Lords Sitting of 26 April 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read lª and to be printed.
PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read lª, and to be printed.
LYMINGTON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.

TAF FECHAN VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
TAT FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move, "That the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against the said Bills be extended to Wednesday the 4th of May next." The reason for this Motion is that your Lordships have decided that these Bills shall be referred to a Joint Committee. It is, therefore, obviously desirable to extend the time for depositing Petitions in order that any petitioners who have not been heard, and who may have intended to petition, should not lose their right of doing so.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order).
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I desire to ask one or two questions of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, on the Bill itself. On the Second Reading Lord Buckmaster said that it is of high consequence that some statement should be made as to the real purpose that the Bill is intended to accomplish. The Bill of 1920 was strongly opposed by many members of your Lordships' House, but it is now law and all law-abiding citizens are anxious to obey the law. I venture to think that we ought to know what it is. Up to the present moment what we have discovered is what it is not.
If your Lordships will bear with me for one moment 1 would give an example of what I mean. We were told in the early part of this year that under the Act no guaranteed prices could be given for the 1920 crop. Everybody was under the impression that that was in the Bill, and it naturally caused a good deal of apprehension amongst tenant farmers. They at once came up to London and saw the Prime Minister, who apparently threw over his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. He told them that they must not worry about that; everything would be arranged; and he gave them a pledge that the Act would be administered not only in the letter, but in the spirit. The farmers naturally went home much pleased with their interview, though perhaps they might have been somewhat puzzled to know why, if a subsidy was indefensible in the case of people who dig under the ground, it should be right, proper, patriotic and correct in that of people who earn their living by digging on the top of it.
We had a second instance when Lord Clinton fortunately discovered that under the measure all the advantages that farmers would receive under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906, which was incorporated in the Consolidation Act of 1908, went by the board. Surely there must have been some great misunderstanding on that point. All those who have had anything to do with bringing in controversial Bills in this House know with what splendid intellects those gentlemen are

5
endowed to whom the Government entrust the drafting of Bills; and if there was such a misunderstanding in their n minds, the laymen in this House may be somewhat excused if they fail altogether to understand the subtleties and the intricacies of the 1920 Act. But the measure is law and we must obey it, and I only want to ask two questions of which. I have given private notice to the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture.
The first question is this. Is the guaranteed price which we are told is to be granted to tenant farmers -namely, 95 s. in the case of wheat and 45 s. in the case of oats—to be distinctly understood to be a maximum, or is it, as we were given to understand all through the debates in the House of. Commons and in your Lordships' House, to be a minimum? If it is to be a minimum—and I think this is a fair question to ask—and the farmers find that their patriotic endeavours to grow wheat for the purpose of making this country self-supporting (which is the fons et origo of this Bill) result in their being left with a large quantity of this wheat for which there is no demand and which is unsaleable—because there must he an enormous quantity of wheat grown in this country to make it self-supporting—are we to understand that the Government will take off their hands the surplus wheat which they cannot, sell at the guaranteed price?
The second question relates to the cost to the country of this guarantee. There was a great diversity of opinion about that Lord Lee of Fareham, on the Third Reading of the Bill, was asked if he could state definitely what would be the probable cost to the country, within five or ten million pounds, if the wheat fell say 10s., 15s.. or £1 per quarter. His answer was that it would be nothing, for certain. I do not wish in any way to misinterpret the answer of the noble. Lord, but it seems to me that the plain English of that would be, "It would certainly not cost a million." But that does not correspond with the calculations of other pundits in this House and in the Commons House of Parliament, because your Lordships will remember that Lord Cawley, on the Third Reading of the Bill, calculated that if the difference between the world price and the guaranteed price was 20s. the subsidy would amount to £35,000,000; and Major Barnes, in another place, calculated that the subsidy would be £40,000,000 a year.
6
I should like to point out that that is on wheat alone, not on oats. Oats are to be subsidised also, and, speaking under correction, I believe, as a great quantity of oats is being planted all over the country, that the subsidy on oats will be an additional tax on the British taxpayer. Those best qualified to speak say that that will be a much heavier drain on the Exchequer than the subsidy on wheat alone will be. I hope I may be excused for having brought these two questions before the house. A large number of people in England who are absolutely or partially dependent on agriculture would be grateful for a straight answer to them, as many of us still look upon the Act with feelings of alarm, anxiety, and, to some extent, with bewilderment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions of which the noble. Marquess gave me private notice two days ago, though I may say that the noble Marquess has somewhat strayed front his letter in which he requested information on the points which he has mentioned. I naturally believed from his letter that his questions would relate almost entirely to the prices of cereals, and how those prices would be affected by the Act of 1920—that is to say, to the cereals which are at the present moment growing in the ground and will be harvested next August or September. In the course of his speech he has dwelt on the prices for wheat and oats of the harvest of last year. I did not know that the noble Marquess would raise the question of the prices of last year's harvest, but I was present in your Lordships' House about three weeks ago, and I recollect the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works giving a most lucid and lengthy explanation of the whole of the arrangements by which the farmers were to receive their money for wheat which they sold under a certain price. The noble Earl had charge of that question, and, if I may say so, dealt with it very fully and very freely on that, occasion. I do not think the noble Marquess informed the noble Earl that he intended again to raise this question. However, I am quite able to answer part of it—namely, that this 95s. for wheat. which was spoken about on that occasion was a maximum price. I think that is perfectly clear to everybody.

7
Now I come to the question which merely concerns me and the fortunes of this small Bill, which I have in charge, and which, as your Lordships know, is an amending Bill to the Act of 1920. As regards the guaranteed prices given by the Act of 1920 those refer only to the corn which will be grown this year, and it is perfectly clear that the guaranteed prices which were given by the Act for the crop grown in the year 1921 are minimum prices—not maximum, but minimum prices.
Next there is the question of the cost to the country. Of course, at this period of the year, it is perfectly impossible to make a very precise estimate or, indeed, hardly any estimate at all, of what the cost will be. So far as the wheat guarantee is concerned, it is impossible at the present time. to give exact figures. So far, however, as can be foreseen the highest estimate will not exceed £1,500,000. On the other hand, if there is a bad harvest this year in America prices in this country will probably remain high and the guarantee, therefore, will not become operative; so that it is even possible that the Government may have to pay nothing at all on account of wheat. It largely depends, of course, on the markets of the world, and very largely on the crops in America.
With regard to oats, however, it is considered that it will be necessary to pay out a considerable sum, though, here again, it is impossible to give any useful estimate at the present moment. From all the information we can obtain the amount that will have to be paid on the wheat will be a small amount, perhaps nothing at all should the American crop not be a good one, but so far as we can tell there will be a considerable amount to pay to make up the guarantee in respect of the oats. But I hope the noble Marquess will understand that it is exceedingly difficult to form an estimate of what the price of oats will be after next harvest, before one can get returns from the various countries and knew how the crops will turn out and the extent of the supply.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this discussion, but could the noble Earl who has just spoken inform us on what figure for the price of imported wheat the possible liability of £1,500,000 is estimated?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD):8
Would the noble Marquess kindly repeat that question?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, stated that it was conceivable that if the harvests in other parts of the world were good the Government, in fulfilling its obligation to the farmers, might have to pay out as much as £1,500,000 sterling. The question I put to the noble Earl was whether he could say on what figure of price for imported wheat that estimate—which I quite understand did not profess to be an accurate one—was based.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, the estimate is based on the average price c.i.f. of imported wheat, and that price is ascertained by taking the ruling market figures of two months for imported wheat plus twenty days of the third month, the 20th of the month being the date approximately upon which the weight figures are made public. There is no principle beyond that. British wheat does not make its own price. The price of home-grown grain is made by continental exporters.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Certainly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We, therefore, are at the mercy of foreign markets. In view of the fact that at the period of our maximum production during the war we never used more than 24 per cent. of our own breadstuffs, I am afraid I cannot answer the question of the noble Marquess except in these very general terms. With your Lordships' permission I should like to express my horror and amazement at the estimate referred to by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, that the subsidy to home-grown wheat would be £40,000,000. It could not be anything comparable with that figure, or with a fraction of it. I do not want to trouble your Lordships on this matter, because it arises out of the Corn Production Act, and in the Bill which is now before the House there is no reference whatever to guaranteed prices. The Corn Production Act which governs this matter is already passed and the discussion, therefore, is hardly relevant to the Bill which is now before us.
May I, however, add just one word. If the State is paying a subsidy to produce home-grown wheat to-day when foreign prices are relatively low, four months ago, when those prices were high, the

