of regular ministers of religion. I would suggest that where the members of the denomination itself regard the applicant as a regular minister of their denomination, and it is easy to ascertain that from the official body of the denomination, then the exemption shall be granted. We want equality of treatment between all denominations, no matter how weak or obscure they may be, and the Government might make such, a concession.
    Mr. WING: May I ask the Home Secretary whether the deletion of this Sub section really does absolve the clergy and ministers of all denominations, or whether it does not really place the ministers of the country exactly on the same footing as any other citizen. So far as I have come into contact with those who represent religious thought, I do not think they desire any specific treatment, and they take their stand together with the ordinary citizens. I agree that by this action you are creating a very serious revulsion against those who represent religion, who will become a specially favoured class, because they happen to be ministers of religion. Therefore, in the interests of religion it would be better if they should take their stand with other citizens, and be placed on the same grounds, with the same exceptions, and stand their corner the same as every other man.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Not in Wales.
    Mr. WING: I believe the ordinary ministers do not require any special privilege.
    Mr. BILLING: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say approximately how many men we shall lose under fifty years of age through this Clause? I understand that there are a number, or, in fact, a greater proportion, of ministers in Wales than in any other

    283
    part of the United Kingdom according to the population, and under these circum stances the Home Secretary might tell us how many men the Prime Minister is losing by introducing this Clause. One can only appeal, before taking so serious a step, that the Government should ascertain to what extent their proposal will affect the man-power of the country. So far as clergymen serving are concerned. I am quite sure that if they are given the opportunity it is feasible that those who wish can volunteer, and I am sure they would not like, as a class, exemption made in their case. I ask, in the event of this Clause not being carried and no exception being made in the case of clergymen, whether the right hon. Gentleman would place clergymen on the same footing as ordinary individuals, and enable them to be returned as Members of this House? At the present time a clergyman of the Church of England cannot be returned to this House without giving up Holy Orders. It is unfair to ask a clergyman to do what you are asking him unless he has all the privileges enjoyed by Members of this House.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I hope the House will support the Government with regard to the exemption of clergy. I have listened to my hon. Friend opposite, and I submit that there are a good many of us who look upon it as repugnant to con script, ministers of religion. I myself am not a Quaker. I believe this is a just War and that we must exercise force for carrying on that operation, but I do believe in a general sense we recognise ministers of religion as serving the Master who stands for peace and for the advocacy of peace principles. I believe that if ministers of religion were more successful, both on the Continent of Europe and in this country, perhaps this great, tragedy might have been avoided. I hope that the general sense of the House will recognise that we have to play our part and that we desire that the clergy should uphold a higher ideal.
    Sir G. CAVE: In answer to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing), of course he is right in thinking that if we simply omit the Sub-section and leave this Bill as it stands the effect would be to subject ministers to the same obligations as other citizens. I have an Amendment later to leave them exactly where they are to-day.
    Mr. DENMAN: As this is a matter on which the Government hold strong views, will the Government leave this Amendment to the free vote of the House?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid we cannot do that. In answer to the hon. Member for Cork, I would remind the House that there are many men of the class to whom he refers who are to-day of military age, and those cases have been dealt with in a reasonable spirit, and they have not been called up. I am quite sure that future cases will be dealt with in the same spirit. As to the meaning of the words in the existing Act, I think it is one that has already been thoroughly dealt with by the Courts. Everybody knows who comes within the words, and I do not think any further explanation is needed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but there is some difference between the English and the Scottish Courts in dealing with this matter.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: I know that different decisions are given in the two countries. I quite agree with the remark that has been made that there are many ministers who would prefer not to be excepted from the Act, but in regard to this Sub-section which was put in the Bill we have, had a number of representations, some from ministers, some from the Salvation Army, and other bodies, pointing out that if we include ministers we shall gravely interfere not only with the religious ministrations through out the country, but with the services rendered by ministers in other ways. We have acted on those considerations—not at all on the considerations which the hon. and learned Member for Lanark suggested — by dropping this provision of the Bill. I may state I had in mind the dropping of this provision even before the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies) spoke, and I only waited to see someone supporting that view. We dropped the provision for the reason, also, that when you have included those whose ministrations are required in civil life and those who have conscientious objections or for reasons of health may not be able to serve, there were so few left that I do not suppose they would have formed a battalion of men, if all taken together. So few being left, we really thought it not worth while to run counter to the strong feeling of the country for so small an advantage as that. That was the reason of our decision.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: There is just one point I would like to urge on the Home Secretary. It is true that conflicting opinions have been given as to who are ministers, but I hope that in the Regulations that are made in regard to this class, this difficulty will be got over. It is not correct to say that men are not ministers merely because they are not paid, and I sincerely hope that care will be taken with regard to that point, and that it will be recognised that some of the most useful religious ministration in this country is done by men who do not receive payment for it. I believe that there is now an opportunity of making such Regulations as will overcome difficulties that have been caused in the past.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance on this paint. There are at least two religious bodies who depend, in so far as human ministration is concerned, entirely on unpaid preachers, and I think that we should have a clear statement on the point.
    Sir G. CAVE: While we may not be able to go to the full extent the hon. Gentlemen desire, I will take care to represent the point they raise.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Sub section (3), to leave out the words "and Section eight."
    The effect of this Sub-section as it stands includes returned prisoners of war who are liable to military service under this Bill, but the House will observe that there is a proviso in the Sub-section under which those prisoners of war who have been exchanged are exempted from military service, but those prisoners who have escaped, and have been able to return here, are now made, for the first time, liable to military ser vice under the Military Service Acts. There are two reasons why I suggest to the Government that the existing exemption should be continued. The first is that the withdrawal of the exemption will bring in a very small number of men. There are only a few of these men, and some of them have suffered a good deal during their imprisonment in Germany. As a general rule, they are not likely to be men who would be of much service
    286
    from a military point of view. But there is a second point, which is based on more general grounds. We have had issued recently a Report regarding the treatment of prisoners of war on the part of the German Government, and a very interesting document has been published recently on behalf of the Committee which has been investigating the treatment of prisoners. That Report has been used for propaganda purposes. Is it not obvious to the Government that it is going to diminish very much its own propaganda, if, at the very moment of the issue of this Report, it also introduces a Sub section into an Act of Parliament which makes those men, who have suffered all those cruelties, liable to Conscription? Does that not suggest to the House that the Germans will at once make a very obvious reply to the Report, "How can anybody believe those stories of the alleged sufferings and hardships of these men, who have been reduced to this terrible state of health, when they are to be conscripted by the British Government?" That is a general consideration which ought to enter into the minds of the Government in seeking to impose this provision. For these two reasons, that it affects only a small number of men, while the provision in the Bill would do something to entirely nullify the effect of the propaganda in regard to the cruel treatment of prisoners of war in Germany, I move the Amendment.
    Mr. WING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    No soldier or sailor who is discharged from the Navy or the Army, when no longer fit for service, ought to be included in a Bill of this kind, and a provision of this sort would destroy the Act of Parliament which gives them exemption. Be sides, the provision in the Bill would add to the inefficiency rather than the efficiency of the Army, while at the same time it would produce an exceedingly bad impression amongst those who have been discharged from the Army or the Navy, and who, having been so discharged, feel that they have again entered into ordinary life, and that they would be no more called upon. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Minister of National Service.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Lanark, who pointed out that very few men would be sacrificed. I am

    287
    told that a considerable number of men who have escaped and were eligible for the Army—I am referring to non-military men who escaped from Germany—have already enlisted, but I would point out that if men who have escaped should again be made prisoners, they would have a worse time on the second occasion than they experienced on the first. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment on the grounds already advanced.
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir A. Geddes): I think there is some misunderstanding on the point of what is exactly the effect of the provision. There are several classes of persons who have been in the hands of the enemy, and who are now in this country. First, there is the class of persons who fell into the hands of the enemy as civilians, and who were released from one or other of the enemy countries through some arrangement entered into by His Majesty's Government. Such persons are at present excepted from the Act, and would under the proposals in this Clause continue to be excepted, so that there is no change in their case. Another class of persons who fell into the hands of the enemy consist of those who escaped as the result of their own action. That class at present is exempted, but would not have statutory exemption under the proposed arrangement. There is a third class of British subjects who have been in the hands of the enemy—soldiers and sailors, who have been taken prisoners, and who have escaped They were not under that exemption. They came back and rejoined the Service to which they belonged. Many men now serving with the Army have been for a short time in the hands of the enemy, and then have got back to their old life. It has never been suggested that such men should cease to serve in the Army. From that there is an unbroken series of cases leading up to the man who has been merely in the hands of the enemy for a few months, or a man who has been in their hands for some months and has escaped. If he belongs to the armed forces, he continues to serve. That is the position at present, and that will be the position in future. There is one rule about these men that has been carefully observed, that is, for example, if a man were taken prisoner on the Western Front and imprisoned in Germany and there
    288
    after escaped, he does not go back to the Western Front; he is sent to a garrison battalion in India or Egypt possibly, or wherever it may be, but he is not exposed to the liability to capture in the same theatre. That, I think, is fair. That is an administrative act which has been going on for months—I do not know when it began—and there is no proposal to modify that in any way whatsoever. Then we have the fourth class of persons who have been in the bands of the enemy, men who were soldiers who were captured after they had been wounded, who were imprisoned for a time in Germany, and who have been released through one of the neutral countries. They at present are excluded under Section 8 of the second Military Service Act. It this Bill in the form in which it now stands should go through the House and become law, they will be excluded under heading 3 in the Schedule.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Which Schedule?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The First Schedule. So there is just the one class left that is affected. It is a class with which we have had great difficulty in dealing. There is a class of civilians who have been, for a short time, in the hands of the enemy, and who are now in this country. A large number of them, in faut, suffered no material hardship. A large number of them are already serving. But there is a. certain number of these men who have really done nothing special to help the country in the War except to meet with the accident of being taken prisoner, if that can be regarded as a help, and who are at the present time exceptions under the Act, without, as it appears to the Government, there being any real reason for their being excepted. That is the one small, limited class of persons who will be affected by the provision of this Sub section of the Clause. I call it a, small class. So it is in relation to the total number of men who are to be taken; but it is a class who, perhaps, have led to a good deal of trouble in administration, because there is no possibility of being absolutely certain that the claims of the individual are in fact correct. There is a number of men wandering about the country at the present time who claim that they were on board a ship which, let us say, was stopped by the "Karlsruhe" at the outbreak of war, who claim therefore that they were for the time being under

    289
    the control of the enemy, and who regard themselves as exempt from military service.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How many of them?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I should say some hundreds. They are perfectly fit men who have done nothing for the country. The classes to which, we are indebted and under an obligation are adequately safe guarded even under the new provisions. It is only this small class which is affected, and it is a class which I do not think should receive special treatment.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment? Because, if so, I hope that is not his final word. I do not think he gave a quite fair description of the sufferings of the men who have undergone imprisonment and who have escaped. It is true that they took no active part in the War, but that was not their fault. They were caught at the out break of war. Some of them have been in prison for more than three years, and they have been subjected to special hard ships of diet, sanitary conditions, close confinement, and deprivation.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am sure my right hon. Friend will pardon me interrupting him, because we are obviously at cross purposes. The men of whom he speaks who come under the agreement are excluded by the provisions. These are the remaining men who would not be touched by the special provisions.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: What about the men who escaped from Ruhleben, and who, therefore, do not come under any convention or arrangement made with the German Government? I know some of those men, who have taken rather an active part in propaganda work, and who are specially, shall I say, objectionable to the German Government. Yet they are of military age, and if they were caught again as prisoners their fate would not be an enviable one. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not desire to subject men of that sort to the unfortunate fate which we all of us know is reserved for any prisoner who is objectionable to the German Government. I quite see the difficulty of my right hon. Friend's position, but I would seriously ask him to reconsider this matter and see whether something cannot be done in another place or even now to meet the hard case of men whose only obstacle in the way of serving their
    290
    country was that they were in Germany when the War broke out, and who had been subjected to the most cruel treatment, so that they have been rendered, as in one or two cases of which I know, absolute physical wrecks for the time being. If they are pressed into service again, and caught in Germany, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the fate to which they are doomed—he knows it much better than I do—is not one to which he would willingly subject anyone. I hope he will consider this question again.
    Mr. HOGGE: If the right hon. Gentle man reads the Section in question, he will observe that there is nothing in the Amendment which he cannot accept. Section 8 says:
    "Nothing in this or the principal Act shall operate so as to render liable to military ser vice any person who has at any time since the beginning of the War been a prisoner of war, captured or interned by the enemy, and has been released or exchanged."
    The right hon. Gentleman observed that there are several hundred nomadic prisoners of war who were stopped by the "Karlsruhe." They would not come under this Section. That is not the type of man the House is troubled about at the moment. The man they are troubled about is the man who has been interned for some time or captured by the enemy, and has subsequently been either released or exchanged. As the right hon. Gentle man says, if he has been a soldier, he is sent to another theatre, and if he were captured he would be captured by a different enemy. That man, to a certain extent, is all right. But if the man has himself escaped and is of military age, and is conscripted after that hardship, whether he deserved it or not—I am assuming the fact that he is—if he be caught by the enemy, he is put up against the wall and shot. Surely, if a man has been an actual case of capture and internment and has subsequently escaped, we ought to do something to protect him. I have sufficient admiration for the abilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service to know that he can devise a means of seeing that the really genuine man is not put in that predicament. If he reads the Section which I have quoted, he will see it does not cover the man of the nomadic type to whom he referred. The right hon. Gentleman does not lose any thing by accepting the Amendment. He retains to himself and to the House a power which the House would like the Govern-

    291
    ment still to have. I do not think the House would like any of these men, after they were conscripted and caught, should suffer that further fate. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow these words to be deleted, so that the Section I have read to the House will still stand.
    Mr. BILLING: Surely the right hon. Gentleman sees that the only people he is likely to capture under this provision are those who have actually succeeded in escaping. He does not get those who have been exchanged; he only gets the men who have shown exceptional courage—and I readily understand that it requires exceptional courage, because several of my acquaintances have escaped—in breaking through and getting out of Germany. When one remembers the conditions and treatment of those who endeavour to escape, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should treat them as he is doing. Those who sit tight and wait till they are ex changed are all right, while those who take their courage in both hands and dash back to this country and give it all the service they can—they are doing an immense amount of good in this country by quiet propaganda work among their friends and explaining to them what German kultur really is—are treated in this way. To call these men up and make this distinction in regard to them is a thing almost too unfair for even this Government to do.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think we are talking at cross purposes at the present moment. The men who have escaped have never been excluded from the provisions of the Act. The men who have been captured and interned by the enemy and who have been released or exchanged are excluded. Therefore the man who has escaped is already liable. We are not changing the conditions; we are dealing with a man who, for example, was on board a ship in August or December, 1914, which was stopped by the "Karlsruhe" and for the time being was in the hands of the enemy, but was released on the ship being allowed to proceed on her way. I shall certainly consult the draftsman, because I do not want to touch those people, with whom we all sympathise. If I am wrong, we will certainly take action of the kind to which reference has been made. I am advised that the only people this power we pro pose to take will affect are men of the class to whom I am not now referring. They are not men who have escaped, but
    292
    men who were released and have got away and have not really been prisoners at all. In fact, they were never off their own ship, and never suffered any hardships, and were only in the hands of the enemy for a short time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Although I am not satisfied, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power by Order in Council to apply Act to Ireland.)
    His Majesty may by Order in Council extend this Act to Ireland, and this Act if so extended shall, subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made by the Order for the purpose of making it applicable to Ireland, have effect accordingly.
    An Order in Council under this Section may, as respects the civil Court before which proceedings in respect of any offence punishable on summary conviction under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, the Army Act, the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, or this Act, or any Orders or Regulations made thereunder, are to be brought in Ireland—

    (a) make special provision with respect to the constitution of the Court; or

    (b) assign any such proceedings to such civil Court or Courts as may be specified in the Order.

    Mr. DILLON: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 2.
    In the first Debate yesterday the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) made a very remarkable speech, and I desire at the commencement to read a very short extract from that speech to the House, in order to refresh their memories. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "But the Government must really tell us what is the machinery that is going to be applied, north, south, east and west. What ever it is, do not be ashamed of it… … Do not say, 'We cannot trust Ireland; we cannot trust them to tell them what the machinery will do.' I can assure you that is the very worst way you can deal with Ireland. Far better that you should let us know—for better or worse. Really, I find great difficulty in understanding where we are in this Bill in relation to Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1918, col. 91.]
    Is there a single Member who has closely followed these Debates who does under stand at this moment where we are in relation to this Bill in its application to Ire land? The Prime Minister, when introducing the Bill, went out of his way to say he wished the House and the country distinctly to understand that there was no connection whatever between the introduction of a Home Rule Bill and the applica-

    293
    tion of Conscription to Ireland, and he emphasised that statement in a very remarkable way. But when we come to the speech of the Chief Secretary there can not be the slightest doubt that the whole House and the country outside, as we know very well from the daily Press, put a wholly different interpretation upon the intentions and the plans of the Government. Here is what the Chief Secretary said:
    "On the other hand, it would be the worst disservice to the State to call into the ranks men who were suffering under a historic sense of grievance. His Majesty's Government wants to remove it. It seeks the help of this House to remove it. It seeks the help of the country to remove it."
    If it be true that it would be the worst disservice to the State to call to the Colours men in Ireland who are suffering from a historic grievance, what is the meaning of telling us that there is no relation in the mind of the Government between the introduction of self-government for Ireland and the application of Conscription to that country? Is any Member in this House, I do not care in what quarter he sits, prepared to say that the Irish people are not to-day suffering from a historic grievance and from as great an intensification and exacerbation of that grievance by the events of the last three years? I want to know how we are to reconcile, how the Government expects us to reconcile, these two declarations coming on successive days from members of the Government. Is the one thing dependent upon the other or is it not? And what is the meaning of this sentence from the Chief Secretary's speech:
    "So far as I am concerned, I want to tell the House that if this Clause had been a Clause for applying military service to Ireland without the means for the course which I am explaining to the House, I could not have been a party to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1918, col. 1922, Vol. 104.]
    The Chief Secretary said shortly before that he was speaking not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of his colleagues in the Government. Does it mean that in his mind it is not possible morally, from his point of view, to put this Clause applying Conscription in Ireland into force without first removing the historic grievance under which he says the Irish people suffer, and, if not, what did he mean by making that statement? When subsequent speeches were made which appeared to contradict and disavow these declarations we in vain called upon the Chief Secretary to speak again, and we have not heard from him since as to the interpreta-
    294
    tion he places or the explanation he is prepared to give for these strange contra dictions, but it appears to me that we find some explanation in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). He says in the course of that same speech from which I have quoted:
    "I think you have made a fatal mistake in the manner in which you have brought this Bill before the House."
    What is the meaning of that sentence? The right hon. Gentleman generally has some sinister meaning when his words are as significant as that. I have no doubt he was referring to the speech of the Chief Secretary, and that a very hard struggle was going on behind the scenes when that speech was delivered. I understand that at this very moment when I am speaking he and his followers in the Unionist party arc assembled in meeting upstairs considering what form of ultimatum they will deliver to the Government. On this point I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Let the Government be frank and tell us in Ireland honestly, as they have not done up to this hour, what it is that they mean to do in connection with this Bill. I challenge the Government, before this Debate, carried on under the most extra ordinary circumstances of difficulty, concludes, to answer that question put to them, not only from these benches by the Irish Nationalist Members, but by a man who in a moment of forgetfulness used the imperative and said "the Government must tell us," and on more than one occasion he has proved his power to make the Government do what he wishes.
    Then I come to the question of the tone in which Ministers have brought forward this proposal and the claims they have made. The tone, I am sorry to say, particularly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been a return—which pained all of us, for he has been for three or four years a, most courteous and conciliatory Leader of the House—to his old tone when he led the Opposition, and his tone throughout all the speeches he delivered was one of menace and hostility to the Irish people. He quoted one passage which will go round Ireland. I do not know what purpose he had in quoting it except as a threat, and I think a very improper threat. He quoted the passage from President Lincoln in which he spoke of the necessity of shooting the wily agitator. He said:
    "Am I to allow a poor soldier boy who deserts to be shot and the wily agitator who has induced him to desert to go scot-free?"

