Lords Sitting of 1 December 1922

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EARL FARQUHAR.
The Right Hon. Horace Brand Viscount Farquhar, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., having been created Earl FARQUHAR—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be nit into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that this Bill be reported to the House without amendment.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I should like to explain the reason which has determined some of us to put down no Amendments on the Committee stage of this great and far-reaching Bill. It is that, owing to the procedure that has been adopted from the start, the whole thing, so far as Parliamentary intervention is concerned, has been a gigantic farce. Parliament has had no voice in this matter from beginning to end. The first thing that happened was
174
that a junta of Ministers in Downing Street made what they called a Treaty on the part of the British Government, by which they agreed to surrender to the forces of murder in Ireland. Having made that Treaty, they then came to the Houses of Parliament and said: "Unless you endorse this Treaty, we shall he breaking the word of the British Government. Therefore, you are bound to vote for the Treaty, and you can make no change in it." So the subservient Houses of Lords and Commons, rather than allow the word of British Ministers to be broken, and having regard to the fact that there had been a complete surrender to the forces of disorder ill Ireland, adopted the Treaty.
Then, as the second stage of the farce, a Bill came up to legalise the Treaty. When that came you were told: "You must not alter a line of this Bill, because both Houses of Parliament have already passed the Treaty." So the two subservient Houses, having, I suppose, no other course open to them, adopted the highly dignified course, as representative institutions, of saving "We have no voice whatsoever in the matter, and the bureaucracy in Downing Street still governs." Now comes the Constitution. But before I mention the Constitution, may I say that at each of these stages, in each of these acts of the farce that was being played, we were always told that the next stage would be the particular stage upon which we shout I be within our rights in raising Amendments?
Now comes the Constitution. I hope His Majesty's Government will not imagine for a moment that I am finding fault with them for the course which they have taken. They have inherited adamnosa hereditas; they have inherited something which I know is horrible to them, and which, as the late Lord Chancellor said last night, has to be carried on along the road which you have taken, however bloody that road may be. This Bill comes before His Majesty's House of. Commons, a newly elected House, with the new Government, and is there passed without Amendment. And I would ask the House to observe what was the statement of the Attorney-General in the course of the farce that was played out there, because that gives the reason why we are debarred from putting down Amendments here. The Attorney-General said:—
"I want to say at once, if I may, to the Committee, that it would be impossible for His

175
Majesty's Government to accept any Amendment which altered the Constitution as passed by the Irish Parliament. The reason why it is impossible to accept an Amendment which alters the Constitution is that our obligation is to pass, before December 6, the Constitution as passed by the Irish Parliament. If, therefore, we altered the Constitution, then the enactment passed is not the Constitution which the Irish Parliament has passed, and the result would be that on December 6 the position arises that there is no Constitution created and there is, therefore, no constitutional authority in Southern Ireland."
In the history of Parliament was there ever such a comment on the whole proceeding as that which was made by the Attorney-General the other evening in the House of Commons?
This Constitution, which affects not only Ireland, but, what is so little considered, the interests of this country, cannot be discussed in Committee or one line of it altered in Committee, because if you do you may get beyond the date of December 6. A more absolutely hopeless, farcical proceeding, as representing, or pretending to represent, legislation under Parliamentary institutions. I venture with great respect to submit to your Lordships, has never been known in the whole of our history. If December. 6 was the real reason, a short Bill enacting that the date should be extended until two or three weeks later would probably have passed both Houses at one sitting. Therefore, that is not the real reason. Your Lordships will excuse me for saying that the real reason is that in the surrender of last year England was beaten to her knees, driven out of Ireland, and she has never been able since to assert her position, or to stand up for one moment against the powers of organised anarchy and murder that existed in Ireland.
I have merely made these observations, sad as the reflection may be, in order that the many hundreds of people who have written to me pointing out how they will stand when this Bill passes—how the betrayal of this country will sweep away from them every ray of hope of what they had expected under British Government—may understand that it would be useless for me on their behalf, even if I had the power to do so, to attempt to alter one line, or one comma, in a Constitution for Ireland in which neither the House of Commons nor this House, nor indeed the I British Government, have had a single voice.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, there are just one or two words that I should
176
like to say, as this is the last chance. We have been told by high legal authority that the Constitution and the Treaty are in full agreement. It is not for me to dispute for a moment such a judgment as that, but I cannot help thinking that it is my duty to tall attention to Article 49 of the Bill, and Article 7 (b) of the Treaty. Now Article 7 (b) of the Treaty provides that the Government of the Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces—
"In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On a point of Order, may I ask whether we shall not come later to these Articles?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that we report the Bill without amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are you not going to take the Schedules?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have put the Question that the Schedules stand part.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I never heard the Question put by the Chairman, and I have a question to put.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I put the Question of the Schedules, and I put the Preamble and Title, and the last Question winch I put, which is now before the Committee, is that the Bill he reported without amendment to the House. On that Question, Lord Carson and Lord Sydenham are perfectly in order.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I have read the words of Article 7 (b) of the Treaty. They mean that the. British Navy would have the power of using Irish ports in time of war. But now turn to Article 49 of the Constitution, and what we have there is this—
"Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas."
It is very difficult to believe that those two Articles are in agreement, and it does seem as if time vital provision made in the Treaty for preserving the use of Irish ports in time of war had been abandoned. Your Lordships are aware that if, in the course

