Lords Sitting of 11 January 1916

Preamble
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES—Sat Speaker.
BARON HUNTINGFIELD.
Petition of William Charles Areedeckne, Baron Huntingfield, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Crofton a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the Lord Ashtown, who has become a Bankrupt, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Colonies (Annual)—

No. 871. Barbados (Report for 1914–1915);

No. 872. Falkland Islands (Report for 1914);

No. 873. Uganda (Report for 1914–1915):

Malay States—Report for 1914 on the Federated Malay States:
Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland—Minutes of Evidence and Minutes of Deliberative Conferences, with Appendices, of the Departmental Committee on Food Production in Ireland:
Dominions (Royal Commission)—Memorandum and Tables as to the Trade Statistics and Trade of the Self-Governing Dominions, prepared by the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions:
India—Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1904–1905 to 1913–1914. Forty-ninth Number:
Irish Land Commission—Return of advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of March 1915:
Presented(by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army (Territorial Force)—Schemes made by the Army Council under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, for the establishment and constitution of Associations for—

1. The County of the City of London;

2. The County of the City of Edinburgh:

Intermediate Education (Ireland)—Examiners' Rules:
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders declaring areas described in the schedules thereto to be infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914—

D.I.P. 336–338, dated 15th December 1915;

D.I.P. 339–344, dated 16th December 1915;

D.I.P. 345, dated 17th December 1915:

Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the County of Buckingham and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops in the area of the Urban District of Slough and within one hundred yards thereof:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

MUNITIONS OF WAR (AMENDMENT) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, this is a Bill the object of which is to amend the Munitions of War Act, 1915, without interfering with its principles. When my noble friend Lord Curzon introduced the original Bill last summer he alluded to it as in the nature of a tripartite treaty—that is to say, a treaty between the Government on the one hand and employers and employed on the other. The main principles of that measure, as your Lordships are aware, are three. First, the prevention of strikes and lockouts and the substitution of compulsory arbitration in their place; secondly, the declaration of munition works as "controlled" establishments, together with a limitation of profits and the suspension of trade union rules; and thirdly, the prevention of waste caused by the transference of workers from

853
one employer to another. Those were, put shortly, the main principles of the Munitions of War Act. All those provisions have proved to be absolutely necessary, but at the same time it has been found desirable to enlarge to a certain extent the scope of the Act and to take further steps in order to insure its smoother working.
The principal changes proposed in the Bi11 the Second Reading of which I am now moving relate, in the first place, to the question of dismissals. In the second place, they are in the direction of giving the Minister of Munitions power to give absolute directions with regard to the wages and employment of women and of certain classes of men. In the third place, the definition of "munitions work" is extended; and lastly, certain changes are introduced with regard to the Munitions Tribunals, which, as your Lordships are aware, consist of two classes. I will deal shortly with these main points and begin with the question of dismissals, which comes under Clause 5 of this amending Bill and Section 7 of the principal Act. Under the law as it stands in the principal Act, no man on changing his employer can obtain fresh employment for six weeks unless he is able to produce a certificate either from his employer or from the Munitions Tribunal. This has been found to be a very necessary provision, but as it obviously considerably restricts the liberty of movement of workmen it has caused a good deal of friction, and a number of amendments with regard to this particular point have therefore been introduced into this amending Bill. These changes, I would like to point out, are the result of an inquiry which was conducted by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in conjunction with a legal colleague, with regard to the grievances and friction which prevailed in the Clyde district. In fact, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is largely responsible, so far as I can see, for this amending Bill. Under the existing Act the employer certifies that the workman leaves with his consent. Under the amending Bill the employer will be obliged to give the certificate unless it can be shown that the man has committed an offence for the express purpose of being dismissed. As your Lordships are probably aware, there are two classes of certificate—one certificate is issued by the employer, and the other by the Munitions Tribunal. The grievance complained of by the workmen is this. Complaints have frequently been
854
made by men that in consequence of their not having been able to obtain a certificate from their employer and having been obliged to provide themselves with a certificate furnished by the Munitions Tribunal, they have found other employers discriminating against them and objecting to employ them. Another provision in this clause has reference to cases where the employer gives less than a week's notice before dismissal. In cases of this kind, where only short notice is given, the employer is bound to report such cases, and is liable under certain contingencies to penalties. But the question to be decided by the Tribunal is not why the roan was dismissed but whether or not the notice of dismissal was sufficient. It ought to be clearly understood that the employer retains the right to dismiss. Another provision, introduced presumably on behalf of the employers, is that an employer suffers no penalty if he engages a man assigned to him by the Minister of Munitions whether he possesses a certificate or not; and another provision provides that the Munitions Tribunal, when considering an application for a certificate, shall also take into consideration whether the man can be employed elsewhere to better advantage—and when I say "to better advantage" I am not speaking of advantage as respects the man, but advantage to the Government. Lastly, upon this question of dismissal the certificates are in future not to be marked in any way so as to indicate the character of the workman.
I pass to that portion of this amending Bill which deals with the wages of women and of certain classes of male workers. This will be found under Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. It is the opinion of the Government that as fresh employment cannot be obtained by the worker without the possession of a certificate the worker ought to be paid what is called a sufficient wage. In the case of men there is no difficulty with regard to this point, because men are protected by the fair wages clause which prevails in all Government contracts. Women are also technically entitled to the same right but they do not effectively obtain it, because in many women's industries there is no well-established standard of what is a fair wage. Therefore under this Bill the Minister takes-power to issue directions with regard to wages, hours of labour, and conditions of employment of women in what are known as "controlled" establishments, and employers