    295
    I assume that is intended for us and the meaning is that if we dare to advise our people to oppose or resist this measure he will deal with us first. I have been for thirty-seven years in the House and have heard that language very often. It will have no effect upon us and it will have less effect on the leaders of the revolutionary party in Ireland, whom he and the Government are now doing their best to strengthen. Then the right hon. Gentle man went on to say:
    "We are doing what we have a moral right to do —"
    and he was speaking without any conditions. He specifically said that before hand—
    "We are doing what we have a moral right to do, and also a technical legal right."
    As regards the moral right I deny it, and in making that denial I am speaking not only for the united Nationalists of Ireland of all sections, but for three-fourths of the Unionists of Ireland too. No power on earth has a moral right to conscript a single Irishman resident in Ireland and compel him to fight except a body representing the Irish nation, and I believe you will find it impossible to do it. That is my answer to the statement of the moral right.
    But I go further, and I call upon the Chief Secretary in support of my view. He said:
    "On the other hand, it would be the worst disservice to the State to call into the ranks men who were suffering under an historic sense of grievance, and, so far as I am concerned, if this had been a Clause for applying military service to Ireland without the means for the course which I have indicated above, I would be no party to it."
    Therefore, in my opinion, as far as I can put an interpretation on the speech of the Chief Secretary, reading it as a whole, he does not believe there is a moral right to compel the Irish people to fight in this War unless you remove, first of all, the historic grievance under which they are suffering. The Leader of the House says, "We have a moral right, but further we have a technical legal right." You have a technical legal right. So you had 150 years ago when you taxed America and you had stronger arguments in that great controversy. There is not a single thing that has been said to-day against the Irish people in this controversy which was not said against the American Colonists when they resisted your power of taxa-
    296
    tion. There is no doubt you had a technical legal right. You had this argument that you had about the Colonies, that you had come to their assistance, and every word, every reproach almost that has been hurled against the Irish in this matter was directed against the American colonies in those days as to their ingratitude and their want of sense, of duty not to come to the assistance of this country, not by a blood tax—there was no question of compelling them to spill their blood in your service—but by contributing a small monetary aid. I noticed the other day, in the "Times," one of the most remarkable contributions to this whole controversy by a very learned and distinguished man, Professor Pollard, of the University of London—
    "Sir, the case for the Conscription of Ireland can, I think, be put in a nutshell. Logically it is as complete as Lord Grenville and Lord North's case for imposing taxation upon the American Colonies and for a share in the common taxation necessitated by a war waged? largely in their defence."
    These are the very arguments we are using. The case, was logically complete and you told the Colonies they were un gracious, and Lord North and Lord Grenville and the Government, which in their ability and statesmanship bore a striking resemblance to the Government we are living under to-day, called upon the loyalty of this country and called every man a traitor who sympathised with the American Colonies, and I glory in the fact that Ireland then, as in the days of the Boer Republic and the better days of the present Prime Minister, did not hesitate to express their sympathy because they were right and England was wrong. George Washington himself ex pressed, in words which are graven on the hearts of all Irishmen, his gratitude to the Parliament of Ireland and the people of Ireland for the upright course they took in that war. But you stuck to your technical legal right and you enforced taxation on America. Who would have believed in those days, when that war commenced, the mighty consequences which would follow from it? When you look back and study the history of that period, and contrast the ridiculous and absurd contribution which you endeavoured to get from the American Colonies, with the result you find that, you dug a gulf between this country and your sister country, and your sister people in America, that it has taken 130 years to bridge. Take care that you do not dig

    297
    that gulf again when the War has to some extent brought you together. Voices were raised in these countries—patriotic voices, I think protesting against this treatment of America, but they were denounced as traitors, and in language similar to that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has addressed to us.
    I say that you are embarking on a course now which may have consequences as long-reaching and as serious as your attack upon the American Colonies, because in these small beginnings passion rises on every side, and, once the flood of passion rises, things are said and done that can never be recalled. No man can foretell how wide may be the consequences of your present action. Remember this, that when you proposed to tax America the number of her people was small and insignificant. She was a much smaller country then than Ireland is to-day, and a much smaller country than Ireland then was, and much less wealthy and important; but they were your own children, who had only lately left your own shores, who had no national history behind them except that of Colonies and Dependencies of this country, and had no real national self-consciousness as one nation until you Welded them into one nation by this endeavour to tax them against their will. You created by that attack the liberty of America, you built up a mighty nation, with the most intense national self-consciousness, out of scattered people who were your own children and of your own blood, who had only left your shores one or two generations before.
    Now you are bringing yourselves into conflict with an ancient and a proud nationality a nationality which, it is true, has suffered through centuries un paralleled tortures and persecutions, perfectly unparalleled in the history of Any nationality; but it has been proved over and over again in history that that country has only been intensified as regards its national feeling and the passion of the life of its people for their own country by all these persecutions. Long before America was discovered, centuries before America was known to exist to the people of Europe, our nation was a mighty nation and a civilised nation, and you little know how bitterly you insult us when from time to time you come to that box and talk to us about, being indifferent to the civilisation of Europe and the danger which now threatens us. Why, we laid and sowed the
    298
    seed of European civilisation when the Germans were barbarians, and when you came over to our land to seek for light… Do you know that King Alfred himself came as a fugitive to the county of Mayo and got the first rudiments of learning in the county that I have the honour to represent? You have to deal with a people who have imbued into their blood and their marrow and their bones a passionate patriotism which cannot be equalled by the feeling or patriotism of any nation in the world. Yet you propose lightly to embark upon what may be an implacable war with this people. Make no mistake about it, you are not going to get the smallest reinforcements for your war fronts from this Bill. All Ireland as one man will rise against you. I am not in a position to say how the opposition will be worked. I cannot answer for all Ireland, but what I can answer for is that, on one point they are all united, and that is that the resistance must be made by universal national resistance, led by our clergy, for every chapel in the land will be a rallying point to resist what we consider to be not only an intolerable oppression, but a shameless insult against our country. Here is a letter I received to-day from a lady who lives in Ulster. I am not at liberty to give her name, but I can answer from my own knowledge that she is a lady whose name will carry weight. She says:
    "it is not only Sinn Fein or Home Rule Catholics that are indignant at this, but the Protestant Unionists of the parish I live in, and all round here, are furious. They sent their sons, who went willingly, and very many are dead, but that is a very different thing from scruff-necking those who are left. One farmer's wife, a Protestant Unionist, to whom I have just been speaking, said she would shoot with her own hands any soldier that came to take her son."
    That is the spirit of a Protestant Unionist in Ulster. I see that all the Ulster Members are upstairs, framing an ultimatum to the Government on the Home Rule side of this question, which they will no doubt deliver shortly. I make a challenge to the Ulster Members. Let them go to Antrim or Down and hold a meeting in favour of Conscription, and that will open the eyes of the Government. I do not think that the Government or any Member of the House, from what I have heard since these Debates commenced, have the smallest idea of what is the real feeling in Ireland. I have been forty years, I regret to say, in the public life of Ireland. During those forty years I

    299
    have passed through some of the stormiest periods, as the Prime Minister knows, that have ever taken place in Irish history, and I tell you solemnly that there has never been anything to approach the state of feeling which exists in. Ireland to-day. I have received a steady stream of telegrams from all classes, public bodies, public meetings, priests, bishops, and all classes of the population, assuring me that the chaos and confusion that will occur is something appalling to think of. Some people are fleeing from the city of Dublin expecting wild disturbances. Already attacks have commenced on the railroads. I do not think that the resistance will take that form, but I cannot say what shape it will take. The state of public excitement is so great that in many parts of the country business is paralysed, and people will not attend to it. They think and speak of nothing but this great national crisis.
    I tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he means to go on with this matter he will turn Ireland into another Belgium, and the proceedings will ring throughout the civilised world. Here is an extract which may somewhat affect the minds of the Government. It is taken from yesterday's "Irish Times," which is the chief Unionist newspaper in Ireland, and a very great newspaper. It says:
    "The Imperial Parliament has decided to enforce Conscription in Ireland, and we hear on all sides of preparations for opposition, either active or passive —"
    Remember that this newspaper has always been in favour of Conscription.
    "Either the Government will carry out its declared purpose or will shrink before the menace of widespread resistance. Whether it shrinks, or whether it fulfils its declared purpose at the cost of turmoil and disorder in this country, the result will be fatal to Ireland."
    That is a nice state of things. That is the opinion of the "Irish Times." It has always been in favour of Conscription, but after the result of the proceedings of the last three or four days their opinion is that whether you go backwards or forwards, the result will be fatal to Ireland. They wind up this argument by one of the most preposterous appeals that I ever remember in the course of my life. This newspaper has spent the last three or four years abusing me as the chief evil genius of Ireland, but they now make an urgent appeal to me to come to the rescue, and to save Ireland from the impossible position into which
    300
    the Government has brought the country, and to persuade the Irish people to agree to Conscription. They will have to write a good many articles before I do that.
    7.0 P.M.
    The Prime Minister the other day in his speech quoted a passage from a speech delivered by my hon. Friend the late Member for Waterford. I think it was an ungenerous quotation, because it was divorced from its context, the occasion on. which it was delivered was not explained, and it was calculated to give a false impression. If my right hon. Friend had been aware—I do not know whether he was or not—that this statement, divorced from its context and used in the same un fair manner as he uses it, is one of the chief Sinn Fein revolutionary leaflets in Ireland, I think he would have been slower in using it. What is the truth? On that occasion the hon. Member for Waterford was speaking, as I spoke, on a Bill which did not apply to Ireland at all. There was no question of applying it to Ireland. He was speaking on that occasion on the general question of Conscription. Certain hon. Members of this House got up and said that they objected to it on moral grounds, and that under no conceivable circumstances would they be persuaded to endorse Conscription. Whereupon the hon. Member for Water ford, and myself afterwards, said in the course of our speeches that we did not share that view, and that if we were looking at it entirely from the English point of view—we were speaking from the point of view of the English Bill—and if we were persuaded that it was necessary to save and defend the liberties of this country and necessary for the War, that we would not hesitate to favour Conscription. I adopt exactly the same principle in regard to Ireland. If the liberties of Ireland were at stake, and we had a free Parliament, and thought it was necessary to save the liberty of Ireland, I would vote for Conscription. I say that it was a most unfair interpretation to put upon the speech of the late hon. Member for Water ford. Let me read a speech made by him a year afterwards in Ireland—the last speech he made to his constituents. Surely if ever there was a man who, looking to the past history of these unhappy controversies, deserved to have his voice or the echo of his voice listened to by hon. Members in this House, it was the late Member for Waterford. Here is what he said on Conscription:
    "Conscription in Ireland, so far from helping the Army and the War, would be the most

    301
    fatal thing that could possibly happen. It would be resisted in every village in Ireland. Its attempted enforcement would be a scandal which would ring round the world."
    I recommend the attention of hon. Members to these words as coming from the late Member for Waterford, and as having infinitely greater strength than any words coming from me, because hon. Members must know that he strained almost to breaking-point his influence with his countrymen in his endeavours in favour of this War.
    "This demand for Conscription in Ireland is not a genuine military demand. It is a base political device put forward by men who want to injure; and discredit Ireland's political future, and to revive by any and every means the bad blood between the two countries."
    That is the deliberate opinion of the late Member few Waterford in the last great public speech he ever delivered, on a question of Conscription in Ireland, and I recommend it to the careful judgment of this House in every quarter. Ireland had hoped that that expression of opinion coming from the late hon. Member for Waterford would have an effect of checking the Government on its wild career. We believe, and Ireland believes, and the Irish in America will believe, that this whole Conscription campaign has been started by the Member for Trinity College and the Orange faction in Ireland, who are now fighting with their backs to the wall, as they think, because it will produce a feeling between the two countries which will make a Home Rule settlement impossible. I have spoken of the threats uttered against Ireland by Ministers when advocating this measure. But there are other threats not made by Ministers, but there are rumours, and, I am sorry to think, well founded rumours.
    I take, first of all, an extract from the "Spectator," a newspaper which has been one of the chief champions in this crusade for Conscription in Ireland. In this week's issue it says:
    "The crux of applying Conscription in Ire bind rests with the instrument to be used, and, above all, with the instrument at the top. If Mr. Lloyd George is in deadly earnest and clearly nothing less will serve such a cause—"
    of course, the idea of being in deadly earnest is to shoot—
    "what he should do instead of talking would be to announce that Lord Wimborne and Mr. Duke will be recalled immediately from Ireland and a soldier put in their place."
    302
    Then it goes on to suggest that since a difference of opinion with the Premier in regard to strategical considerations did not allow Sir William Robertson to be used at the front he could be sent to Ireland to carry out this work. What a glorious position for Sir William Robertson… Some people think that he would be better on the Western Front than engaged in this great task of dragooning Ireland. I want to know what is the real programme of the Government? Do they intend to send a soldier to control Ireland? Are we to have Sir William Robertson or Lord French or General Gough, who now, I understand, is disemployed for the moment, or the head of the General Staff, Sir Harry Wilson, who, according to my information, is one of the men who has been bombarding the Government for the last six months with demands for Conscription in Ireland, and a man who has been himself a con federate of the Orange party in Ireland and one of the chief military advisers during the threatened revolution in Ire land. From that point of view he would be a very suitable man for the task. Let the Government tell us the truth and let us know the whole of their plan to carry out the whole of this extraordinary enterprise.
    The great tragedy of this whole situation is the change that has come about in the temper of Ireland, altogether owing to the malignancy and the blundering on the part of the War Office. I am quoting from the Prime Minister himself. In the month of March, 1915, more than six months after this War began, I stood beside the late Mr. Redmond at the top of O'Connell Street in Dublin, and we together reviewed 25,000 of the National Volunteers who marched past us, as fine a body of soldiers as I have over seen, most of them very well drilled. The Sinn Fein party in Dublin at that time were very anxious to interfere with that demonstration, but they were unable to produce more than 300 men or so, and so they did not give the slightest trouble. I may quote from a remarkable article in the "Daily Telegraph" on St. Patrick's Day when there was a great collection here for the Irish soldiers.
    "The enemy conceived that he might be assisted by such occurrences in the neighbouring Ireland as darkened the pages of history during the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. He was disappointed. It was one of his many misconceptions. There is one key to the soul of Ireland, and that key is freedom. It was at once realised there that this War was not a dynastic war on the part of the Allies, that it was not the struggle for material

    303
    wealth, but a life and death conflict for liberty. Once the issue was exposed to Irish men with all the white heat which injustice in spires in their hearts, they threw themselves into the battle. The enemy has since felt Irish steel and has fallen under Irish bullets, Whatever the future may produce, the English people will never forget the generous blood of the sister nation which has been shed on so many hard fought battlefields since this War began."
    But a great many people in Eng land have already forgotten it and are now talking about cowardly Irishmen shrinking from a fight.
    Irishmen never shrink from a fight. But they have ceased to believe in the reality of the Government's devotion to freedom. It is the loss of faith in this Government and its motives that has produced the impasse in Ireland, and Ireland has ceased to have any enthusiasm in this War because it has ceased to believe in the policy of the Government. That is the root of the trouble. The great body of national volunteers which we reviewed in Dublin was the body which Mr. Redmond, with the assent of one who was afterwards among the revolutionary leaders, offered to Lord Kitchener to garrison Ireland, a body that would have carried out this task and would have acted as a breeding ground for recruits, but that offer was rejected and was thrown back in his face with contempt. Why? Because you could not make up your minds to trust Ireland. You distrusted her at the outset when her heart was full of generous enthusiasm, and you distrust her still, and every detail of the organisation of the Irish division proves your distrust. That is at the root of all the trouble in Ireland. There is universal distrust of this Government and of British statesmen in general. No one in Ireland places any reliance on Government pledges. No one believes that the Government intend to introduce a Home Rule measure which will satisfy Irish national feeling or to put the Home Rule Act into operation, and nobody in Ireland will believe it after all the disappointments which we have had until an Irish Parliament is sitting in Dublin. Talk about passing your Bill—and I must say that the talk has been very halting and very hesitating—you have passed one Bill already and it is on the Statute Book, and you may pass another Bill and put it on the Statute Book where it will repose, and you may have a third Bill, but until an Irish Parliament assembles in College
    304
    Green you will get nobody in Ireland to believe that you mean to carry out your promise.
    If the Government were but bold in their immediate action to remove that distrust and suspicion, the effect in Ireland might be very good indeed. But the hideous tragedy of the present situation is that by your introduction of this measure you are creating an atmosphere in this House and an atmosphere in Ireland, which will, I fear, be fatal to any attempt at a general settlement of the Irish question at the present time. That is my fear. Look at the attitude of the Member for Trinity College. What is he doing at this moment? This is one of the things that have created all the trouble. Make no mistake about it. This is what has brought into being the great revolutionary organisation which exists in Ire land to-day, and which has weakened our power. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that I warned him two years a goat one of those private conferences that in my opinion he was bringing to an end the Irish party. Of course, as I said at the time, I did not know whether that would be a cause of any great regret. But you are beginning to find that there is something more troublesome than the Irish party. The great difference is this, that the trouble which we give and the fight which we make have for their ultimate object—and you are beginning to understand it now—to bring about a settlement between the two nations. But the trouble which you are up against in Ireland now which you have created and called into being was an insignificant matter at the date of the executions in Dublin.
    Not one-twentieth part of the people of Ireland were with the revolutionary party at that date. The body which you have called into being, which is a formidable and most dangerous body, is a body whose object is not to bring the two nations together and to create an understanding and a settlement, but to prevent a settlement and to keep the two countries apart for ever, pitted against each, other as enemies, and, in addition, there are up against you in America millions of our race whom you have turned into bitter and implacable foes. That is the situation which you have created in Ireland. I got a letter to-day from a man who knows the present military and political position of Europe as well as any man living. He is in France, and he says, "As usual, we

