§ (1) This Act may be cited as the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
§ (2) The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
I recognise that the limits within which a Debate of this kind can take place are somewhat restricted The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is to be regarded as a pledge on the part of the United Kingdom to the Irish people, and before anything takes its place the whole of the Bill, which is proposed to replace it, should be fully before this Committee. Can those proposals be fully before this Committee under the present circumstances? We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and, of course, we know, that the Finance Clauses, 18 to 34, have still to be debated, and they have also to be debated on the Report of a Committee which has not yet finished its deliberations. Nobody who knows anything about what we call in Scotland the fundamentals of this Bill can deny that finance lies at the root of it, and until we have before us the recommendations of the Committee and the proposals of the Government based upon that Report, we are not in a proper condition to be fully and adequately informed of what those new proposals are which are to take the place on the Statute Book of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914. I can imagine in the old days, which seem so far away, when the Act which is now on the Statute Book was being debated in this House, how a proposal to take this Clause without the financial position being fully developed would have been received by the Opposition, and what weight and consideration the Government of the day would have been bound to give to it. The mere question of numbers ought not, in this House, to affect the weight of argument. My right hon. Friend is a true parliamentarian, and he is a son of the House of Commons, and one of its oldest Members in respect of years of service, and I do press him, not as a Minister of the Crown so much, and not so much as the Minister in charge of this Bill, but I press him strongly as a 150 Member of this House, whether he does not in his heart agree with the position which I am now putting. How can we come to a fair decision on the most momentous Clause which says—
The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed";how can we come to that grave and serious decision, without knowing what the financial proposals are? The more one presses the matter the more serious it seems. I agree that our attendance on this side has not been as persistent as it might have been, but that ought not in any way to militate against the force of the argument I am putting, which is a purely constitutional House of Commons point of view. You really lose nothing in point of time by postponing this Clause. It is quite clear that this Bill must go over to the Autumn Session. The Financial Clauses must take a long while, and then there are the Schedules and the new Clauses. The Bill must be taken up again in the Autumn Session. The matter can be easily settled by the Chair exercising its new powers or applying the Closure. The Closure has not been applied once in the course of this Debate. I would press my right hon. Friend on this question. A great constitutional principle has to be upheld, and that is that where you have arrived at the pivotal Clause of the Bill, which sweeps away the Act now on the Statute Book, you should have the whole of the Clauses of the Bill before you. When you have the whole case before you, you can take a decision, whatever it may be, whether you agree with it or not. At any rate, you cannot say you have not heard the whole case, for and against. Here is the real Clause of the Bill, and I say in no fractious spirit at all, but with a sincere desire to maintain the traditions of this House, that we ought not to set a new precedent. When my right hon Friend and many of us have passed from this scene, who can say what use will be made of the precedent which we are now setting up? I charge my right hon. Friend to ransack his parliamentary memory for a precedent. Has he ever known a parliamentary situation of this kind where he would not, if he were in opposition, put far more strongly than I am able to do, the case which I am now putting?
§ Mr. LONGI can assure my right hon. Friend that I do not approach this ques- 151 tion from the point of view of the majority overriding the minority, or with any desire of doing anything but to obtain a fair and business-like discussion. There are two aspects from which this Clause has to be regarded. From my right hon. Friend's point of view it opens up a great memory of the past, and he is not exaggerating when he tells the Committee that these few words in this Clause, involving as they do, when this Bill passes, the repeal of the Act of 1914, means for those who believe in the Act of 1914 a very serious step. But, really, is there any justification for the postponement of this Clause, which is really only part of the machinery of the Bill? He says it is "the" Clause, and he asks me to charge my memory as to whether there has ever been a precedent. He knows that there have been scores and hundreds of precedents for the repeal of an Act of Parliament when other Acts have been substituted, and as to the importance of this, I do not quite see where his argument comes in. It all depends on whether the Bill passes. My right hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen on that side are never tired of telling us that the Bill is not going to pass, that it is a sham, and all the rest of it. In those circumstances I do not understand why they should regard this Clause with so much alarm and terror, because if the Bill does not pass this Clause will go with the rest. They have poured scorn on the Bill. Why, then, should they be afraid, if the Bill is not going to pass? If they do not believe what they say, then I can understand their objection to taking this Clause. You are here substituting an Act of self-government for Ireland for the one which is already on the Statute Book. Does anyone propose that you should have two on the Statute Book at the same time? Nobody makes that proposition.
§ My right hon. Friend says that before assenting to this clause the Committee, the
152§ House and the country ought to have before them the whole scheme of the Government in regard to finance. Assenting to this clause now does not repeal the Act of 1914; it does not prevent the Committee, the House and the country from having the whole scheme before them, because this clause only becomes operative when the Bill has passed through Parliament; when it has received consideration and secured its passage through this House and through the other House, and has finally received the King's assent. Therefore, this clause is merely to be regarded in its present form as an ordinary machinery clause following upon the substitution of our proposals for the proposals of 1914. If between now and the time when this Bill comes up for final consideration my right hon. Friend succeeds in defeating our proposals, this clause will go with the other proposals in the Bill. He appealed to me on rather higher grounds than was justified by the case. I hoped we might take to-day down to Clause 70, and I thought that was what my hon. Friend had suggested when he intervened following upon my noble Friend, the Member for Hitchin (Lord H. Cecil). I did not think there was anything controversial in the clauses up to Clause 70, and I understood that we were able to take the clauses up to Clause 70, and to reserve the other clauses for future debate. It seems to me that that is the 8.0 P.m. course which we ought to pursue. I am the last person in the world to seek to force through a clause which is repugnant to the Committee or is unjust, but this is not a course which the minority can regard as specially hostile, and certainly it is not unfair. Therefore I trust that the Committee will not postpone this clause.
§ Question put, "That the clause be postponed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 179.
153| Division No. 162.] | AYES. | [8.4 p.m. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Mills, John Edmund | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wintringham, T. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) | |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Johnstone, Joseph | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) | Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne. |
| Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Atkey, A. R. | Balfour, George (Hampstead) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Baird, John Lawrence | Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by) | Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekln) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Parker, James |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Hanna, George Boyle | Perring, William George |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Blair, Reginald | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Pratt, John William |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Briggs, Harold | Hinds, John | Rankin, Captain James S. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor. (Barnstaple) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hood, Joseph | Reid, D. D. |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hurd, Percy A. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Jesson, C. | Stevens, Marshall |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Stewart, Gershom |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sugden, W. H. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend) | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Dixon, Captain Herbert | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) |
| Donald, Thompson | Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster) | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Taylor, J. |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Edge, Captain William | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) | Lloyd, George Butler | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Vickers, Douglas |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Lonsdale, James Rolston | Waddington, R. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Lorden, John William | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Lynn, R. J. | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Whitla, Sir William |
| Forrest, Walter | M'Guffin, Samuel | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Mallalieu, F. W. | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Martin, Captain A. E. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Mitchell, William Lane | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Moles, Thomas | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Gould, James C. | Mount, William Arthur | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Younger, Sir George |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | |
| Gregory, Holman | Neal, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Ward. |
§ Captain W. BENNI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
§ Sir E. CARSONOn a point of Order. Is it in order to move to leave out Subsection (2), having regard to the fact that it is impossible for the two Acts, the Act of 1914 and this Act, to run together, and that this is a necessary part of this Bill?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)I do not think that is a question as to which I can give a ruling on a point of Order. No doubt this is a matter which the Committee will take into consideration.
§ Lord R. CECILIn order to have our Debates regular, may I ask whether it 154 has not always been ruled that you cannot move an Amendment which makes nonsense of a Bill?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is so; but it is difficult in this case for the Chair exactly to make up its mind what would make nonsense of the Bill. It is a very difficult and complicated Bill, and I should not like to rule that it would not be in order for an hon. Member to move the omission of these words.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLApart from the general point made by my Noble Friend, is it not a fact that this Amendment is inconsistent with the Clause we have already passed? In the early part of this Bill we passed a Clause, for instance, setting up a Parliament for the Northern 155 part of Ireland. The Act of 1914 establishes a Parliament for the whole of Ireland. That is entirely inconsistent with the Clauses we have already passed. Under the circumstances, is it not following the ordinary rule with regard to consequential Amendments to hold that to make those Amendments would be quite inconsistent?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt might mean that some new Clauses or new Clause would have to be put down, but I think this is an Amendment which the hon. Member should be allowed to move.
§ Colonel GREIGIs it in order for any hon. Member to move an Amendment which is obviously designed to make the Bill a farce, which the hon. Member has already described it to be?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a matter for argument. It is for the Committee and not for the Chair to decide.
§ Captain BENNI am not in the least surprised that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, and who, I believe, is a Liberal, objects to this Amendment, or that the Members from Ulster would like to see their work done sub silentio. This is the only clause in the Bill which counts. This is why the Bill is brought in. It is the only point of substance in the Bill from beginning to end. A little nonsense more or less will not therefore matter. This is the one Clause which is not nonsense; it is business. It was designed to get rid of the pledged word of the Government of this country to the Irish people. Representatives of Ulster having, after many years, accomplished their end, would like to secure their reward without any observations being made in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. McNEILLWe do not mind your criticisms.
