§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £650,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—[NOTE: £350,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI wish to give the Government one chance more. This Government are singular for many things, some of which we think desperately criminal. Perhaps history may take a more sinister view of it, but I wish that this Government should not go down to posterity as a Government "that loveth and maketh the spy." This sum of £500,000 is a sum asked for deliberately for the odious purpose of nursing that hotbed of trouble, the spy. As so very little is known of this system I would like to give the outlines in two or three sentences of the Secret Service Fund. In almost the first enactment in any reign, the Statute fixing the Civil List, the sum of £10,000 is charged on the Consolidated Fund for secret service at home. All other sums that have to be charged for any secret service at home or abroad have to be voted by this House. Already this House has voted the enormous sum of £500,000 for the Secret Service, and it is now asked to vote £500,000 more in one year. Some thirty years ago I read an expression of astonishment that in one year—in 1887—the Secret Service Vote had been increased by £30,000, but it is now increased in one year by £1,000,000. So long as there is secret diplomacy secret service is absolutely necessary; but what I would ask is this, that some information should be given to us as to how much of this large sum is appropriated to and spent in Ireland as distinct from the sums spent in the ordinary improper, though necessary, work of the Secret Service. Some few years ago this concession was 372 made. It was customary for the Secret Service to give in gratuities large sums of money to ex-officials, but since 1886 every Minister has on his honour, in disposing of the Secret Service Fund, to say that it is disposed of in a way that he considers proper. I must say one word to the House about a matter which is not generally known. On a separate Vote a sum which used to be £500 a year, now £300 a year, is given to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to distribute amongst the secret agents of this country in foreign lands. I may, perhaps, be able on some future occasion to enlarge upon that, but on the present occasion I wish only to direct my attention to the agents provocateurs who are now at work in Ireland, more actively than they have ever been at work before.
The agent provocateur is produced, from my reading of Irish history, under these circumstances. We have, let it be taken for granted, a reactionary Government in power. As against a reactionary Government there comes a constitutional agitation. The reactionary Government promises to the constitutional agitation all that they desire. It raises their hopes to the highest and then it dashes them to the ground, and in despair of any constitutional agitation the younger and the more ardent spirits are hired into unconstitutional courses, and from these courses there come outrages, and then the reactionary Government can say, "Look at the outrages that are occurring! How can we grant measures of reform, however willing we may be to do so?" But it can be proved that in all these outrages in England and in Ireland, which have been the distinct result of the selfish denial of popular rights, the persons who have committed these outrages have been agents of the Government, paid by Government money, and in distinct and absolute and direct communication with Ministers of the Crown, and the men who are led to these courses have had the agony of seeing the spy who incited them to outrage, who told them what to do, who made public speeches, who said, as one spy said, that he had 150,000 men who would march on London—they have had the agony of seeing the spy in the witness-box against them. That occurs in your own country, and it was a constant thing for thirty years in your own country, until the Reform Bill came in. I will mention three names. There was a man named 373 Castle, who was a spy in the pay of the Government, who bore witness against the very men he had incited. Another man named Donovan was just as bad. But Edwards was the worst of all. He planned that the whole Cabinet should be murdered. He arranged the plan, he brought people into it, and he, Edwards, was saved and preserved, having brought to the block Thistlewood and others of his accomplices, and lived on the pay of the Government out of the Secret Service Fund for twenty-nine years after that occurrence. That has occurred in England, and that has been the effect in England of having a Secret Service Fund with reactionary Governments who are anxious to destroy constitutional movements and then, by disturbance and bloodshed and insurrection, to carry out their wishes.