855
and workpeople will be naturally bound to comply with them. I ought to add that certain classes of unskilled men also come under these directions, and they come under them in consequence of a pledge which was given by the Prime Minister to a deputation representing the Amalgamated Society of Engineers who waited upon him a few days ago.
Clause 9, which is another important clause, deals with the extension of the definition of "munitions work" so as to cover certain classes of work which require protection as regards strikes and as regards men leaving them. The principal classes of work which are brought within this definition are the construction of munition factories and other buildings for naval and military purposes, including houses for munition workers; the supply of light, water, and power to munition factories; the construction of docks and harbours where those are certified to be necessary by the Admiralty; and finally, the construction of merchant ships. That is a point which was insisted upon by the Board of Trade.
Clause 17, which concerns the last of the important changes which I announced at the beginning of my speech, deals with the question of Tribunals, and there are three changes introduced. In the first place it is provided that the chairman shall always consult the assessors—the assessors, of course, represent both the employers and the employed—and where these assessors are agreed, then the chairman will be forced to give effect to their agreed decision except in a case where he considers that a point of law has arisen. The second change is that in cases where women are concerned there must necessarily be a woman assessor. The third change is that provision is made for appeal from the Munitions Tribunal to a Judge of the High Court. Those are the main provisions of the Bill; the other changes which are introduced are not of much importance, and I hope that I shall be excused from going into them at the present moment.
In urging your Lordships to facilitate the passage of this Bill, I feel almost ashamed to do so but I cannot refrain from repeating the expression which has been used so frequently with regard to this war—that the war is not going to be brought to an end solely by what takes place on the battlefield or in the trenches, whichever it may be,
856
but is largely going to be decided by the countries which are best able to use their industrial resources. It would be perfectly useless to disguise the fact that in this country there has been far more of what is known as labour unrest, which has contributed to the hampering of our operations, than has been the case in any other country; and this Bill is an attempt not only to extend the principal Act but to allay the discontent which has prevailed to such a great extent up to the present time. I will not pretend that this Bill at the present moment is as urgent as it appeared to be when I had to say something about it a few weeks ago [December 21, 1915]. I was then told that it was imperative that the Bill should be passed without delay, and I was to ask your Lordships to pass it through all its stages at one sitting. I believe that the case at that moment was urgent and that considerable inconvenience has been caused by the delay; but the delay, as your Lordships know, arose from the fact that Mr. Lloyd George was called away from the House of Commons in order to attend a very important meeting in the North, and that during his absence the House of Commons declined to proceed with the Bill. It is, of course, possible—probable, in fact—that the concessions which have been made since then have rendered the Bill less urgent than it appeared to be at the time when I last spoke upon it; nevertheless, everybody must see that it is clearly desirable to pass it with as little delay as possible. I am not going to ask you to adopt the course which I suggested the other day, but I venture to express the hope that this Bill will be allowed to pass through your Lordships' House without much discussion, and I would earnestly hope that noble Lords will refrain from moving Amendments of importance when we reach the Committee stage, although for my part I own that I shall have to move a certain number of Amendments myself but they will be merely of a drafting and unimportant character. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, if I intervene for a few minutes before the Question is put, let me assure you that I do not do so with any intention of delaying the passage of this Bill or of offering any comment, much less any criticism, upon the speech which my noble friend has just addressed to your Lordships' House. I do

857
so because of a strong feeling which I share with the London Chamber of Commerce and other bodies that the opportunity should be seized to give the Minister of Munitions in this amending Bill a discretionary power in fixing the standard of profit in the case of controlled industries whose expansion is desirable on national grounds, so that its effect may promote and not check that expansion; and if I desired any encouragement in the course I am taking I should find it in the striking speech delivered in another place last night by the President of the Board of Trade.
Your Lordships passed the Munitions Act to further the production of munitions of war, and incidentally power was given to take possession for the Exchequer of excess profits accruing to works that had been declared "controlled establishments." This power is being widely, and I dare say wisely, used, both as regards establishments actually providing munitions of war and others only indirectly connected with their production; but in the case of young industries not yet firmly established I submit that its operation may prove not only fatal to the industry, but, what is of far more importance, highly injurious to the future industrial prospects of this country. There are quite a number of such industries. But let me take as an illustration the case of the spelter industry, with which I am the more familiar, and about which much has been lately written.
My Lords, before the outbreak of war this country very largely depended upon Germany for its spelter supply, and when that supply was cut off the War Department and the brass founders had to pick up fine zinc and spelter wherever they could at abnormal prices, while industries that used spelter, such as the galvanising trades, were forced practically to cease production. And this though Australia can herself produce sufficient zinc ore to supply the whole of the Empire's spelter requirements did we but possess within the Empire adequate distilling plants. People connected with our Australian resources have been quite aware of the position in this respect for some years past, and, indeed, a company started smelting works in England as long ago as 1907 with the special object of treating Australian ores here and so ousting the German monopoly. That company, in spite of many initial difficulties, was before the war gradually establish-
858
ing its industry on a permanent footing, but the capital outlay and the risks were great, and I understand that it has not yet distributed dividends to its shareholders. Then came the war and with it the demand for spelter, with the chance for the company to make profits and by their use to extend its operations so that after the war German competition need not have been feared.
But here the Munitions Department step in to claim all excess profits—all excess profits, that is to say, over a standard fixed by regulations under the Act on previous years which have yielded no profit at all. The country urgently requires an independent spelter supply. This company and other companies I know are quite prepared to put every sovereign of their excess profits, and more besides, into new furnaces and plant required for increasing production. Australia is clamouring for Government assistance in bringing that result about; but the officials of the Ministry of Munitions, though admitting the cogency of these facts, say—they said so as recently as the 21st of last month—that the Minister, given the will, has no power under the Act to fix a standard otherwise than as provided by the Act, and that excess profits must therefore be taken by the Munitions Department, however injurious such action may be to the country hereafter.
Since I came to the House to-day I have received a letter signed by the representatives of British zinc producing companies, who met to-day at the offices of the London Chamber of Commerce and adopted unanimously this Resolution:—
"In view of the fact that the profits of the British zinc industry in the face of German competition have been for many years past on a low scale and that it is a matter of urgent national importance that the production of spelter in the United Kingdom should be increased, this meeting, representing the British zinc producing companies, all of which have been proclaimed 'controlled' industries, urges upon the Minister of Munitions and upon His Majesty's Government that the best way in which an increase in the production of spelter can be brought about is by altering the standard so as to allow all excess profits during the war to be retained by the companies, provided they are set aside and employed for the purpose of increasing plant; and if the present Act does not allow of this, then the power of the Minister should be enlarged."
It is in the hope of remedying the present state of things that I propose to move, when this Bill reaches the Committee