§ Captain BENNNot mine, but there are people to whom the word of the Prime Minister has been pledged, and they also have to be taken into account. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, I never set much store on my opinions or on my expression of them. I am speaking about people outside. In the first place, I would submit that the Government of Ireland Act does not come into 156 operation until peace is declared. That will be a long time yet, for we have just started a new offensive, and until that is successfully completed the Government of Ireland Act cannot come into force. The second point is that we are asked to repeal the only Act for the self-government of Ireland which has been passed, before we have the least indication of what substitute the Government will put in its place. The main substance of the Bill, the financial part, has been postponed. I know perfectly well that it is surmised that one of the Parliaments, the Southern Parliament, will never meet, and that its place will be taken by Crown Colony government, to be defined in an Amendment not yet reached. I agree that the Act passed in 1914 does not in the least square with our conception of what a scheme of self-government for Ireland should do to-day. But we have to remember that it is a pledge given to the Irish nation, and the only Bill that might be needed to modify it and give the necessary security to the minority, in accordance with the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), can be passed by both Houses of Parliament. It is not easy to pass a real measure of self-government for Ireland through Parliament. It took six years and two General Elections to do it in the past. All that achievement it is proposed to sacrifice by Sub-section (2) of this Clause. The Subsection is the justification for violence. When the Act of 1914 was under consideration opponents of that Measure proceeded, with the assistance of the First Lord, to organise rebellion. They have won. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] They say, "Hear, hear!" The Provisional Government's achievement has been secured. Then what is the use of turning now and complaining that the people of Ireland have thrown aside constitutional methods of agitation? You have taught them to do it. You have taught Sinn Feiners how to organise revolution, and you are sitting now in Parliament or holding offices under the Government. You have taught the Irish people that the only way to get what they desire is by violence. The Leader of the Nationalists (Mr. Redmond) is dead. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Redmond), who used to sit on the Nationalist Benches, has died fighting in the service 157 of his Empire. The Constitutional Nationalists have been robbed of that for which they worked, and the men who organised rebellion are sitting on the other side of the House, are given offices, or are made Private Secretaries to the Prime Minister. The Private Secretary to the Prime Minister said he would buy arms and ship them over to Ireland.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is now turning to a general discussion of the Irish question. The question before the Committee is whether there is to be associated with this Bill this particular Sub-section. It is not in order to discuss the whole of the Act of 1914. The hon. and gallant Member may be desirous of showing to the Committee that in this Bill it is not necessary or desirable to have this Subsection, but that must be shown only in association with this Bill.
§ Captain BENNI shall raise the point as vehemently as I can in protest against this infamous Bill. The people of Ireland have tried constitutional agitation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member will no doubt have an opportunity of discussing that question on the Third Reading of this Bill, but this is not the time for making the point.
§ Captain BENNWe are discussing the question whether or not we shall repeal an Act which was passed after as great a struggle as has ever been known in this House. I submit that I am quite entitled, in discussing whether or not that Act should be repealed, to discuss the method by which its appeal is being secured. You taught the people of Ireland by this Subsection that it is hopeless to agitate in a constitutional way. The late hon. Member for Waterford, Mr. John Redmond, who, at any rate, obeyed the plain rules, put down violence and discouraged it in his own supporters. The hon. and learned Member for Canterbury and the First Lord of the Admiralty encouraged violence. Who has won? John Redmond is dead and his brother, Major Redmond, is dead, and their cause has failed.
§ Mr. McNEILLAnd so is Queen Anne.
§ Captain BENNThat is a very touching tribute to the late constitutional leader of Ireland. I hope the House and 158 the country will take note of it. They are dead and they failed, but the people who put this Sub-section in this Bill have won. They are the people who had recourse to drilling and violence and rifles, and gun running, and incitement to mutiny in the Army, and rebellion. Can you wonder, then, that the people of Ireland have found that the way to win is by violence. Who taught them to use violence except the people who put this Sub-section into this precious Bill for the so-called better government of Ireland? The pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley was most specific. At the opening of the War he told the Irish people that the Government of Ireland Act was suspended for the period of hostilities. Many of the extreme elements in Ireland said from the beginning that it was useless to trust the promises of English politicians, and that they were fraudulent, and they are right. They have been defrauded, they have been swindled, that is the word to use. After thirty years of agitation and self-suppression and constitutional work, the result is Sub-section (2) of Clause 70, and the Government of Ireland Act, passed after two elections and after a gigantic and titanic struggle between the two Houses, is repealed. What is the result of this in Ireland, and what is going to be the result of it? Every moderate man in Ireland is being driven to see that constitutional agitation and trusting to the promises of English statesmen has failed. Every moderate man is being driven step by step to accept another régime which has the approval of the people of Ireland, failing a régime given by the Parliament of this country which was to have their approval. In 29 out of 33 counties allegiance is publicly owned to an authority not His Majesty's, and in 21 counties the Courts maintaining law and order are doing so by the only weapon by which any Courts can hope to get the confidence of the people, namely, the sanction and rule of the people around. Is it to be wondered at, when the constitutional way which we here believe in has so utterly and completely failed.
What is going to be the end? It is useless for a few people to protest here, but let me tell the Committee that the end is going to be the reconquest of Ireland and civil war. That is the result of the Coalition of November, 1918. I agree that 159 the situation has always been difficult, but it has become infinitely worse since the formation of a Government with the connivance and depending upon the support of lifelong enemies of the aspirations of the Irish people. You are going to be asked to re-conquer Ireland. Your work is shattered and it is useless to pretend that by sending soldiers and tanks you can govern a country in spite of its goodwill. That is not an idle statement, but a fact. The Act of 1914 was an attempt to enlist the good-will of the Irish people in a form of Government which you are going to repeal. The result is, that you are going to have to re-conquer Ireland. Let me say two things on that and utter some words of warning. The first is that you cannot trust the instrument which you are going to try and use. When it comes to the real thing you will find they will not fight for it. The Lord Privy Seal said that about the suppression of Ulster and it is true. The second is, that when you attempt the reconquest of Ireland you will take the first step in the break-up of the Empire. What do you think the people of Canada and of Australia are going to think when they read that British troops are advancing in Ireland, and when they read of the casualties, and that you seized upon this point or that? You will disrupt the Empire. That is what is going to happen. You are going to have civil war and I fear the beginning of a step which extremists in Ireland hope for and which we had hoped could be avoided by a solution found in a family of free nations.
§ Mr. LONGI find it very hard to rouse myself to that excitement or heat which the hon. and gallant Gentleman reached in dealing with this Sub-section. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was very eloquent about this Clause as the cause of all the troubles in Ireland. He did not seem to have a bad memory on the whole as political memories go, and yet he seems to have learned Irish history quite afresh, and that all the troubles, all the murders, all the rapine and repudiation of Government are the result of Clause 70 in this Bill. I wish I could think he was within a hundred miles of the truth in making that statement, because if he were it would make the Irish problem much simpler. I do not want to go into controversial questions, but surely the hon. and gallant 160 Gentleman has forgotten such little incidents as the Easter revolution.
§ Captain BENNThe rebellion you helped to organise.
§ Mr. LONGThe rebellion with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me so much credit was, so far as I know, a rebellion which had not very disastrous consequences, whereas that of 1916 was an actual outbreak which resulted in a disastrous loss of lives, including the lives of a very large number of our soldiers. The casualties of the troops employed were very numerous and serious. That is the rebellion which the hon. Gentleman forgets. I do not want at this stage of the Bill to indulge in tu quoques, and it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's speech will be much more suitable on Third Reading than on Second Reading. He is inaccurate in his description of the effect of what we are doing now. We are merely adding this Clause, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said, as an inevitable part of the Bill, the greater part of which we have already passed. It was pointed out in the discussion, on the point of Order, that not to pass this proposal would be really to make ridiculous every word of this Bill, which is different from the Act of 1914. If I were to address the Committee on the subject of the cause of the trouble in Ireland, I should take much longer than the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I should not think it necessary to draw upon my imagination, as there are so many facts which can be used.
