Lords Sitting of 24 July 1922

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

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I regret to say that I have a letter from the Chairman of Committees to the effect that he is unable to be in attendance to-day, owing to indisposition. I beg, therefore, to move that the Earl of Granard do take the Chair in all Committees of the House this day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, read 1a, and to be printed.

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

BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SMOKE ABATEMENT BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords,
686
the Bill which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is the outcome of the Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee, which was presided over by my noble friend, Lord Newton. That Committee sat for about two years, examined a very large number of witnesses, visited the chief industrial towns, and produced a most voluminous Report, at, I understand, very small cost to the public—a fact upon which I think your Lordships will congratulate my noble friend.
The object which we had in mind in drafting this Bill was to produce a measure of a non-controversial character, and I hope we have succeeded in that task. It is true that my noble friend's Committee made certain recommendations which are not included in the Bill. We were bound to regard these as being of a somewhat controversial nature, and we therefore left them out. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I would suggest that its further consideration should stand over until the autumn, when Amendments can, no doubt, be moved to allow the more controversial portions of the Report to be considered. Some time will thus elapse before the Committee, stage, and opportunity will be afforded for consideration by all the parties concerned, so that possibly an agreed measure may be the result.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to deal very briefly with the recommendations of the Committee, and to explain how far they are contained in the Bill. In the first place, as regards recommendations (a), dealing within dustrial smoke, the Bill extends the Public Health Act, 1875, so that all smoke, and not only black smoke, is included in the smoke nuisance. It also includes gritty particles, soot and ash in the term "smoke." I think this provision meets one of the most important recommendations of the Committee. In subsection (3) of Clause 1, we provide that the person charged with the nuisance may show that he, in fact, used the best practical means of preventing it. Thus we place the onus probandi on the person charged, whereas the recommendation of my noble friend's Committee, if he will allow me to say so, seems to imply that it should rest on the local authorities. We also include the Committee's recommendation that larger fines be imposed.
Another recommendation with regard to industrial smoke was that the Ministry of

687
Health should be given powers to compel defaulting authorities to administer the law with regard to smoke. We do not quite adopt that recommendation. We adopt the plan followed in other cases, notably one recently before your Lordships—namely, the Milk Bill. We adopt the procedure authorising the county councils to undertake the duties of any authorities who fail to carry out their duties under the Public Health Act. I think your Lordships will agree that only in the last resort should the Government undertake the functions of a local authority where the local authority fails to carry them out satisfactorily or at all. The county councils, of course, represent the whole body of the inhabitants of a district, and they are empowered to apply the remedy in cases of default. If the county council does not take action, presumably it is because public opinion in the area does not wish it to do so, and if the electors do not wish their own county council to take action, still less would they approve of a sanitary inspector coming down from London to do what the county council is empowered to do. So we meet the views of the Committee in allowing two or more authorities to combine under Clause 4. We do not suggest that the Ministry of Health should take the initiative, but we give the authorities power to combine.
The Committee recommended that the Ministry should assign one or more competent officers to advise with regard to the smoke problem. That is not included in the Bill because it is of an administrative nature, and arrangements are in force by which officials of the Ministry are already performing this duty. So far, we have not been able to devise means of adopting the recommendation that the Ministry should fix standards with regard to smoke. There, is great difficulty in carrying this recommendation into effect, and we do not at present see any practical method of doing so. It is not only confined to black smoke, such as the law in force defines as a nuisance. It may be practicable, and of course it is done with regard to noxious gases under the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act, but when you include all smoke in a Bill you find it difficult to carry the recommendation into practical effect. When we come to the Committee stage my noble friend will very likely have suggestions to offer, and if he has, of course we will give them the most careful consideration.
688
I come then to the second part of the recommendations, which deals with domestic smoke. I think that the recommendation upon which the Committee laid the greatest stress was that of empowering the local authorities to make by-laws requiring the provision of smokeless heating arrangements in new buildings other than private dwelling-houses, and Clause 3 of the Bill gives this power to local authorities. With regard to the recommendation of the Committee as to the central housing authority, I fear we could not embody this recommendation in a Bill. It really is a matter of administration, and not one for legal enactment, and this provision, if it were possible to put it into a Bill, might increase the cost of houses to be built by local authorities or public utility societies. But the recommendation will be borne in mind, and given every consideration by the central housing authority in sanctioning any new housing scheme. The, next recommendation is that the Government should encourage research. This is already being carried out by the Industrial Research Council, and it is not a matter for legislation.
Now I come to (c), the general recommendation. This again could not be included in the Bill, because it is of an administrative rather than legislative nature, and it is a recommendation which should be addressed to municipal authorities rather than to the central Government. Recommendations (d) deal with noxious vapours. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 2 of the Bill we take power to extend the list of noxious or offensive gases mentioned in Section 27 of the Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act, 1906, and the list of works mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act. Of course, as I have said, the fixation of a standard regarding noxious vapours is different from the fixation of a standard with regard to smoke, and this question is already dealt with in the Act of 1906, Part II, Sections 6 and 7. With regard to the recommendation that a general obligation should lie on every manufacturer to use the best practicable means of preventing the escape of noxious or offensive vapours, it is doubtful whether it would be practicable to enforce such an obligation, and we therefore think that the better plan is the one that we have adopted in the Bill, by extending the list of works and gases to which the Alkali Act can apply. In all works of this kind inspectors of the Ministry help the manufacturers

689
to provide moans of minimising the trouble resulting from noxious vapours.
I hope your Lordships will agree that we have gone a very considerable way to meet my noble friend's recommendations, and the Report of the Committee. So far as they are non-controversial, I think we have met them entirely, and we have also done as much as we can to deal with the other recommendations administratively. I venture to suggest that any further consideration on the other stages of the Bill should be postponed until the autumn, when the considered opinion of all those interested in the matter can be reached by private consultation. Your Lordships will notice that the Bill, as drafted, does not apply to Scotland, but I understand it is the wish of the Scottish authorities that it should be made to apply to Scotland, and no doubt, an Amendment to that effect can be moved at a later stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, while I gratefully welcome this Bill as an indication of the intention of the Government to deal with a question which is long overdue, I confess that I cannot go so far as to say that it is a genuine fulfilment of the promise made to the people interested in this question. Sir Alfred Mond, when requested by a very influential deputation to do so, undertook to bring in a Bill founded upon the recommendations of the Committee to which the noble Earl has referred. What this Bill actually does is not to carry out the recommendations of the Committee but slightly to amend the Act of 1875, which has been proved to be thoroughly unsatisfactory in its working. I feel that the most important recommendations that were made have been practically ignored. Personally, I feel rather in the position of a man who has been promised a passage, say, to America, and has been given only enough money to take him to Southampton or Liverpool.
The somewhat unheroic course has been adopted of bringing in what is called a non-contentious measure and leaving all the contentious part to be dealt with by myself or by other noble Lords who are interested in the question. As some of our most important recommendations have not been adopted I am afraid that the Bill is not likely to effect very much change.
690
I do not wish to appear ungrateful, and I am ready to admit that up to a certain point the Bill may do good. But if, for instance, the recommendation with regard to fixing standards is ignored, I am unable to sec how Clause 1 of the Bill can do very much good. And, however estimable may be the Government's intentions, it ! is not a very practical proceeding to pass a Bill unless there is some provision for actually carrying it out.
The defects of the Act to which I have referred are known to everyone interested in this question, and the weakness of the Act is shown by the fact that most of the important municipalities in this country, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Glasgow, Nottingham, and Liverpool, have found it necessary to bring in Acts of their own because the general Act has proved unworkable. One of the defects of this Act to which my noble friend did not allude is that certain industries, such as coal-mining and all works concerned with iron and steel, are exempted, and it is somewhat of an absurdity to exempt those particular industries, which produce more smoke than almost any others. I do not see any provision, either, for dealing with nuisances—and they are often very serious nuisances—caused by motor-cars and mechanically propelled vehicles generally. There is another point to which I would draw attention. The Bill contains no mention whatever of Government establishments. These are frequently the biggest offenders of all. I believe there have been constant complaints with regard to places like Woolwich; yet, apparently, they are to be completely exempted.
The two really important recommendations which we made are ignored altogether. The main recommendation, and the one that was likely to do most good, was that the duty of enforcing the law should be transferred from the small local authorities to county councils and county boroughs. At present, the law is administered by 1,800 small local authorities. If the recommendation which we made were adopted the law would be administered by only 140, which, in itself, would be a very considerable improvement. But in my experience I have found that it is the larger authorities, more particularly the county boroughs and the great cities, which are really anxious to do something. I have found in towns like Manchester and Glasgow, for instance, the utmost desire to

691
carry out the law, but they have never received the smallest encouragement from London, and they are completely at the mercy of their neighbours. Smoke is not a thing which is confined to the people who create it. You are liable to suffer from the smoke of your neighbours, and there is no inducement for a city like Manchester or Glasgow to carry out the law if the law is consistently neglected and defied by their neighbours. I might instance the case of London. The London County Council has always been most anxious to do what it could in this direction, but its action has been constantly thwarted by the neighbouring authorities, who never would put the law into force.
An equally, and perhaps even more, important recommendation is one alluded to by my noble friend, which the Government have found themselves unable to adopt, the recommendation, namely, that in the case of a recalcitrant authority the central authority—that is to say, the Ministry of Health—should step in and insist upon the law being carried out. Smoke is not a local or a petty question, it is really a national question, and unless you have some sort of Government stimulus it will be very difficult to get anything done. I think it is fair to say that for the last forty-seven years the Government, as represented by the Local Government Board, have done absolutely nothing in the way of enforcing the law. We have now a Ministry of Health, and a very expensive Ministry of Health. What is the sense, and where is the logic, of spending millions on so-called social reform if this particular Ministry is not going to pay attention to a nuisance which concerns millions of people in this country?
The noble Earl has suggested that what he calls controversial points should be raised at a subsequent stage, and has practically invited me to bring them up then. I am ready to accede to his suggestion, and I sincerely hope that I shall find some colleagues who will assist me, because it seems to me that the task of overcoming resistance to reforms which are absolutely necessary will be beyond the capacity of a private member of this or the other House. It is obvious that very important Amendments will be necessary in the Bill. They will have to be carefully considered, and I should like, if possible, to meet the views of the Ministry of Health. For that reason I agree entirely with the suggestion of my noble friend
692
that the Committee stage of the Bill should be taken at a later period; that is to say, in the autumn session.
I do not wish to say anything more on the Bill itself, but perhaps, as I have devoted a certain amount of time and attention to this question, I might be allowed to give my views—and they are the views of people with whom I have been associated—as to why further and more drastic legislation is required. I think everybody, or, at all events, all sensible people, will be agreed upon two points. The first point is that, however anxious we may be to abolish smoke and to purify the atmosphere of this country, the trade and industry of the country must not be prejudiced more than is absolutely necessary; in fact, I will go so far as to say that they ought not to be prejudiced at all. I think we shall all be agreed upon that.
The second point upon which I think everybody will be agreed is that, although we are, in the habit of priding ourselves upon our personal cleanliness, England and Scotland are, unfortunately, on the whole the dirtiest countries in Europe. Everybody knows what the condition of things really is. But let me point to the nearest example. Let me take the case of London. In the London area there falls every month in the form of soot no less than 25 tons per square mile. I forget how many square miles London covers, but I think it is a very large number. A simple calculation will show that if 300 tons of soot fall to every square mile within a year you could accumulate enough soot to construct a pyramid four or five times the size of Westminster clock-tower. That gives you an idea of the amount of pollution to which London is subjected.
In 1905 the damage to London by smoke was estimated, at pre-war prices, at £4,170,000. Let me take as an example the very building in which we are sitting. The Palace of Westminster was built, I think, eighty or ninety years ago. Its exterior, at all events, is in a perfectly deplorable condition at the present time. A large number of men are perpetually occupied in preventing the ornamental stonework from falling down and perhaps killing the persons who frequent this building, though some of them would not be much missed if they were killed. And a mischievously-disposed person could, if he liked, go round this building, and with nothing but his own hands pull off much of

