Lords Sitting of 22 May 1919

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

BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH, OXFORD, BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, think that I ought to say a word of apology or explanation. I put several Amendments on the Paper for the Report stage the day before yesterday and did not
770
attend to justify them. The fact was that I was so unfortunate as to be taken in while I was engaged upon other business of your Lordships' House upstairs. I sent a message to the noble Viscount to tell him what had happened, and I trust that he did not suffer any inconvenience from my not being here. I feel confident that the House would never for a moment have thought that I could be guilty of any disrespect to your Lordships. One of the Amendments that I had put down and which occupied a great space upon the Order Paper was with respect to a proposed schedule to the Bill. I was very sorry to have lost the opportunity of trying to persuade the noble Viscount that it was better, in such a matter as that of Clause 4 of the Bill, to proceed by way of a schedule which could be discussed in the House, instead of leaving the matter to Orders in Council, as to which a great deal of objection is felt.
But I recognise, having read the debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, what a concession the noble Viscount, who is always conciliatory, made in the Bill; and although I am still of opinion that it would be better in such a case to proceed by schedule, recognising that fact I have not ventured to put down the Amendment again. Both the noble Viscount and the House, of course, had the advantage on that occasion of discussing the clause and of discussing what was to be done with the actual terms in their hands of what the Order in Council was proposed to be, so that some advantage was gained by the Amendment being put down on the Paper, even though I was not able to be here to try to persuade your Lordships to adopt my view in the matter.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I should like to say that, in common with all your Lordships, I regretted the absence of the noble and learned Lord the other day, and also the cause which rendered his absence imperative. I have no doubt that in the consideration of the various matters which arose we should have very greatly profited by his experience and advice. But as the noble Lord has said, the concession I was able to make in regard to the Orders in Council did somewhat change the aspect of the matter, and I am glad to feel that he is to that extent at any rate satisfied.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
General powers and duties of Minister in relation to health.
2. It shall be the duty of the Minister, in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to or conferred upon him by or in pursuance of this Act, to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the treatment and care of the blind, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, before the words "effective carrying out," to insert "preparation." The noble and learned Lord said: In pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships yesterday I have placed upon the Paper two Amendments, one dealing with the case of England, and the other a similar Amendment appropriate to the case of Ireland. These two Amendments, as your Lordships will see, are—Clause 2, page 1, line 14, before the words "effective carrying out" to insert "preparation"; and in line 17, after "diseases," to insert "the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor." I ought to make it plain that I am under no delusion that these Amendments will really satisfy those of your Lordships who were inclined to give support to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe when the matter was last under discussion.
The clause to which I make this addition is a clause which has undergone considerable criticism by your Lordships, to which I rather incline to think that your Lordships did not attach any very extreme importance. The clause was criticised as rather academic and as not a specially effective statement. of a general intention. The criticism was perhaps a little too severe, but—I desire to be quite plain—I do not claim to have attempted to do more, for reasons which I will presently indicate, than add the object which underlay the Amendment of my noble friend as one of the matters to be borne in mind and to be sought after by the new Minister, whoever he may prove to be.
But your Lordships are certainly entitled to an explanation from me as to the reasons which led me very definitely to the conclusion that the Amendment moved by my noble friend would not really have
772
been effective for the purpose for which it was designed, and that no useful consequences would have resulted from it. I took that view very clearly, as I think your Lordships would gather from what I said. Nothing but the circumstance that my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane, with his great experience, took another view, and that another view was also taken by one of your Lordships who had himself held the very responsible position of Public Prosecutor, prevented me from giving a more confident opinion to your Lordships. But I was very anxious to consider the matter deliberately and carefully, and I have certainly carried out the assurance which I gave that with every possible assistance the matter should be fully debated and considered. Long consultations took place yesterday both with the Director and the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions and with many other persons of great experience in such matters, and the meeting, which was protracted, reached unanimously the conclusion which I have ventured generally to indicate as my own, and which I will, if I am allowed, develop very briefly to-day.
The position on examination really proved to be this. It is no use recommending that a new Minister shall undertake the prosecution of certain offences unless those offences are clearly defined by law and can be made the subject of successful prosecution. When I went into the matter more fully yesterday certain indisputable facts emerged, and the chief of them were these—that the patent medicines fraud, in cases where frauds exist, can under our existing law only be attacked upon the charge that the defendant or the prisoner has attempted to obtain money by false pretences. Your Lordships will see that cases are readily conceivable which would justify proceedings of this kind, and in some cases those proceedings have been successfully taken. But they are very difficult prosecutions; they are not prosecutions which any trained criminal lawyer will very frequently recommend; and certainly it is no ex-aggeration to say that far more of these prosecutions fail than succeed. And I think the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, must be well aware that the real truth is that what is required is not an admonition, statutory or otherwise, to a Minister who is not specially charged with this duty of prosecution that he should prosecute in cases where it is extremely difficult to obtain a

773
conviction, and in which highly trained persons such as those in the Department of the Public Prosecutor very often do not recommend prosecutions because they are satisfied that convictions will not be. obtained—that is not the course which would meet the difficulties that undoubtedly require some treatment.
The course which ought to be adopted is undoubtedly that of strengthening our legislation. And when I went more fully into the history of the matter than was possible for me yesterday (I had not been aware that any advice was desired by your Lordships on this point), and when I read, as I have read in the interval, the Report of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines, which was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on August 4, 1914, I found this matter was very fully discussed by an extremely competent and experienced Committee. They examined the matter very carefully, and at the end of their Report they made certain recommendations. The recommendations are of the greatest possible importance, and if I may I will read paragraph 58 so that your Lordships may apprehend its general nature—
"Your Committee further recommend the following legislative enactments:—(1) That every medicated wine, and very proprietary remedy containing more alcohol than that required for pharmacological purposes, be required to state upon the abel the proportion of alcohol contained in it. (2) That the advertisement and sale (except the sale by a doctor's order) of medicines purporting the cure of the following diseases be prohibited:—

cancer

diabetes

locomotor ataxy

consumption

paralysis

Bright's disease

lupus

fits

rupture (without operation or appliance)

deafness

epilepsy

(3) That all advertisements of remedies for diseases arising from sexual intercourse or referring to sexual weakness be prohibited. (4) That all advertisements likely to suggest that a medicine is an abortifacient be prohibited."
I need not trouble your Lordships with them all, but there are seven or eight other specific recommendations.
Now, I shall be asked what argument I found upon this circumstance, although I anticipate that most of your Lordships have already drawn a conclusion. The Committee would not have recommended that these legislative changes should be made had the existing laws been adequate to deal with the cases dealt with in their recommendations. All those cases ought
774
to be dealt with; all those matters ought in a proper case to be made the subject of prosecution; and hardly any of them can be dealt with under the law as it now stands. These matters have been carefully discussed—though quite recently discussed—and I am authorised to say to your Lordships, and I do say, that the Government concurs in these recommendations. Your Lordships will not fail to notice the date of them—August 4, 1914; and that date no doubt will readily explain the reason why nothing has been done within the period that has intervened. Recognising, as the Government does recognise, first of all, that the existing law does not cover those cases; secondly, that those cases urgently require legislative treatment; and, thirdly, that the problem is an immediately pressing one, the Government authorise me to state, and I do state, that a very early attempt will be made to carry out in a separate Bill those specific recommendations of the Committee of which my noble friend was a member. I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships that this course will be far more likely to give effect to the wishes of this House than the acceptance of the Amendment which was under debate so short a time ago.
Your Lordships will recognise that I speak with considerable experience on this point—I was a Law Officer for four years, and I was primarily responsible for nearly every prosecution in this country for nearly three years—and I desire to protest against any change which would have the effect of decentralising responsibility for prosecutions. I also contemplate with great anxiety the creation of new Ministries with their own separate legal advisers. In some cases that has proved both inevitable and convenient, but every such proposal requires to be carefully considered upon its own merits. I have had great experiences in these cases. It only means this in practice, that where the matters are trivial the legal advisers of the individual Departments apprise those Departments and the matter is dealt with; but whenever the matter is grave it must, of course, come to the Law Officers of the Crown who are the necessary link between every Government Department, and on whose responsibility alone decisions in grave legal matters can be taken. I am confident that the mere provision of machinery of the kind contemplated by my noble friend would not

