HL Deb 15 September 1914 vol 17 cc633-60

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)

My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, the noble Marquess has not thought it necessary to preface the moving of the Second Reading of this Bill by any explanation of the extraordinary course which the Government are taking. I do not know whether, after the brief discussion which took place last night, His Majesty's Government consider that they have made sufficient case for going on with this Bill, but I hope your Lordships will pardon me if, on behalf of those sitting on this side of the House, I advance some reasons why we should not in any circumstances proceed with the Bill at this moment. What is the position? There is absolutely no precedent in the whole of the past history of Parliament for the position in which this Bill stands. We had in May last the confession by the Prime Minister that this Bill could not stand alone but must have attached to it an Amending Bill. That Amending Bill was introduced by the Government in this House, was carefully considered by your Lordships, and went down to the other House containing not only the proposals of the Government or the alternative proposals which were pressed upon the Government by this side, but a number of other proposals which were accepted by the Government and admitted to constitute a real amendment of the Bill as they had introduced it.

The original promise of the Prime Minister is still before us. On May 12 Mr. Asquith said— Our object is that if, as we hope and believe, that Amending Bill, possibly not in the shape in which it is originally introduced, by the result of concerted and co-operative action by persons in all quarters of the House who desire a settlement of this matter, if that Amending Bill can be brought into shape so as to pass this House, the two Bills shall become law practically at the same time. That Amending Bill has never yet been considered by the House of Commons. Your Lordships' Amendments, even those which were accepted as an advantage to the Bill by noble Lords opposite, have never yet gone through even the farce of consideration by the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister's pledge, that the two Bills should be presented to His Majesty at the same time remains a dead letter—I do not wish to put it higher. If we are to be told that the Prime Minister's expectation that there would be an Amending Bill arrived at by agreement has been disappointed, then I refer your Lordships to what fell from the noble Marquess last night. Lord Crewe told us with regard to the Amending Bill— It is clear that that Amending Bill would have been passed into law in some form, representing some compromise— it is not easy to say what. The passing into law of the Amending Bill with some compromise having been prevented by incidents which have supervened, we are asked, in the face of the Prime Minister's pledge, to go back and pass the Home Rule Bill without the Amending Bill to which the Government are pledged. In regard to that we have also to allude to a second pledge which has been violated.

The Prime Minister put off the Amending Bill in the House of Commons six weeks ago on the definite ground that it could not be pursued as a subject of controversy in the present crisis. Why is the most controversial measure ever introduced into Parliament—a Bill which was to have been amended and which the noble Marquess says could have been amended—why is that Bill being pressed upon us at a moment of great national crisis? I listened with astonishment to the noble Marquess's presentment of his case last night. I do not think, if I may say so, that he carried much conviction to himself when he asked us not to pile up a fictitious grievance that the Government, were taking advantage of the existing situation. I hope I may not be misunderstood. I do not mean to make the suggestion—I would repudiate it if it were made—that in their conduct of the negotiations affecting the greatest crisis in which this nation has found itself for one hundred years the Government had the smallest consideration of the effect which that crisis might have on domestic politics. I not only do not make that charge, but I guard myself from being supposed to make it. But, on the other hand, I say that no Government at any time ever obtained out of a great national crisis such a relief from pressing embarrassments as this Government has obtained.

The noble Marquess has forgotten the position in which the Government stood. They were within a few days of the declaration of a Provisional Government in Ulster; they were absolutely unable to deal with that crisis—they could not go forward and they dared not go back; they were unable to carry their Bill, and they were unable to conclude the session without violating their pledges. Then came this great upheaval. And now the noble Marquess goes into a number of details and says he is afraid that Home Rulers might feel that the next General Election might be in some way influenced by the course of the war, or the failures of the Government if they occurred, or the taxation which must follow. I am not going into all this sensitiveness about General Elections. I could say a good deal as to how far the Government had a mandate for this Bill. I might remind the noble Marquess that we have pressed over and over again for a distinct referendum or election on the Bill alone without regard to other matters. But what is much more material is to recollect that, if there has been any gain on one side or the other, we at least have been wholly losers by what has occurred. The noble Marquess says that after this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book there will be a better feeling in Ireland and that that will be to our advantage. It is puerile to ask your Lordships to listen to that sort of statement. There is a better feeling, no doubt, in that Ulster has said that for the present she would rather fight the enemies of His Majesty abroad than consider her own position at home. We listened last night to the noble Marquess's declaration that no responsible Government could ever entertain the idea of imposing a political Constitution upon Ulster by force. We heard that declaration before when it was made from the Woolsack, and we read with less respect the modification of it which shortly followed in order to bring it within the limits of the conscience of the Cabinet.

But what I would ask the Government to do is not to dole out to us petty considerations of Party advantage at a General Election, but to grapple with this question which I venture to put to them, Has not this Bill already done sufficient injury to the nation without pursuing it further? In how many debates during the last seven months have members on this Front Bench and from behind us warned the Government that the continued unrest in Ireland and the fear of Civil War would re-echo far beyond these shores? How many times have we pointed out to the Government that if they choose to press an operation against which half the nation is opposed and which excites such feelings as have not been found in this country for a century and a-half—how many times have we suggested that that would have a had influence on our position abroad as well as in our own Dominions? The Government have chosen through all these months to be deaf to our expostulations. They have derided our fears and put aside all our objections. I wonder if there is any one who has perused Sir Edward Grey's Des-patches in the White Paper and read side by side with them the impassioned appeal of the Prime Minister that there should be national unity at this crisis, or any one who has known what have been the feelings of our diplomatists throughout the world, who does not realise that the prolongation of this unrest and the fear of Civil War led not merely those who are now our allies but those who are now our enemies to count almost with certainty on the fact that it would be impossible in our then domestic dispensation that we should be able to view in the same light our foreign engagements; and I suggest to your Lordships that we have a heavy reckoning against the Government, on that score alone, for keeping this sore alive so long. I would not have made that charge except for the position in which the Government are now placing us by asking us to go a step forward on the same ill-omened course.

