Lords Sitting of 1 April 1914

BARONY OF ST. JOHN.
Committee for Privileges met: The Attorney-General further heard on behalf of the Crown: Counsel heard in reply on behalf of the Claimant: Committee adjourned sine die.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:

Galway (Barna) Railways and Harbour.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

WALSALL CORPORATION.
(Petition for additional Provision.)
MIDDLESBOROUGH CORPORATION
(Petition for additional Provision.)
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS.
(Petition for additional Provision.)
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION.
    BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    (Petition for additional Provision.)

    SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
    (Petition for Bill.)
    Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday the 27 th instant.

LEIGHTON BUZZARD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ASHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WHITWELL AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  SKEGNESS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
KIDSGROVE GAS BILL.
  LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
Provisional Regulations as to Appeals and Disputes (Wales): Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 48.)
COAL MINES (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to restrict work in Coal Mines to certain hours of the day—Was presented by the Lord Willoughby de Broke; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 49.)

THE COERCION OF ULSTER.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question of which I have given him private notice with regard to the report which appears in Hansard of remarks which he made to your Lordships on Monday week, March 23. Much importance and interest attaches to certain words which fell from the noble and learned Viscount as regards the intentions of the Government with respect to Ulster. The words used by the Lord Chancellor, as reported in The Times, are as follows—
"No orders were issued, no orders are likely to be issued, and no orders will be issued for the coercion of Ulster."
The words as now officially published in Hansard run—
"No orders were issued, no orders are likely to be issued, and no orders will be issued for the immediate coercion of Ulster."
The Hansard report is "starred," which I believe is the proper method of showing that the speaker has himself revised the words which are there inserted. But this seems to me so extraordinary and exceptional a change of the whole meaning of the phrase, which attracted great attention at the time, and which, so far as all those members of the House whom I have been able to consult remember, was delivered precisely as The Times reports it, that I venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether the words were not uttered as reported in The Times, and whether the change in Hansard was made by his authority.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): Yes, my Lords. The speech was revised by me and corrected by the insertion of the word "immediate." The reason for that was that it was necessary to insert the word so that the sentence should read with the context. If the noble Viscount had quoted the context in which the sentence occurs as well as the words themselves, it would have been perfectly plain that it referred to immediate coercion of Ulster. What has happened, as happens sometimes in the newspapers and elsewhere, is that a sentence has been taken and wrenched from its context, which in this case would have made it abundantly plain that it was in reference to the immediate situation I was speaking; and the sentence has been given a wholly different meaning. I deliberately inserted the word "immediate," not for the purpose of giving a different sense, but for giving the sense in which I had used the sentence. I will read to the House the context, but I will first of all read the words as I spoke them—
"No orders were issued, no orders are likely to be issued, and no orders will be issued for the coercion of Ulster."
But I also said—
"There is not a word of truth in the suggestion that last week or at any time the Government issued orders for the coercion of Ulster. What has happened is pretty plain. There have been going on in Ulster things—I do not wish to allude further to them—which in themselves constitute a menace to law and order. If the business of government cannot be carried on in Ulster, then it becomes the duty of those who are responsible for law and order to see that it can be carried on, and for that purpose they are not only at liberty, but they are bound, to take such precautions as are proper…. So far as public opinion is concerned, it will be left there to make itself manifest; but if there is anything which amounts to a menace against the cause of law and order, that must be dealt with…. No steps have been taken for an active campaign in Ulster against anybody. Everything that has been done has been in the nature of preventive measures."
I think it is clear from the context that the sentence which I used was with reference to the immediate situation, and I inserted the word "immediate" on purpose to prevent the sentence being used, as it has been used mercilessly in the last few days, wrenched from its context and given quite a different sense, which cannot now be given as the word "immediate" is in.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that the fact of this passage in his speech having been, as he said a moment ago, constantly quoted during the course of this debate might have led him to the conclusion that if it required correction or qualification it should be qualified or corrected by a statement made by himself in his place in this House. It is by a mere accident that we became aware that this very important change in the text had been made in the corrected version which appears in Hansard. As to the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has offered—namely, that the addition of the word "immediate" was necessary in order to make this particular passage agree with the context of his speech—I am not quite sure that that is how an ordinary reader would regard the matter. It is no doubt the case that in the earlier portion of his statement the noble and learned Viscount said emphatically that there was not a word of truth in the suggestion that last week or at any time the Government had issued orders for the coercion of Ulster, and that he then went on to say that it might become the duty of the Government to take precautions in the event of its becoming impossible to carry on the business of government in that province. But so far as the coercion of Ulster is concerned, we certainly took the noble and learned Viscount's meaning to be that as a matter of fact no such orders had been issued in the past, that no such orders were being issued at the moment, and most important of all—that no such orders, that is, orders for the coercion of Ulster for political purposes, were in contemplation for the future. We took that as being an unqualified and unreserved declaration made by the noble and learned Viscount on behalf of himself and his colleagues, and I must say it comes to us as rather a rude shock to find that the whole gist of his meaning should have been altered by the amendment which he has inserted in the authorised version.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess permit me to repeat the sentence immediately before the words that have been quoted. I said—
"There is not a word of truth in the suggestion that last week or at any time the Government issued orders for the coercion of Ulster. What has happened is pretty plain. There have been going on in Ulster things—I do not wish to allude further to them—which in themselves constitute a menace to law and order. If the business of government cannot be carried on in Ulster, then

