Lords Sitting of 2 August 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SHOREDITCH AND OTHER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (SUPER- ANNUATION) BILL.

  LAMBETH BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): MV Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 15th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with Amendments.
ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with Amendments.
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with Amendments.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with several of the Lords Amendments agreed to, one Amendment agreed to with amendment, one other disagreed to, but an Amendment made in lieu thereof, and several other Amendments disagreed to, for which disagreement they assign reasons.

IRISH COMPENSATION CASES.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask whether Lord Shaw's Commission on Compensation for Malicious Injuries to Property in Ireland have presented any Interim Report or Reports; and, if so, can any action be taken forth-with in relief of persons already found entitled to compensation. In putting this Question, may I say that I have on the Order Paper later a Question to ask whether the Government can make any statement with reference to intended action during the adjournment of the House for the relief of loyalists in Southern Ireland and of refugees from that country? This second Question opens a much wider field, and I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that anything that may be said upon these two Questions should be said at one and the same time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not agree to the course which has just been suggested by the noble Lord. It would be, entirely irregular. Other noble Lords have intermediate Motions on the Order Paper, and there is also the business of the House of Commons, which is of first importance—such as the Allotments Bill—which, having regard to the engagements of the House of Commons, must be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. The noble Lord's first Question is very limited and can be answered in five minutes. There are many other matters on the Order Paper before we arrive at the noble Lord's second Question, and it would be a very unfair precedent to other noble Lords who have Questions on the Paper before the noble Lord's second Question and to the position of business between the two Houses, that a debate on the second Question should be taken now.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: That is the point at which I wished to arrive. Some noble Lords had conveyed the impression to me that it would suit the convenience of a considerable number of your Lordships if a general discussion was held upon both Questions at the same time. After the intimation I have received I shall limit myself strictly to the Question which comes first. A good deal has become known since I put the Question down, but nothing has become known to me which would justify my withdrawing it upon that
1038
ground, and no Interim Reports from Lord Shaw's Commission have, so far as I am aware, been published. Nor has anything happened which in my judgment makes less necessary the prompt payment of relief to persons to whom compensation has been awarded. It must be obvious that if compensation is paid at all in these sad cases it is most desirable that it should be paid quickly; the necessity for it must be extremely urgent in all these cases.
In putting this Question, I have no wish to convey the slightest impression that I desire to complain of the progress made by the Commission, or to impute to Lord Shaw and his Commission any failure to act. Indeed, I am perfectly aware that justice has not been done to Lord Shaw's Commission. The impression was produced in debate here and elsewhere that only ten cases had been dealt with out or some 10,000; that the noble and learned Lord himself had gone away for a certain period to a distance, and that the work of the Commission was arrested during this absence. Neither of these statements is a fair one. What has happened, I understand, is—and it is quite intelligible— that some nine or ten typical cases have been decided, any one of which is expected to settle the principle of decision in a large number of other cases, if not, indeed, of practically the whole of the remaining cases. Meanwhile, during Lord Shaw's absence, the necessary inquiries are being made into all these other cases which will make possible, immediately on his return, the application of the principle so settled to the decision of the outstanding cases.
It is fair to remember that the mandate of Lord Shaw's Commission is very limited, and only applies to what are called pretruce cases, that is, cases of malicious injury and damage to property which arose from the action of either parties to the combats which was going on before the period of the truce (which, as your Lord ships know, happened more than twelve months ago) before July 11, 1921. Already twelve months and more have gone by, and the cases will be less well remembered only by reason of the still more dreadful doings of the subsequent time. There is all the more need, therefore, for prompt payment of what is found to be due. A great deal more has come to our knowledge since I put down this Question, but it would be more appropriate to allude to that on the second Question.
The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (The Earl of Crawford): My Lords, Lord Shaw's Commission has presented to the Treasury, and to the Ministry of Finance of the Provisional Government, two Interim Reports covering the nine cases which, up to date, have been heard by them. In these nine cases they have awarded a total sum of £198,186. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said about Lord Shaw and the very valuable work now being done by him and his colleagues. As the noble Lord indicated, the nine cases already heard by the Commission are leading cases, which it is hoped will create precedents which will lead to the settlement without formal hearing of a large number of other cases. The Commission has now also appointed agents who will investigate outstanding cases locally, and will be empowered to settle them without delay in so far as the compensation to be awarded may be agreed.
No payment has yet been made of any of the sums awarded by the Commission. It is for the Provisional Government to pay these awards in the first instance, and as will be seen from the letter dated July 26, addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Provisional Government, a copy of which has been presented to Parliament, His Majesty's Government have informed the Provisional Government that they would welcome an assurance that payment has actually been made in all cases which have matured for payment and will be made in outstanding cases as these are determined or agreed. His Majesty's Government understand that the reason for the delay in payment arises from the fact that the leading cases already decided raise certain questions of principle—for example, the liability of insurance companies—which have now been finally settled, and there is every reason to hope that payment in these cases will now be made at a very early date.
Meanwhile, in the case of any person already found entitled to compensation His Majesty's Government are prepared, if it appears that the delay in payment involves substantial hardship, to make advances from Imperial funds on the security of the Shaw Commission, and one such advance has already been made. They are also prepared to make similar advances in cases in which, although the claim has not been before the Shaw Commission, it is clear that the claim is well-founded and that delay in settlement is causing substantial
1040
hardship. All applications for such advances should be addressed to the Irish Office.
The Earl of MIDLETON: My Lords, I think the statement of the noble Earl is reassuring, so far as it goes, but I hope that he will not think I am unjustified in pressing upon him that this very serious letter, published in the last few hours, and sent by the Secretary to the Provisional Government of Ireland Committee of the Cabinet, is one which opens a very wide and important vista for all those who are concerned at the present state of disorder in Ireland. I should have been disposed to press upon the Government the extreme change which has come over the whole position since Lord Shaw was appointed. At that time it was hoped that the main question of compensation would concern the period covered by the operations which terminated with the truce of last year, but in the last few months the disorder and the destruction of property have probably been tenfold anything that occurred in the course of last year. Important, therefore, as is the subject to which the noble Earl has made reference—namely, the settling of the compensation claims prior to July, 1921—the question of how compensation is going to be paid for the sufferings resulting from the action of the Government in leaving the whole of the southern counties of Ireland without any British protection whatever since September last has really become transcendent.
I take note of this remark in the letter—
"While, however, the responsibility for meeting these claims to compensation—"
that is, those which are the result of the recent, fighting and of the fighting now going on—
"must rest upon the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably, and as promptly as inevitable difficulties allow."
I believe that your Lordships will rest upon that as an absolute obligation on the part of the Government. I think it is an appalling thing to have to admit that, as a result, of a Treaty to which this House became a party only after it had already been signed by His Majesty's Government, large numbers of His Majesty's subjects are at this moment suffering losses which, if they occurred in a foreign country, would be the cause of most urgent representations by His Majesty's Government for reparation.

1041
Many of these persons are absolutely starving. In the course of the last few days I have had, coming to this House and to my own house, men who have served in high positions, men of considerable property, living upon their own land, and not in any way engaged in political action, who have been stripped of everything they possessed. A man came to me here a few days ago; he had held a very high position. He and his wife had actually had no food during the whole of the day upon which he came here, and had no means of any description. I am sure that His Majesty's Government recgonise that this state of things cannot be allowed to continue, and that it would not be sufficient simply to appoint a Commission of Inquiry which, in two or three years' time, might give some relief to these men. I earnestly hope that the reply of the Provisional Government to this letter, which was dated July 26, may be of the character we have a right to expect, fully realising that these liabilities must be met. In any case, I do hope that His Majesty's Government will feel that the prorogation of Parliament is not in itself any reason why this subject should be allowed to stand over for settlement till the time when tin; greatest possible hardship may have been inflicted.
The Earl OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to ask the, noble Earl one or two questions, and I shall confine myself entirely to the Shaw Commission on Compensation for Malicious Injuries to Property in Ireland. He said that nine cases, involving £190,000 odd, were settled; that is to say, that the Commission had decided that compensation should be given in those nine cases. Then he went on to say that nothing had been paid, except in one case. What has become of the money? Is it ever going to be paid? It is there. That is one of the questions I should like to ask the noble Earl.
To me his answer was somewhat vague. I know the state of my country pretty well. Who is this agent 'I Is he to continue the work of the Commission on the precedent of these nine cases? I cannot follow that at all. The noble Earl mentioned that these nine cases were precedents. Is the agent going to continue them? What power has he? Who is he? That is another question I should like to ask. He went on to say, in relation to these claims," as they are determined or agreed." I do not quite understand what "agreed"
1042
means. Does it mean agreed with the Provisional Government? Who is to have the agreement? Surely the claims of the people who have suffered are quite definite. I wish the noble Earl would make these points clear, because we should be very glad to hear about them.
Lord ORANMORE and BROWNE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, might I ask, with reference to what was said by my noble friend, Lord Midleton, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to publish the reply which they receive from the Provisional Government to the letter which they addressed to them on July 26, and whether that reply will be presented to Parliament?
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, may I add one word to what has been said? I notice in this letter, which, I am bound to say, I have read with a great deal of pleasure, a passage on the third page relating to the claims that have arisen since July 11, 1921. It is as follows—
"While, however, the responsibility for mooting these claims to compensation must rest upon the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably, and as promptly as inevitable difficulties allow. They would, therefore, be glad if the Provisional Government would inform them fully and authoritatively of the measures which they are adopting to meet these exceptional claims in respect of injuries whether to person or property."
If there has been any reply to that, one would be very glad to know what it was. If there has not, I hope that after the recess any reply will in some way be communicated publicly, so that we may know what it is.
Lord Midleton referred very fully to the position, and I am not going to repeat his points. But, while giving the Provisional Government full credit for their desire to bear the burden that it is suggested should be imposed upon them, I would point out that the question of machinery is all-important. Some of us who have had losses can afford to wait for an inquiry, if an inquiry be necessary, but there are many to whom immediate payment is the most important thing of all, because they are ruined and destroyed. What one is anxious to know—accepting the principle— is how machinery can be devised to carry it out effectually and promptly. I regard that as all-important, and I am sure that any information on that subject will be

1043
welcomed by this House, particularly by all of us who not only may have suffered ourselves, but are in constant touch with people whose sufferings have been very intense and truly grievous.
THE Earl OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Desart, and my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne, it is intended to publish the reply received, and the Provisional Government has been told of that intention on the part of the British Government. Lord Desart's second question referred to the post-Shaw proceedings. I do not want to trespass upon that subject, which, I presume, will be raised later on to-day.
THE Earl OF DESART: It arises from the letter.
THE Earl OF CRAWFORD: Yes. The Question on the Paper deals with the Shaw Report, of course, and there is a later Question on the Paper dealing with the subsequent situation. I will merely say that the organisation founded under the guidance of Sir Samuel Hoare is still in existence, and has been recently enlarged to deal with precisely the class of difficulty referred to by Lord Desart.
THE Earl OF DESART: The noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting for a moment. Does Sir Samuel Hoare's Committee deal with any persons except refugees? This is a question of compensation.
THE Earl OF CRAWFORD: When I have got full particulars for the answer which I have to give to Lord Stuart of Wortley later this evening, I will see if I can get information on the particular point. As regards the agents, about which I think Lord Mayo asked me, they are merely persons—the names I cannot give him — to investigate the local circumstances from which Lord Shaw and his colleagues will be able to draw conclusions. "Agents" is the term applied to these people. I do not suppose; that they have any power to do more than settle questions where no dispute arises.
THE Earl OF MAYO: That is, outside the nine cases?
THE Earl OF CRAWFORD: The nine cases have been settled by Lord Shaw's
1044
own Committee. Lord Shaw in those cases has assessed the sum of damages at £198,000 odd. There are also agents who are to conduct local inquiries. That is their function, unless they can settle questions by agreement, so that the compensation may be agreed. The other question was about delay in payment. It is only at this moment, I believe, that the figure I have already mentioned has been finally determined. It did not rest, I gather, entirely with Lord Shaw, because the question of subsidiary responsibility for payment arose in connection with insurance policies. That liability has now been settled, and, as I have said, there is reason to hope that payment will now be made shortly.
Lord ARMAGHDALE: Will my noble I friend be good enough to state, whether any specific sum has been placed at the disposal of Sir Samuel Hoare's Committee? I understand that in the first instance £50,000 was stated as the limit I which he had at his disposal. I should, like to know whether that amount has been I increased.
THE Earl OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid that I cannot tell Lord Armaghdale what he wishes to know, except that I know there is a balance in favour of the fund, to-day. Sir Samuel Hoare has not spent the money at his disposal.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: Did I hear the noble Lord aright, that as soon as the reply to the letter of July 26 has been received it will be published? My noble friend asked the noble Earl whether the reply would be published as soon as received. It is, of course, very inconvenient that Parliament is about to be adjourned, and that therefore it will be impossible to take public notice of any deficiency which there may be in such reply, but, of course, it is to be hoped that it will not require to be commented upon. Do I clearly understand that the Government promised to publish the reply as soon as it is received, and will take steps, if the reply is unduly delayed, to press for that reply?
THE Earl OF CRAWFORD: I cannot go beyond reminding your Lordships of the last phrase of the letter: "They [the Government] hope to receive the reply of the Provisional Government in a form

1045
which will enable it to be laid before Parliament." That is all I can say at the present moment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I ask our pardon for wishing to say a single Lord upon this subject before we part, cannot believe that His Majesty's Government are not thoroughly aware of how lesperate the position must be of many people in the south and west of Ireland at I he present moment. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, who spoke just now told you of the numbers of letters that he was receiving, and of the desperate situation n which people of every kind and every lass are placed at the present moment. Many of them are obliged to leave their homes in order to save their lives; they are low situated in England and unable to go jack to their own homes or their residences on Ireland. We are confronted at the present moment with a position in Ireland Which is absolutely without precedent, at ill events within the recollection of one who, like myself, has had fifty-four years' now) edge and experience of what Ireland has had to go through since he has been a member of Parliament.
I cannot imagine that His Majesty's Government are not thoroughly aware of the situation, and I am willing to give them very credit in the world for doing what may be possible to relieve that situation and help the people who are placed in this truly deplorable position. It is deplorable that in one part of His Majesty's Dominions at the present moment we must all of us know cases of people who find it impossible to remain with safety in their own land. Was there ever such a state of things; known before in this country, or in any other civilised country? The situation is really appalling. I am sure the House realises it, and the Government also.
I rise for the purpose only of expressing my hope and sincere trust that when we have adjourned the Government will take into most serious consideration the question how this intolerable situation in Ireland is to be dealt with, and how the first duty of every civilised Government, to give protection to the subjects which live under it, is to be carried out after Parliament has separated. I sincerely appeal to those members of the Cabinet who are present at this moment. I see present the Lord Chancellor, one of the most active and able, and one of the most powerful men we have ever seen, in a Parliamentary sense,
1046
occupying the Woolsack, and I hope that the Cabinet will take this matter into their most serious consideration at the earliest possible monent, so that we may not hear in the future of these abominable cases of which we hear so much to-day.