9
farmer, in effect, was paying a subsidy to the State when fie received 95s., or thereabouts, for his wheat comparable to that from abroad for which we were paying 105s. and 110s.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS, TRANSFER OF POWERS) DRAFT ORDER, 1921.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) had given Notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection 3, of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, to move to resolve, "That this House approves the said Draft Order."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under the provisions of subsection (3) of section 8 of the Ministry of Health Act., 1919, it is proposed by the first of these two draft Orders to transfer certain powers now exercised by the Home Office to the Ministry of Health. The powers which it is proposed to transfer are under the Factories and Workshops Act, 1901, and are those conferred by Sections 61, 97 to 100, 109, 110 and 120. Section 61 provides that an occupier of a factory or workshop shall not knowingly allow a woman or girl to be. employed within four weeks after she has given birth to a child. It will be much easier for the Ministry to take steps to secure enforcement of this section with the aid of local authorities carrying out maternity and child welfare schemes, and to see that its provisions are carried out, than it was for the Horne Office to do so.
As regards Sections 97 to 100, these sections contain provisions dealing with the sanitary condition of bakehouses, and are designed partly for the protection of the public health and partly for the protection of the workers employed. As regards retail bakehouses, the sections are already enforced by the officers of local authorities and not by the Home Office inspectors, and it will be an undoubted general convenience if the administration of the provisions is in the hands of the Ministry of Health, in view of the close relations in which they' are placed with local authorities. Coming to Sections 109 and 110, Section 109 imposes penalties on an employer who knowingly gives out work to a person living in a house in which an
10
inmate is suffering from scarlet fever or smallpox; and Section 110 enables a district council to make an order forbidding any work to be given out to a person residing or working in a house in which an inmate is, or has been, suffering from any notifiable infectious disease. These provisions, I think, can more profitably be dealt with by the Ministry then by the Home Office.
Then, under Section 120, the power of the Home Secretary to authorise inspectors to take proceedings for the enforcement of these provisions is transferred to the Minister of Health. It is agreed, I think, that the administration of sonic of these provisions would be better undertaken by the local authorities themselves than by a central authority such as the Ministry, but the transfer cannot be performed by an Order in Council. We hope to introduce legislation for this purpose when practicable, but in the meantime it is not considered necessary to appoint any additional staff for the purpose of carrying on the functions transferred under this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House approves the said Draft Order. — (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS, TRANSFER OF POWERS) DRAFT ORDER, 1921.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have now, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection 3, of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, to move to resolve, "That this House approves the Ministry of Health (Registration and Elections, Transfer of Powers) Draft Order, 1921." It is proposed to transfer under the Ministry of Health Act certain powers ill regard to the registration of elections from the Ministry of Health to the Home Office. The Ministry, as your Lordships know, inherited from the Local Government Board certain duties under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, but it is thought unsuitable that the Minister- of Health should be responsible for duties so entirely unrelated to matters of health, and accordingly it is proposed to transfer them to the Home Office.
The Draft Order has been prepared between the two Departments, and the transfer of the duties to the Home Office

11
carries with it, of course, the general responsibility for advising the Government on questions concerning electoral reform, and kindred subjects, and a general responsibility for the proper working of the electoral machine. It will be observed that the Draft Order provides for the Registrar General to continue the administrative work which he has for some time past carried out in connection with electoral registration, as distinct front Franchise Law and the procedure and conduct of elections. The Registrar General in future will carry out this work under the direction of the Home Secretary. This provision is made in order to reduce the burden imposed on the Home Office by the transfer to it and to its staff of entirely new duties.
Moved, "That this House approves the said Draft Order." — (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM VISCOUNT BURNHAM had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to continue in any form the power given to local authorities to prohibit building except under licence; and if not, when the present restrictions will be removed. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper with the wish and purpose of bringing to as speedy an end as possible the whole series of arbitrary and unequal restrictions upon building, as applied by the local authorities throughout the country, because I believe that they have been in restraint of trade. I am certain that they have lessened the efficiency of the building industry, and I believe that they have already led to wide unemployment, and will soon lead to much more.
I have had an opportunity of seeing something of the building trade, because for the last two or three years I have acted as Chairman of the Building Trades Employment Committee in this part of England. We all know that the building trades, to a certain extent, have always been regulated by local authorities. The old adage of the law that "Nobody may build to his neighbour's injury," has been applied in many Statutes. The London Building Acts control the London builders, who have had to submit to minute Regulations, but these Regulations arc of a different kind. They definitely give the local authorities
12
the power, almost the instruction, to stop certain classes of buildings, and to distinguish between different classes of buildings.
In 1919 they were, I believe, what is termed, in the slang of to-day, a kind of "popularity stunt." They were suggested first of all by the Bricklayers' Union to the Ministry of Health. I am not certain that the bricklayers were looking only for popularity, but these local authorities were instructed, or enabled, to apply these restrictions. The idea was, of course, that at a time when great masses of the working people had no sufficient accommodation and were crowded into insanitary houses, and when immense numbers of men were returning from the Services and it was necessary to provide for them, it was not fit or proper that we should have lordly pleasure houses erected all over the country, to the scandal of the public. The truth was that there was not much risk of lordly pleasure houses being erected, but what was aimed at particularly was the building of cinema theatres. It would have been far better to prohibit altogether the erection of cinemas than to have Regulations which have disorganised the whole of the building trade.
I will explain what has happened in the South of England. In the South of England the big building firms such as Mowlem's never did any cottage building. They had their own particular class of structure, and had a highly expensive and expert staff for that purpose. Cottage building was left throughout the country to the smaller men, and although it had not been done to any large extent for some few years before the war, it was neither economical nor advisable to turn the bigger firms from their own class of work and to displace the smaller builders. More than that, the bigger firms were employing men at high rates of salary, which increased the expense of cottage building and made it reach the fabulous sum which it has reached in many districts. I believe in the London district it is as high as £1,100 a cottage.
It would have been far better to have allowed things to go on in the natural course of trade; but the principal reason why I wish to see these Regulations now brought to an end is that they are causing great unemployment. When you meddle with a trade in this mischievous way you very often fail to consider the intricate and

13
injurious effects which such meddling may have. It is true that the Regulations gave employment to bricklayers to such an extent that at the present time there is not a bricklayer unemployed in England, and they refuse to admit anything but a limited. number of trainees into their ranks. On the other hand, plumbers, decorators, hot-water fitters, and all sorts of subordinate classes connected with the building trades are at the present moment, as I know from our register in Tavistock-street, out of employment in large numbers, and there are likely to be more. These Regulations have had the effect of making unemployment worse and, as the bigger buildings arc now being put up in diminishing numbers, it may become a serious feature in the labour market.
It is no doubt true that large firms are engaged to sonic extent in putting up the old sort of structure, but a curious thing has been a consequence of it. The London County Council are now taking a wide view of the building question and giving licences for any sort of building so long as you do not use bricks. You have to use concrete blocks. The bricklayer was equal to that. He said that if you had to build with concrete blocks none but a bricklayer should handle them, and so every one who handles them from the beginning to the end has to be a bricklayer and a member of the Bricklayers' Union. There is no advantage to gain from any point of view in providing that there should be more bricklayers for cottage building, while the loss to trade in general has been considerable. I cannot imagine that His Majesty's Government wish to continue unemployment, or to increase it by artificial means. They are now bringing forward an Act to amend the existing law. It seems to me that it would be an admirable time, though it is almost too late to have full effect, to abrogate these Regulations, which are not valued by the local authorities, which puzzled them in the first instance, and which are now totally inapplicable.
I do not deal with the whole effect of the housing scheme I do know, however, that there are houses to let now in many parts of the country, because, where the sanitary by-laws are not enforced by local authorities, workmen, especially with the reduction that is now going on in the rate of wages, are unwilling, and
14
sometimes unable, to pay the high, rents which are being asked by local authorities for the houses as they bring them info public use. There is no further purpose to be served by these restrictions. They were ill-advised, though I have no doubt well meant. It was hoped by them to gain considerable popularity, because it was thought that to devote the whole of the energies of the great trade for the purpose of putting up cottages for the people would commend itself to the national conscience. Surely we have now had enough of this sort of make-believe, and if we find that the restrictions do not work to public advantage they ought to be brought to an end.
So far as I know the building trade—both the masters and the employees— are all of one mind, and are most anxious to see the restrictions disappear. I have never heard any one connected with the trade defend them; yet they have now been enacted and enforced for more than two years. I venture to put this Question in the real desire that something may be done, because at a time like this I cannot imagine why we should neglect any means of increasing employment among the people. We ought to prevent the problem, which is so difficult to deal with, becoming even worse than it is.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the Question which the noble Viscount has put to me is as regards Section '5 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919. That section was introduced because at the time very great difficulty was experienced in obtaining labour for housing schemes, and because that difficulty was due to a large extent to the competition of other forms of labour. The noble Viscount has referred to picture palaces, and it is true that there was considerable dissatisfaction in the country that the construction of such luxury buildings, as they were called, should be proceeding while housing schemes were held up for lack of labour. The power which was given in this Act of prohibiting luxury buildings has no doubt assisted in easing the shortage of skilled labour for housing schemes.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: No.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is the view of His Majesty's Government. I should like to say, and it is right that it

