Lords Sitting of 4 July 1922

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

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the noble Viscount on the Woolsack whether lie can give your Lordships any further information as to the date on which this House will be asked to deal with the Resolutions for the reform of the House of Lords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the noble Marquess has been good enough to inform me of his intention to ask this Question. It is still the hope of the Government, and the belief of the Government, that the noble Marquess who leads the House will be in his place in order to move those Resolutions on the date which has been announced. So recently as the last two days an intimation has been received from the noble Marquess that he hopes that his health will be sufficiently restored to enable him to move these Resolutions on that date.
We have had some considerable misfortunes in the matter, because the Resolutions naturally require, even at this late stage of the discussion, some balancing of considerations, and in the necessary discussions, if there were two members of the Government who would seem to be quite indispensable, they are, in the first place, the noble Marquess who leads this House, who is to move the Resolutions and who has drafted these Resolutions, and my right hon. friend who leads the House of Commons. But we have been placed in this great difficulty at the time when all your Lordships who have experience in this matter are aware that some five or six points, some of primary and some of secondary importance, have been under discussion—that we have been denied on all those occasions the presence of the noble Marquess who leads this House and my right hon. friend who leads the House of Commons.
These deprivations have been of great disadvantage to us; but I am hopeful

207
that it will still be possible for these Resolutions to be moved on that date. If at any moment there should occur a disappointment in the case of the noble Marquess, I shall at once apprise your Lordships, and ask whether it will be your Lordships' wish that they should be moved by somebody else or whether your Lordships will postpone the occasion for two or three days in order that the noble Marquess may be here. The assurance that has been given is that the Resolutions will be moved on that day, and unless your Lordships think fit for two or three days to postpone them, it is the intention of the Government that they shall be moved on that day.
The Marquess OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the understanding was that the Resolutions should be moved on the day to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, or within a day or two of that day, if not by my noble friend who leads the House—we should prefer that he moved them—then by another member of the Government. That is what was understood, I think.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so. I do not think that anybody in the House would desire on such a point to be pedantic, and supposing it was discovered on the Monday that the noble Marquess could not be here, but that on the Wednesday he could, I think the House would agree to the postponement.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
HARBOUR, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEMPO RARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
SALE OF TEA BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a third time. When the Bill was in Committee my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, without moving a substantial Amendment, indicated some embryonic objection to one or other of its clauses upon the ground that it rendered compulsory a course of training which might be superfluous, and which was, in any event, unfair in the case of a solicitor who had proved himself capable of passing the examination. My noble and learned friend asked why, if a man is able to pass the examination, he should be artificially compelled to attend a certain course of lectures. I indicated some vague degree of sympathy with my noble and learned friend, but I fear it sprang from my own earlier delinquencies, in that I always extremely disliked lectures, yet on the whole found myself able to enter through the straight gate of examinations. Since then I have discussed this matter with those who have given it great consideration. My noble and learned friend, Viscount Haldane, and the official governing body of solicitors, attach very great importance to this clause. It is a very modest one, and, on the whole, I should have been hopeful, had my noble and learned friend been here, of persuading him that perhaps his objection was not worth perseverance. At any rate, I move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I communicated with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and also with my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, about this. I think the noble Lord's objections rested rather upon a misapprehension. The object of the solicitors is a very laudable one—namely, to improve the quality of mind of their articled clerks. The point is this. If you want to pass an examination, and have not done very much work, there are now abundant institutions in the neighbourhood of Chancery Lane which, for a moderate fee, will take you in hand three weeks

209
before the examination comes on, and will so coach you, by anticipating the papers and the questions put in the examination, that you will find the passing of it not difficult. But I would point out that you have not got the training or the influence of the teacher when you pass an examination in this way. The solicitors have set up a very admirable law school; they have men like Professor Jenks, one of the first authorities on English constitutional law, and other first-rate lecturers, and they are trying, not exclusively there, but there and in other places, to level up the quality of their articled clerks. That is the. very essence and principle of the Bill, and I think we should not be doing right if we stood in the way of so laudable an object.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (VISCOUNT Peel): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I have placed upon the Table several documents which, I hope, will assist your Lordships in appreciating the provisions of this Bill.
LORD CARSON: When were they placed on the Table?
VISCOUNT PEEL: To-day, I think. Some of the Papers have been public documents for some time. The first is the Memorandum of financial provisions, and the second comprises the Revised Terms of Disbandment. I was under the impression that these pretty well covered the details of the terms to be offered on disbandment, but in response to a request of one or two noble Lords yesterday, including my noble friend Lord Mayo, who said they were very anxious to see exactly the effect of some of these proposals, I have placed Papers upon the Table, I regret that I only did that to-day, but I did not receive notice until yesterday. There is a Paper showing the pay on disbandment of constables, and their compensation allowances at the different times at which they retire, and also the terms of the maximum and minimum pensions of ranks above constables. I hope that will assist your Lordships to appreciate this rather technical matter.
210
As for the Bill itself, it deals with three matters. One is the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary; the second is the transfer of resident magistrates to the Government of Northern Ireland; and the third is the validation of action taken in connection with the management and control of the forces during the period of conflict. The two latter portions of the Bill are less important than the first, and I will deal with them before coming to what I may call the main substance of the Bill—the questions of disbandment and compensation. As regards the resilient magistrates, it was originally arranged that the resident magistrates should be transferred to the Northern Government at the same time as the Royal Irish Constabulary was transferred, but that has been altered by subsequent legislation, and it is now necessary to transfer these resident magistrates to the Northern Government in order to equip the North of Ireland and the Government with the full powers under the Act of 1920. This is done under Clause 2 of the Bill.
As to Clause 3, a great many things have had to be done not strictly within the terms of the lave during the disturbed period of the last two or three years. Exceptional action had to be taken both by way of increasing the strength of the force, and utilising it as a mobile force in connection with the military forces of the Crown. This has necessitated a certain number of departures from the rigid rules of the administration of the Act, and this clause, as will be seen, ratifies what was done (or what was omitted to be done) if it was done under the authority of the Lord-Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary, or was certified by a Secretary of State as being necessary or expedient with a view to the restoration or maintenance of order. Those are the two minor points in the Bill.
I turn now to the major purpose of the Bill; and that is the disbandment of, and compensation allowance for, the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Bill commences by providing for the total disbandment of the whole force at a date not later than July 31, 1922. The number already disbanded is about 10,665, and awaiting disbandment about 1,240; thus, your Lordships will see, the vast bulk of the force has already been disbanded. In other words, they are retired compulsorily on or before that date, and they are entitled to com-

