Lords Sitting of 15 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.[H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the object of this short Bill is to amend the law in regard to a mother's right of succession to an intestate child, a grievance which has become much more widespread as a result of the war. Under the Law of Scotland as it now stands, if a person dies intestate the intestate's father, if he survives, is entitled to one-half of the estate, the other half going to the brothers and sisters or their descendants. If there are no brothers or sisters or descendants, the father is entitled to the whole of the estate.
The mother on the other hand, if she survives and if the father is dead, is entitled to only one third of the estate, the other two-thirds, in the absence of brothers and sisters, going to the father's next-of-kin; so that in no case can the mother receive more than one-third of the estate. The hardship involved in the mother having only this limited right has been a matter of complaint in regard to the distribution of the estates of deceased soldiers. It has therefore been thought right that, where a person dies intestate without issue, predeceased by his father and survived by his mother, she should have exactly the same rights in his estate as his father would have had, had he survived. Clause 1 makes provision for this.
Clause 2 provides that the Bill shall not be retrospective, but directs the Admiralty,
564
the War Office, and the Air Ministry to dispose of any funds in their hands at the passing of the Bill, belonging to any deceased members of His Majesty's Forces, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Unless the Bill were made to this limited extent retrospective, it would not meet the hardship which has been complained of. Clause 3 repeals the provisions of the Intestate Moveable Succession (Scotland) Act of 1855, which conferred on the mother the limited rights to which I have referred. Clause 4 is designed to save the rights of a surviving husband or wife of the intestate, whether at common law or in virtue of the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act, 1911. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, it is obvious that this is a very right Bill, designed to remove a grievance which has been long known, and it is desirable that your Lordships should pass it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Definitions.
1. In this Act—

(1)"The National Assembly of the Church of England" (hereinafter called "the Church Assembly") means the Assembly constituted in accordance with the constitution set forth in the Appendix to the Addresses presented to His Majesty by the Convocations of Canterbury and York on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and laid before both Houses of Parliament by His Majesty's command;

(2) "The Constitution" means the Constitution of the Church Assembly set forth in the Appendix to the Addresses presented by the Convocations of Canterbury and York to His Majesty as aforesaid;

(3) "The Legislative Committee" means the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution;

565

(4) "The Ecclesiastical Committee" means the Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council established as provided in section two of this Act;

(5) "Measure" means a legislative measure intended to receive the Royal Assent and to have effect as an Act of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had on the Paper a number of Amendments, of which the first was to omit from subsection (2) the words "to the Addresses presented by the Convocations of Canterbury and York to His Majesty as." The noble Lord said: I have put down several Amendments for this stage of the Bill, but, so far as I ant concerned, it will not take your Lordships much time to dispose of them. I have taken a great, deal of interest in the Bill, and the whole intention of one and all of my Amendments is to improve it. If the most rev. Primate does not think they improve the Bill, I have no desire to occupy the time of the House by pressing them. The first Amendment is of no importance whatsoever. It is merely verbal. These words are the same as in the previous subsection, and I would suggest that they are quite unnecessary and had better be left out.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It seems to me that we want these words here unless the changes suggested by the noble Lord's further Amendments are made.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: They do not affect this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With deference to my noble friend, I should have thought it better to leave the words as they are. There may be a repetition involved, but they make the thing quite clear.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Then I do not move the first Amendment.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved after "aforesaid," at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and sufficiently described for the purposes of this Act in the Schedule hereto." The noble Lord said: This, my second Amendment, is an attempt made in absolute good faith—as I am sure the Archbishop would recognise—to try to get over part of the very great difficulty that arises upon this portion of the Bill. It
566
is not my desire in any way to attempt to get round the decision that the House came to upon the point of including the constitution of the Church Assembly as a Schedule to the Bill. As I read my own language, it does not do that. What I hope that it does, and what I desire that it should do, is to get over or at any rate minimise the very great objection that has been acknowledged by everybody as to legislation by reference that exists in the Bill as it stands. By stating that this is a mere description of the constitution it seems to me that you could not touch it in any way. You could not amend it; you could not discuss it; it is a mere statement of fact that that is the constitution which has been made by the Church.
I quite understand that the Church desires to make its own constitution without interference from any other powers, and, as I read the proposed words, it seems to me that there is no power for anybody to touch it. If the most rev. Primate thinks that by any construction of these words you can in any way enable either House of Parliament to debate any point in the constitution, then my object is defeated. If anybody thinks so, I do not wish to press this Amendment. Eat I think that if one could arrive at some way of getting over that very great objection, and so make it clear as a statement of fact that these powers are to be granted to a certain Assembly whose constitution is not open to discussion but is wholly decided, you do make the Bill clearer and easier. And that is my object. If the House or the most rev. Primate thinks that there is any doubt about the question, I do not desire to pursue it. In the meantime I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and sufficiently described for the purposes of this Act in the Schedule hereto").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I appreciate to the full the noble Lord's wish, and I entirely accept his assurance, as is indeed evident, that he wants to help us in every way to make the Bill as good as it can be made. The proposal he now makes, however, seems to me to interfere a good deal with the working of the Bill as we had intended it, because it does undoubtedly lay the Schedule open to have each part of it

567
discussed in detail in either House of Parliament. Further than that, as I read the words—though I imagine the noble and learned Lord interprets them differently—part of the Schedule on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord would go a great deal further than anything I. should think of asking for, because it would say—
"The House of Laity shall consist of representatives of the Laity of the Provinces of Canterbury and York elected in accordance with rules made by the Assembly—"
So that the rules might at any time take a form which would make the House of Laymen a much narrower body than has been proposed in the constitution laid before Parliament. I should have thought that this goes further than anything we have asked for, though that is not, I believe, the interpretation which the noble Lord puts on his words. Anyhow, I must say that I do not think we should help matters by inserting a Schedule that would rather defeat the purpose which the noble Lord says he has in view—that it should not be discussed in the Houses of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does Lord Muir Mackenzie press his Amendment?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Procedure on measures reported on by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
4. When the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to His Majesty on any measure presented by the Legislative Committee, the report together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament., and thereupon, on an Address from each House of Parliament asking that such measure should be presented to His Majesty; such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out "presented" where that word first occurs, and to insert "submitted." The noble Lord said: This is merely a verbal Amendment. I am sure the House will forgive me for having entered so minutely into the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 25, leave out ("presented") and insert ("submitted").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, after "measure" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "in the usual form of an Act of Parliament." The noble Lord said: It seems to me, reading this clause as carefully as T could, that in one or two points it was not complete and required some words to make this novel procedure clear and plain. I think it is almost certain that any measure agreed to by the Church Assembly, and after having gone through the other stages that are provided for, would be drawn up in the form of an Act of Parliament. It could not be in a casual form like a Resolution on paper. It is intended to have all the effect, force, and character of an Act of Parliament, and I think it is pretty certain it would be drawn up in that form. There is, however, no provision anywhere for making rules as to how these things are to be carried out, and it would be better that it should appear in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 20, after ("measure") insert ("in the usual form of an Act of Parliament").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: On this point I leave myself in the hands of the legal and Parliamentary authorities who are experts in the drafting of Bills. From my own point of view, I see no objection to the Amendment. It does not affect the Church in any way whatever.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I think it would be better not to put these words in. It is merely a provision that the Report and text of the measure should be submitted, and it is now proposed that they should be drawn up in the usual form of an Act of Parliament. That involves some one drawing it up in the usual form. I think it much better that the Report and the measure should be presented to Parliament as they come from the Church Assembly. The point raised, however, deserves consideration. The proposal here is really open to objection.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think there is a good deal in what the noble and learned

569
Viscount has said. It may be well, in order to get the form, that a little time should be taken. It will be possible as the words stand to draw this up somehow. A perfect form may take a little time to evolve, and to say that it should be in the usual form of an Act of Parliament may be a little difficult to carry out. Though I entirely agree with the purpose of the noble Lord, it may be well to take the slower course suggested by Lord Finlay and wait a little time before settling on the exact form.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I do not think that what has fallen from the noble and learned Lords at all diminishes the importance of my suggestion. It may be that my words are not the best, but I venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount to allow me to discuss the matter privately with him so as to see whether we could not get some words before the next stage of the Bill to carry it out.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: If the noble Lord refers to me, I shall be delighted.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: In those circumstances I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEFFIELD LORD SHEFFIELD moved, after "shall" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "if His Majesty be so advised." The noble Lord said: I support this Amendment by appealing to what was said in Committee—namely, that the Home Secretary, who acts for the Government, must necessarily advise the Crown before the thing is laid before Parliament. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said [I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT]—
"Where the responsibility of the Secretary of State comes in is this, in advising Parliament what line they should take on the proposal of the Church Assembly, and no one can deprive him of that function."
I do not suppose the noble Earl meant that he must get up in his place in the House of Commons and advise then to pass it or not. Again, the most rev. Primate said—
"There are enough safeguards. We must trust first to the Representative Church Assembly, then to the Privy Council, then to the Secretary of State and to Parliament."
The most rev. Primate interposed the Secretary of State between the Privy Council and Parliament. I agree with
570
what Viscount Haldane said, that as the Bill was first drafted you gave this Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council the new function of advising the Crown, because they were to report to and advise the Crown that it should have the Royal Assent. That has been whittled down and altered so that now this new Committee of the Privy Council is merely to draw up a Report. The thing is then left in the air and the scheme, which is ultimately to become an enactment and have the force of an Act of Parliament, is to find its own way without any godfather or godmother on to the Table of either House of Parliament. I think it is essential that there should be some person responsible for saying, not that it should pass, but that it is a fit matter for Parliament to consider. I therefore move the insertion of these words.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 27, after ("shall") insert ("if His Majesty be so advised").—(Lord Sheffield.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I am very stupid. I entirely failed to make my noble friend understand what I meant by my observation on this subject the other day. He has quite correctly quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but my words bear exactly the contrary interpretation to that which he puts upon them. If he also quoted from another passage he would find that I said most specifically that the last thing we propose was to ask the Government to make itself responsible for every measure sent before Parliament by the Church Assembly. That is what I would ask your Lordships on no account to do—and that is really the proposal of the noble Lord. He says that unless the Government of the day is prepared to make itself responsible for every one of these measures they ought not to be considered by the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I did not say that. I said that it was not the duty of the Home Secretary to recommend the House to pass it, but that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to see that it came up for discussion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That may be a good or a bad plan, but no plan could be more distinct from the proposals of those who are responsible for bringing the scheme before your Lordships' House.