775
meet the case which met with so much sympathy amongst your Lordships. If these changes are made I have the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for saying that, if the legislation I have indicated becomes law, there will certainly be no remissness on their part to see that effect is given to your Lordships' strong desire—namely, that persons who pursue practices which under this legislation will become criminal shall be adequately dealt with.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after ("the") insert ("preparation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the statement made by the Lord Chancellor is very satisfactory from the point of view that the Bill is to be strengthened by words being inserted which will make it the duty of the new Minister to prepare and procure legislation. So far as that is concerned, and so far as what the noble and learned Lord said about the undertaking of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the committee which sat upon the subject of patent medicines is concerned, the situation will be better than it was before these words were put in.
But there is another difficulty of quite a different kind in the minds of many of us. In Scotland, for example, you have someone whose duty it is to take up a prosecution in a matter of this kind—the Lord Advocate—and he is charged with seeing that justice is enforced. Unfortunately that is not so in England, and I do not think it should be so generally, as the number of prosecutions would be so great as to be almost overwhelming. In England we have a Public Prosecutor, but he is a Public Prosecutor who picks and chooses at discretion. It is just this picking and choosing at discretion that we do not like with a Minister like the Minister of Public Health. By all means let private persons who have suffered wrongs prosecute for the punishment of criminal acts directed against them privately. But what we have been anxious about is that the sale of improper medicines is a thing no one could look after unless some public authority looks after it. I feel the difficulty, which the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, of creating a new Department for public prosecutions within the
776
walls of the Ministry of Health, but I should like something more specific with regard to this.
This is a matter which concerns the community, and the machinery of prosecution should be set in operation by those who represent the community—namely, the Public Prosecutor. If we had an undertaking from the noble and learned Lord and from the noble Viscount that the Minister of Health would recognise it as his duty to look out for such cases and bring them to the attention of the Public Prosecutor, and that the Public Prosecutor would then take them up, we should think ourselves in a better position; and it is on this ground that, while I am grateful for the words the noble and learned Lori on the Woolsack has introduced, I do not think they quite meet the anxiety which is felt.
LORD BLEDISLOE:My Lords, as I initiated this matter in your Lordships' House I should like to say that it is a source of very great satisfaction to me that the Government have expressed themselves willing specifically to include this range of subjects within the authorised sphere of their activities under this Bill. If I understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack aright, he promised that at the earliest possible moment the Government themselves would initiate legislation, and carry it through both Houses, dealing in a more general way with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I entirely agree with my noble friend that many of the more serious matters have yet to be dealt with, and to be dealt with by making them offences for the first time under British law. I think I am right in saying that there are certain cases, not so serious as those to which the Lord Chancellor has referred but of sufficient gravity, in respect of which there is a lacuna and offences of fraud go unpunished because it is not the business of any particular Minister to initiate prosecutions.
May I remind your Lordships that in addition to the recommendations which are specifically referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, there is one to the following effect—
"That the President of the Local Government Board (or Minister of Health) have power to institute the necessary proceedings to enforce compliance with the law—"

777
That presumably means the existing law—
"in connection with the sale and advertisement of any patent, secret, or proprietary remedy or appliance."
That is one of the recommendations, on the strength of which I put down my Amendment. May I also refer to a paragraph which contemplates this as the ultimate remedy?—
"Successful prosecutions for fraud in connection with the sale of secret remedies have been so few as to be negligible. In the first place, as we were informed by the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions, at present there is no person whose duty it is to say whether patent medicine manufacturers are making fraudulent claims."
They go on—
"We have privately brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions several cases obviously of the most, fraudulent or offensive description, and have requested him to prosecute. In each case, with every desire to do so, he has after careful consideration explained to us the legal grounds on which, in his opinion, it would be impossible to secure a verdict."
I do not want to labour the matter. I am obliged to the Government for including within the purposes for which the new Ministry is to be established prosecution for these very objectionable offences, and I rest satisfied with the promised Bill which I understand will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to deal with the subject in a more general way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to my noble friend Lord Haldane it is only necessary that I should point out that, although the Attorney-General may delegate various less important prosecutions, he is responsible for all prosecutions. So far as the Government are concerned, I have only to say that in their opinion it will be a very great advantage that the Minister who has a specialised Department should be able to call in the Attorney-General or the Public Prosecutor on the question of these frauds, the numbers of which will be very greatly increased by the legislation which is before us. I am authorised to state, and I do state on behalf of the Attorney-General, that my right hon. friend will take a. very serious view of his responsibility in this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after ("diseases") insert ("the avoidance of fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Staff and remuneration.
6.—(1) The Minister may appoint one parliamentary secretary and such secretaries, officer, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine, and in the making of such appointments shall give equal consideration to the suitability of persons of both sexes.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, it is now my duty to move that the words "one Parliamentary Secretary and" be omitted from subsection (1) of Clause 6. I referred the other day to this Amendment as one which I should submit to your Lordships' consideration, and I said then, and I repeat now, that I should not have done so had I not been in a position to give an undertaking, that in the first instance one of the Under-Secretaries should find a place in your Lordships' House. I further added that it was impossible to put such a statement in the Bill, because I understood—I think it is acknowledged—that no provision of that kind has found its way into an Act of Parliament.
I do not propose to keep your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, but, if you will allow roe, I am desirous once more to mate in perhaps more clear terms what the settling in of this new Ministry really means, and to point out how the volume of work goes on increasing as time and matters progress. Indeed, that work will roll up and increase like a snowball. I would remind your Lordships how very heavy that work must be in the initial stages and as it develops, and how much we are pressed not only to cope with this work but also, and at once, to add to it. Further, I should like to point out that, for effective issues, proper devolution must be necessary within the Office with sufficient and efficient supervision and direction. I wish also to call your attention to one point to which I do not think I referred on a former occasion. Your Lordships remember that the Insurance Commission has to be taken over by t he new Ministry, and, therefore, the Joint Committee will be merged in the new Ministry. Up to lately that Joint Committee has had its own Chairman, but that separate official will disappear. I admit this is not a financial saving on the vote, because the services of the Controller of His Majesty's Household were engaged for that purpose, but it adds by so much to the volume of

779
the work of the existing Under-Secretary who becomes Chairman in his place. I also ask your Lordships to remember that with the merging of the Insurance Commission in the new Health Ministry the three Commissioners will disappear from this capacity, and by this much the work of the present Under-Secretary is increased, if indeed it is not almost doubled.
Even now within the Local Government Board, with the urgency and importance and variety of problems which are arising and developing, it is necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary either to preside or to take part in inquiries into numerous subjects involving questions of policy. The Under-Secretary at the Local Government Board is already presiding over an inquiry as regards the spread of diseases resulting from the return of the Armies. He is in the same position with regard to the shortage of accommodation for people suffering from tubercle. He is also engaged in a series of conferences relating to the regularity in the supply of milk, and only to-day we observe that, recognising the feeling of your Lordships House, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has added another chapter to the already rather over-weighted book of the duties of that Office. Another thing should not be forgotten. There has been, I understand, a great development and advance in inquiry by Cabinet Committees when, not infrequently, an Under-Secretary is obliged to represent his Chief.
The last point to which I would wish to draw your Lordships' attention is this, that the new procedure arrangements in the House of Commons, under which Standing Committees sit from eleven o'clock till one o'clock and from four o'clock till six, has added enormously to the work of the Parliamentary officials of the Department, and no doubt to the work of other Departments when their Bills come up for consideration. Indeed I have found that is so. I have never been able to find the Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board, and I have really had to employ the greatest dexterity in order to catch the President of the Local Government Board in order to take his directions on the various Amendments which it has been my duty to propose or to consider when coming from other noble Lords.
I think it must be recognised that the position of the Under-Secretary of the
780
Local Government Board is very different indeed from what it was some years ago. I will give an example of how we are pressed to take up in regard to organisation and administration matters with which Parliament is concerned, and which, of course, will have to be advocated and defended by the representatives of the Office in Parliament. In addition to the break-up of the Poor Law, the Ministry has to set about the further stage, as it has been called, of the development of the Health organisation throughout country, and this Bill is really the foundation of that. The ramifications of health policy are almost limitless and octopus-like, and one cannot tell in what direction new ground may not have to be broken. It raises questions which cannot fail to interest Parliament, and, indeed, there is the clearest indication of a rapidly awakening interest in your Lordships' House in the discussions on this Bill. Then, again, there are the facilities for the treatment of various diseases, venereal disease and tubercular disease, which are notoriously inadequate. I do not allude in detail to the extensions in regard to the Board of Trade, Privy Council, and Pensions, but when we come to the further responsibilities and work which have to be absorbed by degrees, especially in regard to Clause 3, subsection (2), it really is quite impossible to estimate how great the work of the Department might be.
Therefore I ask your Lordships to give me back this Under-Secretary on the bona fide undertaking that one of the Under-Secretaries shall find a place in your Lordships' House. It will be noticed by your Lordships and by all observers that the development of government to-day tends to be in many new directions and channels which the public are demanding shall be taken up and administered by Government, and while I can assure noble Lords opposite who voted against us on a former occasion that I really am not behind them in my anxiety for economy and for not multiplying officials, I venture seriously to express the view that the withholding from the Office of this extra Under-Secretary will not be true economy of time or labour, but will put on the shoulders of the Minister and the Under-Secretary a burden which they will hardly be able to bear and also seriously impair the efficiency of the Office and expedition in dealing with matters which should be its first concern.