877
it becomes the duty of those who are responsible for law and order to see that it can be carried on, and for that purpose they are not only at liberty, but they are bound, to take such precautions as are proper."
If that had been quoted with the sentence as it stood originally there would have been no ambiguity about its meaning. It is because the sentence has been ruthlessly taken from that context that I put in the word as necessary to show what the meaning is.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am very glad to have elicited the admission from the Lord Chancellor that the wording has been altered. I am afraid that the public will not hold, as the noble and learned Viscount does, that the word was necessary to make good the sense of the rest of the phrase. I must say it is really unfortunate, and this incident would seem to show that in speech, as it has also been in writing, His Majesty's Government seem neither individually nor collectively able to express exactly what they mean with regard to this matter.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise, in pursuance of notice, to present a Bill to secure the better training of midwives in Scotland and to regulate their practice. In doing so, I propose to make a short explanation of the circumstances which have led to my introducing this Bill and of the contents of the Bill, which I shall ask your Lordships to read a first time. Your Lordships are all aware that some years ago an Act for a similar purpose was passed for England. As a matter of fact, I was in charge of that Bill in this House, and I became aware that opinion was not sufficiently ripe in Scotland to make it expedient at that time to extend similar proposals to the country north of the Tweed. I need not go into the reasons for it. There are certain differences of practice, and opinion was not in favour of the change at that time. As a result of further discussion, partly, I think, owing to the experience of the working of the Act south of the Tweed, opinion has largely changed, and I believe I am not going too far when I say that in Scotland opinion is now practically unanimous that it is necessary
878
to have a measure of this kind and also to a large extent unanimous as to the lines upon which it should be drawn.
There have been more than one attempt to legislate in this direction during the last year or two for Scotland, and I have to a large extent taken as the foundation of the Bill which I am presenting to-night to your Lordships a measure which was introduced into the House of Commons both in the year 1912 and last year. But I have made some changes. I have been in consultation with the Privy Council Office and with the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, taking that Bill as a foundation, and almost all the changes which have been made from the Bill to which I have referred have been made to meet the views expressed either by the Scottish Office or the Privy Council. I am far from saying that I am entitled to speak for either of those Offices, but in a matter of this kind, which naturally ought to be presented to Parliament in as little controversial a form as possible, I am sure your Lordships will think it expedient that one should ask for advice from Government Offices of that kind before introducing a Bill.
The main objects of this Bill are to provide that after the year 1916 no woman not certified as competent shall take or use the title of midwife, and that after a further limit of years—namely, after 1921—further limitations are put upon the attendance at child-birth of those who are not so certificated. But all this is subject to reasonable provision to protect the interests of those who are now practising in that way. The Bill further provides for the constitution of a Central Board for Scotland to carry out the Act under the Privy Council, and it sets forth at some length the powers and duties of the Board. All these, as I have said, are largely modelled on the English Act, but with alterations which are necessary to make them suitable to the circumstances as they exist in Scotland. There are provisions in the Bill for discipline, for expenses, and for dealing with offences, all of them much in the same phraseology as in the English Act, but modified to some extent by the experience which we have gained in the operation of the English Act during the last five or six years. The local authority for carrying into effect the provisions of this Bill and for the local supervision of those who are certified will be the local authority of every district—