571
Our proposal is that every one of these measures and the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council should be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for their judgment. That is our proposal. What I said about the Secretary of State was this, that if the Secretary of State thinks a measure of sufficient importance for the Government to give a lead on the subject, no doubt the Secretary or State for the Home Department will give that lead. In very many cases the measures will be of such a purely routine character that he will not think it necessary to make any observations on the subject at all; but in the case of a measure of importance, no doubt in the exercise of his undoubted right he will give a lead to the House and say, "So far as the Government are concerned we see no objection to the Bill, but on the contrary think it a good proposal." Or he will say, "The Government are of opinion that this measure ought not to pass, and we are going to put on the Government tellers to prevent its being passed, if necessary." That is all I meant.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think the speech of the noble Earl who has just addressed the House raises rather a grave matter. I certainly was under the impression, when the House accepted the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Finlay), that it had been agreed that the Ecclesiastical Committee was simply to give information to His Majesty and not to recommend that the Bill or measure should proceed, or receive the Royal Assent. Now it follows obviously from that that somebody must be responsible for the procedure. Originally, as the Bill stood, the procedure was that the Ecclesiastical Committee advised His Majesty that the matter was one proper for his Royal Assent, in which case the Bill ipso facto went on the Table of the House; but that was only on the hypothesis that the duty of advising the Sovereign was taken out of the hands of the ordinary advisers of the Crown.
Now that is not so. The matter has got down to this, that it is mere information about effect and constitutional rights. It is obvious that there. must be somebody responsible for saying whether the short cut procedure is proper to be adopted in the case, or whether it is not; for, after all, it is a great departure from the procedure of Parliament which the Bill
572
initiates. Who is to be responsible? Not the Ecclesiastical Committee any more. Is this procedure to be optional without any discretion at all being exercised? Certainly it is not the discretion of the Sovereign, who never acts without advice. He is not to act on the advice of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Then on whose advice is he to act? Obviously that of a Minister of the Crown, who is the proper person to advise.
That is simply what Lord Sheffield says by his Amendment. And now we learn that, notwithstanding the impression which we have all been under during the last few days, they never meant anything approaching assent to this view. For my part I think we stand in an awkward position, because the Amendment of Lord Finlay was accepted by many under the impression that they had got something very different from what the noble Earl now says they have got.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I cannot think that it would be proper or desirable in any way that the Secretary of State should intervene at this stage. I do not believe that my noble and learned friend quite appreciated the scope of the Amendment which I proposed to the third subsection. As it now stands it runs: "After considering the measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to His Majesty, stating the nature and legal effect of the measure and their views as to its expediency especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects." That is to be laid on the Table of Parliament and if both Houses pass Addresses in its favour it will receive the Royal Assent. Why should we introduce at this stage the Secretary of State, like a Cerberus, to say that although it has been provided that the Ecclesiastical Committee may propose measures in this way and report as to their expediency to His Majesty, this recommendation of the Committee shall not be considered by Parliament until the Secretary of State gives his approval. I submit that that is an erroneous proposal altogether. It is for Parliament to decide upon the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and what better can be done than that it should be considered by Parliament, and if the two Houses report in its favour and address His Majesty to that effect, then it will go before His Majesty for assent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Surely, my Lords, this is an entirely new proposal from the point of view of precedent and of practice generally. As I understand, the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee is to be laid on the Table in the same manner as the Report of a Royal Commission might be, and must then be considered by the House, nobody in the House being in a position to make himself responsible for it. Then, as the noble Earl behind me has said, if His Majesty's Government having a majority do not like it, they can put a stop to all further proceedings; but it seems to me that the novelty of this suggestion consists in the fact that all reports or papers that now are laid on the Table of the House are laid in conformity with some terms of reference by somebody. The Ecclesiastical Committee and the Assembly act on their own volition, and not in pursuance of any instructions from anybody. Is it not entirely unprecendented that a Report of that kind should be laid on the Table of either House without some responsible person empowered to advise the Crown in either House being in any way responsible for its being so laid? I should have thought that it was entirely a fresh constitutional departure, so placing the Ecclesiastical Committee in a position different from, and in a sense superior to, that of any other body which exists.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I feel, of course, that as compared with other noble Lords I am unfamiliar with the procedure of the Privy Council, but I imagine that the Lord President of the Council has again and again laid before Parliament the decisions of the Privy Council and not left it to a Minister of the Crown to settle whether or not some procedure of the Privy Council should come before Parliament.
I gather that it is suggested that a Minister of the Crown, whether the Secretary of State or the President of the Council or whoever it is, is to have the power of saying whether a proposal has to come before Parliament. I never intended that that should be so. When the noble Lord (Lord Sheffield) quotes me as having spoken that way, he has forgotten to refer to the report of my own explanation on the subject three minutes later when I told him what I had meant. It corresponded with what Lord Selborne said a few moments ago. I cannot charge myself in the least with having misled the House in
574
that matter, because I explained it at once. I am in the hands of the House in this matter. I think it would be a much more arbitrary innovation to enact that a Minister of the Crown should have the right to say that a proposal after passing the Privy Council should or should not be laid before Parliament. If the Act says it should be laid before Parliament, I should think that that would be an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By leave of the House, may I say that my impression is that no subject which had passed the Privy Council in the manner suggested by the most rev. Primate can so pass except by an act of His Majesty, through the Government of the day.
LORD WITTENHAM: I wish to say only one word on this matter. Having had a great deal to do with Privy Council practice in my life, I think the difficulty arises from the fact that in this Bill we are mixing up Privy Council practice with the practice of Parliament. It has been said, I think by the noble Earl who has just spoken, that the way in which the matter gets before the Ecclesiastical Committee is irregular. The Privy Council practice is this. The Sovereign refers a matter either to a Committee of the Privy Council or to the Judicial Committee. Here there is no reference from the Sovereign at all. That is a very grave departure indeed. It may be good or it may be bad. It may be a short cut, but at any rate it is an extraordinarily novel practice, as any one who is cognisant of the practice of the Privy Council must at once admit. That is the first difficulty.
Another difficulty arises out of or is connected with the Amendment of Lord Sheffield. Here the Ecclesiastical Committee report. According to the practice of the Privy Council they must report to the Sovereign in Council. A report cannot remain in mid air; it must go on. It has been referred by an Order in Council of the Sovereign, and constitutionally therefore cannot stop. They report to the Sovereign in Council, and the Sovereign in Council, must by the practice of the constitution, make an Order thereon. Here there is nothing of the kind. It may be good or it may be bad to alter the practice fundamentally, but let us be sure that we realise exactly what we are doing. Here it says, "The report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament." Hitherto "the

575
report must be laid." The practice to-day is that the report must be laid before His Majesty in Council. Does not this land us into a difficulty unless you say boldly that you are altering the whole Privy Council practice and that the Committee of the Privy Council shall report straight to the Houses of Parliament? If you are prepared to do that, well and good, but do not let us imagine that we are doing other than making a great change. You are interfering in a way with the prerogative of the Crown.
Let me follow the matter to its conclusion. We must imagine that the Ecclesiastical Committee make a report to the Sovereign, and that when the matter gets before the Houses of Parliament the Houses of Parliament disagree with the report—in other words they will not have the measure. Then His Majesty is seen in a dual capacity. He has made an Order in Council—or he ought to have made it—accepting the Committee's report, but he rejects the Act of Parliament because the Houses of Parliament have rejected it. His Majesty would do, therefore, two contrary things. These are only difficulties that occur to me. There may be nothing in them. My knowledge I dare say has become very rusty, hut I do feel that a great departure is being made. It may be a beneficent departure and the other method may be cumbrous, but let us realise that we are making a departure.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: By leave of the House, may I say one word on this matter in the hope of relieving the uneasiness which my noble friend feels? There is really no infringement of the prerogative of the Crown, because the third subsection provides
that after considering the measure the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to His Majesty, stating the nature and legal effect of the measure, and their views as to its expediency, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. Then the fourth clause says that when the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to His Majesty on any measure presented by the Legislative Committee, the report, together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It has, therefore, been presented to His Majesty before it goes before the Houses of Parliament. I submit with all deference to my noble friends that it would be a very extraordinary thing to give a Minister of the Crown the power of saying whether or not a measure shall be considered by Parliament. The proposal is that the Secretary of State shall have power to prevent the matter coining before Parliament. The noble Lord talks about interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, but I maintain that there is no interference whatever with such prerogative.
LORD WITTENHAM: All I intended to point out was that, according to the practice of the Privy Council, when a Report is made the Sovereign in Council makes an Order thereon. Here you skip that altogether. With the greatest humility, I submit that the noble and learned Viscount has not met that point.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Atkinson, L.

Gainford, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Marchamley, L.

Charnwood, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Kimberley, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Devonport, V.

Elgin, L. (K. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.]

Wittenham, L.

Haldane, V.

Wimborne, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Linlithgow, M,

Eldon, E.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Salisbury, M.

Halsbury, E.

Argyll, D.

Brassey, E.

Harrowby, E.

Northumberland, D

Chichester, E.

Lindsey, E.

Somerset, D.

Coventry, E.

Morton, E.

Wellington, D.

Dartrey, E.

Northbrook, E

Selborne, E.

Annesley, L.

Islington, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Avebury, L.

Lambourne, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Lawrence, L.

Yarborough, E.

Barrymore, L.

Loch, L.

Blyth, L.

Methuen, L.

Cave, V.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Middleton, L.

Chaplin, V.

Carnock, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Esher, V.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Finlay, V.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Northbourne, L.

Hood, V.

Clinton, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Digby, L.

Phillimore, L.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Rathmore, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Glenarthur, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Grenfell, L.

Somerleyton, L.

London, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Sydenham, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Inchiquin, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out "within fourteen days" where those words first occur, and to insert "forthwith." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one following are practically the same thing. I suggest that the limit of fourteen days during which the measure may be laid on the Table of the Home may be very inconvenient. Supposing the fourteen days elapsed, what then happens? If the measure has not been laid does it thereby become defunct? I should have thought it was better to do what I think is usually done in these cases—namely, to say it should be read forthwith, or as soon as may be, or some indefinite words of that kind. I suggest that in both these cases the "fourteen days" should come out and the word "forthwith" stand in its place.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("within fourteen days") and insert ("forthwith").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("within fourteen days") and insert ("immediately").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, after "thereupon," to insert "after the expiration of twenty days." The noble
578
Lord said: This Amendment is of more importance. When Clause 4 was in its original state, when it came before the Committee, there was a period laid down of forty days during which it was to lie on the Table of the House, and that period was to be used for any one to take an objection. But the very material alteration has been made that there is to be a positive Resolution by way of Address. I suggest that there ought to be a period during which the measure will lie before the Address is moved, in order to give reasonable opportunity to people to see what the measure is. I think it would be in conformity with proposals of a similar kind made in other Bills. I do not think it is necessary to have a long period like forty days, and I suggest that the words "after the expiration of twenty days" should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, after ("thereupon") insert ("after the expiration of twenty days").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I sympathise with the object of my noble and learned friend in moving this Amendment. I would, however, suggest to him to leave the matter' at large. Each House of Parliament may be relied upon to see that adequate time is given for considering ally measure of this kind before he votes upon it one way or the other. If you put it in the hard and fast way now suggested it might possibly cause inconvenience. There may be some comparatively small administrative matter urgently wanted but which, owing to the accident of business, might not come up before the end of the Session was impending, the effect of which might be to throw that

579
matter over the year altogether and have to come up again. Purely as a question of convenience in the administration of the Act, I would suggest to my noble and learned friend that it would be better to leave it to each House to say at what period it would embark on a consideration of the Report on the matter submitted to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved after "measure" where that word thirdly occurs, to insert "with or without amendments." The noble Lord said: My next Amendment is one of very great importance. On the Committee stage, when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, proposed a Clause 4 in substitution for the Clause 4 that was in the Bill, he made provision, if I recollect rightly, for amendments being made. I also tried my hand at a Clause 4 (which I did not move in the events that happened) and thought it would be advisable to give the opportunity for amendment. I do not propose to argue the question at length. I think something has been said about it at different stages of the Bill but it has never been definitely before the House as a proposition, and I think it is well worthy of consideration whether the measure that is put before the House must always be in the position that you must take it or leave it—the whole of it; and that you may lose by that means a valuable Act of which every one approves except that there may be a mistake or some proposal in it to which objection is taken, and as to which there would be no difficulty in taking it away and letting the measure pass with that amendment. In the form in which the Bill stands at present you have no means of dealing with a case of that sort. You must take the whole measure exactly as it is or, if there is strong objection to the point, you have to throw out the whole measure. If the Amendment is not acceptable to the most rev. Primate, as with the other amendments I have moved. I shall not press it; but I think it is a thing which requires consideration and which will most certainly have consideration in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("measure") insert ("with or without amendments").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I intervene for a moment before the most
580
rev. Primate replies? This no doubt is a point of very great importance, and, as my noble and learned friend has said, it was mentioned in some detail in the discussion on the Second Reading although no definite proposition was ever made about it. I can quite understand that the promoters of the Bill are afraid that if discussion is allowed at all, the whole process may be, or conceivably might be, rendered nugatory by as much discussion taking place when the measure of the Ecclesiastical Committee is laid before Parliament and in as much detail as though it were the subject of ordinary Parliamentary procedure.
But, on the other hand, there is the objection which has just been mentioned by my noble and learned friend—namely, that however composite the measure may be which comes up from the Ecclesiastical Committee, the House is confronted with the choice of "take it or leave it." It by no means follows that it would be the ordinary practice of the Ecclesiastical Committee to submit measures singly, without crediting them with any debased desires; they would be only doing what is very often done by various Parties in Parliament—by all Parties at different times—in trying to help a possibly unpopular clause through by allying it with others upon which there would be general agreement. There is nothing contrary to ordinary Parliamentary practice, and many would hold that there is nothing contrary to the best Parliamentary behaviour, in so doing—that the lame dog has to be helped over the style by being coupled with a sound one.
While recognising the strength of the objection which no doubt would be made—that if the details of the measure are to be subjected to detailed Parliamentary discussion; a great part of the value of this Bill will be lost—one is tempted to ask, even if the proposal cannot be accepted by the House precisely in the form in which my noble and learned friend suggested, whether there is not some possibility of devising means (I confess they have not occurred to me) by which the alternative difficulty—that of considering the measure and passing it en bloc, or refusing to pass it at all—can be avoided.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am afraid I could not say on behalf of the promoters of the Bill