From our side of the House we repudiate going at the present moment into the details of the domestic discussion which is involved in this Bill. We think that it would be indecent for us to enter upon a domestic controversy when our whole energy should be devoted to the furtherance of the war. And we charge the Government with this, that if they pursue the course which they propose, if they force this Bill on to the Statute Book, they are building upon our patriotism and taking advantage of the fact, which they know well, that no action that they can take will prevent us from doing anything which will acid to our solidarity as a nation. We know how great is the issue. So far as we are concerned—I believe I speak for every noble Lord on this side of the House—whatever action the Government may take on this question or on any other domestic question, there will be left undone nothing that we can do, whether with regard to men, to money, or to material, to forward the war or release the country from the position in which it now is. But if we stand for the Government now, we can never stand beside them again in the same sense if they continue on the course which they ask us to undertake to-night.

I feel that, whatever may be the intention, the Government are advancing a party measure under the cover of a national danger; and if they persist in doing so having regard to past pledges, having regard to their promise of an Amending Bill, having regard to the moratorium in domestic differences which was proclaimed by the Prime Minister six weeks ago, they will be making the most scandalous abuse of Government power that has ever been witnessed in connection with any measure within living recollection. It is because, even now at the eleventh hour, we would appeal to them that they should not cast a slur on their own fame by taking the course which they now propose, that I venture to move that this debate be adjourned.

Amendment moved— That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)

My Lords, your Lordships will not suppose that I rise for the purpose of adding fuel to the flames. So far from that, my purpose is to draw your Lordships' attention to the real situation in which we stand. I am anxious to keep out of this discussion all Party acrimony. I will begin by saying that nothing could be more admirable than the way in which the Opposition, like the nation, are supporting the Government in the most difficult crisis of a great national trial. And if I rise to speak it is for the purpose of bringing home to your Lordships' minds, if I can, that we are doing not only the best we can in this situation but the only thing that it is practicable for us to do.

The noble Viscount who has just spoken suggested that in the course we are taking we are availing ourselves of the situation to obtain some advantage in regard to the passing of the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills. But let me recall your Lordships' minds to the facts. These Bills were virtually decided upon when the Parliament Act was passed three years ago, and the House of Commons have, in consecutive sessions under the provisions of that Act, again and again affirmed that they should pass into law. Their going on to the Statute Book has become a matter of legal form. On the Prorogation they must inevitably become part of the law of the land, not by any new decision of the Government, not by any step which your Lordships could avert, but because Parliament and the nation decided three years ago that that should be the course of events. I refer to that not for the purpose of going back on controversial matter, not with a view to stirring up new issues, but in order to bring home to your Lordships' minds what is the exact situation.

It was said by the noble Viscount, and said with truth, that the Government had endeavoured to pass a Bill which would have amended the Bill now before the House, and which, if it had passed, would have effected certain modifications in the main Bill. But need I inform your hardships of the history of that Amending Bill? An attempt was made—I believe a most honest attempt—on both sides to find terms on which a settlement could be arrived at. It turned out that there was a difference which for the time at least was irreconcilable. I am not one of those who have ever believed that it is impossible to come to an adjustment about this Bill. I am not one of those who have thought that it passed the wit of man to come to such an arrangement as might at least get over the difficulties in which we stand in regard to the future government of Ireland. But before the war broke out it turned out that that was not to be. The Prime Minister at no time pledged himself or suggested that the operation of the Parliament Act should be interrupted. What he said was that he would endeavour by every means in his power to introduce a Bill which should bring about such an amendment of the Home Rule Bill as would make the state of things to which I have referred possible. The Government did everything in their power with that object, and, as I have said, I believe that after a lapse of time some adjustment would have been reached. But a great calamity suddenly came upon the nation, a calamity which we have to face with our united strength, and the question, the only question, which remained was how we could best face that calamity.

I beg your Lordships to remember that this is not a case of opinion and strong feeling on one side only. I do not underestimate in the least the strong feeling of the great majority in this House about what must be the future government of Ireland. But there is another great body of opinion which affects us vitally, a body of opinion on which we must rely for our strength in that struggle which is before us. I am not speaking solely of the majority of Irishmen in Ireland; I am speaking of that larger body of Irish opinion beyond the sea, which is at present supporting us loyally and to which we look to support us in the days ahead, and if we clash the en p front their lip, if we take from them what the procedure of the Parliament Act has given them, what the decision of the nation has given them, then what will be our position? I have said this for the purpose of coming to what I think is the real point on this occasion. The Prime Minister is not taking advantage of any emergency into which the nation has been brought by the war—I have told your Lordships how these Bills were bound automatically to become law—but what be is doing is endeavouring by every means in his power to hold the scales justly. These Bills had passed beyond the decision of your Lordships' House or of Parliament itself, and were bound to go upon the Statute Book automatically. That is one side of the case.

That conclusion being reached, what was the right course to take? The right course was to maintain the status quo, and the Bills being placed on the Statute Book is the status quo. When that had been reached, then the duty of the Government was to take every step in their power to preserve the balance so that during the war nothing should be done which should add to or aggravate this controversy. I wish with all my heart that agreement could have been arrived at before the war broke out. I wish it could be arrived at at this moment. But that is not to be. In those circumstances what can we do? What we can do is to postpone the coming into operation of the principle, the virtually-established principle which must become the law of the land, until the war is over. Surely that is a reasonable course in a condition of things like this. If I may call it so, the fallacy of the argument of the noble Viscount is that something is being done which is advancing the situation. It is said that in a moment of national emergency we are taking advantage of that emergency to carry matters a stage forward; but I have shown your Lordships that that is not so, and that the placing of these Bills on the Statute Book is automatic. It is well that this concession of principle should be made, because otherwise the disappointment of Irish opinion might well bring bitterness which might affect our fortunes in the days that are ahead.