879
that is, the county and town councils, with their district committees when the counties are divided into districts—and it is distinctly provided that the term "local authority" shall have the same meanings as in the Public Health Act 1897, the reason for that being that we are anxious in this matter to avoid the prejudice which is created, both in the minds of the medical profession and in those of the midwives, if they are to be to any extent put under the Poor Law.
In addition to the Government Offices which I have mentioned, I have been in communication with the Committee of the British Medical Association for Scotland, and have accepted one or two suggestions which that body has put forward. I am able to say that the Local Government Board for Scotland are in favour of legislation on the lines of this Bill. The Medical Service Committee for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have passed a resolution strongly advocating a Bill of this kind. The medical officers of health of all the large towns that I know of who have taken it up at all, certainly those of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leith, and other places, have passed resolutions in its favour. The Scottish Maternity Hospital for the four great centres of medical education—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee—are also in favour of it. And at an important nursing conference held at Glasgow last month the following resolution was unanimously passed—
"That this meeting of nurses and others interested in nursing and the welfare of mothers and infants unanimously and earnestly urge upon the Secretary for Scotland the great need for an Act for the protection of women in child-birth and for the training and supervision of women practising as midwives in Scotland."
One of the matters which have ripened opinion in Scotland in favour of this Bill has been certain provisions in the National Insurance Act. I believe the National Insurance Commissioners are also in favour of legislation, and that legislation of the kind is absolutely necessary in the interests of the poorest women in the community, who are most helpless and most in need of assistance at this time. I have thought it right to make these remarks. I now present the Bill and ask your Lordships to read it a first time, and I shall as a matter of course allow a long interval to take place, far on into next month at any rate if your Lordships give it a First Reading, before I ask the House to proceed with its further stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, it is only necessary for me to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they welcome the action which has been taken by the noble Lord opposite. Although we have not yet been able to scan its details with care, we understand that the Bill is designed upon the lines of a similar measure for this country which has proved of inestimable value to some of the poorest women in our population. I cannot doubt that there is need for legislation of this kind in Scotland. That being the case, reserving our liberty of action with regard to details, we naturally welcome this Bill; and if the noble Lord is successful in carrying it into law, I am sure I may say there are many poor women in Scotland who, though they may never know the name of their benefactor, will have reason to thank the noble Lord for his public-spirited action.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 50.)

THE IRISH LAND ACTS.
THE EARL OF MAYOrose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. What area of land the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) have in their own hands, undivided, at present, and how is the same being used.

2. Up to what date have the Report and Accounts of the Congested Districts Board been published.

3. Why, when holdings subject to purchase annuities are sold by public auction, it appears that they are not purchased, or bid for by the Estates Commissioners for the enlargement of holdings, &c. in the neighbourhood.

4. Why is this the case if additional land is required for such purpose.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as to my first Question, there is no doubt that the Congested Districts Board have acquired a certain amount of land and have done some good in the way of

881
relieving congestion. But what I complain of is this, that instead of the land which they have acquired for the purposes of enlarging holdings and therefore relieving congestion being given to the people to relieve congestion, in a great many cases it is let, after its acquisition by the Congested Districts Board, for grazing purposes, notwithstanding that much capital is made of the fact that the Board want all the grazing land they can acquire. When they let this land for grazing they perpetuate the very system to which they are supposed to put a stop. I am told that there are in the neighbourhood of Loughrea and Athenry very large tracts of land so let for grazing and for meadowing. Surely that is not the right way for the Congested Districts Board to carry on their business. Once they have got sufficient land they should not compulsorily acquire more and then let it in this way. There is no doubt that large quantities of land are used in that way.
As to my second Question, I am told that the Congested Districts Board are likely to publish their Report and Accounts for 1912 very shortly, but then they will be eighteen months in arrear. I cannot make out what the object of this Department is in not publishing their Report and Accounts in time. Is it to cover up this system of letting land for grazing and meadowing? I cannot see any other object in it. It must be remembered that the Congested Districts Board have a very large sum of money per annum voted to them by Parliament to deal with this question of congestion, and surely the people who pay the taxes have a right to see the accounts of this Department at as early a date as those of other Departments are presented to the public.
The other two Questions standing in my name I was asked to put down on behalf of a noble friend of mine. But it appears that hidden away in the Act of 1903 there is a direct law against the Estates Commissioners purchasing holdings which are paying what is called a State rent. That section is, as I have said, hidden away in the Act, and many of us were not aware of it. Certainly the noble Lord who asked me to put down this Question was not aware of it. I therefore ask the Question so that it may be stated publicly once and for all that this law exists.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl's first Question, I am informed by the Irish authorities that the Congested Districts Board had in their hands on November 30 last year 97,000 acres of untenanted grazing land, and about 155,000 acres of rough land, turbary, mountain land, some cut-away bog, and also, I believe, a certain amount of plantation land. The Board are in possession of this land, but a considerable portion of it had not been vested in them at the date named. Then as to the use to the land, the Board say that they use their untenanted land as far as they can in providing grazing at so much a head for the live stock of small farmers in the neighbourhood. Where they cannot get enough stock for that purpose they issue advertisements inviting tenders for agistment—that is to say, that people should take land and let it out in the same way at so much a head, a practice which in some parts of England is termed joistment and in the North of England is spoken of as stinting. The Board issue tenders for letting land in that way in division of fields. If the Board cannot do this, in the last resort they buy some stock themselves in order that the land may not remain unused and earn no profit at all. But this last practice they only adopt if they find it impossible to dispose of it in any other way. I understand that the noble Earl's complaint is that this land should be used for grazing at all and not immediately divided up into agricultural holdings. But surely it must take a considerable time and also a large expenditure of capital to perform that operation, which is no doubt in the long run what the Board have in view. In the meanwhile, having made these purchases, it seems only practical and sensible that for the time being they should endeavour to put this land to some profitable use.
Then I come to the noble Earl's second Question. The Board have published their Report and Accounts up to March 31, 1912, and those are at the disposition of the noble Earl or of anybody else. The Report and Accounts up to March 31, 1913, have now been presented to Parliament and will be very shortly issued to the public. Therefore at that time the delay will not be eighteen months, as the