581
that we accept the Amendment, because it seems to run counter to the very principles which have been underlying our action throughout. I recognise the motive in the mind of the noble and learned Lord who moved it and his desire to avoid a difficulty which may certainly arise in connection with the acceptance or rejection of the Bill en bloc. That is a risk we must run. If rejection should happen we are responsible for having brought the Bill forward in this form, and we must take the consequences. I believe the danger that we should run in that way would be infinitely less than the danger of defeating practically the whole object of our Bill if we were to allow the proposals which we make, and for which we ask endorsement, to be open to discussion in detail in Parliament. It is a choice of evils, and I have no hesitation in choosing the thing as it stands and not the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I only wish to say that I think it will give an unfortunate impression that it is not desired, under this procedure, to discuss these matters adequately in the House of Commons. It is obvious that without the power of amendment measures cannot be discussed and shaped, and the attitude towards this Amendment certainly does give the impression that it is desired to withdraw, as far as possible, from the cognisance of Parliament, the proceedings which are to take place and which are afterwards to be brought before Parliament for an approval which is cut down to the narrowest limits.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I cannot think that any person of ordinary intelligence who has followed these debates could ever get the impression to which my noble and learned friend has referred. The object of the Bill, of course, is that the Ecclesiastical Committee should most thoroughly consider any measure and present it in the form in which it appears right to them it should receive the Royal Assent. It has been suggested that even a body like the Ecclesiastical Committee might fall into the sin of "tacking"—which describes exactly the process to which the noble Marquess referred—some different provision to a Bill which everyone desires. I think the Bill, as it stands, is certain to prevent this, even if it were thought such a body as the Ecclesiastical Committee would do any such thing. If they "tack" some doubtful or objectionable clause to an
582
otherwise good measure they imperil the whole of the measure, which might be rejected. This fact ensures better than anything else can, that nothing will be presented which is not regarded, after the most mature consideration, as worthy of being put upon the Statute Book. I do not think any precaution against "tacking" by a body like the Ecclesiastical Committee is really necessary, but if you wish to make asurance doubly sure you have done so effectively by providing that the measure must go through as a whole or not at all.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am very sorry that the most rev. Primate does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I am not in the least convinced by anything that was said, even by so high an authority as the noble Viscount, against this Amendment. I think a great difficulty will arise, and I am rather inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend opposite as to the impression that will be created by refusing to accept this in any form. But I said at the beginning of the evening that I was not going to try to amend this Bill against the proposals of the most rev. Primate who makes himself responsible for it. I, therefore, though with great regret, shall not press this Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: If there is anything going to be said about producing a bad impression in another place, I cannot allow the debate to conclude without pointing out that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has entirely forgotten that at this stage of the proceedings the power to withdraw the Bill has been lost. Therefore, it would be possible for Parliament to force upon the Church a condition for the passing of its measure which might be most distasteful to it and to do, that would be to place the Church, of England in a worse position than the promoters of any kind of Bill before either House of Parliament.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, at the end of the clause, after "thereto," to insert "in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament." The noble Lord said: With regard to the observations made in this House by the noble Viscount when he spoke of a measure of this kind coming on the Statute Book, a former Amendment

583
that I presented about a measure being in the form of an Act of Parliament and the Amendment which I now venture to move, that the Royal Assent should be given in the same manner as it is given to Acts of Parliament, seem to me to bear upon what he then said. I understand the intention is that after going through the processes laid down under the Bill, the measure shall become an Act of Parliament, and it certainly ought to be on the Statute Book like any other Act of Parliament. It ought to be numbered, given its date and so forth, as is done with any other Act, and I should have said that you must make some provision at any rate as to the formal giving of the Royal Assent by the Sovereign and for a record of it. I should have thought it ought to have received the Royal Assent in the same form and at the same time as other Acts of Parliament. I think it is quite possible for the most rev. Primate to accept the principle of my Amendment although it may not possibly be in the happiest form of language. If that is so perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would be kind enough, as he was before, to consult with me before the next stage in regard to the form.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, after ("thereto'') insert "in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I accept the Amendment, subject to the noble Lord consulting with the noble and learned Viscount as to its
exact terms.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I was going to suggest that as the noble Viscount has undertaken to go into this matter with the noble Lord (as he promised to do on a previous Amendment) before the next stage, it would be more convenient if these two Amendments could be considered together. I thought that proposal was agreed to, and did not know that we were to be asked to accept the Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The most rev. Primate accepted the Amendment, and on that I put it.

OFFICIAL SOLICITOR BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 70.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out ("as such")
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after ("thereof") insert ("or in matters and proceedings in Lunacy a Judge or Master in Lunacy")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendments to this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order).

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 28.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert:
"(b) Where the Law Society is satisfied in any particular case that a person has been retained in war service after the termination of the present war, this section shall have effect with respect to such person as if the termination of his war service had been therein substituted for the termination of the war; and"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendment to this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. (The Lord Chancellor.)

PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order).

COMMON'S AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 27.]
Clause 3,. page 2, line 23, at end insert ("or where the Master of the Faculties is satisfied in any particular case that a person has been retained in war service after the termination of the present war, within one year after the termination of such war service").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendment to this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

IRELAND.
LORD MAC DONNELL LORD MAC DONNELL rose to call attention to the Prime Minister's letter of February 25, 1918, to Sir Horace Plunkett, the Chairman of the Irish Convention; and to ask His Majesty's Government, with special reference to paragraph 7 of that letter, whether legislative proposals for the creation of an Irish Parliament will be soon undertaken, and whether the Royal Commission referred to in paragraph 6 of the same letter will be constituted at an early date; and to move—
That in the opinion of the House it is of the utmost importance that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Ireland should be declared forthwith.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I must crave the indulgence of your Lordships while I endeavour to explain the motives and the reasons which have led me to place my Question and Motion on the Notice Paper. It will be in the remembrance of your Lordships that in the middle of the year 1917 a Convention of representative Irishmen was summoned by His Majesty's Government—I quote the words from the reference given to them—
"to prepare and submit to the British Government a Constitution for the future Government of Ireland within the Empire."
That Convention, though its constituent members were not chosen by any system of election, was in my opinion a truly representative Convention of all the political parties and creeds in Ireland, with one exception. The party which calls itself Sinn Fein was not represented on that Convention, although invitations to its leading members were, I believe, forwarded. But notwithstanding the fact that there were no Sinn Fein delegates on the Convention, the political opinions of that Party were so well known that I feel myself justified in saying that a more
586
competent body, or a more fairly appointed body, than the Convention could not have been summoned in Ireland at that time and in those circumstances.
It is not my intention to trouble you with any detailed statement of the Convention's proceedings. I content myself with saying that after eight months' work, partly in committees, partly in full session, the Convention either agreed unanimously, or carried by large majorities, a series of resolutions on all the fundamental points of a Constitution for the future Government of Ireland within the Empire, with the exception of one point. The one fundamental principle on which no agreement was come to, and no majority vote was carried, was the principle of the control of Irish Customs and Excise—whether that control should be exercised by the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, or by an Irish Parliament at Dublin. In point of fact, the question involved was the control of indirect taxation in Ireland. On that point a radical difference disclosed itself in the Convention, and when the Prime Minister was apprised of that fact he wrote the following letter to the Chairman of the. Convention, Sir Horace Plunkett—
10, Downing Street,
Whitehall, S.W.1.
21st January, 1918.
Dear Sir Horace Plunkett.
In our conversation on Saturday you told me that the situation in the Convention has now reached a. very critical stage. The issues are so grave that I feel the Convention should not come to a definite break without the Government having the opportunity of full consultation with the leaders of the different sections. If, and when, therefore, a point is reached at which the Convention finds that it can make no further progress towards an agreed settlement, I would ask that representatives should be sent to confer with the Cabinet. The Government are agreed and determined that a solution must be found. But they are firmly convinced that the best hope of a settlement lies within the Convention, and they are prepared to do anything in their power to assist the Convention finally to reach a basis of agreement, which would enable a new Irish Constitution to come into operation with the consent of all parties.
Yours sincerely,
D. LLOYD GEOROE.
That letter was in due course communicated to the Convention, and after discussion the request was accepted, and a delegation was appointed to meet the Cabinet in London. As the Blue Book says, "the delegation proceeded to London and had interviews with the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet, collectively and severally." That was in

587
the end of January and beginning of February, 1918.
On February 25 the conclusions to which the Government had come upon the proceedings of the Convention up to that time, and upon their interviews with the delegation, were communicated to Sir Horace Plunkett in a letter printed at pages 20 to 22 of the Blue Book. To that letter I most respectfully invite your Lordships' particular attention. It is in this controversy of extreme importance, but I am sorry to say that it has not received from the public that attention to which it is entitled. Beginning with some very weighty words of promise, of exhortation, and of advice, the Prime Minister proceeds to express the judgment which the Cabinet had formed on the value of the Convention's work up to that time. His words are these—
"It is evident that there is on the part of all parties in the Convention a willingness to provide for and safeguard the interests of the Empire and of the United Kingdom. A settlement can now be reached which will reserve by common consent to the Imperial Parliament its suzerainty and its control of Army, Navy and foreign policy, and other Imperial services, while providing for Irish representation at Westminster, and for a proper contribution from Ireland to Imperial expenditure. All these matters are now capable of being settled within the Convention on a basis satisfactory both to the Imperial Government and to Ireland."
My Lords, I invite your particular attention to these most significant words. Their effect is that on a great part of the Convention's task—a Constitution for Ireland within the Empire—success had actually been attained. Indeed, the remainder of the letter makes it clear that so far as fundamental questions were concerned only two matters at that time remained unsettled. One was the question of the control of indirect taxation, to which I have alluded; the second was the securing of a single Parliament for an undivided Ireland.
On each of these points I will, with your Lordships' permission, say a few words. To the first object—namely, the question of the control of Customs and Excise—the Convention on reassembling in Dublin after the return of the delegation from London gave their best attention. They had before them the following remarks of the Prime Minister, contained in the letter of February 25—
"There remains, however, the difficult question of Customs and Excise. The Government are
588
aware of the serious objections which can be raised against the transfer of these services to an Irish Legislature. It would be practically impossible to make such a disturbance of the fiscal and financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland in the midst of a great war. It might also be incompatible with that federal reorganisation of the United Kingdom in favour of which there is a growing body of opinion. On the other hand, the Government recognise the strong claim that can be made that an Irish Legislature 'should have some control over indirect taxation as the only form of taxation which touches the great majority of the people, and which in the past has represented the greater part of Irish revenue. The Government feel that this is a matter which cannot be finally settled at the present time; they therefore suggest, for the consideration of the Convention, that, during the period of the war and for a period of two years thereafter, the control of Customs and Excise should be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament; that, as soon as possible after the Irish Parliament has been established—"
I invite your Lordships' attention to those words, because they show that the intention was that during the war an Irish Parliament should be set up—
"a Joint Exchequer Board should be set up to secure the determination of the true revenue of Ireland—a provision which is essential to a system of responsible Irish Government, and to the making of a national balance-sheet, and that, at the end of the war, a Royal Commission should be established to re-examine impartially and thoroughly the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland, to report on the contribution of Ireland to Imperial expenditure, and to submit proposals as to the best means of adjusting the economic and fiscal relations of the two countries."
At that time, my Lords, in reference to this fiscal question, the Convention in Dublin was divided into three Parties. There was the Party of the Ulster Unionists, which objected to any change whatever in the fiscal or financial arrangements between the two countries, and indeed refused to invest the Irish Parliament with power over taxation of any description whatever. Next there was the Party of the Southern Unionists, which, starting from the same basis as the Ulster Unionists—namely, adherence to the legislative union—gradually came to see that if a settlement was to be come to at all some concession to Nationalist ideals was inevitable; and finally agreed to invest the Irish Parliament with complete control over direct taxation, and, afterwards, with so much control of indirect taxation as consisted of the Excise revenues. Then there was the third or National Party, which in its views was in direct conflict with the Ulster Party, and claimed for Ireland control of