211
pensation on retirement. The terms of compensation are based generally on the Act of 1920, and were settled in consultation with the force and generally approved by them. The terms of compensation were set forth in the Act of 1920 and have been altered, improved, and brought up to date, by certain amending provisions in the Schedule of the present Bill.
I think I ought to give a brief sketch as to what the compensation allowance is to be. Every officer and every constable on retirement is to be awarded an annual compensation allowance calculated on the salary and on the years of service in the same way as an ordinary statutory pension; but in two respects it is to be altered and improved. First of all, every constable and officer is to be credited with an additional twelve years' service to the terms of service he has actually served.
The EARL OF DESART: That is in the Act of 1920.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am trying to make it quite clear. I assumed that some noble Lords might not carry the actual terms in their heads, and that I ought to explain the position. In the second place, the allowance is to be calculated not on the actual rate of salary which they were earning at the time, but on the calculated rate of incremented salary which they would be obtaining at the end of twelve years.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Are you speaking of the officers or of the whole force?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am speaking of men and officers as well.
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask the noble Viscount to give an instance of the case of an officer?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly. In the Paper I have laid on the Table I have given the pay and pension allowance calculated for officers and men for every different length of service, but I will certainly give the case of an officer. I thought it would be much more clear if, instead of giving a lot of figures to your Lordships, I laid them on the Table of the House in the form of a Paper.
LORD CARSON: We have not seen it yet.
THE EARL OF MAYO: They have only been here during the last half-hour.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I shall be glad to give the actual figures; I do not know whether your Lordships would want all of them. In the case of a constable, the scale works out as follows. The point has been made that the terms are no better than those under the Act of 1914, but I must remind your Lordships that since then the pay has been largely increased, and, therefore, that objection rather falls to the ground. The pay commences at £3 10 s. per week, rising by annual increments of 2s. per week to £4 10 s., with two further increments of 2s. per week after seventeen years' and twenty-two years' service, making a maximum pay of £247 per annum after twenty-two years' service. The ordinary pension is equivalent to one-sixtieth of the pay for each year of service up to twenty years, and two-sixtieths for every further year of ! service up to a maximum pension of two-thirds of the pay. Apply this to a constable with five years' service. His pay would be £4 per week, his ordinary pension 6s. 8d. per week, and his compensation allowance £1 6s. per week.
I will give one or two other instances. Take a constable with fifteen years' service. His pay per week on disbandment would be £4 10 s., his compensation allowance £111 3s. per annum, and his weekly allowance £2 2s. 9(7. If you take a constable with twenty-two or more years' service his weekly pay would be £4 15 s., his annual compensation allowance £16413 s. 4d., and his weekly compensation allowance £3 3s. id. Of course, the figures would run much higher in the case of sergeants, head-constables, and inspectors. There is this limitation: that the compensation allowance is not to exceed two-thirds of their pay; that is to say, two-thirds of the incremented pay, not of the pay they are receiving at the moment. That is a general limitation which, I understand, applies to all police and Civil Service pensions and compensation allowances on the abolition of office. If a man dies after the award of his pension and compensation allowance, pension and gratuities can be granted to his widow and children.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Is that fixed? You said "can be granted."
VISCOUNT PEEL: They can be granted, and I have no doubt will be granted.
LORD CARSON: On whose discretion?
VISCOUNT PEEL: That of the Treasury. What I want to make clear is that this Bill only applies to the actual compensation allowance for these constables and inspectors. Besides that, money is voted—it does not come before your Lordships as it is voted in another place—and these additional terms are set out in the Paper I have placed on the Table, called the Revised Terms of Disbandment. Under those terms are included four different heads. The first is. disturbance allowance to cover expenses of removal; the second, free railway warrants, either to their homes or to a place in this country; the third. separation allowances for a certain period to married couples following disbandment, and also, in cases of hardship, increased disturbance allowance, gratuities and such other exceptional provision as may be recommended by a special tribunal, which has been set up to deal with exceptional cases of hardship.
LORD CARSON: Are these in the Bill?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, they are quite outside the Bill, because, as the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, this is done by voted money, and the provisions are contained, as I said, in the Revised Terms of Disbandment, which have been placed upon the Table of both Houses. The original terms of disbandment were amended after discussion in another place, and were much improved. They are more favourable, and satisfy certain grievances which were caused under the Bill as introduced in another place. I may say that some of the changes were due to the representations made by my noble friend, Lord Long, who took a very active interest indeed in the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I think, on perusing these documents and considering the terms of compensation, your Lordships may come to the conclusion that, although, for all the anxieties and troubles that these men have gone through, no money grant really makes compensation, yet, looking at the circumstances of the case, the terms themselves will not be considered to be ungenerous. In fact, they compare very favourably indeed with the compensation granted in other branches of the public Service.
I have now explained the general principle on which these compensation allowances are based, but there are one or two other points. The Bill is a very technical
214
one, and, if your Lordships desire, I will, of course, explain any particular section of it. But, generally speaking, I can sum up the other provisions of the Bill very shortly. The first is the question of commutation. An officer or constable will be able to commute a portion of his compensation allowance for a lump sum, so as to obtain the necessary capital for emigration, or, in special circumstances, for some specific purpose, to be approved by the tribunal to which I have already referred. There is a further provision that he will be able to commute a small portion of his pension, and get a larger sum during the first two years after disbandment, in order to provide for the natural difficulties that may arise in establishing himself in a new position in the two years that follow the date of his disbandment. Those particulars are set out in sections 5 and 6 of the Revised Terms of Disbandment. Roughly speaking, they amount to this: that he gets more during the first two years after disbandment, and less during the subsequent years.
The compensation payable under this Bill comes out of voted money, but the amount—except, of course, in so far as it relates to members of the forces recruited in Great Britain, or stationed in Northern Ireland at the time of disbandment—will be recoverable from the Free State Government, under Article 10 of the Treaty. As regards the compensation payable in respect of such proportion of the forces as was stationed in Northern Ireland, the Northern Government will repay so much of the cost as they would be required to pay had the provisions of the Act of 1920 relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary continued in force. I believe that the commencing amount of pensions payable in this way is about £1,300,000. There are certain other provisions which are usual, I believe, in these Pensions Acts, as regards assessment, payment, forfeiture and suspension of pensions, which are made applicable, with various modifications, to compensation allowances, in subsections (2), (3) and (6) of Clause 1. Those, very shortly, are the general provisions of this Bill.
I feel that, whatever may be the opinions of your Lordships' House on the policy which His Majesty's Government have recently pursued in Ireland, there will be a general feeling of regret at the disbandment of this force, which has existed since the year 1836, and which has, during all that time, set so very high a standard of loyalty, courage and devotion to public

215
duty. I feel, also, that, whatever may be your opinion of policy, there is not one of your Lordships who will feel that the compensation allowances granted under this Bill have not been thoroughly earned and thoroughly deserved by that distinguished force. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Peel.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, this Bill, the Second Reading of which has been moved by the noble Viscount opposite, is of the most complicated character, and I could well have wished that, in the final disposition of this great force, to which the noble Viscount has just paid so much compliment, the Government had taken the trouble to put in black and white, and in plain and simple language, their policy, and the details of the pensioning off of its members. No constable and no officer, taking this Bill in his hands, would ever be able to know what it means. That is not the way to treat a subject of this kind. I think this is the worst instance of legislation by reference that I have ever known. It ought to have been a simple Bill, without legislation by reference at all, but already, so far as I am concerned—and I dare say the noble Viscount, Lord Long, has the same experience—my pockets are simply stuffed full of complaints by these men of the way they are being treated in the disbandment of the force.
It is all very well to announce that you are treating them with great generosity. They ought to be able to see that in black and white. It will take a very astute lawyer, as I will show you in a short time, to make out what, it is that is being awarded to these men under the Bill. Your Lordships need only glance at the Bill, which is a comparatively short one, to see that it commences by referring these pensioners to certain
"rules contained in the Ninth Schedule to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as amended and modified by the provisions set out in the Schedulo to this Act."
Why they did not set out the rules as amended, so that a man might be able to read them without trying to put the two together—which even I, as a Lord of Appeal, had great difficulty in doing; for I have tried to do it—I cannot imagine.
When you have clone, that, you have to turn to the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922, and you find that
216
"The provisions of Article 15 (which relates to I assignment and regulations as to payment of pensions, etc.) and Article 16 (which relates to forfeiture of pension or allowance) … shall apply as respects compensation allowances awarded in pursuance of this section."
Consequently, you go into the library, and you get (if you can find it) this Special Order, which modifies in these respects the pensions that have been given. Then, when you go on to the fourth subsection of Clause 1, you find that you have to go and hunt up something else, namely, Sections 8 and 10 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and you have to apply these to a subsection which I doubt if any one in this House could explain to the House in such a way that the House could understand it. It says that:
"If the amount of the compensation allowance when added to the amount of his pension exceeds the higher of the two following sums—

(a) two-thirds of the salary on which his compensation allowance was calculated; or

(b) two-thirds of the salary of which he was in receipt at the time of his ultimate retirement;

or should those sums be equal, exceeds either of those sums, his compensation allowance may be suspended to the extent of the excess."
That is a problem which will have to be done, as best he can, by the constable, or whoever he is, to find out whether he is being justly treated under the Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is quite a simple matter, as I will explain when I reply.
LORD CARSON: Then you have to go on to the Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, and then you get back to Section 9 of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, and so on. What we ought to have had, as I said at the outset, was a plain, simple Act, saying that men who have served for so long shall have so much, and so much added to their salary by reason of their disbandment. But that is not all. Under the former Acts which regulated the pensions of these officers and men they had a double protection. The pensions had to be passed by the Inspector-General, or by the Lord-Lieutenant, in certain cases and under certain Acts. This Bill blots that out, and it says that as regards the working out of | the whole of this complicated system of pensions the Treasury are to be the only people who are to be the judges. The