    305
    possess the men, the money, the opportunities—everything except the intelligence to make the most of them." Now in that sentence you have, in my opinion, the key not only to the Irish situation, but the key to the whole situation at the front. These are terrible times. We feel them as much as you do. Perhaps we feel them more, because we have been driven out of the position which we held at the beginning of the War. Our people have been split into two great sections, and all our efforts in the early days— and they were genuine efforts— have been rendered nugatory and defeated. This Government was formed eighteen months ago and was hailed with a blast of newspaper trumpets unparalleled in the history of this country as a Win-the-War Government especially created to put new life into the conduct of the War and to put an end to the "Wait-and-See Policy" and the old gang. Above all, it was to take the people into its confidence and tell them the whole truth. But since the Government was formed all criticism and all newspaper denunciations have been met with the formula, "Oh, let us get on with the War…" We have got on with the War, no doubt, but nobody can truthfully say that the progress that has been made with the War has been satisfactory. I ask, Is it not time to inquire how we have got on with the War, and what has been the cause which has led to the present diplomatic and military situation? The Government has had a long trial and has proved itself to be a Government which, in my opinion, can neither carry on the War successfully nor make peace, and a Government which can neither govern Ireland nor allow Ireland to govern herself.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to second the Amendment
    My observations will be very few, because I observe some indication on the part of the Prime Minister to take part in this Debate, and in my judgment the sooner we hear him the better. We have been considering this Bill now for nearly a week, and our arguments, which have been strong, have never been answered. One of the most curious features of this Debate—and in this respect it is almost unique—is that it has been one-sided from beginning to end. I do not recollect a single speech from anybody outside the Government ranks in support of the action of the Government in including Ireland in
    306
    the Conscription parts of the Bill. Every speech that has been made, except the speeches made from the Government Benches, has been made against the inclusion of Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "We want to help the passage of the Bill…"] I dare say, and I am thankful for that intimation, because some of us have begun to think that we were wrong and that there was some growing sympathy with Ireland in the matter of these pro visions. Apparently, the old failing of anti-Irish hate exists in some quarters to-day as strong as it ever did in the history of the relations between Ireland and Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No…"] If it did not, one would have imagined that this at least was an occasion upon which even for five minutes some person who did not share those views would have got up and said so. There was silence, forsooth, because they wanted to help to carry this Bill … I am glad that avowal has been made. We have asked for information as to what the procedure is to be in Ireland, and it has been most consistantly refused. We do not know how the tribunals will be constituted. We do not know the grounds upon which people may make application for exemption. We do not know the rights of appeal that are to be given to the people of Ireland under this Bill We are asked to give a blank cheque to the Government to do whatever they like in respect of these three matters. I do not comment upon it, because it is only of at piece with their whole conduct in regard to Ireland in this matter.
    We are continually hearing from the opponents of the Irish Nationalist demand statements to the effect that it is a dishonour to Ireland not to be brought under this Conscription law. "Ireland is dishonouring herself by not accepting this law. Why should men between forty and fifty be conscripted in England and young men he left free in Ireland to enlist or not?" [Cheers.] Yes, there it is again—absolute ignorance of the difference between the two races, and an absolute incapacity to understand that the Government of a nation may conscript its own citizens, but has no moral right to conscript the citizens of another nation. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night that this Parliament had a moral right to conscript the Irish nation. I want to know where it has got that moral right. You have a right to conscript the people of Great Britain, because the people of Great

    307
    Britain have assented to your rule, and you are their representatives. You have, therefore, been commissioned by them, more or less, to enact a Law like this. What consent have you got in the whole of your connection with Ireland from that country to rule Ireland? I defy any person sitting on either side of the House to point to any single, proof that Ireland has ever consented to your government. I will tell the Prime Minister here to his face that his Government is regarded in Ireland as a usurpation. He has no moral right to speak to the people of Ireland at all on any subject. I was almost going to say that neither this nor any other British Government has the moral right to arrest even a rat in Ireland. Have you got a moral right to impose this Conscription upon Ireland from any other source? Will you, say that you have got it from your conduct of Irish affairs? Will you say that your relations with Ireland have been relations of such benevolent treatment of that country as to justify you in calling upon its citizens for this sacrifice? I do not like to use hard language, but plain language is necessary on this occasion, and in my opinion the record of your treatment of Ireland is a record of infamy and deceit.
    During the last three or four years at least, and especially during the last eighteen months, during which the present Prime Minister has been the chief ruler in this country, deceit has been more in evidence than on any previous occasion. If you have not got the moral right to inflict this law upon Ireland either from the consent of the people or from your treatment of them in the past, I want to know from where you have got it. I say that you have not got it at all from any source. Consequently, this law, like the Act of Union itself, may be enforced while there is power to enforce it, but in conscience it will never bind a single man of the Irish race. You might as well talk of the moral right of the footpad to rob the man whom he meets on a lonely road without arms. We are told that we ought to consider ourselves dishonoured in not joining with Great Britain in accepting this Act of Conscription. It is a favourite feature of Irish trials, say, for sedition, to tell the accused in the dock, ''You are an ungrateful son for raising trouble and for creating tumult and disorder and disloyalty in Ireland." I would like to read two or three sentences spoken by a man who was a distinguished politician in
    308
    Ireland before he became a distinguished Member of this House, namely, the late Mr. A. M. Sullivan. He was tried in Dublin for sedition. What did he say in his speech in his defence? He said:
    "Sedition in a rightly ordered community is indeed a crime, but who is it that challenges me? Who is it that demands my loyalty? Who is it that calls to me, ' Oh, ingrate son, where is the filial affection, the respect, the obedience, the support that is my due? ' I look in the face of my accuser who thus holds me to the duty of a son. I turn to see if I can recognise there the features of that mother, whom indeed I love, my mother Ireland. I look into that accusing fact;, and there I see a scowl, not a smile, and then I answer to my accuser, 'You have no claim on me. You have no claim on my allegiance. You are not my mother.'"
    I say to the Prime Minister, who used to be. so I understood, a champion of liberty; and who took up arms in speech against the Boer War—
    Mr. FLAVIN: And we often saved his life on the floor of this House.
    Mr. CLANCY: I say to him, if he addresses us as representatives of Ireland, and if he says ''It is your duty to accept the same obligations of military service as the people of Great Britain," that he has no right to make that demand of us. He is not representing our country. He is representing a Government and a country which, for centuries, have persecuted us, and who have left behind them a legacy of hate which has taken probably half a century to mitigate in some degree. I am sorry to say that his present action, and the action of his colleagues now, is calculated to undo all the good accomplished in the last half-century.
    Mr. BARNES (War Cabinet): It is with a considerable degree of diffidence, and only under a strong sense of responsibility, that I rise to take part in this Debate. I would express the hope that if I fail, as I probably shall, to reach the high level of eloquence of some of the previous speakers, the House will believe me when I say that my plain and simple words are the outcome of convictions borne in upon me during the last two or three weeks. I stood in this matter three weeks ago, as my colleagues well know, at exactly the point occupied by the Irish Leader last week. That is to say, I thought Conscription for Ireland was outside the arena of practical politics until Home Rule had been made an accomplished fact. I believe now that Home Rule might be put upon the

    309
    Statute Book before this Clause is operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is there already'."] I believe that upon this Bill hangs the fate of another Bill which may bring reconciliation and healing, and, instead of discord, may mean the binding up of wounds. We have heard a deal to-night, and we heard a lot last Friday about what may happen in Ireland. We have been threatened—I will not use the word threatened—but a prophecy has been made about men shooting from their doorsteps. We have been told of terrible things which will happen in Ireland. Might I ask Irishmen not to cry before they are hurt. Might I suggest to them that they should not start shooting until they are shot at. After all, a great deal of water will have to flow through the bridges before this particular Clause can be put into operation. A great deal may happen in that time. I hope and trust—and I speak as one who is a Home Ruler and has been one all his life—that Irishmen will regard the next few weeks as the most fateful weeks even in the history of their country. Upon what takes place during the next few-weeks I believe will hang the fate of Home Rule for our day and generation.
    Might I remind the House of one important new fact in this situation, which has come into the arena since we began three weeks ago. That new fact is the finding of a body of Irishmen. Up to then, and even up till now, British statesmanship had attempted to deal with difficulties of Ireland. They may have had the best of intentions I suppose they have had, but they had not breathed the atmosphere of Ireland. They had not known the psychology of the Irish people. They have not known, firsthand, the play of education, of religion, and all the other factors in Ireland. Therefore they have failed. About a year ago the Convention was set up with, I believe, the concurrence of all parties in this House, and certainly with that of the right hon. Member for Trinity College. The Convention was charged with this mandate: "We have failed hitherto to settle the Irish problem. See if you cannot, as Irishmen, bring in a programme whereby it can be settled in your own way." The Convention was set up nearly a year ago. It has been devoting its time to the matter for a great many sittings—I do not know how many. It is true, now that we have the Report, that it has not given us that substantial agreement that we had hoped and yearned for. But, after all, it has given us recommenda-
    310
    tions, and one recommendation upon which there is substantial agreement. That recommendation has reference to the main factor, and that is the setting up of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland. Can we build upon that recommendation? I hope we can. I hope there is sufficient statesmanship in this country, even in this grim period of war, to snatch a victory on the Irish front, if we cannot from any other.
    Mr. DILLON: I hope you will have a better chance on the other fronts.
    Mr. BARNES: We are going to snatch a victory on the other fronts. I have no more doubt as to the outcome of this War, in spite of all our difficulties and set backs, than I had three years ago. I believe we have right on our side, and that ultimately we shall have might on our side; and that this fight is a fight for Ireland as well. The hon. Member for East Mayo has put one or two plain, straightforward questions. He wants to know what it is we mean to do. A little later on, he said, and I took his words down, "What is their real programme?" That question has been put in different words during the last few days. It was put by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) the other day. It was put by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Scanlan). It was put by the late Prime Minister, who, with his usual clearness and directness, went to the kernel of the whole business. Hon. Members will remember that he pointed out that this particular Clause was the empowering Clause, and he wanted to know what we were going to do. He put the plain, clear, straightforward question, "What are you going to do in the interval before this Clause can operate?" I have to give the plain, clear, straightforward answer. We are going to bring in a Home Rule Bill, and pass it through this House, if it is possible to do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you asked Carson?"] Can I say more than that We are going to bring in a Bill for Home Rule, and pass it.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Impossible…
    Mr. BARNES: I assume, of course, co-operation and good will on the part of those who are immediately concerned. Given that, and that is the only qualification, we are going to pass this Bill. If we cannot get that, then it is a matter for every man to reconsider his position in

    311
    the light of the fact that will then have emerged. But the Government is going to bring in this Bill, and is going to pass it. That is my reply.
    An HON. MEMBER: Through the House of Lords?
    Mr. BARNES: If the House of Lords will not pass it, after this House has passed it, then the blood of the House of Lords be on the House of Lords head.
    Sir E. CARSON: Might I ask my right turn. Friend a question, because we ought to have no doubt about these matters. Does he mean, by the statement he has just made, that before any men are called to the Colours under this Man-Power Bill, he is going to pass a Home Rule Bill?
    Mr. BARNES: I have already said that we are going to bring in a Bill, and pass it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Answer that question…
    Mr. BARNES: I am no prophet. We are going to bring in a Bill, just in the ordinary way.
    Mr. DILLON: To humbug the Irish people…
    Mr. DEVLIN: I think the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University is a perfectly legitimate one, and I want to join him in pressing for an answer to it. Do you propose not to put into operation this Clause, if it passes, until a Home Rule Act for Ireland is in operation?
    Mr. BARNES: I do not think I can go further than I have already gone.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh…" and "Sit down…"
    Mr. BARNES: I want to be perfectly frank with hon. Members. We are going to bring in a Bill and pass it, if it is within our power to pass it. I cannot say whether the House of Lords will pass it or not. If it does not, the ordinary con sequences follow.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will you resign?
    Mr. BARNES: I have tried to state the position.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, or the Prime Minister, go the length of saying that if the House
    312
    of Lords fails to pass a Bill approved by the House of Commons, the Ministry will resign?
    Mr. BARNES: There is no difficulty in answering a question of that sort. I would say certainly the Government would resign. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let the Prime Minister answer… "]
    Mr. O'GRADY: I see the Prime Minister is nodding his approval of that statement. Does he approve it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: "Hear, hear." I said "Certainly"
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentle man who was addressing the House was making a considered statement, and he ought to be allowed to continue.
    Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. It is quite true the right hon. Gentleman is making a considered statement, and I am very sorry to interrupt him, but I think we are entitled to have that statement made sufficiently clear so that those who are to reply subsequently may know what he really meant.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to get the statement made clear, but not during the course of it. If he will reserve himself until the right hon. Gentleman has finished, and then desires to ask any further question in Debate, I understand the Prime Minister will follow later, and he will be able to supplement any matter on which doubt may be felt.
    Mr. BARNES: I thought I had answered the question put by the late Prime Minister. The form of that question was, if in the interval between now and this Clause becoming operative, we intended to bring in a Bill and to pass it? My answer to that is in the affirmative. I want now to apply myself to one or two practical considerations, and I want to make a special appeal to my Irish friends. I want them to try and realise, if they can, the difficult position in which we shall be placed without this particular Clause in the Bill. Please remember what has been done on this side of the Irish Channel. Please remember that we have skinned our industries down to the bone. We have brought ruin to many a small household at a time when the head of that household was just building up a small business. We have taken the widow's son. We have taken one, two, and sometimes three, and even four, sons

    313
    from the same family on this side of the water. The other day a case was put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Manchester (Mr. Sutton), referring to one of his constituents, who was still under fifty years of age, who had had two sons recently killed in the War, and whose wife, in consequence, was prostrate with grief. That man, under the operation of this Clause, will have to go into the Army. I want to ask my hon. Friends to try and put themselves into our position. Can I go down to Manchester and ask that man to join the Army, to be conscripted for the Army, while he knows perfectly well that young men are still standing idly by in Ireland? I can only say, for my part, I cannot do it. and I am not going to do it. That is the practical difficulty in the way, so far as contingent Conscription in Ireland is a feature of this Bill. We are told that a Home Rule Bill should be passed, and then Ireland should be left to furnish the men of her own accord. I am free to say I have been much moved by these appeals. I wish I could be guided by them. But let us look the facts in the face. I do not know how long it will take to pass the Home Rule Bill.—[An HON. MEMBER: "A week end…"]—It must take several weeks. A Bill of many Clauses must, under the Rules and Regulations which govern our procedure, take some weeks to get through. At any rate, it will occupy a few weeks. But after it has been passed it will be necessary to set up the Parliament in Ireland, and that will probably take three months, and all that time will have to pass before we can get men from an Irish Parliament. Indeed, it will occupy nearly the whole of the remainder of this year. But we want men now, and not at the end of the year.
    Mr. MEAGHER: And you will not get them.
    Mr. BARNES: The result will be we shall have to go on absorbing men on this side of the Channel and we shall have to wait until Home Rule is put on the Statute Book before we can begin to get a man from Ireland. Now, the Irish are a chivalrous and high-minded race. Let me appeal to them. Irishmen have gone from this country, and from Ireland as well, and they have fought side by side with men from England and Wales and Scotland. They have acquitted them selves magnificently on many a stricken field, and many have made the last great
    314
    sacrifice. The War is still going on. It is still making this great demand on the man-power of England, Wales and Scot land, and I want to know from my fellow Irish Members, do they think it is fair and right that the men on this side of the Irish, Channel should be sacrificing their lives while Irishmen on the other side of the Channel are standing idly by? Let me put it from the point of view of the women folk. I have letters now and again from them. Many of them I regard as my friends, although I have never seen them. In the early days of this War I took part in the effort to get better allowances for soldiers' wives and better pensions for their widows. I got in touch with a great many women, who occasionally write to me about their troubles. I try to get those troubles rectified as far as I can. I had a letter, dated the 10th of this month, from a woman with whom I had been in correspondence before—I had been trying to get leave for her husband. She writes:
    "I have had a letter from my husband. He says there is no possible chance of getting leave, and so I must just wait for the War to come to an end. He says he is doing his best in his corps. He is happier now he is receiving letters and parcels more frequently, and he says he will stick it out.… This last offensive in France makes me feel we must be as brave as we can and sit tight."
    The writer of this letter is the wife of a soldier. She has not seen her husband now for close on three years. That is the type of our noble women from one end of the country to the other. They are bearing their burdens cheerfully and courageously at the present time, and I appeal to my Irish fellow Members, seeing that that is what is going on on this side of the Channel, and they content that the people on the other side of the Channel should stand aside and not bear their fair share of the burden? I remember in the early days of the War I was cheered and stirred by the magnificent speeches of the late Irish Leader, and I believed we were nearing the end of our Irish troubles. I visualised the Irish people marching for ward with us and managing their own affairs. But that picture has lately been fading away. It may be that the causes are partly to be found in incidents such as those recited to us the other day by the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). I was grieved to hear him describe how the enthusiasm of young recruits in Belfast had been chilled by the treatment they and their religion had received from men in khaki. I was sorry to learn from