589
taxation of all descriptions. They claimed to be placed in precisely the same position as our Dominions overseas in regard to Revenue and Fiscal taxation.
That was the general division of parties; but there was a kind of domestic cleavage in the Nationalist ranks. The more pronounced Nationalists were of opinion that upon the question of taxation no compromise was admissible, and they determined to ask for a decision then and there. On the other hand the majority of the Nationalists did not wish to precipitate a Conclusion, and they were for accepting the suggestion of the Prime Minister. The result was a coalition, if I may use the word, between the advanced Nationalists and the Ulster Unionists, and between the Southern Unionists and the less advanced Nationalists. The latter combination was the larger of the two; consequently the Prime Minister's proposal of a postponement till after the war and an Inquiry by a Royal Commission was carried. One part of my Question is connected with that, and I ask the noble Lord who represents the Government in this House to say when this Inquiry will be instituted.
While I ask that question, I am at the same time bound to tell the House that the political atmosphere in Ireland to-day is not precisely what it was fifteen months ago. The feeling of Irish Nationalists has hardened much upon the question of control of Customs revenue, so much so that they attach to the enjoyment of Customs revenue the term of the Dominion status an absolutely inaccurate misnomer which has become almost a shibboleth in Ireland. It has come to this, that if one does not regard the Dominion status as the least of her demands, you are considered not to be a Nationalist. Personally I adhere to the Convention nomenclature, and consider Dominion status to be au incorrect and an inaccurate term. Dominion status means that Ireland shall have her own Army and Navy. The Convention has repudiated any such intention. Dominion status means that Ireland should make no contribution to the Imperial revenues. The Convention has accepted the obligation of making a contribution to the Imperial expenditure; and for the purpose of determining what the amount is to be, this Inquiry is to be held under the Prime Minister's instructions. I think that a very great injury is being done
590
to the Irish cause in this country by the mis-use of the term Dominion status.
It remains for me to say a few words upon the second point—namely, the establishment of a single Parliament for a United Ireland. On this the Prime Minister makes the following remarks—
"Turning to the other essential element of a settlement—the securing of an agreement to establish a single Legislature for a United Ireland—the Government believe that the Convention has given much thought to the method of overcoming objection on the part of Unionists, North and South, to this proposal. They understand that one scheme provides for additional representation by means of nomination or election. They understand further that it has also been suggested that a safeguard of Ulster interests might be secured by the provision of an Ulster Committee within the Irish Parliament with power to modify, and if necessary to exclude, the application to Ulster of certain measures, either of legislation or administration, which are not consonant with the interests of Ulster. This appears to be a workable expedient, whereby special consideration of Ulster conditions can be secured and the objections to a single Legislature for Ireland overcome."
From the beginning of the Convention the Nationalist Pary recognised that under the existing electoral conditions in Ireland it was impossible that Unionists could get representation in the Irish Parliament at all commensurate with their importance in the country. It was therefore proposed to give them an increased representation—a representation to which their numbers in the general population did not entitle them.
After prolonged discussion it was agreed that the Unionists should be granted 40 per cent. of the seats in the Irish House of Parliament. I cannot at the moment remember what percentage they at present hold, but it is certainly not 30 per cent. Both the Southern Unionists and the Ulster Unionists admitted that the proposal was a liberal one, but it was turned down in Ulster by that Council to which all important proposals were submitted. That Council, hidden in the midst of the North, turned it down because, forsooth! it was undemocratic. Determined to give them no excuse, we managed to create electorates by grouping together industrial towns in the North in which the Conservative vote predominated, and in that way we took out of their mouths the objection that it was an undemocratic proposal. However, it made no difference. We thought that the best way to do it would be by a system of nomination—a system of appointment by

591
the Lord Lieutenant on nominations furnished by the great Unionist Associations in Ireland. That still is the plan which remains for the Southern Unionists, but we were unable to find constituencies which sufficed for them because there were so very few.
We next paid attention to the Senate, and arranged that out of sixty-four members the Irish Peers should elect from within their own body fifteen, while the remainder of the Senate, it is hoped, will represent the more substantial elements of the rural, commercial, professional, and intellectual life of Ireland. We adopted the further arrangement that in crucial matters the Senate and the House of Commons should sit and vote together, and in this way we were still further strengthening the Conservative effect in the country.
Our hope was that we should provide for Unionists adequate protection by the ordinary machinery of Parliament, and we had hoped that we had done so by this large increase of the representation of the House of Commons. But, acting on a suggestion by Lord Dunraven, a proposal was worked out from the Nationalist benches, which gave a further protection to Unionist Ulster. In substance the proposal was that, in case any legislative measure or administrative proposal came before the Irish Parliament to which in any Province local objection was raised, it should be competent for the representatives of that Province in the House of Commons and in the Senate to form themselves into a Provincial Grand Committee, and by a majority resolution to require the House of Commons to refer the measure or proposal, so far as it affected the particular Province, to the Grand Committee of that Province. The Grand Committee would, thereafter, discharge the functions of a Committee of the whole House in respect of the measure or proposal in question. Finally, the House would be bound to accept the Grand Committee's Report of amendments in respect of such a measure or to exclude it from the proposal before the House.
It was expected that the scheme would practically amount to provincial autonomy in dealing with contentious questions susceptible of local solution. The Prime Minister thought it was a workable scheme, but it found no favour with the Ulster delegates. They suggested no alternative, unless, indeed, that can be regarded as an
592
alternative of the partition of Ulster, which they placed on the Notice Paper in response to the warning of the Prime Minister of the Empire that partition was not a reasonable way of approaching the question.
I venture to submit that, having regard to the labour expended in endeavouring to conciliate Ulster feelings on this question of a single Parliament; considering the satisfactory results which were achieved in respect of the Southern Unionists; and considering that the proposals are themselves consonant with reason, they may be well regarded as the same kind of basis as the Prime Minister found the basis of the other proposals which he approved to be. They were carried in full session of the Convention by more than a two to one majority, and, as I have said, I infer from the words of the Prime Minister that he intended them to form, with the other proposals, a basis for legislation. His words are these—
"The Government consider that during the period of the war the control of all taxation other than Customs and Excise could be handed over to the Irish Parliament; that, for the period of the war and two years thereafter an agreed proportion of the annual Imperial expenditure should be fixed as the Irish contribution; and that all Irish revenue from Customs and Excise, as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, after deduction of the agreed Irish contribution to Imperial expenditure, should be paid into the Irish Exchequer."
That was the way in which the Prime Minister thought that for the time a Consolidated Fund might be established. The Prime Minister in his letter of February 25, told Sir Horace Plunkett—
"On receiving the Report of the Convention the Government will give it immediate attention, and will proceed with the least possible delay to submit legislative proposals to Parliament."
The only difference between the case which was presented in the Report of the Convention and the case which was presented to the Cabinet at the interview with the delegation was that the arrangements for a single Parliament for United Ireland had been carried by the large majorities which I have mentioned. So that I am justified in saying that in February the Prime Minister had the whole facts before him, and that, having the whole facts before him, and having clearly indicated on receiving the Report that he would initiate legislation at once, I am now entitled to ask, Has the time now come for him to fulfil his promise?
I claim to have shown you that the Convention was successful in elaborating a practical scheme for a future Constitution for Ireland within the Empire, in all respects except in regard to the control of Customs and Excise. That question is now sub judice at the special request of the Prime Minister; but the establishment, of an Irish Parliament was not to wait until the Royal Commission had reported. An ad interim Parliament was to be established. That is as clear, to my mind, as the English language can make it.
It was not alone by refusing help in the Convention that the Ulster delegates were obstructive. They have placed upon record in this Blue Book a statement of Nationalist extravagant claims which I have carefully examined and tested by the records of the Convention. I am an old man, and have had a long experience in official life, I have seen many extraordinary documents, but I have never seen such an extraordinary document as this. Very much more severe language would be justified. May I give you a few examples? The statement is far too long and technical to reproduce here, but an opportunity at a future time may be given to me. The first statement said to have been made as a claim by the Nationalists is the following—
"A sovereign independent Parliament for Ireland co-equal in power and authority with the Imperial Parliament."
That is startling enough to any constitutionally-minded Englishman, quite sufficient, if true, to clamp any sympathy he might feel for the Irish cause. But the marvellous thing is that it is a complete delusion.
Such a claim was never made. On the contrary. The first conclusion of the Convention states what is to be the position of the Trish House of Parliament. It is to be a subordinate Parliament, and, in order to make it quite clear, the ipsissima verba of the first section of the Act of 1914 is incorporated in the first conclusion of the Convention. There are two or three other extravagant claims which I will lump together. One is the right to make commercial treaties with foreign countries; a second is the right to raise and maintain a military force in Ireland; a third is the right to repudiate liability in connection with the National Debt. All three are
594
mistakes. The Convention made no such claims. The matters are distinctly provided for in the proposals of the Convention. The first two are reserved for the Imperial Parliament by the third Resolution of the Convention, and the liability of Ireland to contribute to the expenditure of the Empire is provided by Resolution 16 of the Convention. I have not the least doubt that the signatories of this document did not know the meaning of what they were writing; but I could well have wished that their levity of assent had been practised on a less serious occasion.
Irish Nationalists who are anxious to maintain the connection between Great Britain and Ireland see no way of reconciling the state of things in Ireland, so that they shall be a credit to the British Empire and shall redound to order, peace, and the prosperity of Ireland—they see no other way than by such a measure of reconciliation as the Convention has proposed. According to the Prime Minister we were, even when he wrote on February 25, almost able to present to him a list of our work and of the task imposed upon us. As I have said, only one point was wanting. It may be said that the establishment of a Parliament in Ireland in the present circumstances would be a dangerous experiment. I am not of that opinion. The constitution of a Parliament on the lines of the Convention will secure to the Unionists 40 per cent. of the seats in the House of Commons; and I do not in the least despair—the tide is already turning—that by an election carried out under a system of proportional representation (which has been applied to Ireland by the Convention) a substantial body of constitutionally-minded men would be returned at the poll.
If a number of Sinn Feiners were also returned I should not regret it. The school would be an excellent one for them, because I must regard the position in which these men are. They are not common criminals at all; they are enthusiastic young fellows who have been misled; and I think the time will come when they can see no outlook whatever from their adventure except a fight with the might of the British Empire. They may not realise it while they listen to oratory of a Sinn Fein meeting; but