883
noble Earl stated. The Report of the Board up to exactly a year ago will shortly be in the hands of the public, and I think if the noble Earl considers he will see that that is not a longer delay than usually takes place in the publication of complicated public Reports of this kind. Now I pass to the other Questions. The noble Earl has stated quite accurately that there is a section in the Act of 1891 which prohibits—
THE EARL OF MAYO: I thought it was the 1903 Act.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There is a section in the 1903 Act, but the Act of 1891 is also concerned. Section 9, subsection (4), of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, runs thus—
"An advance shall not be made under the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, for the purchase of any holding for the purchase of which advances have been made under the Land Purchase Acts, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and whether under this Act or otherwise, until the entire annuity for the repayment of such advances has been paid or redeemed."
That, by the hypothesis, has not been the case in the instance of this land which is put up for sale owing to default, and therefore by that section alone it is not possible for the Land Commission to advance money for the purchase of any of this land. But it is also true that Section 6 of the Act of 1903, which was what the noble Earl had in his mind, lays down certain rules and conditions under which alone the purchase can be made, and those provisions obviously cannot be complied with in the case of an auction. Therefore again it becomes impossible for the Commissioners to buy land in that way.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Except when the whole annuity is paid off.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Even then the Act of 1903 lays down certain rules and conditions—for instance, that the landlord has to come forward and make an agreement with his tenants. Those conditions are not complied with in the case of a sale by auction, and therefore even if the annuity had been paid off, which ex hypothesi is not the case, it would not be possible for the Land Commission to come in and buy
884
the land. There is another difficulty on the merits of the case apart from the legal disabilities. These holdings which come up by default of the payment of the annuity are very few in number, a fact at which we shall all rejoice, and they are also as a rule exceedingly small and would not as a matter of fact be suitable for purchase by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of enlarging other holdings, For instance, during the last financial year—the one which ended in March, 1913–31 holdings subject to purchase annuities were put up by the Land Commission, and the average purchase annuity in the case of these was only £13. As a matter of fact, there are practically no cases of default in the case of substantial holdings of the kind which would be useful for the purpose of cutting up and adding to existing holdings. Therefore even if the legal disabilities were removed by further provision by Act of Parliament, it is questionable whether cases would arise in which it would be to the public interest for the Land Commission to buy these holdings for the purpose of adding them to others. I think that answers the noble Earl's Questions so far as I am able to do so.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I understand that in the 1903 Act there is a provision—I am speaking now of holdings put up to public auction not through default but because the man wants to give up farming or to go away—that when the whole of the annuities have been paid off to the State, then the Land Commission can buy.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I doubt whether that is the case. I should be sorry to express a definite opinion in the absence of expert advice on this point, but my impression is that it would not be within their legal rights.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Whether or not it is the case that the Land Commission have this power, I would point out that where holdings in respect of which the annuities have been paid off are put up for sale they fetch a price wholly out of proportion to the money advanced upon them. They sell for something between thirty and fifty years purchase, and it would be wholly impossible for the State to buy them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend has elicited some exceedingly valuable information. We all of us realise that the Congested Districts Board cannot be expected to divide up all at once these large areas of which they have obtained possession, and naturally they must in the meantime do the best they can to turn them to profitable use. But we now learn that the Board at this moment are holding something over a quarter of a million acres altogether of one sort of land or another. This they apparently let to adjoining farmers, and as to that portion which they are unable so to dispose of they do the best they can in the way of temporary letting for grazing purposes. All I have to say about that is that most of us, I think, will look with a certain amount of suspicion upon these very large farming operations carried on by a Public Department, and that I think justifies my noble friend's curiosity as to the production of these accounts. I confess that it will interest me extremely to see whether the Board have been able to administer this great area in a way thoroughly satisfactory from a public point of view.
THE MARQUESS OF CEBWE: I think I ought to explain, when the noble Marquess refers to a quarter of a million of acres, that the land which he meant to mention is the 97,000 acres of untenanted land. The 155,000 acres of rough land, turbary, and so on, hardly conies within the scope of the argument which the noble Marquess used.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Mountain grazing, as the noble Marquess knows, is a very valuable asset in the eyes of Irish farmers.

PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is entitled "an Act to extend the operation of the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1898." Its object really is to enlarge the powers of boards of guardians with regard to the boarding out of children. The Bill is intended to remedy a defect so
  886
  far as Ireland is concerned in the statutory enactments which enable boards of guardians to board out certain children over whom they have assumed parental control. At present boards of guardians in Ireland can adopt some children but they can only board out certain classes of those adopted children. This Bill enables them to board out any child whom they have power to adopt, if they think fit to do so. The boarding out of children in Ireland has had a most excellent effect. The country people who take the children into their cottages act as foster parents, and the children are removed from the taint of the workhouse. There is nothing so bad for a child as to be brought up in a workhouse. It there leads a sort of mangy existence, with no amusements and no knowledge of family life. It does not even know how to go out to buy things at a shop, and as a rule children brought up in workhouses become tramps and often worse than tramps, and come back to the workhouse. We have found in Ireland that where boards of guardians have been able to board out children the results have been most beneficial. Committees of ladies in the various counties look after the children and visit them occasionally to see that they are kept clean and are properly fed. The adoption of children is optional for boards of guardians, and boarding out is also optional. This little Bill, which consists of only two clauses, fills up a gap in Section 1 of the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1902. I have been to the Irish Office, and I believe that the Irish Government are quite willing to allow the Bill to go through. It is not very much to ask, but we want more powers for boards of guardians so as to give them every chance of boarding out these children. I hope your Lordships will grant the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, before the noble Marquess the Leader of the House speaks on behalf of His Majesty's Government I should like to say a word in support of this Bill. Having been out of town I have not had my attention called to the Bill until this morning, and my information on the subject, I am afraid, is not as thoroughly up to date as the noble Earl's. I have not had the opportunity of consulting friends in Ireland