    315
    him of the difficulty which had been put in the way of the hon. Member for Waterford getting a commission. But there was one thing which struck me at the time, and it was this, that that sort of thing is not at all peculiar to Ireland. I know some young men on this side of the Channel who joined up immediately the War broke out. They were men who came from good homes, who were accustomed to all the amenities and comforts of our social life. But they went out immediately after the War had begun, and they spent the first horrible winter up to their knees in liquid mud. They came back lousy and dirt-begrimed, and with pretty well the same tales as were told us the other night by the hon. Member for West Belfast. I know young men who went from this side of the Channel who never thought of asking for a commission, but they went into the Army as privates and did their best for their country. These things happened three years ago. They may have happened since.
    Mr. DILLON: They are going on now…
    Mr. BARNES: I think they have to a large extent been rectified.
    Mr. DILLON: No…
    Mr. BARNES: I know they have. I have made close inquiry. In those days our young men were brought in contact with men in khaki who had no knowledge of or interest in anything but the tented field. But I believe that now, as a result of the common danger and of facing death daily, a new religion has grown up, and there has come a closer comradeship between officers and men. [An HON. MEMBER: "No…"] I believe it is so.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I deny it…
    Mr. BARNES: I know of cases where it is so, and therefore I do ask my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast not to think of these happenings as relating to Belfast only—not to treat them as sectional differences. I ask him, and I ask all my hon. Friends from Ireland, to think once more of the great issues involved in this War, and now we come to them, it may be in a chastened mood, to give us again their help and co-operation. We have no option consistent with going on with the War—and to drop the War is to my mind unthinkable—but to pass this Clause. Let me remind hon. Gentlemen what this War is. It is a war for the very
    316
    life of democracy. It is a war upon which there are ranged on our side pretty well all the democratic countries of the world, including the great democracy of the West —a democracy which includes in its army many thousands of Irishmen.
    Mr. DILLON: Hundreds of thousands.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BARNES: And let me remind you that this is a War of such magnitude that it has dwarfed all minor and internal issues in the belligerent countries; and I would say this, not by way of threat or anything of that sort, that if this War were to be lost because of Ireland, then Irish Home Rule would be a matter not for our day and generation. In fact, any internal questions left unsettled at the end of this War stand a very poor chance of getting settled except with due regard to the considerations arising from this War. One might have hoped that such a condition of things would be brought about that Ireland could have yielded the men when a Home Rule Bill was passed. One might have wished that Ireland would have been in a position to yield her quota of men now without Conscription. But we must look at the facts as we find them. It is all very well to say Ireland might give the men if she had Home Rule. This Parliament is the only Imperial Parliament. This Parliament is the only Parliament charged with the duty of looking after the safety of the people of these Islands. This Parliament cannot divest itself of its duty of calling upon all men to do their share in providing for the common safety. I should say—I hope I will not give offence to my Irish Friends when I say it—that there is a special obligation resting upon Ireland because of its very separation by a strip of water on the west side of this island. There are German submarine commanders always prowling about. They have no respect for persons, and they would just as soon sink a shipload of Irishmen —
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: We do not even get protection in the way the Belfast boats do…
    Mr. BARNES: I do not think there is any discrimination on this side or on the side of the Germans. There is not, at all events, on the part of the gallant men of our Navy, who, in their silent watches on the sea, are protecting Irishmen just the same as Scotsmen or Welshmen; and I should say the commanders of the German

    317
    submarines would just as soon sink a shipload of Irishmen as a shipload of Scotsmen, Welshmen, or Englishmen. Therefore, there is an obligation on the part of Irishmen to put in their weight and fulfil their part of a common obligation. I base myself on that, apart altogether from discussions of Home Rule or any other questions. I base myself upon this: there is a common obligation to support the Navy and the Army because all share in the protection of the Army and the Navy. It is true that Canada has given her share in her own way, and that Australia has refused to conscript herself for service; but there is this to be said in regard to Canada and Australia, that they are a long way off, and they are not represented in this House as Ireland is. It is also true that the Convention which has just concluded its labours has, by a sub-committee, decided that Conscription should be a matter only for an Irish Parliament. Well, very large issues are raised thereby. I think I am right in saying that no federal system of Home Rule is possible if such a principle is to be applied. It is inconceivable that if the principle of Federal Home Rule were put into operation, Ireland, and of course Wales and Scotland, would have a veto over the raising of forces for the protection of these Islands. Still, for my part, I would not even boggle at that. If it were possible to settle this age-long grievance of the Irish people, and if only that stood in the way, I should grant even that; and I will tell you why. Because at the moment it is really an academic question. If we win this War, as we shall, then there will be no Conscription either in Ireland or anywhere else. Therefore, for my part, I would not even have that obstacle, in the way of settling the Irish question.
    I hope I have answered the questions put by the hon. Member for East Mayo. [HON. MEMBERS: "No…"] Well, I have honestly tried to do so. I am sincerely anxious and eager to see some good coming out of these Debates. I appeal to Irishmen to do good for evil that good may come. I believe that with good will and co-operation there is one of the greatest chances for Ireland that has presented itself in my time, and I say that as a Home Ruler all my political life. To sum up, I should say the new fact in the position is the new chance that we have of settling this whole problem. The Government mean to catch hold of that chance
    318
    with resolution and determination, and to pass a Bill based upon those findings, with such modifications as may be found necessary, as speedily as possible. We cannot apply this measure of Conscription here without applying the meed of Conscription to Ireland which we have in this Bill. We need the men, and we have the right to ask for them, because there is a common danger and therefore a common obligation. I have tried to avoid anything in the nature of recrimination or threats, because it is no time for that. I have refrained from saying anything about the criticism of the generals which was offered by the hon. Member for East Mayo, because, after all, that does not bear upon the present situation. I appeal to this House, as I specially appeal to the Members from Ireland, to give us this Clause of the Bill, to trust us once more, to trust organised Labour in this country to see that justice is done in this Bill, and that the just aspirations of Ireland are met. I ask hon. Members opposite, and I ask the House, to yield to the soldiers that support which is their due. These men are fighting for us; they are suffering that we may live in safety. Let us give them that support to which they are so manifestly entitled, and then let us at the same time apply that principle of self-government for which they are fighting.
    Sir E. CARSON: I shall not express any opinion upon whether either my opponents opposite, or those whom I have the honour to be associated with from Ireland in this House, ought to trust this Government. That is a matter which I shall deal with upon a subsequent occasion. An important announcement has been made which I think I ought to deal with at once. When this Bill was introduced I said that I would support, and those who acted with me from Ireland would support, with all our hearts, this measure for applying the Man-Power Bill to Ireland. I take exactly the same view now as I did then. I shall support it, and shall support it to the end. At the same time, let me say that the only basis upon which I am bound to support it, or that those in Ireland who are associated with me are bound to support it, is that they should have equal and similar rights with all the other cititzens of the United Kingdom. If you take away those equal and similar rights and put them in a subordinate position, then an entirely

    319
    different question arises. But for my own part, if you put me, as an Irishman, in that subordinate position with which we are now threatened, if you put me under a Government of hon. Members opposite and those who are associated with them, I would still support it; and I will tell you why in a moment. Further, if you put me under Sinn Feiners, who I believe are a very large and revolutionary party in Ireland, I would still support it; and I will tell you why. Because no more detestable domination could be put over the world than the Germans are now trying to impose. Yes, I would support it, not because I was grateful to His Majesty's Government, and even though I detested and loathed the breaches of faith which I think I will be able to prove against them. That has nothing to do with it. I support it because I would prefer anything than that the whole principle of civilisation and progress should be impeded by the victory of our enemies who are trying to make a world-domination by the sword. I have another reason, as an Irishman, why, even under these conditions, I would support it. Hon. Members opposite, and those who act with them in Ireland, sent out a brave division —in which, may I say, I have many friends —to the front. Ulster, too, sent out a brave division to the front. Fighting there for this country, and for their own country let me say, they have become mere skeletons of the past. I am ashamed of Ireland that they are skeletons. They ought to be filled with the manhood of Ireland, who ought to go out and replace those who have been slaughtered by the enemies of their country and the enemies of this country and of France.
    Having made my position upon that perfectly clear, let me now deal for one moment with the announcement which has just been made by my right hon. Friend It is now perfectly clear, and let it be understood—and I think it is well it should be understood on both sides—that no recruits in Ireland are to be conscripted until a Home Rule Bill is passed by this Government. That is the announcement. That is, the handing over of Ulster is the price to be paid for Conscription. Let us face the facts. Why do I say the Bill is to be passed? For this reason. The Government have pledged themselves to bring in and pass the Bill if possible; but if they cannot pass it they say they will resign. Therefore, in their tenure, of office there
    320
    can be no Conscription unless the Home Rule Bill is passed. That makes the situation perfectly clear and perfectly definite. I want to ask for a moment, what do they think they are going to gain by passing the Bill under those conditions? When the Ball is passed, will hon. Members opposite withdraw their objection to Conscription? They have not said so. My own belief is that Conscription will be then more difficult, because you will have, I suppose, a Government set up in Ireland… which will be opposed to Conscription, and therefore you will have not merely the people to deal with, butt the Government to deal with in relation to Conscription.
    And what will be the case, on the passing of the Bill, in Ulster? You will ask me, I have no doubt, to go over to Ulster and make things smooth. Well, I do not own Ulster, nor does anybody else. All I can say is it is not an easy job to go over and say to these people, "You were promised, if you went into the Army, by a Prime Minister, by a Leader of the Opposition, by a whole House of Commons, and by an Act they have passed that Home Rule would be suspended during the War, and you sent your men out on that condition to fight and to die for their country." As I passed through Belfast a short time ago a woman in the streets roared out, "I have lost three children, Sir Edward, in the War. Are we going to get Home Rule?" I knew perfectly well what she was thinking about. Am I to go over and tell them, because they have acted in the spirit which this country has, and have relied on the promise given by a Prime Minister, a Leader of; the Opposition and an Act of Parliament, that all that is to be pushed aside, and because of their loyalty, and because they happen to be perfectly quiet at the present time, they are to be the people to be sacrificed? And they are, in addition to that, to be asked be allow themselves to be conscripted, and many of them to allow their businesses to be ruined. I hope, notwithstanding that, they will still support this Conscription Bill, and help to carry it out in Ireland. But it is a bitter matter, make no mistake about it. Nothing Ireland—north, south, east, and west—has suffered so much in its history as the broken pledges of British statesmen.
    Mr. DILLON: We are agreed at last On one thing.
    Sir E. CARSON: Let me look forward a little, because Governments are rather inclined, I think, to get over momentary difficulties by idle statements, and sometimes by resolutions, and sometimes by Acts of Parliament; but you are setting up in the middle of the War a Home Rule Parliament—setting it up, as I understand, whether Ulster likes it or not—setting it up without ever having consulted the Sinn Fein element, which is, at all events, not a negligible element in Ireland. I suppose you will have, even if the War continues, to set up this Government by elections in Ireland, and constitute a Government selected by the people. How will you carry it on, and who will carry on that Government? If it is opposed by the Sinn Feiners, and if it is opposed by Ulster, I do not envy any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who happens to be the Prime Minister of this first Irish Parliament. No; I believe you have blundered from beginning to end on the whole of this question. You ought to have made up your mind: was Conscription possible in Ireland under present conditions or was it not? If you made up your minds it was, and that it was right, then you ought to have passed it. If you made up your minds it was wrong, you ought not to have tried to pass it by a bribe, and by throwing over those who have been faithful to you in the past. You have tried, I suppose, to please everybody, and I believe in the long run you will please nobody. But for all that, I say to my friends in Ulster, "With all seriousness and sadness at the vista which is set before you in having inflicted upon you something you never, at all events, dreamed of during the horrors and miseries of this War—not withstanding all that, I beseech of you to go on as you have been going on in the past to help in the prosecution of the War."
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I have taken little part in the melancholy proceedings connected with this Bill. I abstained, because I regard these Debates as marking the final bankruptcy of Parliamentary methods as a means of enforcing the demands of Ireland. I noticed a heading in the Northcliffe Press a night or two ago, "An Irish Flutter in the House," to describe the solemn protest of every Irish Nationalist representative in this House, and, as I am more or less a looker-on, I may be permitted to add that that protest was conducted by the Irish Members with singular eloquence and ability. If the Prime Minister wanted to give Parliamen-
    322
    tarians another chance in Ireland, he would have frankly accepted the demand of the hon. Member for Mayo and dropped this Clause on the first night, and he would have saved himself and ourselves from the hurricane of passion and anarchy that he has all but already set loose in Ireland. If he had done so, he would have deprived the Sinn Feiners of their principal argument with the Irish people—that is perhaps Parliamentary methods in Westminster—because, let there be no mistake about it, the insurrection would never have gained such a hold upon the sympathies of the people of Ireland, in fact, that insurrection could never have taken place at all only that it was provoked by a long series of Parliamentary mutterings and rottenness which has made the name of Parliamentarians a hissing and a scorn amongst the young men of Ireland. The Prime Minister did nothing of the kind. He concluded from recent elections in Ireland that Sinn Fein was no longer a power to be dreaded, that the country was disarmed and helpless, that now was the time to strike. Accordingly he and his Government refused to yield one inch and united every Nationalist Member for Ireland, backed up by the united Irish hierarchy, backed up by the Leader of the Opposition, and backed in his heart— nobody can doubt—by his own Chief Secretary.
    Not only that, but the Prime Minister apparently managed to persuade himself that he was striking some smashing blow at Irish disaffection, when he was all the time furnishing the Sinn Feiners with the most splendid and the most triumphant justification they could desire by demonstrating the impotence of Parliamentary methods in this House, and by exposing to the world the Prime Minister's cruel and ungrateful return to the Irish Members for long years of devoted service. What follows? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke a while ago—what did he say for himself? The Irish people have just been most rudely awakened from one delusion, and that excellent Gentleman appeals to them now to chloroform themselves into a new delusion as to this Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, amidst pretty general laughter, appealed to the Irish people to trust him once more. Why, one of the most fatal weaknesses of our national character is our over-readiness to be captivated by fair words from strangers. For the last seven or eight years the Irish people have trusted

    323
    you to an almost criminal extent. It has taken betrayal after betrayal to open their eyes and to reawaken their self-respect. Now, forsooth, we are asked to begin the dreary task of showing once more a childlike and almost servile fidelity to the men who represent a Government that has again and again been guilty of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has just taunted them with broken pledges to Ireland. I do not impugn the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, but I have no hesitation in saying that in spite of what has happened to-night that this talk about presenting us with a new Home Rule Bill by way of compensation for plunging our country into civil war in the meantime is arrant nonsense, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not know it he ought to have known it. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said to-night—and I regard his speech as one of very considerable importance and I listened to it with great respect—I cannot forget that you constructed your so-called Irish Convention in such a way that the only possible answer you could receive from Ulster was the answer that you did receive, namely, a cry of "No surrender, or the partition of the country."
    You know very well that it is not merely the present hybrid Government, but that the Home Rule Government pledged themselves solemnly, by all their gods, to what might have been regarded by them as fair play for the nation, without even compelling the irreconcilables of Ulster to obey the law like other people. I shall say no more upon the statement that came from the Treasury Bench to-night intimating more or less, that although the Chief Secretary was repudiated and ignored the other night by the Leader of the Opposition he had the satisfaction of finding one of his colleagues coming down to-night and, more or less, renewing and emphasising the intimation that an Irish Parliament must be sitting before any recruits are called to the Colours. I hope that that is so. We are willing to wait and see. But we cannot afford to believe you, and we do not believe you… We will wait for deeds and not for words before we will relax in any particular the tremendous outburst of feeling in Ireland which alone
    324
    has brought the Prime Minister even the very short pilgrimage that he has apparently accomplished to-night.
    Go your course, and we will go ours. It is not in this House; it is in Ireland that this battle will have to be fought out, as it is owing to the people of Ireland that the first approach to victory has been won. In every great emergency within my recollection for fifty years it was not in this House, but it was at home, in Ireland, that the national cause was Saved. So it will be this time. I am not in the counsels of those who undoubtedly are in the confidence of the young men of Ireland. But of this I am very sure: Be their plans what they may, there will be found sufficient determination and sufficient self-sacrifice among the people of Ireland to convince you, before you have completed this battle for the military enslavement of Ireland, that you have not entered upon very profitable military operations. You will find that you will make millions of enemies while you will never capture one efficient recruit for every ten soldiers it will take you to capture him. You will have the whole Irish race against you, including 500,000 of the best soldiers in the Allied Armies. You will have to encounter in every town and on every hillside in Ireland a universal resistance, in which you will have the priests of Ireland and the people solidly united as a formidable and unconquerable force. You will find before you have an end of the job that you have undertaken in Ireland that you can no more succeed in beating these forces down than Queen Elizabeth could succeed in forcing her religion, or that Cromwell could succeed in driving the Irish people from the land of which they are now the owners after the confiscators have gone. You undertook many years ago again and again to give Ireland her liberties. You have broken your word even in the matter of the wretched Act which you have placed upon the Statute Book, and you have in this matter of Conscription broken your word again. You may now try to sneak out of it.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House the other night was scandalised because we suspected that this is rather a measure for torpedoing Home Rule rather than the enrolment of recruits. What else were we to believe when you consider the infinitesimal addition that this Bill can ever make to the strength of your arm compared with what you will be letting

    325
    loose? What intelligent explanation is there for undertaking this campaign at all except as a means of taking advantage of the present outburst of a not inexcusable panic and prejudice here in England to get rid of your Home Rule obligations altogether and your difficulties with the Ulster irreconcilables, and then throw all the blame upon the people of Ireland and place them in a false and unfair light before the people of America and before the rest of the world? I have no hesitation in saying you may perhaps, to some extent, witness a change of front to-night, but if we do we owe it to the magnificent courage of the Irish people, and nothing else. I make all allowance for the difficulties of the Leader of the Opposition during these Debates, but I confess that I could not help thinking that if we had still a Gladstone in our midst he would not content himself with words of sympathy, however eloquent in debate, but he would have carried his convictions and his followers into the Division Lobby, and he would and could have defeated this horrid breach of faith with Ireland and possibly have saved the Empire as well.
    We said at the beginning of the War, and we say it to-night, that you had a just and noble cause when you entered the War, but I solemnly believe that the day on which you issue this Order in Council—I would call it an Order in Blood—it will be the death warrant of peace between the two countries, and from that day history will hold you as responsible for the guilt of that act, as an act of brutality and treachery as bad as ever the Germans perpetrated in their beastly onslaught on Belgium. I hope the Prime Minister when he speaks to-night may even yet avert the fate which awaits the movement of reconciliation between the two countries. If he cannot, then we are here to-night as mourners at the funeral of that great movement amongst Irish Nationalists. My advice has been spurned so often by the wise men of this House that the one suggestion I can even imagine at this last desperate stage is that you should at least suspend this Order in Council, I do not say merely until you have passed a Home Rule Act, which may be as wretched an abortion as the Act upon the Statute Book, but I say until you have first speeded up a General Election that will give the Irish people an opportunity of pronouncing and of electing a body of representatives who will genuinely represent Ireland.
    326
    We are all in this extraordinary position: At the present moment there is no man and no set of men who are entitled to claim to be the authorised representatives of the people of Ireland. I say first elect those men and give the Irish people an opportunity of electing genuine and authorised representatives, whoever they may be, and then enter into genuine negotiations with those men. Whoever they are, come to business with them at once. Do not go on talking for another twelve months as in the case of that cruel practical joke of the so-called Irish Convention. If there is any point they differ upon you could refer it to the arbitration of President Wilson and of General Botha, with power to appoint another. That may still save you and save us from scenes of anguish and bloodshed, and from irreconcilable hatred, which I do not like. But you will have to take the initiative yourselves, and, in the words of your friend Lord Northcliffc, "you will have to do it now." Unless you do so, I, for one, can see no way in which you can escape from the humiliation, the danger of having an angry and desperate Ireland knocking at the doors of your Peace Conference, and possibly knocking at the doors and gaining a hearing on the same footing as those small nationalities of the Austrian Umpire which you have undertaken to champion as one of the inevitable conditions of peace.
    Mr. C. PRICE: As one who has for a long time always been sympathetic to the Irish people on the question of Home Rule, perhaps I may be excused for intervening in this Debate. It was my fortune to sympathise with Ireland and Home Rule almost before the time of Parnell, and I was in this House when the hon. Member for East Mayo made his speech nearly forty years ago. He delivered a speech very shortly after he entered the House.
    Mr. BARNES: You are an old man.
    Mr. PRICE: I am over sixty years of age, and I remember that after the speech which Mr. Dillon delivered he was followed by Mr. Gladstone, who described that speech as a distressful one. Who was right in those days? Mr. Gladstone had not then adopted Homo Rule. We now have had the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo on this Bill, which I am certain is going to create hell in Ireland.