SOMERSET MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
Lord STRACHIE: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government what is the total sum paid into the Welfare Fund by Somerset district up to date and how much of that sum has been spent and how much allotted and for what purposes spent or allotted in each case.
LORD HYLTON: The following is the information asked for in the noble Lord's Question. The total sum paid into the Welfare Fund by the Somerset district is £5,206 18s. 8d. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, four-fifths of this total must be allocated for local purposes in the district. Including a small share of interest received from the investments of the fund, the total amount available for local purposes in the Somerset district is therefore at this moment £4.211 7s. 9d. The whole of the last-mentioned amount has been allocated by the Miners' Welfare Committee to local schemes in the district. In addition, a sum of £64 has been earmarked out of future contributions for schemes already in progress. The total amount hitherto paid out on account of the allocations mentioned is £1,477.
Payments out are normally made by instalments as each scheme progresses, and evidence is required as to the expenditure which is incurred. Six schemes in all have so far been sanctioned in the Somerset district; of these five are schemes involving the purchase and laying out of fields for recreational purposes, and one is a scheme for the building of a village hall and reading room for the workmen. All these schemes have been put forward by the joint district welfare committee of coalowners and miners, which was set up on the invitation of the Secretary for Mines to assist the Miners' Welfare Committee in allocating the fund for local purposes in the district. I have a copy of the memorandum issued by the Miners' Welfare Committee on this subject, which I shall be happy to hand to my noble friend if he cares to see it, also a statement giving the details of these schemes.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN TUNIS.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government if the authorities in the French Protectorate of the Tunisia have arrested British subjects and forced them into French military service; and if any action will be or has been taken to protect British subjects from these arbitrary measures.
Under a Decree of the French Government British subjects were arrested in the streets of Tunis, taken to barracks, and forced into French military service. It is rather difficult to reconcile the cordial understanding between this country and France with their action in this matter, and I think I am correct in saying there is no precedent for such action. Moreover, the action of the French authorities may form a precedent for British subjects in other French Protectorates. What will be the result of this on our prestige in the Orient? I have been in Tunisia twice, and I cannot imagine what the Arabs must think when they see British subjects arrested in the streets of Tunis, taken off to barracks, and made to become French soldiers. I wonder what the Mussulman population think of these proceedings. I ask myself, and I ask your Lordships, What do the French want with these recruits whom they have forcibly obtained? So far as I know, there is no war going on; France is not fighting anywhere particularly. She has got troops, I know, in Syria, but what does she want with these recruits? I think I am justified in asking this Question because there is a very strong feeling indeed on this matter. I have reason to believe that the Foreign Office is perfectly aware of it, and has all the Papers with regard to the incident.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, Reports which have recently been received by the Government from the Consul General at Tunis confirm the fact that action has been taken by the French authorities in Tunis in the sense indicated in the first part of the Question. The Government have strongly protested against this action which is the outcome of certain Decrees published in Tunis on November 8, 1921, whereby it was sought to impose French nationality and the consequent obligation of French military service on members of the British and other foreign communities resident in that Protectorate. On the publication of these Decrees His Majesty's Government challenged their legality in so
1048
far as they affected the British community in Tunis, and, having failed to receive any satisfaction from the French Government, demanded that the question should be submitted to arbitration. If the French Government decline to agree to this solution it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay the whole matter before the Council of the League of Nations.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to say something further about this. I do not know what there is to arbitrate about. Suppose the case of a Frenchman in this country, who is collared in the streets of London, taken to Chelsea Barracks, and made to drill in the British Army—what would France say to that? That is exactly what has happened in Tunis. I do not see why it should be referred to the League of Nations; the matter might not be settled for months. This is not a great question, but surely it affects our prestige. I do not see how the Government can say it is a question for arbitration. British subjects have been arrested, and surely British subjects have a right to protection against any country which attempts to do such a thing. I think the House will be with me on that point. I must move for Papers, because I take the matter very seriously, and there are a great many other people who do so, too.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must beg your Lordships not to accept a Motion for Papers without Notice from Lord Mayo on a Question on which he is apparently going to arraign the whole system of the League of Nations.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Then I will put it down for to-morrow.
LORD SYDENHAM: Are there any other nationals besides ours who have been treated in this way?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think so. I gather that the Decree of November 8, 1921, did not apply only to us, because the words of the Foreign Office statement are that the action of the French Government involved "the consequent obligation of French military service on members of the British and other foreign communities resident in that Protectorate."
THE EARL OF MAYO: That makes it worse.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It may make it worse, but in many ways it makes it much better. It at least shows there has been no discrimination against British subjects. If Lord Mayo desires to raise the question in a more formal fashion tomorrow he is free to do so. In doing so I hope he will indicate the alternative policy winch he would recommend the Government to adopt.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Certainly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We have protested very firmly, very decisively. We have offered arbitration, which is not an unreasonable thing to offer, as to whether the terms of this Decree conform to treaty rights. Should that fail, we take a further course and invite the Council of the League of Nations to determine the point. If Lord Mayo can suggest a more satisfactory method I hope he will do so to-morrow.

POSTAT CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are yet, and, if not, when they will be, in the position to state what has been the effect on the Post Office revenue of the recent reductions on postal charges; and when, with the object of promoting further trade revival, will be the earliest date, that the further reduction in charges asked for before the end of this year will be brought into operation.
My reason for asking this Question so early after the recent reduction in postal charges, for which the country is most grateful both to the Postmaster-General and to His Majesty's Government, is that, as this House will not be sitting again till the middle of November, I am most anxious to impress upon the Government the real importance of further reductions in charges which were asked for by the united voice of business men when placing their sliding scale of reductions before His Majesty's Government. The first half of those suggestions was adopted by the Government and, I am happy to say, has been carried into effect. The demand now put forward is for the adoption of the second half of those proposals before the end of the year and for the giving of long public notice of the Government's intention to adopt them. This policy will greatly stimulate the revival of trade and still further greatly increase the Post Office revenue.
1050
I should like to point out that the partial reduction which has taken place in the postal charges means a partial increase to the revenue. This postal question is really of vital importance to the business world, and I hope that the reply of His Majesty's Government will be favourable. I am not, of course, unreasonable enough to expect them to go into detail regarding the increase in revenue; but I hope they will not, in fact I am certain they cannot, say that it has meant a reduction in revenue. I want to impress upon them that the sooner they put this further reduction into operation the better it will be for the trade of the country as well as for the revenue.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, in reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, it will not be possible for some time to come to arrive at any definite figures as to the increase in correspondence resulting from the recent reductions in postal charges. These reductions were only brought into force at the end of May last, and although some increase in the volume of correspondence has been observed, it is premature to form any conclusion as to the effect on the Post Office revenue for the year, owing to the short time during which the reductions have operated. The possibility of a further reduction in postage rates next year must depend on the surplus available on the Post Office Accounts, and the present information is insufficient to enable a forecast of next year's accounts to be drawn up with any accuracy. The Post Office revenue is dependent in a very large measure upon trade conditions, and as yet it is impossible to predict what those are likely to be during the next financial year.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I should like to point out to the noble Lord that we are not asking for this reduction next year; we are asking for it this year. May I ask my noble friend if he can ascertain from the Government or the Post Office authorities whether the increase in postal revenue is not sufficient to justify them in carrying out before the end of the year a policy which is, as I have said, of such vital importance to the commerce of the country?
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I had not realised from the noble Lord's Question as it appears on the Paper that he contemplated any further reduction this year.
LORD SOUTHWARK: Yes.
LORD STANMORE: I am afraid I cannot at present add anything to the information I have given.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS SPECIAL ORDER.
The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, this Motion which stands in my name is a formal Motion in regard to the electricity supply of Cheriton and certain other parishes and rural districts. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Cheriton, and the parishes of Saltwood Newington and Hawkinge, in the rural district of El ham, all in the County of Kent, which was presented on the 12th day of July, 1922, be approved.(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE (PARCELS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ALLOTMENTS BILL, [H.L.]
Consideration of Commons Amendments resumed (according to Order).

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 95.]
Clause 2, page 2, line43, leave out from ("land") to the end of subsection (3) and insert:
("(4) A tenant whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the tenancy of his landlord shall be entitled to recover from his landlord such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by his landlord.
(5) Any sum due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of rent or of any breach of the contract of tenancy under which the land is held, or wilful or negligent damage committed or permitted by the tenant, shall be taken into account in reduction of the compensation.")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— [The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of AGRICULTUR1 and FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I think I ought to say that I am now dealing with the matte as we left it yesterday evening when 1 moved that the House should agree will the Commons Amendment, Clause 2, page 2, line 43, to leave out from ("land"] to the end of subsection (3) and insert two subsections (4) and (5), and debate took place thereon. I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurance that I had no intention of attempting to secure the acceptance of an Amendment which 1 thought might be regarded as of importance by moving the acceptance of this Amendment without explanation. I made such inquiry as was possible, in the short time that was available, to ascertain how-far the Amendments made in another place might be regarded as contentious—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We were not responsible for the shortness of time.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I admit that—and I did not receive any information leading me to think that this Amendment would be so regarded. There are three Amendments combined in the proposal to leave out certain words and insert the new subsections on the Paper. The words proposed to be left out relate to the manure for which compensation can be claimed and propose that the value to the incoming tenant of any manure, and not merely of the manure applied since the last crop, shall be paid to the tenant. To this I understand no objection is raised. The first subsection, subsection (4), deals with the case of an allotment holder who holds his land of someone who is himself a tenant, and I should have thought it desirable to call your Lordships' attention to it, if the general principle involved were not consistent with the existing laws and had it not already been accepted by your Lordships in subsection (4) of Clause 9.
I recognise that in that subsection provision is made for contracting out, but I am afraid that I did not recognise that this might, in this particular case, be regarded as a really material distinction. The case docs not arise frequently except in the case of leases to allotment authorities and associations for the provision of allotment gardens, who, I gather, raise no objection to the provision. But there may be cases

1053
where a farmer holding his land on a tenancy sublets part for an allotment garden. I think that was the case which was particularly taken by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, yesterday afternoon.
The, position under the, existing law is that under the Allotments (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, the allotment holder gets compensation for his crops and manure from the farmer notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, as his right to compensation does not depend, as it does under Clause 2, on his tenancy being determined by his landlord. In the case we are considering the tenancy of the allotment holder is not determined by his landlord, but automatically comes to an end in consequence of his landlord— namely, tin/ farmer—having to give up is farm. Subsection (4), therefore, merely preserves to the allotment bolder the right to claim compensation from his immediate landlord, which he now has, and I think that if time had permitted the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, to go thoroughly into the question he would have realised that subsection (4) is not open to the objections which he indicated, and does not increase the existing liability of the farmer who sublets for allotment purposes. I can only say of subsection (5) that it is the, same provision as that in subsection (3) of Clause 8. To this I imagine no objection will be raised. The purport of it is that it really raises no new principle.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, the explanation given by the noble Earl is, I think he, will agree, noble satisfactory than the one he made yesterday. He has probably had more time in which to consider the matter. But I do not think that in principle it is defensible that when one man, who has made an agreement with another that there shall be no compensation, has his own tenancy concluded, he should go away and still remain liable to compensation to the sub-tenant. I do not think that' the language is very happy, and it certainly is made to appear in that way. The noble Earl explained that it is only preserving to the, sub-tenant, the allotment holder, the position that he has under existing legislation. I take that from the noble Earl. I can only say that if ever this legislation is reconsidered as a whole I think we ought to lay it down in this House that agreements made between a landlord and a tenant are to be observed, specially in cases where the landlord himself ceases
1054
to be the landlord through no fault of his own.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 3, page 4, line 5, after ("by") insert ("and at the expense of")
Clause 3, page 4, lines 17 to 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) The Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall, in the case of an allotment within the meaning of this section to which those Acts apply, have effect as if the provisions of this section as to the determination and recovery of compensation were substituted for the provisions of those Acts as to the determination and recovery of compensation, and a claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation san be made under this section, may be made either under those Acts or under this section, but not under both.
(6) the compensation in respect of an, improvement made or begun on an allotment (not being an allotment garden) before the passing of this Act shall be such (if any) as could have been claimed if this Act had not been passed.")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill if he would make clear the meaning of the Commons new clause— Clause 3, page 4, lines 17 to 32. To make my point clear, I shall have to read the beginning and the last part. The Amendment states in subsection (5) that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall apply to any allotment within the meaning of this section. The, last part of this new subsection states that "a claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can be made under this section, may be made either under those Acts or under this section, but not under both." The point I want to raise is that Section 11 of the Agriculture Act of 1920 is repealed in the Schedule, are Section 11 is the compensation clause of the Agriculture Act of 1920. As that section is repealed how is compensation going to be determined under the 1920 Act?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The only answer I can give the noble Lord on that matter is that the supplementary clauses were inserted at a late stage in consequence of a suggestion made by the Committee dealing with the Agricultural Holdings