859
stage, an Amendment to give the Minister discretionary power to fix a higher standard than the principal Act allows where it is proved to him that the expansion of an industry, whether during the war or after the war, is essential for national requirements.
I am no Parliamentary draftsman and am not wedded to its wording, but failing more appropriate words this is how my proposed Amendment reads—
"Where the fixing of a standard of profits in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act would, in the opinion of the Minister of Munitions, have the effect of checking the expansion of an industry of national importance, the Minister may, at the request of the parties interested and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit to impose, fix a higher standard at his discretion."
In fixing such higher standard the Minister would be at liberty to impose such conditions as he might think fit with regard to the released profits, and then he would be enabled not only to avoid injury to industries which require development but actively to promote their growth by stipulating that war profits should be wholly employed for the construction of additional works.
I am sure that if Germany wished to wrest from England the control of an industry at present in our hands, she would not begin by taking away from struggling German works of the same kind all their war profits, leaving them naked and defenceless after the war. Rather would she by every means in her power seek to encourage them and to place them in a position further to increase and expand their plant. At present against a consumption of over 200,000 tons of zinc a year in this country, England only produces, from ores, about 30,000 tons. For the balance of 170,000 tons she has been in the past mainly dependent upon German works and upon Belgian works largely owned and controlled by German capital. Why? Because sufficient works do not exist within the Empire to treat the abundant supplies of zinc ores which the Empire produces. Efforts, have been made in the past to establish such works, but they have had a hard struggle against German competition and their profits, where they have made any, have been on a low scale.
The war, however, and the high prices to which spelter has risen owing to the
860
cutting off of German supplies altered all this, and the English works for the first time in their history are now making considerable profits. At this juncture, as I have said, the Munitions Department step in, declare them "controlled" industries, and leave them with practically nothing except their former low scale of profits. At the same time the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Australian Government urge that as a matter of national importance, after the war as much as now, the production of spelter within the Empire should be increased by the building of new works and the enlargement of existing works in this country. But how are the regulations of the Munitions Department to be reconciled with this demand? At present, so far as I can see, unless such discretionary power as I suggest is given to the Minister of Munitions there is no way of doing so; and the Munitions Department, no doubt unintentionally, will have given the coup de grâce to hopes widely entertained of making this country independent of foreign, and especially of German, sources for its supply of one of the most indispensable of metals. On the other hand, if the Minister of Munitions is given a discretion and exercises it wisely he may, merely by stipulating that all war profits should be set aside and employed in the construction of new works, insure a substantial future increase in the British production of spelter. I believe further that in many cases works, if allowed to put their war profits into new construction, would also be willing to undertake themselves to find additional capital for the same purpose of increase of plant.
I hate to weary your Lordships, and I fear that I have already occupied your time too long. But I will sum up by saying that all I seek to do is to enlarge the discretion and the powers of the Minister in dealing with industries the growth of which he considers to be of great national importance. It would release him in such cases from what I may perhaps call the red tape of the principal Act, and with regard to such industries as the zinc industry it would enable him, instead of destroying all hopes of expansion, to make such expansion rapid and assured.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I shall not presume to follow the noble Earl who has just spoken into

861
the highly technical matter with which he has dealt. It will be time enough to discuss that and to settle what this House ought to do in regard to it when we see the precise proposal which the noble Earl is apparently going to put down for the Committee stage. I have some hesitation in rising at all to speak on this Bill, but the noble Lord who introduced it paid me the compliment of saying that I was largely responsible for it. It is true that I was, with a colleague, appointed to make inquiry into the causes and circumstances of certain apprehended disturbances affecting munition works in the Clyde district some weeks ago. We held an inquiry extending over a certain number of days; we heard a great many witnesses, both of the employed and of the employers themselves; and we made certain recommendations. A large proportion of those recommendations have been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions, but I am very reluctant to think that it is solely on account of our inquiry. I believe that what we found to be existing in the Clyde district was not unknown in other places, and although, perhaps, the possible disturbances and differences took a more acute form there than elsewhere, I am, as I say, reluctant to believe that it is solely on the ground of the difficulties in the Clyde district that the Minister of Munitions has thought it necessary to introduce this Bill. At any rate, it comes to your Lordships' House upon the responsibility of the Government and not upon that of our inquiry.
The principal Act was an emergency measure and it is not surprising that friction and difficulty should in various quarters have arisen under it, but there is one thing I want to make quite clear. It was brought out as one of the outstanding facts at our inquiry that while in some matters both munition workers and trade unionists had certain substantial matters of legitimate complaint, a very large proportion of the difficulties which had emerged and which were brought before us were not illustrative of disputes on definite matters of great importance but indicated local friction. I am afraid it is the case that in the Clyde district there is a certain minority — comparatively speaking, I believe, a small minority—of those engaged in industrial occupations who are not sufficiently careful whether their agitation does or does not at the
862
present time tend to impede work and so indirectly to assist our enemies. A certain minority of those there are anxious to press their own particular cures for social difficulties and social evils, and have not, I think, sufficiently calculated the difficulties of the present time. These differences were also complicated in some respects by old-standing feuds in the relationships between some particular employers and employed, and were aggravated by circumstances more or less accidental owing to the incidental operations of the Act. These facts gave opportunity for those to whom I have alluded to air their special grievances and their special difficulties. But I do want to say, and I believe it to be absolutely true, that those who took this course in that district were a small minority of those employed and were in no way representative of the main body of the workers. But it is important to remember that when friction does arise, even if no definite principle be involved, the differences may be largely aggravated by slight indiscretions, by a slight want of consideration on one side or the other of the differences between opponents, and this does lead to irritation amongst organised workers which spreads and becomes exalted into a matter of principle between class and class. Therefore it seems to me of the utmost importance that the sources of these small differences, when they can be localised and settled, should be as far as possible removed. If, therefore, this Bill does not deal with a great many very important matters I do say, believing it to be thoroughly true, that it will ease friction, that it will reduce the possibility of differences, and so indirectly do a great deal of good to the cause which I am sure all in this House have at heart.
The noble Lord who introduced the Bill mentioned clearance certificates and the period of six weeks which must elapse before a man who was employed in one work and got his dismissal or wanted to resign could be employed elsewhere. If that man—taking a hypothetical case—was unjustly treated he had sometimes several days, very often a week or two, to walk the streets before he could get another employment; he was dismissed from the one place but did not for several days, owing to delays and the operation of technicalities, get his certificate which enabled him to obtain employment in