    327
    It is the most unfortunate Bill which has been presented to Parliament since the War began. You did have unity in Ireland when the War began, but what is the condition produced in Ireland by this Bill? I am quite aware that by introducing this measure at the present time, and raising the age to fifty-one, you make it extremely difficult for many Members in this House, and for the people of this country, to excuse Ireland. All the greater is the pity. In view of the Report presented to Parliament by the Irish Convention, the Government should have introduced a Bill for Home Rule before bringing in this measure, the introduction of which has created a bad atmosphere in Ireland, because they look upon you with the greatest suspicion. I notice that a good many Members always shrink when they hear Irishmen say that they distrust British statesmen. They have always done so. I will read a passage written by Mr. Lecky, in referring to Grattan. He said:
    "Grattan shares, like most Irishmen, a strong dread lest what was given should immediately be drawn back."
    That was written of Grattan, and I say that Irishmen are quite justified by their history to look upon us with great suspicion. You could have removed that suspicion if you had delayed this Bill for a fortnight or three weeks, and presented at once a Home Rule Bill for Ireland. It is not only hell that you are going to create in Ireland, but what is to be the effect of this Bill upon Irish troops fighting for us at the front? Do you think it will encourage them to fight for us in France, when they see what is the condition of things in their own country? [An HON. MEMBER: "They want drafts…"] You would have got them if you had brought in a Home Rule Bill first. What will be the effect of this Bill on the friends of Ireland in America? Anybody who knows the United States of America as I know them recognises that there is no section of the community in America which exercises greater influence in that country, and this measure must have a disastrous effect upon them. I very much regret that this Bill should have been introduced at this particular juncture. You should first of all have proceeded with a measure of conciliation for Ireland. There was a time when Ireland was in exactly the same position as she is in now. Let me quote from a Report sent by the Lord Lieu-
    328
    tenant (the Duke of Portland) to the Government in 1782. This is what he said:
    "If you delay or refuse to be liberal, the Government cannot exist here in its present form, and the sooner you recall your Lord Lieutenant and renounce all claim to this country the better; but, on the contrary, if you bring your minds to concede handsomely, I am persuaded that you can make any use of this people, and of everything that they are worth, that you can wish."
    What was the result? Fox declared:
    "They were determined to repeal the declamatory Act of George I. to abandon the appelate jurisdiction of the English House of Lords, to consent to such modification of Poyning's law as would annihilate the exceptional powers of the two Privy Councils, and to limit the Mutiny Act."
    The Duke of Portland reported these concessions to the Irish Parliament on 27th May, 1782. The proceedings in that Irish Parliament were made memorable, in the first place, by expressing its gratitude to Almighty God by a day of thanksgiving
    "for the many blessings of late bestowed on this Kingdom of (Ireland), and particularly for that union, harmony, and cordial affection happily subsisting between the two Kingdoms, and also its gratitude to England by voting £100,000 towards furnishing 20,000 additional sailors for the British Navy."
    That was the result of making concessions. If you had treated Ireland in the same generous manner, and if there had been statesmanship displayed, you would have had, perhaps, in Ireland precisely the same result to-day. Anyone who has employed Irish people knows that there is no body of people who more readily respond to generous treatment. I believe that if you proceed with this measure and impose coercion on Ireland, it will be one of the most disastrous things that ever occurred in the history of this country.
    Major TRYON: I am very glad to have the opportunity of replying at once to the last speaker. I understand he sits for a Scottish constituency. We have heard from the Leader of the Irish Nationalist party that there is no need for men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all… He never suggested anything of the kind…"] Well, the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) suggested there was no urgent need for men, because he suggested postponing the matter until a Home Rule Bill was passed. I suggest to the hon. Member that he should read the report in the papers of the 51st Division, a Scottish Division, which has had to fight hard in the South day after day, and which has not been taken out of the line for a rest, but has had to fight again in the North

    329
    against a second attack, where the men have borne themselves most gallantly. When a Scottish division has to take its place twice over at the front, how can anybody say that there is no need for the Irish to take their share of the burden and to avoid throwing such an undue strain on the other portions of the country? Some of the Nationalist Members have accepted the principle that the Parliament in America is quite entitled to conscript the Irish in America. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear…"] I am glad to hear that they accept that position. Yet they deny the right of this Parliament, although they sit in it, to conscript Irishmen by a Bill passed at Westminster. They are supported in that by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who lately has made speeches and taken up a strong position as a Federalist. Those who take up the position of Federalists should stand by federal principles. If there is one thing which is sustained throughout by federal principles, it is that peace and war, armies and navies, are matters for the central government. I am not prepared to define the whole federal position, but to put the case in a sentence, it is not inaccurate to say that it amounts to this: that matters which are common to all, shall be settled in a common Parliament. It is inconceivable that any federal solution of our difficulties in this country could be arrived at which would be satisfactory to England, Scotland, and Wales, which did not include the questions of the Army, Navy, and Conscription. When the Nationalist Members take up an attitude incompatible with the federal solution of their grave national difficulties, they are taking up a position which makes it very difficult to have a general peaceable solution of the Irish difficulty on federal lines. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will repeat it to the hon. Member, if he does not understand. It is because, under all conceivable federal governments, the questions of Conscription and of the Army are necessarily matters settled in a Central Parliament. Let me give the House an example. In South Africa there are two races which greatly differ, the British and the Dutch. They have Conscription there, and they have compulsory training, but they did not settle those questions in a local parliament. It was settled in one unified Parliament.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Do you think we have a local parliament?
    Major TRYON: My point is that if there were a local parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah, if…"]—I am much obliged to hon. Members opposite for interrupting me, because it shows, they are doing what I value very much, that is listening to what I am saying. I was saying that in South Africa there are two races, both proud of their race. The Dutch are as proud of their race as the Irish rightly are of their own. They thought out, under General Botha, to whom the Irish party has just appealed, the best form of government and decided to have a unified form of government, and they settled all questions of the army and conscription.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Under Botha…
    9.0 P.M.
    Major TRYON: Certainly… There is also the case of Canada, which has already been alluded to. There you have the French section of the people differing in religion, language, and many great sentiments from the rest of the people of Canada. But their army questions are not settled in the Quebec Parliament, as hon. Members from Ireland know. They are settled in the Central Parliament of Canada.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: No…
    Major TRYON: My point is that if you are going to achieve a workable constitutional scheme for Ireland, it must be on federal lines and be acceptable to England, Scotland, and Wales, and any such scheme must necessarily place the Army, the Navy, and the question of Conscription under the central Parliament at Westminster. [An HON. MEMBER: "When is that scheme to come?"] I am glad that hon. Members do not so greatly disagree with me. If I may for a moment chaff them, there was a point in the speech of their leader, the hon. Member for East Mayo, when he seemed to be somewhat of a Unionist, because he described how he was passing across the Irish Channel, and when he was half-way across he began talking about "Our Navy." He recognised in that speech that in matters of defence the two nations must necessarily stand together in order to help each other. He began to speak of "we." How he spent the rest of his voyage I do not know, but I noticed that he denounced the English for not providing more ships. Perhaps he spent his

    331
    time calculating how often he had voted for a reduction of the British Navy during his forty years in this House.
    There is one matter which is very urgent. I want to put it so as to create as little feeling as I can between us and Nationalist Members opposite. It is a very difficult thing to put. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) said that this was simply a matter of expediency, and not one of principle. I differ absolutely from that statement. I believe that the whole foundation upon which alone these heavy burdens can be borne is the foundation of equal justice. I believe that Conscription in this country was partly necessitated not only by the need for better organisation, but by the bad feeling that would be created if one man should go out and another should stay at home and take his job. I say very sincerely, and with all friendship to Ireland, that England, Scotland, and Wales are under this Bill going to shoulder a very heavy burden. Men up to fifty years of age are to be called up. Year after year during this War, first under the voluntary system, then under the organisation of Conscription, the burden of the business and the whole work of our country has been gradually piled up on the older men. It is upon these older men, who are now bearing a heavy burden, that this Bill is going to make a heavy call. There are people with one-man businesses, there are men engaged in the distributing trade, there are men engaged in all walks of life throughout the country, who will have to respond to that call. It could not be done without a feeling of great injustice if these men were to be called up with the full knowledge that there are—nobody disputes it— thousands upon thousands of young men —and there are no better soldiers—staying at home in Ireland. No one knows how well those men would fight better than many hon. Members in this House who have seen them, but the fact remains that they are not fighting, and it creates ill-will between the two countries. It is not in the interests of Ireland that there should be this ill-feeling between the two countries, and I, for one, hope that under this Bill Irishmen may come more willingly than some of their speakers suggest. I do not want to see trouble between us and Ireland. I am not like some hon. Members who, when one of
    332
    their number spoke of Ireland being Under a dark cloud, cheered. I am not one who would cheer that sort of thing. I lament the difference between Ireland and my own country, and should like to see them removed, and, so far as this question of Conscription is concerned, it will undoubtedly make for better feeling between England, Scotland, and Wales, and the Irish, if in this desperate struggle we feed that the Irish have borne their full share throughout the latter stages of the campaign.
    In the last two or three speeches hon. Members have spoken as though there was no heed for haste. There is need for haste—urgent need. We have in the past had Governments who required men for the Army nine, ten, and eleven months ahead, and while we have been waiting for unanimity the time has gone by. We have had cases where, perhaps, nine months have been allowed waiting for unanimity and for some of the Labour party, and then, perhaps, only nine or ten weeks to train the men before they went to France. I believe it is essential that the men should be got at once, and that adequate time should be allowed to train them properly before they go out, and I hope this may lead not to confusion and tumult, but to a better feeling between the two countries. I realise, as representing an English constituency and as a Unionist, that there are on those benches, through all the clamour we have heard against the Bill, many men who are as anxious as we are about the news from France. We know that many who speak so violently here, the moment they get outside the House, go to look at the tape as anxiously as we do and see what the news is. We know there are many other men who have borne a gallant part in the War, others who have sustained personal losses, and others who are bearing the shadow of grave personal anxiety, and therefore I speak rather for the urgent needs of our people in France and in a spirit of protest against anything which may stir up strife between the two countries.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech has been a very interesting contribution to the discussion. It would not be possible for me to enter into the various points he has raised. For instance, the federal question is beside the question now. We are all agreed as to the hardships inflicted by this Bill. It is a horribly hard Bill. It is a far harsher

    333
    and more cruel Conscription Bill than it was ever conceived this House could possibly agree to. What was the meaning of bringing it forward? What was the meaning of inserting the curious provision raising the age to fifty and fifty-six and compelling men fifty years of age to take their share in the War? All these curious details, I suppose, must be laid to the account of the higher statesmanship. There was some object in making these extraordinary arrangements for Conscription in England, and we cannot help thinking that it has something to do with the question of Conscription in Ireland. I do not wish to go into that or to raise any controversial points, because things are very much too serious. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) made a most sympathetic and affecting speech. I have known him for a number of years. He has always been a strong and consistent friend of my country. He has fought many battles with us in the old days, and the appeal he made to us Irishmen in connection with this Bill certainly made a very great impression upon me for personal reasons, but he asks us to do an absolutely impossible thing. He asks us Irish Nationalists to agree to the imposition by this House of Conscription upon our country. Whatever can be said with regard to Conscription by an Irish Parliament, there is no use pretending to think that Irishmen will ever submit to Conscription from this House. We have said that already, and we can only repeat it now, and I think it is a most unfortunate thing for the future relationship between these two countries that this question of Conscription should have been so mixed up with the question of an Irish Parliament that it makes it almost impossible for us to accept an Irish Parliament under existing conditions.
    We really do not know where we are as far as the intention of the Government are concerned. We have heard that the Government propose to pass a Home Rule Bill. But we could not understand, although it was thrown out in some sort of indefinite way, whether the Home Rule Bill was to come into operation before Conscription should be applied to Ireland. We are left in doubt upon that point. Some hon. Members think the statement of the Government was that Conscription would not be applied to Ireland until the Irish Parliament was established. I do not know how that is. We may see something about it in the papers to-morrow morning. But the
    334
    unfortunate thing is making an offer to us Irish Nationalists of a Home Rule Bill for Ireland coupling with it the acceptance by our people of Conscription imposed by this House. The situation is difficult, and I am afraid it is almost insoluble. No one realises better than we do, who have spent all our political lives in trying to make peace between this country and our own, the hideous position in which we stand. It is not for us to talk of sacrifices. Even our most inveterate opponents must admit that taking us all round we Nationalist representatives of Ireland have done the best for the Empire and the War according to our opportunities. We have made suggestions to the Government over and over again, but our suggestions have been invariably turned down. We have advised our people to have patience; we have urged them to believe in Government promises, but in every single case we have been turned down. While we have done these things for many years with the object of reconciling our people with the English people and reconciling the English people with our people we find now at this appalling crisis that by the amazing action of the Government all our acts, all our labours, all our endeavours for the whole of our lives, are practically thrown to the winds. It is a hideous situation. What the Government expect to do by introducing Conscription at this time I cannot imagine. It cannot be for the purpose of an immediate increase to the Armies at the front. Everybody knows that if Conscription is imposed in Ireland to-morrow the men that would be raised would not be fit for military service for twelve months or six months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Three months."]
    Brigadier-General CROFT: It would be a shame to send men after three months.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: What the Government ought to have done was to set up an Irish Parliament and to leave this question of Ireland's contribution to the War in man-power to the decision of the Irish Parliament. I am convinced that if you had only trusted Ireland you would not have been disappointed. What is going to-happen now goodness only knows. You have got into an impasse. I am absolutely convinced that the only chance you have now of enlisting the full strength of Ireland and the full power of the young manhood of Ireland on the side of the Allies is by allowing Ireland through her own Parliament to decide what shall be her part in the War.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: I speak as an Irish Nationalist who, at the beginning of this War felt bound as a lover of liberty to ask my fellow countrymen to join with the Allies in defeating the Huns. For two years I spent every Sunday going through my county, and practically through the whole of Munster, appealing to my fellow countrymen to join whole-heartedly and enthusiastically in order to repel what I consider the modern invaders and destroyers of humanity and liberty. I felt then as I feel now, that if Germany were to win in this War not alone Ireland, England, and Scotland, but the whole of the civilised world would have suffered a calamity from which it would take a century or more to relieve them. Through all the years that have gone while this terrible War has been in progress I have felt as an Irishman when things occurred to mar our work, and to raise doubts in the minds of our fellow countrymen as to the great object of this War, and as to your desire to be fair to my countrymen, very sad and sorrowful. It is painful to Irishmen, the children of a small nationality, sons of a race and of a country which is old and proud, belonging to a people older than you, older than the Germans, to hear taunts thrown at us that we refuse to take our part in this War, implying thereby that we, the children of a fighting race, always standing for idealism, self-sacrifice, and liberty, are skulking behind, that we are too cowardly to fight as men, and that we allow the old and the decrepit to go to defend our shores while we remain at home. I repudiate that as an insult to my race and country. We are no cowards who skulk behind others and wait to be defended by them. No man who knows us, no man who has studied the history of our race, whether in this War or in any other, can say truly that Irishmen are not prepared to fight and to sacrifice if you only show them they have a cause to fight for.
    There I come to what I consider is the gist of all this discussion. Have you honestly asked yourselves what was the meaning of that noble spirit of our late and much lamented chairman, whose character I am afraid has not been understood or appreciated in his own country or in this, and whose patriotism and far-seeing statesmanship has been forgotten long before he was dead? Have you realised the splendid spirit of enthusiasm which prompted him to come forward in the early days of the War, when he cheered
    336
    you and cheered the world by saying, "Ireland is with you in defence of liberty"? What is the trouble to-day? We have been denied the rights which would encourage and enthuse us to fight for that liberty. You have placed a Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book, but you refuse to put it into operation because a handful of men in the North-East corner of Ulster said you dare not put it into operation. Because of their threats you cast us aside and allowed the minority to rule the majority. The gist and the cause of all this trouble is that you refuse to recognise the nationality and the right of Irishmen to decide their own fate in their own country. You tell me, and you think you have answered the question when you say it, that Irishmen in America are conscripted. So they are, and proud to be conscripted. They will not even wait for Conscription. America is a free country in which Irishmen as well as the nationals of every other country are entitled to share the full rights of citizenship. Irishmen are free in America; every position is open to them. Anybody who knows my race in America will realise that they govern in America. They govern in every country but their own. The only country in which Irishmen will not govern, cannot govern, are not allowed to govern, is Ireland. They govern in South Africa, in your Colonies, and in America, but the only country where they will not be allowed to govern is their own. If Irishmen wished to appeal to the sentiments of self-sacrifice and love of liberty which is in the heart of every Irishmen, there is only one way to do it, there is one key to the help of the Irish race, and that is to give them their freedom. If you give the men in my country their freedom, if you trust them, if you give them the rights for which for ages they have fought, struggled and sacrificed, and which you have denied them, with oppression and cruelty and wrong, then if they refuse to help you it will be for you to say that Irishmen are cowards and will not take part in this terrible struggle for human liberty for future generations.
    Let us view the question merely of the abstract right. What is the right that this House has to impose Conscription upon Ireland? Let Englishmen ask that question of themselves. Every voice from Ireland speaks against it. Every man on these benches speaks against Conscription for Ireland. My Friends from Cork, who