  887
  who are familiar with the subject. But I think there can be little question about the use that this Bill would serve. As I understand the matter, it is really in hte nature of a dropped stitch. The first Act, the Act of 1889, was fundamentally amended and largely extended in the year 1898, and it was subsequent to that that what I may call the Boarding-out Act was passed, in the year 1899. The Boarding-out Act did not extend the class to which it applied as far as the amending Act of the previous year. It went on the original Act of 1889, and I think it must have been in the nature of an oversight that this class of children, who I think all Poor Law authorities in Ireland agree are eligible for boarding out—namely, the children of vicious parents and other parents who are really not fit guardians of their children—were omitted. Guardians have power to adopt them, but have no power to board them out; they can only keep them in the workhouse. I hope your Lordships will agree that that is an undesirable state of things, and will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I certainly join in the hope which has been expressed by the noble Earl opposite and by my noble friend on the Cross Benches that your Lordships will read this Bill a second time. As has been explained, it fills a gap which ought to be filled in the provisions for what are known as State children in Ireland. Boards of guardians have power to adopt children in many different circumstances. They can adopt orphans and deserted children, and they can also adopt children of vicious or inebriate or mentally deficient parents; but it is only in the case of orphan and deserted children that they can board out. I entirely concur in what fell from the noble Earl as to the advantage of the boarding-out system. It is one of the three or four methods which those who have given the closest attention to the care, not merely of Poor Law children, but of poor children generally, have agreed can be adopted with benefit to the child. It also has, as the noble Earl pointed out, often a most admirable and humanising effect on those who adopt the children. Relations are instituted between the child and the foster parent which sometimes last agreeably all through life, and therefore the system is one which ought to be encouraged as far as possible. It is encouraged by
  888
  many boards of guardians in this country, and it was also one of the methods which were favoured by Dr. Barnardo and is carried on in the great institutions which bear the name of that eminent man. The scope of the measure, as the noble Earl has admitted, is not in itself a very wide one. The number of children who would be brought under the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act is probably numerically not very large, but so far as it goes it is a substantial and useful reform and His Majesty's Government are glad to do what they can to encourage it.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE GOVERNMENT AND ULSTER.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHrose to call attention to the following language used by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on Monday, namely—
"They thought it right and necessary to let the Ulster Volunteers know that it was the fixed intention of Ministers to use the Forces of the Crown, if necessary, to prevent the usurpation of law by force";
and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared, in the event of the Home Rule Bill becoming law through the operation of the Parliament Act and without an appeal to the country, to use the Forces of the Crown to crush any resistance to its operation in Ulster.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, since I put this Question on the Paper last night I must confess that certain facts have appeared to-day which have somewhat modified my position. When I put this Question down last night I had in mind what I considered to be the very definite and reassuring language used by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in regard to Ulster, and I was anxious to call the attention of the House to the variety of voices, if I may so put it, in which different Ministers of the Crown have alluded to this question of Ulster. I noticed to-day what my noble friend Lord Midleton made the subject of a question earlier in the proceedings this afternoon. I noticed that the Lord Chancellor had re-edited a most important statement in his speech in the Official Report. We all admire and envy the mellifluous eloquence of the noble and learned Viscount, but conciseness and directness of statement are