Speaking from my heart, I do not believe that any course could have been safely taken by this nation which would have gone back on what has already been virtually accomplished. It is not a question of giving something. It is a question of not taking something away which is in substance there. That being so, the course which the Government seek to take is to place their Bills in such a position that nothing shall be clone under them pending the conclusion of the war. My noble friend who leads the House said yesterday that it is not the policy of the Government, that it is not their desire, that it is a thing they do not intend to do, to force Home Rule upon Ulster by coercion. We cannot however tell what disturbances may take place which may require the ordinary protection of the life and liberty of the citizen. That I trust will not occur. But it is not part of our policy to use force, and we do not intend to do so, with regard to the pressing of the operation of this measure upon Ulster. We should, indeed, be ungrateful if we did. No one recognises more than I do the admirable appeal which was made by Sir Edward Carson to the Ulster Volunteers to enlist and serve their country. We are grateful for that, and we are conscious of it; we know what it means, and we should be ill requiting that if we were to take any advantage by force, when Ulster by virtue of that patriotism is not in such a good position as she was to resist that force.

But it is not only Ulster that we have to consider. We have to consider the Irish people here and beyond the sea, and I say again that we cannot clash the cup from their lips. Therefore what we seek to do is to preserve things in the balance, and that, to my mind, is a state of things which may well be attended with good results. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that this war can leave things in this country as they are to-day. I do not for a moment; entertain the idea that after perhaps a year of hard struggle, in which Irishmen of all shades of opinion are fighting for their country, things can be as they are at the present time. Before this war is over I believe there will be a spirit of something more than compromise, a spirit animated with a sense of common purposes and common aims, which will bring the two parties together. If we place this Bill on the Statute Book now it is not because we believe that the Home Rule Bill in its present form— inapplicable as it is, I admit, to Ulster—could come into force without a further attempt at a settlement.

Never were the prospects of agreement so good as I believe they will be after we have had six months of this common struggle, with men of all shades of opinion and in a common patriotism fighting side by side for their country. It is to that I look. The appeal which I make to your Lordships is this, to recognise that in the action we have taken we have done our best in the situation, which is one of great difficulty, to preserve the balance so that on the one hand there shall be no chance of the cup being dashed from the lip, and on the other no chance that Ulster should have something forced upon her which otherwise would not have been there. As I have said, we are face to face with a decision that was given long ago; and all that we who are responsible for trying to keep the nation together can do is to rest on the principle already virtually established and preserve that period of peace and consideration which I believe will lead in the long run to a settlement of this difficulty.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I should like to say a word or two with regard to the Amendment for the adjournment of the debate upon this Bill. Your Lordships must not think, and I hope the people outside will not think, that because my noble friend did not move the rejection of this Bill we have in any way receded from our opposition to it; but my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who last night brought in a Suspension Bill, thought it more advisable that the adjournment of the debate should be moved than that the Home Rule Bill should be rejected. But my detestation of the Bill and the detestation of those who work with me in Ireland and of the Unionist Party as a whole is in no way weakened because we only move the adjournment of this debate.

I confess that it was with great surprise that I noticed that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House moved the Second Reading of this Bill without any preface at all. The course which the noble Marquess adopted left my noble friend behind me (Lord Midleton) in a somewhat difficult position, because he had nothing to answer. But I can fully understand the situation and the feeling of the noble Marquess opposite. He no doubt felt that any speech he might have made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill would have been an absolute repudiation of speeches he made in your Lordships' House a short time ago. Speaking in August last the noble Marquess said— We propose to adjourn for a fortnight, and it is our hope that when the House reassembles We shall be able to arrive at a conclusion, which I trust may prove to be an agreed conclusion, with regard to the winding up of the session. Then he went on to say— It is impossible for me to say more than that at this moment, but I hope that when we meet again after the adjournment we shall be in a position to consider the question of concluding the session, and, as I say, I trust we may be all agreed as to the method of doing so. I should like to have heard the noble Marquess explain at length the statement he made then, because to my mind that statement is in direct opposition to the lines upon which he and his colleagues are proceeding at the present moment.

I hope I shall say nothing discourteous to the noble Marquess when I state that I was very incredulous when I heard him make the statement which I have quoted. I subsequently spoke to some of my colleagues on this Bench and to some of my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I said "I put no trust whatever in the statements or in the political honesty of His Majesty's Ministers." Why did I say that? I did so because my mind went back to the most extraordinary performance I have ever known in this House when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, secretly hoping that it would not be noticed, altered for Hansard an important statement in his speech as reported in The Times. Since then I have never had any confidence whatever in the political honesty of His Majesty's Ministers. More than that, I say that a more extraordinary action by any one occupying the Woolsack has never taken place in your Lordships' House, and I go further and state that if I thought any of my friends behind me could have been guilty of such action I should be ashamed to be a member of the Unionist Party. What has happened? My suspicion has proved to be absolutely correct. The noble Marquess has gone back on everything which the Government said. In the House of Commons the two leaders, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Bonar Law, agreed that during the war there should be no controversial matter raised, and that everything should be done without prejudice. There was an understanding also that there should be joint meetings of Radicals and Unionists on public platforms for the purpose of recruiting, that there should be no by-elections, and that political meetings should be abandoned. Every one of those conditions has been carried out by the Unionist Party.