    337
    represent another and a smaller party, speak against it. Has there been a single Unionist Member who has spoken in favour of it? Yes; one. But how has he spoken? What is his support? It is qualified by one or two other things. But if ever a nation spoke with an unanimous voice with regard to a question affecting the very lives and future of the country, that country is Ireland. What, then, is your right to say that you can impose this upon Ireland? If you believe in representative Governments, if you say that we in this House speak for Ireland, and if you believe in freedom, then are you going to impose upon Ireland that which the Irish people, through their representatives, say they will not have? Would you do it in the case of Australia or Canada, or any part of your Empire except Ireland? Certainly not… You dare not and you would not do it. You would only do it in Ireland because you think you have the power to do it.
    It is with infinite sorrow that I as an Irishman speak to you and see the course which your folly, I will not say your deliberate intention, but your folly and ignorance of the condition of things prevailing in my country, are leading you into. Whether you like it or do not, if you impose Conscription in Ireland you will take the first and most serious step in landing not only Ireland, but possibly your Empire, in ruin and destruction. You will take a course that will gladden the heart of the Germans, which will inevitably also weaken the support in the eyes of the Irish-Americans who are thronging in thousands to assist you in this War, Many of our brethren in the Colonies who are now at the front will look at the condition of things in Ireland. I beg hon. Members in this House to leave aside suspicion and prejudice, to banish all hatred and suspicion of my fellow countrymen, and to look at this question honourably as men who are fighting for the freedom of small nations. Give to my country, which is as important as any other which you are fighting for, its freedom. Give to Irishmen the right to legislate at home. Give them the right, when they are free men, to send out their sons in defence of freedom. Then, and not until then, will you get a single Irishman.
    Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I feel unwilling to share the responsibility for this Clause, and I intend to vote against it to-night, as I did on the Committee stage, on the ground that it is against all the principles
    338
    of good statesmanship to take a course at the crisis of your fate which is perfectly certain to lead to very serious trouble— either to civil war or rebellion or to disorders and perils of all sorts and kinds, and the serious trouble which, in view of the attitude of the representatives of three-fourths of Ireland, must ensue, will not bring, so far as I can see, any compensating military advantage whatever. I cannot bring myself to believe that men conscripted against their will and against the will of their representatives in Parliament and the general sense of the community in which they live can be of any real military value to the British Isles. I have no doubt that they will be supplied with the best of officers whose duty it will be to bring them to the point of moral and of determination necessary to fight the Germans. But how would those officers succeed in that task when all the home influence behind those men, and the letters they receive from home, the articles which they read in their home Press, and the general influence and opinion of their home circles, are inciting them not to the unquestioning performance of their military duty, but to dissatisfaction and even to disaffection? I am driven to the conclusion that, though we have the absolute right—I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton in this—to take this step it is one of absolutely no value unless you first get the consent of the Irish people.
    In these circumstances may I make a very respectful suggestion to the Government as to a possible arrangement by which large numbers of men in Ireland might be obtained for the Army without the troubles which the course the Government suggest would bring upon the country? The Government have already made a considerable concession to-day in promising that no Irishmen shall be subject to Conscription until the Home Rule Bill is on the Statute Book. But that concession does not really go far enough to remove the distrust which is felt by the Irish representatives for the professions of the Government, which we have got to take into account. There is no chance of defeating this Clause. It is certain to pass into law. What I want to suggest is that the Government might keep the Clause in abeyance—in other words, make no Order in Council until an Irish Parliament has actually met. I believe that that would go a long way to remove the difficulties. I would also suggest to the hon. Member for East Mayo that he might, in circumstances

    339
    like these, use his great influence as Leader of the Nationalist party to help to get large numbers of men voluntarily for our common Army. The hon. Member for Mayo will, I am sure, not object to my saying that he has not yet established claims upon the gratitude of the Allies comparable to those which were so abundantly established by his illustrious predecessor, Mr. John Redmond. But I feel sure that he realises—indeed, he has told us that he realises—that this is Ireland's quarrel no less than our own, and if this difficulty can only be got over I agree heartily with the Government that men of military age in Ireland who are not now serving with the Army should, if possible, be got into the Army to help to save our common heritage from overwhelming disaster. There is in the "Westminster Gazette "to-day a suggestion that facilities might be offered to Irishmen to be recruited for the American Army if they should prefer that to the British Army, and I am sure that, if there were any whose susceptibilities would prefer enlistment under the Stars and Stripes, no red-tape of the British War Office ought to stand in the way of their being given an opportunity which is equally valuable for the purpose of fighting Germany.
    Lastly, I wish to suggest with regard to the Home Rule Bill which is now under the consideration of the Government, that the Bill should be one not purely for Irish Home Rule but for Home Rule all round, and should include proposals here and now for subordinate Parliaments not merely for Ireland, but also for England, Scotland, and Wales, and I feel that the most urgent motive for that suggestion is that if it produces a Bill for purely Irish Home Rule, even if it is on a plan to fit into a federal system later on, you will be up against the question of the coercion of Ulster. Ulster with the long delays of British Governments, with such things as the Preamble of the Parliament Act undealt with for seven years, will not be inclined to put much faith in the promise that later on federal institutions will be applied all round. But if they have before them a proposal which applies absolutely equal treatment to Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales, it will be very difficult for them to complain that they are not being treated as fairly as any other part of the country. On those grounds, I earnestly suggest that there may be further communications between the Government and the dif-
    340
    ferent parties before the act is finally taken which must be of very grave consequences to every part of this Kingdom.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have already, on the introduction of this Bill, given the reasons why the Government, after a good deal of reflection, and in spite of very obvious arguments against—including a good many which have been enforced in the course of the discussion this afternoon—came to the conclusion that they must face the inclusion of Ireland in this measure. I do not know that I have anything to add to the arguments which I submitted on that occasion. There are two or three of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in regard to which I should like to say one word, before I come to the second part of the discussion, which has loomed very large in the course of the debate on this Bill. One is his reference to the American precedent, when a Government of this country endeavoured to tax the American Colonies against their will. I think my hon. Friend must see that there is a very substantial difference between the two cases. The ease against the action of the Government of that day in endeavouring to tax the American Colonies was that it was taxation without representation. If hon. Members will look up once more the arguments advanced by the opponents of that particular measure, they will find that the opposition was based entirely on the fact that the American Colonies had no representation.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no use in rudely interrupting. The opposition was based, at any rate in the main, upon the argument that the American Colonies were not represented in the Parliament that sought to tax them. The next point which I should like to make is that in no measure of self-government up to the present has it been claimed, or has it been contended by any party representing Ireland in this House, that questions bearing upon the organisation of the Army and the Navy—the defence of this country, and the defence of the Empire—should ever be entrusted to any Parliament except the Imperial Parliament; and, unless I am mistaken, in all the great systems of federal government, whether on the Continent or elsewhere, the power is always vested in the Imperial

    341
    Government. Therefore, there is really no analogy between the two cases.
    May I just say another word to my hon. Friend in answer to something that he said. He based his claim on the grounds that Ireland is a nation, and that therefore the consent of that nation ought to be sought before we take any forcible measures there for recruiting the Armies of the Empire for a common enterprise. The same argument would apply to Wales and to Scotland. I certainly claim that Wales is a nation, and it has at least one characteristic which Ireland has not. It has a language of its own. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh…"] The proportion of those who speak the native language in Ireland is singularly small. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] That is certainly not the case in the country from which I come. I am perfectly certain, if I said that Scotland were not a nation, I should be interrupted by Members from across the border on this side of the House, and my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Asquith) would also join in that protest. Certainly, Scotsmen would never contend that the question of the method of raising forces for the defence of the Empire should be purely a Scottish question. There is nothing that they would resent more, and although their sense of nationality is esteemed, although they are as proud a nation as any nation in this Kingdom, and although there is no nation in this Kingdom or in the Empire that has a greater reason to be proud of their nationality than Scotland, they do not think that there is anything which derogates from their national pride or from the pride of a great race that they should delegate to the Empire in which they are most distinguished citizens the right to enforce any measure, in the name of the Empire and through imperial machinery, for the raising of forces for defence. Therefore, when my hon. Friend says that there is something which is insulting to Ireland, I would point out that it is something which is not considered insulting to a proud nation like Scotland, or to a very ancient race like the race to which I belong, just as ancient a race as the one to which my hon. Friend belongs. He talks about the education of Ireland in the days of Alfred. Well, I think the civilisation of my country was pretty high in those days. I belong to a race which fought for the defence of this country—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: We taught you.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, St. Patrick was a Welshman.
    Mr. HOGGE: No, a Scotsman.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: He was born in Glasgow.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Ireland borrowed its saint from Wales. The other observation I will make to my hon. Friend is this: He talks about the fact, which is pretty obvious, that in the prosecution of the War the Allies, during the last year or two, have not been so successful as we had a right to expect. My hon. Friend was hardly fair in his statement of the facts. Surely, there is one very, very important factor which he has overlooked. Within the last eighteen months one of our greatest Allies has gone out of the War—an Ally which had an Army of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 men; and, although he said, I think, that the late Government was responsible for Sinn Feinism in Ireland, he can hardly contend that the present Government is responsible for Bolshevism in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am afraid it is. impossible to argue with those who-believe that. I think it is really a matter for marvel—it is a matter for congratulation — after an Army of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of men has retired from the Allies, that, in spite of that, the two or three nations which remain have been, able to put up such a fight until the great American Republic comes in.
    I come now to the speech—if I may say so, the very impressive speech—delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College. I should like to say two or three things in reply to the arguments which he advanced. His first argument in reference to the second part of the Government policy was that there is a departure from pledges which were given at the beginning of the War that Home Rule would not be placed on the Statute Book until the War was over. My first answer to my right hon. Friend is, did he contemplate—how many were there in this House, or out of this House, who contemplated, at the beginning of the War— that it would go into four years'? Not very many. Why do I say that? If it had been a matter of a year or two, it is possible that no grave consequences would have arisen had you suspended

    343
    legislation of that character for Ireland. But what has happened has shown that when the War came to be prolonged, a continuation of that state of suspense was one of peril, not merely to Ireland, but to the Empire as well. I do not want to recall the incidents of the last two or three years, because they are very painful, and I do not want to apportion blame to one side or the other. I am sorry to say that these seem to me to have been incidents of which we ran the risk as long as we kept a question of this kind unsettled in a country like Ireland. Therefore, it was obvious to every man who tad anything to do with the running of the War, that it was important, if not essential, as a means of making the War machinery run smoothly, to get the Irish question settled at the earliest possible moment. That is the conviction, I think, of every man who has been sitting in the Heat of judgment, and watching the whole course of events.
    Having all the secret information, not merely from Ireland, but from America, they have each and all come to the conclusion that it was desirable, in the interests of military efficiency, in the interests of mobilising the forces of the Empire to the best purpose, that you should, if you possibly could, settle the Irish question so as to produce something like contentment in Ireland, and the sort of feeling in America and elsewhere, where Ireland has millions of friends, that justice was being done by Great Britain to that country. That is why the various attempts were made— attempts in which my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) has taken an honourable part — to settle it. He has taken part in two attempts to settle it since the War began. The first failed, through no fault of his. He agreed to the setting up of the Convention. Why? Because he felt that it would be an advantage to this country, in the prosecution of the War, if it were possible to secure a settlement in Ireland. Does not that prove that there is not a man, who has had his hand on the machine at all, and knows all the facts, who has not been convinced in his heart that it is better for this country, and therefore better for the Allies, that this question should be settled, if you possibly could achieve a settlement.
    Now I come to the position with which we were faced when we introduced this
    344
    Man-Power Bill. Let me say at once that we considered nothing but the best means of prosecuting the War to a successful conclusion. We gave no thought to any political advantage or disadvantage on either side. We discussed nothing but the best method of assisting our Armies in the field to achieve a triumphant result. We were confronted by the need for raising more men. Why? The Germans had just summoned to the Colours another 550,000 men for training. We had not made ready for that. In order to do so, we found that we had to introduce a measure of the most drastic character. No man who looks at this Bill can doubt-that its provisions are severe, stern, and in some parts harsh. No man who knows the necessities of the case can for a moment doubt that they are all needed to meet the emergency. We are calling up men between forty-two and fifty-one; we are calling up men who have been passed by the tribunals as being indispensable to business; we are calling up men in reserved occupations, which have been protected because the Government and Parliament thought it important they should be kept in full vigour even during the War. These are very far-reaching measures, and some of them will have a serious effect on certain industries. We came to this conclusion reluctantly, because no Government wants additional trouble, either in Ireland or elsewhere, when it has such trouble on its fronts as we have; and to gratuitously seek trouble of that kind would be folly of the worst description. It is only because we were driven by all the evidence we had to the conclusion that it would be impossible, without a deep sense of injustice and resentment in this country, to carry through these drastic measures without enforcing Conscription in Ireland, that we introduced this Clause at all. That was the position, but it was not the whole position. What was the position in reference to Ireland? A Convention had been set up with the assent of my right hon. Friend—
    Sir E. CARSON: My right hon. Friend has said that twice. It is quite true, but he ought to add the further proviso, that unless there was absolute agreement there was not to be legislation.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I said that in my first speech, and I am only putting it to my right hon. Friend as proof that he saw the desirability of settling the Irish

    345
    question if it could be done. Certainly he agreed that, as a War measure, it was an advantage to the prosecution of the War that you should have a settlement in Ireland if it could be achieved. This Convention was set up; it has reported. What is to be the answer of the Government to that? Is Conscription in Ireland to be the sole answer to that very remarkable Convention? If it is, believe me, feeling will not be confined to Ireland. The feeling will not be confined to Ireland that it is an inadequate answer, that it is not merely an incomplete answer, but that it is an unfair one, if Conscription in Ireland is to be the only answer to one of the most remarkable Conventions ever summoned in Ireland to consider the condition of that country and the difficulties of its relation with this country. We felt that that was an answer which could not be given, and, therefore, when we introduced the Man-Power Bill, we also at the same time declared the intentions of the Government to legislate with reference to the question for which that Convention was summoned. Ireland is not the only country to consider in that respect. I am talking quite frankly on this question. My right hon. Friend has not lacked frankness, and it is much tatter to be quite frank with each other. I am told there will be trouble in Ireland. I do not doubt it for a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said it would be the worst trouble in Ireland we have ever seen.
    Mr. DILLON: What I said was that during the forty years I have been in political life I have never known sentiment in Ireland so excitable and so estranged.
    10.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is another way of putting it. I am afraid there is going to be very considerable trouble in Ireland, and if there be trouble in Ireland in reference to a measure of this kind, before any measures are taken by this country of a stern character, it is essential that the conscience of this country should be perfectly clear. If there be a refusal to legislate after that remarkable Convention, if the only answer which be given to the Convention is Conscription and nothing else, let there be no mistake about it, that if there is resistance in Ireland under these conditions, there will be an amount of sympathy with that resistance in this country which would paralyse any effort to enforce it. I know, after investigation, what are
    346
    the difficulties. Labour would undoubtedly feel that Ireland was being badly treated. Could you, under these conditions, enforce Conscription, knowing that the representatives of organised labour throughout the country feel that you are treating Ireland unfairly? And the feeling would not be confined to labour. For that reason it is not merely a question of sentiment in Ireland. You have to consider sentiment in this country as well. It is no use putting this Bill on the Statute Book unless you intend to enforce it, and it is no use enforcing it unless you have sentiment behind you— unless it is felt that you are dealing justly and fairly with the country against which you are enforcing it.
    I come to the third consideration. I am putting quite frankly the considerations in the mind of the Government when they came to the conclusion to have these associated Bills. What about America? American opinion, as far as I have been able to judge it—and up to the present, of course, we have only had very partial and fragmentary accounts—American opinion supports the justice of the Man-Power Bill, provided self-government is offered to Ireland.
    Mr. HOGGE: Only offered?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is American opinion in so far as it has reached us, and it isvital to us at the present moment. I wish I could tell the House how vital it is. America at the present moment is coming to our aid after one of the most remarkable decisions ever undertaken by any Executive. The decision of the President of the Republic was not without difficulty. It was essential. It is the only way in which America can render practical assistance in this battle. It is full of difficulties for the Executive. I think, in these circumstances, they are entitled—I will not say to ask, because no Government can ask another Government to carry out domestic legislation of any particular character—but they are entitled, at any rate, to expect from the Government of this country that we shall smooth those difficulties and that, at any rate, we shall not increase them.
    I am certain of this, that nothing would help more in the present juncture to secure,. I will not say the ready and enthusiastic aid, but to secure the full measure of American assistance, than the determina-

    347
    tion of the British Parliament to tender to Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tender?"] Hon. Members arc simply seeking quarrels where they are not intended. When a Parliament tenders it tenders in the form of an Act. That is the only way in which a Parliament can tender. I did not say the Government would tender. I say the best way in which we can assure American opinion that we are dealing fairly by Ireland is for the British Parliament to tender such a measure of self-government as will satisfy reasonable American opinion; and I believe we are going to do that. Therefore, we came to the conclusion, after considering the whole situation, and considering it purely from the point of view of the best methods for the prosecution of the War, that Irish self-government, after this Convention had reported, was an essential war measure.
    I come now to the question which was put to my right hon. Friend in the course of his speech. He said that the Government meant, if possible, to carry the Bill. A Government, after all, can only introduce a Bill, and use the whole of its powers to carry it through. If it is not carried through, then those who are responsible for its not being carried through ought in all conscience to be responsible for the direction of the War. A Government cannot do more than that. We, after examining it—and there were men who examined it who were opposed to Home Rule, who have fought Home Rule all their lives, who do not like Home Rule now, who like it just as little as my right hon. Friend likes it, but whose whole mind is set upon enabling this country to emerge triumphantly out of this War, and who reluctantly have come to the conclusion that this Bill is the price they will have to pay for that—we felt that it is necessary as a war measure. If it be rejected, if there be such controversy in the House of Commons that it cannot be carried, then surely those who are responsible for the controversy ought to be responsible for directing the War without it. That is the inevitable conclusion.
    I will ask any man here who likes or dislikes Home Rule—and there must be many here who still dislike Home Rule; there were man men in the Government who took the same view, and who still take the same view—I ask them, if this fails to go through, through opposition on the part of those who do not like it, do
    348
    those who are prepared to take that responsibility imagine that they can carry through and enforce, and that they will get the necessary public opinion in Britain behind them to enforce, Conscription in Ireland without it? Let any man here who is prepared to take that responsibility get up and say it—that he is prepared to enforce Conscription in Ireland, when there is a mass of English public opinion which feels that it is unjust to do so, and that without conferring self-government upon Ireland it cannot be done. I know what the difficulties are in Ireland, and you cannot face them except with a united country behind you here. And you can only get unity when every section of the community feels that justice has been done, not merely justice by compelling Irishmen to take their full share of the burdens of war, but also justice by securing to Ireland that principle of self-determination for which we are ostentatiously fighting in every other country. That was one of the principles for which we entered the War. That is a principle from which we have never departed since the beginning of the War. It is a principle which I hope we shall be enabled to enforce at the Peace Conference.
    Sir C. CORY: What about Ulster—self-determination for Ulster?
    An HON. MEMBER: We will make no bargain.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If Ireland were to object, and if Ireland were to say, "We won't have your Bill," I could understand my hon. Friend who says, "We will make no bargain." I made no bargain. I take exactly the same line as on the day I made my first speech. I know you cannot have a bargain. I know you cannot say, "Give us Conscription, and we will give you Home Rule." That you cannot do, and I distinctly said so when I introduced the Bill. It has never been offered as a bargain, but if hon. Members from Ireland were to accept the responsibility of rejecting the Bill, if they were to say they will have no Bill, that would be their responsibility.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Now the cat is out of the bag…
    The PRIME MINISTER: We cannot possibly have resistance to Home Rule as a means of defeating Conscription. I have been quite frank with my right hon. Friend, and I want to be equally frank