889
not, perhaps, the distinguishing features of his oratory. But on this particular occasion and with regard to this particular sentence the words seemed to be perfectly clear, definite, and unqualified. What did the noble and learned Viscount say in my hearing and apparently in the hearing of the Press? Speaking in this House during a debate when our feelings were very much roused and when both in Parliament and in the country recent events had caused the deepest anxiety, the Lord Chancellor said—
"No orders were issued, no orders are likely to be issued, and no orders will be issued for the coercion of Ulster."
As my noble friend Lord Milner, speaking from the Cross-Benches, said, we were all in a state of great anxiety and tension. We were not desirous, as he said, of making Party capital or introducing violent Party elements into the discussion, but we did want to have our mind relieved on what we feared we were drifting towards—the nightmare of Civil War. At such a time it was doubly important that we should have had from the Woolsack a statement such as I have read. But those words used by the Lord Chancellor have been re-edited by him, and we read them in Hansard now in this way—
"No orders were issued, no orders are likely to be issued, and no orders will be issued for the immediate coercion of Ulster."
it seems to me that the insertion of the word "immediate," which no noble Lord heard uttered in the House, must really give to us and to the public the impression that in speaking of no immediate coercion of Ulster you mean that there will follow some subsequent coercion of Ulster. That seems to me to be the inevitable effect upon the public mind.
It may be said that Governments cannot answer hypothetical questions, but we are confronted by stern facts and realities. What is governing the situation is that we are confronted in Ulster by a grim, determined, resolute opposition, not only a political opposition, but an opposition supported, maintained, and affirmed by, we are told, a by no means despicable army of 100,000 men. It is all very well to describe that army as a rebel army, but surely a serious and heavy responsibility must fall upon the shoulders of the Government if they choose to treat it as such while not having had the moral courage to prevent such an army being
890
created. But apart from all that, we have to face the situation, and I had hoped, in conjunction I venture to say with many other people, that the evils of the crisis had for the time passed away, and that at least some basis might be formed upon which suggestions might take place which, if they did not lead to an ultimate settlement, might lead at any rate to some amelioration of the tension of feeling and anxiety. But after what has passed to-day we are confronted by exactly the same position, if I may put it so, that the officers must have felt when those two paragraphs were struck out of the document in the White Paper. Those definite words of the Lord Chancellor did have a very reassuring and soothing effect in the course of debate, and I regret very much that the noble and learned Viscount, as those words were constantly referred to, did not get up in this House and make the revision then. But the words were allowed to stand until after the debate had taken place, and now, after the debate, we find ourselves placed in exactly the same position of anxiety and difficulty as the officers must have felt and as I am sure the country will feel to-morrow when it knows exactly what has taken place.
I did not rise to embarrass the Government or to make any acrimonious remarks, but I would venture to submit to His Majesty's Government that these sort of proceedings go a very long way to destroy any feeling of confidence or any idea of settlement, as suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn. On the other hand, it seems to me that if there is a repetition of this sort of re-editing of language used it will be impossible for any party to know exactly how they stand. It seems to me as though we are being trifled with, and I can assure your Lordships that I only rose, as I had hoped, to obtain from the Government some assurance that the language used by the Attorney-General was not language which implied the coercion of Ulster, as we had been so definitely given to understand in this House by the Lord Chancellor that no orders would be issued for the coercion of Ulster. As it is, I put my Question; but I do so fearing that I shall get not only an unsatisfactory answer, but such an answer as will cause the profoundest anxiety and distrust in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite devoted the bulk of his observations to the speech delivered by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack which has already formed a topic of conversation this afternoon, and my noble and learned friend, as he was well able to do, has stated clearly the reasons which actuated him in making the correction which has appeared in Hansard. I confess that I have never yet seen any precise explanation of what is meant by "the coercion of Ulster." It is a phrase to which, I conceive, a number of different meanings can be attached. The noble Earl, however, whatever he understands by the coercion of Ulster, takes my noble and learned friend, by his statement that no immediate coercion of Ulster is proposed, to imply thereby that subsequent! coercion of Ulster is proposed. The noble Earl is a distinguished ornament of Oxford University, at which logic is, as we all know, one of the principal studies. But he would find it difficult to construct a syllogism on the basis which I have just stated—namely, that because my noble and learned friend says that there is no immediate intention of coercing Ulster, thereby he is threatening subsequent action in that direction. My noble and learned friend—I did not myself hear his speech—was undoubtedly thinking of the scare of which I spoke yesterday, of a great and immediate strategical movement, involving both the Army and the Navy, for the complete military occupation of Ulster, and I have no doubt that he intended to convey, as we have endeavoured to convey all along, that any supposition of the kind was purely baseless.
I made a general statement on this subject last night. Through no fault of my own I am afraid it was made at an hour when most of your Lordships were dining. I have no desire to repeat any part of that speech this afternoon. My right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary also made a statement germane to this subject in another place yesterday. It is, of course, the fact that a speech made in one House cannot be taken as addressed to the other, but on the other hand I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have read that speech and have appreciated the position of His Majesty's Government in respect of this matter which was described with absolute accuracy by my right hon. friend.
892
We hope that this Irish Bill will be passed in a form in which, if not agreed, it may, at any rate, meet with general acceptance. Assuming, if you will, for the purposes of the argument, that, from the point of view of the Opposition, the worst happens, and the Bill is forced through under the Parliament Act in the form in which it now stands. When that operation has taken place, if it should take place, Ulster, like the rest of Ireland, will still be governed directly by the Imperial Parliament, although the Government of Ireland Bill is passed. In the course of the observations that I made yesterday I did not ask any questions because I could not expect noble Lords opposite to reply to them, but I alluded to the statements that had been made about setting up what is termed a Provisional Government in Ulster. Assuming that such a Provisional Government is set up, and set up, as we have been led to believe, for the whole Province of Ulster, various results may follow. The decrees of such a Government, in the first place, might not be accepted by the Roman Catholic and Nationalist population of Ulster, comprising, I think I am right in saying, not far from 44 per cent. of the population of the Province. The decrees of that Government might be defied, and serious rioting might ensue, possibly of a very violent character, which might be held to demand the intervention of the Imperial Government, who would still be responsible for law and order in Ireland.
The noble Earl's memory no doubt goes back to 1886, when the Government of Ireland Bill of that year failed to become law. The Bill was defeated, the prospects of the Nationalist Party in Ireland were as gloomy as possible, and the situation therefore was altogether a different one from that which would exist if this Bill was passed. There was no provocation of the Protestants or Unionists of Ulster, but in spite of that fact, from the month of May to the month of October continual rioting went on in Belfast and also in some other parts of the country. A great many lives were lost, 25 or 30 lives were known to have been lost, and it is believed that a certain number of deaths were concealed. Many hundreds of people were severely injured, and it is therefore impossible to deny the possibility, assuming, as I am, that this Provisional Government has been set up in Ulster and its decrees