The state of Ireland has nothing to do with a particular Clause in a Bill. We have made our proposals for Home Rule in Ireland, and we justified them on the introduction of the Bill and on Second Reading, and this House, by an overwhelming majority, has accepted the principle of our Bill, and has accepted the greater part of the Bill, and that principle involves the repeal of the Act of 1914. As to the argument that the Committee ought to have the whole of the proposals before them before they pass this Clause, I would agree if the insertion of this Clause meant that to-morrow, automatically and without remedy, the Act of 1914 were repealed; but it means nothing of the kind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite resent the repeal of an Act for which they have great affection, but we 161 regard it as an Act wholly inconsistent with the legislation which we are now proposing, and we regard this Clause as a mere machinery Clause. We asked the Committee to resist the attempt to postpone it, and we were supported by an overwhelming majority, and in the same way we now ask them to reject the Motion for the deletion of this Subsection. The Sub-section does not really involve the dreadful consequences which my hon. and gallant Friend has evolved, and really and truly it is much more a matter of machinery than of principle. While there are many parts of this Bill which have properly received, and many parts which have yet got to receive, full consideration, it is not necessary that we should delay longer in deciding this particular question.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEI have the utmost sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member opposite in this protest. I think it reveals a very serious state of affairs. The Irish people have been long buoyed up with the hope of Home Rule, but we are passing a Bill which will effect no good purpose in Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, the late Prime Minister, erred in allowing himself to be dominated by the Ulster party in this House and to be threatened and bullied into the suspension of the Act of 1914. It would be infinitely better for Ireland, and a great advantage to this country and the Empire, if that Act, with all its defects, had been put upon the Statute Book, because then we should not have been faced to-day with the great problem which now confronts this country. This Bill will not effect any cure for the ills of Ireland and will not settle this question. I am convinced that while the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says that this is merely a matter of machinery, it will make the worst possible impression in Ireland and that the Irish people will put the worst interpretation on the proceedings of this House in repealing that Act. I believe that Ireland will go from bad to worse, and that the day will ultimately come when we in this House will have to face some greater measure in order to satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people. It is very much to be regretted that this House when it had the opportunity did not seize the moment and put upon the Statute Book a moderate measure of Home Rule 162 for Ireland which would have satisfied the Irish people; but, unfortunately, the clamour of the men of Ulster, always pampered, has prevented a settlement of the Irish Question, and the responsibility rests with a heavy weight on the men of Ulster, who have resisted all attempts to heal the long-standing sore of centuries in Ireland and who have prevented peace being brought to that country.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI hope the Committee will accept the Amendment and refuse to pass the second Sub-section of this Clause. It seems to me that we are going to take away from Ireland what has been gained by practically a treaty between the two peoples. The Act of 1914 was practically a treaty between the English people and the Irish people, settled here across the floor of the House, for putting an end to the perennial disputes between the two countries, and now we are going to take that away from them without its being inserted that we are going to give them anything whatever in return. It is quite true that if this Bill is to come into operation the Act of 1914 must be got out of the way. We do not believe that this Bill ever will come into operation. Some on the other side believe that it will, but I say that it is not at all necessary to put in this Sub-section totally abolishing the Act of 1914 in order to give a trial to see which of us is right. It would have been perfectly possible to put in a Clause suspending the Act of 1914 until there had been a fair opportunity of seeing whether this Bill worked in Ireland or not. If it had failed, as we say it will fail, then the position would be that Ireland would still be in possession of her constitutional rights conferred upon her by the Act of 1914; but now, if this Act fails, you will have taken from Ireland that great right, that Magna Charta of Irish liberties, as it might have been, and you will have given her nothing in its place The net result of the trans action may very well be that you will have set up in Northern Ireland some kind of a Northern Parliament which will work in a way, and you will have set up nothing in Southern Ireland which will work at all. You will have deprived the whole of Nationalist Ireland of what they so greatly valued, and you will have given instead simply martial law to put down the aspirations of the people there. I therefore beg to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. INSKIPThis is the most curious Debate we have had at this stage of the Bill, and one might perhaps allow this singular Amendment to pass without comment. But what has moved me to intervene is partly the way in which the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) had addressed himself to the Amendment, and I cannot help wondering how many of the 8,000 majority, which the hon. Gentleman obtained by giving his promise to support the policy of the Prime Minister, with full knowledge of that policy, would have been obtained if he had made, if I may say so, the somewhat sanctimonious speech—
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEIn my contest at East Renfrew, I made it perfectly clear to both sides who supported me that I was a firm Home Ruler, and in favour of the Act of 1914.
§ Mr. INSKIPThen I think it is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman has not given the Committee the benefit of his views before this. So far as I know, this is the first intervention of the hon. Gentleman in Committee on this Bill. One can respect the great sincerity of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), because both by his attendance and efforts he has, at any rate, left the Committee in no doubt at all as to his sincere conviction with regard to this measure, and he has spoken to-day in a way which has convinced all as to his sincerity. But he and the hon. Member for the Consett Division (Mr. A. Williams) appear to live in a world of dreams, when they speak of the Act of 1914 as the Magna Charta of the liberties of the Irish people. It is a measure which they must know could not be put in force at the present time; it would require Amendment in almost every conceivable respect.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSSo would Magna Charta.
§ Mr. INSKIPThey refuse to recognise the facts, or to give the Committee the assistance they ought to receive from them if they have deep convictions on these questions, and the so-called pledges of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) are left to be recalled to this Committee in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. One would at least expect him to be here to support his pledges, 164 and to seek to amend the Bill in accordance with those pledges, if he attached any importance to them at this stage. One can only view this Amendment, and the speeches in its support, with the exception of that of the hon. and gallant Member of Leith, with something like contempt.
Dr. MURRAYWhat has struck me is the light-hearted way in which the Government propose to repeal important legislation, which took a great deal of time and thought in the last Parliament. The Prime Minister was just as responsible for the Act of 1914 as he was for the Land Taxes which he repealed in the same light-hearted way. We should not be off with the old love before we are quite on good terms with the new, and, seeing that the financial arrangements have not yet been considered by this House, I think we should stick to the old Act, apart from the sentimental reasons that have been suggested. I do not see why the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should admonish the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Johnstone), who is one of the few Liberals on that side who has stuck to his principles all through.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREI only rise to make one remark, and I do so because I see the Prime Minister here. It seems to me that a great deal too much attention has been paid to this Amendment. I could not myself support it, but there is one argument which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made in its favour, that we are still in the dark as to one of the most important parts of the Bill, namely, the financial proposals. Many Members on this side have been anxious as the Debate has gone on, that sufficient appeal was not being made to the Constitutional Nationalists in Ireland, and on that account I venture to take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister that when, after to-day's Debate, the rest of the proposals of the Bill are postponed, he will remember that on this side of the House there are many Members who will go a very long way with him in making the appeal to the Constitutional Nationalists in Ireland much more attractive than it is at present in the four corners of the Bill. Personally, I am afraid that I cannot support the Amendment.
§ Sir D. MACLEANIt seems extraordinarily difficult for Members on this side to please hon. Members, and especially hon. and learned Members, on the other side. When we did not put in the amount of attendance which they thought was due to the Bill, we were condemned for that, and when to-day, and on a few other occasions, we take some interest in the Bill, we are wrong again. It makes no difference what we do; we are wrong any time. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he was unable to work up any excitement in connection with the proposal now before the Committee. Why should he? With all his massed battalions and majority, why should he bother? The legislative strides of the Government are only comparable to the gentleman who wore the seven-leagued boots. We have passed 10, 15 or 20 Clauses to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend is one of those Members of this House—I wish there were more—who feel very deeply and sincerely, and accordingly expressed himself as he felt. I do not propose to cover the ground which he did, but to give two or three reasons why I think this Clause should not be insisted upon by the Government. I agree there are some difficulties from the technical point of view, but you, Sir, with the best traditions of the Chair, have allowed our Debate to proceed on rather more general lines.
What were the three or four factors which distinguished the Act still on the Statute Book? First of all, we had the united support of Nationalist opinion in Ireland. The Bill had the united support of the Liberal party, and not the least of those supporters was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself. It had also, in addition, the advantage of the support of a clean-cut majority in this country. It was passed as the result of the Parliament Act, and everybody knew —the whole country knew—what was intended by the passing of that Parliament Act. It was to put the Home Rule Bill, amongst other Government Measures, upon the Statute Book. There was another factor. So far as that Bill was concerned it stood for one Parliament for Ireland, and constituted that Parliament. What is the position in regard to the present Measure? It is liked by no section in Ireland. It is scorned and rejected by the vast majority of that 166 unhappy island. It is regarded by contemptuous indifference by many. Time after time the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn has expressed his ill-concealed contempt for the whole scheme. It comes before us to-day to take the place on the Statute Book of the Measure to which I have referred. Is it any wonder that we feel it our duty to move the Amendment now before the Committee, and by this means to draw attention, as well as we can, to the difference between these two methods.
The situation in Ireland is an extremely difficulty one. No one, whether in opposition or on the Government side, can treat it lightly. It may convey very little to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but so far as I can convey to him my sympathy I do so. No one at the head of a Government was ever faced with a more difficult position than he is at present with regard to Ireland. He has a past in regard to the championship of little countries which does him the greatest possible credit. Whenever I part company with him in these matters I do so, as he knows, with the deepest regret. But I do profoundly regret that he regards this Measure as a palliation or mitigation of the woes of Ireland. It seems the more one looks at it to be a trivial playing with the matter. One cannot help seeing and saying that this Bill is a futile attempt to deal with a problem of complexity, danger, and difficulty greater, I think, than any Prime Minister has ever been faced with in regard to the sister country. It is because this scheme lacks the support of any factor which can possibly make it a success that we take the action we do. If I believed it would realy help, I do not know that I would care a rap for party feelings. If I thought it was going to help I would stand by it at all costs and shed friends and comrades. Because it is not I feel compelled to take the view I do take.
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)I am glad that it has been found possible to allow this Debate to assume a somewhat wider aspect. What, however, strikes me very much, as it has struck me in many Debates on Ireland, is that hon. Members who profess to champion the woes of Ireland and to be the special custodians of its national interests seem to be living in a world of 167 delusion. Take my hon. Friends opposite who speak as representing a certain view in this matter—and I speak with great respect, for I know they are sincere—you would imagine that what we were deciding now was to abolish an Act which public opinion in Ireland accepted, which public opinion there cherished, yearned for, was waiting for as something that was going to fulfil their cherished aspirations; and that we were setting up another Act of Parliament which was not accepted by anyone. Let us take the matter as it stands. I agree that it is unfortunate that Nationalist opinion does not accept this Amending Bill, but, at any rate, there is one section of Irish opinion that does accept it. What is the position with regard to the Act of 1914? Can any of my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite name anybody in Ireland who accepts it—anybody? The vast majority of Irish opinion has repudiated it. Even my hon. Friends who sit opposite and represent Nationalist opinion do not believe in it. There is no Irishman so poor as to do reverence to that Act which is supposed to fulfil the aspirations of Ireland.
