Clause 2.—(Power to prolong the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.)

HC Deb 13 October 1942 vol 383 cc1518-61

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

I should like to move to leave out Clause 2.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Question has been put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I cannot take the hon. Member's Motion.

Mr. McGovern

Very well, Colonel Clifton Brown; then I will oppose the Clause, and although it was not permissible on the previous Clause to give reasons why there should be a General Election in this country in a shorter period of time, I hope I may be permitted to give reasons why there should be a General Election in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand the reason for including Northern Ireland in this Bill. That inclusion has prejudiced the question to a large extent, and the matter ought to have been dealt with in a separate Bill. I want to take this opportunity of explaining the reasons for which there should be a General Election in Northern Ireland and the people there be given an opportunity to voice their opinions and come to decisions at the poll as to whether or not the Government, or members of the Government, are entitled to continue in office or in the House. That can be decided only if the people are faced with the claims and the answers in an election struggle in Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland have had a fairly long run. So has this House. The comparison, however, is not a good one. In this country there has been a general lack of interest regarding the Government, and although there may be differences, they are as to whether or not the war has been waged successfully or energetically enough; but there are in Northern Ireland issues that are very pregnant with tremendous possibilities in that country. These issues should be faced at an inquest at the polls in order that people may either purge the Government of some of their bad elements, or at any rate give the Government a knowledge of the opinions of the country.

The Labour party in Northern Ireland has made a request to the Labour party in this country which I should have thought deserving of more attention than it has been given. They have asked that a General Election should be held and that there should be a National Government formed in Northern Ireland, a demand which I do not intend to urge or to take part in. But I believe that the Labour party in Northern Ireland are desirous of an opportunity of going to the polls to seek to increase their representation and to put before the electors their views about the mishandling of affairs and the general mismanagement by the Government, and that the grave suspicions entertained in the minds of a large percentage of the population should be aired. That is also being urged by the Nationalist minority, who also have grievances that they want to put before the people. Then there is the large number of Unionists who disagree with the Government. The by-election in the late Lord Craigavon's seat was lost by a crushing majority, in spite of the intervention of the Prime Minister in a last-minute appeal. It might be urged that the Labour party and the Nationalists do not count, being small minorities, but surely Members of this House and the Government are bound to pay heed to the fact that the Unionist party are at long last beginning to repudiate their Government and are desirous of administering to it the rebuke and the punishment at the polls which they believe it deserves.

The Government have taken power to suppress the activities and the power of the City Council in Belfast, and a very large number of Unionist members are overwhelmingly opposed to the assumption of these powers of dictatorship. My friends from Northern, Ireland may disagree, but I am presenting the case as I have heard it, and as I see it, and as my experience teaches me from the angles that I was told of it. When I find even the Lord Mayor and a large number of the members of the City Council saying that the Government take power to suppress the City Council in order to cover up their own misdeeds, I begin to wonder whether it is the City Council or the Government that ought to have been suppressed. Undoubtedly this is a public issue which would be fought out with tremendous heat at the polls. If the Government of this country seek to prevent the electors from passing their verdict on these public questions, they are doing a tremendous disservice to democracy, because if democracy is to live, it must voice periodically the feelings and the views of the people, and, while there is no drastic change in the mind of the people of this country, there is a dramatic and drastic change in Northern Ireland.

The Home Secretary is being attacked in Parliament and in the country as being a man who has interests other than democracy in the suppression of the City Council. I heard a few days' Debate on a Motion of Censure, which showed conclusively to my mind that it was desirable that Northern Ireland should have an opportunity of expressing itself upon the actions of the Home Secretary. The accusation was made that the City Council was suppressed because of one or two suspicious actions of members of the Council. One that was put forward was an attempted sale of land to the Council. The man who attempted to sell it had got it for a few thousand pounds and he attempted to sell it for something like £110,000 or £113,000. The Home Secretary was the agent for this man. When public opinion became incensed regarding these attempted deals and the police began to make inquiries into heavy bribes that had been offered, the man who could have given the greatest amount of evidence, the man who attempted to palm it off, and whose agent was the Home Secretary, was issued with a permit to leave the country and go to Canada and the United States. The question was discussed in the Northern Ireland Parliament, and the old answer was given by the Home Secretary which has worked very well during a long period of time: "I do not propose to answer all these allegations m ade against me. I place myself in the hands of the House. The country knows me. I am not disposed to enter into these discussions at all."

Two other points were raised, one regarding a cinema licence which had been refused by the Home Secretary's Department. When an appeal was made to the Home Secretary, he acted as agent in the appeal against the decision of his own Department, and he got the licence granted—I am not suggesting by undue influence, but, by the fact that it was the Home Secretary appealing against his own decision, the thing was got through. There was a glaring case of a man who was prosecuted for drunkenness in charge of a motor car and for dangerous driving, and he was fined in the courts. Although the police department and the Home Secretary's Department were involved, the Home Secretary acted as the agent in the appeal against his own police. The court granted leave to appeal and the conviction was quashed.

The Deputy-Chairman

I really think that the hon. Member is going far beyond what is a reasonable argument on this Clause.

Mr. McGovern

I am showing the reasons why there should be a General Election; there is a strong public feeling on all these issues in Northern Ireland. I cannot defend the case for an election in Northern Ireland unless I show the background of discontent in that country. The Home Secretary was invited to go to a meeting of 60,000 or 70,000 people in Belfast to defend himself, and he refused. Three-quarters of the Government in Northern Ireland who voted in the Lobby in justification of the Home Secretary have interests in the Government in some way. As a result the vote was not a reflex of public opinion in the country. A large number of Unionists with whom I discussed the question, including the Lord Mayor and Conservative business men, and also men in the street, said that the Government should be sent to the electors to be purged of certain elements in it so that there could be some drastic change in the running of affairs in Northern Ireland.

The Nationalist minority have a tremendous grievance against the Government. They have 300 or 400 people interned in Northern Ireland. I am not defending any man who has committed a crime for which he is found guilty. If a man is discovered with arms, he should stand his trial. A large number of the people who have been interned in Northern Ireland, however, have been interned without charge and without trial for over five years. They just lay in prison cells while the Government are in office. The Government should face the public and give an account to the public of this treatment of human beings. It is not a case of being interned in war conditions, for large numbers of them were arrested in 1937 and 1938. They are young and middle-aged men, and they are still languishing in gaol without charge or trial. Is that a state of affairs that should be allowed to continue without the Government going to the electors and giving an account of their stewardship? During a period of the war many crimes are committed and many people are found with arms. There is also grave suspicion about where the money comes from. I do not deny that something of that kind exists. Any person who breaks the law should stand a trial and receive punishment. I am not defending them. I am defending the many men who are in prison without charge. There is a grave suspicion, indeed, a belief, in Northern Ireland among a section of the people that these men are interned because of political and religious antagonism and intolerance, and that they are denounced, without any knowledge of the crimes they are supposed to have committed, and put into gaol. I asked to see the conditions under which they were living, and the Home Secretary refused to allow me to do so. I understand that the conditions are a public scandal. The Nationalist minority say that there are many members of that body who do not in the slightest break the law, or interfere with the normal procedure of justice or who do not take up arms or purchase arms, or who do not traffic with the enemy. They contend that they ought to be able to interrogate the Government at the polls.

If any Members have a doubt about what is taking place, let me give an example. I was asked to go to a cemetery in Belfast to see the interment of a young man who had died in the Isle of Wight where he had been held on some charge by the Home Secretary of this country. He died of tuberculosis, and his corpse was taken to Belfast. I cannot understand why I should have been asked to go to the interment. I went to the cemetery and saw the service. There was a mass of armed police such as I have never seen even in Nazi Germany. After the interment the police tramped over the graves and there and at the gates of the cemetery seached every civilian in the crowd. Such disgraceful conduct was enough to arouse hostlity and should not be allowed to go on in Northern Ireland. Decent citizens should protest against this form of Nazi treatment of minorities in that country. The Nationalists justly say that men should not be allowed to continue in prison if the Government do not go to the country in a General Election. Governments during an election go through a process of civilisation, because when they are in contact with the electors the electors are inclined to modify their attitude and exact promises from the Government. Moderate elements sometimes crop up even in the Tory party, and they say, "We object to this going on in our name," and they exact promises from Ministers which lead to a change in policy.