15
should be said, that there is no evidence that local authorities have used their powers unreasonably. As your Lordships are aware, the operation of this section will continue in force for two years only from the passing of the Additional Powers Act —that is to say, until December next. The operation of the scheme for employing ex-Service men in the building industry will no doubt increase the supply of labour available for housing schemes, and will render recourse to this power of prohibition less necessary during the time intervening between now and next December.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I understand that the dilution scheme is dependent upon the abolition of the restrictions; otherwise, it will not work.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Viscount referred in his speech to the Housing Bill which is now before Parliament, and suggested that an opportunity might present itself in the discussion of that Bill for considering the future of these restrictions. I should like to assure the noble Viscount that if an Amendment be proposed to it to abrogate the restrictions from the date of the passing of the new Act, it would receive the most sympathetic consideration from the Ministry of Health. I think that will answer the noble Viscount's Question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would the noble Earl be in a position to make a statement in the near future as to the position of the dilution policy?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I shall have to ask the noble Marquess to give me notice of that Question.

CASTLECONNELL SHOOTING.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the attack on the hotel at Castleconnell on Sunday evening, April 17, and to move, "That in the opinion of this House immediate steps should be taken to ensure a public and impartial Inquiry." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when put my resolution upon the Paper I wrote, as I always do in these cases, to give notice to the Irish Office of my intention to bring the matter forward. No doubt
16
they received my note, but, although I sent it by a special messenger, I have had no answer to it. I do not complain about that on the grounds of discourtesy; but that is what actually happened. I want only to make it clear to the House that I gave full information to the Irish Office of my intention to bring this matter forward.
I shall quite shortly, and without much preliminary suggestion, read three letters which I have received from my brother who was at the hotel at Castleconnell when the outrage took place, and I will read them without comment, because they speak for themselves. As regards my brother and sister-in-law, who were the only two visitors at the hotel, one is only too thankful that they have escaped without injury. I may say, perhaps, as one other preliminary, that my brother does not agree with me generally as regards Irish matters, and has always been strongly in favour of what I may call the Government's policy. Whether he will be so in the future is another matter. I received this letter from him on Friday morning—
" I much want to see you about a terrible affair that took place at our little hotel at Castleconnell last Sunday evening. Our landlord, a perfectly innocent, honourable and much-beloved man, was killed almost before our eyes."
Then he writes about incidental matters which he did not see himself, but of which he was informed at the time. I prefer to pass them over. I want to deal only with the matters he actually saw himself. He continues—
" Both my wife and I were held up by revolvers pointed dead at our breasts."
I may explain perhaps that my brother is between seventy and eighty years of age, and that he was there with his wife. He has gone to Castleconnell for the fishing for some thirty or forty years. He next states—
"Besides O'Donovan, the proprietor, two others were shot dead in the hotel, and the whole place was shot to pieces by a machine-gun placed inside the hotel. It was the most wicked attack you can imagine, and, to my horror, perpetrated by the Black and Tans Auxiliary Forces, some sixty in number."
There is no question, because my brother ascertained it at the time, and it has been admitted since by the Government-, that the attack was perpetrated by Black and Tan Auxiliary Forces.
My brother's letter continues—
" Over 1,000 shots must have been fired, the Auxiliaries behaving like demented Red Indians. Of course, we thought it an attack by Sinn Feiners."
My brother never would have believed that the Government Auxiliary Forces could make an attack. of this kind. He concludes:
" I trust the real facts may be made known."
Having received that letter I went to see my brother in order to corroborate the facts, and I found that on the same morning on which the outrage had occurred he had written a letter to his daughter. It goes into rather greater detail. I will not read the whole of the letter, because that is not necessary, but I will read one or two passages from it. He says—
" I am telling you of our terrible experience at Castleconnell on Sunday evening last. …Almost at the moment I sat down there came a sudden crash. …For two or three minutes there was a regular roar of shots, far too rapid to be counted; some hundreds any way."
I ask your Lordships' special attention to the next passage—
'' At this moment…two rough-looking men rushed into the room, not in uniform, each holding a heavy revolver in each hand. They at once covered us at a distance of two feet. Here they stood for three or four minutes, not speaking."
There is a scene in a civilised country! men rushing in without uniform, a revolver in each hand, held within two feet of the.breasts of a man and woman for three or four minutes.
The letter continues—
" The door was now open the two men being still inside. At this moment some dozen or so men rushed along the passage and up the staircase, yelling like Red Indians and firing as rapidly as possible. There was no kind of order, each man firing right and left, and we could hear them overhead tiring into the rooms, even into the bathroom.…The doors were riddled with shotholes. At this moment I could see out of the window a large number of men in the street, firing up and down, and the inhabitants standing with their arms over their heads. I should mention that in the middle of the firing there came a sudden deadly rattle of louder sound. This was from a machine gun brought into the passage and fired point blank, smashing the bar room door to splinters."
Look at the scene. There were men rushing all over this hotel, out of uniform, firing right and left, covering visitors with their revolvers and bringing in a. Lewis machine-gun, wrecking the whole place. My brother in his letter also says—
" The total number of men was about fifty to sixty, mostly in rough civilian clothes. …
18
The affair lasted about half-an-hour. The men then got into four large military lorries, one being armoured and loopholed. I saw two bodies taken out and put into the lorry, and then they drove off in the Limerick direction."
There is no question whatever—and this is one of the points to which I desire an answer—that these men were sent by military lorries from Limerick. That is undeniable.
My brother in his letter further writes—
" During the whole of the time we, of course, thought they were Shun Feiners, and then, after they had gone, to our horror we found they were Government Auxiliary Black and Tans. I did not see the actual death of poor Mr. O'Donovan…"
I will not go into his statement of what he was told, because that might interfere with other proceedings. He also says—
" It was stated that the attack on the bar was on account of a mistake, each party mistaking the other for Sinn Feiners. To me this is almost incredible. Even I recognised the men at the bar."
They were three policemen in civilian clothes. My brother had just come back from fishing. He went into the next room for dinner, and it was a minute afterwards that this outrage commenced.
I have one other letter to read. I regret to have to refer to it, but I must do so, and I have been directed to do so by my brother. 1 got this letter late last night, and I went to see him this morning in order that I might make no mistake in referring to it. In a letter to me my brother says:
" I forgot to mention to you I have a bullet in its cartridge ease picked up by me on Sunday the 17th, the cap dented by the striker but unexploded. The bullet has been reversed, thus converting it into an expanding bullet of the most deadly character. Such bullets inflict the most terrible wounds, and were prohibited in the late war."
My brother was, of course, a great surgeon in his day. Here is the dum-dum bullet. It is not suggested that anyone fired in that hotel except the Government Auxiliaries. I do not, know whether any of your Lordships would wish to see this bullet. I have shown it to two or three people who say that it is undoubtedly a dum-dum bullet, and the way by which it has been made such is by the familiar system of turning the point in the reverse direction.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Is it alleged that the Crown Forces used dum-dum bullets?