693
the ornamental work, without any outside assistance at all.
I have instanced the case of London as showing that there is, at all events, considerable room for improvement. But whereas the fall of soot in London is only 25 tons per square mile per month, the fall of soot in Birmingham is 54 tons per square mile per month, and, although that may sound a good deal, there are very much worse places in England than Birmingham. I should be sorry to say what the amount of soot and other impurities is, at the present time, in some of the Lancashire and Yorkshire towns, but I am under the impression that the fall in a place like Wigan, or Rochdale, or Sheffield would be infinitely greater than that in Birmingham. We do not know the actual figures in the case of these towns because they are so ashamed of their condition that they have long ago refrained from publishing statistics. Birmingham is honest enough to show us what actually does occur there.
Let me take another case of what I might call a straightforward town—Manchester. Manchester, as we all of us know, is a very dirty town; at all events, the authorities there do not make any attempt to conceal the condition of the place, and elaborate calculations have been made showing that in Manchester alone, as compared with a clean town, no less than £50,000 a year is spent in the extra washing of collars, and the entire damage done by smoke to Manchester is valued at something like £1,000,000 in a year. Manchester is a town, as I have already pointed out, which really attempts to do its duty.
It is no exaggeration to state that there are millions and millions of people in this country—I am speaking, of coarse, of people who live in the industrial regions of the north—who, unless they leave their homes, have never realised what real sunshine is because they have never seen the sun except obscured by smoke. They have never seen the real colour of a tree trunk, and a good many of them are probably under the impression, which may last all their lives, that all sheep in this country are born black. The condition in certain parts of the north of England, and of Scotland, are so bad—I have had experience of this myself—that the in-habitants of certain towns literally cannot open their windows except at certain times when the works are closed, such as a Bank
694
Holiday. The great coal strike had, at all events, one solitary advantage—namely, that it enabled people to realise what the country really was like and what it could be made like if proper steps were taken. The coal strike must have had the effect of converting many people to the necessity of legislation.
Although new legislation is obviously required, what is, perhaps, even more important is the necessity that the law should be actually enforced. During the course of our Inquiry I persuaded the Minister of Health to allow the Lord Mayor of Manchester and myself to go to Germany and investigate the conditions there, and, as my noble friend has given me a testimonial with regard to economy, I should like to mention that this tour of the Lord Mayor and myself, winch extended over ten days, cost the country very little over £40. I consider that on the whole the country got very much better value out of this particular Mission than it has done out of many of the more ambitious Missions with which we are familiar. I might mention, incidentally, that we received every civility both from the German Foreign Office and German officials generally. The result of our investigation was somewhat of a surprise to me and to my companion. We were under the mistaken impression that Germany was a law-ridden country and that the regulations there were infinitely more drastic than they are here. To our surprise we found that the opposite was the cast. There was much less of what I might call paper legislation in Germany then there is here, but in spite of that fact the conditions were immeasurably superior.
The favourable conditions of industrial Germany as compared with industrial England may be attributed, roughly speaking, to three or four reasons—to the almost complete absence of anything in the nature of domestic smoke; to the more general use of gas for power and so forth; to the much greater efficiency in the use of fuel, and, lastly, to the greater foresight shown with reference to the expansion of towns and their industries. I must confess that the contrast between great German industrial towns, such as Cologne and Dusseldorf, and similar towns, such as Manchester and Leeds, in this country, struck me as extremely painful to an Englishman; and the comparison is equally painful when you go lower down in the scale. If you compare, for instance,

695
a town like Essen, which I suppose is the most smoky town in Germany, with Sheffield, which is the analogous town over here, the comparison is very greatly in favour of Essen. One simple fact will illustrate better than anything I can say the superiority of the conditions in Germany, and that is that whereas in this country, in a town like Manchester or Sheffield, a manufacturer, as soon as he can get sufficient money, hastens to get as far as he can away from his place of business, in Germany, in a town like Dusseldorf or Cologne, the manufacturer remains and lives in the town because it is an agreeable place of residence.
There cannot be any doubt that the reason we are dirtier than any other European country is to be found in the indiscriminate use of raw coal for all purposes whether domestic or industrial, and if you regard it simply from the point of cleanliness cheap coal has been little short of a great disadvantage to this country. Cheap coal is a phenomenon which we are not likely to experience much in the future; the miners, no doubt, will see to that, and the increasing price of coal will, in all probability, force the householder to alter his arrangements and adopt a system which will be infinitely superior to the present one. Unfortunately, many of the residents in the industrial districts of which I have spoken have become so accustomed to the state of things in which they were born and have grown up, that they are accepting that state of things without making any effort to remedy it. They find their local authorities apathetic; the local authorities find the central authority in London apathetic. Therefore, a large number of persons have come to the unfortunate conclusion that there is nothing to be done and that nothing will be done.
Unfortunately, the belief is also general, especially amongst uninstructed people—and I might add that it is largely encouraged by a certain class of manufacturers—that dirt means wealth and that the dirtier a country is the more prosperous it is and the happier is the community. I have found this extraordinary delusion to prevail in very high quarters. I remember an incident which made a most vivid impression upon me many years ago. About thirty or forty years ago a new railway was opened from a town called St.
696
Helens in Lancashire to some other town, and the Lord Derby of the day, uncle of the present Lord Derby, was invited to perform the ceremony of cutting the sod. The local joke was that it would be impossible to find a sod in St. Helens because, as anybody who knows that town is aware, owing to the industries which were being carried on there with great success, all vegetation had been killed.
The day arrived, and Lord Derby came to take his part in the ceremony. All the principal persons were present, and an imported sod was produced which probably had been removed from somebody's lawn tennis ground. Lord Derby divested himself of his coat, was presented with a silver-gilt spade, or whatever the proper implement was, and proceeded to cut the imported sod. Then, turning to his audience, consisting of all the representative persons in the town, he said: "Before I came here I was told that my work would be useless, because there would be no sod in St. Helens to cut." My reply was: "All honour to St. Helens." This sentiment was received with perfect rapture by his audience, and though I was a young man at the time I could not help feeling that it was a most deplorable utterance. As a matter of fact, it was the utterance of the typical Philistine of the Victorian period.
We have, fortunately, progressed since those days. I cannot believe that any Minister of this Government, or any future Government, will be found who will go down and congratulate a municipality upon having successfully destroyed the natural amenity of their neighbourhood. My impression is that their course will be the exact opposite, and, so far from congratulating neighbourhoods on performances of that kind, they will do their best to remedy such a state of things. It is for that reason I warmly welcome this Bill. I think it is much weaker than it ought to be, but it is at all events a step—a weak and faltering step it may be—towards the end. It shows that the Government, as represented by the Ministry of Health, have at last realised that they have a duty in this matter, and that that duty consists in removing a nuisance which affects the lives of many millions of our fellow citizens.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POSITION IN MESOPOTAMIA.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to draw attention to the position in Mesopotamia, and to ask His Majesty's Government how the Mandate, the Treaty with King Feisul and the "Independent Arab State," which the Secretary of State for the Colonies said on the 10th instant that "we are creating," can be reconciled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the control of Mesopotamia was one of the great objects of pan-Germanism, and the concession which was obtained by the Deutsche Bank for the construction of a railway in 1888 was the first important step towards the realisation of that object. The idea was to establish colonies all along the line, and the effect would have been, in time, to obtain the political and military control of the whole of Mesopotamia, with a strong grip upon Asiatic Turkey, and a very long arm stretched out far towards the East. Before the war the pan-German publicist Karl Radek made this explanation of the military importance of the Bagdad Railway:—
"The strengthening of German Imperialism, the first success of which, attained with so much effort, is the Bagdad railway, the victory of the Revolutionary Party in Russia, the prospects of a modern revolutionary movement in India, the movement towards nationalism in Egypt, the beginning of reform in Persia—all this has raised to an extraordinary degree the political significance of the Badgad Railway."
Now, we know from Prince Lichnowski's revelations that just before the war the Government was engaged in negotiating a Treaty with Germany, the effect of which would have been to give Germany complete control in Mesopotamia, together with other advantages.
Why the Germans did not close at once with this fine bargain, and put off their war, I do not know, but the fact that they did not do so is one of the strongest proofs that they were determined at that time to fight. Their great and very carefully designed schemes have all been shattered by the great war, and it has cone to pass, by the force of circumstances not entirely within our control, that we now find ourselves in power in Mesopotamia. We arrived there, of course, to protect the oil fields along the Karun river, which would otherwise have been destroyed by the Turks. We then made the very grave mistake of the premature advance on Bagdad, which led to disaster, and the terrible suffering of the troops which is
698
described in the Report of the Royal Commission. Then came General Maude's brilliant campaign, and we were led irresistibly onwards until now the whole country, about 600 miles long by 160 miles broad, has fallen into t lie hollow of our hands. I think that the immense increase of our territory since the war is a great drawback, in view of our present impoverished financial position. The Empire was large enough before, and we were not developing it as we ought to have been developing it. There is the further disadvantage that we are viewed by other nations as insatiable land-grabbers, and that we are regarded with special suspicion in America and in France, because we are thought to be seeking control of the oil fields which are believed to exist in Mesopotamia. I need hardly say that suspicions of that kind are totally undeserved, but we have to reckon with them, because they happen to exist.
Since the Armistice we have spent fully a hundred millions sterling upon Mesopotamia, and some of that amount, I am quite certain, has been wasted. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has recently said that he has reduced the expenditure to about £11,000,000 this year, and he promised further reductions if all goes well, but he did say that he was not without some feeling of anxiety. There have been no troubles recently, except in Kurdistan, where four British officers have been killed. The Kurds were originally intended to have self-government, but that intention was never carried out, and their present position is peculiar and uncertain. Mr. Churchill said that Southern Kurdistan was at liberty to take part in the impending General Elections if it chose. To my mind the association of Kurds with a General Election suggests comic opera. But the point is that the situation in the very mountainous regions of Mosul, where we have no frontier, is far from satisfactory at the present time, and until peace is concluded with Turkey there must be danger of risings in this region.
We have three military forces in Mesopotamia at the present time. The first is the Regular Army of 2,210 British troops, and 5,556 Indian troops, with 7,107 followers. Secondly, there are the native levies, which are under the control and the orders of the High Commissioner, and for which we pay the sum of about £600,000 a year. Thirdly, there are the

699
Arab forces, paid entirely out of the revenues of Mesopotamia. As the Secretary of State said on July 11—
"The presence of three armies co-existing together in the service of one State, differently paid and variously controlled and commanded, does lend itself to humour."
That also, I think, has a touch of comic opera about it. The Air Force appears to be in general control of all the Imperial forces, and it is proposed that it should operate from a fortified loop somewhere on the Tigris. Whether it could really deal effectively with a rising on a large scale in the north I will not attempt to discuss. I must point out that it has already absorbed a number of aircraft which are urgently needed for the service of the Navy.
Politically, the position seems extraordinarily complicated at the present moment. We have fulfilled in Mesopotamia the pledge we violated in Palestine, and we, have set up a native State under King Feisul. We are now making a Treaty with him, and on the top of the Treaty is the Mandate of the League of Nations, though Mr. Churchill did say distinctly that we were creating "an independent State" in Mesopotamia. An independent State is quite incompatible with the Mandate, which, I believe, is most unpopular among the people of Mesopotamia. The Treaty and the Mandate might be exceedingly difficult to reconcile because neither a Mandatory Power nor a mandated State has any freedom of action. The draft Mandate for Mesopotamia contains seventeen Articles, some of which would never be strictly carried out by any Arab State. But if any failure occurred it would be open to Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, or the Hejaz, all being original members of the League of Nations, to bring railing accusations against King Feisul's Government, or our own Government, or against both, before the League of Nations.
I assume that the Treaty, the terms of which I do not know, will embody the obligations contained in the Mandate. But who will be responsible? And what are we to do if the independent Arab State fails to conform to the meticulous provisions of the Mandate? I suggest that this is not a workable arrangement. It may land us in difficulties of all kinds, which we cannot now entirely foresee. I hope the noble Duke will tell us plainly what the policy really is in regard to Mesopotamia.
Viewing the economic possibilities I see no certainty whatever of profitable oil production, but I believe that the agricultural possibilities of the country are enormous. If they are to be developed we shall require great irrigation works, more railways, improved navigation on the great rivers, a sufficient settled population of agriculturists, a strong and stable Government, and a huge influx of capital. Is there any chance of those conditions being fulfilled at the moment? Under the auspices of a Lord Cromer, acting with a perfectly free hand, I can imagine Mesopotamia becoming a very rich and prosperous State, but we must remember that Lord Cromer's great work in Egypt is already beginning to crumble away, as is that vast and splendid work which generations of Britons have accomplished in India. You cannot repeat in Mesopotamia either the experience in Egypt, or the experience in India, without Western economic control, which seems now out of the question, and we can only hope that the people of Mesopotamia will be happy and contented if they muddle along in the good old Eastern fashion.
Meanwhile, we shall continue to spend something like £11,000,000, which we cannot afford now that we cannot find money to provide aircraft to make our Navy secure on the seas, or our great towns safe from bombardment on land. Our military strength is not sufficient for the needs which may any day arise, and I see a suggestion is made that it should be reduced to 90,000 men, being 30,000 less than the numbers which have been allowed to Poland. I hope there is no possibility of any such suggestion being looked at for a moment.
I was strongly opposed to the abandonment of Mesopotamia, and I said something on that point in this House. But I can now only come to the conclusion that we should abandon the whole country except Basra and the line of the river to Kurna. We cannot do this at the present moment, but it should be our fixed policy as soon as the independent State which we are creating has shown that it can maintain order and protect life and property. That will not be till we have concluded peace with Turkey. I note that King Feisul has been already informed that we reserve the right to throw up the Mandate. I find no provision in the Covenant for throwing up the Mandate, and I hope the opinion of the Law Officers of the