The Nationalist minority say that the persecution of minorities should cease and that it should be put an end to by a process of election. Many people in Northern Ireland say that the Government are existing to a large extent upon the-subsidies that are provided by this House and that Government Departments are packed with the friends—scores of names were given to me—of politicians in Northern Ireland doing jobs at good salaries, and that the taxpayers of this country are having money extracted from them to keep the Government—not a democratic Government—in Northern Ireland going. The Nationalists claim that they have a possible alternative to the present Government and that they could defeat practically every Minister at the polls. If that is true, it is wrong to allow the present state of affairs to continue. The dependants of whose who are interned in Northern Ireland are not given any form of allowance—a most disgraceful thing—and when the minority seek to raise funds to maintain the families of these internees, they are refused the right to engage in many activities such as flag days. Therefore, I say that it is a great pity that though in ordinary times this House gets very hot and bothered about the struggle for democracy, when there is a chance of showing that no democracy exists in this part of Great Britain we find an absence of Members. If a Division is called, however, they troop into the Lobby, knowing the case neither for nor against, but just voting down any proposal that the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament should be sent to the electors.

I maintain that there is this strong feeling prevailing, and I say that no Member is true to himself or the public of Northern Ireland if he tries to convince this Committee that the opinion I have expressed is not strongly held in Northern Ireland, because these views are being voiced and being fought out in the background. I say that democracy is not ruling in Northern Ireland, that Nazi tyranny is operating against the minority, and that it is a tyranny which has usurped its power in the most brutal manner. On behalf of the internees, many of whom may be quite innocent men, and on behalf of the citizens of Belfast who feel that the suppression of the City Council is wrong and undemocratic—if there were grafting elements they ought to have been purged—I say that democracy should be allowed to operate through the great bulk of decent men serving on the City Council. There is a demand from the Labour minority that there should be an expression of opinion from the country. Therefore, I am speaking against this Clause because I thing the Government of Northern Ireland and the incompetent Mr. Andrews, a spineless politician, should be sent to the electors to get a verdict upon their activities; and I have no doubt that if the people of Northern Ireland desire democracy to live, they will find some alternative, within the ambit of Parliamentary democracy, to a Government which has been guilty of many heinous crimes.

Mr. Somerset (Belfast, North)

It speaks well for the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that he came to Belfast on holiday, and I am really sorry that the Under-Secretary did not grant him permission to go to Eire to continue his stay. It is with great reluctance that I have to introduce a little bit of personal history. The hon. Member when he came to Belfast rang me up on arrival and asked me would I meet him, and I did so and took him to lunch.

Mr. McGovern

In fairness the hon. Member ought to say that he asked me to ring him up.

Mr. Somerset

Yes, I asked the hon. Member to do so when he came to Belfast. First of all he wanted to borrow a bicycle. The only bicycle we had at home belongs to my small daughter, and I could not see the hon. Member mounting it and getting as far as Monaghan, which I believe was one of the places he wanted to visit. The late Sir Joseph McConnell, who was Member for Antrim, offered to provide the hon. Member with a bicycle, but, after all, I suppose, like many of us he is getting to the age when cycling does not appeal to him so much. However, it so happened that at my request we lunched together in a public restaurant. There were seven of us at table, I think. One of the men was a disgruntled member of the Belfast City Corporation—now the intimate friend of the hon. Member. I refer to Councillor S. B. Thompson. It was really "jam" for this councillor to have someone to whom he could unburden his soul, and naturally he took the hon. Member under his wing as a prize exhibit and took him over to the Corporation Chambers. There he met quite a number of members of the council. I regret that a great number of them are disgruntled. There, among other things, they were photographed together, which is something they always do in Belfast, though I escaped on this occasion.

Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)

Who paid for the lunch?

Mr. Somerset

I paid for the lunch and I will pay for the lunch of the hon. Member if he comes to Belfast. As I say, this photograph was taken. The hon. Member has mentioned the Lord Mayor. One of the things which the Lord Mayor himself told me was "They wanted me to go into the group with them but I was not going to be photographed like that." Those are his own words. He was not going to be associated with the hon. Member and his party. Moreover, the Lord Mayor has assured me that he never asked the hon. Member to put forward his case in this Chamber. The hon. Member must have had a very busy fortnight. He says that he was refused permission to visit the prison. That is a definite statement which I am bound to deny. My Friend the late Member for East Belfast, now Lord Glentoran, told me that in the last day or two arrangements were made for the hon. Member to go into the prison, but that in spite of—

Mr. McGovern

On a point of accuracy. Lord Glentoran told me that opportunity would be given to me to visit the prison. He said that he would see the Home Secretary and get the permit. It was conveyed to me by a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament that I had to telephone the Home Secretary to get the necessary permission. I did so, and was told that the Home Secretary had laid it down that I should not be allowed to visit the prison. His secretary said that he regretted this very much, but he was only conveying to me the decision of his chief. I thought the arrangement had been made, but permission was definitely refused, and the Home Secretary stated in the Press that he had refused permission.

Mr. Somerset

My information is that there was no question about it. Lord Glentoran did make the necessary arrangements but it was in the week during which the hon. Member went to Eire. The fault was not in the office of Lord Glentoran. With regard to the interned men, it is a well-known fact that they have the right to appeal when they want to do so. They can ask that their cases should be heard, but as is the case with all the I.R.A. men they refuse to recognise the court, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I do not want to delay the proceedings here by describing any more of the hen. Member's movements during his stay in Belfast, but it is remarkable that he should have delivered in this Chamber the speech which he made concerning one of the strongest men in the Ulster Parliament, Sir Dawson Bates. He has a very hard task. What happened near my home on Saturday last? A bomb was thrown at the police barracks during the blackout, three women were wounded and two policemen shot, one of them dead. Sir Dawson Bates has a terrible task and he deserves the thanks of every decent man in Northern Ireland. I assure him that he has their confidence.

As to the proposal to exclude Northern Ireland from the Bill we in Northern Ireland are in exactly the same position as you here. We have the 1939 register which would not be very reliable. We have no conscription in Northern Ireland. When the Government of the day first brought in the Military Service Bill it included Northern Ireland, but it was subsequently proposed that Northern Ireland should be left out. We did what we could to have Northern Ireland included and on that issue we voted against the Government which we were sent here to support. I spoke in the House demanding that we should be included but we were not. What has happened as a consequence? Young men on our side have voluntarily enlisted in thousands and we have many workers over here on munitions. What chance is there of a fair election now? There are over 100,000 voters in my constituency of North Belfast, where the greatest damage in Belfast was done by air raids. Thousands of houses were destroyed and many thousands of men and women were killed, yet in those circumstances it is still suggested that we should hold an election and work on the old register. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we have as good a right to this postponement as you have.

What happened in connection with the Belfast Corporation was that there was a scandal about the tuberculosis hospital. A public inquiry was instituted and disclosed a very alarming state of affairs. The Home Secretary told the Corporation to put their house in order or he would take action about it. A committee was appointed including Nationalists, Labour men, Conservatives and an Independent. They got out a report. The council said then: "Very well, you can drop it all. Thank you very much we have no further use for you." The Government of Northern Ireland could have done nothing else but bring in the Bill which has been brought in to deal with the situation. They have not dissolved the Corporation. Several of the men whom the hon. Member for Shettleston met and to whom he talked about their grievances, intimated that if the Bill became law they would resign in a body but they were still there when the hon. Gentleman was in Belfast.

Mr. McGovern

Is it not true that the Belfast Corporation accepted something like 11 of the 13 proposals of the Government and that the dispute on the remaining points was of very small consequence; and that in the midst of the negotiations, the Government closed down and threatened a dissolution?

Mr. Somerset

There is no question of that. The authority of the Home Secretary having been flouted, he did the only thing he could. About the three administrators, who have been appointed, it is marvellous that they took the thing on. Their appointment is for four years. As regards the two Parliamentary by-elections to which reference has been made, as the hon. Gentleman said, the first was for the seat of the late Prime Minister. The present member is a strong Unionist, a strong Orangeman and a Church man—a thoroughly good man. [Laughter.] I do not see why those facts should be thought of as laughable. In the other by-election, at Willowfield, I would point out that the successful candidate, Alderman Midgley, speaking at Albert-bridge Hall on 28th November, 1941, said: There must be no alteration of Northern Ireland's political status without the consent of the Northern Ireland people, which meant that a referendum would have to be taken on the issue, and he (Alderman Midgley), had not, and would not, associate himself with any policy which sought to separate Northern Ireland from its association with the British Commonwealth, or from its association with Great Britain. Our big point is to keep up our good relations with this country. I am sorry to talk about these domestic things, but so much has been made of them, that I had to say something about them. I appeal to this Committee on the broader issue to give us exactly what you are taking for yourselves. Do not try to make us have an election at this time, when it would be a farce.