863
another place. That caused real injustice. I believe the provisions of this Bill will go a very long way to stop that source of discontent and difficulty. The same sort of thing arose of difficulties about the settlement of prices for piece work; very often, too, as to whether a particular work on which a man was engaged was really munitions work or only work leading up to it. For instance, in one case that was represented before us men were transferred to work in repairing electrical appliances in the factory. Some of them thought that they would be better employed in doing actual munitions work in other places of employment. There was a considerable difference of opinion as to whether this electrical work had to be done at the moment or might have been postponed. Those are the class of matters which ought to be brought to a speedy decision, and, if possible, by a conciliatory and neutral tribunal.
Then, again, there were points of breaches of trade union rules on such matters as the importation of unskilled workmen to do work for skilled men, the transference of men from one trade to another, the employment of skilled men in unskilled work, and disputes as to whether the time had not come when their unskilled work should cease and they should be allowed to go back to the skilled work perhaps under another employer. Another very vexed point was as to whether the fines which had to be inflicted under the principal Act should be backed, in the case of non-payment, by imprisonment. I venture to say that the imprisonment of a man for the non-payment of fines—a purely trade union offence—was a bad piece of tactics. If a man commits a moral offence or any offence for which he can be prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Act, it is right enough that to whatever class he belongs he should be imprisoned if he deserves it; but it never seemed to me—and my colleague agreed with me—that the particular form in which this alternative was put under the principal Act was an altogether wise or judicious one, and it was one of the leading causes of the difficulties in the area to which reference has been made.
We are face to face, as the noble Lord has said, with great difficulties. We require in these trades a great and sudden expansion of work, and it is absolutely necessary in the interests of public policy,
864
and I go so far as to say in the interests of the safety of the country, that we must do all in our power to add to the ranks of those who are able to do this work. Unskilled men and women must be called in to do work which has hitherto been regarded as the monopoly of the members of trade unions. The side effects of this necessity at the moment have had bad results and caused real difficulty. I will give one instance. These people who are brought in casually do not pay trade union dues. Some of the less scrupulous of the trade union members say: "If you are going to have outside people who do not pay dues, we will not pay dues. What is the use of doing so?" And there was a real risk in some cases of the funds of the trade unions being eaten into and the unions seriously hampered. Those were real difficulties and placed the genuine leaders of the trade unions in a perplexing position. What is highly important is to make it plain that, while the present emergency requires emergency measures, advantage will not be taken of it to break down trade union rules of which, perhaps, there may not be altogether approval in high economic circles. What I think wants to be brought home to those concerned is that this is an emergency matter, and that derogation from strict trade union rules agreed to now will not in the future be pled against those who may want to support them hereafter.
No one can say more strongly than I desire to do that the nation has the right at this time to demand from us all that we can give, and I do not think it is asking the trade unions too much to derogate from their rules for the time being. But I do think that it ought to be made perfectly clear, and I think the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Munitions has done his best to make it clear to the trade union members, that the Government do not propose under these emergency necessities to break down the regulations which trade unionists value and which may come to be matters of discussion hereafter. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who is not here to-night, made an appeal to us the other day and gave an eloquent expression of the hope that Party spirit might abate after the war and in consequence of the lessons which we have learned during the war. I join with him in that. But I will add another expression of hope, and that is that nothing that we do in the war,

865
nothing that we allow to be done in civil life during the war, will be done in such a way as to lay the foundation of bitterness between class and class. Whether we are employers or employed we should do our best to consider the difficulties of the other class, to try to see things as others see them, and not only to look upon the selfish interest of the particular class to which we happen to belong. I give this Bill a cordial welcome, and I sincerely hope that the House will assent to the proposition of the noble Lord who introduced it and pass it with as little delay as possible.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this Bill in the main is a measure for giving statutory authority to arrangements that have already been made by direct negotiation with the trade unions. It is impossible, therefore, to discuss these arrangements, because promises have been made in regard to them which must now be fulfilled. We can only hope that the effect of this Bill will be to remove all discontent, and especially we may hope that it will remove those causes of delay in the production of munitions which arise from artificial rules formulated in peace time—rules which I believe are in a great degree injurious and demoralising to labour and might in war time be disastrous to the country.
There is one matter in this Bill to which I should like to call attention. Clause 19 seems to introduce a new principle of legislation by the very special and peculiar power which it gives to the Minister of Munitions. Under this clause that Minister may at any time and at his pleasure transfer any of his powers or duties to any other Department of State which is ready to receive them, and it is provided in this clause that the Department to which the powers and duties are so transferred and the officers of that Department shall have "the same powers and duties for the purpose as are, by the principal Act and this Bill, conferred on the Minister of Munitions and his officers." I may be quite wrong, but it does seem to me that difficulties may arise under that clause, and that they will require a certain amount of consideration in Committee. For example, the principal Act lays down that certain duties of the Minister of Munitions are to be performed in certain ways; but the Department to which those ditties might be transferred might wish to carry them out in some other
866
and possibly in some better way. Would the principal Act apply to the Department to which the duties had been transferred and enforce upon that Department all its regulations? That Department, of course, cannot be named in the Bill as nobody knows to what Department any of the powers and duties may be transferred. Then, again, can powers which are conferred in a statutory form upon a Minister be transferred to another Department and to the officers of that Department as this clause provides? The provision in the clause may be quite wise, but it does seem to me that it requires examination by one of the great legal authorities in your Lordships' House, because it; might set up a precedent which would prove extremely undesirable.
The point raised by the noble Earl (Lord Kintore) is one to my mind of great importance, and I think he has most effectively emphasised that importance. It is quite certain that this legislation must lead to unexpected and perhaps to some very unpleasant results. The principle that no one shall derive excess profits during the war is perfectly sound; and is a principle which we should all wish to see applied, but we know that it would be quite impossible to enforce that rule equitably all round. I will give one single instance showing what I mean. A case was brought to my notice lately where a man who was receiving 32s. a week went to the Munitions Department and suddenly became in possession of £9 a week for carrying out an operation which to my mind does not at all seem to be a highly skilled one. That man gets an immense excess profit out of the war, and no one would wish to take it from him. On the other hand, there must be a large number of small shareholders who had been getting no, or very small, dividends before the war who will have what they expected taken from them under the operations of this excess profits provision. As the noble Earl pointed out, there will be cases in which the annexation of excess profits by the State will mean a real check to the expansion and development of industries which may be of national importance. He gave as an instance the very important case of spelter, but other cases of a similar kind have been brought to my notice, and I know that many people are anxious that this point should be carefully examined in your Lordships' House. After the war capital will be very