217
Treasury are to be the judges in their own case and the police constable is to be without any remedy if he believes, or thinks that the Treasury are not treating him fairly.
That, I think, is a calamitous arrangement to enact. As it is, those of us who are concerned and have taken an interest —a real interest, I mean—in these men in Ireland, know perfectly well that even with the present protection many mistakes were made, and certainly many complaints were received from officers and men of the force that they had not been fairly dealt with. What appeal will they have now? To whom are they to appeal? I hope your Lordships will not for a moment allow them to be left to the mercy of the Treasury. I am not saying the Treasury would wish intentionally to deceive these men in any way, but, after all, it is the business of the Treasury to cut down and keep down expenses as much as possible, and certainly these men ought to have somebody as their representative, as they had the Inspector-General before, who would look after the pensions which they get under this complicated system.
The next matter that I find it difficult to understand is what the noble Viscount has just stated. He says, "Oh! this Bill is a very good Bill, and a very generous Bill."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said "not ungenerous." I did not say it was very generous.
LORD CARSON: I am glad the noble Viscount does not think it very generous. But he says there is a great deal more, and I take up one of these documents which I have seen for the first time—I suppose it is through my own negligence or ignorance—and I find there are a number of matters to which it is said these men are entitled. Why are they not in the Bill? Why are they left to the discretion of the Government, or of the executive authorities for the time being? For instance, I find this—
"In addition to the compensation allowance payable to all officers and constables under the Bill, it is proposed that where any officer or constable on disbandment is compelled to move from his home, the reasonable cost of such removal shall be repaid to him subject 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. The Government
218
have further undertaken to pay the actual travelling expenses to any part of the United Kingdom of any officer or constable, with his dependents, who may desire to leave Ireland."
That is a misleading statement, because it only refers to officers disbanded under this Bill. If we had this matter in the Bill, as it ought to be, we could raise the question in a practical form.
The other evening I brought before this House the case of constables who have had to fly from assassination, who found themselves stranded in Dublin, and who applied, under these words, for "travelling expenses to any part of the United Kingdom," with sustenance or separation allowances, and they were told: "Quite true; you are in the same position as these men; you are police constables; but you do not come under this scheme, because you were disbanded before. Your duty is to go back and be shot." That is all they get from the Government. If this were put in the Bill, one could move an Amendment to say that all these police pensioners who, by reason of having done their duty to this country and to Ireland, are in this terribly perilous position, ought to be treated in exactly the same way, and that the Government ought to take care that they are not left there to be shot, but will be removed, as it is said these men will be removed under the scheme to which the noble Viscount has referred.
I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will take care that all that these men are alleged to be getting will be put in the Bill, and that if this Bill does not do it, and if we are not in a position to do it, that the Government shall withdraw the Bill and bring in a proper measure. I know it is necessary to have a Bill. I know it is necessary to have disbandment. I am not going back on anything which has been done although I am very doubtful of the propriety of the Government's proceeding to disbandment before they have got an Act, and then asking this House to ratify what they have done. But you have let the whole control out of your hands, and you can do nothing more for these men except by keeping a hold upon this Bill and seeing that it properly carries out whatever your intentions are. If you really believe that these men were the loyal force which everybody always says they were, you will, I am sure, take care that they reap the reward of their loyalty, and are not punished for it.

219
The next question to which I should like to call attention is this—To whom does this Bill apply? That is a very important matter. One of the provisions of the Bill says—
"Anything done or omitted after the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen in relation to the appointment or distribution of officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including the appointment or purported appointment of officers or constables in excess of the numbers authorised to be appointed by the Acts relating to that force … shall be deemed to have been lawfully done. …"
That means that at one time, in the anxiety they entertained when the policy of restoring order was the policy of the Government, they felt compelled— necessarily and, I should think, properly— to appoint a number of police, including men and officers, in excess of that authorised by the Constabulary Acts. Does this Bill apply to those men? Will they get the pensions on the scales that are mentioned in the Bill? I have had many complaints of various kinds from men of their having been told they will not get the pensions.
Some of the men have been told that they were only temporary. Here is one case. Men had retired, and, the Government being in want of men, and these men having experience, they were asked to give up their life of leisure with their pensions, or whatever else they were doing, and to go back. They went back, and then, when the surrender was made last December, and you began to disband in January, I am told (at all events this is the case of some of the men of whom I have particulars) that these men were turned out, disbanded. They were told: "True, you came back, but that adds nothing to your pension. Your pension was fixed, and yours was only a temporary employment. You can go back now that we have changed our policy, now that we have put you under the people whom you were originally prosecuting as policemen; you may go comfortably home to your district and live there in peace with all concerned, but you will get no more pension." I want to know if that is so, and, if it is not so, where it is provided for in the Bill.
Another class of case that has been brought to my notice is that of men who had gone on pension because they wished to go out and fight in the Army, and they preferred to take the pension before they went, and to leave the Constabulary. They then come back and find the same thing as
220
the other class of which I have spoken. They are asked to go back, and they go. When they ask for some increase of the pension they originally got, they are told that neither their Army service nor their service in Ireland, as extra constables, by reason of the necessities of the Government, is to count. I think that is an unwarrantable position to take up. If you treat these men in such a way because it suited your plans to surrender all the policy which they had been asked to carry out at your behest, and to put them in the terrible position in which they now7 are, I think the least you can do is to take care that they are properly compensated by an addition to the pensions that they originally received, to bring those pensions up to something like the amounts those men get who are being disbanded under this Bill. Therefore, I am very anxious as to the men who are really covered by this Bill.
I have already drawn attention to the fact that the, whole matter is left with the Treasury. Clause 1 (9) says—
"The powers of the Lord Lieutenant or inspector general with respect to pensions, allowances, or gratuities of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, their widows, children, or dependents, under the Acts or Orders relating to that force may, after the day fixed for the disbandment of the said force, be exercised by the Treasury."
Thus it will be the Treasury who will have the power over allowances and gratuities for widows, children and dependents, as well as for the Constabulary themselves. I have already said that I think that is an improper way of having these pensions assessed, seeing that there will be nobody there representing the police and nobody to fight the battle with the Treasury, as the Inspector-General did before, or as, in some cases, would have been done by the Lord-Lieutenant, who in the olden times would practically have meant the Chief Secretary.
In the assessment of these pensions, there will arise, and there are arising from day to day, questions of very great hardship and difficulty which the Bill cannot foresee. I am sure, if the Government did foresee them, they would have set up some tribunal that would be able to see that justice was done. I will give you two cases that came to me this morning. A constable who had served a long time had one or two unfavourable records, but never so unfavourable as to necessitate his leaving the force.

221
From what he said to me they appear to have been lapses from sobriety when he was out on very difficult occasions. He was, however, kept on, and he carried his life in his hands from day to day. As I understand, by the rules of the Constabulary (as I think one would expect, or as it ought to be) by length of time and good service such a man gets these aberrations wiped out or modified so far as they affect his pension.
When the Treasury come to fix the pensions now I suppose they will have to deal with this matter, and one of the cases I had this morning was a ease where a man bitterly complained. He said: "If I had been allowed to go on, and there had not been this compulsory disbandment, these aberrations of mine "—of which he gave me the details, and which were, of course, regrettable, but, at the same time, somewhat human in the difficult circumstances in which he was placed—" would have been blotted out, but I am not allowed to go on for the necessary time to blot them out, and therefore in assessing my pension a certain sum per year is taken away, and I have to go out with all the odium on me of being an ex-constable, and knowing well that I could not get employment in any part of the 26 counties of Southern Ireland." Who is to see to that in the future? And what chance is the man to have to make good in such circumstances as these?
Another ease, of which I heard last night, is that of a man who was alleged to have got something from a shopkeeper under false pretences, and who was brought before a county court judge for that. He was a man of long service, and the county court Judge evidently—I have not gone into the circumstances myself—took a lenient view of the matter, because he said that if the man repaid the money it was not a case in which he would punish him. The man was kept on, and out of the moneys he received he was paying off this debt to the shopkeeper. He was recently disbanded under this scheme. He sent me the notice saying that in consequence of the disbanding of the police his services would be no longer required. I am sorry that I have not got the papers here, but, mark yon, he was disbanded, not dismissed. If he had been dismissed in relation to the other matter I could have understood what happened afterwards, but he went on serving and was finally disbanded. He then wrote and asked how much his pension was to be, what pension
222
he was to have as a disbanded man. They wrote to him and said, in effect: "Notwithstanding the number of years you have served, notwithstanding the fact that you were kept on, notwithstanding the fact that you risked your life from day to day, notwithstanding the fact that you must go back and live amongst those who want to assassinate you, you get no pension because you were, guilty in this matter of obtaining some goods," as they allege, "by false pretences."
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I ask the noble and learned Lord who wrote that letter?
LORD CARSON: I have not got the papers with me, but I will give the whole of them to the noble Viscount. I think a communication was made to this man through his officer. But, as I say, I will hand the documents to the noble Viscount. I am not saying whether that man ought to have his pension because I do not know enough about the matter; but I am saying that there ought to be some proper tribunal which will see that he is properly and fairly treated. The Treasury are not the people who can, or ought, to investigate matters of this kind. I really have not been able to read one-half of the long statements which I have received from constables, but I have no doubt there are a great many cases of that kind in which there have been petty, trifling breaches of discipline or other such things, while the men have been at the same time really brave and excellent policemen. Those matters will have to be settled in some way.
I object also to the Treasury being constituted the tribunal who are to say whether the widows and children or the dependants are to have pensions or not, and, if so, at what rate. It is impossible for me to go into all the details of the pensions as framed, because I am not competent—at least, without a great deal of work the time for which I cannot spare from my judicial duties—to put together this Bill and all the other Acts that are concerned. I implore the noble Viscount, even if he insists on passing the Bill in this or some similar form, to have a statement made out of one Bill consolidating these various Acts, and working it in with the Bill which we have before us, so that he who runs may read; so that you can see by a simple reference to that document what it is you are getting and on what it is based.