Viscount Castlereagh (Down)

Unfortunately I was not present when the Second Reading Debate took place. I was serving in my unit. Maybe it was my fault for not finding out that the question of Northern Ireland was to be raised. However, I read the speeches to the best of my ability, including, with considerable interest, the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). I cannot really believe that this subject need have been raised at all. I cannot see the need for this controversy. I read the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on the Second Reading, and he made some terrible threats about what he was going to say about Northern Ireland. I would like to say to him that my colleagues and myself are not afraid of any of these terrible threats, but we are afraid of something far worse—at least I am—and that is, a repetition of that dreadful state of affairs which took place at the end of the last war and a few years afterwards. Some of it is going on now. People armed with tommy guns and other lethal weapons are shooting down our policemen, and that probably is the answer to the hon. Member for Shettleston as to why a certain number of people are being kept in prison under rather different circumstances than those under which people are kept in prison here under the Emergency Powers Act.

I suppose the majority of hon. Members have not the experience of some of us of what happened in Ireland at the end of the last war and the few years that followed. I had the unpleasant experience of my father's house having been shot up. I do not pretend to be a brave person. I have been bombed several times in this war. I was terrified, I admit. On the journey abroad with my unit there were moments in the convoy when, again, I was terrified, but when one is in uniform it is a different matter; it is one's job. When it comes to civil war, the situation is very different, and that is one thing which I hope will never recur. I cannot help feeling that several people have been over to Ireland and have returned rather like Columbus, thinking that they have discovered the whole thing.

The hon. Member for Shettleston has been to Belfast recently. As an officer I recently went to Bagdad. The moment a grateful War Office will give me permission to go to Northern Ireland, I hope to go there and take up all those questions which were debated the other day, and which are being debated to-day. I hope that the hon. Member for Shettleston will accompany me if he can get away. Various points were raised in the Debate. One of them which I would like to discuss now is this question of conscription which was discussed by the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Somerset). Again I must refer to the hon. Member for Shettleston. I know that he is a doughty debater but an eminently fair one. When he was talking about conscription the other day—I only read his speech—I think he was rather hurting the feelings of Members of this House who represent Northern Ireland. It was not lour fault that conscription was not introduced. I understand that Mr. de Valera announced that in his opinion it would be a bad move to have conscription for Northern Ireland, and conscription was cut out. The voluntary system generally means that the best young men, the best of your manhood, are the people who come forward first. In Northern Ireland the situation is exactly that. The best of our people have come forward. That means that a certain residue are going to be left behind. They may be just as good, but they hold rather different views, and the views of that minority are that Northern Ireland should be joined up with the South of Ireland. In war-time, as everybody knows, it would mean that Northern Ireland would have to become neutral.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the hon. Member is discussing conscription in Northern Ireland. The question before the Committee is whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. The two must not be connected.

Viscount Castlereagh

I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but the point was raised on Second Reading. That was one of the reasons put forward, that was an excuse why the Bill should not apply to Northern Ireland.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am afraid that on this Clause the hon. Member may not answer speeches made on Second Reading.

Viscount Castlereagh

I again bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, and apologise for delaying the Committee. There was also the question raised that we had not a Coalition Government in Northern Ireland. Would I be in Order if I made one or two remarks on that subject?

The Deputy-Chairman

I think that that probably comes nearer the Clause.

Viscount Castlereagh

I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that in his view, because we had not a Coalition Government in Northern Ireland, it was a good reason why prolongation should not be given to the Northern Ireland Government. With all due respect to the hon. Member, I do not think that a very fair point, for this reason. The idea of Coalition is that the biggest party coalesces with the largest minority, but when the largest minority refuse to take their seats—whether they draw their salaries, I do not know—it makes the situation rather difficult. Again, supposing the largest minority, the Nationalists, did actually take their place and came into a Coalition Government, there would be the most extraordinary situation of the Unionist members doing their utmost to prosecute the war and a Nationalist minority doing their utmost to make Northern Ireland neutral. In my view that is not a very good idea for running a Coalition Government. I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I would like to make a point raised, again, by the hon. Member for Ipswich". In the course of his speech he said that, after listening to various speeches: … the reflection passed through my mind if we could get rid of Northern Ireland by handing it over to the people to whom it naturally belongs …"—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 30th September, 1942; col. 867, Vol. 383.] I do not quite know whether he quite realised what he was saying. He does not seem to realise that if we did as he suggested, we should hand over a very valuable training ground for military purposes. There are quite a number of American troops there, and quite a number of aircraft training centres. Even more important, there are seaplane bases there doing valuable work in trying to win the Battle of the Atlantic, which the Prime Minister said recently is the most important thing of all. I would ask the hon. Member to recollect that these men are doing magnificent work in Coastal Command in Catalinas, Short Sunderlands and other machines. If you are really to hand us over to the South of Ireland, then this valuable area is lost.

In conclusion, I would say that if we are to have an election in Northern Ireland, it means that we shall fight that election, as the hon. Member for North Belfast said, on a 1939 register. A large number of Ulster troops who would be eligible to vote are fighting abroad. There is a battery of my friends from the towns of Newtownards and Bangor, and a great number of them will never come back. The last I heard of them they were in Tobruk. When I inquired at the War Office about them, I was told they were listed as "zero." It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman opposite has raised more of a debating point, which has just a smack of party politics about it. My colleagues and I will play party politics with anyone when the war is over; but let us for the moment cut out party politics, and do our utmost to carry on the prosecution of the war successfully.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

I am very diffident about intervening in this Debate, but I feel that the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) should not be accepted by the Committee. We have in the North of Ireland an extremely difficult and embarrassing situation, and I cannot conceive that a General Election taking place in the course of the next year could fail to add fuel to the flames already burning in that part of our Commonwealth. I think the feeling of hon. Members with regard to Ireland at present is to do and say nothing that will add further difficulty to the situation of that unhappy country. We have, as the Noble Lord has just said, a large number of American troops there, and it would be exceedingly unfortunate if the controversies arising from a General Election were to be introduced in the presence of those American troops, who have been so well received by all sections of the population. I have always tried to encourage better feeling in Ireland: years ago I was in a national movement there whose main purpose was to bring the various sections of public opinion in Ireland more closely together; and I do not want to see anything happen which would make feeling worse in that country.

I admire very much the interest taken by the hon. Member for Shettleston in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I know he is inspired by the highest motives. I know that he feels deeply about certain events in Northern Ireland. I am sure that if he had the opportunity he would make a very great contribution to bringing about a happier state of affairs there, but this proposal of his is not calculated to make things better. I am sorry that certain personalities have been introduced in this Debate. I would like to think kindly of everybody, and the hon. Gentleman went a little far in some of the personal allusions he made. We do not help to get a better atmosphere and a more kindly outlook by observations of that sort. The real consideration is whether it is wise, in the present political situation in Ulster, to have a General Election early next year. I say that careful consideration of the contingencies that are bound to arise, the difficulties that will develop, and the thousand and one problems, of personal and domestic and entirely Ulster quality, that will be presented during an election would arouse feelings that many of us would wish were dead for all time. I hope that the hon. Member will, therefore, support the Government in carrying the Clause.

Professor Savory (Queen's University of Belfast)

I sat here during the whole of the Debate on the Second Reading, listening, without moving a muscle, to various diatribes and attacks upon Ulster. I wanted very much to speak upon that occasion, but as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for County Down (Dr. Little) were here, I thought it better, as they were not able to come over this week, to reserve what I had to say for this occasion. I understand, from what was said in the speeches on the Second Reading and by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovem) to-day, that three. reasons have been brought forward why the Parliament of Northern Ireland should not be prolonged. The first was that the constitution of the Parliament of Northern Ireland was—so it was argued—unsatisfactory. The second was that the Government of Northern Ireland had suspended the Belfast Corporation. One Member devoted the whole of his speech to that subject, and it was raised again to-day by the hon. Member for Shettleston. The third reason was that we should have imitated the Imperial Parliament and adopted a form of Coalition Government.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Nobody suggested that.

Professor Savory

Yes, I have it here in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am perfectly prepared to refer to it.

Mr. Maxton

I wish the hon. Member would do so.

Professor Savory

I give my word of honour that I heard it.