595
some are already beginning to regret; and surely it is the business of a foreseeing Government to allow a bridge of escape from an impossible position, especially a Government that has promised so much. Shall the Prime Minister say to the Convention, "You Nationalists, you Unionists of the South, you Labour Members from the North, have all contributed to this body of Agreement, but I find I cannot fulfil my part of the compact."
The reason why the Prime Minister did not fulfil his promise in April, 1918, was intelligible. Ireland was upset with the threat of Conscription—so long refused by other Governments, the reasons for which have never been properly understood, dissected, or analysed. I myself often felt that it would be far better if Conscription had been enforced at the time when it was made compulsory in England; and if it had been so enforced, and a Parliament had been in Dublin, I feel certain you would have got the men you wanted. The feeling was there to go and assist their countrymen. However, untoward circumstances occurred; the terrible and for some time doubtful fighting in France diverted the Prime Minister's thoughts from matters nearer home. But those things have now passed away. Why should not the Prime Minister now take up his task at the point at which he dropped it (as he can do) in accordance with his plan, and at long last introduce a reign of peace in Ireland which will be accepted there as an awakening from a hideous nightmare? In moving my Motion, may I say that I should like to alter the last words. Instead of saying "forthwith" I would substitute "before the end of this session of Parliament."
Moved, That in the opinion of the House it is of the utmost importance that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Ireland should be declared before the end of this session of Parliament.—(Lord MacDonnell.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, if it were a mere question of consulting my own personal wishes I should be very slow indeed to trouble your Lordships with observations of mine, because I know that-there are many other members of your Lordships' House with greater experience, greater knowledge of statesmanship, greater knowledge than I can claim to possess of
596
all the questions which arise with regard to the motion which has been made. But I conceive that, being an Irishman, it is my duty to place before your Lordships, for what they may be worth, the views which I at any rate honestly hold on this question. I am absolutely convinced—and I would humbly press the view on His Majesty's Government—that at this time it is more necessary than ever that a pronouncement should be made with regard to the future Government of Ireland. When all is said, of course, any expression of opinion of any member of your Lordships' House must necessarily be only his own personal conviction. He is not infallible. He may be wrong. But I do claim that I may be at least as likely to be right as any one else.
I do not at all seek to put forward any views of mine, however sincere they are—and very sincere indeed they are—in any dictatorial spirit, but only in a spirit of suggestion. So far as I am concerned, I have never wavered from the view that delay in this matter—delay beginning with the Rebellion in 1916—has not been conducive to a satisfactory arrangement either for the Empire or for Ireland. I have always pressed that view, but I have always been met with the suggestion, "Oh! nothing can be done while Ireland is in such a state of disturbance as she is." Every day that has passed since the Rebellion of 1916 has increased the difficulties until they have reached such a condition that I am not surprised that some men throw up their hands and say that the question is not capable of being solved. That, however, is a counsel of despair.
There is no question, be it a public question or be it a private question, which, if we put our minds to it, we cannot solve. It is our duty to solve it. That is what we are here for, and it no answer to throw up our hands and say, "This is insoluble." I do not in any way underrate the difficulties that surround this solution, nor do I at all minimise the shocking state of affairs in Ireland at the present time, but I think it is absolutely essential, in truly estimating the position in Ireland, to go a little underneath and see whether or not this state of affairs is not one which will more readily yield to ameliorative treatment than to mere repression. Crimes, shocking crimes, have been committed in Ireland. Crime may be the result of mere immoral tendencies in the individuals who commit them, but when those crimes are

597
the outcome of social or political agitation, what we must look to is whether there is not some cause underlying those crimes—a cause the removal of which will remove the crimes also.
This is no new question. The British Empire has not been for the first time placed in this dilemma with regard to Ireland, and I would remind your Lordships of the situation in Lower Canada in 1837. I am not going extensively into ancient history, but I would respectfully recall your Lordships' remembrance to the condition of affairs—very like indeed to what exists at the present time in Ireland—which then existed in Lower Canada. On the accession of Queen Victoria to the throne Lower Canada was in a state of rebellion. The French Canadians were partly wrong, but they were also partly right. They were wrong in their attempts to treat unfairly the British inhabitants in Lower Canada and the adjoining Colony of Upper Canada, but they had a real grievance also, and that was that although they had a Representative Assembly of sorts, they had not themselves the spending of, or the control over, the taxes which were collected from them. Constitutional agitation was succeeded by conspiracy.
Conspiracy in Lower Canada took exactly the same forms that it has taken in Ireland at the present time. There was outrage, murder, illegal drilling, raids for anus, intimidation, and an utter disregard of the law on the part of the great majority of French Canadians. In the furtherance of their object they called for absolute severance of the links between Canada and Great Britain, and they sought to invoke foreign aid for that purpose. So entirely had the law in Canada ceased to be effective that within six weeks after the unfortunate recall of Lord Durham, men who were proved to have committed crimes, though arraigned before a jury, were triumphantly acquitted in the teeth of the evidence, and the jurymen were feasted as if they had done something that was heroic and good. That was the state of affairs in Lower Canada. It could not be worse. In substance it was exactly the same as it is in Ireland at the present time. Rebellion, conspiracy in furtherance of political aims, always takes the same form, and, unhappily, always runs to the same crimes.
What was the action of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it? Lord
598
Durham was sent to Canada, presumably with powers both to crush crime and at the same time to reform grievances. The powers which he got he assumed to be ample. Unfortunately, he was guilty of some technical breaches of what was the law; but, in substance, he conceived that you should do the two things at the same time—crush crime and ameliorate grievances. He was recalled, as I have said. Crime was crushed as it should be, and as it should be in Ireland too. I yield to no one in my opinion on that point. But the reactionary forces in Great Britain repented of the powers which were given to Lord Durham, and he was recalled. He made a famous pronouncement, irregular undoubtedly (and he was dubbed" Lord High Rebellion"), in which he insisted that there should be not only suppression of crime but a genuine redress of the grievances which he conceived Lower Canada was suffering from. I say nothing in regard to Upper Canada. There the Rebellion was not as formidable, but it took exactly the same line, and it was also complicated by actual acts of aggression by individual members of the United States.
The parallel is very close so far. Would any one say now that in that celebrated pronouncement Lord Durham was not wise, and that we do not owe many things to that great statesman? Although he was recalled the British public conceived that he was right, and in 1840 was laid the foundation of the alterations in our Colonial Constitution which have borne such good fruit even in the years 1914 to 1919. That was the action of His Majesty's Government in 1837. Even in the Bill suspending the Constitution of Canada which was introduced, and necessarily introduced, in order to crush the rebellion, you will find in the Preamble a reference to and a promise of redress—a promise to place on a proper basis the whole Constitution of Lower Canada. I lay stress on this because I can appreciate to a certain extent the view which has been expressed, and indeed expressed in this House, from which I respectfully but strongly and earnestly differ, that you must wait until everything is calm and serene before you even promise what you will do.
Either this condition of affairs in Ireland is the result of something really wrong in the existing Constitution, or it is not. If it is something wrong in the existing Con

599
stitution of Ireland you must of necessity proceed pari passu with your measures of redress and your measures of forcible suppression. If the situation in Ireland is merely the result (which I deny) of some inherent evil in the Irish character, then of course it is a different thing. There must be no yielding to that; but let us at least have it said so. It was said of Lord Durham's action in Canada that it did more than all the acts of suppression which had preceded it. The rebellion was crushed when he arrived, but his pronouncement did more by its promise, and the knowledge of what was really wanted in Canada, to produce that peace which has since existed than all the acts of suppression.
And is not that right? Suppose you place, merely in imagination, Great Britain in the same position of Ireland. Suppose that the men of England conceive that they are wrongly dealt with, that they are not possessing the freedom—perhaps wrongly—which they think they should have. Would there be any difference between their action and the action of Irishmen, assuming them to have honest convictions, at the present time? I deplore crime in Ireland. I hate crime in Ireland, and personally I would crush it with all the forces of the law. But, my Lords, I am equally satisfied of this—that if there is nothing but repression and no promise for the future no holding out of any hope, any suggestion, that these constitutional grievances will be redressed, then things will go from bad to worse and no man knows where they will end.
Is this question really so difficult and so impossible of solution? If we were always to fight and quarrel over details we should never reach a solution. That I admit. But if we keep in our mind that there are some essential principles, and that on other matters we can concede, then it seems to me difficulties largely disappear. If you go to the bed-rock in this matter there are two things, and two things only (they can be put in one sentence) which are at the root of this unfortunate Irish question. They are these. The Irish people claim, be they right or wrong, that there must be conceded, perhaps to their sentiment, something in the form of a subsidiary Parliament. The majority of them, those who have not been led astray by the wild talk of certain young and misguided men in
600
Ireland, do not in any way seek—and if they did I should be as much against them as any member of your Lordships' House—to repudiate the Imperial position of Great Britain, or to dictate to Great Britain what policy she must pursue in any matter affecting the Empire. All that they claim, and claim strongly, is this concession to what I will call, for the moment; sentiment. In addition, they claim that that Parliament shall have control over those economic, and social questions which experience has demonstrated are peculiar to Ireland and cannot be dealt with on the same lines as in Great. Britain.
Those are the two essential claims. If they cannot be granted, then say so. Let us have an end of it. Let us go on in this wretched state of affairs, which cannot strengthen time Empire but must weaken it, and weaken it because those great nations which would not dictate to us, but at the same time whose sympathy and aid we shall look for in the future, will misunderstand. But if, as I respectfully suggest, the whole history of the business shows that there must be an alteration in the system of Government in Ireland, then trace the crimes which have been committed not to any natural weakness in the people but to the result of the error of withholding a reasonable demand, and give that demand as soon as you can. The sooner the better, if it is to be of the slightest utility.
I would not like to say one word in connection with this controversy that could hurt or wound any one. I am convinced that those who hold views diametrically opposed to mine, those who have extreme notions, are as honest as I believe I am myself on this subject. None of us are infallible. We are not infallible in our own private arrangements, nor can we be infallible in public arrangements; and it would be well if we could only realise tho fact that, no matter how convinced each one of us may be of the particular solution which he thinks would be effective in Ireland, perhaps there is something to be conceded on both sides. My Lords, the Convention was established on that basis. That it failed is unfortunate, but it has placed the English people now in the position of determining the question which unfortunately was not determined by mutual concessions.
We have this job to do. We must do it, and we have the materials for doing it.

601
I have never personally been wedded to this, that, or the other particular form of solution. In all the solutions that have been suggested there have been good points and bad points; but, unfortunately, once this wretched Irish question is considered, it is a matter of tearing to pieces every scheme for its bad points, without seeing that there may be in a fusion of them all a possible solution. If it can be conceded—the one proposition which I have expressed in a single sentence—if it can and ought to be conceded, it is idle to say you cannot see a way out of the difficulty. Do not let us say we cannot see a way out. Let us honestly take up this labour and do our best with it, and if we do our best, even though the result may not be perfect, we shall at least know that we have done our best and shall have justified ourselves in the eyes of the world. That is not a light thing.
The world has grown smaller, and we cannot refuse to consider the views of outside nations, as if they were nonexistent. It would be a great thing if we produced an honest scheme, doing our best; but, my Lords, I would say this to His Majesty's Government, and say it from my heart, because I am convinced that this is not a mere Irish question at all but is one of the many questions which, in the future, we have to look at in order that we may be safeguarded in the world of nations. I earnestly suggest to the Government that they should deal with this question in the largest manner they possibly can if it is to be dealt with at all. If a man is sick, no one who is his friend will spare any cost to make him well. That is the spirit which, I respectfully but strongly urge on the Government, should pervade the settlement of this Irish question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who spoke last introduced in the House to-night a topic of almost unbroken gloom. He has devoted years of his life to exploring many routes which in his judgment afforded from time to time the prospect of settlement, and he is evidently entitled that the expression of his opinion should be listened to, as it was to-night, with respect. There is one point on which I find myself almost in agreement with the noble Lord (Lord MacDonnell) and that is a point of some importance. In the Motion which he placed upon the
602
Paper he has urged that it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to take certain steps specified in the Motion "forthwith." For reasons which I will state in a moment, the Government also are of opinion that it will be necessary for them to take the steps indicated in the Motion, not indeed "forthwith"—there is a peremptory obligation about the word "forthwith" which hardly accords with the nature of the times in which we live—but if the noble Lord who moved is prepared to substitute for the word "forthwith" the words "at an early date" the Government would accept the Motion. I gather that the noble Lord has indicated that he is prepared to accept that alteration in the wording of his Motion, but it would perhaps be none the less convenient, inasmuch as the debate has travelled over a considerable area, that I should add a few observations on the topic brought forward. The reason why the Government assent to the Motion as altered can, of course, be very shortly stated. Your Lordships are aware that automatically, and if nothing is done, at a period which now must be accounted short the Home Rule Act will become the law of the land.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is that period? Six months after the end of the war?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. It is evident, therefore, that either under the decision of Parliament that Act will become operative, or else some steps must be taken by the Government which would deny what normally would be the period at which it must become operative. I do not think I shall injure any susceptibilities—at any rate, I hope I shall not—if I make the claim that in its present form there are not probably twelve constituencies in Ireland where a majority of its electors would vote in favour of the Act at the present moment. That circumstance, if my estimate is well founded, makes it quite certain that the Government must take some 'steps to prevent that Act becoming operative; and they share the view of the noble Lord who introduced this particular subject to-night, that the matter must become an early subject not only of Cabinet discussion but of Cabinet decision.
It would be wrong and unwarrantable if any individual Minister should attempt