But now we find that, in spite of the promise that nothing controversial should be entered upon, the Home Rule Bill is to be placed on the Statute Book. Is it possible that there could be a more controversial measure placed on the Statute Book than that of home Rule for Ireland? I. it had not been for the war a Provisional Government would have been set up in Ulster some five or six weeks ago, and in probability the setting up of that Provisional Government would have resulted in Civil War. Consequently, can the noble Marquess contradict roe when I say that nothing more controversial than to propose to put the Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book at the present moment could possibly he imagined? Remember also that for two years past Ulster has been preparing to resist Home Rule. She has organised an army, a very strong army. For what? In order not to be driven out of the Union between England and Ireland. She has an army of something like 100,000 volunteers, and now, after all these efforts, she is to be told that this Bill is to be carried through as a non-controversial measure and put on the Statute Book. I consider that to endeavour to place this Bill on the Statute Book when something like seventy Unionist members of the House of Commons are either at the front or working in connection with British Army arrangements is nothing more nor less than a scandal. I regard it as an act of the grossest treachery to take advantage of the loyalty of Ulster to endeavour to put this measure on the Statute Book at the present time.

My noble friend behind me has said with absolute truth what is going to be the attitude of Ulster. Ulster knows she is betrayed. I knew she was going to be betrayed. But, in spite of that betrayal, she is going to be absolutely loyal to the Empire and to England. I was present at a meeting in Belfast the other day when my right hon. friend Sir Edward Carson made a speech which should never be forgotten, and I wish it had been more publicly known. In that speech he represented entirely the views of the loyalists and Unionists of Ulster. He said— England's difficulty is not Ulster's opportunity. Very different from what the Nationalists used to say in the old days— England's difficulty is our difficulty, and England's sorrows have always been and always will be our sorrows. I have sometimes seen it stated that the Germans thought they had hit upon an opportune moment, owing to our domestic difficulties, to make their bullying demands against our country. They little understood for What we were fighting. We were not fighting to get away from England; we were fighting to stay with England; and the Power that attempted to lay a hand upon England, whatever might be our domestic quarrels, would at once bring us together, as we have been brought together as one man. From that day to this I and my colleagues and the whole of the Unionist Party and the Unionist Press have kept the truce in the interests of the Empire.

Can the noble Marquess tell me that he and his colleagues have kept the truce? No. He knows full well that they have taken advantage of the loyalty and devotion to England of the Ulster people to put this measure on the Statute Book. I came back from Ireland a short time ago, and I think I am justified in saying that the Ulster Volunteers will send out at least one Division to the front; I am not sure from what I hear that it may not be more. How many are the Nationalist Volunteers in the South of Ireland going to send out? If we in Ulster send out one Division, if not two Divisions, surely a Division ought to be recruited from each of the other Provinces. We heard the speech of Mr. Redmond. I should be very glad to be contradicted, but I doubt very much whether a Division will be sent out from any of those Provinces. I ask the noble Marquess to tell us what has been the response from the South of Ireland in regard to recruiting and whether a Division has been raised.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Has the noble Marquess finished his speech?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

No. I want an answer.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I think the noble Marquess must see that it is quite impossible, to expect me to answer a question relating to the Irish Nationalist Volunteers. I have no knowledge of them and their proceedings beyond what I see in the public journals. I expressed the opinion yesterday, to which I adhere, that the passing of this Bill into an Act will be followed in the South and West of Ireland by an enthusiasm for joining His Majesty's Forces, but I am afraid I cannot oblige the noble Marquess with any figures. If I bad them, they would be entirely at his disposal. I am afraid I can give him no other answer.

THE MAEQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I imagine from what the noble Marquess says that the Volunteers of the South and West of Ireland require a bribe before they offer their services. I read yesterday in the Daily Chronicle, which is, I believe, the leading organ of noble Lords opposite, the following— Lord Kitchener, with the blind directness of a soldier, has told the Irish people that he is very disappointed at the slowness with which the Irish Division of the new Army is filling up. What is happening, of course, that the young manhood of Nationalist Ireland is holding back because it fears that the aspirations of the Irish people for self-government may even now, after the victory has been won, be frustrated by Parliamentary manœuvres. What does that mean? Ulster is going out in spite of betrayal, but you cannot get the Nationalists to go out unless you bribe them.

I have often wondered why some arrangement was not arrived at by His Majesty's Government with regard to the settlement of this question. To my mind there were two courses open to His Majesty's Government. One course was to carry out what my noble friend the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition proposed yesterday and maintain the status quo, suspending all operations until the war is over and then resuming where we were. That would have been a fair course to take. The other course they might have taken was to state to Mr. Redmond that he must be content with the three Provinces, excluding Ulster. But the Government dared not do that. Mr. Redmond would not let them. At the present moment it is Mr. Redmond who is the ruler of His Majesty's Government. It is Mr. Redmond who has prevented any arrangement of that sort being made. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are simply a cipher in Mr. Redmond's hands, and Mr. Redmond is not going to send out any man to the war unless he gets the compensation to which I have referred. I have quoted Sir Edward Carson's speech as representing the feelings of the loyal Unionists of Ulster. They are prepared, as I have said, to stand by England and by the Empire and to shed their blood for their King and their country. To pass the Home Rule Bill at the present moment in the face of these men is nothing more nor less than a scandal and an outrage. The historian of the future will be able to write that Ulster proved itself at the present time, as in the past, loyal, honest, and patriotic; but of His Majesty's present Government it will be written that they were guilty of the basest treachery and betrayal ever shown by a responsible Government.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

My Lords, I had no intention of taking part in this debate and arguing whether the Government are justified or unjustified in letting the two Bills take their automatic course, but I scarcely like to remain silent when in my opinion a rather unfair attack has been made upon the Nationalist Volunteers in Ireland. My noble friend told us that he has just come back from Ireland and believes that a Division, or possibly two Divisions, of Ulster Volunteers will offer themselves for service abroad. I hope he is correct, and I dare say he is. At the same time I am rather tempted to follow his example and ask for an answer to the definite question whether he can give us figures to support that statement. I should be happier in my own mind if we had the information endorsed in returns from the War Office. I have not been in Ireland lately, but I heard to-day from a reliable source in the County of Kerry that recruiting was going on very well in that county, and I heard the same from Cork. I do not attach any particular importance to that, because I do not know how far it is correct.