781
That is my case. I trust that in the conduct of the Bill your Lordships may not think that I have been unreasonable in endeavouring to meet the wishes of noble Lords in various parts of the House. I rather hope that I may have a ready assent to the proposition that we have not been unreasonable. I can assure noble Lords opposite that it has been one of the most ardent wishes of the President of the Local Government Board to see how far he could go in agreement in order to bring about the rapid passing of the Bill, in regard to the principle of which I think the feeling is practically unanimous. As I said on the last occasion, I know certainly of two Offices in which there are three officials, and if there is any case ever to be made out for a third official I submit there is a case to be made out for this third official. It is my genuine and earnest belief that he will tend to the efficiency and expedition with which the work would be done.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 4, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("one parliamentary secretary and").—Viscount Sandhurst.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Viscount has stated his case with his accustomed persuasiveness, and he has called to his aid all the arguments which legitimately could be used in support of his Amendment. But I do not feel certain that your Lordships will be entirely persuaded by what he has said. The noble Viscount himself recognises, I am sure, the strength of the feeling in this House against the multiplication of new officials and Ministers. Whether it is recognised as fully by those who are instructing him, I do not feel quite certain. I greatly doubt whether the objections which we feel so strongly to this multiplication of officials are entirely appreciated outside the walls of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount has said that there are already Departments which have three representatives, although. it is only fair to add that there are a great many more which have not, and he argued that the amount of work which would fall upon this new Department was such as to justify this addition of a third Under-Secretary there.
The new Ministry of Health is about to take over certain functions from other Departments—the Board of Education and the Privy Council—but the Local Government Board is about to shed a large
782
number of other functions concerned with local government, as we speak of it generally. I think your Lordships will tend to be afraid that when these duties are transferred to other Departments—all the business of Parliamentary registration, all the work other than health work connected with local government—there will be a strong claim advanced on the part of some other Department, whether it be the Home Office or whatever it may be, for the addition of a second Under-Secretary, in order to enable them to carry out the extra work which is going to be thrown upon them by the breaking up of the Local Government Board.
Where is all this going to end? I cannot feel that the health work as defined in the Bill which we have before us justifies the immediate creation of this new official. The noble Viscount has told us of the heavy work which falls both upon the President of the Local Government Board and upon his Under-Secretary in connection with the work outside Parliament. There are countless committees and meetings of all kinds which occupy the time of those two officials. I venture to think that far too much Government work is being done outside the walls of Parliament. I do not believe in this multiplication of outside committees, whose work is not watched and of which, although the result may be known, the processes by which those results are arrived at are not known. Therefore I cannot think that it is wise, by the creation of an extra official of this sort, to encourage the new lines of government which the noble Viscount has so fairly described but which some of us believe to be radically bad as compared with the old lines of Parliamentary management.
The noble Viscount told us that, as a consolation to your Lordships' House—admitting the point of complaint that the new Ministry would not be directly represented here, although of course in no way admitting the infinitely more important argument, as I think, against the creation of superfluous Ministers—that one of the Under-Secretaries would in the first instance have a seat in your Lordships' House. That is a handsome offer on the part of the Prime Minister, and of course we know it will be carried out. For how long, it would be impossible to say, and certainly we could not expect His Majesty's Government to pledge themselves on the retention of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary here. The

783
time might come, among the many reconstructions and re-shufflings which take place in the ranks of His Majesty's Government, when it might be found necessary or desirable for some reason to transfer a third Minister to another place, and to entrust the duties of the Health Department to the most willing and competent hands of some member of His Majesty's Household.
I confess that I personally cannot pretend to be altogether convinced by what the noble Viscount has said. He claimed with absolute justice, as was entirely realised by the House, that he had been most desirous all through the conduct of the Bill to meet the wishes of your Lordships' house. I have never seen a Bill conducted through this House in a more conciliatory spirit than this has been by the noble Viscount, but. I feel that this is a matter involving an important principle, and I confess that I should be very slow to ask those of your Lordships who might be disposed to take my advice to agree with the proposition of the noble Viscount.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, having moved the Amendment to limit the Government to the appointment of only one Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to say a few words in reply to the argument of the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill. The case was well argued in Committee, both for and against, and by an overwhelming majority your Lordships came to the conclusion that it was time we struck some blow—I think this is how it was put by the noble Marquess who has just spoken—at the disease on the part of the Government for constantly creating new Ministries. I pointed out on that occasion that the late Government—and this Government is, after all, almost the same—had created no fewer than five important Ministers and nine Parliamentary Secretaries. This Government now proposes to create no fewer than five Ministers for Health. They propose to turn the President of the Local Government Board into a Minister for Health and give him two Parliamentary Secretaries for England and Wales; and in another Bill—the Scottish Bill—to give an extra Parliamentary Secretary for looking after the health of Scotland; and as I understand—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—in another Bill to give another Under-Secretary to look after the health of Ireland. That is five Ministers for Health.
784
I cannot help thinking that, although health is one of the most important matters to which we can pay attention, five Ministers are hardly wanted to take through Parliament the various Bills connected with health, and to preside over the various committees charged with functions appertaining to health. I know perfectly well that the Local Government Board was at one time hard worked; but, after all, the Local Government Board is now going to be free from all those numerous duties which it undertook in connection with the war. It had to supervise all the 1,800 military tribunals. It was charged, in connection with the Home Office, with conducting through that. enormous Bill in connection with the Representation of the People, and, after the passage of that Bill, with conducting all the procedure under it. It will I no longer, I understand, be connected with the Poor Law; and the noble Lord, in answer to a question by myself, informed your Lordships that very soon all these great functions of the Local Government Board would cease to be discharged by the Minister for Health.
During the last few years, having been either Parliamentary Secretary or President of the Local Government Board, I can assure your Lordships that that Department has conducted more Bills, and more large Bills, through Parliament than any other Department; yet it was not thought necessary to have more than one Parliamentary Secretary. It had to preside over many committees both inside and outside the House of Commons, and a full share of Government work fell to the Local Government Board; yet it was never thought necessary to ask for another Parliamentary Secretary. If your Lordships adhere to your Amendment and limit the Minister of Health to one Parliamentary Secretary for England and Wales, you do not by that process prevent the Minister for Health from having as many secretaries as he chooses to have in the office. After all, what is the Parliamentary Secretary for? A Parliamentary Secretary is for the sole purpose, almost, of assisting the Minister to do Parliamentary business, to answer questions, to conduct Bills through committees and through the House; yet during all those years when I was associated with my right hon. friend who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty we never found any difficulty in arranging that one or other of us should be able to

785
attend the House of Commons, answer questions, attend the various Committees, take through that enormous volume of legislation which we conducted through the House of Commons, and assist in all the ordinary work of the Government. I am quite sure that although there will be an added amount of work connected with health there will not be more work in that Department than can be efficiently done by one Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary.
I think it is high time that the Government set some example in the way of economy, and when my noble friend in charge of the Bill says that he himself is as much opposed as any of us to this increase in officialdom, I cannot say that he and those who are acting with him are setting a very good example in asking that two Parliamentary Secretaries should be added to this Department, and that we should set up an unlimited number—four at least—of Consultative Committees, all of which will require to have their separate staff of officials, and all of whom will have to be housed. I am confident that if these Consultative Committees are set up there must be an enormous increase to the number of officials engaged in the Department. We are drifting in these ways to a great increase in the official life of this country, an increase which is not justified in any way or under any case which the noble Viscount has made out, and I hope that we shall adhere to our Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not desire to add more than one or two words to the two speeches to which we have had the pleasure of listening. My noble friend who has just sat down speaks from a position of very great authority. He knows the Local Government Board inside and out, and has had a very great and recent experience of its work, and he seems to me to have pointed out with absolutely crushing force that a large part of the work of the Local Government Board is under this very Bill intended to be dispensed with. Therefore the additional work which the Health Minister will have will not be more than can be efficiently transacted by the present staff, or a staff corresponding to it. This increase of Ministers is a great evil. The Treasury bench in the House of Commons—I was going to say is double as long as it used to he, but that unfortunately is not the case; but the gentlemen who have a
786
right to occupy it are double the number who used to have a right to sit upon it. That shows the enormous increase in Parliamentary officials which has taken place under recent arrangements.
I will only ask leave to make one further observation. The subsequent consequential Amendment which the noble Viscount is going to move affects Section 12 of the New Ministries Act of 1916. That Act established a certain number of new Ministries, and the question of Under-Secretaries was then formally considered and decided by Parliament. It is not a matter which has not been before your Lordships and the other House of Parliament. It has been very much before us, and has been decided. Section 12 of that Act prescribed that there should not be more than one Under-Secretary sitting in the House of Commons. That was the settled policy of Parliament. Why should it be reversed? That was the arrangement which was good enough for the Labour Minister, and why should it not be good enough for the Health Minister? Am I to be told that the Labour Minister, has a light office? I would reply that it involves all the most important considerations of policy which are likely to confront us in the near future. What is good enough for the Labour Minister is, of course, good enough for the Health Minister, and just as Section 12 of the Act of 1916 prescribes that there should be only one Under-Secretary in his case, so we ought to adhere to that Act and see that only one Under-Secretary is prescribed in the present case. To ask your Lordships to alter on Third Reading the decision at which you had arrived in Committee is a very unusual proceeding, and it would want a very strong case in order to support it. I submit that the noble Viscount, with all his courtesy and consideration, has not been able to advance that strong case, and we ask your Lordships to adhere to your decision.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON):
My Lords, before the House proceeds to divide, if it must do so, may I say a word upon one point, and one point only? Since I have had the honour of representing the Government on this Bench one of the most frequent complaints which I have had to meet from noble Lords opposite—and I have understood its force—has been that important Departments of Government, instead of having a regular official