177
of a war, the British Navy found it necessary to use any port of Southern or Western Ireland, that would, in actual fact, make the Free State into a belligerent country.
Of course, it would be quite futile of me to attempt to raise great questions of naval and military defence which these proceedings involve, and it would be improper to do so at this stage. But I do want to point out, as an old student of Imperial defence in all its aspects, that I consider that this Bill must have the effect of immensely weakening the citadel of our Empire in circumstances which may easily arise in the future. That is exactly what the world revolutionaries who have brought Ireland to her present state intended, and it was a great mistake on the part of the late Government that it did not see that the revolution in Ireland was only part of a great scheme for the destruction of our Empire—that it was a very important part and a very dangerous part, and a part which, I am sorry to say, met with extraordinary success.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry that I missed the Question that was put by the noble Chairman, but of course at this stage I can ask questions, and in the first place I would ask the Government this: In the case of a question whether the Constitution, or a law made under the Constitution, is repugnant to the Treaty, what Court will decide that question eventually? Can it he brought eventually to the Privy Council, and, if so, who can bring it? I see a provision in the Constitution that the Irish High Court may take cognisance of this question, but it is not clear to me as a layman how the question can be brought to the Privy Council, which surely is the Court that ought to have the decision in the interests of the Empire.
Then I should like to ask, in regard to Article 1, what is meant by the words "co-equal member of the Community of Nations"? That is wholly different language from that of the Treaty, and I do not understand it. My next question is in relation to Article 3, the extraordinary Article dealing with citizenship of the Irish Free State. I do not ask the Government to explain it, because I do not suppose for a moment that they can, or that the authors could if they were asked. What I want to know is this. If an Englishman, or an Ulsterman, or an Australian goes to live in Ireland, will he, by right of his British
178
citizenship, be entitled to a vote in Southern Ireland, if he conforms to the ordinary laws about residence, and so forth? Or will he be debarred from a vote unless he goes through the routine or ritual of claiming the status of an Irish citizen?
Again, in respect of Article 5, I never heard before that the Royal Prerogative could be limited in the way there suggested, and I would ask the Government whether it can be so limited. And what is the meaning of Article 7? It says that "the dwelling of each citizen is inviolable." Does that mean that the dwelling of an Englishman resident in Ireland, who has not become a citizen, is not inviolable? Has that any meaning, and, if so, what? With regard to Article 41, I notice that that is not quite in the same form as the corresponding provision in the case of the Dominions of Australia, Canada, and South Africa. There, unless my memory deceives me, there is also the power of disallowance. Why has the power of disallowance been left out in this case?
I want also to draw attention to Article 49, to which my noble friend Lord Sydenham also referred. Of course, we all know that the active participation of Australia and Canada in the late war was, in one sense, voluntary; that is to say, unless the people and Parliament of Australia and Canada had wished to send contingents to France no contingents would have gone. In that sense it is perfectly true that active participation in war is a voluntary action on the part of a Dominion. But I think Article 49 is meant to go much further than that. Although there might be no active participation in that sense, is it not the case that there can be no neutrality within the Empire, that the whole Empire, including Ireland, is either at war or at peace, and that, although the Irish Free State Government might refuse to send a single regiment, to the war, they are nevertheless in a state of war if the Empire is at war?
Article 60 says—
"The Representative of the Crown, who shall be styled the Governor-General of the Irish Free State (Saorstá t Eireann) shall be appointed in like manner as the Governor-General of Canada and in accordance with the practice observed in the making of such appointments."
I know exactly how the Governor-General is appointed, but I do not know exactly what is meant by "the practice observed in the making of such appointments," and I should be very glad to know what exactly is intended by that.

179
Then, again, on the question of appeal, Articles 65 and 66, is it quite certain that a private individual can, if he chooses, appeal to the Privy Council for leave to appeal and—what is more important still, I venture to think is it clear that the Government, either the Imperial Government or the Government of the Trish Free State, can have a case stated to the Privy Council in respect of the Constitution or the interpretation of the Constitution, as, I think, was carefully provided in every previous Home Rule Bill? I think all the Bills of Mr. Gladstone and the Bill of Mr. Asquith and the Bill of the late Government in 1920 contained provisions that a special case might be taken to the Privy Council for the interpretation of the Constitutions.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I have ventured to give private notice of a question to my noble friend who leads the House, and also to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in regard to a point that. I raised yesterday, and which the noble and learned Viscount has allowed me to raise again at this stage. The question I asked—and the answer is still uncertain—is about the proviso to Article 3, which says that certain people described as "citizens of another State" may elect not to accept Irish citizenship. The meaning of the words "citizen of another State" is uncertain. It may mean a citizen of an alien State only, or it may mean a citizen of the United kingdom, of which everybody in Ireland is a citizen until the passing of this Bill. May I add that I am not pressing the personal question, for I have long ago made a declaration that I never intended to live in Ireland again, and, therefore, this question does not affect me personally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I will endeavour to reply to the questions which have been raised—raised, except in the case of the noble Earl, without previous notice. I quite understand why my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, now that happily he is able again to take part in our proceedings, should desire to make clear the reasons why he and his friends have not moved Amendments to this Bill. I follow entirely what he has said about the position he takes up. I have not the least desire to enter into controversy with him, and I will only say what was said yesterday in
180
this House, namely, that the real reason for pressing these Bills through Parliament in this short time is that which I and my noble friend behind me gave. We came into office at a moment when the period for the passing of this Constitution had very nearly elapsed. As soon as Parliament was able to meet we brought these Bills before Parliament, and we thought it our duty to ask Parliament, if they thought fit, to pass them within the time available, subject, of course, to the special clauses which we had inserted in the Bill and which seemed to us to meet the most, urgent and pressing points. Having said that, I really do not think I need repeat what was said yesterday on that question.
A number of points have been raised which might, I think, have been raised yesterday and which are not very conveniently raised on this last Motion in Committee that the Bill he reported to the House; but I will do my best to answer them fully and clearly. My noble friend Lord Sydenham raised the question of the effect of Article 49 of the Constitution upon the provisions of Article 7 of the Treaty. Article 7 of the Treaty provides that the Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces certain facilities both in the harbours of Southern Ireland and on land in times of war or of strained relations with a foreign Power. That Agreement is not and cannot be abrogated or affected in any way by any provision of the Constitution. Article 49 provides that—
"Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State….shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of the—"
Parliament of Southern Ireland. It is for noble Lords to say, but I think the two are wholly consistent.
The Government of the Irish Free State are bound to give us in time of war or of strained relations the facilities provided for in the Treaty. Under the Constitution their Government is not entitled to commit the Free State to active participation without the consent of the Parliament of Southern Ireland, but that is quite a different thing. I agree with what the noble Earl behind me said, that if facilities are given the country may be said to be no longer neutral. There is no question here of neutrality; it may be that, by their giving facilities, neutrality goes, but it is quite consistent with that that active participation by the

181
forces of the Free State should not be given without the consent of the Parliament of that State.
LORD CARSON: Before the Lord Chancellor passes from that point, might I ask him what seems to me to be an important question? Assuming that under the Constitution the Free State are bound in time of war to give the facilities named, who is to be the judge as to whether those facilities are granted and how are the facilities to be decided? Supposing the Free State say: "We have given you all the facilities you are entitled to under the Treaty," and that you say: "No, you have not given us those," who is to decide that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is, of course, no tribunal to decide a matter of that kind. Here is the Treaty. We are entitled to have it fulfilled. I apprehend that in time of war, or even in time of strained relations, we shall be in a position to see that we get the facilities to which we are, by this Agreement and by law, entitled.
I pass now to the questions which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He asked me first what court would have the right to decide whether a provision in the Constitution is or is not repugnant to something in the Treaty.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Or any law made under it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Or any law made under it. I think the answer is quite clear. That point can be raised in the Irish Courts. The Constitution says so, and if it did not say so, the result would be the same. It may be argued and decided in the Courts of Southern Ireland, first in the Supreme Court and then in the Court of Appeal. If in any case any party to the litigation is not satisfied with the decision of the Irish Courts, that party can petition His Majesty for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Thereupon, if leave is granted, the question will be threshed out here and a decision given. That is, I think, the clear answer to that question.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could His Majesty's Government raise the question?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to deal with that on the second point
182
raised by the noble Earl, of which I wish he had given me a few minutes' notice. It is true that the provisions which were found in the Government of Ireland Acts entitling either Government to raise a general question before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not found in this Constitution or in the Treaty. But—I am subject to correction by those who know the rules so well, especially by my noble and learned friend opposite, Lord Haldane—I say that nevertheless there is an old Statute, a Statute of some years' standing, under which general questions of this kind can be raised. I remember several such cases being raised from Canada, and I remember at least one such case being raised from South. Africa, I think, although I will not say so with any certainty to-day, that Statute would apply so as to enable general questions to be raised affecting the Government of the Free State of Ireland.
Then, my noble friend asked me what is the meaning of the expression in Article 1 of the Constitution which makes the Free State a "co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations." Many of us, I think, have used similar expressions with regard to all our great Dominions. We talk about the sister nations of the British Commonwealth and make use of expressions of that kind. It is a perfectly general expression, and I think that if one desired to find out the actual relations between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom, he would have to refer not to those general expressions but to the express provisions in the Treaty and the Constitution, especially that provision of the Treaty under which the Free State is to be in exactly the same position as the great Dominion of Canada.
My noble friend also asked me a question with regard to Article 3 of the Constitution. He put his question in this way: Will an Englishman, for instance, going to reside in Ireland get the vote for the Parliament of the Irish Free State? I think the answer is plain. Article 3 and other Articles give the franchise in the Irish Free State to persons who are made citizens by that Article. That is, to put it broadly, those who are domiciled ill the Irish Free State, who have lived there for so many years and who otherwise satisfy the conditions of the Article. As to all