It is perfectly true that in 1914 the Act was accepted by those who at that time represented Irish opinion; but we must take facts as they are. If that Act had been put into operation, what would have happened? Nationalists in Ireland would have treated it with scorn and contempt. Northern opinion would have resisted it. That is all that would have happened in regard to that Act. What is the good of talking about that Act as if it were the fulfilment of the aspirations of any section of Irish opinion—either in Ireland or in any quarter of the globe? My hon. Friend behind me who spoke was quite certain that he has discovered a moderate measure—I use his own words—a moderate measure which would satisfy Irish opinion. Why has he kept this information secret? I have been panting for the news. There is none of my right hon. Friends here who would not regard this revelation with joy.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEMay I explain— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
§ 9.0 P.M
§ The PRIME MINISTERAnd this revelation came to my hon. Friend alone! 168 This is a revelation which has dawned upon him, which has been shining upon his intelligence. He has unfairly, unpatriotically, kept it until this moment, and has not even at this stage condescended to tell the Committee what it is. I should like to know what it is. If there is a scheme of this kind in my right hon. Friend's custody or anywhere else, the Government would be delighted to put into operation a moderate measure acceptable to Irish opinion. The hon. Members who represent the Labour party find it difficult to reconcile differences amongst themselves, and they have very judiciously withdrawn discussion to another sphere. They went over to Ireland with the idea that they were going to get Irish opinion behind them upon some scheme that would be acceptable to the Labour opinion of this country, and what did they find? They found that the proposals which received acceptance in Ireland were proposals that even they could not countenance. There is no Labour Member who proposed anything which would be acceptable to Sinn Fein in its present frame of mind. What is the good of talking of the Act of 1914? Can either of my right hon. Friends point to a single leader of Irish opinion—
§ Captain W. BENNYou destroyed them, because you betrayed them.
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy hon. and gallant Friend ought to know that you do not advance any cause by stupid rudeness. It is very easy to fling charges of that kind, but the problem is difficult enough. It cannot be solved by mere hot-brained interjections. Let us discuss it in all calmness for it is a matter of vital importance, not to parties, but to the Empire. Is there a single leader of Irish opinion of any section who will get up and say that he will be satisfied with the Act of 1914? Is there one? What is the use, then, of taunting us about abolishing an Act which nobody in Ireland wants? My hon. Friend has talked about the pledges of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) given in 1914. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley gave a later pledge than that, and my hon. Friends were then Members of the Government. It was a pledge that under no conditions would he assent to 169 anything that would involve the coercion of Ulster. Is that not a pledge which must also be respected? That is a pledge which would have been inconsistent with the enforcement of the Act of 1914, and the fact that he had given definite pledges of that kind was the reason why my right hon. Friend undertook to introduce an amending Bill to the Bill of 1914.
My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have dealt purely in phrases. I ask them now, What is their proposal? This is ours. What is the good of ignoring what the proposal is? This proposal may not go the whole length of what Irish opinion demands, but it goes as far in the direction of self-government as the great race to which my right hon. Friend belongs demands for its own country. Scotland asks for nothing more in the way of the recognition of its nationality, or in the way of the powers of self—government, nay, it does not ask as much as this Bill confers upon Ireland. What is the good of treating this as if it were a sham and a farce when it is conferring upon Ireland greater powers than my hon. Friend's constituents ask for the most sensitive and proud nationality in the British Empire.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEThe disease is not so acute in Scotland.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI know how acute the disease is, but acute diseases are not always cured by violent means. You must get remedies which are adequate, and the remedy which would be adequate for Scotland and Wales would be equally adequate here. The grant of powers which would recognise the nationality of the people, and which would recognise their rights to self-government in matters of domestic concern would be equally efficacious here if you could get the people to work them. Do not let us have any delusions as to what the position really is. We are not abolishing the Act of 1914 without substituting something else which confers enormous powers on the Irish people. My hon. and right hon. Friends talk as if Sub-section (2) stood alone, but it does not come into operation except as part of the Bill which confers great powers. If we had brought in a Bill purely to abolish the Act of 1914, it would have been open to this criticism, but you must own that you are not prepared to pass anything which Irish opinion would accept. My right hon. Friend has given me the answer. At the present 170 moment Irish opinion would not accept that.
§ Sir D. MACLEANIt is quite clear that the vast majority at the present moment are demanding a republic, which I certainly am not prepared to grant.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is a valuable and straightforward statement from my right hon. Friend, and a very useful one. That is what I am trying to point out. It is no use talking about satisfying the demands and aspirations of the Irish people. In their present inflammable condition of mind there is no proposal you can put forward which would be acceptable to the people of this country and also acceptable to the people of Ireland. The only thing this Parliament can do is to consider what is the best method in the judgment of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and what are the best proposals for the government of Ireland.
I do not despair of an improvement in opinion in Ireland. I think things will improve, but they will only improve when it has become quite clear to the Irish people that the people of Great Britain can never consent to the extreme demands which are put forward. They are a practical people in the long run They have moments of great excitement and great exultation, and in those moments it is probably idle to expect them to assent to practical proposals. But they are a shrewd and sagacious people. When you deal with them in their own business affairs you realise what a very practical people they are and I have no doubt that when they weigh and balance the wild phrases which are used sometimes in this House, and oftener outside, phrases which give them the idea that there are parties in the State who will give them much more than the present Government—when they begin to realise that the people of America are not going to give them support in a demand for an independent republic in Ireland—a very important factor—when they realise that the people of this country mean to put an end to crime and outrage in Ireland, then, I think, the practical good sense of the Irish people will recover its original control over opinion. When it does I do not despair of their accepting the only measure of self-government which the people of this country could accede.
§ Sir D. MACLEANNot this measure.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWell, certainly not the measure of 1914.
§ Sir D. MACLEANNot this measure.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe are now discussing the abolition of the 1914 measure. That is the proposal at the present moment. It will not be the measure of 1914.
§ Captain W. BENNWhy not?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn the first place, nobody wants it. There is no section of opinion in Ireland that will accept it. There is a very formidable section of opinion in Ireland that would not consent to work it. There is a pledge given by every party in the State, including the section to which my right hon. and now learned Friends belong—a definite undertaking—that it will not be enforced against the opinion of the people of Ulster. The Labour party was also committed, because there were representative members of that body in the Government who gave that pledge. Further under the Act of 1914 Ireland would be bankrupt at the present time. It is an absolutely unworkable Act of Parliament. It would have to be recast financially before it could ever be put into operation. My right hon. Friend, in asking us not to repeal the Act of 1914, is asking us to keep alive an Act of Parliament which would be quite unworkable at the present moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said that he would like to know what are the new financial proposals. We are postponing the financial proposals, because we have undertaken to give consideration to certain representations made from Ireland. I agree with him that, if there were a desire in Ireland to settle this old controversy, if men of all sections in Ireland said, "Well now, let us settle this old feud, let us shake hands; we are willing to come in as partners in the British Empire with the other nations." The people of Great Britain would not enter into the consideration of the problem in a niggardly or parsimonious spirit.
There would be so much gain, even financially, to Britain in having this controversy settled. The burden of maintaining order by an exceptional display of force is a financial burden, and even from the point of view of finance it would 172 be well for the people of the United Kingdom—it would be good business—to treat Ireland magnanimously. Apart from that, it would undoubtedly add so much to the strength of the Empire. It would add so much more to the prestige of the Empire. It would give a sense of unity, a sense of co-operation, of common purpose, among all the people of these islands, upon whose common action the future of humanity depends so much, and never more so than at this moment. It would be worth while considering the problem in a more liberal spirit if there were a comradeship, a, friendship, if there were hand-shaking, and they said: "Let us come into this Empire upon terms of peace, and upon terms of recognition of our nationality." Then the problem would be a different one. That is not the problem. The problem is that of an Ireland which declines to consider anything except the impracticable, which declines to consider anything except what is destructive of the whole power of the Empire.
§ Captain W. BENNindicated dissent.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am discussing the question with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), who is taking a practical view. He knows that the proposition of Ireland now is an impracticable one. There is no section in this House who would agree to it. I am sanguine enough to believe that soon the Irish genius, the Irish commonsense, will realise that it is impracticable, and that they will seek to build upon the only foundation upon which they can raise a permanent structure of liberty in Ireland.
§ Sir E. CARSONThe Debate upon this Amendment has really become a Second or Third Reading Debate, because, after all, as a matter of commonsense, the passing of this new Government of Ireland Bill involves the repeal of the Act of 1914. Therefore, in using the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman opposite used, he was really using arguments against the passing of this Bill.
§ Sir D. MACLEANHear, hear!
§ Sir E. CARSONHas he considered what was the position of the Government or of any Government? I am not talking of this Government. The 173 Act of 1914 is upon the Statute Book. It comes into law automatically the moment that peace has been accomplished, which we hope may be any time, though I am bound to say that I see signs that it will be some little time yet before we see that accomplished. What did he propose that the Government should do? I am not enamoured of this Bill. I have never professed to be enamoured of it. I have taken the action that I have in regard to it solely in the interests of the country and of the Empire; not because I like it, but because I see no other way out of the impasse. Does my right hon. Friend opposite imagine for a moment that they ought to have allowed the Act of 1914 to come into operation? Is that his proposal? Let me say, as regards that proposition, that, in the first place, it could not come into force for the simple reason, if he looks through the Bill, he will see that there are certain Clauses in it which, although you might call and summon the Parliament together, you could not carry out because, by reason of the Franchise Act, you have so changed the franchise that there is actually no franchise under the Act which could become available. Secondly, as the Prime Minister has said, Ireland would be absolutely in a state of bankruptcy if you set up a Parliament with the financial Clauses of that Act. Thirdly, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question: Does he desire that the Act should be set in motion without carrying out the pledges which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) made when he put his Act of 1914 on the Statute Book? Is that his position? Or the pledges which he made in 1916, in regard to Ulster, when he said that the coercion of Ulster was unthinkable and impossible? Does he wish to throw these pledges overboard? No one has come forward in the whole of the controversy on this Bill of the Government, no one has ever come down to this House on behalf of the Liberal party, the free Liberal party, and told us how they propose to carry out the pledges which they themselves have made. They have treated them as if they had never been made. They have spoken of the Act of 1914 as if it satisfied these pledges and would carry them out. But if that Act was carried into force, would it carry out those pledges? I say the Act of 1914 174 did not, and could not, carry out those pledges. What else could they have done? What less does this Bill give than the Act of 1914? Nothing less. If it is to pass, it is the only way in which we can carry out these pledges. That is what we say in this Bill, that the only way to carry out these pledges is to set up in Ulster a separate Parliament rather than, as we have always asked, and would ask to-day, that six counties should be kept in this Parliament, leaving them as they were under the Act of Union. That is the difference between that Act of 1914 and these proposals. What is the alternative to this Bill? We have been told, I do not know how many times, of the great ability which is concentrated in the Independent Liberal party; we have been assured that they are able to solve any question. But with all that great ability not a single member of it has come down here and made any solid suggestion which would carry out their ideas or their pledges. Instead of that, we have occasionally had an excursion of a genial character from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) and of an insolent character from the hon. Gentleman who sits beside him. [Interruption.]