What I want to point out to your Lordships is this, that between the position of the 'Ulster Volunteer and the Nationalist Volunteer in the rest of Ireland there is an enormous difference. In the first place, the Ulster Volunteers are thoroughly armed, equipped, and drilled; they have any amount of money behind them, and they have a large urban population to fall back upon. But the Nationalist Volunteers are neither armed, equipped, nor drilled. They have not large sums of money to support them; they have to rely almost exclusively upon an agricultural and rural population, and, as is evident to all who know anything of Ireland, there is no superabundance of rural population in Ireland to draw upon. That is a considerable difference, not the least important one. The Ulster Volunteers who volunteer for service abroad know for an absolute certainty that when they come back from the war, however long that war may last, they will not find themselves subject to a Dublin Parliament. They have sworn that they will not permit themselves to be subject to an Irish Parliament. They know perfectly well that when they come back from the war they will not be subject to an Irish Parliament because there will not be any Parliament in Dublin for them to come under. They know also—we heard it stated categorically last night—that under no circumstances will they be coerced into accepting the constitutional change to which they object. So that every Ulster Covenanter, however strong his political opinions may be, is absolutely assured that if he goes out to the war and comes back none of his ideals will be imperilled, none of his political aspirations will be affected in any way, and the whole political circumstances will be just as they are now. But that is not the case—any fair-minded man must allow that that is not the case—with the Nationalist Volunteers. It is absolutely impossible to give them the same assurance that in all the Party changes and vicissitudes that may take place during the continuance of a long war their ideals may not be imperilled. I do not think any one can be prouder than I am of the patriotic conduct of the Volunteers in Ulster, but I do not think it is treating the Volunteers in the rest of Ireland justly or fairly to say, as practically my noble friend did, that the Ulster Volunteers have offered to serve without a bribe and that a bribe is necessary for the Nationalist Volunteers. That is not stating the case truly.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I quoted from the Daily Chronicle.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

I think the noble Marquess might have checked the quotation. As to the general question, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any observations. I think that the course which my noble friend has pursued in moving the adjourment of the debate is, in the circumstances, the best course that could be taken. I rose only because I considered that it was not fair and just that an invidious distinction should be drawn between the Ulster Volunteers and the Volunteers in the rest of Ireland.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, no one, I think, can rise to take part in this debate without a feeling of great diffidence, and I had some hesitation as to whether I should intrude my views upon the House at all. But some of the points which were made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack seemed to me to make it necessary, or at any rate reasonable, that some one on this side of the House not closely connected with Ireland should say a word or two upon the matter at issue. The noble and learned Viscount spoke with sincerity and depth of feeling, but, if he will allow me to say so, he seemed to me not to lay sufficient importance upon the difference which undoubtedly exists between the Bill coming into operation and going upon the Statute Book but not coming into actual operation.

The position as I understood it two months ago was that the Prime Minister gave a promise that no Party in any quarter of the House should gain advantage or suffer prejudice owing to the suspension of domestic controversies. At that time it was practically common knowledge that the Home Rule Bill could not go on to the Statute Book without some form of Amending Bill. That Amending Bill might or might not be an agreed Bill; it might take the form of the exclusion of some part or of the whole of Ulster, or some other form; but it was common knowledge that the Prime Minister and the Government had made it a definite understanding that the Home Rule Bill was not to go upon the Statute Book without an Amending Bill in some form or another. Now, my Lords, what is the case at the present time? The Amending Bill has never even been discussed in another place. I do not say that that is the fault of the Government. I merely state the fact. No one can say that those of us who dislike the Home Rule Bill—we may be right or we may be wrong—are not put in a worse position by the course which is now being pursued by the Government. It seems to me absolutely impossible to take up that position. No arrangement has been come to. No Amending Bill is going to be put on the Statute Book at the present time; and we are left to the vague hope of an Amending Bill, whether wholly agreed or not, being put on the Statute Book before this Bill comes into operation. Beyond all question that is not the same position as if we had an Amending Bill and the Home Rule Bill going on to the Statute Book at the same time.

I should like to allude to one other point in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Towards the end of his speech he made an impassioned appeal as to what would be the effect, not only in the South and West of Ireland but all over the Empire, if this Bill were not put on the Statute Book; and he told us, as I understood, that if it wore put on the Statute Book these feelings of gratitude would be such that there would be much less difficulty in coining to an arrangement in the future. The same point was made by Lord MacDonnell in the debate here yesterday, and both noble Lords referred to the speech made by Mr. John Redmond. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Redmond means all that he says. I believe him to be thoroughly acquainted with the British feeling on this subject, and I believe he means all that he says. Whether he has the power of speaking for and of controlling all who are behind him is another matter, on which, for fear of bringing a fresh subject of controversy into the debate to-night, I shall not express my opinion. But would not this contest in which we are engaged, welding us together in the way which the noble and learned Viscount thinks it will and bringing out a hope of future unity, be much more likely to have that effect if we could be all kept as nearly as possible in precisely the same position as we are in now in the difficult circumstances in which we are placed? I say fearlessly that the proposal of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is much more nearly keeping us all in the same position than the proposal of the Government, and that it would be a much wiser and a more statesmanlike course to take.

I am one of those who are keenly desirous of seeing a settlement of this long controversy. I do not like the Bill. I am not going to discuss it. I think there are many points on which, if there had been a free House of Commons, it would have been amended before now. But let that pass. My point is this, that we are much more likely to come into a position a few months hence when agreement for a United Ireland, which is what I am sure all of us desire to see in the future, will be attained if this Bill is not put upon the Statute Book at the present time. I suppose we all think we try to look at the thing from an impartial point of view, but looking at it with such intelligence as I have been able to bring upon the matter I venture most respectfully still to say that the proposal of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition much more nearly keeps us in the same position as that in which we were two months ago than the proposal of the Government. And I will say this one last word. Surely if this Home Rule Bill is a sound and statesmanlike proposal it would survive the delay. But the suspicion in the hearts of many of us is this, that if the country had a chance of giving a vote upon this issue separate from any others the Home Rule Bill of the Government would not survive; and it is because of that feeling that we look with the gravest suspicion on the course which the Government; are asking this House to take. That being so, I for one shall certainly record my vote in favour of the adjournment of the debate.