    349
    with my hon. Friends from Ireland. To oppose a measure of Home Rule for Ireland as a means of defeating Conscription, and to say, which might be said if the two were absolutely independent, "We will not take Home Rule, because it means Conscription," that is a contingency we cannot accept, and that is why we say we must take each measure upon its merits. That is the position of the Government in reference to these two measures.
    I said to the House when I was introducing the Bill that before this great battle was over, there would be fluctuations of hope and despondency. We have had them ever since I introduced this Bill. We have had days of despondency; we have had days of hope. We will have both for some time yet, but I am still full of confidence. I have just seen a general who has returned from the front If the House will allow me—I am afraid I shall have to leave immediately after, because I have had to keep him waiting, as I have questions before me on which I have to reply to-night, and therefore I apologise to the House. I only detained him for a very few minutes to get his impressions. He told me he saw the generals who were fighting. That gallant old general, General Plumer—as doughty an old warrior as this country has ever had— facing great odds is quite confident. We have lost territory. We have lost nothing vital. That is the view, not merely of our generals, but it is the view of General Foch, who was equally calm and equally confident when he was seen to-day by the distinguished general to whom I have been speaking.
    The enemy are aiming at destroying the British Army. They feel that if they could only get this Army out of the way, the path would be clear to victory. They have not yet got it out of the way. They have inflicted, I am sorry to say, heavy losses, but nothing to the losses they have sustained, and the French Army is intact. The American Army is pouring across. There may be hope; there may be despondency. But if we stand together firmly, steadfastly, not giving way to fear, not giving way to panic, and be prepared to give and take—to give here and take there—I appeal to Ireland in the same spirit—if we stand together—Britain, all parties in Britain, all sections in Britain, yea, Britain and Ireland—Irishmen from Ireland fighting with the Americans
    350
    coming by the million across the flood to fight, brigaded with British troops—if we do that, we will win through to the end.
    General CROFT: The Prime Minister, in the speech which we have just heard, has made one or two very interesting statements; but I should like to say, as one individual, that I do deplore the fact that this Home Rule measure has been mentioned in the same breath with this Conscription Bill. Whatever the Prime Minister may say, the fact remains that he told us on the First Reading that these two measures were not in any sense to hang together. We hoped that that was going to be stood by literally. We were, to my mind, told perfectly clearly that the Government did not want to have any question of a bargain between Ireland and this Parliament. Now the Prime Minister has very definitely made up his mind, and so have the Government, that a Bill for the self-government of Ireland is to be pressed through this House at an early date. That being so, as an independent Member, I would only like to say this one word, which I hope the Government will realise is not only held by individuals, but is held by the vast majority of the people of this country—if under duress in this solemn War, this most solemn day of the whole War, the Government feel that it is essential to bring in a Bill of this description, I can only hope—and I believe I am expressing the hope of a great multitude of the people of this country—that the Government will in. that measure only apply such powers of self-government to Ireland as can be made applicable to England, Scotland, and Wales.
    Nobody can have failed to be impressed by the wonderful speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. It was—if I may have the audacity to say so—one of the most patriotic utterances that has ever been delivered in this House, and it has brought this House together, following a series of speeches of a contrary character, to the seriousness of the hour which dictates that we must make any sacrifices at this moment if we are going to see this thing through by our Armies, which have their backs to the wall. In all the discussions which have taken place we have been inclined to forget that we are here this evening discussing this Irish question clearly on account of this matter of, manpower, which I want to implore the House

    351
    to consider now, although I fancy some of us feel that we have done so little in this respect in the past. I know it is unpardonable to quote from one's own speeches. If, however, I can help to indicate one or two methods equally applicable to-day as at the beginning of last year, I hope the House will excuse me reading them. On 1st March, 1917, speaking with the sympathy of a great number of soldiers who had been bearing the burden and heat of the day, I urged that we should immediately raise six extra divisions. I pointed out the growing concentration of the German forces and the increased number of men they were calling up. I said then that if we could have these six extra divisions they would be a perfect godsend in a very few months. At that time some of us urged that the Volunteer service should be made compulsory in order to free six divisions of our Home Defence Army. These things are just as applicable at the present moment, and I urge the House to get off the Irish business and down on to the manpower question so as to provide the men within the next few months.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What are you doing; you are a Brigadier-General?
    General CROFT: The hon. Member says I am a Brigadier-General.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I honour you by saying that. You are a Home Defence Brigadier-General.
    General CROFT: There is no man in this House to-day who can wear more battle bars than I shall wear at the end of this War. I went through every single offensive up to the end of the Somme, and perhaps the hon. Member for West Belfast will allow me to say that since then I have repeatedly offered my services to the War Office. I urge the facing of these problems as one who knows what it means to have a battalion down to 50 per cent. of its strength. At that time we had not the men to fill our gaps, and the result was that when this great German offensive took place our brigade was reduced from four battalions to three, and we have to realise that. When Russia went out of the War, whatever may have been our feelings on this subject before, it then became obvious that we were going to have thrown against us 1,000,000 odd Eastern German soldiers to come in a flood against us. Nothing was done, and the Government, like their predecessors,
    352
    decided to wait for America to come in. Every soldier knew that America would be at least a year before she could take any effective part in the War.
    It all leads up to this Irish question, which I urge hon. Members seriously to consider. In this House all of us equally have failed to estimate this great Russian danger, and we have not met it. We have asked our Army to do, in consequence, what mortal men ought never to have been asked to do, and it has been done at such a cost that we in this House ought to feel humiliated and we ought to do everything we can to see that that state of things is not going to occur again. You cannot have "business as usual" when your Channel ports are threatened. It is no good talking about your trade if you are going to have an enormous indemnity to face. These things have to be faced, and I trust we may consider them now, and so I urge the Government that window-dressing in this connection is no use. We have far too many old and unfit men in the Army, who have only proved extravagant, and they have been a drain upon the taxpayer. Therefore, let us always remember that Ireland provides the greatest source of young men for our future trials.
    I am going to repeat what I have said before, that we should train our men for the future, and we should not live from hand-to-mouth through this War. In 1915 and 1916, when home on leave, I expressed myself on this point in the House, and I said that I believed that to send untrained men to fight the Germans was sheer murder, and I repeat that statement today. But we persisted in that policy, and we have been sending out men with six, and five, and even three months' training. We have been sending out men who were not trained to face those great retirements, and we have been sending such men out to certain death. It is no good blaming our generals because the men are untrained. We have to blame ourselves, and we must see that it does not occur again in the future. It is no good having amateur drill and small knowledge of trench warfare. War is a science which the Germans understand. Not more than one soldier of ours out of a hundred has ever practised rearguard action, simply because you have not given the time to train them, and that has gone on since the start of the War.
    You have trained an army of amateuis against an enemy army, the most magni-

    353
    ficently prepared and equipped that the world has ever known. It is mad, cruel and wicked … I hope that the Government will now make up their minds to train the men for 1919 in order to save the situation from further blood and tears. One young man is equal to three men of forty years of age in the field; he can learn three times as quickly, train three times as quickly, and presents three times the resistance to continuous strain and severe weather. Ireland, I submit, should make equal sacrifices with England, Scotland, and Wales. The ex-Prime Minister in one of his speeches referred to Australia, and asked would anyone in their senses endeavour to get the Imperial Parliament to force Conscription on that country. Certainly not… The Constitution of Australia is that of a self-governing Dominion. No one in their senses ever suggested that Ireland should be allowed to contract out of the Imperial Parliament and Imperial obligations… Gladstone, Campbell-Bannorman, and the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Asquith) never suggested in any speech on Home Eule that this Central Parliament at Westminster should cease to have power over defence and man-power. But Ireland and Australia are not on all fours, Australia has now five divisions in the field. She had a sixth, but it was broken up because of her losses at the Dardanelles, and then wiped out at Pozieres and Bullecourt. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who by?"] By the Germans. [An HON. MEMBER: "By the politicians…"] The fact of the matter is that Australia made as great voluntary contributions of soldiers as Scotland, and the latter country, we know, has been magnificent. There are personal friends of mine, fathers, who have lost three or four sons in the War, and who will be called up under this Bill. Will the young men of Ireland remain spectators? May I tell you a true story?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: So long as it is true…
    General CROFT: My battalion was brigaded for several months with the Irish Guards, who called us "the Second Mickies." A very great friendship sprang up between these soldiers. I remember very well when the Second Grenadiers advanced that we were ordered to support them. The Irish Guards had heavy casualties, and men of my battalion were intermingled with them in the firing line.
    354
    Every officer, I think, except one was wiped out, and I had the honour of commanding the Irish Guards for a time. In that attack at Festubert, on the ground which has just been reconquered from us by the Germans, we lost 750 men from those two battalions. Those men—English country lads and Irish Guardsmen—fell side by side. They were great friends and great comrades. They died, not for England, not for Ireland, but that men might live and that the world might be free. I remember that that night, when I happened to fall down a shell hole as we were digging an advanced line in "No Man's Land," I remained there with a sprained ankle, unable to move for nearly half an hour. I was lying between two men; one an Irish Guardsman and the other a man of the Hertfordshire Regiment. They were both dead, and my thought was that there I saw a symbol of the state of things we ought to bring into our proceedings here, an emblem of unity even in this House.
    When we realise the wonderful sacrifices of Irish soldiers I have no sympathy with some of the speeches made from the benches here, because we know very many Irishmen who have fought just as strenuously in this War as those in any other part of the United Kingdom. I remember how these comrades died together and made the last great sacrifice together. They are still comrades to-day. They have gone there where, men who in their greatest, perfect act have wiped out all their sins. These hero saints are looking down on this country and Ireland at the present moment, and perhaps are watching our every action, listening to our every word. When we remember them, when we remember these colossal sacrifices, cannot we get away from some of the atmosphere we have had recently? Cannot we realise what we are up against? cannot we realise that yesterday and today's news makes all the difference? Is this a question of politics? Is it not a question of souls? If we believe that we are fighting for all our religion has told us is worth fighting for, are we still going to be politicians or are we going to try to unite and bring about a different state of things? If we stand aside when all that is at stake, if we allow our enemies to tear victory from us because we here are not united as one people, all that is beautiful and worth having in the world will have passed. We may win a political victory here, but if we lose the fight, the world

    355
    will be cold and dead and an impossible world for us to live in. The liberty for which we are fighting will have departed, and we shall no longer be free men.
    Therefore, I urge my Irish Friends in this House—I think I can call them Friends, because I have always had friendly feelings towards them—in what seems to be this last great fight that is going to decide all things, to stand together with us, so that in the days to come we may be united instead of creating a feeling which can only mean hate and despair if there is no unity to-day. Ireland, as we all know, has suffered heavily in the days gone by, but I ask my hon. Friends if their sufferings, even those dreadful sufferings in the past centuries, have ever been anything like the sufferings of humanity at the present moment.
    Cannot one cast that aside? Cannot one get rid of this opaque thing which stands before us, and see the vision of the greatness of this cause? I ask them, realising that our man-power is exhausted, to do what they can to send those 200,000 young Irishmen who may yet turn the scale whilst the United States are coming, so that they will have won not only their cause for Ireland, because after that none will resist their just amends, but they will have won the victory, the only cause above all causes which is worth having in this world, the victory of right over wrong.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The House, I am sure, has listened with great sympathy to the very eloquent speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I desire to bring it back from the realm of rhetoric to the realm of reality. Why has the discussion arisen to-night, and why has the Prime Minister made the speech which he has made? These are the questions which we ought to consider before we part with the Clause. Only a week ago the Prime Minister announced that there was no connection whatever between the question of Home Rule and Irish Conscription. What has happened during those seven days to make the difference between the speech which he made on Tuesday last and the speech which he has made to-night? I wonder if any hon. or right hon. Gentleman can supply the answer. I am willing to offer an explanation. The Prime Minister is the head of a Government which has survived its usefulness, survived its reputation for honesty, and survived its reputation for success. He is
    356
    tottering to his fall and is willing to make any concessions to Ireland at the present time to save his existence. That is the real situation. We have seen an extraordinary thing in this House to-night. A speech has been made by the Prime Minister dealing with the War situation, and the Leader of the Opposition has not thought it worth his while to offer any observation whatever on the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister. That in itself is the most significant commentary that could be made upon the situation. The Clause which we have now to consider should, to my mind, stand absolutely by itself. We have to consider it only in relation to the prosecution of the War. It was put forward a week ago in that perspective only, and it is the duty of the House to look upon this question of Conscription in Ireland in its relation to the successful prosecution of the War and only in that relation. We know now for the first time with certainty that this Clause is not going to be put into operation until after Home Rule has been passed by Parliament. That indicates that, in the first place, the Home Rule Bill is to be passed through this House—I have no doubt under a time-table and the Closure—and it is also to be passed through the other House. What then? It means that a very considerable interval of time must elapse before Conscription can be applied to Ireland. I think every hon. Member who looks at the situation from the realistic point of view must be driven to this conclusion, that not a single man from Ireland can be available under this Clause for the purpose of this campaign. That is obvious. Then what have we to say about all the hypocritical claims that this is an urgency measure? What are we reduced to in this Bill? We know now from the Prime Minister that not a single man is going to be available for this, the most critical campaign of the War, from Ireland. What is left? There are left the men between forty-two and fifty-one, and the men who can be got under Clause 3. How many are there? We are told that 7 per cent. will be available this year of men between the ages of forty-two and fifty-one. That is roughly 100,000 men during the rest of the year. In order to have the men available for this year's campaign you can only calculate on the men who can be called up during the next two months, and they do not exceed 20,000. That is under Clause 1. Under Clause 3 how many men are available? Clause 3

    357
    refers to men who are at present exempted by tribunals. These men, on the admission of the Government amount to 200,000. Of those, two-thirds are Grade 3 men. That leaves a balance of 67,000 between the ages of eighteen and forty-two. Under any clean cut you will not take the men up to forty-two. So that you have no right to assume that more than 30,000 can be got out of Clause 3. Therefore, this Bill, on which all this parade of urgency has been made, is going to give us this year nothing from Ireland, and out of Clauses 1 and 3 only 50,000 from Great Britain for this year's campaign. Any hon. Member who looks at this Bill from the realistic point of view—and that is our duty—
    Mr. J. D. HOPE: You are a shirker…
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member for Haddington does not usually offer many contributions to the Debates in this House, and the interruption he has offered now, of which I do not complain, is as irrelevant as it is absurd. This Bill is, on my analysis, an absolute mockery. You have by it gratuitously increased your difficulties in this War. You are going to get practically nothing out of Great Britain and you are going to get nothing out of Ireland. You are going to get worse than nothing out of Ireland. You are going to establish a new battle front in Ireland, because even though this Bill is never put in operation in Ireland, the acerberation of feeling is going to be a net loss from the point of view not only of this country, but of the Allies. You are going to diminish alike your material force and your moral force in this War by putting this Clause upon the Statute Book. You are going to diminish your moral force even by stating that you are prepared to put into operation in Ireland, without the assent of the Irish people, a measure of Conscription. That is contrary to your whole principle of self-determination. Can any hon. Member explain why the Government has introduced this measure as a matter of urgency? Can he explain why this measure, which is going to do nothing for the successful prosecution of the War, is being pushed through this House under the guillotine and under a time-table? It is obviously not a measure for war purposes. What, then, is it? It is a measure intended to prevent this House and the people of this country from inquiring into the causes of the disaster which has happened to us on the Somme.
    Mr. STANTON: That is untrue, and you know it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am stating my point of view.
    Mr. STANTON: If talk could win the War, you would have won it for us.
    Colonel ROYDS: What did you do for the War?
    An HON. MEMBER: A gas attack…
    Mr. PRINGLE: When the time comes to consider the relative position of various Members of this. House in regard to the prosecution of the War, I am prepared that mine should be assessed as against the services of any hon. Member who has been merely engaged in khaki in Whitehall. I am asking what is the explanation of this measure which it not going to do anything this year? Its results from the military point of view in the field are going to be purely negative, and from the positive point of view in Ireland and in Great Britain are going to be very serious. In Ireland you are going to increase the estrangement between the two peoples. In Great Britain you are arousing what has never been aroused before in this country, a feeling of unrest among large numbers of men who have great interests in the country, who do not know what their position is, who for the first time are going to have the rights enjoyed by men under the Military Service Acts withdrawn from them, who are no longer going to have the right to bring their business and domestic circumstances before the old tribunal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted since the Bill was introduced that he has seen the effect of all that unrest upon the subscriptions to the War Loan. You have the admissions of the Government both in regard to Ireland and in regard to Great Britain of these injuries to the national cause as a result of this, and there has been no effort whatever on the part of any Minister defending this Bill to show that there is going to be one single iota of strength added to the Allied Armies by its passing into law during the present year. What is the explanation? The explanation of the introduction of this Bill and of this particular Clause is to divert the attention of the country from the disastrous blunders of the present Government.
    Mr. STANTON: That is a lie…
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a word which is permitted during Debate, and I must ask the hon. Member who used it to withdraw it.
    Mr. STANTON: I withdraw it, but we know what he means.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not propose to refer to the interruption of the hon. Member. I may be wrong, and the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but the only explanation which I can reach, as a result of my consideration of this measure, is that this measure, and particularly this Clause, is an attempt to divert the attention of the country from the blunders of the Government, and particularly of the Prime Minister, who was responsible for the holding of the line on the Somme Front at the time that this battle began, contrary to the views of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. I say that the man who took action contrary to the views of our Field-Marshal is responsible for the breaking of the Fifth Army and is responsible for all our troubles, and I say that there is no hope until some other man is in possession of the power to control the destinies of this country.
    Captain GWYNN: I am glad to have an opportunity of replying to the speech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Christchurch Division (General Croft). That speech was made in a spirit that all who have been in this War will recognise and understand. It had in it the spirit of comradeship. I would say to him, and to all men in this House who have been soldiers and who want the help of Ireland at the present time: "You will not get that help under compulsion."
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Shall we get it without compulsion?
    Captain GWYNN: If you cannot get it without you will be better for not trying for it. There is a chance for you, and it has been indicated in the speeches that have been delivered from the Treasury-Bench. If you establish for us a Parliament in Ireland, after all, we can rely on these matters to a certain extent upon historical precedent. In a great crisis Irish self-government was established before now, and the first thing that the Irish Government did when it was established was to vote 20,000 men—in those days that was a great number—for the American War. If you give to us the freedom to deal with this question in our own right, whether by voting means or, if you like, by compulsion of our own, which is a wholly different thing from compulsion by a different and separate nation. I believe that the country will be thankful that it has left to us the decision in that matter. I speak as one who stood last winter on the ground they are fighting over at present. Villages are being trampled under foot to-day where we slept safe last year. It is a terrible thing, and I say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, in my opinion, the best aid that can be given to the Allies at the present time is that you should withdraw this Clause, and should establish in Ireland an Irish authority, which will deal not only with Irish problems, but with Imperial problems, and which—
    It being Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th April, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 123.