Mr. Maxton

But I should like the quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Professor Savory

What struck me as perhaps the strongest of all the speeches was that made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who, I am glad to see, is in his place. He said: So far as I can understand from my contacts in Northern Ireland, the majority of the people there would like a General Election. They are sick to death of their present Government and consider it to be a complete fake and a ramp, i the truth were told. About some of the abominable things that that Government does I shall speak on some other day, Mr. Speaker, if I can catch your eye "—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 30th September, 1942; col. 867, Vol. 383.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)

We must have very much shorter quotations from Second Reading speeches, and not too much detail about the Government of Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen (Armagh)

On a point of Order. Both on the Second Reading and to-day, the hon. Member for Shettleston. (Mr. McGovern) has very severely attacked the members of the Northern Ireland Government. Surely it is up to us to take every opportunity we have to reply to those attacks?

The Temporary Chairman

This is a Committee discussion, on a particular point. I should not, I think, rule too closely on that matter, but I do not think that very long quotations or very long explanations of the position of the Northern Ireland Government are justified on the Committee stage of this Bill.

Professor Savory

Thank you, Mr. Williams. I had just come to the end of the quotation, I am glad to say. I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich, so far as his observations referred to this Clause, I will invite the hon. Member to come over to Belfast. I will offer him the hospitality of my humble roof, and, if he will come, I will take him round Belfast, and Northern Ireland generally, and show what has been done by this Government in the last 20 years: how the whole Province has been completely transformed, and how schools have sprung up in every direction. I will guarantee, if the hon. Gentleman will accept my invitation, to protect him from a repetition of the unfortunate misadventures which befell the celebrated Mr. Pickwick when he visited Ipswich, and I will prove, I think, to the hon. Gentleman that the late Lord Craigavon did more for Ulster than even Cardinal Wolsey did for Ipswich. Cardinal Wolsey was the greatest statesman that the ancient borough has produced, with, of course, the sole exception of the existing Member. During the last 33 years that I have lived in Northern Ireland our experience has always been that we have invited these gentlemen, these exceedingly severe critics, to Ulster, who, when they have seen what the Government of Northern Ireland have done, have been completely converted. Goldsmith was a very great Irish poet and he used these words which are applicable to these gentlemen: And fools, who came to scoff, remained to pray. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) laid stress upon what he called "the defective constitution of the Parliament of Northern Ireland." Indeed we are told that the Labour Members sent a deputation over here and were received by the Labour party in this House in order to state their reasons why the Parliament of Northern Ireland should not be prolonged. I should like to say in this connection that these gentlemen representing the Labour party might have asked their local representatives also to give them a hearing. I have the honour to be the Secretary of the Ulster Unionist Parliamentary Party and should have been the channel of communication. I would have gladly arranged a meeting with all our representatives and we should have heard what these Labour gentlemen had to say. However, a memorandum has been presented by the members of the Labour Party and a memorandum also by the Nationalists in which they say that they laid proposals before the Cabinet, the Ministers here and the leading Members of Parliament. I am not a leading Member of Parliament and therefore I was not favoured with one of these manifestoes. I think that perhaps the real reason why they did not send it to me was rather that they knew I was too well acquainted with the facts and that I was able to answer them. What is the allegation put forward against renewing our House of Commons? They say—this is a quotation of only one sentence—" The Six Counties Government "—— that is what they call it; they will not give it the name of Ulster— has so far been kept in office by retrograde sectarianism and by the machinery of gerrymandering constituencies. As far as retrograde sectarianism is concerned I have nothing to say except to make this observation from my experience of over a third of a century in Ulster. Our religion so far from being retrograde is exceedingly progressive and enlightened, I fully admit however that that is a question of opinion, but the charge that we gerrymandered the constituencies is a statement of fact. They go on to allege that "proportional representation was an essential part of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, designed to secure a degree of fair representation to the minority but it was swept away by the Northern Ireland Government for obvious reasons." Fortunately, the facts and figures are there. The last election under proportional representation took place in the year 1925. The Nationalists and Republicans together succeeded in obtaining 12 seats. The first election under single member constituencies took place in the year 1929. What happened? The Nationalists and Republicans had eleven seats. They gained one seat in Belfast at the expense of Labour and they lost two seats, one in Antrim and one in Armagh.

The Temporary Chairman

I really cannot see how proportional representation has anything to do with Clause 2 of this Bill.

Professor Savory

I only felt it right to point out in reply to these statements that the constituencies have been gerrymandered, that they could not have been gerrymandered because the difference between the number elected under proportional representation and the number elected by the single member constituencies is only one representative. If the constituencies had been gerrymandered, the Nationalists would not have lost only one seat. Whereas they had 12 representatives under proportional representation, they had 11 under the single member constituencies. That was the point of my argument, and I think that it is a statement which is really relevant to the question because these gentlemen said that you must not renew this Parliament of Northern Ireland because of its unsatisfactory constitution.

The Temporary Chairman

I do not think that going back into these figures can possibly be allowed as relevant, certainy not at any length, on this Motion that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Professor Savory

Thank you, Mr. Williams. I bow to your Ruling and I pass on to the second point upon which great play has been made to-day.

Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)

On a point of Order. I was present during the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and tremendous latitude was allowed to him to discuss the de-merits of the Northern Ireland Parliament at considerable length and I do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Belfast (Professor Savory) is really out of Order in view of the speech of the hon. Gentleman.

The Temporary Chairman

We may have had one long speech or several, I was not there to listen, but that is no reason why we should have a succession of long speeches.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Do I understand you, Mr. Williams, to say that there is now some time limit imposed upon speeches?

The Temporary Chairman

No; nothing of the sort. If the Chair allowed latitude to an hon. Member to explain a technical point that point should not be taken to undue length.

Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and Stirling, Eastern)

I gather that the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) is arguing in his comparison between the one election and the other that the fact that there was only a small change of one seat was an argument that there was no change in the election.

The Temporary Chairman

That is going back to the point which I have already ruled out of Order.

Professor Savory

May I be allowed to pass to the second point which was developed at great length by the hon. Member for Shettleston both to-day and on the Second Reading, namely, the fact that because the Government of Northern Ireland have passed through both Houses a Bill for the reform of the Belfast Corporation that is a very good reason for not prolonging the Parliament of Northern Ireland?

Mr. MeGovern

It is only one of the many reasons.

Professor Savory

The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in his Second Reading speech devoted the greater part of it to this point and I think I might be in order in dealing with it because it is very important and great play has been made with it in this Debate. Speaking as a representative of the Queen's University of Belfast I can say that we maintain the best possible relations both with the corporation of Belfast and with the Gcvernment of Northern Ireland. Even if I had an opinion on this controversial matter, wild horses would not drag it from me but I would like to say that this is not an act of Nazidom, not a coup d'état, but that this Bill for the reform of the Belfast Corporation was carried by enormous majorities through the House of Commons and through the Senate of Northern Ireland. It was fully debated and discussed; it was not an executive act, as one might have been led to believe from this discussion. It was a Bill and it was passed into law on receiving the Royal Assent from His Grace the Governor of Northern Ireland. My point is this: that no one has ever argued that this House of Commons is to be a court of appeal from the Government of Northern Ireland. The Parliament of Northern Ireland has acted in this respect within its powers and what right have you to set this House up as a court of appeal from the Parliament of Northern Ireland on a question of this great importance?

With regard to the point that because we have not adopted a Coalition Government like you here and that, therefore, our Parliament should not be prolonged I would like to quote from a Question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who said: While recognising the very strong case against an election in these circumstances would it not be a reasonable thing to suggest that roms endeavour should be made to formulate a National Government on the lines of this Parliament in order to prolong its life? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1942; col. 168, Vol. 382.] Has your Coalition Government over here been such an immense success that you wish to impose it upon Northern Ireland? One of the greatest, if not the greatest, of your Prime Ministers used this very apt phrase: England does not love coalitions. Those are words pronounced in this House some 90 years ago by the great Disraeli. Of course they referred to the Coalition of Whigs and Peelites which he had facing him but I have no doubt that he was going back to the still more celebrated Coalition of Fox and North, a Coalition which the younger Pitt overthrew and appealed successfully to the country—

The Temporary Chairman

I cannot see that Pitt has anything whatever to do with Clause 2 of this Bill.

Professor Savory

I am always ready to bow to your ruling, Mr. Williams, but I would like to say this. When these people say, "Why haven't you a Coalition Government "? I say, "If you have a Coalition it means you have to coalesce with someone." You cannot have a coalition without coalescing With whom do you intend to invite the Government of Northern Ireland to coalesce? Is it with six Nationalist Members, four of whom are absentees after having taken the oath and thereby earned the right to their salaries and who have never once, I am told, put in an appearance? Of the remaining two Nationalists one is irregular in his attendance, while the other one is a successor to the late Mr. Joseph Devlin, who was a distinguished Member of this House. He is the only one who attends regularly. This is the largest section of the opposition. What about coalescing with the Labour party? Well, there are three members of the Labour party. I know them all; I have studied their speeches and every man's hand is against the other man's. If one can judge by what they have said they differ far more from one another than from the Government of Northern Ireland. I hope this House will realise that conditions for a coalition in Northern Ireland are very different from what they are over here.