1055
(Consolidation) Bill. The object was to reproduce as nearly as was practicable the existing law as to landlord and tenant in the case of an allotment to which the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, applies—that is, allotments under two acres or cottage gardens, but not including allotment gardens for which provision is already made in Clauses 1 and 2. It was found that subsection (5) of Clause 3 excepted the rights of tenants of these allotments, and could not properly be regarded as consolidation legislation. The new clauses have been drafted so that the clause will be substantially pure consolidation, except that the method of determining and recovering compensation provided by the Bill is substituted for the method provided by the Act of 1887, and the Agricultural Holdings Act. The noble Lord will remember that in the Bill it states that the County Court Judge is the person who will settle the claims.
LORD DYNEVOR: In the Schedule of the Bill Section 11 of the Agriculture Act, 1920, is repealed, and Section 11 is the clause under which compensation is given in the 1920 Act. You have repealed the very section to which you have to look for determining the compensation. I do not want to press the matter very much. I hope it will work out all right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is right in what he says about the Schedule, but there are other sections in the Agriculture Holdings Act which treat of the matter. On my reading of the Commons Amendment it is almost drafting, and I think it is all right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose next, unless any noble Lord has any point to raise, to put the Amendments on Clauses up to, but not including, Clause 7.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 4, page 5, line 2, after ("by") insert ("and at the expense of")
Clause 4, page 5, lines 13 to 17, leave out subsection (3).
After Clause 4, page 5, insert the following new clause:
Rights of tenant who has paid compensation to outgoing tenant.
(". Where a tenant of an allotment has paid compensation to an outgoing tenant for any fruit trees or bushes or other improvement he shall
1056
have the same rights as to compensation or removal as he would have had under this Act if the fruit trees or bushes had been provided and planted or the improvement had been made by him and at his expense.")
Clause 5, page 5, line 19, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 20.
Clause 5, page 5, line 25, leave out ("allotment garden") and insert ("land")
Clause 5, page 5, line 25, after ("situated") insert ("or an application in writing being made for the purpose by the landlord or tenant").
Clause 6, page6, line 1 after ("enactment") insert ("or to any land forming part of a royal park")
Clause 6, page6, line 5, after ("and") insert ("except as otherwise hereinbefore expressly provided").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Earl of A waster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 0, line 7, at the beginning insert:
("(1) The period during which an order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments is, under section one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, exempted from the requirement of submission to and confirmation by the Minister is hereby extended to the expiration of six calendar months after the passing of this Act.")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, the Bill as introduced to your Lordships' House gave to the local authorities power to take land compulsorily, without the consent of the Minister, up till August, 1923. An Amendment on the Committee stage was put down by my noble friend Lord Stanhope and myself, to delete that clause. My noble friend Lord Ancaster opposed the deletion, and it went to a Division, and the Amendment to delete the clause was carried. The Commons have put back that clause with this difference, that local authorities may continue to take land without the consent of the Minister for six months. My noble friend Lord Ancaster, in Committee, when resisting this Amendment, said that there would be a considerable number of cases in which a good deal of difficulty would be experienced in obtaining land. I do not quite see why that should be so.
What have the local authorites been doing all this time, and what are they

1057
doing at the present moment? For the last three years they have had full powers to take any land that they liked, without the consent of the Minister. They might have taken, if they had liked, practically the whole country. That power was given to local authorities under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, primarily in order that land could be got very quickly to settle soldiers upon it. I do not think those powers are any longer necessary. The landowners now should be given a small amount of consideration, and should be able to appeal to the Minister if land is going to be taken from them. I am in favour of the allotments movement, and have scores of allotments on my own property. The local authorities are always very friendly, but that cannot be said to be the case everywhere. In many places they have acted most arbitrarily. I do not wish to take up time by giving instances, but I think your Lordships should stand by your former decision and have this clause deleted.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord has rightly described what happened in your Lordships' House in Committee. I quite recognise that as a matter of general principle it is reasonable there should be some appeal to a central authority against the proposal of a local authority to acquire compulsorily land for allotments or any other purpose, but an appeal, which must allow time for objections and the holding of a local inquiry, involves delay. The emergency which now arises is the same as that which was contemplated when the
Act of 1919 provided that temporary compulsory orders should not require confirmation. It is now proposed that this exceptional legislation shall continue for six months instead of twelve months; and six months is none too long a time when it is considered that many local authorities and their officers will be taking their holidays at this moment.
The matter during the autumn will be a very serious one indeed. It is most essential that local authorities should get on with their work and try to acquire land for the large number of allotment holders who will be dispossessed in March next. I hope your Lordships will consider that there is justification for this exceptional procedure and that the Amendment of the Commons will be accepted. If all these orders have to be confirmed, if there is to be a local inquiry and all the other business, I am quite certain there will be serious delay. Local authorities have been waiting for the passing of this Bill so that they can try to acquire fresh land, or the same land, in order to accommodate allotment holders, and if your Lordships do not consider this as emergency legislation in this respect there will be great delay and a large number of allotment holders will have to leave next March. I hope your Lordships will accept this compromise on the question of six months instead of twelve months.
On Question, Whether the Commons Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 31.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Lucan, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Stamford, E.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Terrington, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Peel, V.

Teynham, L.

Clarendon, E.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Dorioughmore.)

Raglan, L.

Redesdale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Annaghdale, L.

Rotherham, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]

Barry more, L.

Sempill, L.

Brownlow, L.

Southborough, L.

Mayo, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.

Strachie, L.

Midleton, E.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Morton, E.

Knaresborough, L.

Sumner, L.

Lamington, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Sydenham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Templemore, L.

Hood, V.

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Commons Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Unless any noble Lord has any individual point he desires to raise I will put the rest of the Commons Amendments en bloc.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I have a point, on page 9 I think it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put the Commons Amendments up to page 9.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 7, page 6, line 14, leave out ("an") and insert ("a borough or")
Clause 7, page 6, line 35, leave out ("Small Holdings and") and leave out ("1908 to 1922")
Clause 7, page 6, line 37, leave out from ("land") to ("arable") in line 38 and insert ("if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that")
Clause 7, page 6, line 41, at end insert:
("(5) Paragraph 2 (6) of Part fl of Schedule I to the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 (which restricts the breaking up of pasture, compulsorily hired shall not apply to land compulsorily hired for the provision of allotment gardens.")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 9, page 7, line 11, leave out ("an") and insert ("a borough or")
Clause 9, page 8, line 3, leave out ("one") and insert ("two")
Clause 9, page 8, line 5, leave out ("reasonably")
Clause 9, page 8, line 8, at the beginning insert:
("(4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council under this section and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council shall, unless otherwise agreed in the contract of tenancy, be entitled to recover from the. council such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the council, and have the same right to remove his crops as if the tenancy had been so terminated.
(5) Any person who is interested in any land on which entry is made by the council under this section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall, if he makes a claim not later than one year after the termination of the right of occupation, be entitled to be paid by the council such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss, and such amount or amounts shall in default of agreement be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed, in default of agreement, by the Minister,")
Clause 9, page 9, line 3, leave out ("or canal") and insert ("canal water or other public")
Clause 9, page 9, line 13, leave out from the beginning to ("or") in line 15.
Clause 9, page 9, line 29, at end insert ("The expression 'owner' includes the person who, but for the occupation of the council, would be entitled to the possession of the land.")
Clause 11, page. 10, line 10, after ("months") insert ("after the date")
Clause 11, page. 10, line 17, leave out ("from") and insert ("after the date of")
Clause 11, page. 10, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to ("unless") in line 25 and insert ("if made within three months after the expiration of the said three calendar months, be valid, unless confirmed by the Minister, or be so confirmed").
Clause 12, page 10, line 32, leave out (exceed ten thousand") and insert ("thereof is ten thousand or upwards").
Clause 13 page 10, line 37, leave out ("of Health") and insert ("after consultation with the Minister of Health")
Clause 13, page 11, line 12, after ("council") insert ("being persons experienced in the management and cultivation of allotment gardens, and")
Clause 13, page 11, line 13, leave out from ("district") to ("provided") in line 14.
Clause 13, page 11, line 15, leave out ("such co-opted") and insert ("the number of such representative")
Clause 13, page 11, line 15, leave out from ("be") to the end of line 17 and insert ("not more than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee or be less than two or one-fifth of such total number whichever be the larger number").
Clause 14, page 11, line 26, after ("acquired") insert ("or appropriated")
Clause 14, page 11, line 32, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 34 and insert ("this section shall not be deemed to authorise a council to let any land held by the council under a contract of tenancy or the use of any land so held in contravention of any term or condition of the contract").
Clause 15, page 11, leave out Clause 15.
Clause 16, page 12, line 7, at end insert ("(other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified)")
Clause 16, page 12, line 16, at end insert:
("Provided that such expenses shall not include—

(a) expenses in relation to the acquisition of land other than the purchase price or rent, or other compensation payable in respect of the land;

(b) expenses incurred in making roads to be used by the public;

(c) sinking fund charges in respect of loans raised in connection with the purchase of land.")

Clause 16, page 12, line 27, leave out from ("the") to ("for") in line 28, and insert ("full fair rent").

1061
After Clause 16 insert the following new clauses:
Baling of allotments.
.—(1) A council providing land for allotments whether under the Allotments Acts or otherwise may by notice to the authority by which any rate is levied require that the council shall be assessed to the rate as the occupiers of the land notwithstanding that the land or part thereof may be let, and in such case the council shall for the purposes of any rate levied by that authority and made after the notice is given and before the notice is withdrawn be deemed to be the occupiers of the land.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to an association providing land for allotments in like manner as it applies to a council, if at the request of the association the authority by which a rate is levied agrees that it shall so apply.
Financial provisions.
—(1) The maximum period for the repayment of money borrowed by the council of a borough or urban district or parish under the Allotments Acts shall, where the purpose for which the money is borrowed is the purchase of land for allotments, be eighty years, and the provisions of subsection (2) of section fifty-two of the Small Holdings and Allotments. Act, 1908, relating to loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for small holdings shall extend to money borrowed by any such council for the purpose of providing allotments.
(2) Money borrowed by a council for the purpose of providing allotments shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of the council for the purpose of any enactment limiting the powers of borrowing by the council.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 16, page 12, insert the following new clause:
Penalty for damage to allotment cultivated as a garden &:
. Subsection (4) of section twenty-one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919 (which imposes a penalty on a person causing damage to crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden), shall extend to damage to an allotment cultivated as a garden or any crops or fences or buildings thereon and accordingly that subsection shall have effect as if instead of the words "crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden" there were inserted the words v allotment cultivated as a garden or any crops or fences or buildings thereon."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I have to propose a new clause which extends the existing provisions of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, which at present deals only with damage to crops, so as to apply to any damage done to the allotment or any crops, fences, or buildings thereon. I think
1062
your Lordships will be ready to accept this clause in place of the Commons Amendment on the ground that there is considerable advantage in avoiding legislation by reference. Accordingly, I will ask your Lordships to disagree with the Commons Amendment, and to insert in place thereof the following new clause—
Penalty for damage to an allotment garden.
(1) Any person who by any act done without lawful authority or by negligence causes damage to any allotment garden or any crops or fences or buildings thereon shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £5, but this provision shall not apply unless notice of this provision is conspicuously displayed on or near the allotment garden.
(2) Subsection (4) of section 21 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, is hereby is repealed.
I beg to move to disagree with the Commons Amendment, and to substitute for it this new clause.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
Moved, That this House doth propose the said new clause in lieu of the Commons Amendment.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 16 insert the following new-clause:
Action in default of certain local authorities.
. If it appears to the Minister, in relation to the London County Council or the council of any county borough or Metropolitan borough, after holding a local inquiry at which the council, or such other persons as the person holding the inquiry, may, in his discretion, think fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard, that the council have failed to satisfy to the extent to which it is reasonably practicable, having regard to the provisions of the Allotments Acts, the demand for allotment gardens to be provided by the council the Minister may, by order, transfer to the Small Holdings Commissioners all or any of the powers of the council relating to the provision of allotment gardens and the provisions of section twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, shall apply as if references to the Commissioners were substituted for references to the county council and with such other adaptations as may be made by the order."
LORD STRACHIE: I have on the Paper an Amendment to this Amendment, to leave out "or" where that word thirdly occurs and insert "shall have the right to appear and be heard, and."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think, if Lord Strachie will permit me, it will be convenient if I read the whole clause as it would appear if an Amendment which I desire to move in place of the noble Lord's Amendment be agreed to. It will then read as follows:—
". If it appears to the Minister, in relation to the London County Council or the council of any county borough or Metropolitan borough after holding a local inquiry at which the council and—"
instead of "or"
"such other persons—"
and so on. I think that covers Lord Strachie's point.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Earl gives me an assurance that my point is entirely covered by his Amendment, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment. I think it is very inconvenient that these Amendments do not give details of the lines to which they apply, and perhaps the noble Earl will see that this is done another time. The object of my Amendment, of which I gave Notice, was to give the London County Council and other great county councils and administrative bodies the right to appear before the officer holding the inquiry instead of being obliged to ask leave to appear, as appears to be provided at present. I think the House will agree that it is not right or fitting that the great authorities should have to ask Government officials whether they have the right to appear. I desire that they should have an absolute right to appear, without having to ask leave of the officer of the Ministry of Agriculture. I am perfectly satisfied, if the noble Lord's Amendment meets my point.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am in-formed that this is the most convenient way of putting it.
LORD STRACHIE: But does the noble Earl assure me that it gives these authorities an absolute right to appear?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes, it gives a right to appear.
LORD STRACHIE: In that case I shall not move my Amendment.
Amendment to Commons Amendment moved—
Line 4, leave out "or" and insert "and."— (The Earl of Ancaster).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.—(The Earl of Aneaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 19, page 13, line 28, after ("gardens") insert ("and with the consent of the Minister such further land in the forest not exceeding sixty acres, as may he agreed between the Commissioners of Woods and the verderers of the forest")
Clause 20, page 14, line 31, after ("agricultural") insert ("or sport")
Clause 20, page 15, line 3, at end insert:
("(2) For the purposes of this Act references to population shall be construed as references to population according to the published returns of the last census for the time being.
(3) Compensation recoverable by a tenant under this Act for crops or other things shall be based on the value thereof to an incoming tenant.")
Clause 20, page 15, line 14, at end insert:
("(5) The powers conferred by this Act on a council of a borough, may, in London, be exercised ' by the London County Council").
In the Schedule, page 16, after line 4 insert:

8 & 9 Vict. c. 118

The Inclosure Act, 1845

In section one hundred and ten from "provided" to the end of the section.