LORD PARMOOR: On this occasion certainly, and it is a matter which ought to be thoroughly inquired into. I entirely feel the weight of that. I felt it so strongly that, at great inconvenience, I made special inquiries this morning. It is not alleged of the Army; and it is a most disgraceful thing to connect the Army with these outrages by the Auxiliaries. My view of the action of the Army in Ireland. is all to its honour and credit. It has preserved its discipline under most trying circumstances and has done its work in an admirable manner. But what do you say of these Black and Tans, out of uniform, rushing about on a Sunday afternoon in this way, firing hundreds of shots at random, bringing a machine-gun into an hotel and wrecking it; and of the fact that afterwards amongst the cartridges picked up is one that undoubtedly contained a dum-dum bullet? I have no hesitation in making that statement. Where else could it have come from?
My object is to have a full and impartial Inquiry. No one is more desirous than I am to have a matter of this kind explained and disproved. It is not a pleasant thing to have to make an accusation of this kind. It is, indeed, extremely unpleasant, and I should not have made it unless I felt convinced that on this occasion a dum-dum bullet had been used. I cannot repudiate more strongly than I have already done any notion or idea that those who bring these outrages before us are in any way attacking His Majesty's Forces, or the Army. I repudiate that in the strongest possible terms. It is an attempt to lead an Inquiry into the wrong direction. If you ask me my opinion, it is this. If anything has done harm to the prestige of the Army it is the non-disclosure of the Strickland Report, which I have no doubt would have absolutely absolved the Army from any discredit as regards the Cork outrages. If there is one matter for satisfaction as regards the condition of Ireland at the present time it is that no one who knows the conditions there has a word to say against the attitude and discipline of the Army itself.
I wish to add only one or two words, because I think the letters that I have read speak for themselves. I cannot imagine any case in which it is more essential that you should have a public and impartial Inquiry. I do not mean a mere official Inquiry; that is no good at all. I mean a public and impartial Inquiry to ascertain
20
who is really responsible for an outrage of this kind. I do not wish so much to blame the men, or even the officer who sent them out. I wish to go behind that. Who organised it? Who knew of it? Who authorised it? It is only by these means that we can hope that a system which is becoming discredited in the eyes of every one who loves civilised government, or law and order, can be ended.
I hope that the noble Earl who, I understand, is going to answer my Question, will not make the stale and unworthy suggestion that those who bring these matters before this House are in sympathy with Sinn Fein outrages. I repudiate that again. This vendetta of violence is doing more harm to the prestige of this country than any other fact in its modern history. I, for one, desire to say in the strongest terms that I repudiate any sympathy with the violence of Sinn Fein. I dislike violence in every form. But the worst violence of all is that of reprisals, connived at or organised under conditions of this kind, by the Government itself.
I need add but one final remark. In the long run it is the moral tone and character of a nation that counts. I regard what is going on in Ireland, without proper inquiries being made or proper restrictions imposed, as demoralising and degrading to our national character and our national instincts. I agree with the letter written by the leaders of religious opinion to the Prime Minister. In his answer the Prime Minister made two statements, as to which I have just one word to say. He admitted the deplorable excesses. But why are they not stopped? He denied, on the other hand, that outrages had been carried out by persons out of uniform. He will not be able to deny that in the Castleconnell case. At least the Government should make sure that no expedition of this kind, made in military lorries and under conditions such as I have mentioned, is allowed to be carried out by men out of uniform who take advantage of that fact to threaten unoffending persons. If I speak with sonic heat it is because I feel that my brother and his wife had a very narrow escape from meeting death at their hands. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That in the opinion of this House immediate steps should be taken to ensure a public and impartial Inquiry into the attack on the hotel at Castleconnell on Sunday evening, April 17. —(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I should like to have the privilege of associating myself with the Motion that has just been made by the noble Lord. I shall follow his example in being very brief. I think the whole House, the whole country, and, indeed, everyone who has any regard for the fair fame of this land, will be under a debt of gratitude to him for bringing the matter before this Chamber. I hope that the request he has made for a public Inquiry—not merely an official Inquiry—will be met, so that we shall at least have one case, such as these incidents at the Castleconnell hotel disclose, upon which there will be no doubt. There cannot be any doubt whatever in the mind of any person who fairly approaches the consideration of this question. The noble Lord who has just sat down re leered to the answer of the Prime Minister to the letter from the heads of the various Churches of this country. I think that the Prune Minister himself admitted the whole case of those who claims that the most scandalous atrocities and the most atrocious crimes are being committed every day and every hour in Ireland in the name of law.
It is not left any longer to Sinn Feiners, or Sinn Fein sympathisers, to tell this story. The most systematic and conclusive indictment that was ever made against a Government or against a system was contained a day or two ago in The Times, over the signature of Sir John Simon, a man whose name is known all over the world, who has been Attorney-General in this country, and who may one day be. Attorney-General again, or may sit on that Woolsack as Lord Chancellor. He has indicted the system over his own name, and given chapter and verse for the scandalous atrocities happening in Ireland under the name of law—atrocities which, if we heard of their happening in China, would fill our souls with indignation.
As regards the case disclosed by the noble Earl, what an entertainment for a Sunday night in a little village in Ireland by a number of people who have been very properly described by the brother of the noble Lord as a lot of savages and Red Indians! And we hear nothing of it. We hear nothing of their punishment, although, the very morning after, the newspapers ring with the story of the execution of an unfortunate man who, no doubt, committed offences against the law, but who probably had an entirely mistaken idea of his duties
22
to his neighbour and the State. Here we have organised crime, encouraged, sustained and supported by those in whose custody our lives and our properties have been placed.
As I have said, it is not left any longer to Sinn Feiners or their sympathisers to proclaim this new policy to the world. It has been done by the Asquiths, the Sir John Simons, the leaders of the Labour Party and by every other man in the community who is net shackled and bound by Party ties, who is not merely the hack of some, Party. The time has come for this Chamber to assert itself and to say that we will not be a party any longer to having these facts held from us. We have to remember that the precedents that are being made to-day may be used against us to-morrow, and that, other bodies may arise, and other leaders take charge of this country, who will not hesitate to use reprisals, and use them effectively, and who will have the authority of this precedent to quote for what they do.
What will be said to-day in the United States, in France, and in all the other countries that are our friends and Allies when they read the story as disclosed here to-night by a man of unimpeachable integrity? The question has been asked whether a particular kind of bullet was used. What has that to do with it? The bullet was there, and it matters very little what the character of the bullet was. It is the story that has been disclosed here this evening that matters. But we wanted no such evidence. The Prime Minister told us himself the other day in his letter that between three and four hundred of these men have had to be dismissed. An average of 20 per cent. per annum of their numbers had to be turned out for these outrageous offences! And these are men sent over to keep law and order, to preserve the lives of the people, and this is the result!
As the noble and learned Lord has said, one hesitates to take part in these debates or to give information, fearing that he may be identified in any way with the horrible outrages that are taking place day after clay on the other side. It was not so long ago that the Archbishop of Canterbury had to come out and challenge those who laid down the principle that any condemnation of reprisals was an admission of sympathy with the crimes which are going on in Ireland. I hope that this Chamber will assent to the Motion that has been