787
representative in this House, have had to depend for their representation here upon members, however hard working and however competent, of His Majesty's Household. That is a complaint frequently addressed to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and that in many cases it is a complaint which has no substantial justification is shown by the great ability with which my noble friend Lord Sandhurst has conducted this measure. Still, over and over again we have been told that the absence of direct Ministerial representation does not pay an adequate compliment to this House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not think that I have made that complaint.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Of course, I accept the denial of the noble Marquess if I have unintentionally misrepresented him, but I thought there had been complaints from him, and certainly there have been from many others. Over and over again I have heard the complaint that important Departments of Government ought to be represented here by a Minister. Very well, here is a case in which an attempt is being made by the Government to satisfy that claim. I am not able, of course, to speak with the knowledge possessed by my noble friend Lord Downham about the work of the new Ministry. I should have thought that it would have been very heavy indeed. I should have thought that it would be incomparably greater than the work of the Ministry of Labour, to which my noble friend Lord Salisbury referred. I should have been prepared myself to take the opinion of the Government and the Minister responsible for this new Department as to whether he could not properly discharge his duties unless he had two
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I should be prepared to take that view now.
The line that I should have taken, and that I am still prepared to take, is to press most strongly that the second of these Parliamentary Under-Secretaries should sit in your Lordships' House. I admit that this is not a stipulation that you can put into a Bill. No Government can allow it to be put into a Bill. But I should have thought that it would have been the line your Lordships' House might have taken. I should have thought that you would have pressed the Leader of the House for the time being, who represents the Government in this House, to see that adequate consideration is given to your Lordships, and that if the two Ministers are created one of them shall sit on these benches. My noble friend did give something in the nature of a pledge to that effect. Of course, it was a limited pledge. Nobody speaking for any one Government can lay down the law, or give a promise, that in perpetuity one of two Under-Secretaries shall sit in this House, but I think, my Lords, that you might be satisfied with the pledge that my noble friend gave that if two Under-Secretaries are created one of them shall sit here. Speaking for myself I should be most reluctant, if that were conceded, to acquiesce in. any situation in which the privilege thus given to your Lordships' House were withdrawn. I hope therefore, that your Lordships will not too hastily adhere to the attitude you took up the other day, or reject the advice given to you by the noble Viscount.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Haldane, V.

Gainford, L.

Bristol, M.

Harcourt, V.

Granard, L.(B. Granard.)

Crewe, M.

Hood, V.

Harris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Islington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Joicey, L.

Coventry, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Harewood, E.

Askwith, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Mayo, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Rotherham, L.

Northbrook, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Roundway, L.

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L.

Sanderson, L.

Selborne, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sandys, L.

Strafford, E.

Downham, L. [Teller.]

Southwark, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Emmott, L.

Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Terrington, L.

Esher, V.

Forteviot, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Inverforth, L.

Knutsford, V.

Newton, L.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Rathcreedan, L.

Annesley, L.

Rothschild, L.

Bradford, E.

Blythswood, L.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elphinstone L.

Sudeley, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My next Amendment in Clause 7 naturally falls out. Then I have another Amendment, which is panic drafting, in Clause 8.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 6, lines 31–32, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("thereof").—Viscount Sandhurst.
Clause 10:
Application to Ireland.
10.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act, the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the treatment and care of the blind, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments that I now have to move are in Clause 10, and are consequential on those already accepted by your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 7, line 41, after ("the") insert ("preparation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 8, line 2, after ("diseases") insert "the avoidance of. fraud in connection with alleged remedies therefor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

OFFICIAL SOLICITOR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I ought, I think, briefly to inform your Lordships of its object. It is to devise a remedy for the state of things which will arise when the Official Solicitor retires, which he intends to do. The practice has grown up in the last few years of making the Official Solicitor by virtue of his office Receiver in Lunacy, guardian ad litem, or next friend, to take proceedings on behalf of a litigant, and I suppose his commitments in these various capacities amount to a good deal. If the Official Solicitor retires without statutory provision being made for the cases that will arise it will be necessary in many instances for fresh appointments to be made, resulting in heavy charges on very small estates. The convenient course is taken by this Bill of enabling his successor to carry out these various commitments.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed of the Whole House.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT rose to ask His Majesty's Government on what date the Ministry of Pensions will vacate the premises at Millbank belonging to the Registry of Friendly Societies in order that the latter may return to their own premises, and so release the accommodation at present occupied by them in the British Museum, which includes the Print Exhibition Room, the Print Students Room, and half of the Egyptian and Assyrian Galleries, including the Mummy Room, all of which are much required for public exhibition.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is not necessary, I think, for me to make any statement on the matter in putting this Question, except to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that unless and until the Ministry of Pensions can be consolidated, if possible reduced, and certainly removed from the premises at Millbank, there is no hope of the Registry of Friendly Societies being removed from the British Museum. You Lordships have seen from time to time, during the six months which have elapsed since the Armistice, announcements in the newspapers that the various galleries of the British Museum have been re-opened to the public. That has been due to the activity of the staff of the Museum in unpacking the treasures which had been stored for safety against air raids in the Tubes. It is not due in any case to the removal from the Museum galleries of any of the officials placed there during the war by the Government; none have been removed except from a small room in a sub-basement which is never seen by the public, the effect of which has been to afford some slight gain in storage room to the Museum. To-day the galleries occupied by clerks are as numerous as they were at any time during the war, and until the Registry of Friendly Societies can be restored to its own premises there is no hope of access to the Print Exhibition Room, to the Print Students Rooms, and to most of the Egyptian and Assyrian Galleries, being restored to the public. I trust that at last we have reached the point and the time at which some satisfactory and real assurance of immediate evacuation can be given on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the premises of the Registry of Friendly Societies at Milbank, and a considerable amount of other accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood, are occupied by the head-quarters staff of the Ministry of Pensions. Some of the buildings occupied will have to be given up at an early date, in particular the premises of the American Tobacco Company, an important industrial concern, which were generously lent to the Government free of rent. The approaching surrender of these buildings has necessarily brought under consideration the question of re-housing the staff as a whole, and until some satisfactory solution of this question can be found it is impossible to state at
792
what date the Registry of Friendly Societies can be reinstated at Millbank. The War Cabinet are now considering schemes for removing large numbers of Government staffs at present in Westminster to other districts where there is less congestion. If those schemes can be carried out it should be possible to move the Registry of Friendly Societies out of the Museum buildings at an early date.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I will only observe, in relation to the answer we have just had, that it is a new form of preference that the early evacuation of the premises of an American tobacco company should impede the enjoyment of our Museums by our own public.

HERTFORD HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I beg to put the second Question standing in my name—viz.: To ask His Majesty's Government what is the estimated number of months or years required for the Munitions Ministry Account Department to complete their work; whether during the whole of that time Hertford House will be occupied by that Department and closed to the public; and whether for the same period it is proposed to allow the Wallace Collection to remain in the Tube where it is now stored.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend should have asked this Question, as it gives me the opportunity of showing what strenuous steps the Ministry of Munitions has taken in vacating all possible premises within the area of the county of London. The staff accommodated in Hertford House is engaged upon a systematic investigation of accounts for munitions supplies. The work is being carried on as a result of a pledge given some time ago in another place, and very considerable savings to the Exchequer will undoubtedly result from these inquiries. It is anticipated that the investigation will be completed about the middle of 1920. My noble friend Lord Inverforth has, however, made proposals to the First Commissioner of Works which, if given effect to, will release the Hertford House premises in a few weeks so far as the staff of the Ministry of Munitions is concerned.