Line 15, column 3, leave out ("subsection (3) of section forty-seven") and insert ("in section thirty the proviso to subsection (2).")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Earl of Aneaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed to prepare Reasons of the Lords for disagreeing to one of the I Commons Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee read, and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the said Bill with the Amendments and Reasons.

WAR SERVICE CANTEENS (DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Duke OF ATHOLL: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if we take the various Amendments en bloc down to Clause 2, line 39, because I understand there is very little difference of opinion up to that point.
THE Duke of BUCCLEUCH: I wish to raise two points, one regarding the second Amendment on page 2 of the Amendment Paper, and the other regarding the Amendment to Clause 8.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 144.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 19, after ("in") insert ("or affecting")
Clause 1, page 21, line 7, after ("provision") insert ("or in the case of land let by a local authority within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1891) to 1921 (being land which was acquired by the local authority under those Acts before the date of the passing of this Act), on account of the land being required by the local authority for the purposes of those Acts; or")
Clause 1, page 21, line 9, at end insert ("or any breach by the tenant of the regulations made by a local authority under the Allotments Acts")
Clause 1, page 21, line 27, after ("any") insert ("such")
Clause 1, page 21, line 28, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(4) This section shall not apply to land held by or on behalf of the Admiralty, War Department, or Air Council, and so let as aforesaid, when possession of the land is required for naval, military or air force purposes.")
Clause 1, page 21, line 38, leave out from the beginning of line 38 to end of subsection (1)
Clause 1, page 21, line 39, at end insert ("such compensation to be based on the value of the growing crops and manure to an incoming tenant").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(2) A tenant whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the tenancy of his lessor shall he entitled to recover from his lessor such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice of removal given by his lessor.")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Duke of Atholl.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: This really raises the point referred to by my noble friend Lord Midleton, and I think the Commons Amendment is, perhaps, rather
1066
an improvement. Perhaps I am very stupid, but I am afraid I did not quite follow Lord Ancaster's explanation on the English Bill, and it is, perhaps, unfortunate that this wording should have been adopted in the Scottish Bill. I shall be very much obliged if the noble Duke will explain it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think it is perfectly clear. I will put it this way. Supposing I, as a landlord, were to let some land to a town council—I will call myself a superior—and the town council lets to a tenant, and then I terminate the lease as a superior. This merely means that the tenant has still his right for compensation against the town council. Without these words, he might think that he had not this right to compensation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 3, line 2, after ("(b)") insert ("or paragraph (c)")
Clause 2, page 3, line 10, after ("association") insert ("and that").
Clause 3, page 5, line 3, after ("enactment") insert ("or to any land forming part of a. royal park")
Clause 3, page 5, line 6, after ("and") insert ("excepl as otherwise hereinbefore in this Act expressly provided").
After Clause 3, insert the following new clauses:
Rights of tenant who has paid compensation to outgoing tenant.
(". Where a tenant of an allotment has paid compensation to an outgoing tenant for any fruit trees or bushes or other improvement he shall have the same rights to removal or compensation as he would have had under the Allotments Acts if the trees or bushes had been provided and planted or the improvement had been made by him.")
Restriction on tenancy of allotment gardens.
(". A local authority may let to one person two or more allotment gardens if their aggregate extent does not exceed forty poles, but save as aforesaid, one person shall not hold more than one allotment garden provided by a local authority and an allotment garden so provided shall not be sub-let.")
Clause 6, page 8, line 30, leave out ("or canal") and insert ("canal, water, or other public").
Clause 7, page 9, line 18, leave out ("one-sixth") and insert ("two or one-fifth")
Clause 7, page 9, line 19, at end insert ("whichever be the larger number").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(The Duke of Atholl)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 9, line 24, after ("council" insert ("or parish council").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Duke of Atholl.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: This Amendment extends the powers of entry on unoccupied land to a parish council. I think it is obvious that in very many cases the parish council is not a very suitable body to deal with this matter. I believe there are certain reasons why they should not, and I hope the noble Duke will be able to reassure me on the point.
LORD LAMINGTON: I will not elaborate the argument any further, but I hope the noble Duke will press the point.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I think it really comes to this, that the council are given power under this Bill to deal with unoccupied land, and unoccupied land technically in Scotland is land which does not appear on the valuation roll. Personally, I do not know much of such land—at least, I have not discovered it—but there are some parish councils which are practically in the same position as burgh councils, and this is in order to give the parish councils, where the conditions are the same, the same powers as burgh councils with regard to unoccupied land. I cannot imagine the power being required, but it might be.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It is only unoccupied land.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: That is all. On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 8, page 10, line 23, at end insert ("and have the same rights with respect to the removal of fruit trees or bushes or improvements as if his tenancy had been so terminated")
Clause 8, page 11, line 8, leave out ("or canal") and insert ("canal, water, or other public")
Clause 8, line 8, at end insert ("or to land which is or forms part of any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation").
Clause 10, page 11, line 39, leave out ("exceed ten thousand") and insert ("thereof is ten thousand or upwards").
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Access to allotments.
(". It shall be the duty of a local authority providing allotments to make provision for access thereto by suitable roads or paths, where
1068
such means of access are not already available, and by regulations made under the Allotments Acts to require that access to the allotments shall be had only by such roads or paths.")
Clause 14, page 12, leave out Clause 14.
Clause 15, page 12, line 41, after ("provisions") insert ("(other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) ")
Clause 15, page 13, line 9, at end insert:
("Provided that such expenses shall not include—

(a) expenses in relation to the acquisition of land other than the price, feu duty, ground annual, or rent, or other compensation payable in respect of the land;

(b) expenses incurred in making roads to be used by the public;

(c) sinking fund charges in respect of loans raised in connection with the purchase of land.")

Clause 15, page 13, line 20, leave out ("best" and insert ("fair")
Clause 15, page 13, line 21, leave out ("that can reasonably be obtained").
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Rating of allotments.
(".—(1) A local authority providing land for allotments may, with respect to any assessment imposed and levied by such local authority, resolve, and with respect to any assessment imposed and levied by any other authority, by notice to that authority, require, that the local authority providing the land shall with respect to such assessment be deemed to be the occupiers of the land, notwithstanding that the land or part thereof may be let, and in such case that local authority shall for the purposes of such assessment be deemed to be the occupiers of the land until the resolution is revoked, or the notice is withdrawn, as the case may be.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to an association providing land for allotments with respect to any assessment in like manner as it applies to a local authority so providing land with respect to an assessment imposed and levied by another authority, if at the request of the association the authority by whom the assessment is imposed and levied agree that it shall so apply.")
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Financial provisions.
(".—(1) The maximum period for the repayment of money borrowed by a local authority under the Allotments Acts shall, notwithstanding any other enactment, where the purpose for which the money is borrowed is the purchase of land for allotments, be eighty years.
(2) Money borrowed by a local authority for the purpose of providing allotments shall not be reckoned as part of the total outstanding debt of the authority for the purpose of any enactment restricting the powers of borrowing by the authority.")
Clause 18, page 15, line 21, at end insert:
("References to population shall be construed as references to population according to the

1069
published returns of the last census for the time being.")
Clause 18, page 15, line 29, after ("and") insert ("the proviso to").
In the First Schedule, page 17, lint. 17, at end insert:

("9 & 10 Geo.5.c.97

The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919

Section nineteen.")

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
Moved, that the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think the Amendments are controversial, although they introduce several new-clauses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Unless any noble Lord wishes to raise any particular point perhaps the Commons Amendments may be taken en bloc.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are they very substantial?
THE KARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think so.
LORD STRACHIE: As I took some considerable part in the discussion on the Bill in this House, perhaps I may say that I am perfectly satisfied with the Amendments as they now are.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 154.]
Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ("being a retailer of milk")
Clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert ("as a retail purveyor of milk")
Clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out ("refuse")
Clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out ("to register him or to") and insert ("refuse to register him or")
Clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert ("and if he fails to show cause to their satisfaction accordingly they may refuse to register him or remove him from the register, as the case may be.
"Any person aggrieved by any such decision of the local authority as aforesaid may, within twenty-one days, give notice of appeal to a court
1070
of summary jurisdiction, and that court may require the local authority to register such person or not to remove him from the register.
"The local authority or such person as aforesaid may appeal from the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction to the next practicable court of quarter sessions, who may confirm or reverse the order of the court of summary jurisdiction.
"The decision of a local authority to refuse registration or to remove any person from the register under this section shall not have effect until the expiration of the time for appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction nor, where any such appeal is brought, until the appeal is determined; and when notice of appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction under this section is given within seven days from the date thereof, such decision of the local authority as aforesaid shall not take effect until the appeal to quarter sessions is finally determined.
"Where the appeal is from a refusal to register, such person as aforesaid may, until the appeal is finally determined, carry on business as a purveyor of milk notwithstanding that he is not registered.")
Clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out from the beginning of line 6 to the end of line 29).
Clause 2, page 2, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("so registered as aforesaid") and insert ("registered as a purveyor of milk")
Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end insert: ("(3) Any enactment or order requiring a local authority to keep a register of persons carrying on the trade of cowkeepers, dairymen, or purveyors of milk shall have effect as if it required the local authority to keep a register of persons carrying on the trade of retail purveyors of milk and a separate register of persons carrying on any other trade to which the enactment or order relates, and this section shall apply only to the first-mentioned of those registers.")
Clause 3, page 2, line 42, after ("made") insert ("by him")
Clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert:
("(3) This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and until that date the provisions of the Milk (England and Wales) Order, 1921, and the Local Authorities (Milk) Order, 1921, relating to the sale of milk under special designations or to the matters connected therewith, shall continue in force, and shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.")
Clause 4, page 3, line 17, after ("therefrom" insert ("or any skimmed milk or separated milk")
Clause 4, page 3, line 20, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(2) No person either by himself or any servant or agent shall sell or offer or expose for sale as milk any liquid in the making of which dried milk or condensed milk has been used.")
Clause 4, page 3, line 21, after ("section") insert ("except as regards the addition of skimmed or separated milk").
Clause 5, page 3, line 23, leave out ("knowingly")
Clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert (and he shall be guilty offence under this section if it is proved that he knew or could by the

1071
exercise of ordinary care have ascertained that the cow was suffering from that disease")
Clause 5, page 3, line 26, leave out ("contravenes the provisions of") and insert ("is guilty of an offence under").
Clause 6, page 4, line 4, at end insert:
("Any order made under this Act may be varied or revoked by an order made in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as the original order.")
Clause 8, page 4, line 16, at end insert:
("Subsection (1) of section one of the said Act shall have effect as though at the end thereof the following paragraph were added:—
(d) provide for the manner in which any tin or other receptacle containing dried, condensed, skimmed, or separated milk is to be labelled or marked, and prescribe the minimum percentages of milk fat and milk solids in dried or condensed milks.")
Clause 10, page 5, leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause:
Administration of Act.
(".—(1) The local authority for the purpose of the enforcement of sections three and four of this Act shall be the same as the local authority concerned with the enforcement of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907 (including an authority empowered by section thirteen of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, to give directions to the officers named therein to procure samples of food or drugs), and the local authority for the enforcement of section five of this Act shall be the sanitary authority.
Provided that where a local authority have been authorised by the Minister to grant licences under section three of this Act, that local authority shall also be a local authority for the purpose of the enforcement of that section.
(2) The expenses incurred by a local authority authorised to grant licences under section three, or incurred by a local authority under sections two and five of this Act, shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council out of the county fund as expenses for general county purposes, and in the case of a sanitary authority as part of their general expenses in the execution of the enactments relating to public health, and any other expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907.")
Clause 11, page 5, line 22, at the beginning insert as a new subsection:
("(1) If a local authority fail to fulfil any of their duties under this Act or under any order relating to milk and dairies made by the Minister of Health, the Minister may, after holding a local inquiry, make such order as he thinks necessary or proper for the purpose of compelling the authority to fulfil their duties, and any such order may be enforced by mandamus.")
Clause 11, page 5, line 36, at end insert the following new clauses:
Provisions as to breaches of contract.
(". Where the registration of a retailer is refused, or a retailer is removed from a register, under this Act, the retailer shall not be liable
1072
to any action for breach of a contract for the purchase of further supplies of milk from a producer, if he can prove that such refusal or removal was due to the quality of milk supplied by the producer.")
Certificate of analyst prima facie evidence.
(". At the hearing of the information in any proceedings under section four of this Act, the production of the certificate of an analyst acting under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, for the place in which the sample was taken, shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein unless the defendant shall require that the analyst shall be called as a witness.")
Clause 12, page 6, line 17, leave out from ("sheriff") to ("shall") in line 18 and insert ("and the provisions of section two of this Act regarding appeals to quarter sessions")
Clause 12, page 6, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("subsection (2) of")
Clause 12, page 6, line 21, at end insert ("if notice of appeal is given within seven days of such decision")
Clause 12, page 6,line 25, at end insert:
("In subsection (3) of section three of this Act references to the Milk (Scotland) Order, 1921, the Local Authorities (Milk) (Scotland) Order, 1921, the Milk (Local Authorities) (Scotland) Order, 1920, and the Local Authorities (Milk) (Scotland) Order, 1920, shall be substituted for references to the Milk (England and Wales) Order, 1921, and the Local Authorities (Milk) Order, 1921.
(e) In subsection (2) of section nine of this Act references to the procurator-fiscal shall be substituted for references to the local authority.")
Clause 12, page 6, line 30, at end insert ("and any expense thereby incurred shall be defrayed out of the public health general assessment.
(g) Section eleven of this Act shall not apply.")
Clause 12, page 7, line 9, at end insert:
("Any expenses incurred by the local authority in the execution of the powers conferred on them by this paragraph shall be defrayed out of the public health general assessment, but such expenses shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of that assessment").
Clause 13, page 7, line 24, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(3) This Act, except where otherwise expressly provided, shall come into operation on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.")
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, and the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that these Amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Viscount will take the opportunity of explaining to us the effect of the Commons Amendments, or perhaps he would prefer to do so on the Amendments as they come up.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will make a very short general explanation, because I think it would be tedious if I went into each Amendment now. I think I can say in a few words what is the general effect of the attitude taken up in another place towards your Lordships' Amendments. I must say first that I faithfully carried out the undertaking that I gave to your Lordships. I strongly urged upon the Government and upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the strength of your Lordships' feelings upon this subject, and that the utmost consideration should be given to your Lordships' Amendments upon their merits. I think I went even further, because, of course, I suggested that if they could be considered on their merits in another place it would be a considerable advantage. That was done, and your Lordships will appreciate the fact, if you have studied the debate, that these Amendments were considered on their merits.
It is true that the objections are set out here in the form of privilege, but it is equally true that the merits were considered when the Amendments were discussed. Now it always appears, when these documents come back from another place, that the House of Commons disagrees with many of your Lordships' Amendments. Of course, there do not appear upon the Paper the Amendments moved by your Lordships that were accepted in another place, and quite a number were so accepted. Altogether about sixteen Amendments were introduced
1074
by your Lordships, and of those no fewer than seven were accepted in another place. May I refer to two of them which were in the nature of privilege Amendments? One was the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, which I did accept. That was on the question of not taking into consideration, in fixing these pensions, the amount already received as compensation for wounds and injuries. That has been accepted. And of course, although I moved it myself, there was a privilege Amendment about the alteration of the date.
There is another important Amendment to which I will allude here, and it is on page 3 of the Commons Reasons. Your Lordships will see that it refers to the pension of an officer or constable retired since January 1, 1919, through unfitness caused by injury. Now, a good deal of sympathy was shown in another place with that Amendment, but the House of Commons were unable to accept it for one very simple reason, that it was outside the general scope of the Bill, and it would have been necessary, and obviously impossible at so late a stage, to start the machinery over again and have another Financial Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is the second point which is the material one.
VISCOUNT PEEL: At all events, taken together they form a very considerable objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to the noble Viscount for interrupting him, but the fact that it is outside the scope of the Bill is not so good a reason as the technical reason that it would require another Financial Resolution. That is a substantial reason, because of the mechanical difficulty of setting it up.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am obliged to the noble Marquess for his interruption, because he has put the matter before your Lordships in a more succinct way than I could have done, and has therefore shortened my remarks. But anyhow, the relative value of the two objections is not of great importance for the purpose of my argument, because an undertaking was given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this matter should be dealt with. I will read his exact words on that point, because it is of importance. I think you will see he fully meets