183
others, the operative words are the final words of the Article, which provides that—
"the conditions governing the future acquisition….of citizenship in the Irish Free State….shall be determined by law."
Therefore it is for the Free State to determine by law whether, and under what conditions, the franchise shall be granted to those who do not fulfil the definition of an Irish citizen as laid down in the Article of the Treaty; and it is impossible for anybody to prophesy or to say, to-day, whether the franchise would be given to a person who was in the position described by the noble Earl.
The noble Earl opposite, Lord Arran, was good enough to raise again the point he raised yesterday with regard to what seems to me to be a very difficult and ambiguous provision in that same Article. The Article provides—
"that any such person—"
that, of course, is a person who has lived for seven years in Southern Ireland, and so on—
"being a citizen of another State may elect not to accept the citizenship hereby conferred…"
When the noble Earl raised the point yesterday it was a new point to me, and I expressed an off-hand opinion, but I have thought it over since, and I am not confident that I arrived at the right conclusion.
I think it may be argued that the words "citizen of another State" in that Article mean citizen of some State other than Southern Ireland, or, possibly, other than the United Kingdom and Ireland, and, therefore, that the particular persons for whom the noble Earl speaks—I know he was not thinking of himself—would not be held entitled to declare themselves out of the position of Irish citizens. I do not want to go further. I do not think it would be right to go further. It is not a matter for us here to decide. I want the noble Earl to understand that I do not feel sure that the persons to whom he refers would have the particular option attempted to be conferred by Article 3. I must needs leave the matter there, because one cannot dictate to the Irish Parliament what course they should take.
My noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned again Article 5. He will forgive me for saving that the matter was raised yesterday in his absence, and I endeavoured to give a full reply. I hope he will be kind enough to refer to the answer which was given
184
yesterday. The noble Earl referred also to Article 7, which provides that "the dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law," and he asked whether the dwelling of a resident in Ireland who is not a citizen within the meaning of this Constitution would be subject to be entered without any legal power. I think not. Whether this Article is there or not the law must prevail in Ireland as elsewhere, and I am confident that no Irish law which has been or may be passed will entitle anybody to violate or to enter the dwelling of any inhabitant there without some legal authority. I rather agree with what was said by the learned Attorney-General in another place, that this Article is really surplusage, and adds nothing to the rights which the law already gives.
The noble Earl next passed to Article 41, and he said—I do not understand why—that that Article gives no power to the Governor-General of the Free State to withhold the King's assent.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, no. If I might interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, that is not what I said. According to my recollection there are two powers reserved to the Imperial Government or Parliament in connection with Dominion legislation, always to be exercised, of course, with the greatest discretion and in very special circumstances. One is the power of the Governor-General to reserve. That is in this Constitution. But there is also another power, which is not in the Constitution, and that is that if the Governor-General has not reserved within a certain period the Secretary of State may, within two years, recommend the Crown to disallow. That power has been used on very important occasions, and it is not to be found in this Constitution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a double power to be found here. First, the power of withholding the King's Assent, which, of course, is to disallow; secondly, the power to reserve. It will be for the Governor-General either to give the Assent or to withhold it, or to reserve the Assent. In the last case, of course, the matter is referred home in order that it may be considered by the Imperial Government. I agree that, except in these respects, no power to veto a Bill is given by this Constitution, but I think the House will consider that the treble option—

185
the power to give Assent, or to refuse it altogether, Or to reserve the matter—will be sufficient to meet the case.
The next question asked referred to Article 60 of the Constitution, which provides that the representative of the. Crown shall be appointed in accordance with the practice observed in the making of similar appointments in Canada. I think we all know what the practice is. The practice is to consult the Government of the Dominion, to take their view but not to be bound by it, and I think exactly the same practice will be followed with regard to the Free State.
The last question which was put to me referred to Articles 65 and 66, and the noble Lord particularly asked whether, under the proviso to Article 66, a private person could ask leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not doubt that he could. The practice to-day with regard to Canada and the other great Dominions is clear. A person, even a private person, who desires to appeal and is a party to litigation out there, and is dissatisfied with the result, may come here and petition for leave. If the case is important, enough and he otherwise satisfies conditions which are well known, leave is granted, and thereupon the matter is thrashed out. I think that would be exactly the position under this proviso. Therefore, I can answer the question of my noble friend in the affirmative. I think, my Lords, that answers all the questions.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, I very much deprecate any attempt to catechise the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on an occasion like this, to put to him questions of the utmost nicety upon a quite novel legislative experiment, and expect him to give more or less offhand answers which will no doubt, coming from so high an authority, be quoted and relied upon hereafter—answers, however, which in another place, and when be comes to preside over the Tribunal which will ultimately have to decide these questions, will neither bind him nor anybody else. Therefore, I rise in order to give him the opportunity of letting us know whether, by inadvertence, he said less than I think he meant to say on one of these points, or whether it is possible for him to clear up the doubt—if I rightly apprehend what he said, or what I thought he said, in answering the question
186
put by my noble friend, Lord Sydenham, about the effect of the Crown's exercising its right to have facilities in various ports in Ireland.
If I rightly caught my noble and learned friend's reply, he said that no doubt, after that had been done, it might be that there would be an end put to neutrality. I am not quite sure those were his exact words, but that was the impression produced upon my mind. If it were left there I think there might be an undesirable amount of ambiguity remaining, and I should wish, if it is not inconvenient to him, to draw his attention to the matter, so that, if he thinks the matter requires any amplification, he may have an opportunity of amplifying it.
I should like to put the question broadly, whether it is not the case that when His Majesty declares war all His Majesty's Dominions, including the Irish Free State, will be at war, and that when His Majesty is pleased to conclude peace, that State, like every other State in His dominions, will thereupon be at peace—there being, I suggest, nothing which is known to the law of the British Empire which would enable one part of it to be neutral as between His Majesty's enemies and His Majesty himself—and whether, therefore, the results do not follow that it is upon the declaration of war by His Majesty, or the engaging in war by His Majesty, even without a Declaration of War, that the question of the neutrality or otherwise of the Irish Free State will depend, with all those things that follow from the fact of a country coining into a state of war—namely, that trading with the enemy becomes illegal, contracts which may have been entered into are ended, and that trading with the enemy involves those who do so in the crime and punishments which attach to that act? Unless I am mistaken, I think he stated his proposition rather more briefly and narrowly than he would wish to do, and I thought this a proper opportunity on which to raise the point, so that if he desires to correct or modify it at all he could do so. I do not wish to entice him or encourage him into a wider exposition of the law than in his discretion he thinks proper on this occasion.
May I take one other point on which he said his recollection was not quite accurate? My own recollection is not quite accurate, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount opposite, Lord Haldane,