I know that the greatest crime one can commit in this House is to make too long a speech because time is so limited and there are other Members who wish to address the Committee. Therefore, I will content myself with this conclusion: Suppose you represent a constituency where a large majority has voted against you at the last election because it was a three-cornered fight. The majority of your electors have voted against you and therefore, you represent a minority. You were elected not by a majority but merely by a plurality. Now, if a large proportion of your electors are Irish Nationalists your action in attacking Ulster to-day can of course be fully justified because you must placate a certain section of your constituency by twisting the tail of the Ulster lion.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

I rise to speak in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said at the opening of this Debate and to oppose this Clause. First, perhaps, I had best deal with the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) à propos my attitude in this matter. I am glad to see him back safely from Bagdad. He said he was afraid that if we had another election in Northern Ireland, there would be a repetition of what happened before in the way of civil strife, more especially if these contentious matters continued to be discussed in this House. I want to make it clear that it is for that very reason that I wish to see a change of Government in Northern Ireland. I fear that if the present situation—the miserably bad Government—continues there will be an ever increasing amount of discontent in Northern Ireland and that we shall have a repetition of the very thing which the Noble Lord fears. He then went on to make what seemed to me to be a fundamental admission, and one of which I hope Members of both the Northern Ireland and the Eire Government will take note. In referring to some remarks I had made about returning Northern Ireland to the people to whom it belonged, he said that if we did that it would mean handing over the bases to Eire, and the country would become neutral. I was delighted to hear him admit that the country is now invaded and is not in the hands of the Irish people to whom it rightly belongs.

Viscount Castlereagh

In Northern Ireland we are proud to be part of the British Empire, and we do our best to fight for it.

Mr. Stokes

I do not dispute with the Noble Lord what he says about fighting for the Empire. I have elicited from him the admission that the present situation in Northern Ireland is not right and that, in fact, Northern Ireland is invaded by people who have no right to rule it. That, however, is by the way. The important point I want to make is that it would not necessarily follow that, if there were a unified Ireland as a result of a new control in Northern Ireland, we should have to hand over the Northern bases. If we could get—and I believe we could, with good will on both sides—a union of North and South, it might very well be that we should get the use of the Southern Irish bases as well. That point ought not to be lost sight of. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory), I will, of course, gladly accept his invitation to visit Ulster with him at the earliest possible opportunity. I shall take the greatest delight in going round with him. Unfortunately, my contacts with Northern Ireland have been in the main of a business and not of a political nature. I should be interested to have first-hand evidence from the hon. Member of the state of affairs which he claims exists there.

Sir W. Allen

If the Home Secretary will allow the hon. Member to go.

Mr. Stokes

I am on such terms with the Home Secretary that I am sure he will be glad to see me out of the country. I am not sure that Cardinal Wolsey will not turn in his grave at the suggestion that the present Member for Ipswich competes with him in statesmanship; I shall however hope that with his inspiration before me, I may one day achieve some degree of like eminence. But in any event we shall be delighted to see the hon. Member for Belfast University in Ipswich, and I shall be delighted to take part in a debate with him in the Borough on the Irish situation. As to the hon. Member's statements about fair representation, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that, when quoting figures in support of his argument that there is fair representation, he failed to point out that of the 52 seats, 39 are held by Unionists, who polled only 55 per cent. of the votes cast. How that can be called fair representation, I fail to understand.

Professor Savory

I would point out to the hon. Member that four of those 52 seats are held by Members returned by the University, and therefore, the percentage which he gives is not really quite fair.

Mr. Stokes

That is not important to my main argument. I come now to the main point that I want to make. The hon. Member complained that some of us had described the Northern Ireland Parliament as a racket and a ramp. I shall seek to prove by evidence other than my own, and in support of my contention that this Clause ought not to stand part of the Bill, that those terms are fundamentally correct. I would remind the Committee that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, under which the Northern Ireland Government functions, states: In the exercise of their powers to make laws under this Act, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not make a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof, or give a preference, privilege or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage on account of religious beliefs. I want to show, in support of my contention that the Clause should not stand part, that this, is not being done, and that the vilest discrimination is being shown against people on account of their religious beliefs. I will quote some extracts from what eminent people in Northern Ireland, and others, have said on the question of the Northern Ireland Government. At the time of Lord Craigavon's death, the following was written in the "Manchester Guardian": The Government of Northern Ireland is unique in the annals of Parliamentary Government in its stability. Lord Craigavon was its first Prime Minister, and two others of the present Ministers have sat with him in the Cabinet continuously since the summer of 1921. The Unionist party is in perpetual power. It is the perfect example of Government by caucus. There are substantial minorities, Nationalist, Republican, and Labour, but by electoral and administrative manipulation, the scales are weighted against them. It goes on to say: The large proportion of office holders in a small House of Commons has always tended to give undue weight to the Executive and the maintenance of the orthodoxy on which it exists. I will quote now from what was said by Mr. T. Henderson, who is, I understand, an Independent Partitionist Member, in a speech in the Six Counties Parliament on 12th March, 1940:— He was amazed at the cost of running the Government. It was no wonder that some of the friends of the Government had advocated the appointment of commissioners to run the country. The Northern Government was only the agent for the British Government and they had practically nothing to do. The entire affairs of the country were administered by British Ministries, the Ministry of Food, etc. The millions of pounds required to run the Government could be saved if the Government stopped its activities for the duration of the war. The Government was only an ornamental Government, it had no power, it existed simply to provide jobs for wealthy friends of Ministers and others not so well-to-do, and was the most costly Government in the world. That is evidence from one of the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I will quote some more disturbing statements from two former Parliamentary Secretaries, who, unlike Parliamentary Secretaries usually, saw fit to resign. In 1940, Mr. Warner was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and he resigned because of the alleged extravagance and inefficiency of the Administration. He stated that expenditure on the police showed an utter disregard for public money. His resignation was followed shortly afterwards—I am not sure of the exact date—by the resignation of Colonel A. R. Gordon, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, and who stated: The Government, as at present constistuted, is, by the nature of its personnel, lacking in drive and energy and utterly lacking in understanding of what war means, and it is unable to sustain us in the ordeal that is before us. Finally, I would like to quote a letter which was published recently in one of the more reputable journals in this country, "The Tribune." It is from a serving member of His Majesty's Forces who, until recently, was resident in Northern Ireland in the Forces, and has had, as he claims, ample opportunity of studying this matter at first hand. He concludes his letter as follows: It is true that the Nationalists favour the neutrality of Ireland, but can we blame them? After 21 years of political trickery and gangsterism, can we be surprised that there is no enthusiasm to defend imperialism?

The Temporary Chairman

I have allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude, but I cannot see how any of these quotations has any relation to the matter before the Committee.

Mr. Stokes

What I am trying to show is that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill on account of the villainies of the Northern Ireland Government, and I am giving evidence that there is a most disgraceful discrimination shown against Catholics, which is quite contrary to the Constitution.

The Temporary Chairman

I think we can have illustrations, but I do not think the one narrow point whether you should have an election now or in two years' time can be covered in this way by a long series of illustrations.

Mr. Stokes

Am I to understand that I may not quote from anyone?

The Temporary Chairman

I said a long series of illustrations.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Would it be out of Order, in discussing whether the Parliament should have its existence prolonged, to argue that it was abusing the authority that it at present enjoyed?

The Temporary Chairman

That would not be out of Order.

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

With no sympathy for the hon. Member's point of view, is it not impossible for the Committee, or even for the Chair, to avoid the fact that under the Bill it is possible to discuss the whole position of the Ulster Parliament, because the question is whether it should be allowed to continue in its present condition?

The Temporary Chairman

I think that goes rather far. The hon. Member was quoting not what the Ulster Parliament was doing, but other people's opinions of it, and although I have allowed a certain amount of illustration, I think illustration can be carried too far.