867
difficult to obtain because of the great burden of taxation which will have to be borne; at the same time capital will be more wanted probably than ever, and capital will be vital to the creation and development of some of those great industries of which the Germans have secretly and very cleverly robbed us in the past. Surely, therefore, it must be better that the Minister of Munitions should not tie himself up in a knot, but should reserve power to deal with such cases as these on their individual merits, and if excess profits are not to go to individuals but to national objects and to the provision of employment which is sure to run short after the war, I can hardly think that the trade unions themselves would object to the Amendment which the noble Earl proposes to move in Committee. I therefore hope that his Amendment will be carefully considered when it comes before us, and I shall feel bound for the reasons I have stated to support it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I only rise to say a word with reference to what fell from the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sydenham) and from the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. Heaven forbid that I should usurp the place, of the high legal authority who my noble friend desires should interpret this Bill, but I am under the impression that Clause 19, over which Lord Sydenham is perturbed, appears in the Bill because you have to face the contingency of the Ministry of Munitions coming to an end, and therefore it is necessary to take power to depute these functions to other Departments. I heard with regret that Lord Kintore proposes to move the Amendment, in question, and I confess I heard his proposal with some surprise because unless I am entirely mistaken no Amendment of this kind was moved in the House of Commons. The point was never touched upon. But I hope that I may be able to relieve the anxiety of the noble Earl and of my noble friend on the Cross Benches. If they will refer to Section 5 of the principal Act I think they will find that the Minister of Munitions does possess considerable discretion. Subsection (4) of that section runs as follows—
"The Minister of Munitions may make rules for carrying the provisions of this section into effect, and these rules shall provide for due consideration being given in carrying out the provisions of this section as respects any establishment to any special circumstances such as
868
increase of output, provision of new machinery or plant, alteration of capital or other matters which require special consideration in relation to the particular establishment."
I hope that between now and the day when the Committee stage is put down my noble friends will study the principal Act and perhaps realise that their fears are ill-founded; at all events, I trust that it may be so. I certainly cannot give any undertaking that this Amendment is likely to be agreed to in the form suggested by the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Marquess say when the next stage of this Bill is to be taken?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We propose to take the Committee stage on Thursday.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RECRUITMENT STATISTICS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of recruits raised in Great Britain and Ireland respectively since the commencement of the war, and whether he can give any approximate estimate of the single men still available for attestation in Ireland.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to put the Question which stands in my name, I do not desire in the least to anticipate the discussion which must arise when the Bill which has been introduced in another place [the Military Service Bill] comes before us. My object is solely to elicit information, and I sincerely hope that in that respect I shall be more fortunate to-day than I was a year ago. I looked back a few moments ago and found that on very nearly this day last year from this Bench we pressed for three items of information, the first being the exact number of recruits which had been drawn from different parts of the country, and we asked for that information in order that we might, satisfy ourselves that the industrial centres were not being too heavily drawn upon as compared with other centres and that the making of munitions of war and warlike material would not be in con-

869
sequence endangered. All I can say in regard to that particular item is that I do not suppose there is a member of the Government who is not now with us in wishing that some such scheme as that of which Lord Derby was the author was put in force a year ago, when it would not be necessary as it is now for the Minister of Munitions to appeal to the Secretary of State for War to return to him from the Army the men who we then urged should not be enlisted.
Secondly we called attention to the extraordinary results from the South and West of Ireland. Last night Mr. Birrell gave some figures in the House of Commons which seemed to show that the recruitment, from the South and West of Ireland amounted to 45,000, or thereabouts, out of 2,800,000 of population. On that I would make this one commentary, that if that is a correct figure we should have a total on that average of recruits from the inception of the war until now for the whole of Great Britain and Ireland which would not exceed 750,000, and therefore if the same number had obtained in other parts of the country we should have been forced to content ourselves with forces probably one-third of those which we now have. I do not say that there are not large deductions to be made from any figures for a particular class of population with which you are dealing, but at the same time this seems to be in itself a grave figure.
Then we urged that we should be informed not the numbers who had already been recruited or the forces which might become available, but that we should be told what number per week or month were needed by Lord Kitchener for the purposes which he then had in view. We were met on that subject by the assertion that it was quite impossible, without endangering the public interest, to give the figures. All those objections have now been abandoned. Figures have been freely given. We know what number Lord Kitchener requires each week; we know approximately the numbers which are available in Great Britain under the Derby scheme; we know what numbers are available in Ireland. Therefore the sole remaining figure for which I am asking is what numbers have been recruited in Great Britain as compared to those recruited in Ireland since the beginning of the war; and I think it would be highly desirable that we should also have a comparison as between England, Scotland,
870
and Wales. I have seen the figure—I do not know whether it is a correct one—that the total number out of the Scottish population, which we know is about the equivalent of the Irish population although in some respects of a different character and engaged in different pursuits, is about 250,000, as against the Irish figure which we have to-day, which, taking in all the Provinces of Ireland, is about 95,000. That seems to be a large difference.
The Irish leaders have made a very strong presentment of their case both as to the quality and the quantity of the troops that Ireland has found since the commencement of the war. I do not suppose any of your Lordships will have the slightest doubt of the quality and of the conduct of the Irish troops who have been enrolled. Their names are written especially in the pages of the operations at Gallipoli in a manner which will never be forgotten. But with regard to the quantity I think we have a right to ask that the Government, who are proposing at this moment; an exceptional measure for the rest of the country, should on their part make the case that there is no cause for extending that exceptional measure to one particular part of the United Kingdom. Therefore I would ask, without the least desire to discuss in advance the desirability or otherwise of the course which the Government, have taken, that we should be equipped with all the figures necessary for the discussion.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I desire to say one or two words in support of my noble friend's request for figures. The figures that were given in the House of Commons last night did not afford us who care about the honour of Ireland much satisfaction; but I am sure that, although they may represent as a whole the proportion to the population of the recruits that have come from Ireland between the dates named, they do not do equal justice between all classes of the community. I am extremely desirous, if it be possible, that when the Returns are given of Irish recruiting they should classify—I do not refer for the moment to the gentry and professional classes—but they should classify as between the labouring classes, townsmen, and the farmer class; otherwise you may do very great injustice to certain of those classes, and you may not bring to light that others