That occurred in England when the Government throve on spies for thirty years from 1798 until the Reform Bill came, and then it was smashed up, but it has the full prosperity of a green bay tree in Ireland to-day, and what they are doing in Ireland is only in accordance with the ordinary practice of the country, or rather of the Castle. I will just give, from the various Irish insurrectionary movements, one representative fact from each which will show what I mean. I will take first the insurrectionary movement of 1798, which was a constitutional agitation, about to succeed, with promises made by the Government which they intended to destroy and to withdraw. Then the unconstitutional agitation began, and there came in the savage, devilish spy in order to incite them to outrage, and paid by Dublin Castle. Of all the circumstances of 1798, the judicial murders were the worst, and will it be believed that the counsel who defended the Irish political prisoners, who was trusted by the leaders of the Irish party for thirty years, was in the pay of the Government betraying his clients to them? That man's name was MacNally, and his papers and letters, no fewer than 150 letters, are in Dublin Castle to-day, showing his treachery and falsehood. His briefs are preserved in the Castle, showing the place where he betrayed his clients, and in connection with that an interesting thing occurred in a comparatively recent trial. Two English Law Officers of the Crown had to consider the various cases in reference to high treason in order to arrange and settle the method of procedure in the trial. One of them, an Englishman and a very clever 374 man, looking over these reports of Irish cases, said, "I cannot understand it. These men were being defended with admirable ingenuity, and then something suddenly occurs to give the case away. "Don't you know," said the other Law Officer, an Irishman, "that this fellow was bribed?" "I cannot," he said, "believe it." And very properly, and I believe that that is the sole case in Ireland where that devilish practice occurred and that abomination to the Bar was employed. But how are the Government to be considered, and how is every judge who sat on the Bench to be thought of in history, when they knew that the man defending the prisoners at the Bar was secretly betraying their cause for Government money? For eighteen months before the insurrection of 1798 a man named McGann was an eager United Irishman. He was betraying the secrets of the party, and of the leaders of the movement, to the Government, while he was most vehement in proposing the most drastic action on their part.
These secrets were known, and his arrangement was to go to the people on behalf of the Government in order to carry the Union through. These things cannot be denied. They are too terrible almost to be repeated. By easy transition I now come from 1798 to the next great insurrectionary movement in Ireland in 1848. In the insurrectionary movement of that year there was a man named Barney Malone, who was all for bloodshed. He presented the leaders of the Irish party, and at that time of the Irish insurrectionary party, including the father of my hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Dillon) and Sir John Grey, complete plans of how they could seize Dublin Castle. He was very anxious that that should be done, and that strong measures should be at once taken. Sir John Grey discovered that Barney Malone had had documents which proved that he was in the pay of Dublin Castle from 1798 to 1848, when he was at the same fell work of driving and goading them into insurrection. That was the horrible story. Sir John Grey had an interview with Barney Malone, and invited him to breakfast, and gradually brought himself on to politics and to insurrection, and then began to ask Barney Malone certain questions. He was discomfited, and then at length he produced the document, and the grovelling wretch was there praying for his life, wretched himself, but not 375 more wretched than the fell agents by whom he developed his scheme. Now I come to 1867. Two of the most prominent agents provocateurs were Corydon and Massey. They were both in the employ of the Government. They both urged crime, and they were denounced by the judges on the bench, one of them as a danger to Dublin and to European society. In 1867, too, there was one case of a man named Talbot, who had been head constable in the Irish Constabulary. There was a secret conspiracy, and he swore men in by the hundred until altogether over 1,500 were sworn in by this man. He was a Protestant, and in order to inspire greater faith in the men, he actually partook of the sacred Holy Communion of the Roman Catholic Church. What that means to us as Protestants is very terrible, but what it means to Roman Catholics is a depth of iniquity and of blasphemy almost inconceivable. All this cannot be denied. It cannot be counter-said.
Now I come to the dynamite time, The agent provocateur was a man named Jim MacDermott. He was from first to last in the pay of the Government. It is by telling you these things that I can best explain why, when I see £500 given over for which there is no account, I feel so very aggrieved and so very sorry, and so terror-stricken, as to what will happen in Ireland where to-day the place is honeycombed with agents provocateurs from Dublin Castle. The police have always been used to the job. Some of us recollect a man who, seventeen years ago, pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, because a police spy was prosecuting him who actually committed the murder himself, and I believe with the knowledge of some of the agents of Dublin Castle. I challenge contradiction of these things. For one case I have produced, it is no exaggeration to say, I could produce twenty. I want to be perfectly above board in this—it is almost an insult to say it—that I believe the heads of the Government know nothing about it. It is kept from them. Possibly they shut their eyes to disagreeable things. But what I do say is that Dublin Castle at the present moment is a sink of iniquity. Some crimes are committed through the agency of Dublin Castle in order to destroy the Constitutional movement. Some angry speeches are delivered by men who are themselves in the pay of Government, in 376 order to drive people into insurrection to destroy the Constitutional movement, of which they are afraid.