*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)

My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, made it a matter of some complaint that in moving the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill I had not accompanied the Motion by a speech. But it seemed to me, in the general statement that I made yesterday, that I had covered most of the ground which I could possibly cover in making such a Motion, and that therefore it was better to defer any observations that I might have to make until other noble Lords had taken part in the debate. The noble Marquess also complained that, supposing we were not prepared to agree to the proposition of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, we had not faced the possibility of an arrangement, even though a temporary one, instead of placing the Bill on the Statute Book in its present form. I endeavoured yesterday to point out the practical difficulties in taking that course. I confess that the course appealed to me, as it did to many others, as one which we should have been glad to take. I do not think that in any case the exclusion of the whole of Ulster, which the noble Marquess airily spoke of as an easy and simple manner of arriving at agreement, could have been accepted by those who act with us; and when I say that I am not speaking, of course, only of the Nationalist Members who support us on this measure, but of our followers generally.

I should like to be quite clear what the real attitude of the Opposition is on this question of our not attempting to come to an agreement, because from the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition I arrive at a diametrically opposite conclusion from that which Lord Londonderry seemed to hold. Lord Lansdowne said in the course of his speech yesterday that this is not a moment when you can discuss things like the question of the County of Tyrone, vexed matters of that sort, and that the only possible course to take was the one he proposed—namely, that of stopping our proceedings altogether. I do not want to trouble the House by again producing such arguments as I can for showing that in our case the course which the noble Marquess proposes would be the one which would be regarded as giving a marked advantage to the Opposition and something in the nature of a defeat to the Nationalists. I do not hesitate to say that if the noble Marquess's Bill became the law of the land it would be quite reasonable that every Unionist in Ireland from Moville to Cork and from Dublin to Belmullet should light a bonfire in order to celebrate the defeat of Home Rule. That at any rate is the view we take, and I am quite certain it would be regarded in Ireland, if not as a final defeat, at any rate as a most severe reverse and set-back to the course of Home Rule, more severe than anything which could have been supposed to happen if matters had followed the course that was expected, and even if, as Lord Londonderry told us, a Provisional Government had been set up in Ulster.

I confess that I am somewhat surprised at what seems to us on this side the amazing audacity of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, in throwing upon us the whole burden of the effect produced in other countries by the condition of Ireland. The noble Viscount gave us to understand, and I do not altogether dispute his statement of the facts, that those who at any rate were our potential enemies abroad—namely, the Germans—were greatly encouraged in believing that we could not take part in this war by what they heard of the condition of Ireland, which was supposed to be on the brink of revolution, torn in two, and likely to occupy all the energies of the British Army, which would therefore be prevented from taking part in any operations on the Continent of Europe. I can well believe that the stories that the German Government may have heard of the condition of Ireland may have weighed with them to some extent in forming the belief that we should be in a poor condition to give help to an Ally. But when the noble Viscount places upon our shoulders the whole of that blame he adopts what I have ventured to call an audacious course. Who were the first people to talk of Civil War? We always deprecated the use of that grand but alarming term. It is quite evident that an attempt to force Ulster now under a Dublin Parliament might have led to serious conflict, to some loss of life, and to a general condition of disturbance. But "Civil War" is a very big phrase. In the whole of English history, so far as I know, there have only been two wars called Civil Wars—namely, the Wars of the Roses and the Civil War of the seventeenth century. The operations which included the Battle of the Boyne are not, so far as I know, historically spoken of as having constituted a Civil War. Therefore the phrase is rather a large one to use for the kind of resistance which might have been offered by Ulster to being placed under a Dublin Parliament; and what is more, if that effect was produced upon the Continent of Europe, it was produced quite as much by the very big talk that was used and the terrible threats which were uttered from Ulster as by any action of ours.

The noble Lord who has just sat down drew attention, as Lord Londonderry also did, to the difference, which ought to be carefully noted, between plaiting this Bill on the Statute Book and bringing it into operation. It scents to me that nine-tenths of the criticism that -me have heard on this subject arises from a refusal to recognise the important difference that exists between the two. It is that difference which makes reason of what was said just now by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, with regard to the Ulster Volunteers. Like hint, I am very glad that the Ulster Volunteers should join the Regular Forces and volunteer for foreign service. I will not attempt to imitate either him or the noble Marquess by asking to be told what the actual figures of enlistment have been.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

You can get them from Ireland. I wish you would give me the same information about the others.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I can get the figures from the War Office, and I have no doubt that the contingent would be a considerable one. But what the noble Earl pointed out, and pointed out I think with great truth, was that those Volunteers run no Ulster risk by volunteering. They run the risk of brave men who go on active service, but so far as the future of Ulster is concerned, knowing what we know, they run no risk by volunteering at this moment instead of staying and drilling or manœuvring within Ulster itself. The Act, as I have stated, when it is an Act, cannot be brought into operation until the close of the war, when, ex hypothesi, these men will be back in Ulster and able to take any steps that then seem good to them. It is because of the crucial difference which in our minds exists between the mere placing of the Bill on the Statute Book and its coming into operation that we consider such strictures as those which the noble Marquess made unfair to us, because we do not, for that very reason, consider that we are taking any advantage of the Opposition in placing this Bill on the Statute Book. If there were a question of bringing it into operation, I quite agree that an advantage would be taken of the state of war; and that is precisely the reason why we do not propose to bring it into operation until such time as we believe it can be brought into operation in fairness to all parties concerned.