187
who is a repository of knowledge on these points, might be able to put it right. I think I am right in saying that with regard to the power of the Government to obtain a decision of the Privy Council otherwise than in litigation, and otherwise than as a party to litigation, there is, of course, His Majesty's prerogative right to refer questions for report to the Privy Council. To a certain extent it is regulated by Statutes. There is in the case of Canada a statutory provision under which the Government of Canada can, and I regret to say does, put to the Privy Council conundrums upon the Statutes affecting the Government of Canada, which the Privy Council is bound to answer, though it sometimes postpones the answers to a more convenient season.
Whether the provisions in the Treaty include a general obligation to pass such a Statute as that which applies in Canada I am not prepared to say. There will be time to decide that point later on. But that is one direction in which there may be an obligation under this Treaty to pass such legislation as will enable the Government of the Irish Free State to take the opinion of the Privy Council direct upon a disputable question of the interpretation of the Constitution or Statutes. And, on the other hand, there is certainly, so far as I can see, nothing in the Constitution which impairs His Majesty's right, subject to Imperial Statutes already existing, to require His Privy Council to inquire into and report on any question which it seems to him fit they should report upon. Having said that, it is only for the assistance of my noble and learned friend if it carries his recollection any further. On the other point I rather apologise for having intervened, but I thought possibly there might have been less said than my noble and learned friend thought desirable.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I only rise in order to say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord in what he has said as to the powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for inquiry and the method of invoking them. There is yet another way. When private litigation comes before the Sovereign in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it is, and it always has been, the practice of the Judicial Committee, if it thinks the question is one which raises great public interests in which the Crown is concerned, to intimate its opinion that the Crown should be represented; that is to
188
say, that the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State and the Attorney-General of England should come in and argue the case. What the Constitutional position is under Acts 3 and 4 William IV, which enables the Crown to refer general questions to the Privy Council, I am not prepared to say without further consideration. It is a question which no doubt will be affected by the constitutional practice of the advisers of the Crown in the Irish Free State, but I have no reason at present to controvert what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should like, however, to take a little more time to think it over before I committed myself upon the subject.
On Question, Bill reported without Amendment.

IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to adapt enactments, & c.
6.—(1) His Majesty may, by Order in Council,—

(a) make such adaptations of any enactments so far as they relate to any of His Majesty's Dominions other than the Irish Free State as may appear to him necessary or proper as a consequence of the establishment of the Irish Free State;

(b) make such provision as may appear to him necessary or proper for effecting the severance of the system of national health insurance in Great Britain from that in the Irish Free State, and for giving effect to any arrangements which may be made with the Irish Free State for that purpose, and for requiring such transfers of funds of societies and branches whose principal office is situate in Great Britain as may be necessary to give effect to any apportionments made in pursuance of the Order, and as to the application and disposal of the funds so transferred, and for extending to Northern Ireland and to societies and

189
branches whose principal office is situate in Northern Ireland the like provisions as are made by any such Order in respect to Great Britain and societies and branches whose principal office is situate in Great Britain;

(c) give effect to any reciprocal arrangements which may be made with the Irish Free State with respect to unemployment insurance:

(d) make such provision with respect to the management of the National Debt and Government Securities and Annuities (including India Stock) as may be necessary to secure that the management thereof shall not as respects any part thereof be transacted within the Irish Free State;

and any such Order in Council may contain such supplemental, consequential, and incidental provisions as may appear necessary or proper for the purposes of the Order, and any such Order shall, subject to revocation or alteration by a subsequent Order, have effect as if enacted in this Act.
(2) Any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it. is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything which in the meantime may have been done thereunder.
(3) Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order in Council made under this section.
LORD MACDONNELL LORD MACDONNELL moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out "as respects any part thereof" and insert "except to such extent as may be authorised by the Order." The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is that the Government should give itself a further discretion before it decides to withdraw the power for registering transfers of Government securities, which, as I understand, has been operative in Ireland since the year 1797. The withdrawal of this power will have a great and injurious effect in Southern Ireland. It will greatly hamper commercial transactions between the people, greatly retard banks and borrowers in their mutual transactions, and cause intense irritation amongst the general public. I quite understand that it is within the power of the British Government to withdraw from the Irish Free State this practice of registering transfers of Government securities, and I do not want to question that power. All I ask is that it should be put into operation slowly and tentatively and that nothing in this Bill should preclude the Government, if it saw
190
fit at a future time, from restoring the practice which has been prevalent in Ireland for so long.
I may perhaps be permitted to say that my object in no way conflicts with the Amendment which the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, has on the Paper on this clause. I have no objection whatever to every commercial facility being given to the North of Ireland, but there is no reason, so far as I know, why this practice should not be allowed to continue in the South. I think that the discretion, the elasticity, which I should like to see in this clause, would be secured by the deletion of the words mentioned in my Amendment, and the substitution of those which I suggest.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("as respects any part thereof") and insert ("except to such extent as may be authorised by the Order").—(Lord MacDonnell.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): The paragraph to which the noble Lord's Amendment refers is part of a clause which, as the noble Lord no doubt is aware, is merely an empowering clause, which enables Orders in Council to be issued. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in another place, stated that no Orders would be issued until all the interested parties had been heard and their observations considered. As a matter of fact, I see no reason why I should not accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I think possibly the point may be covered by the Amendment which I shall move in a few moments, but, if it will satisfy the noble Lord, I see no objection to accepting his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved, after paragraph (d) of subsection (1), to insert:
"or to enable the business of the Bank of Ireland in relation thereto to be partly transacted at an office of the Bank in Northern Ireland, and in the latter case to apply in respect of any securities or annuities inscribed or registered in the books and registers kept at such office the provisions applicable in respect of securities and annuities inscribed or registered in the books and registers kept at the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland."
The noble Duke said: The Amendment which I now have to move is in furtherance of an undertaking given by my right hon.