I have one other word to say I would rather not say, but the late Mr. John Blake Dillon was one of the leaders of the insurrectionary movement in 1848. At a time when Irish politics were very, very different, he was greatly beloved by men of a completely different type from himself. There came to the leaders of the insurrection—the incident was told by Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who was one of them, in his Memoirs—a gentleman, who said, "Come on; we must have blood! We must impress the popular imagination. Whether we win or fall, we must die gloriously fighting the British troops!" Mr. John Blake Dillon did not take that advice very enthusiastically, and reproved and rebuked this fellow. When the insurrection broke out, although Mr. John Blake Dillon did not approve of it, the adviser who wanted blood was in the lower library of the Law Courts, and afterwards held a judicial position. With this establishment in Dublin, where every person with popular feeling has been exiled, where we know that the old machinations of Dublin Castle are as rife to-day as in 1798, I would be unworthy of my duty if I did not call the attention of the House to one of the greatest and most terrible scandals that ever disgraced administration.
§ Mr. DILLONI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
Everybody will admit that, in so far as the Secret Service of this country is concerned, whatever the responsible Government demands must be given. I believe the Secret Service of this country, in contrast with other countries, is very efficient, but in a great country which spares no sum on its spies and system of spies, we all frankly admit that, whatever the responsible Government says is necessary for the Secret Service of the country, must be voted by Parliament. But I think we are entitled to know how much of this money goes to Ireland, and I do ask the Government to separate the foreign Secret Service of this country from the home Secret Service, and give us some indication of what is sent to Ireland. We are now entering upon, I deeply regret to say, a wholly fresh chapter in Irish history. We all listened with painful feelings—at least, I did—to the speech yesterday 377 of the Chief Secretary. It was reminiscent of the very worst days that I have passed through in the history of Ireland. One might have been listening to poor old Mr. William Forster in the early days of the Land League—only it was worse in the spirit that it showed. We are now under a military government. We have no responsibility whatever. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chief Secretary has no power in dealing with the section of the money that is going to Ireland—how much we do not know, and we ought to know—because it should be separated altogether from the foreign Secret Service account.
There is another question. My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken has stated a fact that I myself did not know till the other day that the foreign Secret Service of this country is, or was—
§ Mr. MacNEILLIs!
§ Mr. DILLONIs under the control of the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. If I was not concerned with my own country at the moment I should have a good deal to say on that point, for I consider the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is wholly incompetent to deal with this matter. This money ought to be under the control of some very competent person. I pass from that and contrast the fact that while we know who is controlling the distribution of the vast Secret Service funds of this country we do not in the least know, or can only guess, who is controlling the distribution in Ireland. Is it the Chief Secretary? Is it the Lord Lieutenant? Somebody must be responsible. Is it Major Price? This is a very serious matter for us. We have passed through stormy times in Ireland. Some of us in the past have been faced with imminent danger to our lives by the operations of this Secret Service Fund. My hon. and learned Friend has related one anecdote—a perfectly true story. I will relate an anecdote in reference to myself, as to the Secret Service Fund of this country, when the Land League was busy, and when that money was used by the Government of that day to suborn men to swear that I had organised a conspiracy in Clare to get a man murdered. The agent who worked that plot was brought up in the Court in Clare, and put into the witness box; he was examined by the police. He gave evidence that he was 378 present at a meeting of one of the secret societies which were then rampant in Ireland, and that it was there and then agreed, under the circumstances stated, to carry out the murder. He said that the circumstance which decided him to go on with the murder was that one of the young men present said that he had Mr. Dillon's special instructions to carry out this murder. This man was put into the box, and my life was in imminent danger. The counsel defending the prisoner had got a dossier of the gentleman in the box, and on cross-examination it was proved and admitted that this man in the box had been in the pay of the police for several years, that he had been convicted over and over again of the most scandalous crimes, including unnatural crime; but that the police still kept him in their pay. On the night on which the murder was planned the police had sent him out to plan it, and had paid him. They then went on patrol duty, and found him lying drunk in the gutter with the money which they had paid him to go