223
There are certain provisions in the Bill which I shall criticise in Committee. For instance, I see here what seems to be a curious provision, if I understand it and if it means what it appears to me to mean. It is Clause 1 (3):
"If any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this section takes service in any police force the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force."
What does that mean? If I am right in my construction, it means that if any one of these men, having earned this pension, having been driven from pillar to post, having undergone all these dangers, dares to take up the very work which he knows and which ho is competent to do in, say, South Africa, or Canada, or in an English or Scottish county, under the Chief Constable or the Police Committee or whoever regulates these matters, the Government can stop his allowance in whole or in part.
On the other hand, if he comes over here and has the good luck to be put in charge of buildings or to obtain any of the situations which are open to ex-policemen, such as doorkeeper, or storekeeper, or anything else, he is quite welcome to do that and to keep his pension at the same time. Because he undertakes the one thing in which he has been trained all his life and for which he is most suitable, he is liable to have the whole or part of his compensation taken away. I do not understand the meaning of that, nor do I think it is fair. If any of these men, after what they have gone through, and having received a pension, are able to better themselves under any conditions, there is not a member of this House who will not be glad that they have been able to do so.
I shall not now refer to the many other objections which I think may be made to the Bill, but what I would suggest is this. I do not think it will be possible for this House, in a Committee of the Whole House, really to understand or to go through this Bill, and I ask the Government to send it to a Select Committee who can make the fullest possible inquiry into how these men are being treated, and can frame, or can help to frame, the Bill in such a way that, when it comes back upon Report, your Lordships will be able thoroughly to understand what you are doing.
I believe that the whole nation wants justice to be done to these men. I do not believe there is a man of proper spirit who has followed the whole of this controversy
224
who does not wish that justice should be done to these men. Let us be sure that we take our part in the trust we have; that we take care that by the little we can do we will get for these men as much justice and generosity as possible. I do not believe your Lordships will be able to do that with a full knowledge of what ought to be done unless the Bill is referred to a Select Committee, who can go carefully into all these Bills and will be able afterwards to report to this House what, in their view, is the way to treat these men. I do not oppose the Second Reading, but I should be glad of assurances on some of the points that I have made, and I should particularly welcome an announcement that the matter will be referred to such a Committee as I have suggested.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, some time ago I ventured to bring before your Lordships the views that I held, and that were held by many others, upon the provisions, as then made, for the Royal Irish Constabulary. I desire now to thank the noble Viscount who brought in this Bill for the clear statement that he made in presenting it to us, and for the additional information which he has given. I believe, though I do not know, that there are in these new provisions some changes which are more or less in consonance with the representations that I ventured to put before your Lordships at the time to which I have referred, but I desire, notwithstanding these advantages (which I gratefully recognise) to support my noble and learned friend in the appeal which he has made to His Majesty's Government.
It must be evident that in the criticism which my noble and learned friend has delivered upon this Bill there is not a particle of hostility to the Government. This is not an occasion which is selected by those who are hostile to the Government to beat them with a new stick, and certainly, so far as I am concerned, I have endeavoured almost invariably to support the Government in their discharge of what I believe to be a most difficult task, that of governing this country in circumstances which have arisen since the war. On this occasion I join with my noble and learned friend in making an appeal, because I feel that we have, collectively and individually, an immense responsibility in this matter. As I understand it, this is the last occasion upon which legislation connected with the Government's proposals for dealing with

225
pensions, gratuities and allowances, will come before the House, except of course at the ordinary Committee stage and Third heading of this Bill. Once this Bill is placed on the Statute Book I understand that there will be no further opportunity of securing better provision for the Royal Irish Constabulary.
My noble and learned friend, at the end of his speech, said that all he asked for was justice. I do not believe that there has ever been a case in the history of this country when men ceasing to hold their former employment, and compelled to do so whether they liked it or not, have been so moderate in the requests that they have made, or have been so generally governed by a desire not to secure a special advantage for themselves, but simply to get justice, as have been the Royal Irish Constabulary. I have seen many of them, both officers and men. It seems to me that in dealing with this matter there is a tendency to make a comparison between the provision made to-day and the provision made so short a time ago as 1920.
I submit with great confidence that these comparisons cannot be made. In the years 1914 and 1920 we were in a totally different position. In the years 1914 and 1920 there was not only a possibility, but there was a very reasonable prospect, that a considerable number of the Royal Irish Constabulary would find employment under the new Administration, but, even if they did not, they were not then in the position in which, alas! they find themselves to-day. The determination of their employment was not optional; it was not left to them to serve under a new Government if they think fit to do so. They were compulsorily disbanded, and they were packed out of Ireland with indecent haste. The whole Empire is suffering now in consequence of their hasty dismissal and their clearance out of Ireland. If that is true—and I challenge anyone to deny it—then I say no comparison can be made between now and the previous occasions on which provision was made for these men on retirement.
There is this further fact, upon which I venture to dwell, and to which my noble and learned friend has made reference. Many of these men cannot continue to live, far less to get employment, in their own country. I asked your Lordships, yesterday, in reference to this matter: What good is there, what common sense
226
is there, in inviting men who cannot live in their own land to come here, where we have not employment for the population that we have? These men are forced to go into a strange land. I am not going to follow my noble and learned friend into his analysis of this Bill, but I would emphasise that these officers and men have a great grievance owing to the fact that wholly minecessary delay has occurred in dealing with their cases. Many of them do not: know now what provision they are to receive; consequently, they cannot make a new start for themselves. They are losing opportunities in other lands, because they do not know what their position will be. I do not know whether the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee is the best that could be made, but I am quite prepared to support it on the advice of my noble and learned friend opposite.
I feel that we are in a tremendous difficulty in view of the responsibility to which I referred earlier in my remarks. I have had some experience of being in charge of Bills in another place, and I have tried very hard to understand what the effect of this will be. I have tried to reach results which would give the precise effect upon individuals of the financial provisions of this Bill, and I have been quite unable to arrive at any conclusions which would be of any value, nor have I been able to get the results of an inquiry which I am having made by a competent and skilled accountant. That means that at this stage of the Bill many of your Lordships remain in ignorance as to what it is exactly that we are doing.
Can we, ought we, to absolve ourselves from responsibility? When I retired from the office of Chief Secretary, which I held a great many years ago, I had to bid farewell to this famous force, and I told them, in answer to a request made to me, that they might feel perfectly certain that should they ever need assistance I would do the best I could for them. I have been reminded often by the old members of the force of that promise. Shall I be keeping that promise if I acquiesce in the passing of this Bill in anything like its present form? And what other course can we adopt except refer it to a Committee, or ask the Government to withdraw it? I do not want to ask the Government to withdraw it for two reasons. In the first place, it is a request which it is difficult to make,

227
because it involves disagreeable consequences to the Government, and, in the second place, I am anxious that the officers and men of the force should know with as little delay as possible the main lines on which provision is to be made.
The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill said its interpretation was really a simple matter. Things are simple to those who know, but very often complicated to those who do not know. The noble Viscount has had the advantage of joining in the preparation of this Bill, and he thinks, therefore, that we ought to be able to understand it. I am not alone in finding a difficulty in ascertaining exactly what we are doing to-day for these officers and men. It is a confession of which I need not be ashamed when I find myself in company with the noble and learned Lord who also finds a difficulty in understanding the Bill. Surely, therefore, it must be the fact that the Bill wants to be much clearer and simpler in its terms.
The noble Viscount told us in his speech that some 10,000 of these officers and men have been disbanded and that there only remain 1,200 more for disbandment, which is to be complete before the is going to become of those 12,000 men? Where are they going? It may be that they will find some employment here. I hope they will. It may be that they will go to one of the Dominions, and if they cannot find suitable occupations and happy homes here they may even go farther a field. I know that 12,000 men and their wives and children is a small percentage of the population of the United Kingdom, but it represents a great concourse of human beings. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are they going for the rest of their lives, and in the generations they represent, to live as friends of England or as enemies? And if they are to be enemies is it to be because we in England have treated them unjustly? They make no exorbitant demand. They do not ask to be paid for their loyal services. They ask to be given enough to be able to start again. They can- not start here because they gave this country the best of their services.
There is this further difference between their case and other cases to which reference is made, that in these last two years these men have been called upon to discharge duties of the most dangerous character. I have ascertained, as far as
228
one can be certain about anything, that scores and hundreds of these men are now exposed to the gravest risk, not because they have been cruel in their methods, not because they have tyrannised over the neighbourhood or ridden roughshod over the people, but because they have carried out what they believed to be the policy of the British Government. They have incurred this risk owing to the steadfastness with which they have opposed lawlessness, disorder and crime, in the districts in which they were placed. That is the second reason which makes their case different altogether from any other we have had to consider, and that is the reason why we are bound to recognise the responsibility that rests upon us individually.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to say: I do not quite understand this Bill; it is a little too complicated, but I am confident it is doing the right thing, and I am prepared to support it. But I cannot say that. I have no information. The Papers which the noble Viscount was good enough to give me before the debate came into my hands only a few seconds before he rose to move the Second Reading. Like the noble and learned Lord, I have been overwhelmed with communications of all kinds assuring me that the provisions of the Bill are not satisfactory either to officers or men. In these circumstances, how can I. in the absence of the information we seek, in the absence of a simple Bill which all can understand, remembering my promise to this splendid force, and conscious of the fact that the responsibility is with us as members of your Lordships' House, do other than join with the noble and learned Lord in imploring the Government to take such steps—the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee might be the best—as will enable us to satisfy ourselves, to the best of our power, that this Bill is made complete before we part with it for ever?
I know the difficulties of the Government. I know that in these times there are urgent demands for economy. I know that they find it impossible to increase expenditure, and are compelled in other directions to cut it down. I dare say they are compelled to reduce it in quarters where they would gladly maintain it if possible. But I submit that this is not a case which ought to come in that category at all. If the utmost demands of these men were admitted, the additional charge would not be very