§ Sir D. MACLEANOn a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given expression to a remark applied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits beside me (Captain W. Benn), which, so far as I am aware, Sir, is not one which is in Order.
§ Sir E. CARSONIf that is so I at once withdraw it, and will substitute the word "irrelevant." I again say, what is the position? You cannot put into force the Act of 1914 because it has got no legs. The law says that it must come into force when we have peace, but as a matter of fact it cannot. There was no other way to deal with the pledges which were made except by bringing in a Bill like this or by breaking them, and that, I think, is what the right hon. Gentleman is now contending for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has not joined very often in these Debates, but I am sure I know what he would say if he was here. He would say "Only trust to the great principles of Liberalism, not only because in the past they have solved all the difficulties of the country, 175 but also because in trusting to them and to the Act of 1914 you will once more call them into being and all the pledges that we have given will be found to have been absolutely carried out. Therefore," he would say, "trust in these great Liberal principles." That is what he would say, but what is the real alternative to this Bill? I do not think that anyone has been found. I wish a better one could be found, it would have a better chance in its infancy. Something has been said about some other Bill. What Bill? No doubt some hon. Friends will say, "A Bill which would satisfy Irish aspirations." What Bill would satisfy Irish aspirations? Is it a Republic? Is that the only alternative? No one from Ireland has said that there is any other alternative. There is none that I know of. No one comes from any section in Ireland and proposes any other. Nobody comes from any section of the Labour party and proposes any other alternative. No one comes here from any section of the Liberal party and proposes any other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, yes!"] Perhaps some hon. Member will say what it is. They have not put it down on the Order Paper.
§ Major ENTWISTLEYes, Home Rule with county option.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhat Home Rule?
§ Major ENTWISTLEDominion Home Rule.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion of this Bill and the Act of 1914, but I cannot allow it to go so far as the discussion of every other possible Bill.
§ Sir E. CARSONAll I am saying is that no other proposal has been made. Why has not the hon. Member put down his Amendment on the Order Paper? Why if he has a better proposal has he not let us hear about it? But that has not been suggested. What they have preferred is the tactics of running away and then to abuse the Government because they do not argue out what might have been argued out if they had stayed here. Anything is good enough to beat the Government with, but that is not practical politics. If they really have a suggestion which would be attractive to those multitudes outside the House who are burning to show their dislike of this Bill, they would not have 176 adopted the policy of running away. They would have been in their place here, day after day and night after night, putting all their Amendments before us and trying to bring them to bear upon the people of the country. This is the only alternative; there are only the two. I do not know if there are even two; but these are before us at any rate. The two proposals: either this Bill or a republic. There is no other; this Bill or a republic. I doubt whether this Bill will not lead to a republic eventually. That is why I dislike it so much, but at all events it is here to stay that demand. It is the only Bill which so far as we know it is possible to give to Ireland, and there is no other policy except a policy which I could understand, and that is, to face the facts and to say we are prepared to give Ireland everything what she demands, to give her her fullest demand. That would be one way, but instead of that we are told that there are all these great ingenious schemes which these Gentlemen have up their sleeves or in the archives of the remains of the Liberal Party preserved there for the purpose of bringing them out at some future time. That being so, you come back to this, that this Bill is a substitute for the 1914 Act, plus the promises that were made at the time that that Bill was put on the Statute Book. It is an attempt to carry out those promises. I am sorry the Bill carries them out in the way it does, because I would far sooner have left Ulster as it is under the Union in this Parliament. The reason why it was thought better to do it in this way was, I imagined, in order that they might say they were granting Home Rule to the whole of Ireland. Much as I dislike it, just as I did in 1916, I have fallen in with the arrangement and have done my best to lead the people of the North of Ireland to give this Parliament a trial. I will continue to do so. I hope at the same time that the Government, having put forward these proposals and having turned men's minds seriously upon them, at all events in the North of Ireland, will persist in them until they become law.
§ Mr. RAFFANIf the Debate were a mere contest of wits and a desire to make debating points, I should not have ventured into the arena, and I should not have endeavoured for a single moment to contest the speech either of the Prime Minister or of the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who is one of 177 the most powerful debaters in this House. The Prime Minister in his observations repeatedly taunted my hon. and gallant Friends with indulging in phrases only and with shutting their eyes to the facts of the situation. I should like the House itself to face facts and to face the facts behind the speech of the Prime Minister. We are told that the Act of 1914 cannot be put into operation without amendment. That is a very easy debating point. It is quite true that in the history of nations, as in the history of individuals, lost opportunities do not come back again, and it is equally true, no doubt, that if legislation is to take place with the Act of 1914 as its basis, amendments will be necessary. I venture to say there is no Imperial task during the lifetime of the oldest Member of this House better worth pursuing than the task of the reconciliation of the British and Irish democracies. That would have been possible in 1885, and it would have been possible at various other times when the Liberal party put forward proposals for a settlement, proposals which would have been accepted, and gratefully accepted, by the Irish people in those days. If they had been allowed to operate we would not have been in the position in which we find ourselves to-day. If, when the 1914 Act was first proposed, long before the War broke out, it had not been rejected by another place, I venture to say that the people of Ireland, living under self-government, would to-day have been as attached to the British Crown as are the peoples of South Africa, of Canada, and of Australia. The difficulties in South Africa were probably greater than the difficulties in Ireland in 1914. It is because the people of Ireland have ceased to believe in the genuineness of the efforts which are made in this House, because they have ceased to believe, by reason of hope long deferred, that there is a real earnestness and sincerity in the desire for reconciliation, that the present state of feeling has grown up which makes the Irish problem so extremely difficult to deal with.
What was the Prime Minister's next debating point? He asked, what party is there in Ireland in favour of the Act of 1914? What party in Ireland, I would ask, is in favour of the Measure which we are now endeavouring to put on the Statute Book? There is no party in its favour in the South or in the West of 178 Ireland, and even this afternoon the Members on the Ulster Benches have intimated that they would have preferred to see this Measure withdrawn rather than have it passed into law. Under these circumstances what is the use of taunting us with the statement that there is no body of Irish opinion in favour of the Act of 1914 when it is impossible to find any representative body, however humble, in Ireland which is supporting this Bill? The Prime Minister has told us that the people of Scotland would hail a Measure of this kind as applied to Scotland with great pleasure. I venture to say that the people of Scotland and the people of Wales equally would reject a Measure of this kind if applied to either of those countries, for the same reason that the majority of the people of Ireland reject this Bill. They would reject it because, whatever else they might differ about, they would not agree to the partition of either of those countries. I venture to say that no measure of Home Rule for Scotland which proposed the partition of Scotland would meet with favour.
§ Captain ELLIOTNonsense!
§ Mr. RAFFANI do not complain of the courtesy of that interruption, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will explain why it is nonsense.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe cannot enter on a discussion about Scotland. It is quite true the Prime Minister made the reference referred to, but discussion on it would be completely out of order.
§ Mr. RAFFANPerhaps I may be allowed to say that I am perfectly certain that any proposal of the kind would be rejected by an overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, and if my hon. Friend will agree at the next Election to make the main plank in his platform Home Rule for Scotland, with partition, I will give up my present seat and come down there and fight him.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member promised to limit himself to only one phrase.
§ Mr. RAFFANI will leave it there for the moment; we will see at the General Election. Whether it is Scotland, or Wales, or Ireland, no nation whose history and traditions go back through the centuries would ever agree to any measure of 179 self-government which proposed to partition that nation permanently. The one point which the Prime Minister evaded so skilfully during the whole of his speech, the one defect of his measure as compared with that of 1914, is that this present measure partitions Ireland, and partitions Ireland permanently. The Act of 1914, whatever its other defects, and whatever amendments it may need, begins by treating Ireland as a unit.
§ Mr. RAFFANI am extremely sorry, but the Deputy-Chairman has his eye upon me. I do not propose to coerce Ulster. I do not suggest that it is necessary that the new Parliament should function for the whole country immediately upon its introduction, but I do suggest that the Act of 1914, with a system of County Option, which would allow counties desiring to do so to withdraw for the time, would, at any rate, hold out the promise of ultimate union. What is the alternative? It is to give to the people of Ulster a Parliament for which they have never asked, a Parliament which they said, only this afternoon, they are prepared to do without. The hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) has stated repeatedly in this House, as a reason why there should not be included in the Ulster Parliament the non-Protestant part of Ulster, that they desire to make quite sure that they have the power to prevent Union with the Southern Parliament for all time.
§ Mr. MOLESIf my hon. Friend desires to put correctly the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim, he ought to read his speech, which was entirely to the contrary effect.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe discussion is getting wider and wider, and I must ask the hon. Member to assist the Chair, and not to develop the argument in that direction.