701
Crown was taken before this important communication was made to King Feisul.
I have reached the conclusion that we ought to abandon Mesopotamia as soon as we can, with the greatest reluctance, and only because I put the financial restoration of this country in the forefront of my wishes. We cannot afford the constant drain which Mesopotamia will create, or the large amount of unknown liabilities which are certainly involved. Incidentally, by abandoning all Mesopotamia except the narrow strip of territority to which I have referred, we should prove to all the Powers that we have no dark designs upon the oil fields of Mesopotamia; and that, in itself, would be something to the good.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I assume that the statement to which the noble Lord refers is that made by the Secretary of State in the course of a debate in another place on July 11. My right honourable friend's words were—
"We are not entitled to disclaim the Mandate, but we are acknowledging an Arab State. We are creating an independent Arab State, and making a Treaty with that State."
I do not quite understand the difficulty that the noble Lord finds in reconciling the policy of the Mandate with that of a Treaty with the State of Iraq. The Mandate defines the responsibility of His Majesty's Government as Mandatory Power towards the League of Nations. It does not define, or purport to define, our relations with the Iraq State, which will be regulated by the proposed Treaty as soon as it has been signed.
The position is this. His Majesty's Government in accepting a Mandate for Iraq accepted the obligation to advise and assist a country, whose existence as an independent nation had been provisionally recognised, until such time as it was able to stand alone. That is the language of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandate, when its terms have been approved, will explain and define the extent of the liabilities that we have incurred towards the League of Nations under this arrangement. Our acceptance of it constitutes the sanction under which we are empowered to enter into special relations with the Iraq State, and the special relations into which we propose to enter are those that will be set forth in the Treaty. If it were not for the Mandate we should
702
have no legal basis whatever for claiming a special position in Iraq, or for seeking to enter into Treaty relations with the Iraq State.
As it is, the authority of the Mandate gives us the necessary locus standi, and enables us to proceed as rapidly as possible with the process of converting the "provisional independence" of Iraq—which has been acknowledged by the League of Nations—into a definite and permanent reality. That is exactly what we are doing. It may perhaps be said that we are proceeding with the process more rapidly than was contemplated when the mandatory principle was first formulated. I do not resent that kind of criticism in the least. On the contrary, I welcome it as a tribute to the success which His Majesty's Government have achieved in the difficult task that was entrusted to them.
We informed the Council of the League of Nations in November last, before the negotiations for a Treaty with Iraq had made any progress, of the lines on which we intended to proceed. We have received no protest or criticism of any kind from them. We are, consequently, justified in assuming that they see no objection to the course on which we have embarked, and that they, at any rate, do not regard our action as in any way inconsistent with the obligations undertaken under the Mandate. I think, when noble Lords see the text of the Treaty, that they will realise that our whole policy is in strict accordance both with the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the general conceptions underlying the mandatory system.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think there must have been a little terminological inexactitude when Mr. Churchill used the words "independent Arab State." I think that was not, perhaps, exactly what he meant, because I cannot see, and I do not think the noble Duke has explained, how any independent State could exist in a state of independence under the Mandate. May I understand from the noble Duke that it is intended, when Mesopotamia can stand alone, to throw up the Mandate, and that such will be the policy of the Government as regards the future?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: That depends on how the independent Arab State turns out. If it turns out well, that might be possible.
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Duke whether it is true that this is costing us £11,000,000 a year?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I have not the exact figures here at the moment, but, if I may have notice of that question, I shall be very glad to give the noble Lord the information at any time.
LORD SYDENHAM: I think the figure of £10,500,000 was admitted in another place, but there were some other charges, which could not be brought in. It is somewhere about £11,000,000.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMEND MENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF GRANAND in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
1.—(1) The Royal Irish Constabulary shall be disbanded on such day, not being later than the thirty-first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-two, as may be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant, and on or before that date every officer and constable of that force shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall on his retirement be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded to him by the Treasury in accordance with the rules contained in Part I of the First Schedule of this Act and, in the event of his dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified.
(2) The provisions contained in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply as respects compensation allowances awarded in pursuance of this section in like manner as they apply as
704
respects pensions under the Royal Irish Constabulary Order, 1922, with the substitution of references to a Secretary of State for references to the Inspector-General.
(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 to which this subsection applies the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force. This subsection applies to any police force the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament or by any Parliament in Ireland or out of funds assisted by the Exchequer or by any Exchequer in Ireland.
(4) Sections eight and ten of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, which relate to continuous service in two or more forces and to services in more than one capacity, shall not apply to the service in the Royal Irish Constabulary of any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this section, or to his prior service in any other police force so far as the same has, for the purposes of the award, been reckoned as service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but if any such officer or constable takes service in any police force, and on his ultimate retirement therefrom is awarded a pension, then, 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 lie 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:
Provided that where the officer or constable on his ultimate retirement is awarded a lump sum instead of or in addition to a pension, the annual amount which would represent that sum, if converted into a life annuity, shall be determined by the Treasury, and the amount so determined shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be deemed to be or to form part of his pension.
(5) The Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, shall apply to any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance is awarded in pursuance of this section in like manner as if he had retired from the permanent civil service of the Crown on the abolition of his office, and any terminable annuity payable to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the commutation of a compensation allowance shall be paid out of the same funds as the allowance:
Provided that in such cases and on such terms as the Treasury may by regulation prescribe, the Treasury may, on the application of any such officer or constable, commute a portion of the compensation allowance so awarded to him as aforesaid for an annuity for a term of two years but ceasing on his death if he dies within that term, and in such case the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) the capital sum representing the portion of the compensation allowance to be commuted shall be ascertained in

705
accordance with the tables and the rule for determining age for the time being in force under the Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882;

(b) the capital sum so ascertained shall be applied by the National Debt Commissioners in providing an annuity for such term as aforesaid, and the National Debt Commissioners shall have power to grant such an annuity;

(c) in calculating the amount of the annuity, the same rate of interest, shall be assumed as is assumed in calculating such capital sum as aforesaid;

(d) subject as aforesaid the annuity shall be calculated in such manner and in accordance with such tables, and shall be payable in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe;

(e) sums payable or paid on account of any such annuities as aforesaid shall, for the purposes of sections six and eight of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, be treated as amounts awarded as commutations of pensions under that Act as applied by this subsection.

(6) Section nine of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883 (which relates to the punishment of persons obtaining pensions, etc., by fraud), shall apply in the ease of compensation allowances, commutation annuities, pensions, and gratuities awarded or payable in pursuance of this section in like manner as it applies in the case of pensions and gratuities under that Act.
(7) Where, for the purpose of expediting the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, any member of that force has, since the twenty-fifth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two and before the passing of this Act, been discharged with compensation, his discharge and the grant of compensation to him shall be as valid and effectual as if they had been expressly authorised by this Act, and the compensation shall be treated as compensation payable under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with respect to a compensation allowance awarded in pursuance of this section shall apply to any annual allowance so granted.
(8) All compensation payable to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary under this Act (including any compensation which is to be treated as so payable), and any pensions and gratuities granted to widows and children of such officers and constables in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(9) 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 a Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.
(10) For the purposes of section fifty-seven of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as it relates to pensions of officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary payable at the date of transfer, the day fixed for the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall, so far as respects Northern Ireland, be treated as the date of transfer.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable."
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper, I hope the House will excuse me if I digress somewhat from the Amendment, as I do not think it is possible for the House to understand either any of the Amendments which we propose or the proposals of the Government without having recalled to their minds what is the real subject matter with which you are dealing when you come to the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I venture to assert that there never has been under British rule any case of a similar nature, and, unless your Lordships keep that in view, and keep before you a picture of what you are doing, the men to whom you are doing it, and the reasons why you are doing it, you will be likely to inflict very grave injustice.
To some people, of course, this is a purely business matter, an effort to get rid of the force as cheaply as possible, but in reality it is a matter which in the gravest way affects the whole honour of British government. Let me tell your Lordships why. Who are the Royal Irish Constabulary? They are men recruited from the Irish people their selves; 90 per cent. of them, I should think, are Roman Catholics, and, therefore, certainly in recent years, the men who have undertaken the duties of constables in Ireland have done so with the knowledge that they would be surrounded by the extremist hostility of their own people, at home or in the districts to which they might be sent. They undertook to serve the British Government, therefore, under difficulties which, I venture to suggest, have not confronted any other force that was ever raised.
In 1919, His Majesty's present Government entered upon a policy of extreme suppression for the restoration of law and order, and the machinery they used was the Royal Irish Constabulary. These were the men who had to confront the rebellion, these were the men who had to carry out the Governments policy of reprisals, these were the men who had to tackle, in the extremest fashion, the very class from which they had been recruited; and

707
the Government did not spare them in that task. I have not the figures, but the numbers murdered, maimed, ambushed and wounded present one of the saddest tales in the history of any country. The most savage warfare—now all forgotten—was carried on. The present friends of the Government did not hesitate to use dumdum bullets, and every cruel method of savagery that has ever been invented. I remember many cases being brought before the House of Commons when I had the honour of being a member of that House, where policemen were found lying upon the roads with their entrails lying upon the pavements beside them, and this led to many wild acts of retribution—and no wonder!—by their colleagues.
These men were asked by the British Government to undertake this task in loyalty to their Service, and in the belief, as they had the right to believe, that they would not be in any sense abandoned by the British Government if they served it faithfully. They did serve it faithfully. Then it became convenient to His Majesty's Government to make friends with the men who had been murdering the police, the chief of whom, I believe, had himself sixteen warrants out against him for murder. Then the police became inconvenient to the Government, and they had to be got rid of with the offer of a pension and of an opportunity to go and live under the government of the men whom they had, up to that moment, been hunting, at the Government's request, for these crimes which I have been trying to depict to the House. They were told: "So long as you get this pension, you will be able to go back and resume your original position"—which, of course, was impossible. I say, therefore, that, in considering the whole of these Amendments, I claim your Lordships' sympathy for a case unique in history—certainly in the history of this country—that of the men who yesterday were your mainstay in Ireland, and whom now you want to get rid of because you have made friends with those whose crimes you asked them to put down. That is shortly and plainly and truly the case.
This first clause provides that compensation shall be awarded on the terms set out in the Schedule. On this Amendment I shall not go into the terms of that Schedule, nor, indeed, have I any authority or power to do so. I shall assume for a moment that it is the Schedule which the Government are going to grant.
Of course, nobody but the Government can propose a financial pension for these men. But, after subsection (1), which says that these pensions should be granted and that in the event of a constable "dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified," I ask your Lordships to insert these words:
"Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable."
What that means is this; under the law as prevailing in Ireland, at all events up to the time of the Treaty, and I suppose it prevails now, a constable injured in the discharge of his duties had a right to claim against the district in which he was injured, to be levied out of the rates, certain compensation for those injuries. For instance, if a man lost a leg or an arm, he—or if he lost his life his representative or his family—could claim against the county or district a certain compensation for malicious injuries. Numbers of these police have been so injured in the past two or three years, and from time to time they have been awarded, and in some cases paid, either wholly or partially, varying sums, sometimes considerable sums and sometimes smaller sums, for the injuries that they have received. What I ask is that in computing their pensions—on compulsory disbandment recollect—these sums paid or awarded for injuries received should not be taken into? consideration; in other words, that they should be taken as payments for their injuries, as was intended.
Your Lordships will test it best in this way: Two constables out doing duty fall into an ambush laid for them by the Sinn Feiners. One of them is injured—perhaps loses his leg or suffers some other minor injury—and he is awarded a sum in the manner I have told you. I want to have it indicated that he should get exactly the same pension, having regard to the number of years served, as the man who is not wounded at all. All the more for this reason, that none of these men would ever be able to get any employment again in the south and west of Ireland, and these wounded men, if they come to this country, will not have the same chance of employment as the unwounded men. Therefore, I say that the money awarded to a con-