1075
this point. It is done in this way. He said—
"I have had a consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whilst the Government cannot accept the Amendment in this Bill, because it is outside the scope of the Bill and of the Financial Resolution—
the noble Marquess will see the order of the reasons—
"and is therefore impossible for the House to go into it, my right hon. friend will agree to an Amendment of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922, so that these particular wounded Royal Irish Constabulary who since 1st April, 1919, have been discharged from the force because of wounds with a wound pension less than they would have received had they stayed on unwounded and been disbanded, will have their pensions raised to what they would have received had they been disbanded."
That really very solidly meets the case.
But there is one very small point remaining. The noble Lord's Amendment dated back to January 1, 1919; this undertaking goes to April 1, 1919. The reason of that is that this Bill only dates back to that particular period. There is no substantial difference whatever, because I understand that nobody in these circumstances did retire from the Royal Irish Constabulary in those intervening months, and so the matter is entirely covered. Those very substantial alterations in favour of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been made in another place, and I hope that, having regard to that and to the other Amendments accepted there, your Lordships will be content not to disagree with the other Amendments and with the attitude taken up by another place to them when we come to deal with them.
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask whether there will be the same sort of scale of disablement pensions as is being settled in the Army for these Constabulary who are to have their time for pensions so to speak increased. For instance, a man has his right arm injured by a bullet and rendered useless. Will there be a scale in the same way as there is in the Army for partial disablement, total disablement, and slight disablement?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Although I have a general knowledge of the arrangements in the Army I have not in my head the exact details, and I do not quite know how the two compare. But that is not a question strictly relevant to this point, which simply brings these men within the ambit of the arrangements made for those who are being disbanded.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount for interrupting him just now, but the reason why I did so was this. I think it very important, in the interests of the procedure in your Lordships' House and its relation to the other place, that it should not come to be thought that there is anything in the nature of privilege in inserting Amendments here which are outside the scope of the Bill as it reaches us from another place. The rule of the House of Commons is that Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill cannot be inserted in the House of Commons, but it is not the rule as between the two Houses. Once the Bill has passed from the House of Commons and is in your Lordships' House, and your Lordships are pleased to alter the Bill, even outside its scope; then that cannot be taken notice of as a matter of privilege by another place, because each House has complete control of its own business. They may, of course, differ from us on the merits, but they cannot say there is any violation of privilege. This has no kind of analogy to the objections on privilege which have to do with finance, and I was very anxious that it should not be thought, from a colloquial phrase used by a Minister, that there was any recognition by this House of authority in the House of Commons to disagree with our Amendments upon the technical ground that they are outside the scope of the Bill as it left the House of Commons. There is no such rule. That is important.
The other point referred to by the noble Viscount, the mechanical difficulty, though not conclusive, is a real one. Though I do not pretend to be an authority on the procedure in another place, it appears to be a rule that where an Amendment of your Lordships' House increases a charge beyond the scope of the Bill, and even if privilege is waived, the Amendment has to be agreed to by a Financial Resolution, just as it would have to be if it originated in the House of Commons. That adds, of course, two more stages to the procedure, which is a matter of importance at this time of the session.
On the merits of that particular Amendment, I think that the noble Viscount has met us in a very substantial manner. I do not mean that I like an administrative Order as well as a provision in an Act of Parliament. What a Government can do by administrative Order it can undo by

1077
administrative Order, and therefore in that respect the wounded pensioner is at the mercy of the Government, if they were so disposed. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government, after having given this assurance to the House, are likely to do anything so unfair as to alter the Order again, to the disadvantage of the ex-constable. And so I think there is a very substantial concession in this Amendment. There is, however, another Amendment upon which, no doubt, some noble Lord will have something to say directly, where a pensioned officer, an ex-constable, is involved; that Amendment the Commons have thrown out, and I do not understand that there is any concession upon it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Which is that?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is the Amendment in Clause 1, page 4, line 34, to insert a new clause, and then in subsection (1) the noble Viscount will find the words to which I refer. Perhaps I am wrong, in which case he will be able to explain.
We are all obliged to the noble Viscount for his intervention with the Government in another place, and for the concessions which he has obtained. If he has not obtained all the concessions, then I am afraid, if there is an injustice still left— if there is, I say; I do not know that that is sa—I am afraid the noble Viscount must not complain if notice is taken of it out of doors. But, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I am sure no member of the House would wish us to try to insist upon a privilege Amendment. We did our best, and if the privilege Amendments cannot be accepted by the House of Commons it is not for us to insist upon them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 110 as first printed for the House of Lords.]
In the Title, page 1, line 1, after ("of") insert ("and for other matters, relating to").
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is dependent on other Amendments made by the Lords to which the Commons disagree.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment. This is the Amendment relating to the
1078
Preamble, which was altered in order to bring in the privilege Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 2, lines 6 to 10, leave out subsection (3)
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but have made the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, after ("force") insert ("to which this subsection applies")
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert ("This subsection applies to any police force the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament or by any Parliament in Ireland or out of funds assisted by the Exchequer or by any Exchequer in Ireland.")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment and agrees with the Amendment made by the Commons. This is really a return to the proposals made by Lord Muir Mackenzie's Committee, which limited the number of cases in which the compensation allowance would be suspended when men joined other forces. The House of Commons suggest that we should go back to the considered judgment of the Select Committee, which was set up by your Lordships in order to consider the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and agrees with the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I think this involves a question of privilege, and therefore I shall not oppose the Commons Amendment. It is quite true that this Amendment, in the form which it has now assumed on its return from the House of Commons, is that which was adopted by the Select Committee, of which I was a member, and we thought as a body that if the prohibition, which was a very ordinary prohibition, was to be adopted it should follow the usual rule and should not operate unless the police force which the officer joined was one which was paid out of or to which there was a contribution from the public funds. That was what the Committee reported to this House. My noble and learned friend, Lord Carson, moved an Amendment that the whole clause in the original Bill, which merely affected the pension if an officer joined any

1079
police force, should be struck out altogether. There was a debate on that in which I supported my noble and learned friend because I thought there were very strong arguments in favour of his Amendment. We thought, in the first place, that these men were in such an exceptional position that precedents did not and ought not to apply to their case. And, in the second place, that although a man cannot take a position in a police force wholly or partly paid out of public funds, he can take any other office under the public, and, therefore, the anomaly remains. That was the argument we pressed on behalf of the adoption of Lord Carson's Amendment. We cannot, of course, press it now, but subject to that, the Commons have improved on the original Bill in that they have removed part of the penalty, so to say.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I should like to say that that arrangement does not act as a deterrent, because no fewer than 1,200 men have already joined the Ulster force; I have not the figures, but a large number have joined our own force, and a considerable number have joined the Palestine force.
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not think I used the word "deterrent."
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, it was my word.
THE EARL OF DESART: Although they cannot join a police force and retain their pensions, they can join any other public force and act, for instance, as warders; but they know their own job better, probably.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know that these constables will be aware of this, and I dare say it will come as a great shock to them when they find out what is the effect of their having taken service in a police force.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will put that right at once. I have stated already, and I will state it again, that all these provisions have been fully explained and that the men who join these forces are fully aware of all the conditions under which they join them. Therefore, the noble Marquess need not have any fear in that regard.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 2, lines 11 to 37, leave out subsection (4)
Clause 1, page 4, line 5, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 6 and insert ('sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one")
Clause 1, line 27, after ("Treasury") insert ("subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two").
After Clause 1, page 4, line 34, insert as new clauses:
Tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship.
(". For the purpose of dealing with questions arising in the administration of this Act there shall be appointed a tribunal with such powers as appear in the Second and Third Schedules to this Act.")
Provisions as to disturbance allowance, etc.
(".—(1) The provisions as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrant, and separation allowance contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any officer or man of the Royal Irish Constabulary to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act or who at the date fixed for the disbandment of the force is in receipt of a pension under the enactments relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary and is at that date resident in Ireland.
(2) This section shall have effect until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and no longer, unless before that date it is extended for a further period by His Majesty by Order in Council.").
After Clause 2, page 5, line 2, insert as a new clause:
Pension of officer or constable retired since 1st January, 1919, through unfitness caused by injury.
(". Any officer or constable of the force who since the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen has been retired by reason of unfitness caused by injury inflicted in the course of his duty shall be entitled if still living to the same pension as he would have been awarded if he had continued to serve up to the date of disbandment under this Act.")
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they create a further charge on the Revenue, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments; that is to say, from the Amendment to Clause 1, on page 2, in lines 11 to 37 down to the Amendment to the First Schedule. These are privilege Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not call into question this procedure which is a convenient procedure where there is no controversy. I cannot say that there is no controversy in this particular case, but as, owing to these being privilege Amendments, none of your Lordships would desire to resist the Motion which the Government have made, there is no inconvenience in putting the Questions all in one.
There is, however, one of these Amendments, to which I referred just now, which does seem to me to call for some notice. It is an Amendment which your Lordships inserted, and if your Lordships will refer to the Paper you will see what it is that the Commons have struck out. It is as follows—
"(1) The provisions as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrant, and separation allowance contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any officer or man of the Royal Irish Constabulary to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act—"
I do not complain of those words going out, so far as I understand, them. But here are the material words—
"— or who at the date fixed for the disbandment of the force is in receipt of a pension under the enactments relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary and is at that date resident in Ireland…"
In other words, your Lordships secured to pensioners living in Ireland the provisions as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrants, and separation allowance which are secured under the Bill to serving constables who have just been disbanded.
The reason your Lordships inserted that Amendment was that you were satisfied that these constables who had retired and lived in Ireland were in many cases as much a target for hostile action on the part of the extreme section of the Sinn Fein Party in Ireland as those constables who were just disbanded. They were in exactly the same position so far as danger and obloquy were concerned. They had only recently retired from the Force, they were pensioned and were living in Ireland. If they are in danger of their lives, and if their families are in danger of their lives—and we know to what lengths the perpetrators of extreme outrage have gone in attacking the families of loyalists—it does seem that they ought to be given the same arrangements as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrant, and separation allowance
1082
as serving constables. We tried to secure that, but the Commons have disagreed with it. I shall be interested to know what defence the noble Viscount can offer for that proceeding on the part of another place. We cannot, of course, resist it, but if the matter is as bad as I believe it to be, the Government must not complain if they hear of it again out of doors.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I should like to supplement what the noble Marquess has said by calling the attention of the noble Viscount to the fact that my noble friend, Lord Carson, once certainly and possibly twice drew the attention of the House to two very harrowing cases in which pensioners were driven out of Ireland and came over here in a state of great destitution. Although we cannot get it put into this Bill, as I see perfectly well, I think one might fairly make an appeal to the Government to take these cases into their consideration so that these men should not be restricted to getting support from Sir Samuel Hoare's tribunal, which was created for a totally different purpose. I was rather encouraged in that by the course to which the noble Viscount drew attention with regard to an Amendment which was not accepted, but as to which certain steps were to be taken. If that machinery or any machinery can be brought into play in regard to these men so that in really serious cases of this kind they should receive proper warrants and passes to give them the relief to which morally they are unquestionably entitled, I hope that may be considered as an executive act quite apart from this Bill altogether. The case is the same, the result is the same, and the men are in exactly the same position.
VISCOUNT PEEL: As I have previously said to my noble friend, I pointed out I think when I was discussing that point as regards the Royal Irish Constabulary Pension Order, 1922, that as it only started on April 1, 1921, it obviously could not apply as the noble and learned Lord desired.
THE EARL OF DESART: My appeal is rather a general one for it to be considered.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course, this is a very large Amendment indeed, because it applies, I understand, to something like 7,000 pensioners, and certainly from the information that we have received, there