We are giving, if you like, an advantage to the Nationalist Party by the Bill being placed on the Statute Book, but it is a purely moral advantage. On the other hand, there is no disadvantage to Unionists of a practical character, which is, after all, all that matters. Certainly as far as regards Ulster it must be all that matters. Actually being placed under a 'Dublin Parliament is what they fear. They are not placed under a Dublin Parliament in any degree or respect by the Bill being placed on the Statute Book; therefore we contend that they are not by that simple fact placed at the smallest disadvantage. And I do not think that Lord Balfour was quite fair when he spoke of the "vague hope" of an Amending Bill being brought into operation and being also placed on the Statute Book. What is important to fulfil our pledge is not that the Government of Ireland Bill and an Amending Bill should be placed on the Statute Book at the same time, but that they should come into operation at the same time. Whether they are placed on the Statute Book by the Royal Assent being given at an identical Royal Commission surely can be a matter of no importance to anybody. What is important is that no attempt should be made to bring this Government of Ireland Bill into operation without an Amending Bill having passed.

I was told yesterday by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in terms somewhat similar to those which were used by Lord Balfour, that my forecast of an Amending Bill was a vague one. It appeals to me that it is an advantage that we should not attempt to lay down for a year or more hence what the precise terms of an Amending Bill ought to be. I repeat once more that I cling to the idea that an Amending Bill need not necessarily be an Exclusion Bill at all. Noble Lords opposite can hardly object to that statement, because one after another they have stated that they consider exclusion an odious and an unsatisfactory thing in itself. Therefore the pious hope which I have ventured to express can hardly grate on their feelings. It is impossible at this moment, particularly in view of what fell from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack as to hopes that we entertain of the effect upon Ireland of common action and interest brought about by this great European conflict, to set any bounds to the possibilities of a Union in Ireland itself of a different kind which may be brought about by time. But I must not subject myself to the charge of further vague prophecy, and therefore I will leave that branch of the subject altogether, although it is one, as I believe, of the greatest hopefulness and of the most profound interest.

Before I sit down there is one question which I should like to ask of noble Lords opposite, and in particular of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, began by making some observations as to the difference between voting against the Second Reading of this Bill and moving the adjournment of the debate. He told us that the noble Marquess his Leader had thought that the latter was the better course but he did not say why. Perhaps I may venture to ask noble Lords opposite what is the reason for preferring that course? Noble Lords know that the automatic action of the Parliament Act in respect to the maturing of a Bill in its third session here arises equally whether the Bill is rejected or whether there is a failure to consider it. I can hardly suppose that noble Lords opposite in taking this particular course are desirous to evade in any way, or imagine that they can evade in any way, the provisions of the Parliament Act by this kind of constructive rejection rather than by a simple refusal to read the Bill a second time. The process, then, becomes a somewhat more elaborate one, but it is equally certain it is quite simple. As I need hardly point out to noble Lords, it is quite simple for us to go on putting down the Bill for further consideration, day after day, until it is obvious that such a refusal to consider it as would undoubtedly comply with the terms of the Parliament Act has been arrived at. But I am quite certain that the noble Marquess opposite has no desire to put the House into such a position as that. I am bound to say that of the two courses open to him I think the simpler one would have been for him to move the rejection of the Bill, and to reject it, as he is numerically well able to do; and perhaps he will forgive me if I ask him for his reasons for not taking that course.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Midleton has stated so clearly and so completely the manner in which we regard the position which has arisen as to this Bill that I shall only detain your Lordships for a very few moments. I should like, in the first place to make one observation as to the speech just delivered by the noble Marquess and the speech 'delivered earlier in the evening by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I hope they will forgive me for saying that both their arguments appeared to me to be vitiated by a very fallacious assumption which I observe often runs through the speeches of those who differ from us on this subject. Both of them assumed that the effect of the passing of the Bill which I introduced last night would be to take away from the Nationalist Parts in Ireland something which is virtually already theirs. The noble and learned Viscount more than once spoke of "dashing the cup away from the lips of the Nationalist Party," and he said that we were taking away from them something that is already theirs. I venture to say that these arguments leave altogether out of account the seriousness of the obstacles which, before the war broke out, stood in the way of the full realisation of the Nationalist hopes. I said something upon that point last night, and I will not repeat my observations. I will only sum them up in a single sentence by saying that in our belief it would not have been in the power of the Party opposite and their Nationalist allies to obtain the realisation of their hopes without a prolonged and difficult struggle which might have caused, to say the very least of it, most serious political embarrassment to His Majesty's Government. And our complaint is that what you are now going to do will enable the Nationalist Party and their friends to obtain without a struggle what would, but for the war, certainly have cost them a very serious struggle indeed.

Then may I notice an observation that fell just now from the noble Marquess opposite? He said that the Bill which I had introduced, so far from being an attempt to hold the balance evenly between the disputants, was so obviously one-sided that if it had passed into law the effect would have been that throughout the Unionist districts in Ireland bonfires would have been lit in celebration of the triumph. It is impossible for me to say what the Unionists of Ulster might or might not have done in the circumstances. My own conviction is that they would not have been so foolish as to regard as a great triumph to be celebrated by the lighting of bonfires the mere postponement of the Home Rule Bill for a certain number of months. But, my Lords, I should like to make a different suggestion to the noble Marquess. What does he imagine will be the effect in the other three Provinces of the putting of the Home Rule Bill upon the Statute Book this week? Does the noble Marquess think there will be no bonfires? I will undertake to say that there will be an abundance of them; and I think the people who light the bonfires will be perfectly right because they will have discovered that, thanks to the cooperation of His Majesty's Government, they have been able to obtain a success to which they could not possibly have looked forward a few weeks ago.