709
stable for malicious injuries should not in any sense, or in any circumstances, be taken into account in assessing his pension under these rules.
There is another matter. Your Lordships will observe that under this clause where a man dies after his pension has been awarded to him the Treasury "shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified." I also want to have it applied in such a case that any sum received for malicious injuries shall not be taken into account, in awarding a pension or gratuities, under the circumstances stated in the; clause, to the widow and children.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I interrupt my noble and learned friend? I am not sure whether he contends that his Amendment applies to the case with which he is now dealing, or whether the case that he is now bringing forward is referred to in a later Amendment, because I understand the present Amendment does not cover the case to which he is now alluding Will he explain if he contends that it does?
LORD CARSON: My Amendment deals with all the pensions mentioned in subsection (1).
VISCOUNT PEEL: As the Amendment reads it says—
"Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable";
but the noble and learned Lord just now was, I understood, dealing with the case where the man had died.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount misunderstood me. I was reading the words in the clause—
"and, in the event of his dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified."
I say that in that case, in awarding a pension to his widow or children, no account should be taken of the fact that the husband had received money for malicious injuries.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I entirely understand the argument, and I will not interrupt the noble and learned Lord now, because I
710
should argue that his Amendment does not apply to that. I will deal with it later.
LORD CARSON: If my Amendment does not apply to that I hope it will be made applicable by the draftsman. I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I am somewhat pertinacious about it, because it is a very vital matter. This clause contemplates that the police constable or officer who is retiring may die after the compensation allowance has been awarded to him. In that case the Treasury
"shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified."
But what I say is that in that case, as well as in his own case, you should obliterate and leave out of consideration altogether any moneys which have been paid for the malicious injuries which he has received.
It may be said that under the rules there is no power to take into consideration this money paid for malicious injuries. All I know is that it has been taken into consideration, and it is impossible to know from reading the schedule what the powers are, because it is in these general terms—
"The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to receive if he had retired for length of service under the existing enactments applicable to him, and had been qualified in respect of his length of service for a pension."
I do not know what that means, and I do not know whether under the existing enactments they claim to do that which I wish to prevent. But that they have been doing it I am made aware by the cases which have been put before me. In any event, if it is said that previous compensation is not taken into consideration in fixing these pensions, I would ask your Lordships to make it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill that it shall not be taken into consideration.
Do think what it is to these men and to their families. They are marked men, every one of them, wherever they go. I had a letter from one the other day who went to a place in Scotland, where, no doubt, there is a large Irish population, and there were several small appointments that he tried to get under various local bodies. He told me that the moment it was known he was an ex-Irish Constabulary man they would not look at him, because they were afraid, as he was a marked man, of the effect it would have

711
on the other employees of the bodies to which he had applied. Therefore, the last hope of these men, who have to leave their country and who will find great difficulty in getting employment elsewhere, lies in what Parliament does for them now.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Carson.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I wish to express the hope that the Government will adopt this Amendment, and I express that view with the more satisfaction because of the cordial appreciation which I, in common with everyone who has been connected with the Irish administration, have always felt for the celebrated force of which we are now speaking, not only for their splendid efficiency but for the tradition and public spirit by which that efficiency has been inspired and maintained. This Amendment is not based on a matter of sentiment, but of justice, and of justice all round. The noble and learned Lord in introducing the Amendment cited some very painful and melancholy facts, which we all deplore. Perhaps it is not absolutely usual in moving an Amendment that a matter somewhat beyond its immediate scope should be mentioned, but I perfectly understand the reasons why the noble and learned Lord should wish the House to hear him. Perhaps I had better abstain from even suggesting the desirability of justice all round including cases of other people who have been subjected to pains and penalties through no fault of their own in connection with the recent and present distressing state of affairs, but notwithstanding all that we have heard from the noble and learned Lord about the deplorable trials and difficulties to which these men have been subjected, I hope that this illustrates perhaps the last phase of the present critical condition of affairs, and that, when things do become settled, even these Royal Irish Constabulary men who are now placed in this difficult position will find that they can live in Ireland in peace and safety. I am thinking especially of the older men, because I understand that they do not come under the scope of the operations of the tribunal at the Home Office, which deals with the subject.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): I do not wish to take up any of your Lordships' time by
712
repeating what I said on the Second Reading concerning the feeling of everybody about the, services rendered by the Royal Irish Constabulary. I feel that your Lordships, in considering these Amendments, will examine them sympathetically, with a desire to do all that you can for the distinguished force which is now, owing to circumstances familiar to your Lordships, being disbanded. I would only point out first, that however desirous your Lordships are of doing all that you can for these men, we in this House, as your Lordships well know, are limited by financial considerations. The second point is that this Bill only makes provision for the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for other purposes incidental thereto. The noble and learned Lord has stated a case on behalf of the widows and others who may receive pensions as the result of the deaths of their husbands, and he suggests that any compensation which these men may previously have received from injuries sustained shall not be counted in, or have any effect upon, the pensions that these widows receive.
The noble and learned Lord, rather to my surprise, said that in such cases pensions had been abated because allowance had been made for compensation already paid in respect of those injuries. That is totally different from the information that I have myself. I was informed that there was no provision, in this Bill or elsewhere, which would either entitle anybody to take, or insist that anybody should take, into account compensation so paid in fixing the pensions. But if there is any doubt upon the point, I am perfectly ready to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. That is the intention. If it can be carried out and it wants putting into the Statute I have certainly no objection, if it has not been carried out. I reserve this point. I am not quite sure whether the drafting exactly covers the point, but, subject to that, I will accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the noble Viscount accepts the Amendment as it stands on the Paper?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have said so. I thought I was clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I know the noble Viscount said so, and he is always clear. But he did say that he was

713
limited by one consideration—namely, the difficulty of privilege in the other House of Parliament. I think he said so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly; unfortunately, we all are.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount is in the same case as all your Lordships. It is true that we are in that position. I only rise at this moment because it seems to me to be material to say, so that it will not be necessary to repeat it later on in the consideration of these Amendments, that we are limited by privilege; that is to say, if the House of Commons chooses to insist upon its privilege. But I cannot help hoping that the House of Commons will not insist upon its privilege because this is an appeal not only to the compassion of this country but to the honour of this country, and I cannot believe that they will use the weapon of privilege in order to defeat something which must appear, I was going to say to all honest men, at any rate to all reasonable men, to be what is natural and right as a mere matter of justice. I venture, therefore, to make this appeal to His Majesty's Government and to the noble Viscount opposite, that they will use their influence with their colleagues in another place so that privilege may be waived in this urgent case. For my part, I cannot believe that if these points had been before the House of Commons they would have been ignored by that House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They have all been before the Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to hear it. I am not so familiar with what goes on there as the noble Viscount is, of course, from the information at his disposal, but I have been a member of the House of Commons, as he has, and I know that a good deal of business goes through that House possibly without full consideration owing to the pressure of business. But I cannot help thinking that if the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who sits by him urge upon the Government how necessary it is to forego privilege in this case privilege will be waived. I am certain that public opinion out of doors would never sustain the Government in resisting what is but justice to this body of men who have shown such great devotion to this country.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I am anxious to support, with all the force I can command, the request which has just been addressed to His Majesty's Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I approach all these questions, of course, naturally and inevitably more from the point of view of a member of the House of Commons, in which I had the honour of sitting for more than forty years, than that of a member of your Lordships' House. I can recollect many instances in which the Government of the day, impressed with the fact that Amendments introduced here have improved a Bill and made it more satisfactory for the purpose for which it was originally intended, have done their best, with due precaution as to there being no precedent created, etc., to waive the right of the House of Commons to overrule this House in regard to financial provisions.
I desire to support my noble friend in his request, for this special reason to which reference has been made by the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment and the noble Marquess—namely, that this is the last occasion upon which it will be possible, I will not say to do justice, but to avoid doing irreparable injustice to men whose debt is unpayable in money and whose services have been of indescribable value to this country during a long period of years. It is not a question of doing justice; it is a question of avoiding a very grave injustice. And if your Lordships will allow me I will venture to remind the House of what I stated on a previous occasion—that these men, by force of circumstances, are now being scattered not only all over the United Kingdom but all over the British Empire and, indeed, possibly beyond it. They feel that they are being forced from their homes and with, no will of their own are sent away as a consequence of the policy of the Government, of this country.
I would entreat the Government to remind their colleagues with whom the settlement of this question will rest in the House of Commons, to bear in mind that it is worth the waiving of some particular privilege; it is worth some little departure from ordinary practice to make such alterations in this Bill before it receives His Majesty's assent as will make it a measure of peace and good will to these men, and will remind them to the day of their death of the fact that England was not willing to do an injustice to them. On those grounds I would most urgently ask

715
the Government not to reject this Amendment simply because it involves a question of privilege, but to go further, as the noble Marquess has suggested, and to do all in their power to bring about that which in this case is justified if ever it needed justification.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not want to prolong the debate but, speaking as I do from a different point of view from either of the noble Lords who have just spoken, I desire to join most cordially in begging His Majesty's Government to use all their influence with their colleagues in another place for the waiving of privilege in this particular matter. It has often been my fortune, when sitting on the bench where the noble Viscount is, to be obliged to point out to the then Opposition the view which was likely to be taken on certain questions of privilege; but I can entirely endorse what has lately fallen from the noble Viscount, that with all Governments there have been cases in which, in another place, on the representations of the Government there, the House of Commons has cheerfully and sometimes with great satisfaction waived its privilege when it has been a question of justice to individuals.
I need not add anything to what my noble friend opposite said about the Irish Constabulary. Like all who have had to do with the government of Ireland, I feel that we owe an incalculable debt to that body, and as this is the last occasion on which, in the terribly difficult circumstances in which through no fault of their own they find themselves, we can do something to relieve their hard lot, I most earnestly trust that the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite will make the strongest representations to their colleagues in another place on this particular matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: Shortly stated, the point of my Amendment is this. This subsection enacts that if any of these men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are being disbanded, whether officers or constables, obtain employment in some other police force they lose either in whole or in part the pensions that have been given them on disbandment from the Royal Irish Constabulary. That, to my mind, is a
716
most unfair thing. What does it mean? It means that you may get any position you like except the particular position in which you have been trained, and you may keep your pension as well as the emoluments of that pension, but if you take up police duties (the one thing in which you are trained) then you must lose the pension which has been given to you by the British Government. I say that is absolutely unfair and unreasonable. This is called the condensation allowance in the Bill. Why should a man be told: "It is far better for you to go hanging about doing nothing than to take re-employment as a policeman, because if you take such reemployment you will make nothing out of it, since you will lose the compensation that you would otherwise have got under this Bill." I do not understand the reason for putting this in. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but I have some knowledge of Acts of Parliament, and this is what I find printed in the Bill—
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord was making a mis-statement. I am sure he did not intend to do so. He stated that if a man did nothing he would be just as well off as if he had gone into a police force. That is incorrect, because the noble and learned Lord omits to state that he gets pension for the years he served in the other force, and therefore it is not true to say that if he does nothing he gets just as much as if he joins a police force.
LORD CARSON: I do not understand that, but I am wrong probably. I take the Bill and what are the words? They are—
"If any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this section—"
that I understand is his pension; is not that so?—
"takes service in any police force to which this subsection applies the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force."
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is correct.
LORD CARSON: Supposing, therefore, he takes service in a force in which he is paid the same sum as the pension, he gains nothing by getting that work.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He may lose his further pension. The noble and learned Lord will see in the Bill that there is an arrange-