Mr. Stokes

May I give one more short quotation from a soldier who has been serving in Northern Ireland? I am not exaggerating when I say that predominantly Catholic districts have developed into ghettos ruled by police tyranny and suppression. Young men known to hold non-Unionist views have been dragged from their homes at the dead of night and taken in armed vans to prison (not by full time police but by B. Specials) where they rot without charge with no prospect of trial and no communication with their families or legal help ", which is pretty well what the hon. Member for Shettleston said. I want to call attention to a particular incident in support of my claim, which happened quite recently. I do not support people dashing about with arms and shooting at policemen, but I want to call attention to the Belfast trial of the six young men who were sentenced to death on account of the shooting of a Belfast policeman. The point I wish to make deals simply with the official attitude of the Belfast Government in this matter. The background of that affair is the dreadful fact, as is indicated in the quotation that I have just read, that the Northern Ireland Government are in the habit of sending armed police vans regularly into the Catholic working-class districts and beating up the Catholic workers without reason or rhyme. The method of selecting the jury shows the complete lack of fairness of the Northern Ireland Government. The empanelment of the jury was taken from 450 citizens. It was done in that way in order to prevent any Catholics sitting on the jury. There are over 100,000 Catholics in Belfast, but, astonishing to relate, not more than 50 were on the panel. The Government, as the names were called, objected to 39 members. I do not say that all were Catholics, but they would not have a single Catholic or woman on that jury. That means that those people who were supposed to be facing fair trial by jury were in fact tried by their enemies, people politically opposed to them. The Judge, in his summing up, said that but for the fact that the dead man was a policeman the verdict would be one of manslaughter; as he was a policeman it must be one of murder, though there was clearly no intent to kill. It is time this House sat up and took notice of what the Northern Parliament is doing. It is outrageous that that kind of thing should go on. In the end they hanged the man who, it was proved, did not kill the policeman. Some of the shots in the body came from that man's gun, but the fatal bullet did not fit the gun of the man who was hung.

It is time we took more interest in what is going on over there, because in my opinion and in that of others the Government are not fit to hold the position they do hold. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) suggested that an election would lead to more disorder, especially with American troops there, but why have an election? The matter can be dealt with in another way. In my view it would be to the advantage of everyone, North and South, and this country as well, if the Government of Northern Ireland were suspended, and, for that reason, I support the hon. Member for Shettleston in opposing the Clause.

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

I desire to support my hon. Friend in his opposition to this Clause. I do not think this House should allow the Irish Parliament to be prolonged. My hon. Friend has given very good evidence that the opinion of most people in the Six Counties is in favour of a General Election and no prolongation of Parliament. My hon. Friend urged that respect should be shown for the views of those who are in a minority in the Irish Parliament. The Nationalists and the Labour party are strongly of opinion against a prolongation of the Six Counties Parliament, and thiey desire a General Election.

My hon. Friend gave instances of the bad treatment that is being meted out to members of the minority in the Six Counties and the internment of the citizens of Northern Ireland without any trial. I remember that when I came into this Parliament things were being done in Northern Ireland that aroused tremendous discontent. In the West of Scotland and other parts of Britain there was strong criticism of the Ulster Government. We could get no opportunity because of the constitution to raise our protest against these happenings on the Floor of this House. That treatment is going en still and the people in Ireland and this House would not be justified in acceding to the request of the Government in Ulster to prolong their Parliament. There is one point that has evidently been misunderstood by spokesmen for the Ulster Government. They complain about the attack that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston on the Six Counties Home Secretary, Sir Dawson Bates. The hon. Member did not make an attack on Sir Dawson Bates. What he did was to report the attack that was made upon him in the Stormount Parliament. He gave a report on what he heard in that Parliament of the charges made against the Heme Secretary. The statements about Sir Dawson Bates were made by Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and not by the hon. Member for Shettleston.

There is one difficulty which I admit in connection with an election. That is the 1939 electoral roll. If, however, the people in the Six Counties are willing to waive that difficulty, if they are anxious for a General Election and are against the Government, as the by-elections seem to show, we should not allow a prolongation of their Parliament. The by-election results are a lot more significant than the hon. Member who gave an account of them would lead the Committee to suppose. They seem to show that the people who had formerly supported the Six Counties Government are now overwhelmingly against them. If the people want a General Election, we should not be a party to allowing the Six Counties Government to avoid going to their constituents. The overwhelming majority desire to have the opportunity of expressing judgment on their Government. Everything that was said in regard to Belfast Corporation might be said with equal effect against the Six Counties Government. This House is not justified in continuing the life of the Northern Ireland Parliament against the overwhelming opinion of the people in the Six Counties.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

When the Minister introduced this Bill he said in effect that it would never do to interfere with the Northern Ireland Government as Mr. Andrews would tell him to mind his own business. But he should have told Mr. Andrews when he was asking for a new lease of life for his Parliament that it was his business to get a Government that would bring about the greatest possible amount of unity in Northern Ireland. That was a big job. Through bringing about a greater measure of unity in Northern Ireland they would bring about a growing measure of unity between Northern and Southern Ireland, and that was a still bigger job. The Northern Ireland Government, however, have adopted the same attitude towards unity as the Prime Minister in his recent speech adopted towards unity of the mass movement of India. It is continually aggravating and worsening the situation. There are forces representing the Labour movement and other progressive sections in Northern Ireland, and if they were taken into the Government and a Government actually representing the people was instituted, a big change would take place in the situation.

One could dwell a long time on the terrible conditions that obtain there. There is absolute terror ruling in parts of Ireland. Nobody would encourage or justify the terroristic tactics of those who are so keen for Ireland but who are doing Ireland such considerable injury by pursuing a wrong policy. Nothing, however, can justify the conduct of the Andrews Government and the forces that are being used by that Government. Therefore, if the Minister is going to accept the responsibility that the sponsorship of this Bill places on him, he must talk to the Andrews Government, he must let them know that they are doing a great disservice to this country and the cause of the democratic peoples if they maintain the divisions and the differences that continue to exist. If you read some of the Press, listen to some of the speeches and watch the things that are going on, you would think that the Andrews Government and many of those associated with them were living in the old evil days when every method of aggravating and tormenting political and religious opponents and exacerbating differences were adopted. I remember what used to happen in the old days when there were people from this House and the House of Lords stirring up sedition and carrying on subversive agitation. I worked in Belfast at the time of the worst conflicts over there. There are people in this House and in the Andrews Government who are living in that period.

They do not understand the situation that confronts the people of Ireland, the people of this country and the people of Europe. The Minister has got to make it clear to the Andrews' Government that this one-party Government—and that a party of a most reactionary character—cannot be allowed to maintain itself there. It is all very well for those sitting on the Front Bench to smile, but the people in Northern Ireland cannot smile. The suffering there is terrible.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

I was only smiling at my hon. Friend condemning one-party government, that is all.

Mr. Gallacher

In Northern Ireland—where it is a most reactionary one-party Government. I am quite in favour——

Mr. Morrison

Of one-party government?

Mr. Gallacher

Of one-party government.

The Temporary Chairman

I think the hon. Member ought not to be tempted into a discussion on the question of one-party government, even by a Minister.

Mr. Gallacher

I am all in favour of one-party government when there is only one class; that is something that justifies itself, but where there is a mixed community and there is one-party government by a party of the most reactionary character, it constitutes a danger to this country at the present time. That is something which the Minister cannot smile away. He has a responsibility. Will he accept that responsibility? He has often come before Parliament giving the impression that he was prepared to play the strong man and assert his full power in this, that or the other direction.

Here is one direction where, if ever, there is need for asserting authority. He has authority and it should be asserted. Let us get the best forces in the North of Ireland drawn into the Government from the Labour party and from other progressive associations for the purpose of bringing about what everyone ought to desire, the greatest measure of unity between Falls Road and Shankill Road. That is a big job and it needs a big Government to do it. If we can get a movement that will end the disruption, a movement towards a unity between the Falls Road and the Shankill Road, we shall have travelled far towards getting unity between the North and the South of Ireland. Is the Minister prepared to do something to bring about that desirable end? If so, he will let the Andrews Government know that they must make big and broad changes in the control and direction of affairs in Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen (Armagh)

I feel satisfied that the Committee are ready to come to a decision on this very important subject, but at the same time some things have been said here to-day to which I feel a reply should be given. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has not had the advantage of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) of paying a recent visit to Northern Ireland. I cannot myself see why the Home Secretary should have drawn any distinction between the hon. Member for Ipswich and the hon. Member for Shettleston but it has been done. I take it from the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston to-day that he has expressed some views which he imbibed during his visit to Southern Ireland.

Mr. Stokes

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member is not aware that I have been to Ireland every year since 1914.