§ Mr. RAFFANI appreciate that, and I need hardly say that I am always desirous of keeping within, not only the letter, but the spirit of your ruling. I am sure you will allow me to plead in extenuation, that I am endeavouring to reply to two powerful speeches in which these points were raised, and, if I am not keeping myself strictly to the Amendment, I have 180 endeavoured to keep very strictly to the points which have already been raised.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI quite appreciate what the hon. Member says, and I merely asked him to assist the Chair. In replying to the two speeches, which were rather wide, but which the Committee generally agreed to hear, the hon. Member was getting wider and wider, and that is where the danger comes in. I am, therefore, obliged to ask him to keep nearer to the Amendment.
§ Mr. RAFFANI appreciate that, and am endeavouring to keep as close as I can. After all, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, we do want to face the facts; we do not want to deal with phrases only. There is no limit to the Prime Minister's power of moving this House, but it is beyond even his power to galvanise a corpse into life. When he taunts us by asking what is our alternative, I suggest that this Bill, which he is endeavouring to carry through the House, is a Bill which cannot possibly function, and that he himself has not the slightest hope that it will be put in operation over the greater part of Ireland. The Leader of the House has never hidden from the House the reason why he wants this Bill passed into law. He says, that when people come here from Canada and from Australia the first thing they always ask is, "Why do you not give Home Rule to Ireland?" and he desires to have an answer to that. If we are to deal with facts and not with phrases, if we look ahead for the next few years with this Bill upon the Statute Book, there is no Member of this House who does not look forward with shrinking and dread to what is to happen. In the case of the 1914 Act, it is, of course, necessary, because of the lapse of time, if for no other reason, that there should be Amendments made. I do not profess to speak for all my hon. Friends, although I do not know that any of them differ from me, but I, for one, would be prepared to honour the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, that any county desiring to withdraw should have the opportunity of doing so. That is a totally different thing from a proposal to set up a Parliament, over a part of Ireland, which will permanently preclude any hope of reconciliation. I do venture to suggest that, however small our numbers may be when we go into the 181 Division Lobby, history will justify the action of the Liberal party to-night, as it did in 1885 and in 1914. What we are standing for is that there should be an indication to the people of Ireland that we still retain a desire to reconcile the Irish and the British democracies, and that we are willing that that reconciliation should take the form of giving the fullest grant of self-government to the whole people of Ireland.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is again getting very general.
§ Mr. RAFFANI can only again apologise, and say that I was endeavouring to deal with the points raised by the Prime Minister and right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. As it seems to be impossible to deal with those points completely, if I am to be kept strictly within the limits of Order, and if your ruling is that the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn are privileged persons, I shall not further continue my remarks.
§ Major ENTWISTLEThe point we make in opposing this Sub-section is that the Bill will never come into operation, and that if the Sub-section is left as it is there is nothing going to take the place of the present Home Rule Act, and this Bill will have no other practical effect than simply repealing the Act of 1914. We are asked what alternative we have to offer, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said no single member of the Liberal Party had ever suggested any alternative. I contradict that statement, and say the alternative has been mentioned over and over again, and, so far as it could be done within the limits of the wording of the Bill in Committee, Amendments have been put down which prove what that alternative is. It is the one that I interjected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that is a measure of Dominion Home Rule, interpreted to exclude a Republic—the widest form of Government consistent with Ireland being within the Empire—and the right for any county in Ulster to exclude itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Permanently?"] Permanently if they like. It is self-determination for those counties. It has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) himself as an alternative, as fulfilling the pledges which he has given.
§ Captain ELLIOTThis is rather an important point. I think it is quite definite. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was for a six years' exclusion, and not for a permanent exclusion at all. That is the point at issue.
§ Major ENTWISTLEThe hon. and gallant Gentleman may be perfectly right, but I am perfectly willing to leave that indefinite, and I have no doubt my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) would also be agreeable to that. After all, what does it come to? It does not affect the question of principle, because after six years, if the House of Commons thought fit, it would continue the exclusion of Ulster. The only difference is that after six years the matter will have to come up for reconsideration, whereas if it were left indefinitely, it would have to come up for reconsideration until some of the counties actually took action. I submit that that is a matter of very small moment. It is not correct to say that no alternative has been offered, and, more than that, the alternative that we suggest would be acceptable to the whole of Ireland, except the few Members representing some of the counties of Ulster. What would they have under that alternative? You have the power of any single county excluding itself. You do not get a separate Parliament. That is a very material distinction. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has said they do not want a Parliament. "Leave us in Britain." So they cannot object to the fact that there is no separate Parliament. That may be not a very practical distinction, but it is a most important one from the sentimental standpoint and from the Nationalist standpoint, which we have to consider so much in dealing with Irish affairs. Then what would be the practical distinction between what the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept and this alternative? The most it would come to would be that under the system of county option only four counties would exclude themselves, whereas under this Bill you would have the exclusion of six counties. The alternative that we suggest would be accepted by the whole of Ireland except a few counties of Ulster. It has been said that no Irishman in this House has given any alternative. I am certain that the Naitonalist Members would accept a measure of Dominion Home Rule with county option.
§ Major ENTWISTLEI am quite confident that if that were offered to them as a genuine offer they would accept it, and if that were offered to Ireland the extreme Sinn Feiners would disappear as a force that matters. In fact it would kill the Sinn Fein movement. I have spoken to one or two men who were members of the Conservative or Unionist party. They happened to be broad-minded people who had been to Ireland and seen and conversed with Sinn Feiners, and they have come back with that opinion too. What is the objection to that? Let us assume for a moment that there would be some measure of success in this alternative.
§ The CHAIRMANI am unable to see how this arises on the Amendment at present before us, which is to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 70. The hon. Member seems to be discussing the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ Sir D. MACLEANOn that point of Order. I do not for a moment dispute the correctness of the view which you are taking at the moment, but when you were out of the Chair the Debate ran upon very wide lines and the Prime Minister himself really covered the whole range of the subject. I daresay my hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps just stepping over the line, but I merely wish to inform you of the very wide lines on which the Debate proceeded when you were away with the assent of the Committee and the active participation of the Prime Minister.
§ The CHAIRMANI had taken the precaution of informing myself of what had occurred in my temporary absence. I agree that the Debate had gone rather wide, but I do not think as wide as the present speech is going. I can admit references to what the Prime Minister said, but beyond that I do not think I can go.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Major ENTWISTLEThe right Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) taunted us on this side with having no alternative, deliberately asked us what our alternative was, taunted us with not having attended the House, having taken no part in the discussion, and put no Amendments down showing what our alternative was, and that sort of challenge was allowed to be sent across the House when all the time 184 he must have known that within the rules of debate and the drafting of the Bill it was impossible to make this proposal quite definite. The point I was making, and I submit it is in order, is that this Sub-section (2) ought not to be passed until there is an Act which will come into operation. This Sub-section, instead of being worded "The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed" should read "The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, shall be repealed as soon as this Act comes into operation." That is important. This Bill will not come into operation because of the new Clauses which the right hon. Gentleman is to propose. Therefore, if you are going to have this Clause at all we ought to have an alternative which would get the support of the vast majority of people in Ireland. The practical effect of that would be that the Ulster Members would have four counties instead of six. Are they prepared to fight to the death in order to include two counties which by a free vote refuse to be included? Such a position is impossible and incredible. If the Government agree to our course there would be no fight, all the pledges would have been fulfilled and you would have an alternative Bill which would have full assent and a reasonable chance of success and which could replace the 1914 Act. Before we allow this Act to pass in its present form we should have the words inserted suspending the repeal of the 1914 Act until the present Act come into operation.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTI very heartily support the Sub-section which has been challenged. I regard it as one of the most valuable provisions of the whole Bill. If this Section had not been incorporated I do not think the Bill would have secured a Second Reading. It certainly would not have had my vote. The hon. Member (Major Entwistle) has raised a perfectly clear issue, and it is exceedingly desirable that it should be raised and debated. We understand that hon. Members opposite have an alternative policy in reply to the challenge of the right hon. Member for Duncairn. Their alternative is Dominion Home Rule.
§ Mr. RAFFANWith county option.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTWith county option for the north-eastern counties.
§ Mr. RAFFANAny counties.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTLet us clearly understand the issue. Your policy is Dominion Home Rule with county option for any county in Ireland. Will the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have pinned their colours to the mast of Dominion Home Rule be good enough to investigate this one point? Will they deny, or can anyone who accepts the principle of Dominion Home Rule deny, that that means in fact, if not in theory, the right to absolute secession and separation? You may say what you please of Dominion Home Rule, but there is no responsible person in this country or in any of the Dominions who would not be prepared to accept the proposition that implicit in Dominion self-government is the right to secede.
§ Mr. RAFFANWhen the Nationalist deputation was here from South Africa the Prime Minister told them in the clearest fashion that secession would not be permitted, and that the question of South Africa being attached to this country was a settled question.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTI would be the very last person to suggest that any of our Dominions—Canada, South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand—has any desire to exercise that right of secession. That is not my point. I am certain that no part of the Empire beyond the sea would desire to exercise that right. My point is that if they desire to exercise it, there is no person in this country who would deny them the liberty to do so. If that be so, I want to put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they are prepared to accept the same implicit condition in regard to the Dominion Home Rule which they would give to Ireland. If they are not, it is not Dominion Home Rule in the sense in which we apply it to every other part of the Empire. My hon. Friend opposite went a great deal further than that. He was, if I may say so with great respect, courageous enough to assert—I presume with a great knowledge of conditions in Ireland—that this settlement which he and the party opposite are proposing would be acceptable to the whole of Ireland, except to hon. Members sitting on the Benches here (the Ulster Members).