23
made and that we shall have an Inquiry which shall get behind this whole system of reprisals; that we shall have the complete story told us from beginning to end. I hope that this Inquiry will be by a tribunal in which not wily this Chamber but the country outside and the whole world will believe, and whose findings will be respected.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I have not, I think, once interfered in any discussion that has taken place in your Lordships' House touching the action of the Crown Forces, who are popularly spoken of as Black and Tans. But there are some observations which I should wish very much to make with regard to the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, and the letters which he has read. Lord Parmoor has disclaimed, as I disclaim, any desire whatsoever to condone, in the demand for an Inquiry which is made, the acts of the extremists in Ireland. Nor do I for one moment think that this is a case which should be regarded in any way as a mere matter of politics, or as a mere matter of an attack on the Government. I should like to explain why I think so. If the statement of the noble and learned Lord's brother be accurate—and it is very difficult to suggest that it can be in the main anything but absolutely accurate—the Government, I presume, would be the very first to disclaim any sympathy with, or any condonation of, those acts.
In the first place, the acts which have been alleged to have taken place, when you examine them, show, not an attempt to enforce law and order, but obviously to set at defiance the very orders which must have been issued in regard to the actions of this irregular body. This body is supposed to be organised, drilled, and under proper military control. Perhaps I am wrong in saying military control, but under a system which borrows from the Military Code the means of preserving proper discipline. It is also supposed to have the ordinary indicia of a military force—uniform, and officers attired in a way that would show what the force is.
In the next place, it can scarcely be credited that military lorries were got together in Limerick, or somewhere near Limerick, at a distance from Castleconnell, and filled up with those men, armed and in a position obviously to do most serious damage at any buildings or any places
24
they attacked. Accordingly, we must assume that, when they left Limerick, they had a specific object in view, the doing of certain acts which somebody must have considered were justifiable in the circumstances. Those acts were, as we know, an attack quite out of proportion to any possible expected resistance in this small country hotel, carried out by a force alleged to have consisted of sixty armed men with a machine-gun, who acted in a way which is quite inconsistent with all idea of discipline awl all idea even of decency.
I do not assume, though I find it very difficult to avoid the assumption, that what has been stated with regard to the general acts of this body is accurately stated, and for that reason I repeat that it can in no sense be an attack on the policy of the Government to suggest that this is a thing which should not have occurred, that the conditions which made it possible should be stopped. What is more, it has been suggested in another place that in some way or another this may be palliated on the ground of a mistake, and that there were three supposed Sinn Feiners in the hotel who were mistaken because they were not in uniform, and who turned out to be members of the same party. That is no excuse whatsoever for the act committed, either from a public point of view or from the point of view of the necessity of an Inquiry. The point is that this force apparently set out from Limerick to do something of a violent character; that they selected this particular place; and that, without inquiry or anything else apparently, they created this havoc and, by a miracle, the lives of two absolutely innocent strangers, who were there, were not sacrificed. That being the position, I do not think I can be accused of hostility to the Government in suggesting that there should be a full Inquiry into this matter. In the interests of the Government itself such an Inquiry should be held.
When this irregular force was organised, and when we heard of the first instance in which it broke through the bonds of discipline, according to the official view, I was strongly of opinion, as were many others— and I am sorry to say that we have been justified in our views—that the establishment of an irregular force such as this was a complete error. And it is a fatal error for this reason. The number is not extremely large, and it has to be divided

25
into small bodies of men, placed in these military lorries, and hurried at great speed from point to point through the country. When you divide any force such as this into parties of sixty, or fifty, or forty, or twenty, and send them out, of necessity you cannot have the control over them which would be possible with a properly organised military force. ft is utterly impossible. The fact of these particular men not having ordinary military- discipline is no excuse, to my mind, for the fact that they have been guilty of excesses. You must get behind the thing and see whether it cannot be stopped, even if it is successful in its results.
If it had the effect of producing that peace in Ireland which is absolutely essential, not only for Ireland but for ourselves, some people might have been disposed to overlook the error of judgment, to call it nothing more, in the original formation of the force. But it has failed, except in one thing. I say it with grief, but with absolute conviction and knowledge, that the irregular acts—I do not call them reprisals or anything of that kind—of this force I lave unquestionably alienated hundreds and thousands of people who previously were not only loyal but, like the brother of the noble Lord who spoke, most anxious to aid the Government in the restoration of order in every possible way.
All I want to see, all that any one wants to see, is peace in that unfortunate country of mine. I do not care what Government produces that peace. I have no feeling of political rancour or political sympathy in the matter. It is a matter that has passed quite outside the region of ordinary politics. But the employment of this irregular force in Ireland is worsening the condition of things day by day. Of that I have no more doubt than that I am speaking to your Lordships. When I implore the Government to set up an Inquiry into this matter I am taking a course which, I believe, will not at all affect prejudicially the restoration of peace in Ireland but will do a great deal to show that the Government are anxious to act quite fairly, straightly, and honestly, as I for one do not wish to suggest that they are not willing to do. Such an Inquiry ought not to be an official Inquiry. it should be an Inquiry carried out preferably, I should think, on this side of the water, free front all possibility of prejudice, or doubt, or difficulty. I urge that most strongly and I do so with no feeling of hostility whatsoever to His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, with regard to the statement made on the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, that expansive bullets are being used by the Crown Forces, it seems to me that the proper course to adopt is that the noble and learned Lord's relative should. give evidence on the subject and prove to the Court of Inquiry what he has already proved to the satisfaction of Lord Parmoor himself—that the bullet in question was a bullet accidentally dropped by a member of the Crown Forces. I do not prejudge the case. Lord Parmoor's inference may, perhaps, be correct. But it is a matter on which some evidence on the other side may possibly be. given by the Crown Forces, who, doubtless, will bitterly resent any such suggestion if the allegation can be disproved. An Inquiry is going on. Lord Parmoor says he does not want an official Inquiry. What does he want—an unofficial Inquiry?
LORD BRAYE: A public Inquiry.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will deal with one. point at a time. I do not know what Lord Parmoor means by an unofficial Inquiry.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Earl will pardon me, I did not say "unofficial." We all know what an official Inquiry means. it means an Inquiry by the people who are said to be implicated at the present moment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: An Inquiry is going on already. Two or three of your Lordships who have spoken are obviously unacquainted with that fact. Lord Par-moor does not know that an Inquiry is taking place. Lord Morris asks: Why are the facts being withheld from us? Does Lord Morris, before he makes speeches of that character, take the trouble to study the public Press?
LORD MORRIS: Certainly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does he know that an Inquiry has been going on for three days?
LORD MORRIS: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does he know that it is a public Inquiry; that the public is admitted; that the Court is

27
crowded; and that the relatives of deceased persons have a right to be represented by counsel? Does he know that the Irish newspapers publish columns of the evidence given day by day? In those circumstances, what right has Lord Morris to say that facts are being withheld? A little more measured language on the part of the noble Lord, if I may say so respectfully, would be seemly.
LORD MORRIS: When I want an opinion I will ask for it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I say that a public Inquiry is going on, and that it has been going on for days. It is at this moment adjourned. It appears that one of the witnesses, a constable, was seriously wounded, and it is considered necessary that this man's evidence should be given. In fact, it is said that the case cannot be fully examined until that man is well enough to state what he saw. The Court, after these sittings, accordingly is adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the nature of the Inquiry? Is it an Inquiry by Court-Martial?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, it is; I am coining to that. The Court at the moment is adjourned, but it is hoped, I believe, that this man's health may sufficiently improve for him to be able to give evidence before many days or, at any rate, a few weeks are past. Then the opportunity will present itself to those who know facts about this case to present them in the ordinary way to this Court. So far as publicity is concerned, therefore, Lord Parmoor's case is completely met. Whatever the character of the Court or its constitution, no greater publicity could be given than is at the present moment available through the newspapers, whose representatives attend and make long reports.
As to the impartiality of this Inquiry, so far as I am concerned I believe that the Inquiry into this case is impartial. It is a Military Inquiry. I understand that the town of Castleconnell is within the Martial or Military Law area, and under the instructions of General Strickland, who is the Military Governor, a Court is now sitting, composed, I think, exclusively of Army officers under the presidency of an officer of high rank. Personally, I should be quite
28
prepared to entrust my fortunes, knowing something of Courts-Martial, to a Court composed of five men holding the King's Commission acting under the presidency of a Colonel. As I say, I believe the Inquiry to be impartial. Whether it is adequate is quite a different point. People may say that soldiers are not sufficiently trained in the law to deal with questions of evidence, and still more of construction, as a Court composed of His Majesty's Judges would be. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to advance, and one, I dare say, for which much can be said, but on the point of impartiality, with all deference, I do not believe that you will get a more impartial, a more independent, and a more honest body of men than five officers holding the King's Commission.
I claim, therefore, although I dislike the inference about this Court that underlay Lord Parmoor's speech, that the two principal points on which his contention rests are already met. That the Court is public, now I inform him of the fact, there can be no doubt, and that the Court is an impartial and honourable body I hope your Lordships will agree. Taking that view myself, and impressing it with all earnestness upon your Lordships, I certainly do not mean to divide against the Motion if Lord Parmoor wishes it to be pressed to an issue, because in my opinion the Court is both public and impartial, as Lord Parmoor has asked that it should be.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, your Lordships will have listened to the very official reply which the noble Earl opposite has given, and some of your Lordships, I think, may have. hoped for a little more. The noble and learned Lord who made this Motion spoke with deep feeling, aroused, no doubt, by the fact that some near relations of his own obviously underwent serious danger during the commission of this outrage. If we were disposed to retaliate upon the charges which have been brought against us and those who agree with us, from time to time—the charges, I mean, that unless when reprisals are under consideration we devote at least half our speeches to denunciation of the crimes which have produced those reprisals, we are supposed to be in seine sympathy with the crimes—if we were disposed to retaliate on those lines we might say here that the noble Earl has heard a story of a most shocking outrage,