893
are defied by the Nationalist minority, that serious violence might ensue, calling for the intervention of the Imperial Government.
Quite apart from that, to develop what I stated yesterday, assuming this Provisional Government to undertake the entire administration and government of the country against His Majesty's Government, it would presumably seize by force the various Government buildings, the Police barracks, and perhaps the military barracks, and other public institutions. That action would be bound to be resisted, and those in charge of these institutions would defend them at the risk of, and possibly with the loss of, their lives. It is therefore impossible, speaking now, and the whole situation being hypothetical, to estimate what degree of restraint, or, if you prefer the word, coercion, it might be necessary to apply in such circumstances as those. And, as I reminded the House yesterday, all this, by the hypothesis, would take place without anything having happened in Ulster in the sense of change of government or administration there. There would be no Irish Parliament, and no Irish attempt to enforce Irish decrees. It would be the Imperial Parliament just as it is now, whose decrees are defied and which would take the responsibility for enforcing them. Therefore I ask the noble Earl whether he expects me now to make a statement that in such circumstances as those the Government would remain entirely passive; that it would adopt an attitude of complete non-resistance to an uprising of that kind; and, in fact, that it would retire altogether from the country and leave it in the hands of those who had forcibly taken it. If resistance to such action as I have described, and described as I hope in a manner which can provoke nobody, is called coercion then it cannot be denied that coercion may become necessary, and that it may be applied; and I cannot believe that, in the particular circumstances that I have described, the people of this country would resent in any degree such application of force, or consider that any unfair use was being made of the Forces of the Crown.
But, as my right hon. friend pointed out yesterday in another place, the possibilities which I have been describing are
894
of a purely hypothetical character, because, before anything which can be Irish coercion of Ulster is to take place—that is to say, any coercion applied to Ireland in respect of the Government of Ireland Act, as it would then be—a General Election must have taken place before Ulster can come under an Irish Government. No irreversible steps can have been taken by that time, and it would be open, supposing the people of the country desired to make an alteration affecting Ulster, or, indeed, affecting any portion of the Government of Ireland Act, it would be open for any Government which is returned to power so to make it. Therefore the question which the noble Earl has put does not, in fact, suggest the dilemma which he appears to assume that it suggests.
The answer to the noble Earl's Question is that nothing will have happened in Ulster; the Act will not be in operation, and therefore if the Forces of the Crown had in any hypothesis to be used they would be used, not in respect of the operation of the Act, but in respect of an uprising of a certain proportion of the inhabitants of Ulster because of what they feared might happen after a General Election had taken place. The noble Earl also mentioned, and I am glad that he did, the possibility, or the prospect as I should prefer to say, of a settlement being reached which would place all these contingencies still further away in the region of hypothesis. I do not think there will be any gain in my attempting now to enter into those particular questions. The facts are familiar to the House. But I desire to express once more the hope which I expressed last night that it will not be found impossible to come to terms on the lines suggested in the speech of the Prime Minister; and therefore all these alarming possibilities of which the noble Earl has spoken may prove to be ill-founded, and will never come into being. But I must respectfully protest against the implication which the noble Earl made that the simple correction which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack made in the terms of his speech introduces any alteration whatever in the situation or in the intentions of His Majesty's Government, and I hope what I have just said makes that altogether clear.

THE EASTER ADJODRNMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I see that there is no business on the Paper after to-morrow until, I think, April 20, but I have been informed—I have no doubt the noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong—that the business which has been placed on the Paper by him and by Lord. Selborne for the 20th could conveniently be transferred to the 21st.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, no. There is an important Question standing in my name for April 21, which I should be very sorry to have displaced.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Then perhaps the business down for the 20th could be taken on the 22nd. I am, of course, entirely in the hands of noble Lords opposite on this particular point. It is absolutely indifferent to me whether we reassemble on the 20th or the 21st.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: May I suggest that the two Notices which now stand for the 20th should be put
896
down for the 22nd, and then the Motion of my noble friend Lord Salisbury which stands for the 21st will keep its place.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am quite agreeable to that. I understand that the noble Marquess's Motion for the 21st, calling attention to agricultural wages, is to stand for that day?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Thank you.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is proposed that the Motion in the name of Lord Selborne and another Motion in the name of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury), for April 20, should be transferred to Wednesday, April 22. Therefore when I move the adjournment at the conclusion of business to-morrow I shall move to adjourn until April 21, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.
House adjourned at, ten minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.