871
have not risen to the height of their obligations during this war. I cannot see that that would be impossible if the information we have been given is correct. Ireland, to the humiliation of some of us, was excluded from the National Registration Act, and one of the reasons given for that was—I think Mr. Birrell said it in the House of Commons—that they had so much information about the people in Ireland that it was unnecessary. If that be the real explanation, it could hardly be impossible to effect such a classification as I desire.
A great many of us in Ireland deeply deplore the decision of the Government to exclude Ireland from the Military Service Bill, because we find it extremely difficult to understand any real reason for it. The salvation of Ireland is the same as the salvation of the rest of the United Kingdom; the honour of Ireland is very dear to us; and we think that we should share the sacrifices that England and Scotland may be called upon to make. It is really difficult for me to see how Mr. Redmond can dissociate himself from that sentiment. He has, we all know, as keen a sense of the honour of Ireland as any of us. From the time when he made that historic speech in the House of Commons at the outbreak of war up to the present he has done his best to promote recruiting in Ireland; and I cannot help referring to a passage in a speech which he made only last week which appears to me to be in order in this debate because of the inference You can draw from it. He said—
"That was our attitude because Ireland has thoroughly identified herself with the Empire in this war; and if we were convinced that the passage of this Bill was necessary to end the war or calculated to promote its speedy and successful ending the position I should take up would be entirely different from my attitude to-day."
That, of course, does not in any way preclude opposition to the Bill as being unnecessary for the whole of the country. But I think you may draw the inference very fairly from it, Ireland having "thoroughly identified herself with the Empire in this war," that whatever measure is applied as a necessity to England should be applied to Ireland. As to the comparison, the figures, which will show how we stand, I think it fairly follows that it would be satisfactory to every Irishman who cares for his country to know what we have done, and have some means of
872
judging what we ought to do and wherein we may have failed.
All these questions, of course, must be more fully discussed at a later time. All I want is to be sure that when we come to discuss them we shall have figures which are accurate or approximately accurate, and that there may be no atmosphere of make-believe as to what we have furnished. This is no time for the concealment of facts. We should know exactly how we stand, and face the position whether it is good or evil. My belief is that when the figures are given we shall have reason to be proud of those Irishmen who have gone; and if the effect of the present Bill directly or indirectly is to induce others who have held back to go, I am perfectly satisfied that once you get them you will find that the lustre of Irish arms will be as much enhanced by them as by those who have already gone. At any rate, what we all want is to have the actual facts to enable us to do justice to the whole question and enforce the right of the country to call upon its sons for its defence in time of need.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I apprehend that every intelligent person will share the regret of my noble friend opposite (Lord Midleton) that what is known as the Derby scheme was not adopted long ago. But the responsibility for failure in that direction certainly does not rest with the present Government. With regard to the Question upon the Paper, I am afraid that my noble friend is again doomed to disappointment. I am instructed that it is contrary to the public interest—a term with which my noble friend is well familiar—to give the exact figures with regard to the recruits obtained in Great Britain, and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to add anything to the statements on the subject which were made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on September 1, 1914, and on January 5. But with regard to Ireland I am in a position to supply him with the information which he requires. That information, by the way, has to a great extent been anticipated by an answer which was given yesterday by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The number of recruits for the Army and Navy raised in Ireland since the beginning of the war down to December 15 is estimated to be approximately 95,000, distributed as follows: Leinster, 27,458; Ulster, 49,760; Munster, 14,190; and Connaught, 3,589.

873
The number of single men between the ages of 19 and 41 in Ireland on August 15 last is estimated at 416,409, of whom about 10,500 have enlisted since that date. I understand that these are statistics which are supplied by the Police, and the discrepancy between my answer and that given by Mr. Birrell in the House of Commons yesterday is explained by the fact that Mr. Birrell's figures included married men. With regard to the point raised by Lord Desart as to classification, I am afraid I am not in a position to state whether or not that information can be given. What I would suggest to my noble and learned friend is that if he feels so inclined he should put a Question on the Paper.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, it seems to me that the Question which my noble friend Lord Midleton asks to-day is very different from those which he put a year ago and to which he alluded. He wanted to know then what number of men per month would be required, and he was anxious lest a good many men should be taken away from the necessary manufacture of munitions and matters of that kind. The object of his Question to-day is simply to make a comparison between tile number of recruits derived from Great Britain and the number derived from Ireland. I should like very humbly to protest against discussions of this kind. It seems to me that inquiries of this nature are much more likely to cause totally unnecessary ill-feeling than to serve any possible useful end. It is quite impossible from any figures that can be given to strike anything like a fair and just balance and ascertain whether Ireland has or has not borne her fair share of the burden of the war as compared with Great Britain; still more impossible is it to determine whether the burden that has fallen upon Ireland has been equally borne by the four Provinces in proportion to their population.
Figures must to a large extent be fallacious. The figures that my noble friend opposite (Lord Newton) gave to-night are practically the same as the figures that were given yesterday in the other House by the Chief Secretary. But how can you ascertain the number of men of military age in Ireland? The only basis you can possibly go upon is a census which is now six years old. There is no registration in Ireland. There is no possible way of ascertaining what the number of men of military age
874
now is except by taking the statistics of population in 1910 and calculating how many of them will be now of military age. That is to say, you take a boy of sixteen or seventeen in 1910 and say he is twenty-two or twenty-three now. He may be dead, or he may have emigrated, or he may have enlisted long ago. Figures of that kind must be fallacious. And besides, everybody knows perfectly well that the number of eligible men in any county for instance, or in any Province which contains large towns and cities, is infinitely greater than in purely agricultural districts. I will mention another instance that probably does not occur to anyone unless he is very well acquainted with Ireland. The number of women workers capable of taking the place of men and therefore freeing them to go abroad is infinitely greater in Great Britain than in Ireland. That is an undoubted fact, and anybody who knows Ireland must be aware of it. That in itself is enough to invalidate any conclusion you can come to from mere figures.
To arrive at anything like a fair conclusion you have to find out how many Irishmen were serving before the war in the ranks, how many time-expired men have left, how many Irishmen have enlisted in England. My noble friend behind me (Lord Midleton) alluded to the Scottish regiments. Everybody knows that the number of Irishmen in the Highland regiments is very large indeed. All these facts have to be ascertained—and it is a very difficult matter—before you can come to any fair and just conclusion; and I submit that even if you could get the accurate facts they would be of very little value. Personally I think that Ireland has done exceedingly well. Nobody undervalues the services of the Irish regiments or their valour. Their regimental discipline and loyalty may, perhaps, be undervalued because it has not naturally attracted attention, but if you consider the enormous temptations that have been offered to Irish prisoners of war in Germany and the way those temptations have been resisted, I think it will be admitted that those men have added to their services in the field and to the honour due to their regiments and to their country. I think Ireland has done very well.
The only question in dispute is whether Ireland has done very well in recruiting.