    Division No. 25.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barrie, H. T.

    Boyton, James

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Barton, Sir William

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

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

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brocklehurst, Col. William B.

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Beauchamp, sir Edward

    Brookes, Warwick

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Bull, Sir William James

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Burdett-Coutts, William

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

    Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Bird, Alfred

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

    Blair, Reginald

    Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cator, John

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hewins, William Albert S.

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

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

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Cheyne, Sir William W.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Randles, Sir John

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

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

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Colvin, Col.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Ratcliff, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Horne, Edgar

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Remnant, Col. Sir James F.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

    Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)

    Courthope, Maj. George Loyd

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesll)

    Cowan, Sir William Henry

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

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

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

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

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Deirymple, Hon. H. H.

    Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Kerry, Lt.-Col. Earl of

    Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Denison-Pender, Capt. J.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Denniss, Edmund R Bartley

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

    Edwards, A. Clement (Glam., E.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Stoker, Robert B.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid.)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Swift, Rigby

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

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

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

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Thomas, Sir G- (Monmouth, S.)

    Fiennes, Hon. sir Eustace E.

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Chas. (Brighton)

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

    Macleod, John M.

    Tickler, Thomas George

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    Walker, Col. W. H.

    Fletcher, John S.

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Waring, Major Walter

    Gastrell, Lt.-Col. Sir W. H.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Geddes, Rt, Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

    Marriott, John A. R.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Meux, Admiral Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Weston, John W.

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Willoughby Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gretton, John

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

    Guinness, Hon. R. C. L. (Essex, S.E.)

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Morrison-Bell, Colonel E. (Ashburton)

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

    Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield)

    Wood, S. Hill- (Derbyshire)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon. Lord C. J.

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Worthington Evans, Sir L.

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

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

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Younger, Sir George

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Yoxall, Sir Jam's Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Parkes, Sir Edward

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

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

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

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Haslam, Lewis

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    362

    363

    NOES.

    Alden, Percy

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Dowd, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Ogden, Fred

    Anderson, William C.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork City)

    O'Leary, Daniel

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    O'Malley, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Hogge, J. M.

    O'Shee, James John

    Billing, Noel Pemberton

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Bliss, Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boland, John Pius

    Jones, Rt. Hen. Leif (Rushcliffe)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Buxton, Noel

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, Capt. W, A.

    Byrne, Alfred

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roch, Walter F.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clancy, John Joseph

    King, Joseph

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.)

    Lowther, Claude (Eskdale)

    Sheehy, David

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Shortt, Edward

    Cullinan, John

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Snowden, Philip

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sutton, John E.

    Donovan, John Thomas

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Donnelly, Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Doris, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Watt, Henry A.

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Field, William

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Guiney, John

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hackett, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Mr. DILLON: The worst day's work done for England since the War began…
    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to Applications for Certificates of Exemption and as to Calling Up.)
    (1) The Local Government Board may make Regulations for any of the following purposes:

    (a) For providing for applications for or relating to certificates of exemption (in-including appeals) being made to such tribunals, constituted in such manner and for such areas, as may be authorised by the Regulations, and for authorising tribunals to act by committees or panels constituted in such manner as may be provided by the Regulations;

    (b) For establishing special tribunals, committees, or panels for dealing with particular classes of cases;

    (c) For regulating and limiting the making of such applications as aforesaid and the grant, renewal, variation, or withdrawal of certificates;

    (d) For determining the grounds on which such applications or any particular classes of such applications may be made and the rights of appeal;

    364

    (e) For providing for any other matters for which it may be necessary to make provision in order to secure the expeditious making and disposal of such applications.

    Any Regulations made under this Sub-section shall have full effect notwithstanding anything in the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, and those provisions, so far as they are inconsistent with any Regulations so made, shall be repealed.
    Any Order in Council made under this Subsection may be revoked or varied by any subsequent Order in Council.
    (4) It shall be the duty of any man holding a certificate of exemption, if the certificate has been withdrawn or has ceased to be in force or if, in the case of a conditional certificate, the conditions on which the certificate was granted are no longer satisfied, forthwith to transmit the certificate to the authority by which the certificate was granted with a notification that the certificate has been withdrawn or ceased to. be in force, or that the conditions are no longer satisfied, as the case may be; and if he fails without reasonable cause or excuse to do so he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
    (5) A man who holds a certificate of exemption (other than a certificate of exemption from combatant service only), or in respect of whom an application has been duly made for the grant or renewal of a certificate of exemp-

    365
    tion, shall not be called up for service with the Colours while the certificate is in force or until the application has been disposed of, as the ease may be, but any such man may at any time be required to present himself for medical examination or re-examination.
    (6) If Regulations are made under this Section determining the grounds in respect of occupation on which applications for certificates of exemption may be made, Sub-section (7) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1918, shall, as respects certificates of exemption granted or renewed after the date on which the Regulations come into force have effect as if a reference to the grounds in respect of occupation specified in the Regulations were substituted for the reference to the grounds specified in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1916, or (in the case of voluntarily attested men) to any similar grounds.
    Amendment proposed, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Board" [The Local Government Board may make Regulations], to insert the words "or as respects Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    Mr. BILLING (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Having regard to the fact that time is pressing, and there is no one speaking in the House, could an hon. Member address it on a point of the utmost importance, having regard to the fact that the guillotine has been moved and prevented Members from speaking?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not usual to address the House during a Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out paragraph (d).
    At end of paragraph (e), insert the words "and for any other matter for which provision may be made under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Military Service Act, 1916."
    In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "Any Order in Council made under this Sub-section may be revoked or varied by any subsequent Order in Council."
    At end of Sub-section (1) insert the words "Provided that nothing in this Section shall authorise the making of Regulations for altering the terms of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1916."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "authority by which the certificate was granted," and insert instead thereof the words "local office of the Ministry of National Service for the area in which the man is registered under the National Registration Acts, 1915 and 1918."
    In Sub-section (5) leave out the words "called up" ["shall not be called up for service"], and insert instead thereof the word "liable."—[Sir A. Geddes.]
    Amendment proposed, after the word "but" ["but any such man"], to insert the words "notices served for the purposes of the Reserve Forces Acts, 1882 to 1907, shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground only that they were served before any such man become liable for service, and."—[Sir A. Geddes.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House proceeded to a Division and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it, and on his decision being challenged it appeared to him that the Division was frivolously claimed, and accordingly he called upon the Members who challenged his decision to rise in their places, and, several Members having accordingly risen, Mr. Speaker proceeded to name Tellers for the Division.
    The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 87.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (6).—[Sir A. Geddes.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.

      EXCEPTIONS.
      1. Men ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions abroad.
      2. Members of His Majesty's Regular or Reserve forces, or of the forces raised by the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions, and members of the Territorial Force who are liable for foreign service.
      3. Men serving in the Navy, the Royal Marines, or the Air Force.
      4. — (a) Disabled men who during the present War have served outside the British Islands or at sea.
      (b) Disabled men who, though not having served as aforesaid have during the present War served for not less than a. week in any of His Majesty's forces (other than Reserve forces), and men who, having been officially reported as wounded during the present War, have been discharged in consequence of the termination of their period of service, if in either case they are engaged in whole-time work which is for the time being certified by the Director-General of National Service to be of national importance.
      (c) Disabled men, or men who have been medically rejected after offering themselves for enlistment, if on further medical examination in accordance with the Regulations of the Army Council, or as respects an examination which takes place after the date on which the Ministry of National Service Order, 1917, came into force in accordance with the Regulations
      370
      of the Director-General of National Service, they have been certified to be totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service.
      In this paragraph the expression "disabled men" means men (including officers) who have left or been discharged from the naval, military, or air forces in consequence of disablement or ill-health.
      Amendments made: At the end of paragraph 4 (a), insert the words "or who have served in the field, or at sea in any previous war."
      In paragraph (c), after the words "medical examination" insert the words "after the fifth day of April, 1917."
      Leave out the words "which take place." —[Sir A. Geddes.]
      At the end of the Schedule insert the words,
      "5. Men in holy orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination." —[Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock this day.
      Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
      The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 103.

      Division No. 26.]

      AYES.

      [1.18 p.m.

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

      Barrie, H. T.

      Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Barton, Sir William

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

      Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

      Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Boyton, Sir James

      Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Brace, Rt. Hon. William

      Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Bridgeman, William Clive

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

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Brocklehurst, Col. William B.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

      Brookes, Warwick

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

      Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

      Broughton, Urban Hanlon

      Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

      Bentinck, Lord Henry

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Bryce, John Annan

      Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

      Bird, Alfred

      Bull, Sir William James

      Barntton, Major Harry

      Blair, Reginald

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)

      Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

      Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

      Butcher, J. G.

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

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

      Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

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

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Haslam, Lewis

      Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G (Gravesend)

      Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Parker, James (Halifax

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Parkes, Sir Edward

      Cator, John

      Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hewins, William Albert S.

      Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Hickman. Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

      Pennefather, De Fonblanque

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hills, John Waller (Durham)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

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

      Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor

      Cheyne, Sir William W.

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

      Clyde, James Avon

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Clynes, John R.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

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

      Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

      Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

      Collins, Sir William (Derby)

      Horne, Edgar

      Colvin, Col.

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

      Hunt, Major Rowland

      Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

      Randles, Sir John

      Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

      Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Courthope, Maj. George Loyd

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Ratcliff, Lt.-Col. R. F.

      Cowan, Sir William Henry

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

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

      Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Rees, Sir J. D.

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

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Remnant, Col. Sir James F.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Richardson. Albion (Peckham)

      Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

      Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)

      Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

      Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Robinson, Sidney

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Rothschild, Major Lionel de

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Kerry, Lt.-Col. Earl of

      Royds, Major Edmund

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

      Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

      Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

      Davies. M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

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

      Denison-Pender, Capt. J.

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

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Larmor, Sir Joseph

      Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

      Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley

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

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

      Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

      Dixon, Charles Harvey

      Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

      Shortt, Edward

      Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

      Levy, Sir Maurice

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

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

      Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley)

      Lindsay, William Arthur

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Du Pre, Maj W. B.

      Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Edwards, A. Clement (Glam., E.)

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

      Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid.)

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Stanton, Charles Butt

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lonsdale, James R.

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Lowe, Sir F. W.

      Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

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

      Lowther, Claude (Eskdale)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

      Fiennes, Hon. Sir Eustace E.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

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

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

      Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. William Hayes

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Swift, Rigby

      FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

      Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

      Fletcher, John S.

      Macleod, John M.

      Stoker Robert B.

      Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

      Macmaster, Donald

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      McMicking, Major Gilbert

      Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

      Gardner, Ernest

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

      Thomas-Stanford, Chas. (Brighton)

      Gastrell, Lt.-Col. Sir W. H.

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

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Tickler, Thomas George

      Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

      Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

      Turton, Edmund Russborough

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

      Malcolm, Ian

      Walker, Col W. H.

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Marriott, John A. R.

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Greene. Walter Raymond

      Meux, Admiral Hon. Sir Hedworth

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

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

      Waring, Major Walter

      Gretton, John

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

      Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Guinness, Hon. R. C. L. (Essex, S.E.)

      Mitchell-Thomson, W.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

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

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

      Weston, John W.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

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

      Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

      Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Morrison-Bell, Col. E. (Ashburton)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

      Mount, William Arthur

      Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hamilton. Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

      Neville, Reginald J. N

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

      Hanson, Charles Augustin

      Newman, Major John R. P.

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

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

      Nicholson, Sir Chas. N (Doncaster)

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

      Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

      Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

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

      368

      369

      Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

      Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

      Younger, Sir George

      Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

      Wood, S. Hill- (Derbyshire)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Winfrey, Sir R.

      Worthington Evans, Sir L.

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Yeo, Sir Alfred William

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

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      NOES.

      Anderson, William C.

      Hackett, John

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Boland, John Pius

      Healy, Maurice (Cork City)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

      O'Dowd, John

      Burns, Rt Hon. John

      Hoarn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.)

      Ogden, Fred

      Byrne, Alfred

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Leary, Daniel

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Harbison, T. J. S.

      O'Malley, William

      Clough, William

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Jowett, Frederick William

      O'Shee, James John

      Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Clean, Eugene

      Keating, Matthew

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Crumley, Patrick

      Kelly, Edward

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Cullinan, John

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Reddy, Michael

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kilbride, Denis

      Redmond, Capt. W. A.

      Dillon, John

      King, Joseph

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Donovan, John Thomas

      Lundon, Thomas

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Donnelly, Patrick

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Doris, William

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Sheehy, David

      Duffy, William J.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Snowden, Philip

      Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

      Meagher, Michael

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Ffrench, Peter

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

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Field, William

      Molloy, Michael

      Whitty, Patrick Joseph

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Morrell, Philip

      Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

      Muldoon, John

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Nolan, Joseph

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.Hogge and Mr. Pringle.

      Guiney, John

      Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Division No. 27.]

      AYES.

      [11.35 pm.

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

      Denison-Pender, Capt. J.

      Larmor, Sir Joseph

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts

      Denman, Hen Richard Douglas

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

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley

      Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

      Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm.

      Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

      Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

      Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

      Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

      Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

      Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

      Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley)

      Lindsay, William Arthur

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

      Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

      Edwards, A. Clement (Glam., E.)

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

      Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid.)

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lonsdale, James R.

      Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Lowe, Sir F. W.

      Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

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

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

      Falls, Sir Bertram Godfray

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

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

      Fiennes, Hon. Sir Eustace E.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)

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

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

      Barrie, H. T.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. William Hayes

      Macleod, John M.

      Barton, Sir William

      FetzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

      Macmaster, Donald

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

      Finnery, Sir J. Fortescue

      McMicking, Major Gilbert

      Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

      Fletcher, John S.

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

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

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

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Gastrell, Lt.-Col. Sir W. H.

      Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

      Malcolm, Ian

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

      Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

      Marriott, John A. R.

      Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Meux, Admiral Hon. Sir Hedworth

      Bentinck, Lord Henry

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Bigland, Alfred

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Bird, Alfred

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Blair, Reginald

      Gretton, John

      Mitchell-Thomson, W.

      Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

      Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Guinness, Hon. R. C. L. (Essex, S.E).

      Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Morgan, George Hay

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

      Boyton, Sir James

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

      Morrison-Bell, Colonel E. (Ashburton)

      Brace, Rt. Hon. William

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Mount, William Arthur

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

      Newman, Major John R. P.

      Brocklehurst, Col. William B

      Hanson, Charles Augustin

      Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster)

      Brookes, Warwick

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

      Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

      Broughton, Urban Hanlon

      Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

      Norman, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

      Bryce, John Annan

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

      Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

      Bull, Sir William James

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

      Burdett-Coutts, William

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

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

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

      Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Haslam, Lewis

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Parkes, Sir Edward

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)

      Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G.

      Hewins, William Albert S

      Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

      Hickman. Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

      Pennefather, De Fonblanque

      Cator, John

      Hills, John Waller (Durham)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

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

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

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

      Clyde, James Avon

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund

      Clynes, John R.

      Home, Edgar

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

      Colvin, Col.

      Hunt, Major Rowland

      Randles, Sir John

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hunter. Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

      Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

      Ratcliff, Lt.-Col. R. F.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

      Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

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

      Rees. Sir J. D.

      Courthope, Maj. George Loyd

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Remnant, Col. Sir James F.

      Cowan, Sir William Henry

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

      Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)

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

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

      Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Rothschild, Major Lionel de

      Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Royds, Major Edmund

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Kerry, Lt.-Col. Earl of

      Rutherford, Col, Sir J. (Darwen)

      Davies., David (Montgomery Co.)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

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

      Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

      Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

      372

      373

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

      Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

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

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Thomas-Stanford, Chas. (Brighton)

      Williamson Sir Archibald

      Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

      Shortt, Edward

      Tickler, Thomas George

      Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Turton, Edmund Russborough

      Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Walker, Col. W. H.

      Winfrey, Sir R.

      Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

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

      Stanton, Charles Butt

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

      Starkey, John Ralph

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

      Wood, S. Bill (Derbyshire)

      Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

      Waring, Major Walter

      Worthington Evans, Sir L.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Yeo, Sir Alfred William

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

      Watson, Hon. W. Lanark, S.)

      Younger, Sir George

      Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

      Weston, John W.

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

      Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

      Stoker, Robert B.

      Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      NOES.

      Alden, Percy

      Hackett, John

      Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

      Anderson, William C.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork City)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Billing, Noel Pemberton

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

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Boland, John Pius

      Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Hogge, J. M.

      O'Dowd, John

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Ogden, Fred

      Buxton, Noel

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Leary, Daniel

      Byrne, Alfred

      Harbison, T. J. S.

      O'Malley, William

      Chancellor, Henry George

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe)

      O'Shee, James John

      Clough, William

      Jowett, Frederick William

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.)

      Keating, Matthew

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H..

      Crean, Eugene

      Kelly, Edward

      Pringle, William M. R

      Crumley, Patrick

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Cullinan, John

      Kilbride, Denis

      Reddy, Michael

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      King, Joseph

      Redmond, Capt. W. A.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Dillon, John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Donovan, John Thomas

      Lundon, Thomas

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Donnelly, Patrick

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Doris, William

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Dougherty, Pit. Hon. Sir James B.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Sheehy, David

      Duffy, William J.

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Snowden, Philip

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Meagher, Michael

      Sutton, John E.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Field, William

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

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Molloy, Michael

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Whitty, Patrick Joseph

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Morrell, Philip

      Gulney, John

      Muldoon, John

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

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at Sixteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.