In regard to the Bill upon the Table there seems to me to be two reasons why we should treat it as my noble friend behind me proposes to treat it, and to my mind either of those reasons would by itself be sufficient to justify us in asking for the adjournment of the debate. In the first place, we hold that, considering the circumstances of the moment, a prolonged and minute discussion of these Irish questions would be—I think the epithet was used by my noble friend—indecent; it would be either futile or mischievous. It would be futile unless you got to close quarters with the matter; it would be mischievous if you did get to close quarters. That is the first reason. The second reason is this. We on this side of the House are deeply committed to the view that we ought not to be asked to proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until we have reasonable security that its passage into law will be accompanied by the passage of an Amending Bill. I am not going to weary the House by recalling the numerous pledges which have been given upon that subject. The noble Marquess will not contradict me when I say that we have been told again and again that it was the accepted policy of His Majesty's Government that the two Bills should proceed simultaneously and be submitted simultaneously to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. Well, how do we stand this evening? There is no Amending Bill in existence. We are told that one may be heard of by and by; and the noble Marquess has told us again that so uncertain is he as to the course which he and his colleagues are likely to adopt that he thinks it quite possible that the new Amending Bill may be some measure which sonic of us have not as yet dreamed of. That is not really good enough for us. And in those circumstances the objections which we have raised again and again against the Government of Ireland Bill as it stands, objections which extorted from His Majesty's Government the promise of an Amending Bill, still hold the field.

One word as to our attitude. Throughout this long controversy, even up to the very last, we have hoped that His Majesty's Government would be able to approach us with some reasonable offer which we might be able to accept. And I may say that when I talk of a reasonable offer I do not for a moment suggest that we should have, looked at nothing less than the complete exclusion of the Province of Ulster. That was what, in our opinion, was the proper solution. But, in the circumstances, if we had been met in a reasonable spirit we should have been prepared to consider proposals from His Majesty's Government. And the noble Marquess will not contradict me when I say that within the last few days we were formally given to understand by His Majesty's Government that certain alternative proposals which had been made to us—it is quite true subject to reservations—would be considered by them as forming a proper basis for a compromise; that we intimated very distinctly that one of the proposals so made to us would be favourably considered by us; but that that proposal was subsequently withdrawn by His Majesty's Government because, I suppose, they knew that they could not obtain for it the consent of their supporters. Failing such a compromise, admitting that His Majesty's Government were unable to persist with a proposal which evidently they themselves considered as not wholly unreason- able, surely it followed logically that the only reasonable thing to do was to put off the discussion of the Home Rule Bill altogether in accordance with the proposal which we have ventured to make to your Lordships' House. In these circumstances, as we are refused both a postponement and a reasonable offer, we have no course open to us but the one which my noble friend behind me has suggested—I mean the adjournment of this debate.

This leads me to answer the question put to me a moment ago by the noble Marquess opposite. He said, If these are your feelings about the Bill, why do you not reject it instead of merely moving the adjournment of the debate? My answer is this. We do this because the simple rejection of the Bill would not correctly represent the attitude of this side of the

Resolved in the affirmative, and debate

House. Our attitude has been, on the contrary, one of readiness to pass the Bill if it were accompanied by an adequate Amending Bill. It is because that Amending Bill is not forthcoming that we have upon former occasions desired to postpone the debate; and it is for that reason that we propose to adjourn it to-night. The noble Marquess suggested that our action might raise some interesting points under the Parliament Act. Upon that I am not able to enlighten him. But I have given him a reason which seems to me to be a perfectly obvious one, and which in my view justifies us in voting for the Amendment of my noble friend.

On Question, That the further debate be adjourned?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Canterbury, V. Desart, L. (E. Desart.)
Bedford, D. Chilston, V. Dinevor, L.
Devonshire, D. [Teller.] Churchill, V. [Teller.] Ellenborough, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D. Colville of Culross, V. Elphinstone, L.
Rutland, D. Esher, V. Erskine, L.
Somerset, D. Falkland, V. Farquhar, L.
Falmouth, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Cholmondeley, M. Hill, V. Hawke, L.
Lansdowne, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donouqhmore.) Kenyon, L.
Abingdon, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Amherst, E. St. Aldwyn, V. Latymer, L.
Camperdown, E. Lawrence, L.
Cathcarr, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Leconfield, L.
Coventry, E. Ely, L. Bp. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Dartmouth, E. St. Asaph, L. Bp. Methuen, L.
Dartrey, E. St. David's, L. Bp. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Wakefield, L. Bp. Monk Bretton, L.
Monson, L.
Eldon, E. Aberdare, L. Newton, L.
Ferrers, E. Addington, L. Parmoor, L.
Haddington, E. Aldenham, L. Penrhyn, L.
Halsbury, E. Allerton, L. Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)
Harrowby, E. Balfour, L.
Howe, E. Barrymore, L. Rathdonnell, L.
Lauderdale, E. Biddulph, L. Rathmore, L.
Londesborough, E. Bolton, L. Redesdale, L.
Manvers, E. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Sanderson, L.
Mayo, E. Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) Sudeley, L.
Powis, E. Braye, L. Sydenham, L.
Selborne, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Waleran, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Cheylesmore, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Verulam, E. Crawshaw, L. Wolverton, L.
Waldegrave, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.) Aberconway, L. Herschell, L. [Teller.]
Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Ashby St. Ledgers, L. Hollenden, L.
Charnwood, L. Islington, L.
Lincolnshire, M. Colebrooke, L. Lucas, L.
D'Abernon, L. Lyveden, L.
Denman, L. MacDonnell, L.
Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.) Emmott, L. Marchamley, L.
Beauchamp, E. Eversley, L. Pirrie, L.
Craven, E. [Teller.] Farrer, L. Rotherham, L.
Glenconner, L. St. Davids, L.
Allendale, V. Haversham, L. Saye and Sele, L.

adjourned accordingly sine die.