229
material. But can you imagine in terms of money the debt you owe to these officers and men? Is it possible, whatever your Lordships may do, even if you double every provision made in this Bill for these officers and men, that it could be regarded as an adequate return for the service they have rendered? Remember what that service has been. Remember that they joined this force believing that they would be allowed to serve their time and draw their pensions. All that has been brought to an abrupt conclusion, and they are suddenly told that they are not to be allowed to remain. For that decision we must, in the ordinary course of events, take our share of responsibility.
The least we can do is to see that in the final provision made for these officers and men we meet every reasonable demand. I submit that this is not done when all you can show is that on retirement they will receive better terms than before. What we have, to do is this—it is not a difficult or costly task, and will not be treating these men more liberally than they have deserved—we have to see that, when these men go into retirement and seek occupations elsewhere, we have done our best to treat them fairly and they can feel that, on the whole, they have been provided for in a reasonable and just manner. That is not the feeling of the force now. It is not the feeling of either officers or men.
I join most earnestly in the appeal which my noble and learned friend has made, that the Government will give still further consideration to this matter, and, above all, that they will substitute for the powers of the Treasury a tribunal to which these men can look with greater confidence than is possible when they realise that their fate is in the hands of the Treasury. Ireland has always been regarded by the Treasury as a happy hunting ground, and, if we are now to look to them to deal with these cases, all I can say is. God help the unfortunate constable who is likely to be dependent in the future upon what he gets out of this Bill. I desire only to add my testimony to that of my noble and learned friend, because, as he said, I have been the recipient of many communications, and to implore the Government to give further consideration to the matter, in order that we may acquit our consciences of any feeling that we have not been true in our dealings with this magnificent force.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, after the speeches that have been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Carson and my noble friend Lord Long, there is very little for me to add. They have given voice to that which, I think, is in the minds of all of us who have some right to speak in this matter, who have known these men and their services, who have seen them in their time of stress, and who now desire to do all that is possible to assist them at their moment of trouble and necessity. I have no doubt—I cannot doubt—that the Government desire to do what is just, and even, as the noble Viscount said, generous, but I do not think that any of us who are responsible in this House can accept the general judgment of others on a point like that.
It seems to me that all of us, and especially, perhaps, those of us who owe so much to these men, have a special right to examine closely what is the actual effect of the Bill, whether in itself it is reasonable and fair, and if it meets, so far as prescience can meet, the possible cases of hardship that may arise. That is always one of the difficulties in any general scheme, and I think that, even in ordinary times—and I have talked to soldiers, sailors and others— in an apparently well thought out Bill, unforeseen omissions turn up and produce cases of hardship, and of a very great degree of hardship, which might possibly have been averted if more time and more close consideration had been given.
I find myself, after giving my best consideration to this Bill, in the same position as my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson. I did not understand, and, indeed, I do not understand now, after the speech of the noble Viscount, in what respect the Schedule to the Bill has, I will not say altered, but improved the position of constables under the Ninth Schedule to the Act of 1920. ft was stated that the Bill made an alteration. I do not know whether any of your Lordships are wiser on that subject than I am. It may be my stupidity, but the point which I have never been able to understand on reading the Bill is what the improvement is that is created by the Schedule to this Bill, as compared with the Schedule to the Act which it does, in some respects, amend. That is one of the points which I want to put.
My other point is as to what this Bill really does. It deals with compensation on broad lines, with certain reservations to

231
which I will not refer, because my noble friend has dealt with everything so fully. One of the most important subjects is excluded from the Bill altogether. The Revised Terms of Disbandment appear to me to contain the crux of the matter, regarding provision for the greatest hardships, which are obviously those of the men who are driven out of their homes and their country, and have to settle, seek employment and make a home wherever they can. That, as I understand it, is a point which the Bill does not touch at all. It is provided in these Revised Terms of Disbandment winch, if I have followed them aright, are not to give the men any statutory right, but are an undertaking to put the moneys on the Vote, in order to deal with the men on this principle. I submit with some confidence that these are matters of such importance that, even though they may, to some extent, or, at any rate, in part, be temporary provisions, they ought to have statutory force, and to be embodied in any Bill that purports to provide for the Royal Irish Constabulary at this moment.
I would urge that, however this Bill proceeds, whatever inquiry may be instituted in answer to the appeals made by my noble friends, this should be a point for consideration. I would add to that an appeal which I made to Lord Crawford the other evening, that, if that be done, it should be made clear that there shall be no difference in that respect between the position of constables and officers actually serving at the moment of disbandment, and that of those who, being pensioners in the Royal Irish Constabulary, are placed in the cruel position that, because they were constables, they are subject, for precisely the, same reasons, to results that produce precisely the same sufferings as those of the men who were serving at the time of disbandment. I do not think anybody who cares, anybody who feels as we Irishmen feel for these men, could be satisfied, unless there be some more searching inquiry as to the effect of this legislation for the Royal Irish Constabulary, so that we really know what it is. I do not profess to know what it is, and I believe it will be found—I, too, have letters from time to time—that there are cases, which experience has already shown to exist, which will require special consideration, and may require special treatment.
I would, therefore, urge as strongly as I can that the Government should, in some
232
shape or form, acquiesce in the appeal of my noble friends to set up a Committee to inquire as to the best method of providing for these cases, with justice to the men and the public, and that some permanent tribunal, not being the Treasury, should take upon itself the responsibility of deciding what are special cases of hardship requiring special treatment. Surely, it is essential for the Government to know that they have done everything in their power to satisfy the public feeling. We desire it, and I submit it is a matter that is important and desirable, and should be the object of the Government as much as it is the object of any of us. From the point of view of justice and expediency the Government ought, in some form, substantially to accept and respond to the appeal made to them this evening.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, this is a most important Bill for Ireland. One has heard a great deal of the brutal treatment that has been meted out to this splendid force during the troubles in Ireland, but it must be remembered that the Royal Irish Constabulary entered very largely into the life of the people of Ireland. They belonged to the people, were recruited from the people. I allude, of course, to the real Royal Irish Constabulary as I have known them. I have had some experience lately of the way in which these men have been treated in my own place. I will not go into details, but blackguardism was rampant for a short time, and there was one very bad case, quite recently. I think we are all thankful in Ireland for the attitude that Lord Long, Lord Carson and Lord Donoughmore have taken up in regard to this matter.
I have listened with the greatest interest to the speeches, and I agree with Lord Carson that a Select Committee should be set up to deal with this matter. I am perfectly well aware that this House cannot touch the money clauses of the Bill, but this is a Bill in which the evils of legislation by reference stand out very strongly. A Select Committee could deal with those evils. The only really illuminating Paper that has been provided for us, and that just before we started the discussion, is this typewritten document, for which I have to thank the noble Viscount. What it amounts to is this. Here are three Papers which are not embodied in the Bill. Who on earth is to speak in this country on behalf of the