793
As at present advised it would appear possible, by a more economical distribution of the staffs in certain of the existing Government Offices, to re-house the staffs now occupying Hertford House and also possibly the National Gallery. The whole question of accommodation in the Ministry of Munitions continues to receive the personal attention of my noble friend, who soon after he took office appointed a strong Committee of business men for the express purpose of continually investigating the question of the occupation of the premises of hotels and public institutions, as well as the reduction of staff.
I would like to call attention to the fact that the headquarters staff of the Ministry of Munitions was at the date of the Armistice 22,620, whereas on the 12th May it stood at 14,998—a reduction of 7,622. Of the present staff, 1,674 have recently been transferred from the War Office on the allocation to the Ministry of Munitions of the functions of the Surveyor-General of Supply, and on the other hand the Ministry has transferred 2,510 to the Ministry of Labour. The net diminution, therefore, is 6,756. Let me further add that a little time ago my noble friend gave instructions for the release of some thousands of the staff within the next few months—a certain number at the end of the current month, and certain numbers, in thousands, at the end of the following month.
It should be realised that whilst the Ministry's duty of supplying the troops with munitions ended with the conclusion of the Armistice, new and heavy tasks immediately devolved upon it, including the liquidation of the Ministry's contracts and the disposal of surplus Government property involving enormous sums of public money. Unless this work is carried out with efficiency and despatch, the work of assisting firms to turn over from war industries to peace industries and the revival of business will be greatly hampered. I am convinced that the whole question of accommodation and that of the necessity of the staffs employed continue to receive the fullest attention of my noble friend. Although it will be seen that the work of the Ministry still continues on a considerable scale a very appreciable reduction of staff has been effected, and concurrently the possession of a number of buildings by the Ministry of Munitions has been relinquished.
794
I will not weary your Lordships by giving the list of all these various buildings, but I would point out that amongst them are St. Ermin's Hotel, the Hotel Victoria, and, as I stated, twenty other less important buildings have been vacated since November 11, representing in all accommodation for 6,280. Arrangements are now in hand which will have the effect of releasing the Grand Hotel premises so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned in the course of a few weeks. I will even go so far as to state that my noble friend has already given an assurance to the First Commissioner of Works that; provided suitable alternative accommodation is put at his disposal, he will vacate without delay all the premises which it is understood that the public and business community are urgently awaiting.
As regards the last part of the Question, I have been asked by my right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works to state that the Wallace Collection will be restored to Hertford House immediately those premises are again available. I hope my noble friend will agree with me that, so far as the Ministry of Munitions are concerned, they have done everything in their power to meet his wishes.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords. I am sure your Lordships are duly grateful to my noble friend for the very interesting statement he has made of the activities of the Munitions Department; but only a very small part of it has any bearing on the Question which I have put relating only to the Wallace Collection at Hertford House. I understand that some proposal has been put forward by Lord Inverforth to the First Commissioner of Works, which will probably make it necessary for me to ask on an early day whether the First Commissioner of Works is going to do anything on the proposal which has been made to him. The noble Lord has informed us that several hotels and twenty other buildings have been vacated by the Munitions Department since the Armistice. I can only then express my deep regret that Hertford House and the Wallace Collection should not have been included very high up in the list of the twenty other buildings which have been vacated. The noble Lord made a curious offer on behalf of the First Commissioner of Works to the effect that, as soon as Hertford House could be vacated by the Ministry, the Wallace Collection would be reinstated in the

795
building. That has nothing whatever to do with the First Commissioner of Works. The Trustees will see to that. They have charge of the Collection and will reinstate it as soon as their building is vacated. I must warn your Lordships that now for six months since the Armistice the very delicate and very valuable furniture of the Wallace Collection and invaluable armour—neither of them subjects for storage in a tube 60 feet under ground—have been left there at the mercy of atmospheric conditions which cannot be perfect in these circumstances. I am bound to say that the Office of Works has done everything in its power to render the danger as little as possible to a Collection which could never be replaced.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I may say that Lord Inverforth is quite willing to vacate Hertford House at once if he can be provided with sufficient accommodation for the special staff to which I alluded, and he does not even ask that that staff should be located within the area of the County of London. He is prepared to accept accommodation in a place within a reasonable distance of the metropolis.

IRELAND.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Notice on the Paper
To call attention to the recent tour of Irish-American delegates to Ireland and the necessity of an early statement by His Majesty's Government in reference to their Irish policy.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the subject-matter of the Notice which I have placed on the Paper is so recently in the recollection of most members of this House that I need hardly trouble your Lordships at any length with regard to the circumstances with which the Question deals. But I think the explanations which have been given up to this moment have been neither adequate nor satisfying. A time when activities in the matter of speaking in Ireland have to be restricted, when very serious disturbances have either occurred or been prevented with some difficulty, and when very serious crime (as the Chief Secretary pointed out the other day) has been continually occurring despite all the vigilance of the authorities, is not a time, I think we must all admit, which any of us
796
would have chosen, or the Government would have chosen, for launching a very dangerous expedition in Ireland to preach doctrines which are repulsive to all those who are loyal to the Constitution of these Realms.
We should all, I think, wish to accept the explanation given on behalf of the Prime Minister—namely, that these delegates went there with his permission and good will; but they went there with the Government under an entirely false apprehension of their intentions. In other words, they were permitted to go there, or were given passports, as the Prime Minister felt, merely to inform themselves of the condition of Ireland by a personal visit, and not in any sense as men who were to conduct a political agitation. I quite accept that statement, but I am afraid I must suggest that the permission was very unwisely given without further knowledge of the intentions of the delegates, and that the passports, if passports had to be issued for so special an occasion, were issued without sufficient knowledge and without sufficient investigation of the antecedents of those on whose behalf they were given.
What I really want to ask the Government to explain to-day is this. Either these men went there as private individuals or they went there under some special dispensation of the Government. If they went there as private individuals, we have a right to know why facilities were extended to them and permission was given to them while they were in Ireland to do things which would not be allowed in the case of any other private individuals. If, on the other hand, they went to Ireland under some special dispensation of the Government, I want to know whether they went there with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. I apprehend this, that when Lord French undertook the position of Lord Lieutenant he was invested with powers which have never before been invested in any one unless he was a member of the Cabinet, and a member of the Cabinet has a right to be consulted on the business of his own Department before any action is taken by any one.
I do not wish to attach undue importance to what took place, but I should like to investigate how far the action of the delegates can be considered in any way consistent with their position as private individuals. If they went as private individuals, let me ask why were they

797
accorded privileges—going into districts where meetings would not have been permitted—which were not accorded to other individuals. When they arrived at Westport, a very disturbed district in which a large military force has had to be used, they were denied the right of going within the district by the military authority—I think quite rightly. But why were they allowed to go to Limerick, which had been the scene of great disturbances only a few days before? If they went as private individuals, why were they allowed to go to Mountjoy prison? I do not think any of the London papers have published the fact that they were allowed to make an inspection of the Mountjoy prison, but I take it from one of the Irish papers that on May 11, I believe, the members of the Irish-American Mission visited Mountjoy prison and were received by Sir John Irwin and other members of the Visiting Committee. On what grounds were these three gentlemen allowed to visit Mountjoy prison? If any three members of your Lordships' House, however distinguished, were to go to Mountjoy prison and insist on being shown over the prison they would not be permitted to do so by the members of the Visiting Committee. Unless some special arrangements had been made that they were to be treated as delegates, on what grounds were they admitted to so very special a privilege as that of making an official inspection of the leading prison in Dublin? Needless to say, a boast was made of it by Mr. Ryan the next day. He said—
"The delegates visited Mountjoy prison, the Sinn Fein prisoners circling around them in a ring and crying out 'Long live the Republic.'"
That is a point on which I really must ask for guidance from the Government.
Then there is a second point. The Prime Minister made a statement as to his intention in allowing these men to go to Dublin. When it was made clear their intentions were quite different from those which he conceived them to be, no correction was made in the Press of the statement they made with regard to the Prime Minister. On May 4 Mr. Walsh, in a statement made in Ireland, said—
"Their mandate was to ask President Wilson to see that Messrs. de Valera, Plunkett, and Griffith, were allowed to attend the Peace Conference; and, failing this, the American delegates should be permitted. When this request was made Mr. Lloyd George expressed a desire to meet them—the delegates."
That is a distinct statement of fact—that
798
Mr. Lloyd George, on hearing that these American delegates came with a mandate to ask President Wilson to see that Messrs. de Valera, Plunkett, and Griffiths should attend the Peace Conference, expressed a wish to meet them.
We now know that Mr. Lloyd George's intentions were wholly different. But surely I am entitled to ask, Was it wise to allow ten or fourteen days of this misconception to continue without any correction from Paris of facts which were so obviously open to contradiction? I do not suggest for a moment that any one of the British Ministers now in Paris could be expected to give his time to reading the papers for anything that was going on in Ireland. That is too much to ask. But no one has ever had such a large band of private secretaries as the present Prime Minister. The whole of the gardens at the back of No. 10, Downing-street have been roofed in for their accommodation. In that respect the Prime Minister, as compared with any previous Prime Minister, is almost on a par with the expenditure of this Ministry as compared with the expenditure of any previous Ministry. What were all these men doing that they did not think it sufficiently important to correct an impression which in Ireland has undoubtedly done grievous and abiding harm?
I say this because I wish the Government well in every respect in dealing with Ireland, believing it is of national importance that no further mistakes should be made. There is no man in this house, sitting on this side or on that, who is not aware that misfortune has dogged the footsteps of the Government every time they have interfered from London with the conduct of affairs in Ireland. Now that that interference is carried on from Paris over the telephone, and often without advising their colleagues, I think the time has come when we should protest and ask for a pledge that the policy should be abandoned.
Let me, in a few sentences, ask you to remember how this interference has been going on since the Rebellion in 1916. In May, 1916, you had the visit of the late Prime Minister to Ireland, and his, I think, extremely unwise attitude to the Sinn Fein prisoners. The deduction drawn from it was that their action had not been to the British Government what it had been supposed to be up to the moment of his I visit. Six months later from London, not