191
friend, in another place, to enable the Bank of Ireland to keep books for the inscription and registration of Government stock in the Belfast branch as well as in Dublin. This undertaking was given in response to many inquiries in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, after ("State")insert the said words.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD GLENAVY LORD GLENAVY moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
"(8) In furtherance of the provisions of the Treaty (Clause 10) all judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other public servants who are discharged by the Government of the Irish Free State, or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected by this Act, shall be entitled to payment of fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920."
The noble Lord said: I invite careful consideration to the terms of the Amendment which I now have the privilege to move. It does not raise any great constitutional question, or any question involving international law. It merely provides security for the future of that enormous body of civil servants who, under the Treaty, and through this legislation, will be transferred from Imperial control to that of the Irish Free State. I have not put down this Amendment for the purpose or with the idea of delaying in any way the passage of this legislation. As one whose home has always been, and still is, in Southern Ireland, I am anxious that this Treaty and the Constitution should be ratified at the earliest date in order to fortify the new Government of Ireland with its proper powers. At the same time, I think I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords that, as the proposal stands at present, this great body of public officials, the civil servants, have not received the protection to which they are entitled.
Under the Act of 1920, very elaborate provisions indeed, with lengthy schedules, were made for their protection, providing for compensation in the case of compulsory retirement, and making elaborate provisions which were really a charter for these people. But all this has been abrogated by the Treaty, and now the
192
situation in which they stand is as follows. Article 10 of the Treaty reads in this way:
"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof."
That is the sole and only provision that now exists for the future protection of any of these officials who may find that they are compelled to retire or may be coerced to retire.
There is an exception. The Government have included in this Bill a schedule which makes special provision in the case of Judges of the High Court and County Court Judges. This was introduced by the Government, and will come on for consideration in a few minutes. I point that out to show that His Majesty's Government have realised that, at least as regards the officials whom I have mentioned, further protection was required. If further protection was necessary in the case of these highly placed and highly paid officials, I think I am entitled to enlist the sympathy of your Lordships on behalf of those officials who are in minor positions, and are not equally able to protect their own interests.
The point which I wish specially to make is that, under this Article of the Treaty, the only provision made for them is an agreement between the Irish Free State Government and the Imperial Government to give them fair play. That is excellent so far as it goes, and I am not to be taken for a moment as throwing the slightest doubt upon the sincerity and good faith of the present Government of the Irish Free State. I have followed their progress for the last two months with the greatest interest and care at home, and I am bound to say that I have been tremendously impressed, not only by their courage and sincerity, but also by the qualities of statesmanship and moderation which they have displayed. But this Government may change, its constituent elements will disappear, new men and new ideas will prevail, and, if any individual official finds himself deprived of the privileges or advantages which this clause in the Treaty is supposed to safeguard, what is his remedy? I respectfully submit that he has none. As the noble and learned Lord Chancellor stated last night, in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord opposite

193
(Lord Killanin), it would be a breach of the Treaty if in any particular case an individual did not receive the justice to which he was entitled. But it will be a very poor satisfaction indeed to such a man to be told that his only remedy is to seek to have it made acasus belli between the two Governments.
What I want to secure is that his right to fair treatment and full compensation shall not depend upon au agreement between the members of one Government and the members of another, but shall be put into this Bill, and thereby given statutory force, which will enable the individual to sue. I propose, therefore, that we shall now insert a clause which will follow the very words of the article of the Treaty that I have read, instead of allowing the matter to rest upon an agreement or an undertaking on the part of the Free State Government. I propose that it should be in the Statute itself, and I move the insertion of the following clause, which, as your Lordships will see, follows literally the words of the Article of the Treaty, with this distinction, and this distinction only, that it gives a statutory right, instead of a right dependent upon the agreement or undertaking of the Government of the Irish Free State—
"In furtherance of the provisions of the Treaty (Clause 10) all Judges, officials, members of Police Force and other public Servants who are discharged by the Government of the Irish Free State or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected by this Act shall be entitled to payment of fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920."
Therefore your Lordships will see that literally and verbatim I have followed the words of the Article of the Treaty, save that I have proposed that it shall be changed from an undertaking or agreement into a statutory right on which the individual can rely, and upon any violation of which he will be entitled to seek redress. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Glenavy.)
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, as I was a member of the Cabinet which prepared the Bill of 1920, and was also responsible for that Bill in the House of Commons until, for reasons of health, I had to be absent, I desire to support the Amendment which my noble friend behind me has moved, and to tell your Lordships
194
that during the preparation of that Bill of 1920 it was my duty to have a great many interviews and conversations with the representatives of the public services, on whose behalf the Amendment is now moved by my noble and learned friend. I do not hesitate to say that these gentlemen presented their case with the utmost moderation. They asked for nothing more than that to which they are entitled, and which is granted, so far as I know, to every other servant, whether of the Crown or of a corporation in this country, in circumstances similar to those described by my noble and learned friend.
I venture to press this on behalf especially of the humbler members of these services. The bigger men will probably be adequately treated. The smaller men have much greater difficulty in presenting their case and defending themselves, and, like my noble and learned friend, I support this Amendment not because I wish to cast any doubt upon the bona fides of the Provisional Government. On the contrary, I hold that the obligation in this case is really much more properly to be borne by His Majesty's Government than by an Irish Government, for this reason, that the great mass of these men, and the class to which they belong, did not desire this change in the government of Ireland; they did not want tins Bill, and were, indeed, strongly opposed to it, and it is hardly fair to sacrifice them in the interests of the country at large. It is in the interests of the country at large that the Government propose to make this change, and if the change is to be made surely those should pay for it who are doing it because they believe it to be a great public duty.
It is not fair, I submit with great confidence, to throw upon these small men, who can ill afford it, the burden of losing the pension, or gratuity or other compensation to which they are entitled. These payments have in some cases been made, and in some cases are now being withheld, and those who are entitled to them do not know where they stand, or whether they can recover them or not. My noble and learned friend holds that the clause as drawn would not give them the right to claim or sue, and I beg His Majesty's Government to do everything to meet the case of these men, who have served in various capacities with absolute devotion and loyalty. Not a word has been said against the way they have performed their