§ Major ENTWISTLEAnd those whom they represent.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTHe said that Dominion Home Rule would be accept- 186 able to the whole of Ireland, deprived of the right of secession which is desired by a great part of the people of Ireland to-day. I have now an intimate knowledge of Ireland for the last thirty years, and have always recognised that there was a considerable party in Ireland who were in favour of secession. That party is very much enlarged to-day.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is following the line that I have just been deprecating, as going far beyond the scope of this Amendment. The only question is whether this Sub-section is rightly placed in this Bill.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTI bow to your ruling, the justice of which I recognise absolutely, but I was endeavouring very feebly to meet the argument which has been advanced from the other side. I admit I have no right to do so, but the Committee will acknowledge that my attempt to do so was not altogether unintelligible, but, bowing to your ruling, I merely reiterate my own strong conviction that the Clause which we are discussing is one of the most valuable in the whole Bill. I am one of those who are still not afraid to describe ourselves as staunch Unionists. I do not think that I have ever concealed that, and when we come to the Clause which of the whole Bill is dearest to the heart of a staunch Unionist, I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my concurrence with that Clause.
§ Colonel PENRY WILLIAMSI listened to the speech of the Prime Minister with very considerable interest. I think it has been remarked that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), is not here to-night, I understand that my right hon. Freind has a very important engagement to-night. I would point that it is the Government that settles the business day by day, and that, while it may not be convenient for my right hon Friend, the Member for Paisley, to be here, there is no excuse for the leaders of the Government not being present, seeing that they have fixed the business of the day. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House is present to listen to the Debate.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe Prime Minister has already spoken.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSBut he does not do the House the courtesy of remaining to hear what is said in reply to him. While I do not expect that the Prime Minister would deign to reply to any observations of mine, I would like to ask a question to which the House has a right to require an answer. I am not in the habit of finessing with my questions. I understand from the Prime Minister's speech that there was a certain degree of optimism about. From what cause does that optimism arise? We know perfectly well that there are some indefinite negotiations going on. One speaker has indicated that the Prime Minister and the Labour people might be able to suggest a form of agreement between the Government and Sinn Fein. What is going on between the Government and Sinn Fein to-day? I think we ought to know something about it, for it is a matter of great importance. We have been told that perhaps the fact that the railwaymen are going on strike in Ireland may really be a blessing; it may be the means of settling the whole of this controversy. I believe that certain of the leading railwaymen are in Ireland today. Are they there with the object of bringing the Government into touch with Sinn Fein?
§ The CHAIRMANThat raises a question which clearly will not be relevant to this Amendment.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSWith great respect, I suggest that if these negotiations are going on we should not repeal the 1914 Act now, before we have some knowledge of what is taking place in Ireland. I will leave that, however. I take exception to a remark made by the last speaker. He seemed to think that no Member on this side of the House had a right to speak on a Bill of this kind unless he had an intimate knowledge of Ireland. I have no knowledge of Ireland, but I know a great number of Irishmen, and have a great number of intimate friends, Irishmen, in my own constituency, and I know how bitterly the Irishmen in England resent the suspension of the Government of Ireland Act. I believe that the suspension of that Act was the killing of the constitutional Home Rule movement in Ireland. I do not care whether it was the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) or the Prime Minister who was concerned. They were both in the same 188 Cabinet at the time it was done. At that time, if the Ulstermen had been able to come to the Government and say, "We require these guarantees, or these conditions," they could have got any conditions they required put into that Bill. What would satisfy Ireland in bygone days will not do so to-day. Nothing will satisfy Ireland to-day but the very broadest measure of Home Rule that you can possibly give short of separation. To reserve all these various services shows what a sham this Bill is. It is no broad measure of Home Rule. Is this the measure which the Prime Minister is going to offer to the Sinn Feiners through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). There seems to be some doubt as to whether I am entitled to discuss the question of Home Rule with county option, and I am not going to do so. There appears to be on the other side a disposition to believe that a county can permanently exclude itself from a Home Rule scheme, but as the years go by and as people change and as thought changes, counties may reverse their decisions. I do ask the Minister in charge to tell us if there are any negotiations going on with Sinn Fein, and, if so, to let us know what they are.
§ The CHAIRMANThis discussion makes it doubtful whether this Amendment ought to have been admitted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) moved a specific Amendment on Clause 1, which was debated and decided, and we cannot, on Clause 70, reverse the decision which was arrived at. Any discussion must be within those limits.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSI would urge again that we ought to know whether there are any negotiations going on. The Prime Minister said distinctly that there were indications that there was a better feeling in Ireland, and this gave an indication that something was going on. If that is so, surely it is relevant to know what that something is.
§ The CHAIRMANIt may be on some other occasion, but we are dealing now with legislation, and not with matters of that kind.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) welcomed this particular Subsection repealing the Act of 1914, and 189 went so far as to say that he and some of his Friends would not be prepared to support the Government on this Bill, but for that particular Sub-section. It is a peculiar thing that when this Bill was first printed and read and digested in Ireland, considerable opinion over there put it on record that the only real object the Government had in bringing forward this Bill was to pass this particular Subsection and to get rid of the Act of 1914. That, I take it, is what we are discussing to-night. We of the Liberal party, which has been referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) with a good deal of chaff, have been able to say when we are asked about the state of Ireland, that we did in the past try very hard to settle the Irish problem in the Act of 1914. We admit here quite freely that circumstances have changed, and that very great Amendments would be required to that Act, but until we can be certain that this Bill is going to be accepted by any great body of public opinion in Ireland—and apparently it has only been grudgingly accepted even by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division, who can speak for about four counties of North Eastern Ulster—and is going to be accepted by Irish opinion in Australia, Canada, and the United States, we have no right in honour to repeal the Act of 1914.
I do not wish to make any party point at all. I honestly do not. I often do try to make party points, but I am simply speaking now as a very humble Member of the English House of Commons. All over the world to-day our enemies are accusing us of breaches of faith, not only in this particular respect, but in many others, and this will be one more charge levelled against us. It will be said that an Act on the Statute Book was passed after tremendous Constitutional struggles, and because the complexion of this House and of the Government changed, and because the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division and his friends were able to put up some sort of talk, we then repealed the Act which we were pledged most solemnly to the Irish people to carry through. We have been reminded in this Debate of pledges given by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and others that Ulster was not to be coerced. Might I remind the 190 Committee that most solemn pledges were given to Ireland that this Act would be put into operation, and that Irishmen went to the colours on that understanding, that when the War was over finally the Act would be put into operation? When there is, I do not like to call it a danger of peace, but that is apparently the way the Government have looked at it—perhaps the danger has receded in the last few days—but when there is a chance of getting peace somewhere with some of our many enemies, and when automatically this Act of 1914 will come into operation, down comes the Government with this Bill, which they force through, admitting that it is unacceptable to the Irish people, but right at the end is this Clause repealing the Act of 1914. I ask hon. Members, things being what they are, to hesitate long before they repeal this Act. Let us, at any rate, suspend this particular Clause for some time to see whether some arrangement cannot be made. If negotiations are not going on at the present time with the Sinn Fein leaders, they ought to be. We have had to negotiate with our mortal enemies in the late War, and with Krassin. We said we were not going to negotiate with Sinn Feiners, and if we are not—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is beyond the scope of the present Amendment.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThis Bill does not offer a way out of the present impasse. The right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) has said himself that he thinks this Bill is going to lead to an Irish Republic. Of course, when it passes through its stages, I suppose its Unionist friends will raise that bogey as a means of holding up the Bill, and, therefore, until we see some better way out, we have no business, if we have any regard for the honour of this country, to repeal the Act of 1914. I submit that our honour is most closely touched, and the thing which will be repeated throughout the Empire, and in the United States, will not be the fact that the Prime Minister himself believes that this Bill will one day, in the far distant future, be of some benefit to Ireland, but the fact that this House of Commons has used it is a smoke-screen to cover up their dark deeds.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put accordingly, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the Clause."
192§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 16.
191| Division No. 163.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Murchison, C. K. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Glyn, Major Ralph | Neal, Arthur |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Goff, Sir R. Park | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L.(Exeter) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Gould, James C. | Norton-Griffiths, Lleut.-Col. Sir John |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Palmer, Charles Frederick(Wrekin) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Parker, James |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gregory, Holman | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Greig, Colonel James William | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Barnett. Major R. W. | Gretton, Colonel John | Perring, William George |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Philipps, Sir Owen C.(Chester, City) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Pratt, John William |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Blair, Reginald | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Purchase, H. G. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hanna, George Boyle | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith. | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Rankin, Captain James S. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Reid, D. D. |
| Briggs, Harold | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Remer, J. R. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Roberts, Sir S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hinds, John | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Hood, Joseph | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Shaw, William T.(Forfar) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Simm, M. T. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hurd, Percy A. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Clough, Robert | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Stewart, Gershom |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Jesson, C. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Sugden, W. H. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend) | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Dixon, Captain Herbert | Lindsay, William Arthur | Vickers, Douglas |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Waddington, R. |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Lloyd, George Butler | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Edge, Captain William | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lonsdale, James Rolston | Whitla, Sir William |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Lorden, John William | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Lynn, R. J. | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Mallalieu, F. W. | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Younger, Sir George |
| Forrest, Walter | Middlebrook, Sir William | |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Mitchell, William Lane | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Moles, Thomas | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Molson, Major John Elsdale | |
| Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| NOES. | ||
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Johnstone, Joseph | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) | |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| MR. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan. |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 16.