out and plan the murder. They picked up, washed him, and put him to bed until he was sober, and then sent him out again to plan the murder. What happened? The police and their agent were waiting in a house. The police rushed from behind the door, and in the struggle which ensued, the head constable was killed who had planned the whole iniquity. It was a judgment of God on him. Afterwards the whole of that iniquity came out—that this was a deliberate plot. This was done by the Secret Service. They tried to take my father's life, and they tried to take my life and the life of many of my colleagues in days gone by. It is only two years ago since Major Price attempted to take our lives in connection with the rebellion of 1916—for crimes of which we were far more innocent than the men sitting on the Treasury Bench. Is this money to be ladled out without any check whatever in the troublous times before us in Ireland. So far as the sub-agents of Dublin Castle are concerned they do not care about the War, because their war is at home and against us. They are quite prepared to stir up insurrection, and they are doing it to-day, so long as they can discredit us and the constitutional movement which they hate and fear. Ireland to-day is honeycombed with spies, and many of the worst raids for arms and cattle drives and disturbances are carried out by the Government's 379 own agents, and by this money we are called upon to vote to-night. We are in for terrible times in Ireland. It may be that we are in for another insurrection. In 1798, and again in 1848, and again in 1867, the agents of the Government were the inciters of insurrection in Ireland. Therefore, at a time like this it is no wonder that we are anxious about this question of the Secret Service, and the least we can ask is that some man should be named who is responsible for the distribution of this money, so that we may be able to examine whether he is a man of honour with whom the lives and reputations of political men are safe, and we should know what is the sum placed at his disposal as part of the general Secret Service, so that we may be able to place some check on this scandalous system of agents provocateurs—a system which brought Russia to ruin, which has disgraced your system in Ireland for one hundred years, and which was killed by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Birrell), and for which he was denounced, but which has been revived, and is now in full blast in Ireland, and which is a disgrace to any civilised country. No civilised country has a right to do what you have done in Ireland for one hundred years, namely, to supplement spies by agents provocateurs.
§ Mr. BALDWINThere is no Member who has had a longer or wider Parliamentary experience than the hon. Member who has just spoken, and it is a curious coincidence that almost twenty years ago, to the very night, he rose in his place and made a very similar speech to the one that he has delivered this evening in moving to reduce the Secret Supplementary Vote of £13,000 by £10,000, on the grounds that £3,000 would be a sufficient sum to grant, and that the Secret Service money was being expended in Ireland for the stirring up of crime and for the maintenance of the agents provocateurs. The first speech which followed came from Sir Charles Dilke, who opposed the reduction on the ground that the amount of the Vote for Secret Service in this country was not nearly enough for our needs compared with the sums spent by other countries on the Continent of Europe. The House knows, as well as the hon. Member and I know, what is the difficulty in a Debate on this question. If the hon. Member wished to attack the administration, or maladministration of the law in Ireland, an opportunity for a reply would 380 have been given on any of the Irish Votes, but he explained the position on the Secret Service Vote during the Debate in words far better chosen than any words that I could use, and they really sum up the whole case. He said:
As I understand, we have no power over the Secret Service Fund, and the Secretary to the Treasury appears to have no more power than we have. I do not believe that the Secretary to the Treasury knows how this money has been spent. It has been expended by the Foreign Office and the Home Office, but the Secretary to the Treasury has no knowledge how much has been expended by either office.These words are as true to-day as when he uttered them twenty years ago. I would like to remind the House and the hon. Members who have spoken—and this is really all that I have to say upon the subject—of two very important facts. One has been expressed by every one who has stood at this box, including the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a Secret Service Fund, and the House of Commons, by the mere fact that it sanctions the Grant of a Secret Service Fund, abrogates its right to inquire into the disposition of that fund. The House is perfectly free to meet the Vote by a direct negative, and, if it disapproves of the expenditure of Secret Service money, to say so and to stop it; but, if it sanctions the expenditure of Secret Service money, it has done all that it can do. In the second place, I would remind the House that it is quite impossible for Secret Service money to be spent by this or that man on any scheme that may commend itself to him. Every payment has to be voucher for both to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
§ Mr. DILLONI thought that the Treasury knew nothing about it.