195
duties. They have either come to the end of their service or, for political reasons, have been dismissed. Surely their request for fair treatment is one to which Parliament ought not to turn a deaf ear. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept the proposal of my noble and learned friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend Lord Glenavy, in calling attention to this matter, contrasted the position of the civil servants referred to in his Amendment with the position under this Bill of the Judges and the Land Commissioners. It is not because I am in the least going to shirk the question he has raised, but simply in order to make the matter clear, that I wish to point out to begin with that the two cases do not stand in the same position. The salaries of the Judges and the Land Commissioners to-day are charged upon the Consolidated Fund. These officials hold office for life; they cannot be removed except by an Address to Parliament; and for those reasons are specially dealt with in the Bill. The position of the civil servant is somewhat different. By Articles 77 and 78 of the Constitution all these officers are transferred to the new Southern Irish Government, and therefore they are their servants to-day, or will be their servants to-morrow, holding office on the same terms as those on which they held office under the late Government.
At the same time, the Constitution provides that all of them shall be entitled, in the event of their giving up office, to the benefits of Article 10 of the Treaty;i.e., to be compensated by the Free State Government for loss of office. Article 10 prescribes the form and the extent of the compensation. It is to be regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1920—provisions which were fully considered at the time with representatives of the Civil Service, and accepted by them as satisfactory. Therefore, their present right is to hold office as servants of the Free State Government, and if they lose office, or give it up in consequence of this change of system, they are to be compensated by that Government. So far, I am entirely with my noble and learned friend. But what he says, and says with great force, as does the noble Viscount behind me also, is that this is not enough. He says: "True, by the Treaty and by the Article of the Constitution, these men are entitled to be compensated. That is not enough for them. You must give them some further security."
196
What does he propose?; and it is here that I think the House requires to look more closely into the form of the Amendment. He proposes to put into the Bill a clause that these persons shall be entitled to the payment of fair compensation on the terms of the Act of 1920. He transfers that from the Treaty to the Bill. Of course, he means "shall be entitled to payment by the Free State Government." He cannot, of course, mean "shall be entitled to payment by our Government," because that is a provision which this House would not be entitled to insert in the Bill. He means to make statutory the obligation of the Free State Government which is in the Treaty. May I point out to him that that is statutory already by the Agreement Act? It is expressly provided that all the obligations of the Treaty shall have the force of law, and passing this Amendment will not make the least difference; it will not make the Bill the least bit stronger for the purpose of securing compensation than it is to-day. And therefore I hope he will not press the Amendment, at all events in this form.
But may I add something which I am glad to add, and which I think may bring some greater assurance to his mind, and to the minds of those admirable public servants for whom he is speaking to-day. We know exactly what the Free State Government is doing. They have appointed a Committee, the Civil Service Compensation Committee, which consists of two representatives of the Minister of Finance and of two representatives of the staff, who are, I think, entirely satisfactory to the staff interested in the matter, and which has as its chairman a distinguished Irish Judge of the Supreme Court., Mr. Justice Wylie. That Committee is appointed to deal with claims for compensation under Article 10 of the Treaty, with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into and advise the Minister of Finance as to the compensation, and all matters consequent thereon, which should be paid under Article 10 of the Treaty to any civil servant or other public servant or officer of the Irish Government who may be discharged or may retire in consequence of the change of Government."
The two representatives of the Civil Service are nominees of the Civil Service Federation, but it is expressly provided that, when a member of any other branch of the Service is interested, some representative of that branch shall be present at the meeting of the Committee to help

197
to deal with the matter. It seems to me a thoroughly fair arrangement. The Committee has sat, and has dealt already with a large number of claims. It has awarded compensation, and no question has been raised as to the decisions or proceedings of the Committee. I am sure that everybody who knows Mr. Justice Wylie will have full confidence in his action as chairman of that Committee.
So far, I think the facts which I have stated show that the Free State Government is dealing with the matter in accordance with its obligations, and exactly in the manner in which we should be disposed to deal with it in this country. That being so, I do not think we ought for a moment to assume that they will not go on to the end and fulfil the terms of the. Treaty, which are binding upon them. But I add this—and I am entitled to say it because I am only repeating pledges given by the late Government—I think, in the end, should the compensation not be paid, we are bound to see that the just and fair thing is done. And I can repeat the assurances given before, that, so far as we are concerned, we will do everything within our power to see that this term of the Treaty will be carried out, and that full justice will be done. Having regard to what I have said, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, the only part of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to which I attach the slightest importance is that contained in the last few sentences. The mover of this Amendment, my noble and learned friend Lord Glenavy, if I did not misunderstand his speech, has, I think, given no grounds for moving the Amendment. He has the utmost confidence in the Provisional Government. In fact, the eulogiums be pronounced upon them led me to the conclusion that he would wind up by saying that he himself intended to transfer his pension as an ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland from the Consolidated Fund to the Irish Fund administered by the Provisional Government. And the confidence that he and (I am more surprised still) the Lord Chancellor shows in the Provisional Government is really, I think, part of the humour of the situation. If you have so much confidence in them why not leave everything to them? Why not, like Mr. Gladstone, say they are not endowed with
198
a double dose of original sin. They are great statesmen, said my noble and learned friend. Yes, they are honest statesmen, they are doing their best, and the Lord Chancellor is absolutely delighted with the Committee they have set up, which, he says, is going to mete out justice. If all that is so, why worry about it? I am beginning to think they will be fairer than the British Government, and I do not see what all this fuss is about.
On the other hand, when I see a Government seizing hold of the College of Science in Dublin within the last few days, and forcibly turning out all the professors and students; when I get a letter from an official—who is not provided for by these Bills, though he is a very high official—telling me that within the last few days his house has been four times raided; when I see the President of the Free State and the Home Secretary get up, one to say that he has not got credit for twopence if he were to mortgage the resources of the country, and the other that they have no credit at all, then I think I know what is really in my noble and learned friend's mind.
But let us be perfectly frank about the matter. There is no use saying in one breath that we trust this Provisional Government, and in the next breath finding fault with the way in which the matter is left. The way I look at the question is this. The Lord Chancellor says that the Treaty has been already made part of the Statutes. I agree with him in that, from the legal point of view. He says, then, that the civil servants have been transferred to the Free State, and they have all the benefit of the clause of the Statute, and that that is quite enough. That is not my view of the way in which the British Government ought to discharge its duties towards faithful servants, who have served the Crown in probably the most difficult circumstances with which any body of men were ever confronted in any country.
The Lord Chancellor says: "We have transferred them to the Free State Government." Where do you get your right to transfer them? Talk of Chinese slavery! When you transferred one workman from one employer to another you had an outcry throughout this country which rent from top to bottom the Government then in power. That is nothing to the indignity,