Sir W. Allen

I do not see that that is any reason why there should have been any differentiation between the hon. Member for Shettleston and himself, but there has been a differentiation. The words in which he expressed himself are those which have frequently been given expression to by those who are prepared at all times to condemn Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Shettleston has said that the Northern Ireland Government is behaving in an abominable manner to the minority there. I should like him to tell me where Northern Ireland has misused the powers given to it by the Act of 1930 and has in any way hindered the minority from living their ordinary lives, performing their ordinary duties and making themselves useful public citizens in every way. The "Manchester Guardian" has been quoted to-day. It is a paper that was always against Ulster and always in favour of Southern Ireland. Such letters and speeches as the hon. Member has quoted have frequently appeared in the "Manchester Guardian." Just as frequently we have done our utmost to get the "Manchester Guardian" to publish denials of what has been said, but, for what reason I do not know, the "Manchester Guardian" has refused again and again to publish those replies. There is no secret about that, because it is common knowledge with us in Ireland. It is the same with a large section of the Press in England. When we try to get our view put before the British people publication of it is refused.

Mr. Stokes

In speaking of the "Manchester Guardian" in this way, is the hon. and gallant Member referring to pre-war conditions or only since the Press became; a Downing Street monopoly?

The Temporary Chairman

I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would be in Order in answering that question.

Sir W. Allen

Surely I am at liberty to reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich respecting the impression he has left on the Committee with regard to the speeches that have been published in the "Manchester Guardian," for which we have no use whatever. However, I pass from that subject. Northern Ireland has been vilified in this Committee to-day in the most extraordinary manner. A great deal of the old bitterness has been revived. So far as we are concerned we want that old bitterness to be dead and buried for ever. That is our feeling.

Mr. Gallacher

There is not much evidence of it.

Sir W. Allen

If any instance can be brought forward of the Government of Northern Ireland having done any injury to any individual because of his religion, I shall be glad to see it.

Mr. McGovern

Would the hon. Member justify the holding of citizens without trial for over five years and refusing to allow those who support them politically even to collect money to maintain their families? Would he say that was an injustice?

Sir W. Allen

The hon. Member must be well aware that the individuals who have been interned have had every liberty given to them to put their case before the authorities, but they have deliberately refused to take advantage of that opportunity. The same thing has happened, as he knows, with regard to the individual who is interned in England. He has had the opportunity time and time again to put his case before the British authorities just as have those who are interned in Northern Ireland, but they have all refused to recognise the Northern Irish Government. They refuse to put their case, and I say that the reason why certain individuals who have been interned refuse to put their case is that they know that they are guilty. That is the only answer I can give to the hon. Member.

Mr. McGovern

Guilty of what? Who is judging it?

Sir W. Allen

If they have the opportunity of appearing before the appropriate authority, the opportunity to discover what charge is against them, but they refused to recognise the Government——

Mr. McGovern

This is an important point. Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not maintain that because an individual refuses to accept an opportunity to appear before a constituted authority, it is not up to those authorities to devise other ways and means, and not keep people in prison for five years or more without any charge against them?

Sir W. Allen

That is a matter of opinion. The Northern Ireland Government have had the greatest difficulty in carrying on just because of these matters referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich, in regard to Falls Road. The police know very well where ammunition is to be found if they visit those districts.

Mr. Stokes

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member does not mean to deceive the Committee. Surely he will agree that the police who visit those quarters are known as the B. Specials and are not the regular men at all.

Sir W. Allen

The hon. Member shows his ignorance about conditions in Northern Ireland. The ordinary police visit those districts regularly. During this Debate, the Government of Northern Ireland have been made little of, in some of the speeches. I should like the hon. Member for Shettleston to tell us how he would get over the difficulty of the register. There would only be a 25 per cent. toll, and there is no remedy for it at the moment.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire)

Could not the electors vote a little more often than they usually do at election time?

Sir W. Allen

I do not know what the hon. Member's experience is. It comes to this, that we have made up our minds that as long as the war continues and the Government decide that there shall be no election here, we shall act accordingly. We have done our utmost as a Government and a people for the prosecution of the war, but there are people in Ireland, and in Northern Ireland particularly, who want the defeat of England and who are doing their utmost to bring about that defeat. It is those people who are causing the whole of the trouble, and hon. Members are assisting them by making some of the speeches to-day. I hope that the Motion will be approved by a large majority, to show to Northern Ireland that they have friends here v/ho will support them in their endeavours to stick to the British Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

I think that the Committee are nearly ready to come to a decision on the Amendment. We have listened to a long Debate, a good deal of which concerned the domestic affairs of Northern Ireland. I confess I always find it more difficult to reply to a discussion on a question when no comprehensible arguments have been put forward in support of it. Although this appears to be a big day in the annals of the Independent Labour Party, and a three-line whip has evidently been issued, and the attendance of the party has no doubt been such as to earn encomiums from all quarters of the House, yet I have not heard from them any argument that appeals to any logical sense. The legislation which we propose as regards Northern Ireland is purely permissive in character. Nothing that we do to-day can ensure that there is no election in Northern Ireland for a period of 18 months. The question of holding or not holding a General Election in Northern Ireland will fall to be decided by the proper constitutional procedure, which is similar in Northern Ireland to the procedure here. So far as I can make out, the only reason adduced by the opponents of the Motion to approve Clause 2 is that they dislike the present Government of Northern Ireland. That is, in effect, what all their arguments boil down to.

Mr. McGovern

We are sympathetic.

Mr. Peake

I understand that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) sympathises with one, if not two, of the Opposition parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGovern

I sympathise with the three parties when they tell me that they want a General Election. I think they have a right to it.

Mr. Peake

The hon. Member sympathises with all the Opposition parties in Northern Ireland, and he" therefore presumably dislikes the Northern Ireland Government. Why he should imagine that, if a General Election is forced upon Northern Ireland in March next by the omission of Clause 2 from the Bill, there will be a Government in Northern Ireland which he will like better than the present one, I cannot understand. In election after election a Unionist Government has been returned in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member, in his Second Reading speech last week on the Bill, astonished me by the arguments he adduced in favour of not holding a General Election in this country and in favour of holding one in Northern Ireland. His main argument against holding a General Election here was that, in war-time, minority parties might easily be swept out of existence in the avalanche of the General Election, and why he should therefore assume that a General Election, if one were to be held in Northern Ireland, would be bound to redound to the advantage of the Opposition parties, I really cannot understand.

Mr. McGovern

At no time in my speech did I oppose the holding of a General Election in Great Britain. What I did say was that the people of this country were more behind the Government of this country than the people of Northern Ireland were behind their Government, and I said "hat because of that, if it was intended to hold an election in this country, certain preparations, which I enumerated, were essential for the holding of that election and that until those conditions could be met the holding of an election would be a farce.

Mr. Peake

The hon. Member says he did not speak against the holding of an election in this country. If he will look at the third paragraph of his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that he said: Are we to have a 'coupon election' in order that the Government may get rid of a few difficult Members in the House?" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1942; col. 842, Vol. 383.] He went on to show very good reasons why we should not have an election to get rid of the hon. Member and the other Members of the Independent Labour Party. On that point I agree that it would be a pity if some of the more picturesque Members of this House were to be swept away in the course of a war-time election. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), who has had much longer Parliamentary experience than I have, and who made an interesting speech, said that the question which we had to settle was whether it would be wise to have an election in Ulster early next year. I think even that is stating the point which the Committee has to settle rather too narrowly. What in effect we have to settle to-day is whether, having established a Parliament in Northern Ireland we should extend to that Parliament the same powers of prolonging its maximum duration as we have taken for ourselves over here already on three separate occasions. I cannot see the slightest argument in favour of our interfering with the internal affairs of Northern Ireland and saying to them, "Although we are free to decide whether an election shall take place here or not, you in Northern Ireland must have an election, whether you like it or not in March next year." Having established the Parliament of Northern Ireland I