233
Government, when the Chief Secretary has been, so to speak, himself disbanded?
VISCOUNT PEEL: He is not disbanded.
THE EARL OF MAYO: No, but he is not going to remain Chief Secretary for very long. You cannot disband this large number of men in twenty-four hours. To whom are they to go to relate their grievances and troubles? There is nobody. There is no official in this country who, after a short time, will be able to take up their case and deal with it, except the Treasury official. They are not going to get much change out of the Treasury; I am certain of that. That is where I feel there is a real grievance. What are these wretched men to do? They have never been in London, or even England, before. Many of them come from the wilds of Mayo or of Kerry. What on earth are they to do? A man can be told where the Irish Office is, and where to find the Chief Secretary, but the Chief Secretary will be disbanded in course of time, and there will be no one to whom he can go. That is one of the practical criticisms that I have to make on this Bill.
Further, I am not at all satisfied with the position of the wives and children. Lord Carson alluded to that matter. They are to be entirely in the hands of the Treasury. What they are to get, how they are to be treated, and what they are to live upon, is entirely in the hands of the Treasury. To whom are these wretched women and children to go? Who is there to say a word for them in this country and to approach the authorities on their behalf? There is no one at all. There is nobody who knows anything about Ireland, except those who sit here, and some few in another place, but they are mainly from the North of Ireland, which is in a different position altogether. The North of Ireland is dealt with.
I wish to emphasise some other points on which Lord Carson spoke. There are the old constables who were asked to come back, and came back. What is their position? We want that question answered by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. Do they get compensation? There are also the men who joined the Army, then came back and worked in the Royal Irish Constabulary, did their duty, and had every chance of being shot—much more chance of being shot because they had been in the
234
Army. There is no good blinking the matter—it is perfectly true—men who served in the Imperial Forces are not very popular in Ireland. I have had experience of that myself. What is the position of those men? I should like those questions answered. As I have said before, I hope the House will support the demand for a Select Committee, because then we shall be able to get put in the Bill some of these provisions which are contained in the loose Papers. How on earth are these men to read these Papers, and who is going to to explain to them these Treasury details? I hope the House will grant a Select Committee, first of all to deal with legislation by reference, and, secondly, to make it clear in the Bill itself what these men are actually to get, and what their wives and children are likely to get.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will intervene for a few moments only. Four speeches have been made with reference to this Bill by noble Lords who are peculiarly well qualified to give this House information or guidance in the matter, because they are perfectly well cognisant of Irish life and are personally familiar with the men of this force. I want to stand here as a man who does not know the details of Irish life and who is not personally familiar with these men, but who has failed—it is no wonder seeing how those much more competent to deal with such a matter have failed—to understand the provisions of this Bill. I am perfectly certain that there is not in this country any subject upon which the popular mind is more desirous of giving the utmost help, and of treating with the utmost generosity these men who have been desolated in their homes, persons and property by what has been, happening, especially in the south of Ireland.
It goes to the heart of every one of us, day after day, to learn of what is happening, but if there is any group of men for whom we feel our sympathy to be evoked in double measure, it is this group of men who have given their lives to this work, and who, being familiar with Ireland and Ireland's work, and therefore unfamiliar with things outside it, may find difficulty in taking up work elsewhere, however competent they may be in Irish affairs. Therefore, we in this country are bound to consider their case. We are not only bound, as in an ordinary case of compensation, to see that a man shall not be wronged, but we owe

235
to them so much that we should go out of our way to be ultra-generous. If the Bill cannot be shown to answer that test— and it may be possible to show that it does— we are falling short altogether of what we ought to be doing in regard to a class of men entitled in a quite exceptional degree to our sympathy and our aid. Almost every thoughtful man and woman in the country feels that here we have a case on which there can be no doubt whatever that the treatment should be generous and even ultra-liberal. If the Government have acted on that basis they will meet with a favourable response throughout the country, and among none more so than those on whose behalf I may perhaps speak.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, everything that I desired to say has been already said much better than I could have said it, but I want to ask a question about this mysterious Paper on the Table of the House. Is it the intention of the Government to have it printed and circulated? I have never seen a typewritten Paper like this on the Table of the House, and as such it has no authority. It is very valuable to us, of course, but from the point of view of the public I hope that there will be something more than this done.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am sorry the Paper has only been typewritten. I acted in order to make things as easy as possible for your Lordships. I put every Paper there was on the Table, but the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, said he would like to have the exact figures as regards the compensation payable to the different classes of men, and I worked upon the Paper myself until about nine o'clock last night in order to get this thing done. All I am told is that it ought to have been made a public document. I apologise if it is improper to place a typewritten document on the Table, and if the noble Earl presses it, he shall have it as a public document. But if he will listen to what I have to say first he will see if he really wants it.
The first point was raised by the noble and learned Lord who spoke first, and it was a very reasonable point. It was repeated by other Peers, who said: "Look at this Bill. Why, even a noble Lord who sits in the High Court cannot understand it without a great deal of consideration. Then how can these men themselves be expected to understand what is being done
236
for them? "That was a very natural observation, but for two months now Papers have been issued, and if your Lordships had taken the trouble to procure and read them you would have been placed most fully in possession of all the details about this matter. Your Lordships, no doubt, are so well occupied in other ways that you have not had time to do that. But, although your Lordships may not appreciate all these details, they have been most fully and carefully explained to the men who are interested in the subject. Every one of these matters — pension, compensation, and everything else—has been by order explained by their officers to these men. That was done, I understand, months ago.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Has the noble Viscount seen these Papers, issued to the men from headquarters?— because I have.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But not only have Papers been issued, personal explanations have been given, which are much better than Papers.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Yes, when the persons who give them really have the knowledge, but in many cases they have confessed that they have not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If a man does not understand the subject, he cannot explain it to other people. But I understood that they were fully seised of the points. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is different when these matters are translated into a Bill. The noble and learned Lord himself is very familiar with drafting. No doubt the skill of the draftsman makes the thing almost unintelligible to the ordinary man.
LORD CARSON: That is what it is meant to do.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord knows a great deal more about drafting then I do, and that may be the object of the skill of the draftsman. But these men will not have to understand the Bill, because in other ways these matters are made perfectly plain to them. If it is not so, and if the noble and learned Lord can show that any of these men do not understand, I will confer with the Chief Secretary and see that these things are made plain to the men.

237
I much appreciate the general course of the debate, because I think no noble Lord who spoke on the general principle of compensation thought that these terms were other than generous. The criticisms made were mainly on details, and mainly as to what should or should not be done to certain classes of people. I will try to deal with those in detail. But, first, let me reply to the general charge brought against the Treasury. The noble Earl, Lord Mayo, with the assent of some of your Lordships, seemed to think that the Treasury was not going to be fair or generous to these men.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I did not say anything about their being fair or generous. I said it was referred to the Treasury.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And the noble Earl said he did not think they would get very good terms from the Treasury.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Very much change out of the Treasury.
VISCOUNT PEEL: What the noble Earl meant by that was "not very good terms." I am astonished at an observation like that coining from a noble Lord from Ireland. I am pretty familiar with Irish legislation in the last twenty-five years, and I cannot imagine any single part of the Empire to which the Treasury has been more generous than it has been to Ireland. I always thought, as an English Member of Parliament, that if the Treasury had done for my constituents one-tenth of what they did for Ireland I should have had a safe seat for the whole time I wished to sit in the House of Commons.
But there is another principle involved. The Treasury has a general control over the granting of all classes of pensions, and therefore I suggest; that it would not be wise to take this matter out of the hands of that body, who are so experienced in the matter. The Treasury is the approving body, but, as a matter of fact, all these questions of the assessment of pensions have been seen to by the Royal Irish I Constabulary themselves in Dublin, and they have been generally approved and accepted by the Treasury. The Treasury must, of course, have the general control over the whole matter.
As regards the hard cases mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—cases of men
238
to whom pensions had been, or might be, refused, who had been guilty of some wrongful action, and who might have purged themselves by good service subsequently—I understand that, in assessing these pensions, these matters have not been taken into account, and if there are any cases which the noble and learned Lord knows to the contrary I ask him to be good enough to send me those cases at once I and they shall be immediately investigated before the Bill leaves this House.
The further point was raised as to the men to whom this Bill applies, and a. noble Lord raised the question of certain classes of men to whom he thought the Bill did not apply. One was this particular class of temporary men who came on, I understand, for the special time during the last two or three years, and to whom the noble and learned Lord says that these pensions will not be granted. That is true, because these men who came on for a period came on for special payment and on special terms, and were told when they came on for this short period that they would not have any pension as the result of it. Therefore, whether it was hard or not, those terms were made absolutely clear to these men.
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether, when they were employed, they were informed that it was determined to change the whole of the policy in Ireland and to put them under the very men they were sent as police to prosecute?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether that statement was made to them; but, anyhow, they were employed at a time when they knew, of course, there was considerable risk and danger to them.
LORD CARSON: That is quite a different thing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Anyhow, the terms on which they were engaged were special terms. Then, the noble and learned Lord raised the question of men who joined the Army for the war,of what happened to them, and what was their case. In that case those who applied were allowed to go to the war and were, in some cases, urged to go to the war, and they were able to treat the time during which they were away on service as pensionable time. They did not lose time in any way as a contribution towards their pensions.
LORD CARSON: If the noble Viscount will excuse me, those are not the men I asked him about. I asked about the men who went on pension with a view of going to the war, and who were told when they came back that nothing would be added to their pension if they were again called upon to come up for service or to help when the authorities were in want of men in Ireland. That is quite a different case.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The men who threw up their positions, as they were justified in doing, I think, as here, were not able to add the time during which they were away to the pensionable period. I think in that case they were put in exactly the same position as the Civil Service in this country. A further point was raised about special cases of hardship. Your Lordships may have seen that a tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship has been empowered "to consider and report to Government upon any individual case in which, in the opinion of the tribunal, hardship not otherwise provided for arises." Then that which they are empowered to recommend is set out.
LORD CARSON: That is not in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; not only is it not in the Bill, but this tribunal has been sitting now for something like two months under the presidency of Sir Edward Troup, with an official of the Royal Irish Constabulary and a Treasury official, and has been dealing with these matters as they arise.
As to the other point, the noble and learned Lord complains that these outside matters, as it were, should have been placed in the Bill. That point has been dealt with already in another place. The House of Commons has passed an Estimate to cover the matter, and for some time these payments have been paid, and are being paid; therefore, I do not think it is necessary to place these questions in the Bill.
THE EARL OF DESART: That is only an Estimate for one financial year. There will be no money after that, I understand.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If it is necessary they can always pass an Estimate.
THE EARL OF DESART: But it will not give the security of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It may not give the security of the Bill, but these matters are being dealt with as they arise, and, as the force has now been really disbanded, these cases will be dealt with, and I should hope they will be dealt with altogether before the end of the financial year. The only point that remains, I think, is as to the question of committing the Bill to a Select Committee. I understand that does not arise now but at a later stage, but I hope your Lordships will not follow that course. I do not wish to suggest to your Lordships that all these matters are really matters of finance. I am putting it rather on the ground that the delay incidental to the setting up of a Committee to deal with these questions will seriously prejudice the process of dealing with these men. For instance, certain pensions have been commuted already in order that the men may go abroad or set up in business. It is necessary, of course, to get statutory authority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, said that he made no complaint about it; but your Lordships will easily see how important it is that statutory authority should be given as soon as possible to these provisions, in order that the matter may proceed smoothly.
I will repeat the undertaking that I gave, that if all these matters of special hardship are communicated to the Chief Secretary or myself they will be dealt with before your Lordships lose control over the Bill. They will be dealt with as soon as possible, and I will report to your Lordships before the Bill leaves the House. That, I think, really exhausts the specific points which your Lordships raised. I am very much obliged to your Lordships for the way in which you have received the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not rise to make a long speech but to express my regret that the noble Viscount has not fallen in with the suggestion which was made to him by most influential members of your Lordships' House, that this Bill should be further inquired into before it is passed into law. The noble Viscount does not, I think, appreciate how very strongly we feel that there is an obligation upon Parliament to have these matters made absolutely clear to those in whom we take such an immense interest.
Will the noble Viscount reflect upon the course of this debate? Your Lordships