1083
are very few cases where any of those men who have previously retired have made complaints, and have brought their cases forward. Provision is made to this extent, and no more than to this extent, in their case, that if any of these pensioners find their position so intolerable in Ireland that they wish to leave it, they are able to get an advance for their railway tickets and also up to £20 to bring them into this country, and in that case their position would be considered by the Hoare Committee. I believe there are—I am speaking only from memory, and cannot be exact—a few cases where these applications have been made. But provision is made in this way, as the noble and learned Lord will see.
THE EARL OF DESART: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. My point really was that they ought not to come in the same category as mere refugees. The answer which I rather expected has been given—namely, that there were few cases—but that rather strengthens my appeal. If there were an enormous number of cases to be dealt with I quite conceive that there would be objection, but I should not think such objection could apply in the situation which the noble Viscount has revealed. My argument is that there would be few cases, but they would be cases suffering precisely the same hardship as that suffered by the disbanded men referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Carson. I made an appeal that those cases should have some consideration, and that they should be dealt with equitably.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Government will very soon be in a position to judge what the number of eases is.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The Government in this, as in other cases, have undertaken that they will see that the very best is done for these men that can be done. I do not know whether the noble Viscount who has to repel these onslaughts realises, any more than does the noble Earl who spoke earlier in the evening from the same bench, that a certain want of sympathy is apparent, though it probably does not exist, on the part of the Government. There is not that recognition which there ought to be of these cases. They are cases that cannot be administered on the ordinary lines in which the cases of British civil servants in the past have been dealt with. You are here dealing with a different state of affairs. I ask the Government to re-
1084
member that the position of this House and the honour of the country is bound up in these questions. I think a great deal may be done in administration of the Act, and I am sorry the noble Viscount has not been able to prevail upon his colleagues in the House of Commons to accept our view. We can only leave it to the Government to show the best spirit that they can.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I much regret if I did not reply to the point made by the noble Earl in the course of the discussion. The Government are extremely sensible of the force of the observation which he has made. I will only make this last appeal to your Lordships, that in judging of what has been done for the force I ask you to look at the proceedings as a whole. The noble Earl said that you ought not to judge these cases as if they were the cases of the ordinary Civil Service. That is precisely what the Government have not done. The terms given to the Royal Irish Constabulary—you may criticise them or not— are wholly beyond, and vastly beyond, anything that has been done either in this country or in any other country to a disbanded force, and the action of the Government, therefore, is not comparable to any action taken elsewhere. On behalf of the Government I wholly repudiate the suggestion that any lack of sympathy has been shown.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I can only speak again by your Lordships' indulgence, but I wish, in a word, to support what I have said. It was pointed out in the House of Commons last night that if a man retired with £5 a week as pension, and got another situation of £3 10 s. as a private, he would then only get £1 10 s. a week as pension, and therefore there would be no inducement for him to take this other work. That is what I meant to suggest.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Schedule, page 6, lines 1 to 29, leave out the Schedule and insert as new Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.

  PART I.
  Rules.
  1. The compensation which may be awarded to an officer or constable shall be an annual allowance.
  2. The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to receive if he had retired for length of service under the existing enactments applicable to him, and had

  1085
  been qualified in respect of his length of service for a pension, save that, for the purposes of that calculation, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  (a) There shall be added to his completed years of actual service if the proportion of salary on which his allowance is calculated is one-fiftieth, ten years, and if that proportion is one-sixtieth, twelve years;

  (b) His salary shall be taken at the amount which it would have reached if he had continued to serve in the same rank for the number of years so added, and in the case of a district inspector of the third class, as if he were entitled to promotion to the second class on the completion of one and a half years' service in the third class, and, in the class of a district inspector of the second class, as if he were entitled to promotion to the first class on the completion of eleven years' service in the second class;

  (c) If the number of his completed years of service, as reckoned under this rule, is less than the minimum number of years of service for which provision as respects pensions is made in the appropriate pension scale, that scale shall apply with the substitution of the number of his completed years of service as so reckoned for that minimum number; and

  (d) If he has, in addition to his completed years of actual service, served for a period exceeding six months, his service for that period shall be reckoned as a completed year of actual service:

  Provided that in the case of the surgeon of the Royal Irish Constabulary his compensation allowance may, should he so desire, be calculated in like manner as the pension which he would have been entitled to receive on retirement under the existing enactments applicable to him if the years to be added as aforesaid were added to his years of age instead of to his completed years of actual service.
  3. The allowance awarded to an officer or constable shall in no case exceed two-thirds of the salary on which the allowance is calculated.
  4. In the event of an officer or constable dying after an annual allowance has been awarded to him under this Act, the Treasury may, if they think fit, grant a pension or gratuities to the widow and children of the officer or constable in like manner as if the allowance were a pension granted to the officer or constable on retirement, and as if his years of service had been the years on which the allowance was calculated.
  5. In these rules the expression "existing enactments" means enactments in force at the time of the passing of this Act, and includes any orders made under those enactments and in force at that time.

  PART II.
  Assignment of Pensions and Regulations as to Payment of Pensions, etc.
  15. The following provisions shall have effect with respect to every pension, allowance, and gratuity (in this Article referred to as a grant) payable under this Order or under the Interim
  1086
  Order to any person (in this Article referred to as the pensioner):—

  (1) Every assignment of and charge on a grant, and every agreement to assign or charge a grant, shall, except so far as made for the benefit of the family of the pensioner, be void, and on the bankruptcy of the pensioner the grant shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of the creditors:

  (2) Where any sum is due from the pensioner to the Inspector-General or to the Crown, the Inspector-General may deduct the amount of any such sum from the grant:

  (3) On the death of a pensioner to whom a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds is due on account of a grant, them if the Inspector-General so direct, probate or other proof of the title of the personal representative of the deceased may be dispensed with, and the sum may be paid or distributed to or among the persons appearing to the Inspector-General to be beneficially entitled to the personal estate of the deceased pensioner or to or among any one or more of those persons, or in the case of the illegitimacy of the deceased pensioner, to or among such persons as the Inspector-General may think fit, and the Inspector-General, and any officer of the Inspector-General making the payment, shall be discharged from all liability in respect of any such payment or distribution:

  (4) Every grant which is a pension or allowance (other than a pension or allowance payable to an officer of higher rank than a county inspector or to the widow or children of such officer) shall be paid, after the first instalment, in advance, except in the case of a refusal to quit police quarters or premises owned or rented by or on behalf of the Inspector-General or to give up any equipment or to make any payment due to the Inspector-General; but where a person dies whilst in receipt of a grant paid in advance, no return snail be required of any payments which have been made in respect of any period after his death.

  Forfeiture of Pension or Allowance.
  16.—(1) A pension or allowance under this Order is granted only upon condition that it becomes forfeited and may be withdrawn by the Inspector-General, with the consent of the Treasury, in any of the following cases, that is to say, if the grantee—

  (a) is convicted of a any offence and is sentenced to penal servitude or to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months; or

  (b) knowingly associates with thieves or reputed thieves; or

  (c) refuses to give to the police all information and assistance in the power of the grantee, for the detection of crime, for the apprehension of criminals, or for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace; or

  1087

  (d) enters into or continues to carry on any business, occupation or employment which is illegal, or in which the grantee has made use of the fact of former employment in the force in a manner which the Inspector-General considers to be discreditable or improper; or

  (e) supplies to any person or publishes in a manner which the Inspector-General considers to be discreditable or improper any information which the grantee may have obtained in the course of employment in the force; or

  (f) solicits or, without the consent of the Inspector-General, accepts directly, or indirectly, any testimonial or gift of a pecuniary value on retirement from the force, or otherwise in connection with his service in the force; or

  (g) enters into or continues in any business, occupation, or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited to do so by the Inspector-General on any reasonable grounds.

  (2) Such forfeiture and withdrawal may affect the pension or allowance wholly or in part, and may be permanent or temporary as the Inspector-General with the consent of the Treasury may determine.
  The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out in Part I. subsection (4), line 3, ("may, if they think fit,") and inserting ("shall").
  VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment of the First Schedule be agreed to. I shall say just one word upon the matter. You will see what the Amendment is on page 6 of the Paper. The words are to leave out "may, if they think fit," and insert "shall." This is a very advantageous Amendment, because it means that the Treasury shall grant pensions or gratuities to the widow and children of the man dying in certain circumstances. It gives no discretion.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Viscount Peel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Insert the following new Schedules:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship.
The powers of the Tribunal appointed under this Act shall be as follows:—
1. To recommend—

(a) The extension up to a maximum of six months' pay of the disturbance allowance for the purpose of removal
1088
which may be granted under the Third Schedule to this Act, in any ease where in the opinion of the Tribunal, the amount which has been so granted is inadequate.

(b) In exceptional cases the payment of gratuities, in addition to disturbance allowance, up to a maximum of six months' pay.

(c) Such other exceptional provision as any individual case submitted to it may appear to require.

2. To deal with matters referred to the Tribunal under the Third Schedule to this Act or otherwise.

THIRD SCHEDULE.
(A) Disturbance allowance.
If any officer or man, owing to molestation or danger or (in the case of an officer or man to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act) for any other cause whatsoever, moves his home either to another place in Ireland or to any place outside Ireland, he shall be entitled to be repaid the reasonable costs incurred in connection with such removal up to a maximum of one month's pay for unmarried men, two months' pay for married men with less than three children, and three months' pay for married men with three or more children.
These allowances will be payable on application at any time within six months of the date of disbandment.
In order to avoid any delay in the payment of these allowances, they will be payable on demand at the date of disbandment or at any time within six months thereafter; every officer or man who receives such allowance will be required to produce to the Tribunal appointed under this Act, evidence that he has in fact moved his home; and if he has not moved his home or if the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such removal are less than the amount of the allowance which he has received, the Tribunal may require him to refund the whole or part of the allowance, as the case may be.
In eases of officers and men holding acting rank above that of their substantive rank, disturbance allowance will be calculated upon the pay of the acting rank. In cases where officers or men holding acting rank have already been disbanded and have received disturbance allowance calculated upon their substantive pay, application may be made to the Chief Secretary or the Colonial Office, for the payment of the difference between the sum received and the disturbance allowance that would have been payable if it had been calculated upon such acting rank.
(B) Free railway warrants.
Every officer and man will be entitled to a free railway warrant from the place of his disbandment to his home. In addition to the above, it will be open to any member of the force who considers that he would be in danger if he were to return to or to remain at his home after the date of disbandment, to apply for a free travelling warrant to enable him to remove himself and his family to any place in Great Britain and Ireland. Such warrants will be issuable in respect of the member of the force, his wife and children, or other dependant normally supported by him as a member of his household. Where a member of the force

1089
is moving his family, and finds it inadvisable actually to accompany them, a separate warrant will be issued for their use.
(c) Separation allowance.
Separation allowance will be payable during the first three months after the date of disbandment to any married member of the force whose home is outside Northern Ireland and who proceeds either to Great Britain or Northern Ireland, leaving his family in Ireland. This allowance will be in addition to any compensation allowance granted under section one of this Act, and will be made at the rates approved for the several ranks of the force, viz., 14 s. a week for constables and sergeants, 17 s. 6d. a week for head constables, and 28 s. a week for officers of higher rank
In this Schedule the expression "date of disbandment" means the date of discharge in the case of an officer or man to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act, and the date fixed for the disbandment of the force in the case of an officer or man in receipt of a pension.
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they create a further charge on the revenue; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on the new Schedules.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOYALISTS IN IRELAND.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make now any statement with reference to intended action during the adjournment of this House for the relief of loyalists in Southern Ireland and of refugees from that country. This Question is put with a view to giving the Government an opportunity of saying, before the House rises, whether they contemplate any further action in consequence of the Resolution which was adopted by this House on July 13 on my Motion. Certain knowledge has come to hand since that debate, partly in my own case from private inquiry, and partly in consequence of Parliamentary Papers circulated, one I think last night. I refer to No. 1736. The letter to which I will refer directly, dated July 26, is addressed to the Provisional Government.
We have now ascertained—and I make the statement in order that it may be
1090
contradicted or accepted and amplified, if possible—that the limit of the funds to be administered by Sir Samuel Hoare's Committee is no longer so small a sum as £10,000. If the noble Earl on the Government bench can tell us to what sum it has been extended, and if any limit still remains, we shall be very glad. We also now know that the payments of compensation are to be made in the first instance by the British Government, and that the ultimate liability has been fully accepted, in writing I am told, by the Free State Government.
As to the White Paper to which I alluded it brings to our knowledge the interesting fact that in what may be called the halcyon days of January, 1922, when everybody thought everyone was going to live happily ever afterwards, not only in other parts of the world but even in Ireland, an Agreement was arrived at between His Majesty's Government and the Free State that post-truce cases of damage should be dealt with in the usual way by the county courts. The optimism shown on that occasion was pathetic, and the disillusionment has been indeed tragic. The optimism was based on the idea that normal civil life was going to be resumed; that cases would be heard in the normal way of business by the Courts, and payments made in the automatic way by local authorities. Could anything be conceived which has been more disastrously negatived by subsequent experience?
This interesting letter to which I am referring reveals further that a letter was written on May 13 containing representations by the British Government to the Free State Government, and that that letter received from the Free State Government a "prompt and considerate answer." Neither the date nor the substance is given, and, therefore, it is necessary to ask whether that "prompt and considerate answer" is the one which figures in an earlier Parliamentary Paper, No. 1684, under the date of May 18. That answer is, no doubt, "prompt," and it is "considerate" so far that it does assume financial liability for what it is at great pains to say is a very small number of cases. And it distinctly imputes that out of what His Majesty's Government call "the large and increasing number of cases" there is only a very small number of which the bona fides may not be seriously called in question. It excuses this suggestion by alluding to an organised movement for