Division No. 24.]	AYES.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)	Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)	Oldfield, W. H.
Albery, Sir Irving	Hambro, A. V.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)	Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Amery, Bt. Hon. L. C. M. S.	Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.	Palmer, G. E. H.
Ammon, C. G.	Harvey, T. E.	Peake, O.
Barnes, A. J.	Hayday, A.	Pearson, A.
Barr, J.	Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.	Petherick, Major M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.	Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Peto, Major B. A. J.
Beattie, F.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Piokthorn, K. W. M
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Poole, Captain C. C.
Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Blair, Sir R.	Hewlett, T. H.	Procter, Major H. A.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.	Hicks, E. G.	Pym, L. R.
Boulton, W. W.	Hill, Prof. A. V.	Quibell, D. J. K
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Radford, E. A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Hopkinson, A.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Burden, T. W.	Howitt, Dr. A. B.	Richards, R.
Burke, W. A.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Rickards, G. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Hurd, Sir P. A.	Ridley, G.
Cape, T.	Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)	Ritson, J.
Cary, R. A.	Isaacs, G. A.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.	Ross Taylor, W.
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Rowlands, G.
Charleton, H. C.	Jewson, P. W	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Christie, J. A.	John, W.	Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Cluse, W. S.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Salt, E. W.
Cobb, Captain E. C.	Keeling, E. H.	Savory, Professor D. L.
Colegate, W. A.	Kendall, W. D.	Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)
Collindridge, F.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Craven-Ellis, W.	Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford	Key, C. W.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Kimball, Major L.	Snadden, W. McN.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.	Kinby, B. V.	Somerset, T.
Culverwell, C. T.	Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Lakin, C. H A.	Sorensen, R. W.
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)	Leslie, J. R.	Spens, W. P.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Liddall, W. S.	Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver
Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.	Lipson, D. L.	Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Loftus, P. C.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)	Lucas, Major Sir J. M.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (Northwich)
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)	Mabane, W.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ede, J. C.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	McEntee, V. La T.	Summers, G. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	McKie, J. H.	Sutcliffe, H.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)	McKinlay, A. S.	Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Stockton)	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)	Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay	Mander, G. le M.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Fildes, Sir H,	Martin, J. H.	Thomas, I. (Kaighley)
Foot, D. M.	Mathers, G.	Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'mpton)
Foster, W.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Tinker, J. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P.	Touche, G. C.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.	Messer, F.	Viant, S. P.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Milner, Major J.	Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Gibbins, J.	Molson, A. H. E.	Walker, J.
Goldie, N. B.	Montague, F.	Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Gower, Sir R. V.	Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.	Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Waterhouse, Capt. C.
Grenfell, D. R.	Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)	Watkins, F. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Mort, D. L.	Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.	Wells, Sir S. Richard
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)	Muff, G.	Westwood, J.
Grimston, R. V.	Murray, J. D.	White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Naylor, T. E.	White, H. (Derby, N. E.)
Guy, W. H.	Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

think we are bound to extend to them the same liberty in this matter as we are taking upon ourselves.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 6.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.	Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wilkinson, Ellen	Woodburn, A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)	Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and
Windsor, W.	Woolley, W. E.	Mr. A. S. Young.
Winterlon, Rt. Hon. Earl	York, Capt. C.

NOES.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)	LLERS FOR THE NO ES.—
Maclean, N. (Govan)	Silverman, S. S.	Mr. McGovern and Mr. Stephen.
Maxton, J.	Stokes, R. R.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)

I regret to detain the House longer on this Bill. I do not think I would have attempted to do so if I had realised, as I should, how very harmonious Irish matters always are. I speak as one who among many have frequently been the subject of gibes both in this House and in the Press because we came here under a party truce. I myself came here only 1¾ years ago. I make no apologies for that and I do not think I have been altogether a rubber stamp member we have heard so much about. For many times, like the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain R. Churchill) I was borne stricken from many a blood-stained field because at one time I represented a lost cause. I ask Members to examine the records of their own elections in 1935, and many will find that they came to this House on a minority vote. In that respect, I do not believe that I could be regarded as exceptional in this Parliament, although that allegation is always made against people like myself. I think that there are several reasons why a General Election should not be held at the present time. People have constantly said that it would be impossible on the present Register. A great deal has been made of the fact that the Register is completely out of date, and that in many cases probably it does not represent 40 per cent. of the electorate. But people who have objected to an election on that Register have said that there is another way, and that an election could easily be held on a ration-card or an identity-card vote. Advocates of a General Election who have been here even a shorter time than I have, have said that this would be a simple matter. For several reasons, I do not think that that would be the case. I think they have for gotten that they would have to determine the age of the voter. Many young people between 18 and 21 might claim the vote, and a considerable amount of machinery would have to be set up to determine whether those people were 21 or not. It is said that they would only have to bring a birth certificate but this would add considerably to the difficulties.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)

The hon. Member is discussing something quite outside this Bill.

Dr. Thomas

I have given reasons why a General Election should not be held and why this Bill should pass the Third Reading.

Mr. Muff (Hull, East)

I thought you were opposing it.

Dr. Thomas

My attitude, I think, is clear. If you rule me out of Order, Mr Deputy-Speaker, I shall have to give up my speech. The Government have asked that this Bill should pass through this Parliament, and unless it does there will be a General Election. I am trying to show the difficulties there would be if there was a General Election at the present time, and, therefore, why this Bill should pass through its Third Reading stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is a very cogent argument on the Second Reading to justify the provisions of the. Bill.

Dr. Thomas

I am trying to justify its Third Reading, but I am sure the House has been detained long enough on the Bill, and I bow to your Ruling and will not proceed further with my speech.

Professor Savory

I am aware that on the Third Reading the subject of Debate is very much circumscribed, but I want to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as far as I possibly can. There are one or two points I should very much like to be allowed to make. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill on Second Reading, was very emphatic in pointing out why it has been necessary to insert a second Clause relating to Ulster, because in the Act of 1920 it is laid down that there must be a General Election in Northern Ireland every five years. Therefore, when the question is asked whether the House of Commons and Senate and Governor of Northern Ireland had any power to prolong their own existence, the answer is, "No, they are bound by the Act of 1920, and there must be a General Election every five years." We have to come to this House of Commons and ask it to pass an over-riding Bill which will suspend temporarily the Act of 1920 and enable us to postpone having a General Election in the same way as you will postpone having a General Election for your House of Commons over here. You are to have your Parliament prolonged, and we are asking that our House of Commons in Northern Ireland will be able to do the same.

It is not often that I listen to the orators in Hyde Park, but two Sundays ago I heard a very eloquent oration. A gentleman got up and said that the Parliament in Northern Ireland was unrepresentative, because it had abolished proportional representation. If they were to have proportional representation at this moment, they would immediately abolish "Partition" and join with Eire. That argument has been taken up already by various speakers. Nationalist Members of the House of Commons and Senate have sent a petition to the Cabinet.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid that the question of arguments which may be taken up by Nationalist Members and others do not come within the Third Reading of this Bill, which merely declares that the Northern Ireland Parliament shall be extended, and the hon. Member must stick to the Third Reading.

Professor Savory

Very well, I will take another opportunity of replying, but I think that the argument I am going to make now is strictly relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Speaking from my own experience, as the representative of the graduates of Northern Ireland, that is the élite of Ulster, and as Ulster forms the élite of the United Kingdom, therefore my constituents are the very élite of the whole United Kingdom. A very large proportion of these have voluntarily joined His Majesty's Forces. You refused to apply conscription to Northern Ireland in spite of the unanimous wish of Ulster Members here, and these gentlemen have volunteered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is really going quite outside the scope of the Bill. He must not continue his speech on these lines.

Professor Savory

My point is that these graduates, having joined up, would not be able to take part in an election, and therefore, you have these men in the Middle and Far East, and many of them have shed their "blood for their country.

Dr. Thomas

On a point of Order. The hon. Member is now partly making my speech. May I therefore be allowed to go on with mine?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am doing my best to keep the hon. Member within bounds.

Professor Savory

The bounds are these.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

Is it not for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to decide what the bounds are?

Professor Savory

Were you to propose a General Election at the present moment, obviously it would give a false representation of the opinion of Northern Ireland. I am speaking of my own experience and of my own constituents who enlisted in their thousands. It is true that there has not been for many years a contested election in the university for representation at Westminster, but these graduates also have a vote for their county or the City of Belfast or wherever they happen to reside, and they would be prevented from exercising their franchise. Therefore—and I think I am within the bounds of the Third Reading—it is absolutely essential in the interests of fair play that these electors should record their votes and that you should not hold a General Election at the present time, but when they come back, have your election and let these noble electors, the very cream of the country, vote and elect their representatives to this House of Commons as well as to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Muff (Hull, East)

I rise to pronounce the benediction. It has been worth while to have this discussion if only to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory). It shows that there is some value at any rate in university representation, though I have never believed very much in that before. I hope that the Debate will continue on a note of conciliation, because the vast majority of the Members of this House realise that it would be suicidal to have an election. What we have really decided is to give the right to Ulster to say whether it wants an election, and that is self-determination in its broadest aspect. I will not detain the House for another minute, except to say that I wish that these people could compose their differences in the same decent way that we people in Yorkshire do ours.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.