241
have been addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, by the noble and learned Lord who sits above the gangway, and by my noble friend Lord Long who sits opposite, all of them men of immense experience in legislation and in the interpretation of Statutes. They have all expressed their total inability to understand the legislation which we are passing into law. There is no doubt whatever that if my noble and learned friend Lord Carson and the noble Viscount, Lord Long, had time to study the sheaf of documents upon this matter which lie upon your Lordships' table, they might, perhaps, find answers to some of the conundrums. But the point is that we want to make it so absolutely clear that he who runs may read exactly what this legislation means, and that the unfortunate members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are disbanded, and their relations, may know exactly what their fate is.
Why should not that be done upon the face of the Act of Parliament? Why should we. have to complain time after time of this legislation by reference? Why should it be possible for a noble and learned Lord, a member of the highest Court of Appeal in this country, to get up in his place in Parliament and say: "I look at this Bill which you are proposing to pass into law and I cannot understand it." I think it is of the very greatest importance that we should thoroughly satisfy public opinion—public opinion in your Lordships' House, public opinion amongst the constabulary in Ireland, and public opinion in England—so that all Englishmen may know how these Irishmen are being treated. To expect all those who, throughout the length and breadth of the country, are interested in this matter to read all this sheaf of documents, and to understand what they mean is perfectly preposterous. It cannot be done. What they are entitled to do is to take the Act of Parliament in their hands and, with the assistance of ordinary legal advice, understand what Parliament has done. That is something which cannot be done now. We know from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, that an ordinary lawyer will not be able to understand this Bill. In those circumstances there is undoubtedly a very strong case for reconsideration of the drafting.
I desire to put another point to the noble I Viscount, and I hope it may make an im-
242
pression upon his supremely reasonable mind. We wish to know not only what the Bill includes, but what it omits—I mean what provisions ought to be made to cover the hard cases and which are not in the Bill. I say that for this reason. Your Lord ships are surrounded in legislation on this matter with all the difficulties of privilege. Those of us who have been familiar with legislation in this House for many years past know the, difficulties that may arise in another place;. We can go into Committee on this Bill in the ordinary way, and my noble and learned friend behind me, or my noble friend opposite, may propose Amendments to cover hard cases—I mean such cases as those of the men who have retired and have been called back into the constabulary for emergency. The Government then will say, as they are bound to say: "You cannot put in these Amendments because the effect of them will be to throw a charge upon the Treasury, and that will be a breach of privilege." We shall, therefore, have great difficulty in dealing with it in Committee; but if the matter were referred to a Select Committee such as my noble and learned friend suggests, attention could be drawn to all these points, and the Report of the Select Committee would eventually be available for use in your Lordships' House and in another place. Then, with great authority, the respects in which the Bill failed to deal with all the hard cases could be pointed out. An arrangement might thereafter be come to between the two Houses in the form of a waiving of privilege, or some other device by which this difficulty could be got over.
But the plan the Government proposes of going into Committee on this Bill makes it almost certain that these hard cases cannot be put right. I venture to assert, from a great experience in this matter, that we shall be presented at every turn when we move Amendments, with this statement from the Government Bench: "If you put that in here it will go back to another place, and it will be said that there has been a breach of privilege, because a direct charge has been thrown upon the Exchequer." Therefore, unless we are to have some kind of inquiry, it will not be exhibited in a proper form where this measure falls short. We shall never make good these omissions, and neither this House nor another place, nor the country will ever be able to appreciate fully where these cases of hardship occur.