§ Mr. BALDWINThey knew nothing about how it is expended. The Minister, the head of the Department, is the person who has cognisance of how the money is spent; and he alone is responsible.
§ Mr. DILLONWould the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me who is responsible for the expenditure of this money in Ireland? That is the question I want to have answered.
§ Mr. BALDWINI have no knowledge whether any of the money is spent in Ireland or not. I only say that no money can be spent anywhere without the authority 381 of the responsible Minister for the Department controlling whatever part of the realm it may be in which the money is spent. I am quite sure that the Committee as a whole feels now, as it always has felt, sufficient confidence in the men who are at the head of the great Departments in this country, whatever may be the politics of the Government in power, to trust them to see that nothing is done which they do not consider necessary in the interests of the country. With reference to the amount of the Vote, it would be of interest to the Committee to remember that, though this Vote is granted each year during the War, when you consider what the extent of the War is to-day and the extent of the interests of this country, I do not think the amount the Government are asking for is an excessive one, because the Vote we are taking to-night only brings the total expenditure up to £1,000,000, a sum which we hope may be sufficient to carry us through the whole financial year. If it should not be, it may be necessary to introduce a small Supplementary Estimate before the end of the year. The Committee will realise that it is impossible for me to add anything to what I have said. If we should be asked to go to a Division—and there have been Divisions on this matter before; there was one on the occasion to which I alluded when I began my remarks—I hope the Committee will give support to this Vote for which I am now asking.
§ Mr. DILLONThe hon. Gentleman really has utterly failed to answer any single question I put to him. I did not quarrel with the size of the Vote. I specifically said that in war-time we were bound to vote all the money the Government wants for the Secret Service. The hon. Gentleman dealt with my speech as if I was remonstrating on the size of the Vote. I asked him to separate what is going to Ireland from the general Secret Service, and to tell us who is the man who has control of this Secret Service in Ireland. When he slides off and says that we have confidence in the heads of the great Departments of State that they will do nothing that is unnecessary, I reply that he has not been able to contradict the fact that the system of paying agents-provocateurs has been in practice in Ireland for a hundred years. We are now in troublous times in Ireland, and we are entitled to ask the Government, Do they 382 intend to adhere to that system and do they approve of that system? The hon. Gentleman had not a single word to say in defence of that system. We want to know who is the man who controls the money that goes to Ireland, and how much goes to Ireland. If that man be a man known to us and on whom we can fix the responsibility, that may be some slight comfort to us, but at present we have no knowledge. It may be some subordinate official. I believe it is a subordinate official. I do not believe, for instance, that Lord French goes into the details of this Secret Service in Ireland. I am quite sure the Chief Secretary does not, because he would not have the knowledge to do it. How in the name of goodness could he handle Secret Service money? He would not know the agents. It must be some individual who is acquainted with the dark places and the dubious characters of Irish life and has all the threads in his hands. We want to know who it is. It is a most scandalous thing. We must bring it up again and again. If unknown sums of this Secret Service are to be placed in the hands of irresponsible officials they may, in the course of the next six months, produce a condition of things where no man's life or reputation will be safe if he is obnoxious to Dublin Castle.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt)I desire to tell the Committee at once that I am the person responsible for the Secret Service in Ireland. There is no underling who is able to spend Secret Service money in Ireland at his own discretion. There is not, and has not been, since I knew anything about it, any agent-provocateur or anything approaching to it in Ireland. What there may have been in the past I do not know and am not answerable for. I protest against the constant attacks upon an hon. gentleman and a faithful and loyal public servant, who is not able to protect himself—I mean Major Price. Hon. Members are attacking him regularly. He cannot answer for himself, and they know it. He has very delicate and difficult work to do, and he does it loyally and honourably, and I emphasise the word honourably. He cannot defend himself, and I intend to defend him.