799
by any wish expressed in Ireland, came the removal of General Maxwell in circumstances which created the belief in the minds of all Irishmen that the Government had determined to reverse the policy by which they had suppressed the Rebellion. In the following June, against everybody's protests, they released the Sinn Fein prisoners in order to secure for the Convention what they believed would be an atmosphere of success, but which proved to be the absolute and certain forerunner of failure. In the winter of 1917 the Sinn Fein prisoners were allowed without interference to create anarchy in Clare and the West of Ireland, and to the number of 200 were released as hunger-strikers, at a time when the least firmness would have shown that no hunger-striker meant to go to the extreme limit. As soon as the Government put their foot down this travesty of justice was at once brought to an end.
Four months later the Government again changed their mind, and proposed to carry out Conscription (to which three Provinces of Ireland were unalterably opposed) simultaneously with Home Rule, which was objected to by the remaining Province, on which they could have depended for assistance in their first policy of Conscription. That policy, which they were warned by every man they consulted in Ireland must be a failure, is to-day a dead letter—neither one nor the other is carried out. There followed the arrest of all those persons who were implicated in a German plot, but as they were never brought to trial the effect upon Ireland, which would have been great, of their being exposed and all these machinations being summarily brought to an end was unfortunately lost. And now we have this last escapade on the part of these delegates.
My Lords, I think that living over here as we do, with far more important questions affecting the whole future of this country, of Europe, and of the world before us, we do not realise what I am sure every member of this House connected with Ireland could tell your Lordships—what an immense effect these successive marches and counter-marches and changes have had upon the people of Ireland. I see Lord Decies, who has acted as Press Censor in Ireland during the whole of this period, in his place. I do not know whether he intends to address the House to-night; but without any consultation with him I will go bail that he will tell your Lordships, as I do, that every
800
change and every one of the episodes to which I have alluded has meant a step forward for Sinn Fein. That which was regarded as a dream a few months ago has almost become to a number of people there practical polities. While it has meant to those who are disaffected a great advance, it has meant grave discouragement to all the officials, and it has raised doubts in the minds of the officials and of the police as to whether the Government are really serious in the action which they call upon the officials and police to take.
That is a grave statement, but I make it not without authority; and before I sit down I would like to say one word with regard to the effect of this matter from the point of view of the American Government. Nobody has yet challenged, but I am quite sure that any responsible American Minister who had to deal with the matter would challenge, the constant and repeated claim of these delegates that they had the American nation, or, as they occasionally express it, twenty millions of people—meaning, I suppose, all those of Irish birth or parentage in America—at their back. It would be quite inconceivable that a nation like the American nation, which has fought the greatest civil war known in all time in order to secure its own country against disruption, would at this moment be advocating a policy in Ireland which, whether you call it self-determination or by any other name, means civil war and separation. And these delegates particularly emphasised it by driving throughout the country with the Sinn Fein flag and the Stars and Stripes intertwined on their motor car—separation not in the relation which each American State is in towards Washington, but separation such as the Southern States undertook to take up, and the Northern States by coercion undertook to prevent. I do not believe these professions have any foundation in fact, but I think we ought to be in a position to explain to the American Government that whatever laws are laid down for British subjects or foreigners in Ireland will have to be observed by American subjects as much as by anybody else. I cannot doubt that these particular episodes cause just as much pain to the American authorities as to His Majesty's Government.
What I ask of the Government relates to two points. I do not know whether any Minister is ready to reply to these questions. I ask, in the first place, that

801
the interference from Paris or from London with the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary shall cease. So long as there is a Cabinet, and members of the Cabinet can be heard there, the decision of the Government has to be observed by every member of the Cabinet, whether in his own Department or not, and I protest that in One case after another orders have been sent from London or Paris without consultation with the Cabinet. My point is that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary have a responsibility, especially in these days, which must be observed, and I ask that the Government will not take further action in regard to Ireland without proper Cabinet consultation.
Secondly—and I beg the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to this—we hope that within a few weeks ratifications of peace may be exchanged. Lawyers inform us that the Act of 1914 will actually come into effect on the ratification of peace. I do not believe that there are half a dozen men in Ireland who desire to see that Act put in force in its present form. Successive Governments have pledged themselves to alter that Act. I do not ask for anything so unreasonable as a statement of policy from the noble and learned Lord at this moment, but I do ask that as soon as Ministers are released from Paris they will put down first on their agenda for Cabinet discussion the question of what they propose to do with regard to Ireland and with regard to the Act of 1914, and that they will make to Parliament as early as they can—without asking them to press forward with undue haste but at all events without putting the question aside—a statement as to the considered judgment of the Cabinet on this subject.
I do not know whether it is worth asking, because I know how difficult Parliamentary circumstances are, but I would urge the Government, if they desire to restore the confidence of any party in Ireland, to adhere to their decision when the time comes. For the last two years more than at any time in the chequered history of Ireland that country has suffered because many decisions have been taken but nothing has been adhered to, and no settlement is possible on the vexed question. Under these conditions I hope, my Lords, that I have not unduly trespassed, and I ask
802
that we should have an assurance these two points.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack answers the questions, I should like to say one or two things which I think will throw a certain amount of light on this matter. I have been in Ireland in close touch with the popular movement since before the birth of Sinn Fein. I remember the time when it was born, and what curious oddities we looked on the Sinn Feiners as being. I have seen them gradually working their way up until, through circumstances, they have come to the position they hold to-day,
It seems to me, my Lords; that in trying to answer this kind of question we are liable to mistake the surface appearance for the substantial movement which is going on in the Irish nation. The average observer—and by the average observer I here mean chiefly the Parliamentary politician—sees in the whole Irish situation just a few elements. He sees the Home Rule agitation. He sees that agitation come to success. He sees the opposition of North-east Ulster, and the statement that "We won't have it." He sees the various forces that we read about in the newspapers. He sees land movements; he sees crimes; he sees all kinds of things; but he does not see what is going on underneath. It seems to me that there is a certain danger that we may be led here to suppose that the Irish question can be treated simply in the way that you treat the ordinary political question. For instance, there are many who will hold that because the Constitutional Parliamentary Party has apparently been smashed there is an end of that, and those who come to that conclusion will see in the Ireland of the present day simply a whole country looking upon itself as having established a Republic. If you go to Ireland new you will be told by nine Sinn Feiners out of ten that. Ireland is living under a Republic, but that it is unfortunately occupied by a foreign Army. But those things are only on the surface.
I can imagine the embarrassment of the Government when asked suddenly. "What are you going to do?" The answer to that question, admit, is not so easy, and I will listen with great interest to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and he will have all my sympathy while I listen to him. But, my

803
Lords, getting nearer to the essentials of things, what has happened is this. The Sinn Feiners have never been a large body of men. The Sinn Fein theory is a very subtle and complicated one. The words "Sinn Fein" mean simply "Ourselves," and practically the Sinn Fein movement has always meant the self-reliance movement. It means that "we have to rely upon ourselves." In its original form it means this, "We have to abstain from using things which put money into the Treasury; for instance, we have to abstain from drink and from smoking, and so on." There was a whole policy of that kind, and if the Irish people had been able to follow it they would have been the most admirable people and capable of conquering the world.
But Your Lordships will readily understand that such a movement was never popular. What has happened is this. Through exterior circumstances the Irish people in general—not the Sinn Feiners, but the Irish people who were following the Parliamentary Party—have been filled with a deep-rooted suspicion of England. They have come to the conclusion that when England seems to agree to something she will always end by cheating them out of it. I think that noble Lords from Ireland will agree with me that this is the general Irish view at the present moment. The result is that people who were shouting for John Redmond and the Party, who were waving flags for John Redmond and the Party, not much more than a year ago, are now shouting and waving flags for the Republic, instead of waving the green flag as the tricolour flag. That means that we have arrived at a stage where it will be very difficult for any Government to proceed by negotiation with Irish leaders. In the old times we could meet the members of the Parliamentary Party, and anything that you agreed to they could take to a Convention in Dublin and get it ratified. That cannot be done now, and it is one of the difficulties of the situation.
The official position in Ireland is this, that a Republic has been founded, and a Parliament has sat in Dublin, and the claim is that that Parliament and that Republican Government is only checked by the presence of a foreign Army. That is a theory, and it is a theory which so far as the population is concerned has not much behind it, but it goes far enough to make negotiations difficult. Now it seems to me
804
that if by any chance there exists in the British Islands at the present moment a statesman as opposed to a politician, he ought to put the matter in this way—"I am going to settle this question. I am going to take the responsibility of introducing a measure, and I am going to carry it through, and then I am going to see whether the Irish people will be willing to work it." There is no other way of doing it. You cannot go before the Irish people now. I could not stand here in this House and say, "If you do so and so, the Irish people will accept it." I have no bright to say anything of tine kind. They would say that I was not speaking the truth. But my impression is—and it is the impression of a good many people who know Ireland—that if there was in this country any one capable of inventing a measure for the government of Ireland, that such a measure should be passed through and would ultimately be accepted.
What I want your Lordships to understand is that it is quite useless to say, "We are not going to face the Irish question." You have got to face the Irish question. If you do not, you will be up against something which will create a difficulty that will become greater and greater as time goes on. I have seen this Sinn Fein movement growing. I was in the movement that was in existence before it, and from which it sprang. I am sorry that it did spring out of it. It was a sort of side issue. The original movement was for the revival of the Irish nation through the Irish language. Whatever is done by Parliament, that movement will go on. Whatever solution is decided upon by British statesmen, or whatever attitude, even if it be a negative one, they decide to take up, that movement will go on. The Irish nation and the spirit of the Irish nation will go on growing, and become stronger every day, and, like the famous books of the Sibylline, the problem to be faced by British statesmen wil become more and more difficult; therefore the sooner it is faced the better.
I simply throw out this hint, because I do not know what line may be taken in these discussions. I throw it out because I think it is my duty, sitting in this House, to say what I know of the movement in Ireland, and to express my belief that, whatever is clone to solve the question, the one thing that cannot be crushed out and that no sane man, if he knows the question at the bottom, will dream can be crushed