603
to anticipate a responsibility which must from the nature of the case be both Cabinet and Ministerial; but while it would be wrong to take that course, it may perhaps serve some useful purpose if I remind your Lordships of some matters which I believe are not in controversy and some of the elements which must be pronounced the principal elements in the situation with which the Government will be confronted. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last said the delay after the rebellion was, in his judgment, largely accountable for much of the consequent mischief; and there were similar complaints developed in relation to the Convention and the career of the Convention in the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the subject to-night.
Observations of that kind, in my judgment, make it necessary to ask ourselves certain questions very plainly. Does the noble and learned Lord who spoke last mean that immediately after the rebellion we ought to have taken or attempted to take some of those steps which he thinks should be taken to-day? These matters were very gravely considered by the Cabinet, in that time when it was staggering under anxieties and responsibilities the burden of which to-day can hardly be remembered except by those who bore them; and on July 31, 1916, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, with whom was closely associated in high Ministerial position the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, made this observation in the House of Commons on behalf of the whole of his Government—
"I said, and I believe I am expressing the unanimous view of all sections of this House, that you could not bring Ulster, or any substantial part of Ulster, into a Home Rule Government without its consent."
I would remind noble Lords who have spoken, and I would remind members of all parties in this House, that that was the deliberately formed and the deliberately expressed conviction of the Prime Minister of the first Coalition Government, speaking on behalf of all his colleagues.
That Coalition Government in time disappeared. It was replaced by the first Government of which the present Prime Minister was the head. And I think in justice to the Prime Minister it may be remembered, and it might to-night have been recorded by one or other of the speakers, that amid the many and profound anxieties under which he has laboured
604
in the course of the last four years, he has made repeated and most earnest efforts to see if some solution and some conciliation of our difficulties could not be discovered. When he had only been Prime Minister for a very short time he found himself driven by the conclusions he had formed as to the actual situation in Ireland to repeat in the House of Commons—and to repeat almost verbally—the assurance which had been given when Mr. Asquith and the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, were important Ministers And so it came that the present Prime Minister, like Mr. Asquith, gave that pledge, and gave it, as I believe and indeed as I remember, with the assent of almost every section in the House of Commons.
What happened next? I desire to see, if I can, the situation as it is to-day. The General Election intervened. It was expected, and it was required, that a statement of policy in relation to Ireland should be made by those who were inviting the confidence of the country, and in order that it might be known what were the views held by them on the subject of Ireland a joint manifesto was issued signed by the Prime Minister, and signed, on behalf of his Unionist colleagues, by Mr. Bonar Law. I may pause, perhaps, to claim in passing that at least at the General Election those two Ministers plainly stated to their countrymen the policy. It was in agreement with what had been both the Liberal and the Coalition view up to that date. It is worth while listening to what they said, because it may be reasonably anticipated that the discussions and the considerations when they are resumed will have relation to that. It was said to the country, and on the strength of it in some degree the majority was obtained—
"Ireland is unhappily rent by contending forces, and the main body of Irish opinion has seldom been more inflamed or less disposed to compromise than it is at the present moment. So long as the Irish question remains unsettled there can be no political peace either in the United Kingdom or in the Empire, and we regard it as one of the first obligations of British statesmanship to explore all practical paths towards the settlement of this grave and difficult question on the basis of self-government."
I beg your Lordships' attention to the words which follow, for they are important—
"But there are two paths which are closed—the one leading to a complete severance of Ireland from the British Empire, and the other to the

605
forcible submission of the six counties of Ulster to Home Rule Parliament against their will. In imposing these two limitations we are only acting in accordance with the declared views of all English political leaders."
In order to satisfy the two noble Lords who have spoken that these difficulties were not merely appreciated by the statesmen who, after all, had the responsibility at the relevant period but that they are even quite clearly appreciated by those who to-day are making praiseworthy and constant efforts to arrive if they can at some solution, let me quote two or three short extracts from one of the articles on Irish peace which recently appeared in The Times newspaper, and which give evidence of great industry and of a strong desire to make useful suggestions. The writer of these articles, who never from the start concealed his view that a settlement was obtainable and that a settlement was due, in the issue of July 5 made two statements. The first was this—
"Fiscal coercion of Ulster is not in 'the realm of practical politics."
The second was—
"The Ulster case is a strong one. Her demand for self-determination is equally well grounded with that of the rest of Ireland. Justice demands the full consideration of all her legitimate claims. But justice to Ulster does not necessarily imply implicit obedience to Ulster dictation. The people of Great Britain hold the scales."
Then comes a very important part—
"Ulster Unionists have the right to demand the preservation of their liberties within their own territory."
Such has been the special position conceded to Ulster by every one since the war broke out. It has been declared with every circumstance of formality, as I have told your Lordships. It was declared again in a speech which I made in this House not very long ago. The Government have from first to last made it plain that it will not be any part of their policy to sacrifice those who have been the friends of this country to those who to-day are taking pride in publicly declaring themselves to be the enemies of this country.
When I say that, I must confess some degree of surprise that those who have been so frequently and so publicly reassured in the past few years by men who were in a position which enabled them to give the assurance should have judged the present moment an opportune one for menacing declarations as to the course they would adopt in contingencies which have not
606
arisen and which they ought to know will not arise. The considerations to which I have so far asked attention are very relevant to the two speeches to which the House has just listened. Both those speeches had a common quality. They both assume that all that need be done is to produce a kind of scheme which was considered by the Irish Convention, and that then you would find a large number—a majority indeed—of misled but of fundamentally reasonable Irishmen would accept that scheme and would thereupon compose their differences and live under it in patriotic devotion to the interests of this Empire. Such is the picture which the noble Lord held out, and it is necessary, when such prospects are declared, that they should be subject to a somewhat cold analysis
In the first place, have either of the noble Lords the slightest reason for supposing that Ulster will ever assent under existing conditions—under existing conditions, I repeat—to send her representatives to a Parliament which would be elected at the present moment in Dublin? Let me tell noble Lords, speaking in the most respectful way at my command, that they are living in another world if they think that, so long as the rest of Ireland is honeycombed with sedition, so long as soldiers and women wearing soldier's uniform are maltreated and wounded in the streets merely because they wear the uniform of the King, it is in the least likely that the representatives of Ulster will consent to go to a Parliament which will be nominated by a majority of men who to-day would fling it back at you if you offered them the fullest measure of Dominion Home Rule.
The noble and learned Lord who spoke last spoke of what has been done in the matter of crime in Ireland almost as if it contained under all the circumstances of the case very little intent of criminality. I do not mean that the noble and learned Lord did not reprobate much that is done—the high Judicial office he has held makes it impossible that he should not do so—but it is quite wrong to say that there is not present a heinous and detestable criminal element in these outrages.
I have given your Lordships some of the details before. There have taken place in Ireland from April 1 to June 30 in the present year 120 outrages of an agrarian nature. There have taken place from April 1 to June 30 seventy-six outrages which are attributed on grounds which

607
have been examined to the Sinn Fein movement. Many of these outrages have been attended, as will be remembered, by the most revolting incidents. Your Lordships will have in mind the case of the policeman cruelly shot to death in the discharge of his duty, and then jeered at by the crowd as he lay dying in agony on the ground. If such a crime was isolated all of us, I hope, would know how to make allowances. Such crimes are not isolated; 120 have taken place in the comparatively short time which I have selected for the purposes of illustration.
And let me give a further illustration. Noble Lords speak as if those who were waiting to receive the Ulster representatives in an Irish Parliament in the consoling majority, under the circumstances, of 60 to 40—as if, when they went there, the Ulster representatives and the other representatives would talk the same language. Let me read to your Lordships a few selections from a speech which was found in the pocket of Mr. Burke, a Shin Fein M.P.—one of the Members of Parliament, I suppose, who would be in the majority in the case supposed. He was about to address a Sinn Fein meeting near Thurles on May 25. The meeting was broken up, but there was found on the orator a manuscript draft of his speech, which was partly undelivered. This was part of the speech that was undelivered—
"Now the attitude of those misguided men who condemn such incidents as the heroic rescue of Knocklong is an example of the wrong attitude to assume from the Republican point of view. These men are still labouring under the delusion that they are a British possession. Let them get. it into their heads once and for all that they are living in an Irish Republic, declared by Patrick Pearse in 1916 and sanctioned by the awful sanction of a people's overwhelming choice in open voting at the last General Election. To a man who believes in the Trish Republic, to a man who believes that the Irish are a people worthy of freedom, to a man with an iota of respect for himself or his country, the creatures who were bearing away that young soldier of the Republic to captivity, and perhaps to death, were not policemen, but bandits and marauders."
"In carrying out this Peeler boycott I would advise you to use some discrimination. Peelers may be divided into two classes: Class I—those who joined up before the majority of the Irish people declared for a Republic; Class II—those who had the villainy to join after it. We should remember that the first class were able to join up without committing a capital offence against the Irish Nation. And while it is impossible to excuse it, it is possible to extenuate their guilt in remaining members of such a notorious body in order to make their living.
608
"Then for Class 2—those who joined up since the Irish people declared a Republic—their lives are forfeit on two grounds. First of all, because they have committed high treason in taking up arms against the Republic, and secondly, because they are in the position of spies caught in the act."
Then he proceeds to point out that in any other country in the world the second class would be lynched—
"And if any man shoots or otherwise destroys one of them he may rest easy in his conscience, for he is only carrying out the sentence already passed on him by the Republican Government."
This language is held by one who is himself to-day a Sinn Fein Member of Parliament. We are entitled to draw the inference by the fact that, so far as I know, not one word of protest has been uttered by any responsible leader of Sinn Fein in relation to one of these charges of which I have spoken—the inference that they are committed with their approval and they are part of the campaign to which they have given their sanction, and which could not be carried out without their encouragement.
Let us take the facts and let us live in the world. Do the noble Lords suppose that the Ulstermen are not making observations as to what is going on in the rest of Ireland? Do the noble Lords suppose that the Ulstermen who, after all, have to live in Ireland, whose business and whose future depends on the wise government and administration of Ireland—do they suppose that at this moment of all others you will ever procure the free consent of that Ulster, without whose free consent you have disentitled yourselves from taking any action at all? If the noble Lords are really under any such illusions I would recommend to them to pay a visit to the Province of Ulster, and to certain counties in that Province, and try the effects of their persuasion upon the obstinate (as they would think them) inhabitants of that Province.
And if in the question of Ulster the difficulties would not be so great, the greatest difficulty of all is that at this moment the overwhelming majority of the non-Unionist constituencies in Ireland are represented by avowed Republicans. They are men who, when the war was still going on, openly cheered and rejoiced at German successes, who were openly grieved and depressed by British successes. They will not come to our Parliament, they declare that they want a Republic, and that nothing but