§ Mr. SHORTTI know a great deal more about him than hon. Members if they are really saying what they believe. If they know him as I know him they do not believe what they say about him. I do not know which it is. The amount of Secret Service money which is spent in Ireland is very small.
§ Mr. SHORTTI am not going to say one word on that subject. Hon. Members below the Gangway need not think they are going to tempt me into indiscretions. I am the person responsible. I know how it is spent. No underling spends it without my knowledge. There is no such thing in Ireland to-day as an agent-provocateur, and there will not be.
§ Mr. SHORTTI do not care about that. I state what I know to be a fact. I protest against attacks upon a man who cannot defend himself, and is as honourable and upright a public servant as exists in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. DEVLINWe have had a demonstration to-night of the passion that animates the new Chief Secretary for Ireland. He is fevered with the praise which has been levelled at him by the coercion journals in this country. There is nothing more delectable in the public life of England when the reactionary forces are fervent than to find an ex-Liberal doing the worst work of the reactionaries of this country, and therefore covered with praise, and coming to-night to the House of Commons, with the laurel wreaths which have been placed upon his head for the insults which he levelled at Ireland and her representatives yesterday. He comes here to-night to make a declaration which is precisely the same sort of declaration which was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) when he was Chief Secretary and by Mr. Wyndham when he was Chief Secretary. The late right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), when he was Chief Secretary, declared that there was no agent provocateur at the time of Sergeant Sheridan's case. Mr. Wyndham was an upright and honourable man who really believed what he said in this House, that there was no agent provocateur, yet he was compelled to admit subsequently that Sergeant Sheridan himself had been committing the crimes for which he sent so many Irish persons to 384 penal servitude. This statement by Mr. Wyndham was made by a man who had not only had extensive experience of Dublin Castle as official Parliamentary Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Colonies, but he also had long experience as Chief Secretary himself, yet with all his extensive experience he was never so loud in protesting against the allegations of the existence of agents provocateurs as the right hon. Gentleman who has been in Ireland only about six weeks, who had never been in Ireland until he went over to assist the Government there, and yet who now talks as if he knew every devious path in that country and was able to speak almost with pontifical authority on everything that occurs there. He was very angry with what he said about Major Price. Apparently he is not aware of the statement of a professor of the National University of Ireland that during the time of the Rebellion he went into a man's cell and offered him his liberty if he would make an allegation against my hon. Friend and myself. Of course we have no means of determining whether that statement is true or not, but it made such an impression on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, the man who put him there as the gramophone for the reactionaries of Ireland, that the present Prime Minister told me the best thing was to clear Major Price out of Dublin Castle. For some reason or other, which I fail to comprehend, this man has such a sinister influence in the Castle that he is able to inspire with more than legal enthusiasm the right hon. Gentleman, who comes down here with such violent protestations in his defence. It is the same old story. These men have always found defenders on that bench. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman would be better occupied if he were to engage in the task of clearing out Dublin Castle.
§ Mr. DILLONThat would be too big a task for anyone.
§ Mr. DEVLINIn clearing out Dublin Castle whose chief officer is Major Price. Dublin Castle which the late Prime Minister declared was an outrage upon civilised Government when he came over here after the Rebellion and declared that it had broken down. Dublin Castle and its instruments which he comes here so readily to defend. This Liberal from Newcastle-on-Tyne, this gentleman who has been put into the Government to 385 temper the Toryism of the Coalition; this gentleman who is the spokesman of the militarist Government in Ireland, lectures us upon our duty to our own country and to the State. He does that in reference to the representatives of a nation which he was sent over to govern and which he has governed for six weeks.