29
committed by common admission by some of those in the service of the Crown, and he has not offered a single word of regret or reprobation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I intervene? The case is sub judice, and I offered no opinion one way or the other upon its merits.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I thought the noble Earl would say something of that kind, but I am afraid that your Lordships will not think that the mere fact that this particular outrage is the subject of inquiry would have made it improper for the noble Earl to express some regret at the outrage undoubtedly committed by somebody, and apparently, by general admission, by men in the service of the Crown, upon the relatives of the noble Lord, quite apart from the scene of murder and destruction of which they were the unwilling witnesses.
There are some new features, as has been pointed out, in this particular outrage. It is, so far as we are able to understand, the first tune in which members of the Auxiliary Forces have gone on a raiding expedition out of uniform, awl have been guilty of these acts of destruction. That, surely, is a marked change, because it has been one of the principal arguments, and one of the very strongest arguments used, especially by the Prime Minister, as providing if not an excuse at any rate a reason for the commission of reprisals, that those whom they punish are in no sense regular combatants, but lurk in plain clothes for the purpose of their attacks. If we once find that men in the service of the Crown are prepared. to imitate that unwarlike practice, as it is alleged, and not, I think, denied, has been the case here, then the system of indiscipline which is prevalent is proved to an extent which has not been alleged before.
Once more I cannot help expressing wonder that His Majesty's Government never seem to have realised the meaning of this breakdown of discipline in what is presumed to be an organised force. I Call only say that I have spoken to many officers in the Army on this subject, not through my desiring to ask their opinions but from hearing opinions which they have volunteered—officers from the rank of Field-Marshal down to that of subaltern—and one and all have expressed horror and amazement at the possibility that any
30
Forces of the Crown could act with such utter disregard and apparent contempt for discipline. That is apart from all the other arguments which may be used against reprisals.
The remarkable incident mentioned by the noble and learned Lord of the use of an expanding bullet was, I think, somewhat exaggerated by the noble Earl, because he said that the noble and learned Lord had said that the Auxiliary Forces were using expanding bullets. That was not what the noble and learned Lord said. What he said was that it appeared to be the case that on this particular occasion some member of the Force, because nobody else could have done it, had gone through the simple process of reversing the bullet in a cartridge, thereby turning it into an expanding bullet. That would not give me the slightest surprise. It seems to me that it is a very likely thing for some one individual to have done in. the course of perpetrating an outrage of this kind.
As regards the Inquiry, I certainly would never admit for a moment that a Military Court might not be, and is not likely to be, every chit as impartial as a Civil Court. The officers who sit on Courts-Martial are impartial, and they are, in the reverse cases of trying those who are the enemies of the Crown, very likely to err rather on the side of mercy than a civilian. The argument in this case is certainly not against the intrinsic impartiality of such a Court, but is whether a Court of this kind is likely to be thought as most securing public confidence by its knowledge and its powers of dealing with a question of this kind. I confess that I do not think that the particular constitution of the Court is the most important point at issue. The noble Earl has said that the Inquiry is in every sense a public one, and that every chance is given for those interested to be represented, to give evidence and to be heard through counsel. So far that is no doubt satisfactory. I have not seen any report of the proceedings, and whether the noble and learned Lord who made the Motion will be satisfied that everything is being done, not merely to make the Inquiry public but to conduct it in a way which would ensure public confidence, we shall no doubt bear if he replies at the conclusion of the debate.
I do not wish to detain the House, but I should like to point out again that an occurrence of this kind comes as a renewed

31
shock when one thinks at the same time that His Majesty's Government are making an attempt to carry out a great constitutional reform in the country: If occurrences of this kind are to follow week after week, and almost day by day, how is it conceivable that a new form of government can be brought into operation in Ireland? It is almost as though, during the reign of the Commune in Paris, the French Government had tried to re-organise municipal government, the powers of the Préfet of the Seine, the Préfet of the Police, and the Mires of the different Arrondissements in Paris. It is surely an impossible task to bring into being the Irish Parliament unless something can be done to bring peace and order into the life of the country. Personally, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord on the cross benches when he said that the proper action to take is the immediate disbandment of these Auxiliaries Forces. Anything which is to be done in the way of maintenance of order through troops (the Regular Forces of the Crown) I fully admit cannot be left undone, but that is altogether another question, and I cannot help feeling that this particular outrage at Castle-connell may be regarded as a climax to these irregular proceedings which entitles us to call for the complete abolition of the force which has been guilty of them; all the more because Ireland is on the thresh-hold of a new Government.
A noble Lord who is so well known and so popular in another place is, with the utmost public spirit, about to undertake the task of governing, Ireland, full, as I am certain, of zeal for the service of Ireland, and followed, as we all know, by the good wishes of those who have been politically opposed to him quite as much as of those who have been on the same side. This kind of thing does not give a new Government of Ireland any chance, and unless it is possible to put a stop to these monstrous irregularities, it is impossible not to fear that the new order of government in Ireland will fall, not merely into utter unpopularity but into the same inability, even if animated by the best intentions, to restore the life of the country which has unhappily been the case in the past.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had no intention of taking part in the debate this afternoon. Your Lordships are well aware—I am afraid that I have troubled you very often on this
32
subject—how deeply responsible I think His Majesty's Government are for the condition of disorder to which Ireland has been reduced. But I am not disposed to criticise my noble friend, the First Commissioner of Works, because he did not express any opinion this afternoon upon the particular outrage, or its circumstances, which we are discussing. He said, as I thought with great force, that the matter was sub judice, and therefore he abstained from making any comment upon it. I think, if I may say so, that was a very proper attitude for him to adopt. I am very glad indeed to hear from him the details which he related, and the statement that a very full Inquiry before a competent tribunal is being held with all the sanctions of publicity and the proper representation of the interested parties. I rose merely to put this further question to my noble friend. Will he tell your Lordships that the findings of the Inquiry will be made public? That will be the ultimate sanction. With that assurance I, for my part, should be willing to wait until the Inquiry has completely finished its labours.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry to say that is a point upon which I did not consult the Irish Office, and I am quite unable to give a reply. I should like to inform noble Lords that I have to represent several Departments in this House, and that I am the head of a Department of my own, and also Chairman of the Wheat Commission that supplies the daily bread of this country and other countries. I am rather hard pressed, and the point did not occur to me when I invited the opinion of the Irish Office. Perhaps Lord Morris will be a little tolerant in consequence.
LORD MORRIS: I beg your pardon. You have no right to refer to me as intolerant.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the noble Marquess will put down a Question this day week, and will give Notice, I will answer it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will put it down for this day week.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the difficulty under which the noble Earl labours is one that we have all realised for a long time past. This House suffers from the great disadvantage that, when-