199
as some of these men feel it to be, of transferring civil servants who took service under the British Crown, with all its honour and dignity, to a Government which only succeeded in placing itself in power, as your Lordships all know well, by murder and outrage and the creation of an anarchy unexampled in the British Empire. It is very easy to transfer these civil servants on paper; but how many of your Lordships would like to be transferred from any employment you may have at present to the Free State in Ireland? I heard a Roman Catholic who had held a high appointment say only the other evening that, according to the tenets of his Church and his own conscience, he could not for one moment take service under a Government which had come to power by the murder of his own fellow-countrymen and fellow-citizens, and I can quite understand it. Pass your Bill! Go on with your policy if you like, but put aside all this infernal hypocrisy which you are casting around it, as if it were a curtain to screen from your view the ignominy and humiliation which faces you in everything you did along the line of this base and cowardly surrender.
You have no right to transfer honest, honourable, loyal men whether they like it or not, against their will, to another power, and that a power which they hate. You know it, you are ashamed of it, and you try to cloak it every time the matter comes up for consideration. No one hates it more, and, therefore, no one tries to cloak it more, than the Government which has just come into power. You have betrayed every man who tried to serve you in Ireland, and now you are trying to betray yourselves and your own consciences. What you are doing is the outcome of a base surrender. Face it, and say: "We were beaten, and we have nothing else open to us." Do not try to throw around it a cloak of virtue, as though you were doing something which was great for these unfortunate men whom you are transferring, with chains about their necks, to their own degradation and humiliation, though that is not so great as yours who are the real transgressors in the matter.
There is nothing for it but to do as the noble Viscount: said, and he said it, I believe, in all honesty—namely, that England must make good. In the revolution to which your Lordships were parties England ought
200
to make good at all costs. A few thousands, or a few hundred thousands here or there, are nothing to be compared with the remedying of injustice. There are many men—I have the particulars of their eases in my pocket, but this is not the place where I can raise them—who have held high office, who have been overlooked, and will be turned out the day this Bill passes. There are many men who have faithfully served you who will be left, sonic of them, beggars in your midst. If you want to do justice set up at once a Committee which will openly, honestly and fairly deal with these men. I wish it were a Statutory Committee brought into existence by this Bill, because it is impossible to take each individual case and provide for it upon an occasion of this kind. If the Government will announce that they will set up a Statutory Committee to provide that any man who is wronged by this transfer which you are carrying out, not at his behest but because you think it is a policy which can be entered upon for your benefit, then, and only then, you will do something to alleviate the sufferings and anxieties which you have caused. It is well worth doing.
I do not know whether you ever contemplate how many men, who have been your faithful subjects and most loyal followers in Ireland, you are driving out into the Empire. There are thousands and thousands of them. I am seeing them from morning until night in my spare time, and I can assure your Lordships that it is no easy matter to face them. Here are thousands of your most loyal friends whom you are turning into your most bitter enemies, who are going out as missionaries to your Empire to tell the people in the Colonies awl elsewhere that the one Government in the whole world who cannot be trusted is the British Government; to warn those people that loyalty is the very worst asset that a man can possess, and that to trust a British Government is probably to lay for themselves the foundations of subsequent treachery and ruin. That is what the late Government laid the foundations of, and the sooner your Lordships stop it by putting an end to the anxieties of these men and treating them honourably and fairly, as it is consonant with the British character to do, the sooner will you allay the widespread and disastrous hostility to your country which the action of the late Government has created through the whole of your Empire.
LORD KILLANIN: I hope the Government will reconsider their decision on this matter. I raised the question last night. I addressed your Lordships on the subject some seven or eight months ago, and the House was impressed not by my remarks but by the debate generally and came to the conclusion that the view we take should be supported. An Amendment to that effect was carried last March. I raised this question last night although it was a Committee point, because I wanted to bring it forward as soon as possible; but I am very glad and proud that it has received to-day the learned and eloquent support of two noble Lords opposite who, as your Lordships all know, look at these Irish matters from different points of view, but on this particular matter are absolutely united. I think that fact ought to carry weight with His Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, says that all these civil servants pass over to the Irish Free State and, therefore, we have nothing more to say to the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I did not say that.
LORD KILLANIN: They pass into the hands of the Free State Government and, therefore, the Government here has nothing more to do with them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me; I did not say we had nothing to do with the matter. I said the exact contrary.
LORD KILLANIN: Surely these civil servants pass over to the control of the Irish Free State, in the first instance anyway, and in so far as they are civil servants who are going to remain in the service of the Irish Free State well and good. We are not talking about such men as those. We are raising this question on the assumption that these men are going to be discharged and, in that sense, are not going to become servants of the Irish Free State. Those for whom we speak are men who are either going to be discharged or who do not wish to live under that régime. On the assumption that they are going to be discharged by the Irish Free State, there is not going to be the most agreeable terms between them. I think the Government should not put
202
on the shoulders of others, which is what they are trying to do, obligations and responsibilities which they owe to their own servants the men who have served them and who now wish to leave that service, or are actually being discharged from the service of the new Government under whose control they are going to be put.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I think your Lordships will recognise that in addressing myself to a point of this kind, I have shown by many speeches how deeply I sympathise with the view which has been represented so eloquently by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and by my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson. Of course, we sympathise. No one can blame more than I do the course of policy which led up to this, but I think no useful purpose is served in repeating my view upon that now in this place. I only mention it by way of making it absolutely clear that the present Government are in no sense responsible for the policy which has led up to this Bill. That being said, how can we treat the present Amendment? I think if your Lordships will refer to-morrow, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to the speech of my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, you will see how very far the Government have gone!
In the first place he said—I believe truly—that even if your Lordships saw fit to carry this Amendment it would make no difference whatever, because it is already enacted. It is already part of the law of the land. It is one of the clauses of the Treaty which has become statutory, so that the Amendment does not add anything at all. The second observation which my noble and learned friend made was that so far as the British Government was concerned we engaged to sea the civil servants through. What more can you say than that? I think that if, upon an issue of this kind, the Government are prepared to say that though obviously the obligation rests upon the Provisional Government, yet there is behind it an obligation which we accept on the part of the British Government, no more can be said. I think the noble and learned Lord has obtained everything he can think he ought to obtain by moving his Amendment, and nothing is to be got by proceeding any further.
LORD GLENAVY: I have one or two observations to make by way of reply. I do not complain of the good-natured banter of my noble and learned friend opposite, but he was not quite fair to me in purporting to repeat the observation I made regarding my confidence in the Free State Government. I said that I had every confidence in the present members of that Government, but I took care to point out that not only do individuals in a Government change, but the Government itself changes, and that, therefore, from my point of view, I would have confidence in them, but that I could quite understand the position of these unfortunate individuals who wanted some more tangible security than merely this. As I listened to the impassioned speech of my noble and learned friend, for which I never thought my modest Amendment would be responsible, I could not help reflecting that, having regard to the tremendous interest he takes, and always has taken, in the fate and future of the civil servants, he might have been a little more favourably inclined to this Amendment, seeing that I have put it down at the express desire of a representative committee of all classes of public servants in Ireland, who consider that they need this protection.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor says that they have already in the Treaty precisely what I propose to give them. There I join issue. What they have in the Treaty, and what is ratified by this Bill when it becomes law, is an Agreement between the Free State Government and the Government of this country to treat these men fairly. But in my opinion—subject, of course, to the views that may be taken by others who may think the contrary—there is nothing in the Bill as it stands at present, and there is nothing in Article 10, which gives to the individual civil servant who may consider himself wronged or aggrieved a right of personal action. If my Amendment were adopted he would have that right, and it is on that account that I have been asked to put the Amendment before the House. I do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill in any way, and if I could receive an assurance from the noble Lords who are acting for the Government in this matter that they will consider the position, and, if they can see their way, either in this form or some other, secure for these men the right to claim this relief if refused all recourse to
204
the Courts of Law, I should be quite satisfied.
But I wish to mention this matter before I sit down. It is true that a Commission is sitting at the present time to deal with the case of civil servants, but this Article 10 does not cover civil servants only; it includes many officers who are not civil servants. Let me give one illustration to show how it may work, unless this protection and this right to sue is provided. You are coming forward in a few minutes with a schedule which the Government have themselves introduced, and which is not to be found in the Treaty—a schedule making elaborate provisions for His Majesty's Judges, including High Court and County Court Judges, in Ireland. That schedule omits three individuals who hold important judicial offices in Ireland, and who have been transferred under the provisions of this Treaty and Constitution to the Government of the Free State. I allude to the three Divisional Justices of the City of Dublin who hold positions analogous to that of County Court Judges. They have been transferred under a clause which says that they are to hold by the same tenure as heretofore. The clause goes on to say that this is only until new Courts are set up. It is well known that it is the intention of the Free State to set up new Courts immediately in Dublin.
What is going to be the position of these men? They were senior men at the Bar, all King's Counsel, men who were promoted to these positions after many years of hard work in their profession. One has eight years' service, another has four, and a third has only two. What compensation are they going to get if new Courts are set up, and their freehold tenure is destroyed? I think the clause that I propose to insert would give them this guarantee. They would know that whatever compensation they are to get is to depend not upon an agreement between the Free State Government and the Government here but upon a statutory right, following the very words of the Treaty, which has been inserted in this Bill. At the same time they have no desire to embarrass in any way the passing of this Bill, and if my noble friend will give me an assurance that the matter will be considered before the Bill is finally passed into law I shall be satisfied.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The diffi-