243
For all these reasons it seems to me that the Government would be well advised to accede to the very strong representations which have been made to them. They could not have more influential advice than has been given to them by the various noble Lords who have addressed the House. They have been asked in every quarter of the House by noble and learned Lords, by noble Lords not unfriendly to the Government in their views, to bend in this respect, and I respectfully suggest that by far the better course would be to allow us to refer the matter to a Select Committee where? all these difficulties could be exhibited, and the actual provisions of the Bill could be made secure. A Select Committee could then, without any breach of privilege, restate the Bill in such a form that it could be apprehended by the ordinary man.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD CARSON: I beg to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That it is expedient that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of this House.— (Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I should like to say one word on this matter. First of all, I wish to say that I cannot understand, after listening to the speech of the noble Marquess, what special advantage will be got from the procedure he advocates. Suppose the Bill is referred to a Select Committee as he suggests: the Committee may make certain proposals, but those proposals have to be embodied in Amendments, and those Amendments have to go to another place. Those Amendments can just as well be made in Committee of the Whole House without the Bill going to a Select Committee. The Amendments, whether made in Committee of the Whole House, or suggested by a Select Committee and then embodied in Amendments in Committee of the Whole House, must equally be exposed to the charge of breach of privilege in another place. If another place wishes to exert its privilege it can do so in reference to certain Amendments whatever the origin of those Amendments may be in this House.
I think the noble Marquess rather exaggerated, or laid too much stress on, the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, as to the difficulty of appre-
244
hending this Bill. I do not think the noble and learned Lord finds the difficulty to which the noble Marquess alluded. Whatever the difficulties are in the Bill in detail I am prepared to explain them most fully on Committee stage, and to explain them to lay Lords. Whether I shall be able to convince noble and learned Lords is another matter, but to the majority of this House, who are in the same position as myself, I will undertake to make this matter perfectly clear. I do not think these difficulties arise. I desire to lay great stress upon this, that money is now being spent, and that there is a considerable doubt whether those who are administering the matter ought to go on doing so unless there is Parliamentary sanction.
LORD CARSON: You have done it for six months now.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not merely talking of the pensions. I am speaking about the commutation of pensions for the purpose of enabling men to go abroad and to set themselves up in business. I am told there are grave doubts in the matter. I am not speaking my own opinion, but I have inquired into it, and I am told that they have grave doubts whether they can go on dealing with the matter in this way. I wish your Lordships gravely to consider that aspect before you pass the Motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. You may, by so doing, unintentionally inflict injury upon these men. As regards suggested Amendments, I do not see that your Lordships will be in any better position after the Select Committee have reported than you will be in if you deal with the matters referred to in Committee of the Whole House, and I urge you not to introduce delay in this matter by referring it to a Select Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we shall be in a better position, because it will be clearly understood how matters stand, and once that is understood we can approach another place with confidence in regard to privilege. As to ! the question of delay, surely the noble Viscount realises that if the Government have been able to carry on for six months, a week or two more of delay will not matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is taking that point from the noble and learned Lord behind him.
LORD CARSON: Why not?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I must not have attached to me observations made by someone else. I am responsible for m; own observations. I said, speaking for the Government and not for myself, that if this be referred to a Select Committee there will be a most serious delay. I cannot take any responsibility for it. You may be inflicting upon these men, whom you want to help, very serious damage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am certain the noble Viscount will realise that I am the last man who would wish to inflict damage on these men. I do not pretend to know anything personal about this, but I feel confident that neither my noble and learned friend, nor the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Long, nor the noble Lord, Lord Desart, nor the noble Earl Lord Mayo, nor the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, who are all deeply interested in helping the Royal Irish Constabulary would advocate a method which would be likely in any way really to damage these men. I do not believe it, though, of course, I do not doubt what the noble Viscount said.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is my duty to point out what the danger is.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We know that Governments always say that sort of thing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And sometimes truly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Sometimes, but I do not think we can take it seriously. This is not obstruction. The object is solely that we should try to do justice to these men, and I hope the Government will give way.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I confess that I am a little surprised that the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill should have said that this will cause great delay, and will imperil the payments that have been made continuously for several months. No reason has been given by the noble Viscount as to what is likely to cause delay. An inquiry by a Select Committee will certainly have the result described, and I say, with great respect, that it is rather late in the day to talk about delay in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Government have been delaying for months, and they now attack us because, in a tremendous dilemma, we are trying to find a way out, and they say
246
that we are causing fresh delay. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is one of those expedients to which the Government often resort.
LORD CARSON: I intend to press my Motion to a Division. I only desire to say one or two words as the noble Viscount has made a special attack on me.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I made no attack on the noble and learned Lord. I only said that I take no responsibility for observations which he makes.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount said that we were doing injury to the Royal Irish Constabulary. That is a statement without any foundation, or reason, or logic. At the present moment you are disbanding the police without any authority. They are under an Act of Parliament, and if you discontinue disbanding them they have a right to their full pay. That is how the matter stands. When we are told that by our action the matter may be delayed and these people be at a disadvantage, I must point out that it is the Government that has taken upon itself, without any sanction from Parliament, and in the teeth of an Act of Parliament, to disband these men, who are willing to go on and who would, therefore, get full pay. So far from there being any risk of doing the men injury, it is quite the other way. No member of this House has said that he understands the position of these men under the Bill, and, as so often happens, your Lordships are asked to legislate absolutely in the, dark. We ask that the matter shall be thrashed out before a Select Committee, and I hope your Lordships will support us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is evident that the sense of the House is in favour of sending the Bill to a Select Committee, and I should not advise my noble friend to press the matter to a Division. Like him, I am anxious to make it perfectly clear that the responsibility for a decision which I look upon as futile, unwise, and unnecessary, is a responsibility which is taken by the House and not by the Government. I cannot understand at all what difficulty there is in understanding this Bill, nor do I understand why it should be necessary to send to a Select Committee a Bill dealing with matters in which it is notorious that every Amendment will be in the nature of a privilege Amendment. We are setting up a Select Committee which must take more time than a

247
Committee of the Whole House. We are setting up a Select Committee which, after it has presented its views in the form of a Bill, will have them re-examined in this House on Report stage and exposed to the same financial objection to which privilege Amendments are exposed in full Committee of the Whole House.
My noble friend has said more than once that there is no hard case that can be brought forward and made known to the Government which shall not be dealt with and satisfactorily adjusted while your Lordships still have control of the Bill; in other words, before the Third Reading stage is concluded. My noble friend most plainly stated the desire and determination of the Government in this matter, but if your Lordships are determined, in preference, to take the suggestion of a Select Committee, so be it. No particular point can be gained in taking a Division on a matter in which the Government is in a minority.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I want to pay a tribute to the Joint Committee which has had this Bill under consideration and which has sent to this House such a clear Report as to its new provisions. I also want to say to the Government that this Bill is overdue. The subject has been mentioned on more than one occasion in the King's Speech in past sessions, and this Consolidation Bill is exactly what the people of this country want. It states in plain language the provisions of the law without any reference whatsoever. From 18G1 up to the present there have been nineteen different Statutes, and for the administrative bodies in this country to understand all of them is an impossibility. Now we have a Bill, quite clear in its language, which will enable administrative bodies to deal with matters relating to
248
salmon and freshwater fisheries; and we shall know what the law is.
The law has been amended in certain particulars. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have had the advantage— I think it is an advantage—of a large number of individuals interested in the subject meeting together to consider the proposals of the Government. This Bill is the result of what I may call a compromise arrangement. It is an agreed Bill. The traders of this country recognise it is desirable that there should be no fresh pollution of the rivers and estuaries of this country which can be avoided at a small cost, and they are prepared, through their representatives on the Association for the Protection of British Industries, to say that they approve of the Bill as it has passed your Lordships' House. On the other hand; those who are interested in fisheries realise that the interests of traders must be supreme, that traders must carry on their industries, and, if necessary, pollute even the rivers and estuaries in and around this country. Where pollution can be dealt with at no great cost both traders and those interested in fisheries are determined that it shall not occur in the future, and that so far as it is possible and practicable it shall be improved wherever possible.
I rise to urge the Government not to allow this Bill to be slaughtered during the current session. At this period of the year it often happens that even a Bill which is generally approved is stopped in another place if the Government do not insist upon its being passed into law. I have often seen measures withdrawn at the end of the session, although there is very little, controversy in connection with their provisions, and I press the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to do his utmost to see that, possibly with a few Amendments to be inserted in another place, this Bill shall pass into law during the present session.
On Question, Bill read 3a: privilege Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RHONPDA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Report from the Committee for Privileges.
The Committee reported: "That the Petitioner is not entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to Parliament."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the Committee be now taken into consideration, and adopted.
Moved, That the Report be considered and adopted.—{The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it not improper that I should make a very brief observation—and it shall be very brief—upon this subject, inasmuch as I assumed the responsibility of advising your Lordships to refer this matter back to the Committee of Privileges. Your Lordships will not have failed to observe that which has happened. By an overwhelming majority of the lay members of the Committee, and a majority, I think even more overwhelming, on the part of those with special legal qualifications, the Petition of Lady Rhondda was dismissed. The reasons for the view which has been taken by the legal Lords, and by one or two of the lay Lords, have been printed, and are available for the service of your Lordships. I would specially ask that any member of this House who takes a particular interest in this subject should study most closely the terms of that Report, which show, as I imagine conclusively, that the view taken by the later Committee was well founded, and that the view taken by the earlier Committee was ill founded.
I observe that the Petitioner in the case has been making observations, and, perhaps, inconsiderate animadversions, upon the course that has been adopted in this House. I have only this observation to make, in so far as the conduct of the House is reflected upon. We are told, I know not with what certainty it is stated, that there is to be a great reconstitution of this House, that there is to be a reform which will introduce great changes into its character. Why, at such a moment, of all others, we should, in our legislative capacity, admit Peeresses in their own right, I have never been able to imagine.
It is even suggested that the Government have been guilty of a breach of faith. There never was, believe me, a more idle charge. There has been no breach of faith. Let me recall to your Lordships, almost in a sentence, the Parliamentary history of this matter. When the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill was before the House of Commons, and when it was before the House of Lords, it was universally realised that if Peeresses in their own
250
right were to be admitted to be members of this House a specific Amendment of the Bill was required, and your Lordships, then and there, on the merits of the question, declined to insert any such Amendment in the Bill. If, then, there was a breach of faith on the part of the Govern-I ment, it was a breach of faith in which, somehow or other, they had to compel your Lordships to be accomplices, and if one thing is more certain than another, it is that your Lordships, sitting here legislatively, had rot the slightest intention of admitting Peeresses in their own right to sit in this House, on the eve, as we are told, of a complete reconstitution of the character of this House.
So far as Parliament is concerned, there-I fore, there is not the slightest ground for such a suggestion, and it was only when the frontal attack completely failed, it was only when they Jailed to persuade your Lordships to make an alteration in the Bill which, ex hypothesi, was necessary to achieve their purpose—it was only then that it occurred to some over-subtle minds that no Amendment by the House was necessary, because that which was desired was already done. An attempt so Jesuitical met with the discomfiture! it deserved. No member of this House who reads the Report will, I venture to say, read it with-out agreeing, morally and legally, with i the view that has been taken by the Committee of Privileges.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: May I be allowed to add that I have made inquiry and have been unable to obtain ! the printed Paper containing the judgment of the noble and learned Lords, to which we are invited to give our attention. I hope that omission will now be remedied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understood that the Paper was available, and, if that is not so, I certainly hope it will be made available at once.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name. That Lord Ampthill and Lord Ernie be added to the Select Committee.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.