875
My own strong impression is that she has. Others take a different view. Well, my Lords, cannot it be left at that? It is a matter that cannot be decided by reference to figures. This inquiry can only create a certain amount of ill-feeling, and what is to be derived from it? Discussion on the subject certainly will not produce one solitary recruit. If a comparison has to be made in the matter I submit that it ought not to be done on these lines. You never will be able to make a just comparison by counting the men who have enlisted. The only way it can possibly he done will be by counting the men who have not enlisted. If the Bill which is now before the other House becomes law, after various tribunals have done their sifting-out work there will remain in Great Britain a certain residuum—a very small residuum, I hope and believe—but a certain number of men who have not enlisted and who cannot show any just cause why they should not have enlisted. If a similar system to that known as Lord Derby's scheme, a system with the modifications necessary owing to the peculiarities of the circumstances of Ireland, were applied to Ireland, you would get the same result. You would find after a time a residuum of men who had not enlisted and would not enlist and who could not show cause why they should not enlist; and in that case it might be possible to compare the residuum in Great. Britain with the residuum in Ireland. But I deprecate all these discussions, for I think they lead to nothing. If, however, a comparison has to be made, that is the only way in which a fair one can be made.
LORD MAC DONNELL: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks on this subject. The noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) referred to the occasion last year when he brought this question under your Lordships' notice, and if it be the same occasion that I have in mind I was then permitted to make a few remarks; and the point which I brought out—at least which I thought I brought out—was that in considering the forces which Ireland contributes to the Army it is entirely fallacious to restrict attention to recruitment in Ireland alone, that the recruitment of Irishmen in Great Britain is and always has been very large, and that in forming a judgment on the entire question it would not be fair to exclude from consideration those recruits who join the Colours in
876
England. If I had been asked when this war broke out how many recruits we should get from Ireland alone I should have said—I think I did say—that we should get, if the matter were properly approached, about 75,000 men. The noble Viscount desires to have Returns now divided by Provinces, the object of which would be taken in the country as an endeavour to ascertain how far Nationalists have responded to the call of duty and how far Unionists have done so.
The figures which have been placed before the House this evening show, broadly, a return of 50,000 Roman Catholics or Nationalists compared with about 40,000 Unionists. That is to say, Ulster has furnished 40,000 while the rest of Ireland has furnished 50,000. Apart from the Ulster Division, which I believe is almost entirely composed of Protestants, the greater part of the balance of the 40,000 are composed of Nationalists and Roman Catholics. But suppose I am wrongly informed, suppose the balance is not right, suppose that it is half and half, that half are Protestants and half Roman Catholics, you would at once have a complete change in the comparative aspects of the figures. So that any sort of imputation or stigma which might attach as the figures now stand to the Roman Catholic clement would be at once disproved. I have stated that I thought last year Ireland would well reply to the demand of duty, having regard to the circumstances of Ireland, if 75,000 men were recruited. Up to the present time, as we have been told, 95,000 men have been recruited since the war began. If you take into account the Irishmen not domiciled in England but coming over to England for employment (as they are in the habit of doing) who have joined the Colours, you will have a very considerable and large Army.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not wish to interrupt, but the noble Lord will recollect that I carefully avoided going into the pros and cons of this question, and merely asked for information in order that we might have the material for discussion.
LORD MAC DONNELL: Quite so; but I also understood—I may be wrong—that there was an innuendo that the Roman Catholics and the people from the West of Ireland had not performed their duty as well as the people from the North.
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not know whether the noble Lord refers to me. I did not say one word as to the difference between Roman Catholics, Nationalists, Unionists, or anybody else. The whole of my object was to get information for the time when we come to discuss this. I am sorry the noble Lord should have introduced any element of this kind. I can assure him that it was absolutely remote from any idea of mine in supporting the noble Viscount's request.
LORD MAC DONNELL: I submit that the call for information which implies a distinction in the figures drawn from the purely Catholic portion of Ireland and from the purely Protestant portion of Ireland will convey, and will throughout Ireland be understood to convey, a comparison between the manner in which the Unionists and the Roman Catholics have performed their duty. I do not wish to say more than that.
In considering the question of Irish recruitment, your Lordships must consider that if this war had broken out forty or thirty years ago the answer of Ireland would have been very different from what it has been now. But the period of the last forty years has been one of amelioration in Ireland, of beneficial legislation by your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament, which has completely changed. the views and the feelings of Irishmen towards the English Government in Ireland. I greatly rejoice at the results which have been obtained; but my belief is that if a little more time had elapsed and further appreciation of the beneficial legislation which has been enacted were permitted an even better response would have been given than has been given now.
I confess that I greatly sympathise with what has been said by the noble Earl (Lord Desart) in regard to the extension of the Military Service Bill to Ireland. I personally would have been glad if there had been no distinction made. But I can clearly see that the position of the Home Rule Party in the other House of Parliament was a difficult one. They always had been identified with voluntary service. So had every Member on the Ministerial Bench in the other House up to the present time. If the Irish Party did, through their leader, make the pronouncement which has been referred to in this House I for myself cannot find fault with them,
878
although I should have been better pleased had they taken another view. However, having regard to all that has passed, having regard to the recruitment which has been made and which, as I find from figures which are public figures, is going on with increased force—the recruitment in the month of November was 6,058, the recruitment last month was 4,085, and in previous months the recruitment was 3,000, 2,000, and so on—I believe that when the people of Ireland come to appreciate what is really at stake, and many of them do not appreciate it up to the present time, their answer will go on increasing and you will get out of Ireland a larger number of recruits than you might have been able to get if another method had been adopted.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to enter a humble protest against this discussion. The discussion initiated and carried out by the two noble Lords who last addressed the House is utterly irregular. Lord Midleton asked for a Return of certain figures. A similar Motion was made last night in another place. On neither of those occasions was any word said about the reasons why the Return was asked for, still less was any argument entered into with regard to the manner in which the answer was composed. But to-night Lord Dunraven and the noble. Lord opposite have instituted comparisons —Lord Dunraven even mentioned Scotland—
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: So did Lord Midleton.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I said that a figure had been given with regard to Scotland, and that I should like to hear what the correct figures were for all parts of the United Kingdom.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But Lord Dunraven entered into certain conclusions of his own, and also stated that this Return was asked for with certain motives. Surely it would be better to wait and not discuss the motives until you have got the figures. What may be in Lord Midleton's mind I do not know, or to what purpose he may intend to put these figures when he has obtained them. Next Lord MacDonnell went into a discussion of the ameliorations which had taken place with regard to Ireland during