717
ment about pensions in which the service he renders in the second force counts towards his pension.
LORD CARSON: That is in regard to the pension ultimately given to him, but I am talking now of the man who takes service in a force, and I say that under this subsection, if he takes service as an officer or constable, and the pay is no higher than his pension, he loses his pension so long as he keeps the position as an officer or constable in the new force. He may lose it in whole or in part. That is absurd. Why should be lose it if he takes that, particular employment? Why should not be lose it if he takes employment as a prison warder (which is one of the occupations they sometimes get), or as a caretaker, or as anything else? Why is he to be mulcted because he takes the class of work for which he is best suited? I hope your Lordships will lay it down that the compensation which is given under this Bill is given because the man is being kicked out in the circumstances I have already explained, when he does not want to go, and after he has faithfully served the Government up to the present time The idea of trying to save something because a man happens to get into another police force is, I think, unworthy of the Government, in circumstances such as those with which we are confronted here.
So far as I recollect—I may be wrong, because I have not verified it—this subsection was not in the Bill when it was originally brought in. I think the Government introduced it in Committee or on Report, but in regard to that the noble Viscount will know. I urge your Lordships to leave out this subsection. Conceive what would happen. A man goes about idling from day to day finding it impossible to get employment, and suddenly he finds an advertisement that a man is wanted in the police force. He says: "There is no use going for that, because I shall get nothing for my work." Or take the case of another man becoming sick of doing nothing, or having gravely encumbered himself by reason of doing nothing; he goes into the police force and finds the same state of affairs. I submit that is unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances, and I hope your Lordships will strike out this subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines to 13, leave out subsection 3.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord has commented very severely on this provision in the Bill, and has said that it is quite unreasonable and unworthy of the Government. When we were dealing with this matter on Second Reading your Lordships proposed and carried a Motion against my advice. Although I ventured to tell your Lordships that a good deal of time would be wasted upon it, and that you would not shorten proceedings in the Committee of the House, an Amendment was moved that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Your Lordships had the whole control of the matter. No member of the Government was even asked to serve upon that Committee. That courtesy was not given to the Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The result was that this House selected its own members, and I dare say selected far better members—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interrupt, but I should be sorry if it was thought that I was discourteous to the Government. It certainly was not my intention. I was consulted about the appointment of this Committee, and I understood at the time—I now know wrongly understood—that the Government did not want to take part in the Committee. I ought to have consulted them, and I beg to express my apologies for not having done so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, and I acquit him of any discourtesy. It was rather the wisdom of the course on which I was venturing to comment just now. Here was a Committee of five under the chairmanship of Lord Muir Mackenzie. The Committee was composed of men of singular knowledge, experience and ability; indeed, a great tribute was paid to their capacity by, I think, the noble Marquess himself. They have examined everything in the Bill carefully, and they support this proposal. I want to make it clear to your Lordships that you sent this matter to a Committee of your own choosing, and they say this is a good proposal. But the noble and learned Lord says it is absolutely unworthy of the Government. Is it unworthy of the Committee? What is the use of referring this matter solemnly to a Committee selected by your Lordships, and then meekly, perhaps at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, throwing over this Committee?
LORD CARSON: You are moving to leave out everything they did.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Will the noble and learned Lord wait till I have finished? If it is so unworthy of the Government, is it unworthy of the Committee? Anyhow, I am glad to say that the Committee in this case are in the same boat. It is true that I am going to move to leave out one of the Amendments of the Committee, for reasons I shall then state, but I want to make it clear to the House that the noble and learned Lord is quite at variance with the Committee to which your Lordships entrusted your fortunes in this matter. The Amendments inserted by the Committee were passed by your Lordships without any discussion, and if it had not been for myself I suppose we might not have recommitted the Bill. I think the onus to some extent is on the noble and learned Lord to show that this is a good Amendment. I ask your Lordships to consider this matter carefully. One ought not, I think, to be guided entirely by sentiment in these matters, but ought to consider them as a business proposition. Subsection (3), as the noble and learned Lord says, enables the compensation allowance in pursuance of this section to be suspended if he "takes service in any police force to which this subsection applies." The argument of the noble and learned Lord is this. He says why not suspend this allowance if they obtain work or employment in any other occupation or force; why limit this suspension to the case in which they are entering upon similar work to that to which they are accustomed? It is clear from his argument that he does not in the least understand the principle on which this compensation allowance is given.
LORD CARSON: Very likely.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think he does; and I am trying to make it clear that, under this proposal, twelve years is added to the length of service of these men in the force, and on that their compensation allowance is based. Why are these years added? They are added because they are disturbed in the employment to which they are accustomed. But if they go into another police force supported by public funds—it is limited to the public funds which the British and Irish Government contribute out of Taxes—
THE EARL OF DESART: It was not so limited when the Bill was first introduced.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Earl will only wait I will give him the story, but if he wishes to make a speech in the middle of mine I will give way. I was stating, when I was interrupted, what the principle of the Bill was. The principle is this: that as they are disturbed in their particular occupation, the disturbance would be much less if they took service in another and similar service in the United Kingdom, paid out of public funds and did precisely the same work; there was comparatively little loss of employment. The case of suspension was discussed in another place and it was limited to the particular case of the man going into the police force and into exactly similar duties as he had been performing in the previous police force.
This provision is not, as the noble and learned Lord thinks, an arbitrary provision. It is based on the general principle that the State ought not to be burdened with the payment of compensation allowance or pension to a man while he is earning effective pay in other employment, and it is thoroughly well established throughout all our State arrangements. It has been limited in another place, and it is that limitation which seems to excite the indignation of the noble and learned Lord. It applies to all pensions under the Superannuation Acts, to all police pensions in Great Britain, and to Irish Constabulary pensions since 1883; and it applies with greater force to cases where pensions and allowances are granted on account of temporary loss of employment. Where a man subsequently obtains employment of a similar character there is no loss to be compensated while he remains in that service, and he cannot claim and receive pension for loss of employment and full pay for that particular employment at the same time. That is the principle on which the matter is based.
The noble and learned Lord was not accurate in saying that the man might as well do nothing and might just as well not enter the police force because he is not as well off. That is not so. While he is in the other force, though his compensation allowance is suspended, he is earning pension, and raising the amount of compensation which he will ultimately receive when he leaves that second service.
LORD CARSON: You take a bit out of that, too.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The principle of the subsection commended itself entirely and unanimously to the Committee which dealt with this matter, and, though I should not suggest that your Lordships should not give full sympathy to the claims of these men, I ask you to consider that in this matter you are infringing a broad principle, and one which would have a much wider application than that of the case of the Irish Constabulary—namely, the principle that a man ought not to be paid twice over at the same times for the work he is doing. I hope your Lordships will support your own Committee which unanimously reported in favour of the proposal which the noble and learned Lord now desires to omit.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I appeal to the noble Viscount on the ground of public policy? It is, of course, open to the Government to say that the Committee have reported in favour of this provision in the Bill, but as a matter of public policy does it not occur to him that the measure is working as badly as it can? You have a body of men admirably trained for a particular purpose. Then you say: "Go into anything you have not been trained for, but if you go into the one thing for which you have been trained you must be fined heavily." That is not the intention of the Government, and it would have been far better to have dealt with this question by making an attempt to use the whole body of these men en masse in some similar calling. The present position is disastrous. Under the present Bill no man who goes into a police force will be certain—
VISCOUNT PEEL: A police force paid out of Government funds.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: No man who enters a police force can be certain whether his allowance will be suspended in whole or in part. That is an uncertainty which will prevent men offering themselves for the one service in which they are liable to be mulcted, not by the noble Viscount, but by any official who has to deal with this matter. He will decide whether in whole or in part this allowance should be suspended. I suggest that it would be better to state what deduction would be made.
722
It is true that the State will gain financially if it has not to train other men, but as they have been trained it may be fair to say that one-third of their pension should go if they join a police force. But it would give them some certainty. The noble Viscount has, I know, expressed great sympathy with them, but as I look at the matter on public grounds I hope he will look at it from that standpoint. I firmly believe it would conciliate the whole of the opposition.
THE EARL OF DESART: I think a great deal of the discussion arises, and may arise on future Amendments, because the noble Viscount and the Government really look at this question from a different standpoint from that of my noble and learned friend and those of us who are interested in the Irish Constabulary. He applied rules which I quite understand to this Bill and the abandonment of this force. We contend and, we think, rightly, that there is no precedent and no parallel to the position in which the Royal Irish Constabulary are placed, and we think that this question ought to be approached quite independently of the considerations to which I myself should in most cases be the first to attach weight.
With regard to this particular Amendment, the Bill first came before the Committee with no reservation at all in this clause, so that, if the constable or officer joined any other police force, he might have his pension reduced or removed. The Committee adopted a course which, to them, seemed to be one step in advance, namely, that that removal or reduction of the pension should, at any rate, apply only where the man took service in forces which were paid or contributed to out of public funds. I think it was the view of the Committee, as it certainly was my own view, that this was a great advance. I thought it would be likely to be accepted by the Government, and I confess that I was influenced by the desirability of adding to the Bill something that was quite obviously reasonable in itself, and which we reasonably hoped might be accepted by the Government. That was the view of the Committee, but the fact that I served on the Committee does not preclude me from having views of my own that may be in advance of those of the Committee, and, while I am glad and obliged to the Government for having conceded this point, I certainly, in the circumstances of this force—which I do not

723
want to dwell upon, because they have been so ably stated by my noble and learned friend—should be extremely glad to see my noble friend's Amendment adopted, and I shall support it. The argument he put forward, which was supported by my noble friend Lord Midleton, is a strong one, because—and I think this point has not been dealt with by Lord Peel—if a man becomes a warder, or anything of that sort, he retains the whole of his pension, although a warder may also be paid, to some extent, out of public funds; whereas, if he goes to the work for which he is mainly suited, he runs the risk of losing the whole or part of it. While, therefore, I appreciate the fact that the Government have, in this particular respect, made a concession, I wish they were going to do it in others, and, apart from the recommendation of the Committee, I shall certainly support my noble friend if he goes into the Lobby.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I desire to say one word on this question, because I find myself in very complete agreement with the noble Earl who has just sat down. The noble Viscount said that, in sending this Bill to a Select Committee, the House had committed the fortunes of the Bill—I think that was the phrase he used—to such a Committee. The House does nothing of the kind. The House, when it sends a Bill to a Select Committee, desires to have the benefit of a close examination by several highly competent noble Lords, who are told off for that purpose, but it in no way sacrifices its power or its right to make any further alterations in the Bill when it returns from that examination.
I think the noble Viscount was otherwise engaged when my noble friend behind me was speaking, and may not have heard what the noble Earl said about what happened in the Committee with regard to this particular clause—namely, that, when it reached the Committee, it involved the sacrifice of the compensation if an ex-constable took service in any police force anywhere; that is to say, in the Colonies or anywhere else. The noble Earl, however, and his friends on the Committee, anxious to get half a loaf if they could not get the whole, made the restriction apply only to forces in this country, feeling that His Majesty's Government might accept that, at any rate, although they would not, as appears to be the case, have accepted the rejection of the entire provision.
724
As a matter of fact, we are, no doubt, engaged in committing another breach of privilege. I am afraid that cannot be denied, but I do not know that we need be worried by that, because all the privileges of another place do not curtail our right of discussion or of representation on any subject, with a view of causing the other place to waive its privilege on financial questions, if we can convince it that it ought to do so. But I agree with my noble friend who spoke last that, in taking the course which they have taken, His Majesty's Government are adopting a somewhat pedantic adherence to a very well-known rule. Of course, it is the rule that if a man obtains a pension in some branch of the public service and then is appointed to another post in a different service, so long as active service continues, his pension in respect of the first post is suspended. That is a rule with which everybody is familiar.
But I do most heartily agree with the noble Earl who spoke last, and, I think, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that you cannot in fairness apply that rule to the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. When a service of active men is abolished offhand and, as has been pointed out, many of these men would have the opportunity of finding work of the kind to which they are most accustomed, and to which they are most suited, no dangerous precedent and no injustice to others will be caused by a practical abandonment of that rule. I cannot help feeling that what is being done involves far too close an adherence to the mere letter of the rule, and that its spirit might be thoroughly well enforced by adopting the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to say one word in reply to the noble Marquess. He has far more experience of this House than I have had, and I am always ready to defer to his view on all matters of procedure. I certainly was under the impression that one ought to pay considerable deference—perhaps, in the opinion I held, too great a deference—to the Report of a Select Committee which had examined a Bill, and, if I have erred on the side of respect to the findings of the Committee, I should be very glad to apologise, and to treat it in the manner which the noble Marquess wishes. I shall certainly look with a more critical eye upon some of the subsequent decisions