1091
discrediting the Free State Government in public opinion—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And the Government of this country.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Yes, and the Government of this country too, and that as part of the effect of that movement a large number of persons have left Ireland who had no real compulsion to do so. Your Lordships can form your own opinion as to whether that is a worthy or an unworthy suggestion. It also goes on to use the argument which is habitually called in political circles the tu quoque argument. I admit that they do not describe it by such indecorous language themselves. They say the case is parallel to the situation therein referred to and is not altogether unconnected therewith. That is the way they use the tu quoque argument, and they develop it step by step and gather boldness as they go on. First they declare their inability in equity to dissociate His Majesty's Government from responsibility for what has been going on in Belfast, and later they say that His Majesty's Government is "immediately responsible" for those things.
I do not know whether this is the "prompt and considerate answer" which seems to have given His Majesty's Government so much pleasure. I contend, as I contended on July 13, and as I think all persons should always continue to contend, that the moral responsibility of the Government is at least as great as they seem to think themselves, and a great deal greater than they have avowed. It arises from the unjustifiable precipitancy of the withdrawal of the Government forces from Ireland. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has many qualities which we all admire, but he is never nebulous or obscure, and if on any one occasion he did approach, even remotely, the nebulous or obscure stage it was when he attempted to defend that unduly precipitate withdrawal, as we contend, of the Government forces from Ireland. I remain entirely impenitent of having said that the withdrawal was to be condemned in that way.
After all, His Majesty's Ministers have got credit in world opinion for having made a great dramatic move and they have all the advantage of having made a favourable impression by an act of apparent magnanimity in the way they cleared out of
1092
Ireland. I hope it is not going to be rendered possible for it to be said that all this good reputation was purchased at the expense of others or by the vicarious sacrifices of abandoned friends. This responsibility of the Government of the kind I am seeking to enforce finds a kind of belated avowal in the same letter of July, and I should like to refer to the signatory of that letter. I observe that he describes himself as "Secretary to the Provisional Government of Ireland Committee of the Cabinet." There has been more and more government by Committees of the Cabinet, but it is interesting to observe that you have this long and cumbersome title to describe the thing which exists as the engine of Government. This cumbersome description does show that there is this responsibility, and you cannot shake it off; a responsibility which we now find is exemplified and made public by the existence of an absolute Committee of the Cabinet practically exercising some sort of controlling influence over the Free State Government in Ireland. Therefore, we need not be surprised that lower down in the same letter we find that His Majesty's Government have said on one occasion that they "cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably and promptly." In another passage they talk about an "alike inalienable responsibility" for seeing that justice is done in the case of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
I feel sure your Lordships will expect that the Government will not allow the fact that the two Houses of Parliament are adjourning to interfere with their activities in seeing that justice is done to these unfortunate people. In my previous remarks this afternoon I enlarged upon the great necessity for meeting with the greatest promptitude possible the claims for compensation and doing all they can to get the money paid. The desperate need requires no description; it is only too easy to imagine. I am told that some of these unfortunate people who have come here are even being worried by the Inland Revenue at this end for Income Tax and Super-Tax. In these circumstances it is not very encouraging to see the letter of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Morning Post this morning. He does not tell us much, but he does tell us that he does not know what the result will be or when it will come, or whether disorder can be arrested before Ireland is plunged into

1093
bankruptcy and famine. That is a dreary picture.
In conclusion, I do not think any proper view can be taken of these cases unless the Government realise that they are up against not the friends of Ireland but the enemies of England. Mr. de Valera is not a friend of Ireland; I doubt whether he thinks himself to be one; but he knows himself to be an enemy of this country, and that is the sole inspiration of any one of his actions. I may go further and say that these people are not only the enemies of England, but they are in alliance with those people who are the enemies of civilisation itself. They are becoming daily more implacable and anarchic, and all the more dreadful, therefore, is the bare idea that we should abandon any friends to influences so deadly to any possible form of civilised life.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, may I refer, in the first place, to what fell from Lord Stuart of Wortley about the responsibility of the Cabinet? He read various phrases indicating that the Cabinet accepts responsibility.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Yes, for certain things.
THE EARL OF CBAWFORD: I do not know whether that was to inform the House of those records, or to cast doubt upon those statements.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Oh no, I welcome it. I said "a belated avowal."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Oh, belated! I do not know about that.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: July 26.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is not only on July 26 that the Government have taken responsibility. I do not think much need be made of the fact that the Cabinet has appointed a Committee, although its name may be very cumbrous. It is a very common proceeding for Cabinets to appoint Committees, and perhaps the nomenclature is sometimes a little pompous. But there is nothing significant in the appointment, as Lord Stuart of Wortley seemed to indicate. It is simply a matter of ordinary practice, and has been so for years and generations, to appoint special Sub-Committees to deal day by day with questions requiring special attention.
1094
In making a short statement in answer to the noble Lord's Question, certain points of which have already been discussed this afternoon, I should like to divide it between two aspects. The Question relates, firstly, to the relief of loyalists actually in Southern Ireland; and, secondly, to refugees from Southern Ireland. These are two aspects of the same problem. They are, indeed, closely related to one another, but different considerations must apply to each. On July 13, as Lord Stuart of Wortley has reminded us, he himself raised this subject, and the Lord Chancellor made a considered reply to which, I confess, I find it very difficult to make any addition or amplification. Since that date, however, two or three weeks have elapsed, and there is no doubt at all that the military operations undertaken by the Provisional Government have made substantial progress during that period, and that the condition of the great part of Southern Ireland, although far from being satisfactory, does show a progressive improvement.
I do not know how far it is suggested that the Government should take further action, but I question if it would be in the interests of those on whose behalf Lord Stuart of Wortley has expressly spoken if active steps were taken by the British Government beyond those in the way of provision of supplies or equipment which are now being given to assist the Provisional Government in its task of restoring order in Southern Ireland. I think one must not overrate the fact that it is as much to the interest of the Provisional Government to restore order as to that of anybody in the world, because, clearly, unless they can and do restore order, then authority must disappear and their prospects of justifying self-government of Ireland by Ireland will likewise be dissipated. I can imagine nothing which the Free State Government can be more keen to accomplish than to remove these sources of disorder, which, as Lord Stuart of Wortley very justly said, have reduced a portion of Southern Ireland to chaos, if not to anarchy.
I did not quite follow his argument drawing a distinction between the friends of Ireland and the enemies of Britain, but I confess that, although the Irregular or Republican troops may be very hostile to Britain, I think it would be very difficult to persuade nine, out of ten of the citizens of Ireland that they are equally friends of that country.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I said that they were not friends of Ireland, but that they were primarily enemies of England.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid it is too true that they are primarily enemies of Britain, but that does not at all make it acceptable to the average Irish citizen to believe that they are friends of their own country. Far from it; they are the greatest enemies that Ireland has.
As regards refugees, the position is different. This Government has never been insensible of its responsibility towards those people who have been compelled to come to our shores for refuge. The Government has admitted its responsibility in the letter which Lord Stuart of Wortley has quoted, although the liability for the relief of these persons rests upon the Provisional Government, as set out in the letter of May 18 from the Provisional Government itself. His Majesty's Government, none the less, in the month of May last, set up the Irish Distress Committee, to investigate applications for assistance from persons compelled to leave Ireland for reasons of personal safety, and to seek refuge in this country. That Committee has contracted to grant immediate financial assistance where necessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies announced on July 17 that this Committee—Sir Samuel Hoare's Committee—had been reconstituted and strengthened.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Has it got any more money?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I announced before that it had funds in hand, and, should it require more funds, more funds will be made available. At the moment it has not expended all the money allocated to it. The actual balance is immaterial, so long as there is a balance, and it can be added to when necessary. This Committee, in addition to its former work, will become what we might call a clearing house for all questions affecting compensation and refugees. Cases beyond the actual scope of the Committee may be inquired into by them, and immediate action taken to secure prompt payment where money is due from Imperial funds. This Distress Committee is now in a position to deal with and to advise on questions affecting the position of any persons forced
1096
to leave or unable to return to Ireland on account of the conditions now existing there. If financial assistance is required, and is found by the Committee to be necessary, such assistance will be rendered immediately. I may say that about 1,500 cases for alleviating immediate distress have already been received and dealt with by that body.
Let me add this as to the ultimate responsibility. What I have stated about the Distress Committee and the new arrangements is entirely without prejudice to the responsibility for compensation which rests upon the Irish Provisional Government, the Free State Government. One further point I might allude to which arose earlier in the afternoon—namely, to say that this Committee will, of course, continue to function during the adjournment of the House. Its existence does not require legislative sanction, and if events unfortunately show any such course to be necessary, its scope can be expanded, as has already been done once without legislative authority. If necessary, it can be done on a further occasion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has pointed out that the interests of the Provisional Government lie in restoring order in Ireland as soon as they can. That is perfectly true, but we may be allowed to have some hesitation in being convinced that they have both the courage and the capacity to restore order. They are entangled in all sorts of understandings in the past, and no one who has followed the course of recent Irish history as closely as your Lordships have done, can doubt that these entanglements with the various sections and grades and categories of Irish extreme opinion act as great difficulties when it comes to action. Therefore, we await with hope, but with no confident assurance, the prospect of whether or not the Provisional Government will be able to restore order in Ireland. I have always admired my noble friend Lord Crawford, but the serenity with which he speaks of the chaos and anarchy which now exist in Ireland certainly rouses my admiration to a higher point.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What do you mean by serenity?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a high quality to keep your head in

1097
difficulties. The noble Earl is certainly serene, but he did not seem to realise that this chaos and anarchy is due to the policy which he and his colleagues have pursued. That is the real origin of this state of things. We, therefore, are very glad to find, as my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley pointed out, that the Government are beginning to recognise their responsibility in the matter. My noble friend behind me arrived at that conclusion by studying the title of the signatory to the Paper which has been laid upon the Table. That signatory is the "Secretary to the Provisional Government of Ireland Committee of the Cabinet." So, as my noble friend pointed out, there is a Committee of the Cabinet which recognises the responsibility of looking after the Provisional Government. I need not repeat the quotations which my noble friend made from the letter, but it is quite obvious that His Majesty's Government recognise, as they ought to recognise, that they have responsibility notwithstanding that they have set up a Provisional Government— a responsibility as to what happens to loyalists and others who are the victims of outrage—which the country will expect them to fulfil. The degree of the responsibility is very great.
My noble friend quoted from a letter of which I gathered the noble Earl had never heard. It was a letter written by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and published in to-day's Morning Post. The right honourable gentleman stated—
"I cannot tell at the present time what the result of the fighting will be, or when that result will become manifest. Nor can I tell whether an outbreak of murder will follow the close of the military operations. I cannot tell whether the disorders which have broken out will be arrested before Ireland is plunged in bankruptcy and famine."
These are things for which His Majesty's Government will be responsible, and these are things in respect of which it is clear that they are beginning to recognise their responsibility. I do not envy them that they should have found at last what their policy has ended in, and realise what their responsibility will be, but it is something that they are beginning to understand what the country will expect of them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have listened to a scolding from the noble Marquess exhibiting in every syllable that conviction of supreme superiority to
1098
more fallible human beings to which he sometimes treats us. I must confess that my withers are entirely unwrung by the condemnation and contemptuous references which he has thought proper to make to us. Let me commence by saying that I thought his reference to the military effort, whatever it may be, which is being made by the Provisional Government, to be both ungracious and tactically extremely unwise in relation to the interests which, I have not the slightest doubt, he has as much at heart as any member of His Majesty's Government. What is at least certain is this, that whether the Provisional Government and their troops are carrying on the war with the vigour which the noble Marquess thinks they ought to show or with the success that we should like to see associated with it, the fact remains that there are at any rate large numbers of men in the employment of the Provisional Government who, until recently, were wearing Republican uniform and were attacking the troops of this country, and who are now risking their lives in this quarrel, and many of them have sustained most serious wounds, and no inconsiderable number, as one measures these small squabbles, have actually died in the course of the operations.
The noble Marquess must give me leave to say quite plainly that it ill becomes those who, like the noble Marquess and myself, are in no danger either to life or limb in this quarrel, to depreciate the efforts of men who, in every conceivable circumstance, might be disinclined to take up what must seem to them to be a terrible and fratricidal strife, but who are nevertheless, so far as one can judge, making great efforts effectively to carry out a responsibility which they, too, have undertaken.
The noble Marquess is never tired of rising in his place and talking about the responsibility which the Government have undertaken, and expressing a hope that they realise that responsibility, and consequentially that they are standing in a white sheet, or are prepared to stand in a white sheet, either at this moment or in the eyes of posterity. Give me leave here again, in the most specific manner possible, to inform the noble Marquess that I at least—and I think I speak for my colleagues also—assent to no such slighting summary of that which we have attempted to do. Such responsibility as there is—as I have before pointed out, but the noble Marquess neither notices this, nor replies to it in his latest speeches—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount takes care to speak at the end of a debate, so that one never gets an opportunity to take notice of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Marquess thinks that I have the slightest objection to letting him or any other Peer in this House speak after me he shows that he little understands me. If I speak late in the course of debates I do so because it is usually convenient and proper that, being a Minister, I should pay to your Lordships the civility of listening to all the speeches which require answer. If he intends to imply that the terrors of his invective lead me to refuse him the opportunity of reply he both over-rates those terrors and under-rates my powers of resisting them.
But let me continue my observations. I was pointing out that the noble Marquess consistently, in his later speeches, even if made in other debates dealing with the same subject matter, never pays the slightest attention to an argument that I have more than once pressed upon the attention of the House. We have the responsibility, the primary responsibility, but we are not the only people who have the responsibility. Our policy was plainly explained to Parliament. It was plainly challenged in another place. It was plainly challenged in this House, and over and over again, by overwhelming majorities Parliament here and elsewhere took, as we think, the wise decision, for, terrible as were the risks involved in that decision, it was nevertheless in all the circumstances of the case a wise one.
And I go further. Not only is the responsibility shared by us with Parliament, it is notoriously shared by the overwhelming mass of the population of this island, and there never has been a moment since the Treaty was first explained and since we first stood by the Treaty when a competent judge of our politics did not know that the course which we adopted would have been supported by a large majority of the constituencies of this country. And when we proposed on one occasion, or when it was believed that some of our number proposed, about ten months ago, to take the decision of the country upon this issue, we were immediately told by our opponents that we were doing the most cowardly thing in attempting to go to the country upon it, when Parliament had already assured us of
1100
competent Parliamentary majorities. The noble Marquess seems to think that he has established his point when he says that chaos and anarchy are going on in Ireland. It is perfectly true that chaos and anarchy are going on in Ireland. It happens to be a very chaotic and anarchical country. But chaos and anarchy were going on in Ireland before the Treaty was signed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not when a Unionist Government was in power.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess says not under a Unionist Government. Neither I nor my friends are responsible for the change which took place in 1906, and the noble Marquess knows that I bore a part as considerable as that which he or any of his friends bore in resisting proposals in relation to which I shared his views, and I share his views now. But we are not dealing with 1906. It is perfectly true that in 1906 the country was in an orderly condition. It is equally true that, if you take the history of Ireland for the last three hundred years, there have been recrudescent cycles in which the inherent savagery of the people has broken out, with results comparable to those which we observed some few years ago and up to the time of the Treaty, though not perhaps so grave in their external manifestations. But there was chaos and there was anarchy. Therefore—I have said it before, and I will never tire of saying it—as long as we are told that we should stand in sackcloth and ashes for our policy, as opposed to that of the noble Marquess and his friends, which called upon us to send young Englishmen to die, and to lavish English treasure upon the putting down of these disorders, I tell the noble Marquess that I greatly prefer that these tasks should be undertaken by one part of the people themselves whose turbulent and cruel disposition gives rise to these anxieties.
And do not let the noble Marquess make the slightest mistake as to what the temper of the English people is on this point. I know something about popular audiences and what they say and think. If the noble Marquess goes to Liverpool, or Manchester, or Bradford, and asks an audience of five thousand people, whatever their school of political thought in this country may be, whether they prefer that what fighting has to be done in Ireland, against violent Republicans with arms in their hands, should be done by other