193| Division No. 164.] | AYES. | [10.38 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Mount, William Arthur |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Murchison, C. K. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Glyn, Major Ralph | Neal, Arthur |
| Astor, Viscountess | Goff, Sir R. Park | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gould, James C. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Parker, James |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gregory, Holman | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Greig, Colonel James William | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Gretton, Colonel John | Perring, William George |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Philipps, Sir Owen C.(Chester, City) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Pratt, John William |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Blair, Reginald | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith | Hanna, George Boyle | Rankin, Captain James S. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Reid, D. D. |
| Briggs, Harold | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Remer, J. R. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hinds, John | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hood, Joseph | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Simm, M. T. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hopkins, John W. W. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Hurd, Percy A. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Clough, Robert | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sugden, W. H. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Jesson, C. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) |
| Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Talbot, G. A.(Hemel Hempstead) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend) | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Dixon, Captain Herbert | Lindsay, William Arthur | Waddington, R. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Lloyd, George Butler | Waring, Major Walter |
| Edge, Captain William | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Whitla, Sir William |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lonsdale, James Rolston | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Lorden, John William | Wilson, Daniel M.(Down, West) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Lynn, R. J. | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Mallalleu, F. W. | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Forestler-Walker, L. | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Younger, Sir George |
| Forrest, Walter | Middlebrook, Sir William | |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Mitchell, William Lane | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Moles, Thomas | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Molson, Major John Eisdale Ward. |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Benn, Captin Wedgwood (Leith) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesborough, E.) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) | |
| Johnstone, Joseph | Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West) | Tellers For The Noes.— |
| Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Major BARNESWe on this side of the Committee must protest against the unseemly haste with which the Government are conducting the funeral proceedings of the Home Rule Act of 1914. I think the 194 Government might have been content to give us more time. It is a very short Clause and consists of few words, but it puts a period to a whole generation of Liberal effort and two generations of the work of Irishmen in this House. Therefore I think we might have had more time, especially when one remembers the 195 Home Rule Bills of the past. If I am not incorrect, they took 60 or 70 days. If we compare that with the few days given to this Bill they cannot be regarded as commensurate with the importance of the subject. No better illustration could be given of the lack of appreciation by the Government of the real importance of this question than the fact that after a couple of hours they closured the Debate on this Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANTo criticise the application of the Closure would be a reflection on the action of the Chair, and I cannot allow criticism of that nature.
Major BARNESI apologise for having in any sort of way appeared to ciriticise the action of the Chair, and I offer as an excuse my recent acquaintnace with the proceedings of this House. I am anxious, in the short time that it is possible to discuss this Clause, to keep very strictly within the bounds of Order. I do not know whether or not I am precluded from dealing with any point that might have been raised during the discussion of the Amendment which has just been dealt with. I want to know whether it might not be possible to discuss the question of leaving the Clause out altogether. Here we are standing, not at the end, but perhaps in the middle period of the Bill. There are some Clauses which are being postponed. I understand that, on the Report stage, it will be possible further to amend the Bill. I want to know whether, even if in the Committee stage, it is not possible to review what has taken place in the Committee, we may not leave out this Clause altogether. No doubt we can amend the Bill once more on the Report stage and so bring it into accord, even though we have left out the whole of this Clause. It may be said that an extraordinary situation would be created if we decided not to pass this Clause now, because, if it is not passed, the Government of Ireland Act of 1914 would not be repealed, and we should have passed these Clauses setting up two Parliaments, and at the same time refused to repeal the Act setitng up one Parliament for Ireland. Still, I think that extraordinary situation could be brought within bounds on the Report stage. There is still open to the Government an alternative which they might adopt which would save the Bill, and at the 196 same time keep the whole situation more in accord with the facts. Strangely enough, that alternative is one suggested by the Prime Minister himself. We on these Benches have been criticised because we have no alternative. It may be we have none, but the right hon. Gentleman has one, which I believe would have been acceptable, not only to this country and to Ireland, but to this House, some parts of which, I fear, are even more irreconcilable than parts of Ireland. It would have brought about a real settlement of the Irish Question. That alternative is to be found in a letter the right hon. Gentleman addressed to the Lord Privy Seal on the 7th November, 1918, and this is how he described it—
Eighteen months ago the Government made alternative proposals for the settlement of the Irish problem. It offered either to bring Home Rule into immediate effect—
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSAre we not discussing the repeal of the Act of 1914?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member was in the middle of a sentence, and I must hear him further before I can decide that point.
Major BARNESI was trying to argue that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill. I am trying to show how the situation which would be created if the Committee took that view could be met by adopting the alternative which the Prime Minister himself proposed. The words which the right hon. Gentleman used are these—and perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I repeat them, because, by reason of the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member, the sense of them may have been lost to the Committee—
Eighteen months ago the Government made alternative proposals for the settlement of the Irish problem. It offered to bring Home Rule into immediate effect while excluding the six Northern Counties of Ulster from its operation and setting up at the same time a Joint Council which will be prepared to extend the legislation of the Irish Parliament to Ulster.That was one alternative. The other was to set up a Convention. The second was adopted, but unfortunately the Convention found themselves unable to arrive at an agreement, and the Prime Minister continued in his letter— 197In these circumstances I claim the right to bring the settlement into effect based on the first of these alternatives.That was the proposal of the Prime Minister himself, apparently acquiesced in by the Lord Privy Seal. How different is the proposal of the Bill? That is not to set up an Irish Parliament excluding Ulster from its operation, and providing a Joint Council which might extend the legislation of the Irish Parliament to Ulster, but—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is the very question we decided on the first Amendment to Clause 1.
Major BARNESI am sorry if I have transgressed the rules of Order. It is difficult for a new Member to appreciate fully the technicalities of Parliamentary procedure, but it did appear to me that that argument, which, in view of its source, seems to me to be an important and weighty one, might well have induced the House to consider whether this Clause should really stand part of the
§ Bill, and whether the adoption by the Government of a proposal which does imply a considerable revision of what they have had in mind and have brought before the House, is not unusual, even in the proceedings of this House. On more than one occasion, when the Government have committed themselves very fully to a policy, they have made considerable modifications, but they have only done so when the suggestion has been made by Members of considerable position and weight. If I had had the advantage of the experience and distinction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn possesses, I should not have been so hopeless as I am of success.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 15.
199| Division No. 165.] | AYES. | [10.59 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark) | Jodrell, Neville Paul |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Johnson, Sir Stanley |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Falcon, Captain Michael | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvii) |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Farquharson, Major A. C. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Fell, Sir Arthur | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Lindsay, William Arthur |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Forrest, Walter | Lister, Sir R. Ashton |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F. | Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Gange, E. Stanley | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n) |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Lonsdale, James Rolston |
| Blair, Reginald | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lorden, John William |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Loseby, Captain C. E. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Glyn, Major Ralph | Lynn, R. J. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Gould, James C. | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. |
| Briggs, Harold | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Gregory, Holman | Mallalieu, F. W. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Greig, Colonel James William | Middlebrook, Sir William |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Gretton, Colonel John | Mitchell, William Lane |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Moles, Thomas |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Campbell, J. D. C. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Murchison, C. K. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hanna, George Boyle | Neal, Arthur |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Clough, Robert | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Palmer Charles Frederick (Wrekin) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Parker, James |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Parry, Lieut.- Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hinds, John | Perring, William George |
| Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hood, Joseph | Pratt, John William |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Hopkins, John W. W. | Rankin, Captain James S. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend) | Hurd, Percy A. | Reid, D. D. |
| Dixon, Captain Herbert | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Remer, J. R. |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Edge, Captain William | Jesson, C. | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Sutherland, Sir William | Whitla, Sir William |
| Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Shaw, William T. (Forfar) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato |
| Simm, M. T. | Thorpe, Captain John Henry | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Townley, Maximilian G. | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Stanier, Captain Sir Beville | Tryon, Major George Clement | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. | Vickers, Douglas | Younger, Sir George |
| Stewart, Gershom | Waddington, R. | |
| Sturrock, J. Leng | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sugden, W. H. | Waring, Major Walter | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Entwistle, Major C F. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) | |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Johnstone, Joseph | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) | Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
200§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 16.
201| Division No. 166.] | AYES. | [11.8 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Forrest, Walter | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Middlebrook, Sir William |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Gange, E. Stanley | Mitchell, William Lane |
| Astor, Viscountess | Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Moles, Thomas |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Glyn, Major Ralph | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Goff, Sir R. Park | Mount, William Arthur |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gould, James C. | Murchison, C. K. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Neal, Arthur |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Gregory, Holman | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Greig, Colonel James William | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Gretton, Colonel John | Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Parker, James |
| Blair, Reginald | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perkins, Waiter Frank |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Perring, William George |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hanna, George Boyle | Pratt, John William |
| Briggs, Harold | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Rankin, Captain James S. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Reid, D. D. |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Remer, J. R. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hinds, John | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hood, Joseph | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Hopkins, John W. W. | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Clough, Robert | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Hurd, Percy A. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Simm, M. T. |
| Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Jesson, C. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydv11) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Sugden, W. H. |
| Dixon, Captain Herbert | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Lindsay, William Arthur | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Edge, Captain William | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) |
| Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark) | Lloyd, George Butler | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Thomson, F. C. Aberdeen, South) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Lonsdale, James Rolston | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Lorden, John William | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Vickers, Douglas |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Lynn, R. J. | Waddington, R. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Whitla, Sir William | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato | Younger, Sir George |
| Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. | |
| Wilson-Fox, Henry | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley |
| Ward. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) | |
| Johnstone, Joseph | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Raffan. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.