725
of that Committee, and I trust that, in that respect, the noble Earl will be good enough to follow the good advice which he has so kindly given me.
I want to give your Lordships an example, because I am not quite sure that the House fully appreciated the whole effect of what is being done. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, seemed, I think, to find that there was some difficulty in deciding what the reduction should be in the case of these particular pensions, and what the abatement was, and I think he suggested details of that kind should be put into the Statute. Some weeks ago I laid upon the Table a Paper entitled Revised Terms of Disbandment, and I am afraid that owing to his many preoccupations, avocations and duties the noble Earl has not had time to read the passage in that Paper, which would have made the matter quite clear to him.
Perhaps he will allow me to read it:
"The principle on which this provision—"
that is, the suspension of compensation allowance—
"will be applied will be that if the pay of the new employment plus the compensation allowance exceeds the pay which the officer or man was receiving at the date of disbandment, the compensation allowance will be suspended to the extent of the excess."
Thus it is clear from that rule that in no case in which a man has joined another police force will he be paid any lower pay than he was receiving in the previous police force in which he was employed. Does the noble and learned Lord contest that point?
LORD CARSON: I do not know whether that is a Statute you are reading.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am reading from the Revised Terms of Disbandment. They have been laid on the Table, and the whole of the operations are proceeding upon those terms.
LORD CARSON: It is not in an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It has not been put into an Act of Parliament, but it is just as sacred as an Act of Parliament, because it has been laid upon the Table and it has been stated by the Government that
726
it is upon those terms that they are proceeding. The money voted by the House of Commons for these particular payments was based upon this Paper, which I have now in my hand. May I quote the example given there. "If a constable of ten years' service who at the date of disbandment was in receipt of £4 10 s. a week and is awarded a compensation allowance of 38 s. a week, takes service in another police force at £3 10 s. a week, his allowance will be suspended to the extent of 18 s. a week." Now, under your Lordships' proposal, which I think you have to consider fairly, this man would get 38 s. per week in addition to the £3 10 s. per week which he was getting in his new employment. Why should he get that? He gets it although he is doing probably just the same class of work, and therefore is in no trouble about learning a new trade or going into a different and more troublesome line of life. In such a case he does not change his business. He goes into exactly the same class of work, and he has the immense advantage that instead of living in Ireland he lives in this country, which is a far more agreeable country to live in. That advantage is worth at least a pound a week, and I hope your Lordships will not break through this great general principle to which I have alluded.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount to which we have just listened shows how little he understands the real problem for which we are contending. The principle to which he has alluded applies to the ordinary civil servant. He says that the ordinary rules which apply in such cases ought to apply to the case of these police constables, and he winds up by saying how gratified these men should be at living in England instead of in Ireland. He says that that is an advantage which is worth at least a pound a week to a man who has been driven out of the country where he has lived his whole life, where all his relatives are, and where his home and the homes of his forebears have been for generation after generation—the country where, of all countries, he would prefer to live. It shows the spirit in which the noble Viscount, who, of course, knows nothing about Ireland—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I know all about England.
LORD CARSON:—and who is only deeply concerned about India now, tries to consider this matter. None of these principles apply to this case, and for this reason, that it is the British Government and the British change of policy which have brought about the whole of this difficulty. It is through the British Government that these men are brought into the position in which they now stand. It is the British Government who are turning them out of an employment which they had taken up for their lives. It is the British Government who, through their policy in putting the men whom these constables were set to keep in order in the position of being the masters of these constables, are driving these constables out of their own country and compelling them to bring their families over here, or to go to the Colonies. Very many of the families of these men will be quite miserable at the thought of leaving Ireland, even although Ireland is in this condition. Anybody who knows anything about Ireland knows that the one thing which they hate is being uprooted in this manner.
Perhaps the House will allow me to read a letter which I received just before I arrived here from a man who has just been disbanded—an ex-district inspector. It will show you the problem with which you have to deal. On being disbanded he went home, and he says:—
"On March 26 a crowd of the Irish Republican Army raided my house, carried off my motor car, smashed my gates and doors, and terrorised my wife and children. A few nights afterwards they again raided my house, broke several windows and fired shots. On my return on April 28 my house was raided on several occasions by the I.R.A., under pretence of searching for arms. They smashed various articles of furniture and insulted my wife, using very bad language. I then received notice to leave, or else I would be shot. All the men of the R.I.C. who were living there received similar notices. In the night of May 18 all our houses were then raided, shots fired into them, and many of the men pulled out and beaten. I left a few days afterwards for another district, where I was promised protection by my friends. In the meantime, I had disposed of some of my furniture, but I had to leave some behind. I also had to leave a valuable garden, which was planted with potatoes, vegetables, etc., behind, valued at about £70. A few weeks after my arrival at the new place a party of I.R.A. told me I would not be allowed to live there without a permit from the I.R.A. I told them I would not ask for such a permit. This party told me that if the war started in Cork myself and all loyalists would be shot. I had to leave on the 17th inst. and came on here, Most of the loyalists in County Cork have now cleared out, leaving their property and effects behind them, and the British Government do not appear to be doing anything to relieve us."
728
That is the kind of life that a disbanded man has to live.
That is the man you are dealing with—not the comfortable civil servant, who probably lives somewhere in the suburbs of London, and who, when he has retired, gets his pension. This man will be hunted—and so will they all be hunted, and are being hunted—from pillar to post. And then you tell them: "Under all your difficulties, driven out of your own country, driven out of your home with your wife and family, whom you have taken away for fear they should be killed, taken away into entirely new surroundings, remember, if you dare to go into another police force in the country to which you have gone, then your pension will be cut off, in whole or in part." I hope your Lordships will not allow it. I hope you will say that these men have earned these pensions, and, so far as I am concerned, I will divide the House on the subject in the hope that we may get justice for these men.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord alluded to the hardships which a great number of these men had to suffer in leaving their country and coming to this country. That is not so in the case of a great many of them. Although they may possibly leave their own county, hundreds of them have taken service in the Ulster police force.
LORD CARSON: That is a pleasant place!
VISCOUNT PEEL: It may not be a very pleasant place, but it is, at any rate, a portion of their own country.
THE EARL OF MEATH: May I say a few words, as an Irishman who has in former days been able, with your Lordships' approval, to do what was possible for the Royal Irish Constabulary? What we have to do is to get out of our heads altogether the idea that we are dealing with Englishmen in England, and officials in England. There is no precedent that I know of for the disbandment of a whole force, without any warning whatever. My noble friend, Lord Peel, seems to think that it is possible for them to go to Ulster.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Hundreds of them have gone.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I know they have, but I will tell you what happened in one case. A man had gone over to Ulster, thinking that he had always been good friends with his neighbours on the other side, and the other day he was taken out of his bed and shot. That shows that even in Ulster an Irishman who has been a constable is not always safe.
What I want your Lordships to do is to look at it from the point of view of Irishmen who have been loyal to you for centuries, without whom it would have been impossible for you to govern the country. They have been excellent friends with the people until quite recently, but you have disarmed the loyalists. Formerly they had the support of the loyalists in Ireland, but you sent round lorries and took away the arms of the loyalists. You did not take them from the disloyal, because you could not; you did not know who were disloyal. It was loyalists who could have told you who were disloyal and who were not, but we were handed over like sheep to be slaughtered, without arms. Never before in the history of Ireland was there an occasion when such a thing was done. Formerly, who was it who maintained order in Ireland? Was it the British Army? Think of what happened in the great rebellion of 1798. You were in the war—you could spare hardly a regiment. We had two or three militia regiments over there, and who was it who put down the rebellion? It was the yeomanry and the country gentlemen. Why? Because they were armed.
I want you to look upon this matter as one in which you have to do justice to Ireland. You have done great injustice to these men. We cannot look upon it simply as a business transaction. You are on strong ground if you regard it simply as a business transaction, but not if you look upon it from the Imperial point of view. Think of what it would be if you suddenly deserted the Army that you had sent out to support order, we will say, in Canada, or anywhere else. This case is far worse, let me tell you, because the Irish race are scattered throughout the whole world, and these men, if they go over to America, or to Australia, or Canada, are always marked men. There are enough fanatics in the world to make it impossible for them to be safe anywhere. I therefore say that we ought not to look upon this as a matter of business. There
730
is no precedent for such action as has taken place. Let us throw ourselves on the generosity and patriotism of the House of Commons. We do not question that the House of Commons has got the right to reject these financial Amendments, but we appeal to all who have hearts, to all who know what these men are suffering; for God's sake let them not do an injustice which will throw disgrace upon themselves and the British Empire.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Lord said: In principle this Amendment raises the same question as the last Amendment which has been agreed to, because what it proposes is that, when a man ultimately retires from a police force, you should take away a portion of the compensation that has been given to him if he has received a pension from the other police force that he has entered. As under the last Amendment, he is now permitted to go into a police force, as he would go into any other employment, I think it follows as a logical consequence that he ought not to be docked of the pension that he would receive on his ultimate retirement from the second force.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 14 to 42, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is another Amendment which may put a fresh charge upon the taxpayer; in fact, most of the sue ceeding Amendments are of that character. Sections 8 and 10 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, are, I understand, the sections which the noble and learned Lord wishes to put back, in which case the final pension a man is to receive is apportioned according to the number of years he has spent either in one force or the other. But the scheme of these sections really applies only to the case where a man transfers from one force to another before he is granted a pension. They are not applicable to cases of a kind in which he gets his pension allowance after he has served in the first force. Therefore, the sections are not relevant to this case at all, and I urge your Lordships not to restore sections which have great relevance to the case of ordinary transfer from one Service to another, but not to cases of this kind which, as your Lordships have distinctly said,

731
are not the case of civil servants passing from one branch to another. I hope, therefore, the noble and learned Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CARSON: Yes, I must press it because it is a matter of principle. If this Amendment is accepted it will allow these men to obtain their compensation, to have also the new start to which I say they are entitled, and to gain whatever they can by their own efforts afterwards.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Earl what has happened?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Subsection (4) has been struck out.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two," and insert "sixteenth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one." The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships will see, on reference to page 4 of the Bill, that subsection (7) provides that—
"Where, for the purpose of expediting the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, any member of that force has, since the twenty-fifth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two and before the passing of this Act, been discharged with compensation, his discharge and the grant of compensation to him shall be as valid and effectual as if they had been expressly authorised by this Act, and the compensation shall be treated as compensation payable under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with respect to a compensation allowance awarded in pursuance of this section shall apply to any annual allowance so granted."
The object of my Amendment is to put back the date from January 25, 1922, to December 16, 1921, the latter being the day upon which Parliament ratified the surrender in Ireland.
It became apparent from that date that the Royal Irish Constabulary would have to be disbanded, because from that date the Government withdrew, or were withdrawing, all protection from people in Ireland, and everything that took place afterwards was merely the evacuation which eventuated on the surrender. Therefore, any men discharged alter the Treaty were really disbanded, or ought to be treated as having been disbanded, under the Treaty for the purposeof handing over the government, as it has been handed over, to what is called the Pro-
732
visional Government at the present time. My Amendment seeks to ensure that these men shall have exactly the same treatment as those who were disbanded later on, since the date fixed by this subsection. The whole question of disbandment is a very difficult one, but I would ask the House, and I would especially ask the Government, to remember that all that has taken place since the Treaty and all that is going on at the present moment is entirely illegal.
The disbandment of this force which is a statutory force was entirely illegal and without statutory authority. It is on that account that Clause 5 of this Bill validates anything which was done or omitted to be done in the execution of the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am not saying that it was not proper for the Government to carry it out, but they must remember that in dealing with these men they were acting in a purely arbitrary executive manner without any sanction whatsoever from Parliament, without any statutory sanction. Therefore, if you are to fix a date at all at which the compensation is to begin under this Bill it ought to be the date of the Treaty, and not the artificial date of January 25, 1922. That, no doubt, would save several men, some of whom were wounded and by reason of their wounds were unable to go on serving. Those men would now be serving and would be getting the benefit of this Bill but that they had to retire because they were wounded after the Treaty had come into force. I, therefore, ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment I have placed on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("twenty-fifth clay of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two") and insert ("sixteenth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one").—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think your Lordships will permit me to deal very briefly with this Amendment because this Bill applies to disbandment and to those who are disbanded. The noble and learned Lord wants to apply it to persons who retired and received their ordinary pensions, and, of course, the compensation pensions for injuries received, before the disbandment took place. I am afraid I must make only two very brief remarks upon it. One is my old answer that this, of course, increases the public charge—a