§ Mr. DEVLINOf course, he is a Home Ruler We all know what lawyers are. It is good policy. There is not a more ingenious politician than the Prime Minister. He cannot bring the hon. Member for—is it Manchester? Well, never mind where he sits for. He is a defender of all bad causes. In fact, he could not successfully defend a good cause, and it would not be the game to bring him over, because everybody there would understand it. This is where the political genius of the Prime Minister comes in. He selects a Liberal lawyer to defend all the monstrosities of Dublin Castle, and then the right hon. Gentleman gets up and talks, about Home Rule. His services to Home Rule has been to tell the House of Commons and the constituents who sent us here, and the Irish vote that secured him election to this House, that Home Rule with him is an academic theory. It was a matter of practical politics when he stood on the hustings at Newcastle-on-Tyne. It was merely an academic theory. He can afford to bring his academic theories as a sort of cloak for the reaction which he defends in the House of Commons. That is precisely the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He need not think that he will succeed in this any more than any of his predecessors. It would be far better for us to have an honest Tory. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr.Duke)
§ was a genuine Unionist and Tory. [Laughter.] I do not see why there should be laughter. You need not laugh at a Tory simply because he is honest. I know a large number of Tories in this House who are honest. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Stanley Wilson), who is always engaged in the intellectual pursuit of interrupting all sensible men, is one of the honestest men in this House. I say to the Coalition Government that it is quite possible that most of the honest men in the Coalition are Tories; therefore it would be far better for Ireland, and it would be far more decent and honourable for us, to have a Tory Chief Secretary for Ireland. They could then say to us, as they said in the old days, "We are not dealing with a civilised race; the Irish are Hottentots." That would be frank. That was Lord Salisbury's declaration. It was to put the Hottentot idea into operation that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was made Chief Secretary. Then we knew where we were. But a Liberal comes along—a Liberal who votes against coercion and puts it into operation, who votes against Conscription and then tells us it is inevitable, and he comes to the House of Commons and makes it a stage upon which he shows how transient and changeable are his opinions and how inconsistency in politics is the highest form of virtue.
§ It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £649,000, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 173.
387| Division No. 78.] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hayden, John Patrick | Molloy, Michael |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Muldoon, John |
| Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.) | Keating, Matthew | Nolan, Joseph |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Nugent, J. D. (College Green) |
| Cullinan, John | Kilbride, Denis | O'Dowd, John |
| Devlin, Joseph | King, Joseph | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Dillon, John | Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) | Reddy, Michael |
| Donnelly, Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | Lundon, Thomas | Sheehy, David |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Ghee, Richard | Tillet, Benjamin |
| Field, William | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Fitzgibbon, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hackett, John | Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.) | Mr. Boland and Mr. Doris |
| Harbison, T. J. S. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Hanson, Charles Augustin | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Allen, Arthur A (Dumbartonshire) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford) | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Haslam, Lewis | Pratt, John W. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City London) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E. |
| Barnett, Capt. Richard W. | Hibbert, Sir Henry | Pulley, C. T. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hinds, John | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) |
| Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renuall, Athelstan |
| Bird, Alfred | Hope, Lt-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith | Jessel, Colonel Sir Herbert M. | Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Boyton, Sir James | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.) | Royds, Major Edmund |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey) | Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Kellaway, Frederick George | Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Butcher, Sir J. G. | Larmor, Sir Joseph | Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G. |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Shortt, Edward |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Levy, Sir Maurice | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Stanler, Capt. Sir Beville |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Lonsdale, James R. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Stoker, R. B. |
| Collins, Sir William (Derby) | McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A. | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.) |
| Colvin, Col. | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Coote, William (Tyrone, S.) | M'Laren, Hon. H. (Leics., Bosworth) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Macmaster, Donald | Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Cotton, H. E. A. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Tootill, Robert |
| Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Maden, Sir John Henry | Walker, Colonel W. H. |
| Currie, G. W. | Malcolm, Ian | Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince) |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Mallalieu, F. W. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. | Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) | Weston, John W. |
| Du Pre, Maj. W. B. | Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C. | Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Morison, Hector (Hackney, South) | Wilson, Capt, A. Stanley (York) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading) |
| Fletcher, John S. | Needham, Christopher Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William | Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield) | Winfrey, Sir R. |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Newton, Major Harry Kottingham | Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge) |
| Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Nicholson, Sir Chas, N. (Doncaster) | Worthington-Evans, Major Sir L. |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Nield, Sir Herbert | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Younger, Sir George |
| Gretton. John | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) | Parkes, Sir Edward | Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt, F. Guest. |
| Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ The Chairman then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Services Estimates, and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy and the Army, and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.