33
ever a question is raised with regard to some of the most important matters of administration, we can obtain answers only through people who have no personal knowledge themselves of the administration of the Office concerned. This has led, even in debates upon Ireland, to statements from the Government Bench which subsequent events have proved to have been made on inadequate and insufficient material. I make no complaint whatever against the noble Earl for the extremely meagre, and to me unsatisfactory, nature of his answer. I must admit, however, that I am just a little surprised that among his other multifarious labours ho did not ask the obvious question of the Irish Office, as to whether this matter can be made public when the Inquiry is finished, because that has been the real bone of contention between the people who hold the views that I do and the Government about matters which have taken place in Ireland.
The noble Earl seemed to think that the Inquiry now taking place was one with which everyone who is concerned about the state of affairs in Ireland ought to be abundantly satisfied. First of all, he did not tell us what the Inquiry was. What is its hope? Into what is it inquiring? Is it inquiring into the cause of a mw in a public house in Castleconnell.? What are the terms and the purposes of this Inquiry? Are you inquiring into the guilt of the man who had charge of the lorries which were;.emit out from some headquarters to descend upon this town? If we know nothing whatever about the nature of the Inquiry it is not very likely that we shall be satisfied when the noble Earl tells us that an Inquiry is being prosecuted and that the Courts are inconveniently crowded whilst it is conducting its labours.
It is not surprising, therefore, that we are not quite satisfied with the noble Earl's statement. Nor, indeed, do I think he believed we should be satisfied—and for this reason. This is not the first Inquiry that has been held into undoubted outrages that have occurred in Ireland. With very rare exceptions they appear to have resulted in nothing at all. The last Inquiry was into the murder of two men who were killed when entrusted to the safe custody of the Forces of the Crown. They were found murdered in a ditch. What was the result of that Inquiry? Up to this moment nothing at all; and yet those
34
men must have been in the charge of someone. Is the man who was responsible for their safety a person whom it is impossible now to distinguish? Why is it that nothing results?
We know perfectly well that the same thing is true of what happened at Balbriggan. The place was sacked and people killed; but no one has been punished. The same thing happened in the case of a man I mentioned before, w ho was found dead, shot by people who had gone out without authority and who had entered his house without any order. The answer given was that he tried to escape. I could not help thinking when the noble and learned Lord was speaking that if his relatives had attempted to run away they would certainly have been killed; and according to the law that now exists in Ireland, the people who shot them would have been abundantly justified, because they were committing the unpardonable crime of attempting to escape. It is not surprising in these circumstances that we want something more than a repetition of the process which has been productive not merely of disappointment but of profound distrust of the whole administration of affairs in Ireland. We make no complaints at all against the soldiers who sit on these Inquiries. It is not their affair. They are not acquainted with the process of taking evidence or with the process of cross-examining witnesses. They have not the training that enables them to sift and probe and determine the matter into which that' are inquiring; and with the best wish in the world—and they possess it—the results have proved that they are utterly inadequate to obtain ally satisfactory result.
Is this kind of thing to continue? Are outrages to take place throughout Ireland and to result in Inquiries which are perfectly barren of any result, except on the occasions when the result is concealed from the British public I cannot believe that people who, like myself, think that the maintenance of order is of the highest importance can be satisfied with such a state of affairs. You cannot permit the law to he broken in any part of this country and then expect it to be maintained elsewhere. Once disrespect for the law and its administration is shown by the Government the result that will follow may be productive of immeasurable catas-

35
trophe. I sincerely hope the noble and learned Lord will push this matter further. The fact that an Inquiry has been set on foot, now adjourned, apparently, sine die, until someone gets well (by which time some other outrage will probably attract public attention from this one) is not a satisfactory answer to the grave complaint which he was fully justified in bringing before your Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I rise to say a few words only on this Question. As the debate has assumed a general form, and matters of general complaint have been made by the noble and learned Lord who spoke last, it may not be improper that I should make sonic general observations in reply. Lord Buckmaster says, as he has said before in this House, that these Inquiries have been barren of result. The noble and learned Lord is entirely wrong. If he proposes to make an indictment so sweeping and so general in character he should really be at some pains to acquaint himself more in detail with the actual working and the results of the Inquiries which have been held. Has he the slightest idea of the numbers of the Forces who have been subjected to severe punishment?
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Lord will forgive me. A Court-Martial is one thing, an Inquiry is another. The Inquiries I mentioned were Inquiries which, so far as I know, were barren of result.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord means that a Court of Inquiry did not inflict punishment and, therefore, that no punishment has been inflicted as the result of a Court of Inquiry, the discovery is wholly unworthy of his acuteness. As the result of a Court of Inquiry many grave disciplinary steps have been taken, some of which should have attracted the attention of the noble and learned Lord by their publicity in the Press, and from the observations I myself have made in this House. Lord Buckmaster, however, has travelled from the immediate subject of this Inquiry, though that was grave enough to justify debate, into three or four other cases. I cannot think that is a convenient course. He mentioned three cases in particular as the subject of complaint to-day. The noble Earl was not
36
prepared to deal with these, and no one could be expected to do so except upon specific notice. But I invite the noble and learned Lord, if he wishes to put forward a more general indictment founded on these or other specific cases, to choose his own time and make that indictment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Lord knows that I have done so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And he ought to know that in relation to two of the cases I made an answer which, to many of us, appeared to be satisfactory, though not, as I am aware, to the noble and learned Lord, who speaks as if no answer had ever been attempted.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I did not say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord says he did not say so. 1 quite agree; but the whole tone and implication of his reference to those incidents was that they were unexplained and inexplicable charges gravely involving the good faith of the Forces.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I really must apologise to the House, but I cannot allow the noble and learned Lord to misunderstand me in this way. I said that in those three cases that I quoted Inquiries had taken place, and in not one, so far as we could see, had any result followed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord must not forget that the explanation may be that in more than one of them, as was certainly the case in several other Inquiries, the Forces of the Crown were found, and rightly found, to be completely blameless.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I quoted those three cases. Were they blameless in any of those cases?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord has quoted three cases without informing any Minister in this House that it was his intention to do so. I cannot retain all these cases in my memory, but I declare categorically that in the cases which the noble and learned Lord selected on the last occasion on which he addressed the House on this matter there was more than one in which, after the

37
fullest inquiry, the charges were found to be wholly baseless. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, says that the military Forces ought to be withdrawn from Ireland. That is very grave advice to give, and I greatly doubt myself whether the noble Marquess has clearly considered what the consequences of such a step would be and of what the substituted forces would be composed. It is the duty of those who have the responsibility in this matter to consider from week to week, sometimes from day to day, whence are to be derived the coercive forces which must deal with the actual and existing situation in Ireland. Do not let us close our eyes to that.
The noble and learned Lord speaks with great vehemence, with unmistakable sincerity and with the eloquence to which we are accustomed, of the lawlessness and crime which are taking place in Ireland. He does not, I know, mean that the inference may be drawn that he is blind to the immensely graver violence and crime by which the Forces of the Crown have had their existence endangered for so many months in the discharge of duties which, in the vast majority of cases, involve the commission of no crime but merely the discharge of the ordinary functions of servants of the Crown. While we are face to face with a state of affairs such as everyone knows subsists to-day in Ireland, we should adhere to the advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, not to neglect our primary duty of providing forces of adequate stamina and sufficient in numbers to deal with the crime which is taking place.
It is very easy to talk of recalling or disbanding the military Forces. I do not know whether the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, is aware of the numbers of those Forces to-day. I do not know whether, before making that apparently final recommendation to the House, he has considered whether he would be in a position, if he were at the War Office to-morrow—and he has discharged high responsibilities—to find any others at this moment that would take their place. The noble Marquess is a most attentive observer of the developments of our politics. He must know the anxieties which, in the course of the last month, have pressed upon the Government in dealing with their contingent obligations in the maintenance of law and order here in this country, at the very heart of Empire. The noble Marquess cannot have failed to observe that we have
38
recalled battalions from places where we would very gladly have left them for the very necessary duties which they were even at that moment discharging. I do not think that he can be even unaware that we have withdrawn—and very unwillingly withdrawn—battalions from Ireland in the course of the last four weeks.
To say that this moment, of all moments, is the time to withdraw thousands of trained men who possess great military qualifications—and of whom I have said before, and say again, that in relation to the total numbers engaged, looking at their conduct in broad perspective, and making not a generous but a just estimate of their conduct in the provocations which they have sustained, they are entitled to be proud of what they have done to maintain their esprit de corps and of their record since they went to Ireland—and to say that a Government confronted by the perplexities and anxieties of the existing public danger would not have been guilty of levity in withdrawing these men at a moment when no substituted force could be provided by us, or by the noble Marquess, or by anyone else, seems to me to be trifling with a grave issue.
The Motion of the noble and learned Lord asks that a public and impartial Inquiry should be set up. The statement of the noble Earl who replied, that in every respect the Inquiry is a public one, has been freely accepted by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. No one has impeached the impartiality of the tribunal which has been set up. Therefore the terms of the noble and learned Lord's Motion, that immediate steps should be taken. to ensure a public and impartial Inquiry, may seem to be unnecessary, unless the noble and learned Lord or others do in effect what no noble Lord has done in speech—impeach the impartiality of the Military Court.
I rather gathered from an account of his speech that was given me—I was most unfortunately deprived by a public duty of the advantage of listening to him—that it was a little uncertain whether the noble and learned Lord was aware that any such Inquiry was, in point of fact, undertaking any functions at this moment. The only criticism that was directed at the Inquiry which was being held was a doubt as to whether a Military Court—I think this point was expressed by Lord Crewe—would command public confidence. A doubt was