733
thing which your Lordships have already criticised. I should like to point out how very considerably your Lordships are adding to the public charge by the Amendments you have already accepted. The other remark is even stronger—that the Amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. I should waste your Lordships' time if I discussed Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill and which, therefore, can have no effect upon it whatsoever.
LORD CARSON: I entirely disagree with the noble Viscount that my Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. It will not be outside the scope of the Bill if your Lordships put in my date. The date of disbandment is fixed for some day in July; but why is January 25, 1922, put in here? Why is that put in any more than December 16, 1921?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Because that is the day on which disbandment began.
LORD CARSON: That was not the disbandment; that was your getting rid of the men. Disbandment is what is authorised under this Bill, which ratifies what you have done, and it can just as well ratify it up to December 16, 1921, as it can up to January 25, 1922. When you are pleading over and over again that this is a breach of privilege, if that breach of privilege inflicts a wrong on these men, I say, let the House of Commons take it upon their shoulders and let us not take it upon ours. It really is nothing to what these men are suffering, and what they have been to you and what they have been through for you. It is a miserable thing to have to sit here and listen time after time to the argument that it will be a breach of privilege of the House of Commons. Let us at all events do our duty fearlessly towards these men, and if the House of Commons like to act in this way—and, of course, the Government can prevent them if they please—then these men must bear the consequences.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Viscount if he would develop his answer slightly on the one point as to what the precise meaning of the date, January 25, is? If the noble Viscount is right in saying that on that day something particular happened which was the beginning of disbandment, and that there had
734
been no question of disbandment before, and that there had been the continuing course of disbandment ever since, then I think it is an answer to the contention of the noble and learned Lord behind me, and the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord may not fall within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain how that happens. I confess I do not profess to have followed the course of everything, and I should like to know what exactly was the real reason for making January 25 the commencing date.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is the date on which disbandment actually began, and disbandment could not be considered—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By Proclamation, or how?
VISCOUNT PEEL: By action. It is impossible to deal with disbandment, or to talk about disbandment, before January, because it was not till January that the Treaty was approved in Ireland.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, at the end of subsection (9), to insert "subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is perhaps the most important of those in which I am interested. I am very sorry that it should fall to my lot to make so many speeches upon the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that it is no pleasure to me to do so, but I feel very keenly about the way in which it is proposed to treat these men. Nothing is more necessary in the disbandment of this force and in seeing that its members obtain their proper rights than that matters should not be left entirely to the Treasury.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are not left to the Treasury; it is the Treasury with the Secretary of State.
LORD CARSON: I know, but what does the Secretary of State know about it? The present Secretary of State has no means of knowing, except what the Treasury report to him. Pensions, even in normal times, were fixed with the approval of the Inspector-General. You had somebody to say a word for the policemen. The complicated provisions of this Bill are now to be administered by the Treasury with-

735
out any representative of the police. No doubt, the Secretary of State has nominally to confirm what is done, but the Secretary of State has no knowledge and has nothing before him in the way of material that would enable him to judge. Moreover, he is engaged in other matters. Supposing, for instance, the noble Viscount opposite was Secretary of State, what chance would these police have? What opportunity would he have in the India Office of inquiring into the matter, even with the best of good will? The number of complaints which are coining from the men who are being disbanded is so great that it is impossible to grapple with them. I have at least seventy of them on my desk at the present moment which I have not yet been able to read. They all indicate actions of a mean and a petty kind designed to reduce the pensions payable to these men.
Let me take one or two examples to show why we so much want a tribunal. Here is a letter I have received since I came into the House to-day, from a man who has been driven out, and who is now living in Kensington. It is the case of Riley, an ex-constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He says—
"I served 14 years 5 months and 21 days in the R.I.O., and was discharged on disbandment on April 5 last—"
He was discharged because it was convenient for the Government to get rid of him, and not because he wanted to go. He was ready to serve, and had gone in with a view to putting in his life in the service.
"I made application to the county inspector previous to disbandment to be allowed to serve until on or after April 15—"
that is, ten days more—
"having served 14 years and 5 months and gone through hell for the last three years, when I would then have completed 14½ years' service, which would entitle me to an additional year's service for pension purposes, in accordance with the terms of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920."
It is laid down in the terms that if you serve six months of the year it counts as a year towards your disbandment pension.
"My application was refused, and I have consequently lost £10 a year in my pension, which is a big sacrifice owing to the conditions under which I now have to live. A large number of the B.I.C. are still serving, many of whom had no benefit to derive by being kept on in the matter of pension, although, as I have shown, it would have meant a great deal to me and several others
736
who have been similarly treated on disbandment. I am writing in the hope that you may be able to do something for me. Under the circumstances I think it is very unfair treatment, as I have had several records for good police duties in the R.I.C., and I expected that at least I would be entitled to this small concession from the authorities."
I see it is stated in another place that this Act is being administered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is one of the few duties still left to him. Somebody who is acting under him takes the case of a man who, if he had been allowed to serve ten days more would get £10 more a year in his pension, and turns him out, thereby depriving him of £10 a year pension. Is that fair? This I would emphasise is not a man who is going because he wants to go, but is only going because the British Government put him into this position. He says there are many others who are in a similar position. Is not that a case that should be enquired into by a tribunal? The Government have boasted a great deal and published a document about setting up a tribunal to inquire into these matters. The Select Committee added that the tribunal should be made statutory, and all I propose is to refer these cases to the tribunal the Government themselves have appointed to hear these hard cases. That proposal is now being resisted.
I need not go through the number of heart-breaking cases I have here. Take the case of men who have been injured since the truce; the agreement for surrender in December. Many of these men have been retired out of the force because they are unfit; they have not been retired on disbandment pay. What is the consequence? If two men were out fighting the Sinn Feiners and one was injured, he is retired because he is unable to go on. He does not come within the terms of disbandment. The other man goes on and gets the terms of the disbandment. He is not wounded, and he gets five, ten, or twelve years, added to his pension. He is an unwounded man who can work. The man who is wounded is turned out; he is told that he could not have gone on in any case. He is invalided out of the force and does not get the disbandment terms. He ought to get more, because he may possibly never work again.
In a letter sent me the other day, the solicitor acting for the police stated that there are a large number of men waiting at the present time to be retired owing to ill-

737
health caused by injuries in the course of their service, to whom the Government refuse to give the disbandment terms. He sent me a copy of a letter he had sent to the Chief Secretary on the subject. I have no doubt it is somewhere in the archives of the Irish Office, or whatever remains of that office. I plead for these men. I am not pleading that they should get money, though I think they ought to get it. I am not asking for that. I am asking that the position of men to whom I have referred, such as the man who was within ten days of having an additional year added to his service, should be considered by some tribunal, outside the Treasury, who would fairly and squarely deal with such cases. I gave two instances. There are many varied instances, and it is impossible to go through all of them. The noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, made an appeal earlier on account of the effect the ill-treatment of these men will have when they are driven out of Ireland to various parts of the Empire, and state their case there and tell of the injustice that was done to them through no fault of their own. That is a consideration well worthy of attention by the Government.
Here, at all events, we are not up against the plea of privilege. The question of an independent tribunal going into these matters and not leaving them to the Treasury is one that comes into almost daily life as regards the administration of all services. Just fancy if you had an Income Tax collector as the only person who could assess your Income Tax at his own sweet will, and you had no right of appeal to the Commissioners, or any power, as you have, to go through all the Courts until you come to the House of Lords where we consider many of these cases. Why should not these men have a similar right? This is their all, their life, everything they have, after mapping out the career which was offered to them by you, and I, therefore, with some confidence, hope that, as the question of privilege does not enter, the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Line 33, at end insert; ("subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two").—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is another instance in which the noble and learned Lord throws himself quite athwart the
738
Report, of the Select Committee. It is rather remarkable that, although you had a Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, not one single member of that Committee has got up to defend his own Report. One member did get up, but it was in order to throw over the Report he himself had signed. It is the most paradoxical Committee that ever sat, and however it could be considered that such Committee could save the time of the House when it is silent as to the advantages of the Report I really cannot understand. This Amendment is one which no Government, however constituted, could possibly accept.
It is a perfectly useless and futile Amendment, and I will show not only that it could not work but that it would be most unfortunate if your Lordships did send down to another place so absurd a proposal. Let me briefly put the position. There is now no Inspector-General or Lord Lieutenant responsible for the particular administrative changes which were carried out in a previous period. The Bill provided originally that the Treasury should be solely vested with these particular duties; that is, to decide pensions and so on. They were given absolute and unfettered control. The Select Committee made an Amendment which I was prepared to accept; I am not quite sure whether I have not already accepted it.
The disadvantage of this method of procedure is that these Amendments are entered sub silentio. No one explains the Amendments inserted by the Select Committee in the Bill, nobody understands them, as I said would be the case. This was one of the decisions of the Committee which I accepted—namely, that the Treasury should not be unfettered, but that the subsection should be amended by giving these powers to the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, thereby guarding and controlling to some extent the Treasury. These powers will be exercised in the future by the Secretary of State and the Treasury just as in the past they were exercised by the Lord Lieutenant and the Inspector-General. This is not good enough for the noble and learned Lord, and he proposes—really a most astounding suggestion—
LORD CARSON: Try to bear up.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course, the whole thing is a farce, I know,—
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear. Of course it is. The whole treatment of the Constabulary is a farce. That is a good admission.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He wants to make statutory a tribunal which is only a temporary tribunal, dealing with certain things like separation allowances and other matters. The noble and learned Lord deliberately wishes to set up a tribunal which cannot possibly function, and I say therefore that the Amendment is a complete farce. Whoever heard of an outside Committee, composed of officials and non-officials, to which people may appeal from the decision of the Treasury and of the Secretary of State? You might as well give an appeal from the decisions of the Cabinet to a Committee of outside officials and non-officials. I hope that your Lordships will take this Amendment more seriously than the noble and learned Lord, and will not send down so unconsidered a trifle for the consideration of another place.
LORD CARSON: I am quite prepared, in the cause which I am advocating, to bear with the offensive phrases used by the noble Viscount, and, as I am well aware that he has no knowledge whatsoever either about Ireland or about the administration of the Police Acts, I can, I think, very well bear to submit to the accusation of trifling. It is he who is trifling, it is the Government who are trifling, the Government who are abandoning these men, and who show no concern for them. I am surprised to think that one of them—I do not want to attack him, as he is not a member of this House—should be the present Irish Chief Secretary, who so often relied, in the House of Commons or elsewhere, upon the action of these constables. Every word that the noble Viscount has said as to the Committee throwing over the Report, as to this being a claim to a tribunal which could not function, as to its being absurd, is easily demonstrated to be the purest imagination or malice of the noble Viscount.
I will tell the noble Viscount why. It has been put in the Bill—as he is probably not, at the moment, aware—by the Select Committee. This very tribunal is in the Bill. He says that the Committee threw over all that they had done, or failed to support it. What a farce that is, when the noble Viscount has on the Paper now before us Amendments to undo almost
740
everything of importance that was done by the Select Committee! The Bill, as it now stands, sets up this tribunal. If the Bill passes it will be a statutory tribunal, and, so far from the Committee taking any view that was hostile to the Amendment that I have put down, I notice that one of the matters which they said was to be considered by the tribunal was—
"such other exceptional provision as any individual case submitted to it may appear to require"
So far, therefore, from this being something that could not come within the purview of such a Committee, the Committee itself contemplated that there would be other cases, which they could not or did not attempt to define, and it is my anxiety that, among the matters in connection with which there ought to be an appeal, this question of compensation or pension should be made more specific. That is why I have put this Amendment upon the Paper.
I hope your Lordships will not be terrorised by the idea of the noble Viscount that you are going to do something foolish if you support this Amendment. I hope you will pay no regard to his remark that he wonders how I could suggest such an unintelligible and unworkable Amendment. I can assure your Lordships that I speak here with full reponsibility, not only having regard to myself as a member of this House, but with full responsibility for the position I occupy in this House, and we shall gain nothing in the controversy over this or any other Bill if a Minister, when he has nothing else to say, merely gets up and abuses the attorney of the opposite parties, which is an ordinary method, well known in a certain class of courts, as the noble and learned Viscount is perfectly well aware.
I ask your Lordships to consider this as probably the most important Amendment which has yet been moved. I should like to hear something from the noble Viscount about the cases that I quoted. Your Lordships will observe that he always gives the go-by to the cases that have arisen, the actual facts, such as the case of the poor man deprived of £10 a year by not being allowed to serve ten days longer, or the cases of poor men who are wounded, and retired because they are wounded, and then not allowed to come under the disbandment. Surely, it is with the realities of the case the the noble Viscount ought to be