1101
Irishmen who do not happen to be Republicans at this moment, or should be done by Englishmen, he need not be under the slightest delusion as to the answer which he and others who think with him will receive on that point. The real truth is that the whole of this country does not see why it should be saddled with the charges and the bloodshed of putting down these disorders. While there is a section of that people which is affected by the responsibility which the Provisional Government, for the moment at least, have undertaken, they are unable to see why they should not carry it out.
The noble Marquess always speaks as if, when I and my friends were confronted with this situation, when we began to deal with all the wreckage caused by the Home Rule Bill, and by that which followed the Home Rule Bill—the Ulster reaction in the North, the Nationalist reaction in the South—the noble Marquess speaks as if, when we were mad enough, as he would put it, to put our hands to the Treaty, there were two courses open to us—one that sane men would take, and the other that insane men would take; that one of those courses promised prosperity, "roses, roses all the way," and that we on the contrary set our guilty and foolish hands to the document which involved all this chaos. There was chaos in the other alternative; there was bloodshed and an immense expenditure of treasure in the other alternative.
At the very moment when we signed the Treaty the noble Marquess and his friends came down day after day and night after night to this House, and said to us: "You are failing in putting down this rebellion; you are not successful; you have been beaten;" and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, whenever he speaks, now uses a chronological landmark in his speeches. He says: "That was about the time when you began to be beaten in Ireland." And it is perfectly true, as I have said here before, that force of arms was not successful, and it had become universally recognised by those who had given attention to these things that, unless we made an effort on an immensely greater scale, that might have involved an expenditure of £100,000,000 or £200,000,000, and deliberately set ourselves to raise a new volunteer army of 100,000 men, we could not have succeeded in the effort of forcibly coercing am I destroying the forces arrayed in arms against us.
1102
Those are the two alternatives. Do not let it be said that chaos exists in Ireland as if this necessarily proved that the alternative which we selected was the less desirable open to us. We were confronted with a horrible position, whichever way we decided, and I leave any fair-minded member of this House to judge whether the people of this country were in a temper, whether the finances of this country were in a condition, to submit to the further sacrifices that would have been involved in pursuing a quarrel which we are able now to see Irishmen deal with on their own behalf.
I have only this to add, lest it should be thought I should do injustice to the case which has been made. The noble Marquess said to my noble friend who is at present leading the House that he spoke of what was going on in Ireland with great serenity. That must be assumed to have a point. If it has a point, it must mean to convey, I suppose, that my noble friend is indifferent to the sufferings of people in Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, it was not intended to convey that. It was intended to convey that the noble Earl did not recognise that he himself was responsible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A man may fail to recognise that he is responsible without exhibiting serenity. The two things are incomparable. It has nothing to do with the exhibition of serenity to say that you do not accept responsibility. If the noble Marquess makes the observation that a noble Lord contemplates the sufferings of his fellow men with serenity—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount will understand that I have disavowed that interpretation, and it is usual in this House to accept a repudiation of that kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept entirely the statement that the noble Marquess did not intend to convey indifference, but I have an equal right with the noble Marquess to form my judgment as to what is the plain meaning of plain words, and as to what those words, in fact, convey. I would add this, that it is inaccurate to say of the noble Earl, as it is inaccurate to say of any member of His Majesty's Government, that we contem-

1103
plate what is going on in Ireland to-day, that we contemplate the sufferings of the loyalists in the South of Ireland, with anything but the most profound compassion, and any man who says that we either are indifferent or have shown ourselves to be indifferent to them is, believe me, my Lords, in entire ignorance as to the discussions, the examinations which go on and have gone on in the last few weeks from week to week, almost from day to day, and on some days at least from hour to hour.
Those sufferings are terrible, and he would have a heart of stone who did not realise what must be the agonising state of mind of noble Lords and others in the South of Ireland who are owners, perhaps, of great and historic residences which have played a distinguished part in the history of Ireland, and who from day to day are unaware whether they have been deprived by the destruction of those houses of all the heirlooms which, perhaps for centuries, have been associated with and have formed part of their family life. Even these material losses, cruel as they are, are as nothing when they are compared with the graver and more serious hardships and losses under which in all parts of Ireland the peaceful section of the population are suffering. It is profoundly untrue to say that those things are not closely studied. It is undoubtedly equally true that we have not found a remedy for all these mischiefs, nor do I believe that there is any body of men, however well intentioned and competent, who could have found a remedy.
I have been careful, and reflection will show that I must be careful, when I speak in this House on the subject of compensation. I had hoped that the suggestion I made in an earlier debate might have been accepted, in which I pointed out the extreme impolicy of this Government saying at this moment, while all this destruction is taking place, that in any contingency which might arise we should certainly pay compensation. What could be a more formidable and dangerous thing, when reckless men are going all over Ireland and are even now burning and destroying property, that they should go with the knowledge that in no contingency would the cost of the destruction fall upon them?
No one would suppose that any Minister with any sense of responsibility or any Government could say in this House more
1104
than I have said to make it plain—and I leave this to the judgment of my colleagues—that, of course, this Government cannot dissociate itself from all responsibility in this matter. Supposing that the Provisional Government failed in their task, what will the situation be then in regard to this matter? The situation will be that we, of course, must reassume the whole Government and the whole responsibility. The whole question is extremely complicated and it ought to be discussed in cool and careful perspective, because there is another question to be considered. Thousands of Roman Catholics have been driven from their employment in Belfast and many of them have had their homes destroyed. Is the English taxpayer to be asked to pay for that?
LORD ARMAGHDALE: Not because of their religion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord says it is not because of their religion. I have not yet discovered that the old rule which, I understand, was relied upon by both parties in Belfast—that if you can ascertain the religion of the corpse you can ascertain the religion of the assailant—has been abandoned by either side as a rough and ready method of reckoning. And the noble Lord will not, I think, dispute what has not been disputed by the leaders of the Government in Ulster—that large numbers of Roman Catholics have been forced from their homes and from their employment, and have left their homes and employment because of the treatment which they have received, which is explicable by the religion which they profess.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: The noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, but it was because they would not take the Oath of Allegiance to the King.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me I am sure, but does he say that all persons who were driven out of the shipyards and out of the cottages they were living in, and in all the instances of which we know that persons have been exposed to brutal violence—that all those cases are cases of persons who have suffered because they would not take the Oath of Allegiance to the King? I do not think it has ever been put so high as that. I have put it moderately, and I founded myself on official documents; but whether the

1105
numbers be great or whether they be small—and they arc not altogether inconsiderable, I can assure your Lordships—is it proposed that they also are to come on the British taxpayer? The British taxpayer is already supporting very considerable burdens. These matters must be looked at very carefully and with a proper sense of sympathy, of course. At the same time, we must have regard to all the circumstances which surround them.
I have this to add. I and all my colleagues are deeply sensible of the responsibility which we took in this matter. We are deeply sensible of the terrible condition in which Ireland is at this moment. We shall still continue to believe, in spite of the admonitions that are addressed to us and until we are convinced to the contrary, that we exercised a wise discretion, and we shall continue to hope that the result will ultimately and at the bar of history support us. It is somewhat irritating, when one has taken responsibility in circumstances so terrible, that one should be spoken of and spoken to almost as if one had taken a criminal course in some matter which concerned the public interest, or, if not a criminal course, at least such a course as any sane person could not conceivably have undertaken. If in these observations of mine I have shown any heat, I would only say that the kind of tone which has been adopted over and over again in speaking of that which we have done is not only proper to describe the conduct of misguided men—because we are all open to an imputation of being misguided, if it can be supported—but is such as could be adopted if we were really to be spoken of as if we had failed to give the very best of such small powers as we possess to the consideration of this question, and as if we were wholly incapable of measuring the arguments for and against.
Ever since I succeeded to the office which I hold and which I have held now for nearly four years, I can only say that Ireland has engaged my deep and constant attention. I have given infinitely more time and care to matters concerning Ireland than I have given to any other branch of my Ministerial work, and I would at least say that, whatever else may be said against us, it should not be lightly suggested that we have been either inattentive to or inconsiderate of the great charge which we well know to have been imposed upon us.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I certainly do not desire to emulate the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack by importing heat into this debate; but I really cannot permit him on this occasion to do that which he has done on several previous occasions—that is, by a most imperfect narrative of events, to connect all those in this House who supported the Treaty last December, with the policy of His Majesty's Government, against which we continuously protested.
I do not in the least desire to take part in the discussion between my noble friend behind me and the Lord Chancellor as to the present operations. Since the Treaty was made we have studiously refrained from saying a single word which could embarrass the country, or embarrass the operations, but we have to-night, for the first time, come forward and said: "If your policy, which the Lord Chancellor endeavours to saddle upon this House, proves to be one, as it is proving to be one, which causes immense loss to those who have supported Great Britain in the past, and who are living orderly and quiet lives, without any political bias of any description, the responsibility lies on this country."
I desire to say, in a few sentences, how we regard, the position taken up by the Lord Chancellor. If I were to answer the speech which he has made I should have to go back to the whole conduct of the Government from the insurrection of 1916. At that period, I would remind your Lordships, the noble and learned Viscount was holding office. From that time up till the conclusion of the Treaty this House has again and again urged upon the Government the unwisdom of their policy, and the certain collapse of the steps which they were taking. The Government were warned that they were acting in such a manner that they were losing the confidence not of one section but of all sections of Irishmen. The noble and learned Viscount now speaks as if the Treaty concluded last December were part of a consecutive line of policy pursued by His Majesty's Government. It is nothing of the kind. It was decided upon after a series of meanderings of policy in various directions, and after the Government, through the mouth of the noble and learned Viscount himself, had most strenuously taken up an entirely different position.
In the month of June last year the Government adumbrated one policy, and in the month of July they went back on every

1107
profession which they had made in the previous twelve months. So far from the action taken in December last in making the Treaty being the direct outcome and consequence of their previous conduct, it was exactly the reverse. It was nothing but a desperate gamble, and a gamble in which they staked not merely the rights of this country, but the lives and property which are now being sacrificed in Ireland. They cannot in justice accuse us of producing chaos because they had for six months continued negotiations, and allowed government to lapse during that period. If the present Ministers of Ireland had been archangels they could not have rescued the country in the limited period of time which has since elapsed.
Having acted against our advice, and in spite of our protest, continually made, both publicly and in private, the Government came forward and said: "We have made a Treaty." That Treaty was a direct violation—I say this with the fullest responsibility—of the pledged word of the Prime Minister to the House of Commons given a year before. It is impossible to regard it in any sense as a sequence of Government policy. It was a violation of pledges. It was in consequence, no doubt, of what had been said by the Prime Minister that violent resistance occurred in Ireland. For that I think the country still holds the Prime Minister and his colleagues responsible. We hold them responsible for a great deal of the revolutionary spirit which arose in consequence of the absurd Bill passed in 1920 against the protests of every Irishman sitting, in this House. I cannot allow the Government to trespass on our indulgence over and over again in this matter, and say that their previous policy directly led up to the present great concession, because they did everything to make that concession useless, as has, in fact, been proved.
Had they offered anything in reason before, there would have been some chance of its being accepted and worked. Supposing that the offer made by Lord Balfour with regard to the debts owing to this country by the Allies were accepted tomorrow, I certainly think it would be most unpatriotic for anybody who believes that a better settlement might have been made to come forward in Parliament and endeavour to repudiate that settlement. In the same way your Lordships' House, I think, showed the highest patriotism in giving large majorities in
1108
favour of the Treaty. The Lord Chancellor has on several occasions attempted to prove that your Lordships were consequently as much involved in the responsibility for the Treaty as His Majesty's Government. I repudiate that. I have not attempted to-night to indicate the exact policy I would myself have pursued under the circumstances, but I say that the responsibility is the Government's. They cannot shuffle out of it, and place it upon the shoulders of any other body of men. If that policy produces, as it is producing, enormous loss, then the Government must shoulder the responsibility for meeting that loss.
My sole desire is to make it perfectly clear that we hold His Majesty's Government to account for the terrible state of affairs which has arisen in Ireland. I do not mean merely for what they did last December. That is only one part of it. I mean that we hold them responsible for the whole policy which led up to the present situation, and which made the concession when it did come—I should not like to say valueless, but at the least not so valuable to the Irish people as it would have been in other circumstances. I do not wish to use strong language, but I do not believe that His Majesty's Government have at this moment the confidence of a single Irishman, or of any section of people in that country, North or South.
I do not think the state of Ireland will become what your Lordships would desire to see it until this Government has come to an end. That is my firm conviction, and I should not have risen to intrude it upon your Lordships this evening at the end of a session if I did not feel strongly about the attempt of the Government to make out that the unfortunate dissolution of society in Ireland is due to the perverse-ness of Irishmen themselves. That attempt I regard as most dangerous. I believe the present position to be due largely to the vacillation that has characterised the whole of the Government's Irish policy over a series of years; since the resignation of the Earl of Balfour seventeen years ago. In support of that contention I could cite well-known tributes from Liberal Chief Secretaries as to the condition of Ireland in 1906, and I confess that I should regard the prospect in Ireland much more darkly than I do if I did not see in the policy which has been pursued here some palliative of the present condition of that country.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.