205
culty which lay members of the House feel arises from the different views taken by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, but what strikes me more than anything else is the great importance of the announcement and declaration which has been made by two members of the Government as to the position the British Government takes up in this matter. It is unthinkable that these men should be turned over to be dealt with in any way by those who may be supposed to be unsympathetic to their claims. Some of them are not merely members of the Civil Service, hut, as we know, members of the local services who have actually been forced to vacate their situations for obeying orders given to them by the Local Government Board at the instance of the Government here during the late trouble.
I do not wish to throw the slightest doubt on the good faith of the present authorities in Ireland. On the contrary, I believe that we ought to credit them with all possible good faith in this matter. But above and beyond that we stand by the declaration made by the Lord Chancellor and the noble Marquess who is leading the House at the moment—that in this matter His Majesty's Government has a responsibility. This is language which differs materially from the language used from the Woolsack under the last Government, that such matters ought to be dealt with by the Irish Government. That attitude has passed away and we have the much more generous and equitable declaration which has been made. I hope, therefore, the noble and learned Lord will not think it necessary to divide. The declaration itself is far more important than any words in the Bill.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I want to be quite clear as to the meaning of the declaration made by the Lord Chancellor and reinforced by the noble Marquess. Is it clear that the cases which are to be considered, in the event of failure on the part of the Irish Government to compensate, will not be limited only to civil servants? There are sonic other cases, not numerous but very hard cases, precisely analogous to those of civil servants, and I ask that they should be considered as well. If that is the case I hope my noble and learned friend will withdraw his Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a new point. Perhaps my noble friend will consider it and put it on Monday.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: It is not exactly a new point. It is the case of the civil servants to whom Lord Midleton referred. There are some civil servants under local boards and corporations who have lost their employment entirely owing to political reasons. They are entitled to pensions, and have been getting pensions, but at the moment these have been stopped, no doubt from want of money. I want to know whether their cases will be included. It is hard to say to these men: "We have passed this Act, you must pay the cost."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a new point. The Amendment only deals with persons entitled to compensation under Article 10 of the Treaty. My noble friend now seeks to bring in servants of local authorities and corporations. I do not think I can deal with that at this moment.
Loan GLENAVY: Having regard to the declaration made by the Lord Chancellor and my desire to get this Bill through at the earliest moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am satisfied with the declaration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  MODIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT, 1920, &c.
  Council of Ireland.
  3.—(1) The constitution of the Council of Ireland shall, if identical Acts for the purpose are passed by the Parliament of the Irish Free State and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, be altered in accordance with those Acts.
  (2) The appointed day for the transfer in relation to Northern Ireland of the powers, which by the Principal Act are made powers of the Council of Ireland, shall be such clay as may hereafter be fixed by Order in Council not being earlier than the day on which any such identical Acts as aforesaid come into operation or the expiration of the period of five years from the passing of this Act, Whichever may first happen.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved, at the end of Clause 3 of the First. Schedule, to insert:
  "Provided that the appointed day for the purposes of so much of section ten of the principal

  207
  Act as enacts that the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges directed by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and in force on the appointed day, may be charged until fresh provision shall be made by the Council of Ireland, or the Parliament of the United Kingdom, with regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges' shall be the date of the passing of this Act; but until such fresh provision is made, the Railway and Canal Commission shall have the like power of modifying such charges in Northern Ireland as is by section sixty of the Railways Act, 1921, conferred on the rates tribunal as respects railways in Great Britain."
  The noble Duke said: In consequence of changes in the Bill which alter the effect of the 1920 Act in relation to the railways of Northern Ireland, I am informed that unless provision is made the railways of Northern Ireland would on February 15 next have to revert to their pre-war charging powers. The Amendment is for the purpose of restoring the position to that which was intended by the 1920 Act. The British Parliament will have the power of revising the charging vowels at any period. It is right that if these charging powers are conferred they should be subject to the same modification as is applicable to other charging powers in the case of British railways. The Amendment only reverts to what was originally intended by the 1920 Act.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
PROVISIONS AS TO EXISTING IRISH JUDGES, LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND, AND IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS.
(6) For the purpose of this Part of this Schedule the expression "judge" means ally judge of a. Supreme Court and any judge of a county court or recorder of a borough; and the expression "existing" means existing or holding office at the date when the Constitution of the Irish Free State comes into operation.
LORD GLENAVY LORD GLENAVY moved, in Part I, Clause 6, that the expression "judge" should also include "the Master of the King's Bench and the Divisional Justices of the City of Dublin." The noble and learned Lord said: There are only four officials in Ireland who have been exercising
208
judicial duties under. His Majesty's Government who are left without special provision being made for them. All other persons exercising high judicial functions, including the High Court Judges, County Court Judges and members of the Irish Land Commission, have been introduced into this schedule and special provision made for their compensation and protection. These four individuals are not included, and they are the only four left.
With regard to the Master of the King's Bench, he holds a very important position and a lucrative one. The present occupant is one of His Majesty's Counsel. He was a member of the Bar for mans' years, and he has had to discharge judicial duties just as responsible as those discharged by County Court Judges. He is left unprovided for. I wish to draw special attention to the case of the three Divisional Justices of the City of Dublin. To my own knowledge, as a resident of Dublin, I can assure the House that during the last four or five years these gentlemen have been called upon to discharge very delicate, dangerous, and responsible duties, and they are at least entitled to the consideration and protection given by this schedule to all other judicial personages in Ireland.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, after ("borough")insert ("the Master of the King's Bench and the Divisional Justices of the City of Dublin").(Lord Glenavy.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment. The first difficulty is that the officials to whom the Amendment refers are not in the same position as Judges. Their salaries are not a charge on the Consolidated Fund; they are much more like civil servants. The second difficulty is that the Amendment will impose a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and a serious question might arise as to whether this House is entitled to deal with it. But I do not want to give a final answer to-day, and I am willing to think the matter over before Monday and see if it is possible to meet my noble and learned friend in any way.
LORD GLENAVY: I am quite satisfied, it'd beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920 (SPECIAL ORDERS):
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I have to move that a number of Draft Special Orders under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, be approved. Objection was taken to one of these Orders, but that objection has been withdrawn.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Ashton-in-Makerfield Urban District Council, which was presented on the 28th November, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Haslemere and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 23rd November, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the county borough of Smethwick, which was presented on the 28th November, and published, be approved.—(Lord leyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the York Town and Blackwater Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th November, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on Monday I shall move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock until Monday, a quarter past four o'clock.