805
out, is the movement for the revival and growth and strengthening of the Irish nation. Therefore I appeal to you to do what you can to facilitate this. The nation has to go on growing, and it is in the interest of Great Britain and of the Empire that that movement, in growing, should not become hardened in an attitude of hostility, but that a chance should be given, a chance which many of us have been looking for for a long time, of growing up in a friendly attitude and of co-operating in the advancement of the great cause that we all have at heart.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I had been hoping that I should have had the advantage, before I attempted to address the House, of hearing some further observations from those of your Lordships who have a very special knowledge of this difficult and perplexed question. The noble Viscount who introduced this subject, in a speech of which I make not the slightest complaint, put forward none the less a very considerable indictment against the Government. It was not only, I think, if one analyses it, an indictment against the present Government (and when I point this circumstance out I do it not in the spirit of the man who thinks it is any advantage to this Government that it should be pointed out that there were others, its predecessors, who were equally weak, as the noble Viscount seems to consider, or equally culpable as others have pronounced us to be)—I do it not in the least in that spirit; I do it in the hope that those of your Lordships who are inclined to take a moderate view in this matter may at least draw this inference, that where three (or technically four) successive Governments realise the difficulties and have failed to surmount them as obviously as the Government which was in power in 1914, its successor, the first Coalition Government, the last Government and now the present Government have done, those difficulties are of a formidable nature. We may well say, throwing our eyes back over those four and a-half—nearly five—years, that they have been five years of tragic disaster for the Union between Ireland and Great Britain, and of discouragement to those who have worked for the establishment of better relations between the two Islands.
I do not attempt to distribute blame for error, where error must be admitted, and I am not sure that those who know most
806
of what has been done in the last five years and of the crises which in bewildering succession have required decisions from the Government will be the most inclined to state their criticism in language of excessive severity. The noble Viscount has produced many illustrations of that which he complains of, but the complaint which played the most conspicouus part in his speech was concerned with that most unfortunate incident to which he drew your Lordships attention in language of which I make no complaint. You have been told, or rather another place has been told, of the circumstances under which a permission so unfortunate in its results was given to these Irish-Americans to visit Ireland. I was invited by the noble Viscount to deal with a statement which he attributed to a gentleman, whose name I confess was not known to me, to the effect that the Prime Minister invited, these gentlemen to go to Ireland for themselves, after having been informed that they were an American deputation, the object of whose visit to this country was to induce President Wilson to allow de Valera and his companions to attend the Peace Conference. I had not—I could not have—direct information on this point. The noble Viscount, quite naturally, gave me no notice that he was about to make the suggestion. It rested, as far as I understand, upon a speech by an individual who was named by the noble Viscount—
A NOBLE LORD: Mr. Walsh.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And I say quite plainly that, so far as I am concerned, I utterly disbelieve that the safe conducts were furnished under any such circumstances. I shall disbelieve it until. I am forced to believe the contrary. To any one who is not trying to take a severe view but is trying to enter into the difficulties it is easy, however great the mistake may have been, to see the kind of reasoning which led to the decision that was adopted. No one here, certainly not the noble Viscount who introduced this subject tonight, is indifferent to the view which is taken of Great Britain in the United States of America.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose there is nobody here who does not hope that, as some precious salvage from this war, a

807
greater degree of mutual understanding and of mutual liking may permanently exist between Great Britain and the United States of America. And, of course, everybody knows the immense number of Irish-Americans who have left Ireland under circumstances of bitter and unforgettable disaffection. The activities of those people in the United States of America constitute one of the greatest obstacles and difficulties to the improvement of those relations.
I am not, of course, suggesting that in deference to feelings of that kind we are to adopt policies which we, with our intimate knowledge of our own situation, know to contain within themselves the seeds of our own dissolution. I do not, of course, make any such suggestion. But I say this, in order I hope to carry your Lordships with me so far, that it is the duty of any statesman to take any opportunity that offers itself of clearing up what are the patent misunderstandings in the United States of America—and misunderstandings, be it noted, among those people in the United States whose real desire it is to understand us and to make allowance for our difficulties. I say it is very easy to understand the attitude of a Minister whose mind was possessed of that view, and who had many serious preoccupations and anxieties of other kinds at the same moment, on being told that three Irish-American citizens then in Paris wished to visit Ireland and see the situation for themselves, being unable to proceed there because they could not obtain passports.
Looking at it, not with our present knowledge of what took place, but trying to put ourselves, as fair-minded critics ought to put themselves, in the position of the Minister at the time he took the decision, it is, I think, not difficult to understand how he may have come to the conclusion that, if these men went to Ireland and saw the situation for themselves, adhering—as, of course, he must have imagined they would adhere, if only in gratitude for the facilities that were afforded to them—to the role of private citizens going, as it was expressly stipulated they should go, in order that they might learn the peculiar situation which existed there, fortunate results might follow. It is, I say, not difficult to understand how that decision was adopted by one who never conceived and who never could conceive that men who had been treated so indulgently would allow themselves to make speech after speech in
808
Ireland every one of which indicated and recommended courses which they must have known, if in the mouth of a British subject, would have constituted treasonable language against this country.
I do not believe that any responsible American citizen will have read what has been said by these men in Ireland—by a gross abuse of the permission which was given to them—or will have observed that which was done, without pain and without the deepest regret. I have spoken of it to some American friends, and others have spoken of it to me, and all their language has been of one tenor. They have said. "We know very well what would have happened to Englishmen who had come to the North in the days of the Civil War and addressed meetings about the policy which it was proper for us to adopt in relation to the Southern States."
I have told your Lordships what the view of the Prime Minister was. He knew that these men were strongly in favour of Home Rule; he knew that they had strongly advocated it in the United States of America. He was of opinion that they would have gone to Ireland, behaving themselves with decency and with a reasonable degree of privacy; that in the course of their travels they would have visited Belfast and made themselves acquainted with the situation there; and on their return to Paris he had arranged that they should come in a deputation to him, with the whole of the representative Press of the United States of America in Pa is present, and that he should listen to their impressions and, in a considered and elaborate speech, state to them—and, as he hoped, through them to the whole of that great American public to which access is otherwise impossible—the immense, the formidable, it may be the insuperable difficulties which at the present moment lie in front of our path in dealing with Ireland.
I am not saying whether or not the view that was taken was too sanguine. I am not saying whether or not it would under normal conditions have been wiser to have made fuller inquiry as to the antecendents of these so-called delegates, and, perhaps, to have obtained assurances from them of a very definite character as to what their conduct would be in Ireland. I say plainly now that it would have been wiser. But it is very easy to be wise after the event; and I am sure your

809
Lordships will not forget that the government is being conducted at the present time in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty. It is true that representations come from sources which it is inconvenient and difficult at the moment to disregard—sometimes addressed to that part of the Government which is in Paris and at other times to the other part of the Government here. But this circumstance at least is fortunately of a transitory character, and one may hope that it will soon come to an end. Of this, however, I am certain—that, while your Lordships may think that a mistake has been made, this House would be the last Assembly in the world to judge with undue harshness the men or the man who at the very moment when this decision was taken was, I suppose, grappling with some of the gravest and most perplexing problems which have been before those in Paris who are responsible for restoring the peace of the world.
The noble Viscount asked one or two specific questions. He did not—and here, again, not the slighest complaint is made, because he obviously could not do so—indicate to me that it was his purpose to ask these questions, and that must be my excuse for not being able to answer them all. He asked me, for instance, in what circumstances these men were allowed to visit Mountjoy prison. I find myself in some difficulty when dealing with this question, for two reasons. First of all, until the noble Viscount mentioned the circumstance—for which I think he was indebted to an Irish newspaper—I was unaware that they had so visited. In the second place, I was unaware of the fact that there were restrictions which would make it impossible for persons of respectability and position (the noble Viscount took the instance of members of your Lordships' House) to visit the prison. But I can easily understand the objection felt by the noble Viscount, and I confess that it is an objection strongly shared by me, against the slightest preferential treatment being given to those men the moment they had used language of the kind referred to—the moment, in other words, when they disclosed themselves in their true colours.
It flashed across my mind, but only as a suggestion, that it might be that, having regard to the prevalence of mendacious statements to the effect that Sinn Feiners had been vilely treated in the gaols—your Lordships are aware that those statements
810
have been amongst the widest circulated of all the lies and libels in the United States—it crossed my mind as a possibility that before they left Paris such arrangements might have been made in order that they themselves might be able to contradict (on the assumption that they were fair-minded men) statements which they found to be untrue. However, I will make it my business to cause inquiry to be made on this point, and if the noble Viscount attaches sufficient importance to it perhaps he will put down a Question, or I will make a private communication to him as to the circumstances when I have ascertained them.
The noble Viscount then complained of the repeated acts of interference on the part of England with Ireland in the course of the last four years. He went back somewhat far into history when he spoke of the visit of Mr. Asquith to Dublin immediately after the Rebellion. I confess that at that time I was not concerned with the subject of Ireland. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, will be far better aware than I am of the circumstances in which that visit took place and what in fact did take place. I have certainly heard some statements made as to what took place when Mr. Asquith visited Ireland which I have never heard founded upon first-hand authority, and which I do not believe; but not having been present myself I cannot give a clear or confident opinion on that point. Nor am I better informed—indeed, I think it was before the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister—of the circumstances in which General Maxwell left Ireland.
But I can say to the noble Viscount that, although I had an extremely busy Department under my care at that time, I take full responsibility for the release of the Sinn Fein prisoners on the eve of the Convention. I confess that although the results of that experiment seem to have been as disappointing as they could be, although the experiment seems to have exicted no degree of gratitude, no spark of appreciation, but, rather added to the insolence and audacity of these lawless men, in the circumstances of that day I cannot say that the decision was not a wise one; and of all others I should have hoped the noble Viscount would have conceived that this was a point of view which was at least fairly debatable. It will not be forgotten that the Convention was about to meet immediately, and I say without hesitation that whatever