609
a Republic will satisfy them, and their so-called President, de Valera, a few days ago made a contemptuous reference to the proposal in the direction of Dominion Home Rule by saying, "We do not want anything of the Plunkett character." That was the respectful manner in which the President of the "Republican Parliament" referred to the experiment of Dominion Home Rule. I invite the noble Lords who. asked your Lordships in smooth and reassuring language to build upon the possibility of a settlement on the lines which they were recommending, to answer this question, Have they got the slightest, reason, conveyed to them by any responsible person in the counsels of Sinn Fein, for supposing that any such proposal as that to which they vaguely referred—or I go further, that a full measure of Dominion Home Rule, but deprived of control over the Army and Navy—would be accepted by any of the Sinn Feiners? Of course, the noble Lords would answer with the same candour that they are bound to answer my question about Ulster with. They will and must reply to it in this way. They must say, "If we took to Ireland to-day such a proposal as we have vaguely held out in general sentences in our speeches to-day, and if we asked the Ulstermen whether they would on the basis of a proposal like this assist to form a National Parliament for Ireland, the Ulstermen, with one accord; would say "No we will not, and we hold your promise that it shall not be imposed upon us by force.'"
Again, noble Lords may go, let us suppose, to the next meeting (whenever it is held) of what is called the Sinn Fein Parliament. Do the noble Lords think that, even if they sat behind closed doors so that with all the persuasiveness of which they are the masters they could point out the advantages of the proposals they have made, they would get one supporter among the representatives of Sinn Fein? If any one consented, his life would not be worth a moment's purchase if he went into a lonely part of the country. That is why, if we approach this question with a deep sense of responsibility, we should at least try and look at the situation as it really is and not see it through the kind of rosy mist which affects the vision of some. It is true that it is of great Imperial interest that a solution of this question should be arrived at. It is profoundly true that this
610
nation would be mightier if these differences were composed. It is true that this nation could speak among other nations of the world—which do not understand our difficulties—with a more confident note, and a note which in its turn would command more confidence if we had been able to procure a settlement and a solution of our own differences before we assisted other to settle the differences of the world.
It will be the duty of the Cabinet to attempt to carry out the prospect which they indicated to the country in the words I have already read to your Lordships. So long as the Irish question remains unsettled there will be no political peace either in the United Kingdom or in the Empire. In spite of all I have said, I repeat to-night those observations. I say that it will be the duty of the Cabinet still, difficult as the task is to explore; but they will explore it with eyes that are alive to the situation, not as it is depicted by optimists but as it really is facing us and forcing itself upon our attention to-day. If your Lordships want to hear an individual opinion, in my view there is no prospect of a happy issue from our labours until the cause of law and order has been vindicated and established in Ireland, and until honest men can there pursue their legitimate vocations without fear of the assassin's dagger or of the murderer's gun.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think every one must realise the difficult position in which the Government stand; and I think that, anxious as many are to press upon them the urgent importance of their disclosing to the country the policy that they intend to pursue with regard to Ireland, they would be willing to make some allowance for the critical conditions out of which we have just emerged and for the difficulties which lie immediately ahead. But when the noble and learned Lord says that the Government is prepared at an early date to state what its policy may be, I can only answer that an early date on the lips of a Government is very often a date far too late for the political needs of the country.
The noble Lord who moved this Motion asked that the policy should be disclosed before the end of this Session. I see no reason why the Government should hesitate to assent to that proposition if they are really in earnest in preparing and publishing

611
the scheme of government that they propose to pursue. I must add that the speech to which we have just listened, though full of fire and vigour, was a speech that struck me with a strong feeling of bitter disappointment. The noble and learned Lord asks us to look at things as they are. I am willing to do so. What is the position of Ireland at the present moment? Ireland is governed by military force at the present time exactly as though it were a subject country; and in spite of our having troops there—which I have heard estimated at 80,000; the noble and learned Lord may know whether that is right or not—from his own showing they are perfectly incapable of preventing the occurrence of outrages which everyone shudders to hear stated and made public. Government by the military occupation of Ireland is a failure if the result of it is to be the occurrence of such incidents as that to which the noble and learned Lord has referred.
Then what is it that he suggests as an alternative? That law must be enforced, that crime must be repressed, that peace and order and good government must be established in Ireland, before anything is done. I have heard that statement with regard to the government of Ireland made for over thirty years. The result has been that all efforts to satisfy the demands—sometimes made by violent and criminal means and sometimes by perfectly orderly and constitutional methods—have always been arrested and turned down by the suggestion that you cannot possibly put them into operation until you have obtained a perfectly clean bill of health for the Nationalist districts of Ireland which throughout have been simmering in discontent owing to the very fact that you refuse them the only measure that will cause these unfortunate occurrences to cease.
It is impossible for anyone to read Irish history without realising that throughout its whole course there have been two parties. There has been the party who have attempted by conspiracies, by criminal methods, by violence and outrage, to call the attention of this country to the wrong under which they feel they suffer. There has been the other party which has attempted to guide and to control Irish agitation by constitutional means to a successful goal. I ask whether the noble and learned Lord, by the policy he has
612
dictated this afternoon, or the Party whose policy he represents, have ever done anything to encourage the constitutional method and to see if it were not possible by its use to destroy the other method which has always lived side by side? We know perfectly well that the answer is no. Had that been done, much of the lamentable history of Ireland need never have occurred. It is impossible to separate Ireland, as the noble and learned Lord attempted to separate it, into two classes of people—the people in Ulster whom he calls "our friends" and to whom he refers as "loyal orderly citizens"—no doubt they are orderly and loyal enough if they are not interfered with; and the people in another part of the country to whom he refers to as "our enemies." Think of the effect of a statement like that on Ireland at the present time. Nationalist regiments have fought our battles in France; Nationalists fill the graves side by side with our soldiers—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend will find, if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, that I made my meaning perfectly clear. I said those who were in control of Ireland.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not understand the difference, but if the noble and learned Lord means by his statement to withdraw what he said, I will say no more about it. I understood that he said Ulster were our friends and other people were not and the question was whether we were going to control our friends or give wav to our enemies. However, if he had in his speech done justice to what some of the Nationalists attempted to do for us, and the efforts that they made to show their desire when war broke out to fight by our side, I think even that might have made the position easier than it will be when his speech is read tomorrow. But the truth is that the whole of the Nationalist movement is hampered and fettered and cursed by this constant occurrence of criminal events such as those to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I have no doubt that the people who are most anxious for the welfare of Ireland deplore and condemn them just as much as he would do, but, when you are dealing with a country with a history such as Ireland has got, it is perfectly impossible to hope that you can extirpate the societies and the conspiracies by which those outrages are

613
produced until you have taken some steps to show that you are prepared to give expression to the national demand which lies at the back of the whole of the trouble.
To my mind it is no use saying, "If your national demand is supported by crime, you must wait till the crime is ended before the national demand is conceded." If you are going to do that you are going to put off the settlement of Ireland for ever. I do not believe that, certainly within the last thirty years, it has ever been possible to point to a time when Ireland was entirely free from agrarian outrage. I do not suppose, if you continue the present form of Government for another thirty years, that you will be able to point to a period when Ireland is free from outrage. What are you going to do? The noble and learned Lord has pointed out the enormous importance of preventing the rights of Ulster from being interfered with. He has pointed out that many statesmen have guaranteed that they shall be kept free from improper interference; but what is lie going to do with the rest? Is the policy of the Government really to be what he suggested—to do nothing whatever until you can get a clean bill of health from the crime records of Ireland? This Government has had charge of Ireland for eighteen months or more. If they have not succeeded in that time, what hope is there that they will succeed in the next eighteen months?
The policy which the noble and learned Lord has outlined is simply a policy that means postponing once again the attempt to settle this question until a time, the remoteness of which no man can measure. I do not believe that that is a policy which is going to succeed. Of course, it is possible to take the view that the demand for Home Rule is something which can never be met. I must say that I think people who believe in Home Rule ought to recognise, and ought to value, the immense sacrifice that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, in his efforts in connection with the Convention to which the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, has referred. He conceded what were, no doubt, the passionately-held convictions of a lifetime to see if it were not possible to come to a settlement on this question.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is a different policy. The first policy is that it shall never be conceded at all. That means the military occupation of Ireland from
614
now until the end of our lifetime, and it means continued strained relations with the United States of America and a difficult position that we have got to hold with regard to every other nation. That is one policy. The other policy is that something must be done to give effect to the national feeling of Ireland, and the question is—What? I had hoped myself that the Government would be prepared with a policy along those lines. If the noble and learned Lord's speech was properly understood by me, they are not prepared with any such policy at all, and I can only say that it seems to me that the future in regard to Ireland will only prove to be just as the past has been—a matter that we cannot regard with any confidence, or with any feeling but a feeling of the pitiful failure of English statesmanship in connection with the small country which lies close to our doors.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships with a few observations in consequence of the speech just delivered by the noble and learned Lord. I cannot say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord. I think that most of us who listened to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack were very grateful to him for his speech. He said many of the things which many of us feel, and feel very deeply. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down seems to me strangely to have forgotten the history of Ireland during his political life. He said—and he committed himself to the proposition—that there was never a period during which there was no agrarian outrage and disorder in Ireland. I meet him absolutely. I say that when that country was governed by a Unionist Government it was in perfect peace. There were no outrages. There were no difficulties of government. The King's writ ran everywhere and all men were able to enjoy their rights and possessions in peace. That state of things, which was established by the Unionist Government in my younger political life, continued up to the time when the noble and learned Lord and his friends became responsible for the government of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Marquess if he is prepared to say that there was no crime and no outrage between 1887 and 1892, at the period when the Crimes Act was passed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I say that when the Unionist Government left office, by the testimony even of the noble Marquess's political friends, Ireland was at perfect peace.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was a famous quotation from Mr. Birrell, which the noble Marquess will no doubt remember. There is no difficulty in governing Ireland if you know the way to do it, and the Unionist Government did know the way to do it. It was not until the Unionist Government was displaced that the difficulties of Ireland began again. The noble and learned Lord asked what has anybody ever done to recognise the Constitutional Party in Ireland. I had nothing to do with the Convention, of which the noble and learned Lord has spoken in very favourable terms, but surely that was an effort to help the Constitutionalists of Ireland. I do not pretend that I agree with the Report, but the noble and learned Lord is certainly not entitled to say that there was no attempt.
When you remember what the state of things was at the outbreak of the war, I have never been able to see that the Nationalist Party in Ireland have any case at all. Much to the regret of many of us—we resisted it in every way we could—the Home Rule Bill was carried over our heads and placed on the Statute Book. No doubt there was a pledge from the Liberal Government of that (lay that the case of Ulster should be re-considered, but I will venture to say that, if the Irish Nationalists had behaved well at the beginning of the war, nothing is more certain than that Home Rule was assured to them. No one can doubt that, and they must have known it themselves. Every one of them knew it. If they had followed even the advice of Mr. Redmond and had cooperated cordially in the efforts we were making against the common enemy, it is as certain as I stand here that Home Rule would have been assured to them.
But they would not do it. They broke out into disorder again when that offer had been made. They signalised their sympathy with the enemy of this country in the moment of our difficulty, nay, almost in the moment of our anguish they turned against us; against the noble and learned Lord and his friends, just as much as against
616
us. They turned against those who had given them the Home Rule Bill just as much as those who had resisted it. If I have said anything hard about the Irish people I do not desire to do that. I recognise their great qualities, and no man can long more than I for peace in Ireland, but I am bound to protest against the view of recent history which has been put forward by the noble and learned Lord.
He asks, What of the future? All we cart say is that as regards the future we stand where we did. We are not prepared to coerce Ulster. We are not prepared to do anything which will weaken the position of our Empire and country in the world. We are not prepared to agree to any measure which would seriously hamper us in our Imperial position. None of these things can we do. If the noble and learned Lord and his friends think they can produce a Home Rule measure which will satisfy Irish opinion, and which will not do the things which we say are impossible, let them try. Personally, I do not believe they can. I do not believe it can be done.
The noble and learned Lord has appealed to the opinion of America, and has said that by the course the Government are pursuing they will estrange the opinion of America. I am quite confident of this, that no public opinion would be more certain to have resisted such a policy as is put forward by the extreme Nationalists now than would American public opinion if it had been applied to their own country. Nothing is more certain than they would have resisted it to the last possible point. We all know the history of the great Civil War in America. Americans would never consent to the secession of the Southern States. The Americans of the Northern States would never have assented to what is called Dominion Home Rule for the Southern States. They would all have died rather than assent to it, and if we do the same and resist this demand of the extreme Nationalists we shall receive, in the long run, the cordial support of American public opinion. We stand where we did. We know that when the Unionists were responsible for the Government of Ireland the Government of Ireland was a success. We know that Irishmen have tried to produce a Home Rule policy. They have utterly failed, and as matters stand we remain convinced unionists, as we always were.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I do not desire to join in any of the recriminations or discussion of the different policies which have been outlined or adumbrated in the speeches we have heard to-night. I want to say one thing only, and that is to express my very earnest hope that His Majesty's Government will take the earliest possible moment for declaring their policy. I heard with regret the words which fell front the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he said, "early date." What is an "early date"? Does it mean before the end of this Session, or before the end of this year? Does it mean a time when Ireland has become quiet enough for His Majesty's Government to declare a policy?
I feel bound to say a word upon the subject because I stayed last week in Ireland, having to go there on au occasion entirely unconnected with politics, but hearing, as everybody must hear, what people say and what is the state of feeling that prevails. It is a state, my Lords, of the utmost anxiety and unrest. It is a state of general depression and alarm. The country is occupied by very large forces; I have heard the number estimated at a much larger figure than was given by Lord Buckmaster, and it is only that Army that prevents disorders probably more grave than those which have yet occurred. The feeling is generally spreading in Ireland that the Executive there has been wavering and uncertain in its treatment of the conditions it has to deal with.
The feeling prevails that it is doubtful whether His Majesty's Government have a policy. If they have a policy, why are they continually postponing opportunities for declaring it? Do they thin k things will be any better? There was a popular ditty a number of years ago which went by the name. I think of "Wait till the clouds roll by." His Majesty's Government are supposed in Ireland to be "waiting until the clouds roll by," and unfortunately the clouds have been rolling continually over Ireland for about two centuries. There have been occasions of fair and smooth weather, but at the present the clouds have been rolling as heavily as ever during the last six or seven years. I think it is rather dangerous for His Majesty's Government to prolong this state of tension, which is exposing us to unfavourable comment all over the world, not merely in the United States, as if we were quite unable to deal with the problem
618
at our own doors; as if we were disqualified for dealing with the rights of nationalities and indulging in liberal professions in other parts of the world when we were still leaving this problem unsolved.
I do not deny the immense difficulties, and all that can be said on both sides, but I put it to the Government that things have a way of getting worse as well as better. There is no certainty that things in Ireland will not get rather worse than better, and I hope His Majesty's Government before the end of this session will choose between the various alternative policies which have been presented to them and will give us their view of what ought to be done to cure the evils of Ireland and vindicate our position before the world.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord accept the variation to his Motion?
LORD MAC DONNELL: I am sorry I cannot accept the proposed variation. The conditions in Ireland are so entirely in favour of a declaration by the Government that I feel I should be wrong if I accepted the proposal of the noble and learned Lord. I hope the Motion may be put in the form its which I proposed it, with the words "during the present session."