39
also expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Partmoor) whether a Military Court would possess the technical competence which would enable it to deal effectively with such an issue. If the noble and learned Lord, somewhat contrary to my expectation and hope, should think it necessary to challenge a Division with a view to securing a vote which might seem to challenge the competence of the Inquiry, I think it is obvious that no one here would wish to challenge the impartiality of such a Court.
There was an overwhelming consensus of opinion, I think, in this House and elsewhere, that the time had come some months ago when the area in which Martial Law existed should be enlarged. Indeed, many of our critics in this House and elsewhere were of opinion that we ought to have extended Martial Law over a still greater area in Ireland. In an area where responsibility in these matters has in fact been committed, wisely or unwisely, to the military authorities, surely it is impossible that we should attempt to set up any Court other than a Military Court, and surely it would be most unwise if we by any vote should seem to reflect upon the competency of a Court which must be the tribunal set up in an area which is under the control of the military, and one which, so far as I know, no one proposes to withdraw from military responsibility.
In these circumstances, if the noble and learned Lord thinks it worth his while to elicit an expression of opinion from your Lordships that immediate steps should be taken to ensure a public and impartial Inquiry at a moment when steps have already been taken to ensure a public Inquiry and one whose impartiality has not been impeached in the debate, no particularly useful purpose would, it appears to me, be served in challenging such a Motion, though it is equally true that no particularly useful purpose would appear to be served by pressing it.
One point, and one point only, remains. I have no information which would enable me to give a decisive answer to the question whether the findings of such a Court of Inquiry would be published. I am not aware whether this particular Court is one the findings of which, under the Military Code, are not ordinarily published. I am not aware, but I will inquire. But I do express an opinion, which I think is probably the opinion of your Lordships,
40
that, whatever the rule and the practice may be in circumstances which are as singular as those existing in Ireland to-day, and as critical and dangerous as we all know them to be, if the Inquiry is held under conditions in which all the evidence is published, I am not free from anxiety when I reflect that any technical rule should prevent the publication of the conclusion which deals with evidence which is public; and I will endeavour to see that those views, which I gather from the course of the debate many share, are pressed upon the Cabinet before a decision is reached.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I wish to say but one or two words in answer, because the noble Earl stated that he does not propose that the Government should divide against my Motion. I understand from what the Lord Chancellor has said that the Court which is holding this investigation is a Court of Inquiry, and not a Court-Martial. Of course, if it is a Court-Martial it is a public Court, and the sentence will be promulgated publicly. If it is a Court of Inquiry the sentence will not be publicly promulgated. That is the distinction between the two. I do not know whether the noble Earl opposite, or the Lord Chancellor, could give the information whether this Inquiry which has been referred to is a Court-Martial or a Court of Inquiry, but I understand that, whether it is either the one or the other technically, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be prepared to recommend the publication of the sentence.
One other matter I would mention. I read letters from my brother, who is a good deal older than I am, and though he is very desirous to give his evidence, it is a very heavy matter for him to have to go over to Ireland, and I think it would be impossible for his wife to do so, owing to the state of her health. Could not his evidence be taken on oath in this country for use before the Court of Inquiry or the Court-Martial in Ireland? There can be no doubt that it is of the first importance that his evidence should be heard. If some arrangement of that kind could be made I should be most thankful on his behalf, because I know that the alternative is not only a very heavy task but an almost impossible burden for him. Therefore, if his evidence could be taken by ordinary oath in this country it would be a great convenience.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can say is that the wish expressed by the noble and learned Lord shall be considered by those who have responsibility in this matter. The noble and learned Lord himself is far too experienced in weighty legal matters not to be well aware that the actual presence of a witness is more than ever desirable in eases where the allegations are of a very grave character, and I understand from what has been repeated to me of the noble and learned Lord's speech that some of those allegations, for instance, in relation to the dum-dum bullets, are allegations of which a very grave view might be taken. I only mention that in order that the noble and learned Lord may have in his mind that the consideration is one that requires care.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had on the Paper a Motion to resolve,
" That the Ecclesiastical Committee, being a Committee constituted under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, be instructed to communicate to the House with every Report made a copy of the Proceedings of the Committee in reference to the Measure, with which such Report is concerned, and that the said Proceedings be printed."
The noble and learned Lord said My Lords, I think that this Motion is one that may be regarded merely as one of form, and I do not imagine that it requires any elaborate explanation. It deals with the very important Committee called the Ecclesiastical Committee, which consists entirely of members of both Houses of Parliament but is not exactly in the position of what is generally known as a Joint Committee of both Houses. It happens, therefore, that the Orders and practice of the. House do not provide in the usual way for the Minutes of these Proceedings being printed and published for the use of the Committee, and in order to give information to the House on the subject. I have only to add that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, who is Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, desired me to inform the House that he entirely agrees with this proposal.
Moved to resolve, That the Ecclesiastical Committee, being a Committee constituted under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, he instructed to communicate to the House with every Report made a copy of the Proceedings of the Committee in reference to the Measure with which such Report is concerned, and that the said Proceedings be printed. —(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure that there may not have been some slight misunderstanding as to the attitude of Lord Cave. I did not gather that he was substantially dissenting from this proposal, but that, in one or two respects, he would desire to see it qualified. I will speak to my noble and learned friend again.
The object of the Motion is to give publicity to the views of the dissenting minority as opposed to those expressed in the Majority Report. The Proceedings of Joint Committees set up by the Houses of Parliament are regularly published—that is the practice; but the Ecclesiastical Committee is a Committee set up by Statute. It is not in the ordinary sense a Joint Committee of Parliament, and it is not usual to publish, in fact I know of no precedents for publishing, the Proceedings of bodies of bodies, kind. For example, the Report of the Road Board is a very close analogy. That is presented annually by the Treasury under Statute, and it does not include Proceedings. If a Statutory Committee chooses to have its Proceedings made public, it is open to the Committee to incorporate the 'Proceedings in its Report, in italics or otherwise, and it would be fully open to the Committee to take that course if it desired.
I do not gather that the noble and learned Lord himself would disagree with the view that the discretion as to whether the Proceedings should be published must ultimately rest with the Committee. I think that must be accepted by most people. On the whole I should be disposed to recommend the House in this case to concur in the view which was taken by the Committee, as expressed by the Chairman, and, if the noble and learned Lord would withdraw his Mot ion for to-day, I will take an early opportunity of discussing it with him and with Lord Cave. It might then be possible to put it again on the Paper and perhaps accept it without alteration.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: The noble and learned Viscount, who was in the House until a minute ago, authorised me to say, as he could not remain in the House, that he entirely concurs in my Motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord has said that, he must equally allow me to say that the noble and learned Viscount did not appear to me to accept this proposal without some qualification, and it is not easy to see how he could at the same time entirely concur in the noble Lord's Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Education (Consolidation) Bill and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read lª—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.
[From Minutes of April 25.]

FORTH CONSERVANCY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Thursday next.
WOLVERTON ESTATE.
  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Judges' Report received.
DE TRAFFORD ESTATES.

  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Petition for a Bill together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
  House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.