811
mistakes we may have made—whatever mistakes we have made—in the last five years in relation to Ireland, the calling together of that Convention was not a mistake. I think the noble Viscount, who played a very considerable part there, will not dissent from that view. While I make that statement I add this qualification. I was never one of those who were very sanguine that the Convention would produce a real result. I had hardly any hope the moment it appeared that Sinn Fein had definitely reached the decision not to be represented there, because it seemed to me, when we cast about to see what results were likely to follow, that it was inconceivable that a satisfactory result should follow. If, apart from Ulster, which knew its own mind, and apart from the Unionists of the South of Ireland, whose position is notoriously and extraordinarily difficult, and who (if the noble Viscount will allow me to say so) sometimes knew their own mind better perhaps than they did at others—if, apart from these two sections, nobody else was represented in Ireland who had any support or who represented any opinion, it seemed unlikely in these circumstances that any valuable conclusion would be reached.
It was nevertheless not only right, but in my view it was indispensable, that the Convention should be held then, and I will tell your Lordships why. It was my fortune, while the Convention was sitting, to go to the United States of America, and, as your Lordships may recollect, in a very rapid visit I addressed, I suppose, some 130,000 or 140.000 American citizens. It was at a time when, of all others, it was not only desirable but vital that the enlightenment, cordiality and admiration of the United States in regard to the exertions which we had made in this war should be untinged by even the slightest feeling of bitterness in relation to any avoidable or subordinate issue. During the whole of that time I addressed meetings in many towns in which there were numbers of Irish, and I made the acquaintance in private life of many distinguished Irishmen who had risen to positions of mark in the United States, but I do not recall one single Irishman who did not think that, by the calling together of that Convention, by making it plain to the whole world that the difficulty was real and fundamentally an Irish one, and by offering to place on the Statute Book any result in relation to which a unanimous conclusion proved possible, Great Britain
812
at that moment had placed herself completely in the right; and, certainly, we exhibited what must always be our object in this matter, the extraordinary and fundamental difficulty of all—that of dealing with Ulster. It was exhibited by the very course of those discussions. There was not the slightest hope that the Sinn Feiners would have attended while large numbers were in gaol. We may condemn the Government for having been bad prophets. I think they were. But I know enough of Ireland to be sure that it is an extremely difficult country in relation to which to make any prophecies at all. Such were the circumstances in which the Convention was held.
The noble Viscount, very reasonably and moderately, said that he could not expect that a considered statement of policy could be made to-night; but the noble Viscount indicated that he hoped very much that, if and when Peace was signed, one of the first activities of the reconstituted Cabinet would be to reach and announce a clear statement of policy on the subject of Ireland. I think that is a very reasonable expectation, and, indeed, the noble Viscount is entitled to go further than that. It is a necessary step on behalf of any Government, because, as the noble Lord indicated, the Statute Book at the present moment contains such legislation in regard to Ireland that the matter has to be dealt with one way or the other.
For any further statement of policy and for such indications as the noble Lord (who made so interesting a speech a moment ago) asked me, I can only reply in a very guarded manner. What is the true situation to-day? There is no use closing our eyes to the fact that a great majority of Irishmen to-day are in open rebellion against the people of this country. Murder is not only common, bet it is commonly approved. It excites no reprobation among an overwhelming number of the supporters of the Sinn Feiners. I introduced a Bill not very long ago which had for its object the affording of greater protection to the Police and Constabulary, and making more generous provision for their widows and children in case they were murdered while doing their duty; and the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who added a few observations in the course of the debate, said he thought that on the whole I had exaggerated the mischiefs which exist in the present day in Ireland. I think he used the phrase that there had been some

813
what of a tendency to the extreme left. I do not recall his exact words, and I have not refreshed my memory. The interval which has elapsed—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I correct the noble and learned Lord? I do not think I said that the noble and learned Lord exaggerated the magnitude of the evil. What I said was that he exaggerated it as a new thing. I pointed out that the existence of a party of the same character as the extreme Sinn. Feiners was no novelty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. There is no difference between us on this point, because I understand that he did not take the view that I exaggerated the dimensions of the mischief. How great they are can only be realised when we notice what the official bodies boldly say. This is the definition of membership of Sinn Fein—
"Membership shall be open to adults of Irish birth or parentage, irrespective of sex, class, or creed, who accept the constitution of Sinn Fein, save that no member of the British Armed Forces nor pensioner thereof, nor any person who has taken the oath of allegiance to the British Government, shall be eligible."
Nobody who has served in the British Armed Forces or who has taken the oath of allegiance is eligible for membership. Under this fostering guidance, let us make no mistake, innocent and brave men, the solitary custodians of the cause of law and order in Ireland, have been done to death by murderers and cowards. When the noble Lord says he wonders if any statesman will arise to come to Parliament, including your Lordships' House, with a scheme and say, "I am going to recommend and press this scheme on the people of Ireland "—when he says that, I try to understand a little and. I try to anticipate what the fortunes of that statesman will be. When he has produced a Bill and gone to the Irish people, I think his fortune must adapt itself somewhat to the following position. First of all, the Sinn Feiners, all of them, will say with one accord, "We want nothing but an Irish Republic; we will accept nothing but an Irish Republic. Your Bill gives us nothing that we care for, and you may take it away." I think, in the second place, when he comes to the Ulster men, who are secure in repeated pledges which can never be broken and which will never be broken, Ulstermen will
814
say, "We have received from two successive Prime Ministers "—I think I might say from three successive Prime Ministers—"clear and definite assurance that under no circumstances, in order to impose Home Rule upon us, shall we be coerced." What is left? If the Sinn Feiners will accept nothing but an Irish Republic—and the Ulstermen will never go into an Irish Republic; if neither party wants partition, and the Sinn Feiners will not accept partition, as most assuredly they will not, then however great may have been the reputation which plays so rosy a part in the noble Lord's dreams when his statesman began drafting Home Rule, his reputation will suffer a considerable eclipse by the time he comes to this country. As far as I am concerned, and I believe it represents the views of the Government, I am persuaded that at this moment the only policy which it is proper to announce, until a reconstituted Cabinet has given a collective decision, is that we will, by the assertion of any degree of force that may be necessary, protect life in Ireland and maintain order. If errors have been made—if this was an error, as I think it was, to which so much attention has been given to-night, yet we have derived both instruction and experience from it. It is all error little likely in a conspicuous or an inconspicuous form to be repeated.
I do not take quite the same despairing view as some speakers have taken in this and recent debates. I am the last person on this question to attempt to recur even remotely to any of the animosities and bitterness of the past, but I think I should be allowed without criticism to remind your Lordships that when Mr. Bissell first went to Dublin as Chief Secretary he informed the House of Commons that for sixteen years Ireland had been almost completely peaceful, and that it never was more peaceful than at that moment. Let no one think I am criticising any one. I am only attempting to establish this conclusion, that while it is true, as the noble Marquess pointed out, that this movement in its fundamental features is a recrudescence of an older movement—the mind of England was inflexible, when confronted by that older movement, that wrong doing and crime should be put down with an iron hand. I believe that is the policy which needs to be pursued. There are alternatives which no reasonable person will dismiss, but which no one at this moment will propose.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I move that the House do now adjourn.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I had intended to make a few observations in connection with the Question which was put to the Government by the noble Viscount, but if I am out of order in doing so I must, of course, refrain from making them. What I would say would be confined to a very small compass.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I moved the adjournment of the House and understood the Motion to be agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Motion, unfortunately, was put by me from the Chair, assented to by your. Lordships, and so announced by me. I greatly regret that we have not had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 21.]
MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the

Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [H.L.]

ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:

British and Continental Bank

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:

Bedwellty Urban District Council

Workington Corporation

Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board

ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.