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS) ORDER, 1919.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WELSH CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL) ORDER, 1919.
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: MY Lords, in accordance with tie provisions of Section (8), subsection (3), of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, I move to resolve, That this House approves the said Draft Orders. They arise out of the Ministry of Health Act which your Lordships passed earlier in the session. I put forward then all the various arguments in favour of these Consultative Councils, and I think it unnecessary for me to repeat them. If there are any questions on the matter I will do my best to satisfy your Lordships.
  Moved, That this House approves the said Draft Orders.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to hope that the Government will not press the Motion at this moment. It raises a very interesting point

  619
  which was a matter of considerable conversation across the Table whilst the Bill was going through Parliament. My noble friend opposite will remember that we indicated that we saw no objection to two of the Advisory Councils, but were not prepared to look with very much favour upon the other two. If my noble friend proceeds with the Motion now, I shall be obliged to move an Amendment to it.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: When do you want to take it?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt the Government can arrange a suitable day, but I do not think even the Notices on which this is founded are lying on the Table—
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: They were put down two or three days ago.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are they on the Table? They at any rate are not in the usual place where we expect to find our Papers, and I think it is doubtful whether any of your Lordships are really aware of what is proposed. If the noble Viscount presses the matter I must make a speech about it; but I suggest that he should postpone the Motion.
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I might mention one thing. Great objection was taken on a former occasion, because, I think it was, the Association of Municipal Corporations strongly objected to the course proposed; but since that time, owing to a conference, that objection has been withdrawn and that powerful association has submitted names to form part of one of these Councils. At the same time if the noble Marquess wishes that I should postpone my Resolution I will do so, and name a day, in conference with the noble Marquess, when it may be convenient.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will Thursday suit?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount is extremely courteous, and I think what he suggests would be advisable.
  LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I have already mentioned to my noble friend a point which I think requires careful consideration. Great importance has been attached to the procedure that was laid
  620
  down in the House under the Ministry of Health Act—namely, that distinction should be drawn between those cases where after a certain number of days an Order, or whatever it may be, should come automatically into effect, and those cases where a substantive Motion should be put down to say that the Order, or whatever it is, is approved. I think it is of great importance that that should be a reality, and that it should not turn out that after all the substantive Motion is of no more value than the old procedure.
  In this particular case, unless I am mistaken, what was laid down in the Ministry of Health Act was this, that every Order except one appointing the appointed day was to lie on the Table of both Houses for, I think, forty days. Then came another subsection which divided the Orders into two classes, but they all came under the first subsection. Every Order was to lie on the Table so many days. Then they were divided into two classes. One class, the minor Orders, wore at the end of forty days, if no objection was raised, to come into operation. The others, after lying on the Table for the prescribed period, were to be subject to a positive Address from both Houses before coming into effect.
  I do not think the period of forty days has elapsed since these Orders were laid upon the Table, and therefore if the procedure is right you have brought in this new proposal about a positive Order in the House, and it may be put down immediately, as in this case, within the time mentioned in the previous part of the section and without anybody having had time to look into it. It is proposed to appear upon the Records of Parliament that Parliament has approved of these Orders. I think it is a matter of immense importance. I troubled the House on the same point with reference to the Church Bill, and I proposed that a period of twenty days should be stated so as to allow an Order to lie upon the Table and after that time a positive Motion could be made saying whether the House approved or not. I think to put down a positive Motion before giving sufficient time, and without having regard to the particular time mentioned in the Statute, is not really doing justice to the new proposal.
  LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: May I suggest that, as well as having conferences with the noble Marquess, the noble Lord should have these Departmental

  621
  Orders circulated to members of the House in the ordinary way. I mean that members should at all events have an opportunity of getting these Papers by affixing their signatures to the Pink Form. There should be a drawing of the attention of members of both Houses to these Orders, in the same way as you circulate Bills and other proposals of that kind. Failing that, I shall remain of opinion that this procedure is quite as much a mockery as I described it when discussing the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SANDHURST: May I say that there is another reason for agreeing to the proposal of the noble Marquess to postpone the Motion. I understand from authority here that the Draft Orders were printed before the House of Commons, but have not been printed here. If I am to blame I regret it very much. With regard to the other point raised by Lord Muir Mackenzie, of course we all agree that anything which the noble and learned Lord says on the question of procedure, remembering his distinguished career at the Table, must naturally command respect; but at the same time we had informed ourselves, having taken opinion, that we were quite competent to make the Motion when we did. What the noble and learned Lord has said did not escape us, and while I listened to what he has said with great respect, on the other hand I was informed that I was correct in making the Motion when I did. I am also informed that in another place the Motion was carried without any comment whatever.
  LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: They had seen the Orders.
  Discussion adjourned sine die.

MILK PRODUCTION.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved. That the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

E. Mount Edgcumbe.

E. Strafford.

E. Northbrook.

L. Hindlip.

L. Rathcreedan.

—(Lord Hylton.)

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in the name of Lord Strachie.
Moved, That the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

E. Stanhope.

V. Chaplin.

L. Willoughby de Broke.

L. Strachie.

L. Annesley (V Valentia).

—(Earl Stanhope.)

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.
LORD SHEFFIELD LORD SHEFFIELD had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement of Mr. Fisher, Minister for Education, that the rule requiring secondary schools in receipt of Government grants to have a majority of representative governors ruled out certain excellent Roman Catholic, schools, and to ask the Earl of Crawford whether it is correct, as shown in List 60 of Secondary Schools recognised by tile Board of Education, that there are forty-six Roman Catholic schools so recognised with 9,376 pupils on the roll, and that of these only three with 161 pupils receive no grant? Whether these three schools at Northampton, Berwick-on-Tweed, and Newcastle differ in their character from the numerous schools, either convent schools or managed by a religious order, which receive full grants, and whether, since forty-three such schools with 9,215 pupils on the roll have complied with the conditions of the Board of Education and are receiving grants under them, there is any reason to think that these conditions are unreasonable or excessive, and whether the excellent schools that are, according to Mr. Fisher, ruled out are the three schools mentioned in List 60, and if not, what is the number of schools with their pupils which have desired to receive grants but are excluded by the conditions, and why they have not applied to be enrolled among schools recognised by the Board of Education? And what steps the Board of Education will take, after allowing a majority of the governors to be Roman Catholic, to secure that the

623
regulation freeing all teachers from tests on religious discrimination shall have its proper effect? And to move for a Return of the recognised Roman Catholic schools that have applied for grants and have been refused, or that have intimated that the existing conditions prevent them from applying.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to put the Question which stands in my name, and as the facts are sufficiently set out I need not repeat them. I will only express the hope that the noble Earl will be able to grant the Return for which I ask.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of the recognised Roman Catholic schools that have applied for grants and have been refused, or that have intimated that the existing conditions prevent them front applying.—(Lord Sheffield.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords: While I am afraid I cannot grant the Return for reasons which I will state, I think the reply, though somewhat technical in character, will fully satisfy the noble Lord. I wish in the first place to say that Mr. Fisher does not accept the reports of his interview with a deputation from the National Democratic Party in certain newspapers as complete or accurate. The number of Roman Catholic schools on List 60—that is the list of secondary schools recognised by the Board as efficient—is forty-seven, not forty-six as stated by the noble Lord, and the number of these which are also on the Grant List is forty-four. The three schools not in receipt of grants do not differ materially from the forty-four in the character of the education provided by them. The forty-four schools are divisible into three categories—(a) Five schools, which were already recognised for grants when the regulations of 1907 were introduced, and were retained on the grant list, but on the lower scale of payment because of their failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of full grant there laid down. Admission to this category from the first was confined to schools which were already in receipt of grant before 1907—
LORD SHEFFIELD: That is the lower grant?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes. (b) Thirty-seven schools, which receive the full grant in consequence of waiver granted in respect of requirements relating to religious tests and majority of representative governors. The application of this waiver to any schools which had not already obtained it was withdrawn in 1909. Schools receiving full grant under this head have all to comply with the regulation requiring free places in respect of which waiver was at no time given. (c) Two schools only have seen their way to comply with the full requirements of the Regulations.
It will be observed that owing to the fact that the categories (a) and (b) above are closed lists, there has been no way since 1909 in which any Roman Catholic school, not then already on the grant list, can qualify for any grant under the Regulations except by full compliance with those Regulations. It is not possible to say what number of schools have desired to receive grants but have been, or have regarded themselves as being, excluded by the conditions. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension as to the terms of Article 23 of the new Regulations. This Article, following in that respect the earlier form, merely provides that the instrument of government of the school must not require any of the teachers to belong or not to belong to ally particular denomination. The Board do not place any school on the Grant List until its instrument of government has been approved by them, and do not, of course, approve any instrument which does not comply with this Regulation. The recognised but non-grant-earning schools to which the last sentence of the noble Lord's Notice of Motion refers are the three schools named in the earlier part of his notice. It is improbable that any intimations which the Board have received of unwillingness to comply with the Regulations have been sufficiently formal to enable a Return to be made of them.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 14.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL. ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought front the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION (BONDS) BILL. [H.L.]
LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WARSERVICES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.[H.L.]
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DOMINIONSTROOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (LEATHER MEASUREMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow (The Lord Chancellor).
PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow (The Lord Chancellor).
OFFICIAL SOLICITOR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed and to be considered tomorrow (The lord Chancellor).
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: Amendments considered and agreed to.
STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

CHECK WEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday the 22nd instant (The Lord Weardale).
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.