879
the last forty rears. I submit that the entering into of any argument of this sort is wholly irregular, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Question now before the House. Surely the noble Lord, if he wanted to address to the House remarks of that sort, might have waited until the figures were laid upon the Table and until some Motion had been put down with regard to them.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, I merely rise to intervene in this discussion in the capacity I occupy in Ireland as Director of Recruiting there. I have to state that I propose shortly—probably in the course of this week—to present to the Secretary of State for War a Report on the condition of recruiting in Ireland, and I hope that in some shape or other it will be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House and be available for the information of noble Lords. That Report will embody a good many of the figures which have been given both in this House and in another place, and will suggest some considerations with regard to them.
Lord Desart raised the point as to how far a distinction can be drawn as to the occupations of various recruits—that is to say, whether they are, roughly speaking, townsmen or drawn from the rural population. I do not know whether such distinction can in practice be made. I shall be very willing to consult the military authorities in Ireland as to whether that can be done, but I have grave doubts in my own mind as to whether they will find it possible to make this distinction. At the same time if such a distinction can be made I think there would be considerable advantage in making it, because we all know in Ireland that, whereas the towns all over Ireland have done extremely well in regard to recruiting, quite irrespective of their position in one Province or another, the agricultural classes have done much less well, and that observation again applies quite irrespective of the Province from which the recruits come. This makes me think of the observation which fell from the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton) with regard to the contribution made to the armed forces of the Crown by the South and West of Ireland. The noble Viscount knows well enough that the population of those parts is almost wholly rural in character. The percentage of rural population to the total population in such a county as
880
Kerry is something like 98 or 99 per cent.; whereas if you go into such a county as the county of Dublin, or County Down, or County Antrim, of course the position is very different. And if it be proved that everywhere the farming class up to the present have failed to respond to the recruiting efforts that we have made it would to a great extent account for the large disparity that exists between one Province and another in the total number of recruits they have contributed to the forces.
Perhaps I might say that we in Ireland have enjoyed special treatment in the matter of stating what our requirements are in recruits. The War Office allowed me to make a statement some months back as to what our position was, and perhaps I might remind the House that it amounts to this. Since the beginning of the war there have been raised in Ireland three new divisions—the 10th, the 16th, and the 36th. There were, previous to the war, sixteen battalions belonging to the eight historic Irish regiments. That gives you a total of fifty-two battalions. We have found in Ireland that the demand for drafts for the Front amounts in the aggregate to 100 per cent. per annum. Therefore if you are to maintain fifty-two battalions of 1,000 men at war strength for a year you will need approximately 52,000 recruits a year. That is our position; and with a view to fulfilling what we regard to be our primary duty ill recruiting we have organised a campaign on, I think, improved lines in that it is officially administered, and our object is to obtain something like 1,100 recruits a week. If we can do that we shall keep up the national character of the Irish, regiments and prevent their dilution from other sources by English or Scottish recruits. I am able to say that in the first six weeks of the campaign we just about reached that figure. I think the weekly average was about 1,056, which is very nearly what we want, because 1,100 allows a small margin for contingencies. So that up to the present I do not at all despair of the campaign, such as it is. I do not mean to say that we should not be glad to have more men, but the task we have set before ourselves I hope will be realised. I say this because in another place a speech was made in which the movement was described as a complete failure. I do not think that can be said.

881
I hope very much that men of the farming classes in Ireland will realise their responsibilities. Able and direct appeals have been made to them by the leaders of the Irish Party, and I am glad to say that signs are not wanting that they are gradually awakening to their responsibilities. But I would like to say this for Irish farmers. If they have been backward in realising what their duty is, I am afraid the same thing to some extent must be said of English farmers also. My noble friend Lord Derby—whom I do not see in his place at this moment—gave me to understand that one of the difficulties which he had to face in England arose from the disinclination of the farming classes to come forward as then should. So that I think we must realise that the farming class—a scattered population, men of conservative tendencies, difficult to influence—are necessarily the most difficult part of the population to reach; but I do not think we ought to despair, either here or in Ireland, of making an impression upon them.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the speech he has just made. I had not intended to provoke a discussion but merely to elicit information, and I still think we can hardly be asked to pass the measure which is shortly to be brought before us with regard to one part of the country without the fullest information. But I should not like it to be inferred that I have any idea that this House would not mete out fair and generous consideration to the efforts which have been made in Ireland, and especially by the Lord Lieutenant, to produce a favourable result. We all know that the farming classes have difficulties of their own, and we do not want to make an unfair comparison between different parts of the country.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.