741
dealing. He should not treat this thing as if it were some ordinary political farce, being played out before the public, either here or in another place. The matter is too serious for that, and, so far as I am concerned, I believe that innumerable injuries will be done to these men, through no fault of their own, simply because they are allowed to have no representative to look after them, unless your Lordships agree to pass this Amendment, which I certainly intend to press to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): I do not rise with the object of adding anything at all to any controversial atmosphere which may have sprung up, but to make two observations alone. The first is that the progress of this debate can hardly, I think, have encouraged any of your Lordships to take the view that the setting up, in a matter of this kind, of a special Committee, upon which no member of the Government is asked to sit, is a very useful contribution to the Parliamentary stages of the measure. The noble and learned Lord—well within his rights—has on one or two occasions made proposals, not only not covered by anything that the Select Committee recommended, but, on at least one point, very evidently discordant with it, and it is true that my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill has found it necessary, on grounds that I am satisfied are abundantly justified, to put down Amendments to avoid consequences, which would be not only inconvenient but almost ludicrous, implied in some of the proposals of the Select Committee.
Upon the present Amendment, I do not rise to say more than this, that, whatever security the facts relied upon by the noble and learned Lord may suggest to be necessary, it is certainly not the recommendation that is contained in this Amendment, and I would ask any one of your Lordships who, in any capacity, has experience of Government, who has ever reflected in the least upon the history of constitutional matters in this country, to consider what this proposal really comes to. The Select Committee, as I understand it, recommend that there should be added to the Treasury, to act in co-operation with the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and to that no particular objection, as I understand, is entertained. But it is now proposed, going further than the Select Committee, that a tribunal
742
which was in existence, as the noble and learned Lord truly says, for the purpose of discharging quite different functions, should have added to those functions one which on the whole must be pronounced to be the most remarkable that has ever within my knowledge been proposed under constitutional government.
You have the Treasury, with all the direct primary, almost exclusive, responsibility which in financial matters the Treasury must have, which has been reinforced by the Select Committee with the co-operation of the Secretary of State, and you are to set up a body to act over the Treasury and the Secretary of State. It is to be a tribunal which was created for quite a different purpose and to which functions as far apart from this function as the poles have been committed. That there should be set up a tribunal of this kind, to act as a court of appeal from the Treasury and the Secretary of State, is a paradox so novel that I could not have believed for a moment that your Lordships would have thought of accepting it, and I do not, indeed, know where the process is to end. The Treasury may be composed of sagacious or foolish men, the Secretary of State may be a sensible or a foolish man, but you cannot correct these errors and weaknesses, if they exist, by constituting a tribunal such as this to sit upon them as a court of appeal; and while my noble friend has not thought that any useful purpose would be served by troubling your Lordships with a Division on earlier questions, and although I do not know that we shall divide the House upon this Amendment, although we shall register our protest against it, I cannot think that such a proposal as is now made would add to your Lordships' reputation for experience, or even for giving great attention to the specific proposal.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship.
2. For the purpose of dealing with questions arising in the administration of this Act there shall be appointed a tribunal with such powers and duties as appear in the Second and Third Schedules to this Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Viscount said: If I may make a short reference to the work

743
of the Select Committee, in deference to my noble friend who presided over it, I think he will have observed that I have done my best to accept as many of its Amendments as possible; I have accepted three or four. I said that I thought it was unfortunate that owing to the procedure—of course, I am not criticising him for a moment—these Amendments were not moved and defended before they were put in, but that is the fault of the procedure and not the fault of my noble friend. Several of these Amendments I have already accepted, but I would ask your Lordships' attention to Clause 2. As I explained to your Lordships on the Second Reading this Bill does not deal with the whole field of what is to be done by the Government on the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. So far as that constabulary is concerned it really only deals with the compensation allowances.
Besides the compensation allowances there are a large number of administrative provisions dealing with all sorts of matters, such as compensation for disturbance, payment of separation allowances, and a great many matters of that kind. These I call the administrative provisions and arrangements, which were not included in the Bill, but which have been embodied in a White Paper presented to your Lordships and to another place. Moreover, these administrative arrangements have been followed more than once. They have been improved; that is to say the provisions for these different payments have been improved and a vote has been taken in another place for the necessary estimate. What some of the Committee wished to do was to make all these arrangements statutory. I think there can be only one reason for this, and that is the idea that these arrangements might be altered to the detriment of those pensioners.
I submit that that is impossible. First of all, these arrangements have been laid upon the Table of both Houses, and a vote of the House of Commons has been taken for providing the necessary money, and therefore my first point is that it is wholly unnecesary to introduce these provisions into the Act. My second point is that it is not only unnecessary but dangerous, because once you have these arrangements made statutory they cannot be altered without another Act, and if you want by administrative arrangement to improve the position of some of these pensioners—
744
increase the separation allowances or give railway tickets to any other part of the Kingdom—you cannot do it without an amendment of the Act. I submit that the insertion of all these administrative provisions in the Bill is positively dangerous and may act to the detriment of these pensioners. Therefore, I am going to ask you to reject these proposals, because the whole tendency of the discussion shows that your Lordships want to do what is best for the pensioners. I hope that you will not fetter the Government by making these arrangements statutory.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not propose to go into the arguments addressed to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, because there seems to be a preliminary difficulty in the way of accepting his Amendment, and it is that we have just passed an Amendment conceived in these terms "subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in section two." I do not think that it would be a convenient process to leave out Clause 2 after that. In fact, it would be impossible because the Bill would not read and would no longer make sense. I do not want, of course, to treat the argument of the noble Viscount with any disrespect, and it may be that in respect of the want of elasticity to which he drew attention at the end of his speech some modification may be required on the Report stage, but I submit with some confidence that it would not be at all convenient, and indeed not at all regular, to leave out any statutory reference to the tribunal altogether, when we have already agreed to the words that Clause I should be administered subject to the right of appeal to a tribunal which will then not have been created at all. I submit for these reasons that it would not be wise to leave out Clause 2.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Carson only proposed to put in words to entitle the constable to appeal to the tribunal in Clause 2. My noble friend merely wishes to point out, in spite of the logical Amendment of Lord Carson, that Clause 2 creates a tribunal which may be very serviceable to the persons concerned—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It will be necessary to deal with that at another stage. It would not be possible now.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think the Committee stage is not an inappropriate moment to deal with the general lines of a clause. This clause, appoints a tribunal. It does not say what tribunal, or of whom the tribunal is to consist, or who is to appoint it, and it is only when you come to the Schedule, that you find what its duties are. It has a very singular duty. Its duty is to recommend increases of allowances—not merely its power, but its duty—and if anybody under Lord Carson's Amendments submits his case to that tribunal it apparently is the duty of that tribunal to recommend an increase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It arises on the Schedule.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, I merely point out that your Lordships may have to amend this a good deal on subsequent stages.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to disturbance, allowance, etc.
3.—(1) The provisions as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrant, and separation allowance contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any officer or man of the Royal Irish Constabulary who is serving on the date of disbandment, or who at that date has been awarded a pension and is at that date resident in Ireland.
(2) This section shall have effect until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and no longer, unless before that date it is extended for a further period by His Majesty by Order in Council.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Viscount said: This clause deals with some of the administrative provisions, and seeks to embody them in the form of an Act. I have already discussed on the previous Amendment the question of the policy of stereotyping administrative provisions in this way. But this clause has further objections, because it applies not only to men who have been disbanded and will be disbanded, but also to all the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners resident in Ireland. It therefore is an immense extension of the Bill. It is wholly outside the scope of the Bill, and wholly out of order, and therefore by no possibility could it be accepted in another place.
I do not know the exact number but I think there are seven thousand of these
746
men to whom, by the insertion of this clause, these privileges are extended. The proposal, in fact, extends to men who retired from the force a great many years ago, many of them under Regulations governing their retirement on pensions on the ground of long service, or of sickness, or injury, or incapacity, quite independently of anything connected with disbandment of the force. This Bill is not intended to remedy the grievances of pensioners. In regard to all pensions there are hard cases, and whenever the scale of pay and pension is increased there always arises some grievance—a natural grievance—on the part of previous pensioners who have not enjoyed those advantages. That may be so, but I am not concerned to discuss the matter at any length, because it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF DESART: This is a matter to which I and some of my friends attach very great importance. The disturbance allowance under the Regulations, as they are at present, extends only to the men who were actually serving in the force at the time of disbandment, and one understands why it was put in that way. For reasons which are apparent, other men besides those may, and probably will, be placed in precisely the same position as those serving at the time of disbandment, with whose cases the disturbance provisions are intended to deal. I am unable to see why a man who, because he has served in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and because of that only, is turned out of his home, and has to leave his country and make a home elsewhere—has to do, in fact, every single thing that a man actually serving has to do—should be left absolutely without any provision of any kind.
The criticism of the noble Viscount is that there are many men whom we pensioned years ago, and it would be difficult to see how far an addition might lead us. Might I point out that it could only relate to men who were driven out, and it is not likely that it will go back to men who were pensioned many years ago. Therefore, I do not think questions of that kind ought to affect the decision of your Lordships on a point of such importance as this. It is absolutely necessary to do justice to these men who, for the same reason, are placed in

747
precisely the same position as the men for whom you have already decided to provide disturbance allowance and some means of settling in another country where they can make themselves another home. I can see no reason, if you really desire to do justice to these men who have served you, why you should exclude the pensioned men. I do not accept the argument that it might possibly take you a long way; it is very likely not to go beyond the men who have been serving in the force comparatively recently, who are known to have served in the force, and who may have acquired the ill-will of those who are now in power and who are able to make their lives intolerable to them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
". Any officer or constable of the force who since the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen has been retired by reason of unfitness caused by injury inflicted in the course of his duty shall be entitled if still living to the same pension as he would have been awarded if he had continued to serve up to the date of disbandment under this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter to which I have drawn attention already and my object is simply this. I take January 1, 1919, because that is the date which the Government have fixed in the Act as the time at which they commenced to do—well, just as they pleased, for the purpose of trying to restore law and order in Ireland. That is the date on which the police were taken in hand by the Government with a view of taking what I might call advanced action in order to put down the rebellion. My proposition is that if these men had not been wounded in the special work to which they were put, and which the Government afterwards entirely changed, they would have gone on and would have got these terms of disbandment. But because, in the course of carrying out the policy of the Government, they were wounded and knocked out they are to be deprived of the advantages they would get in having years added to their service.
How any Government can contemplate treating wounded men, men knocked out in their service, in the way they are doing in this Bill, entirely passes my comprehension. My Amendment is a perfectly
748
clear one. It is that those who were wounded in this last stage of the Irish war should not be worse off than the men who were not wounded; that they should be treated, notwithstanding their wounds, as if they were still serving, and that they should come under the terms of disbandment under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This clause, of course, comes within the objection to which your Lordships are, I am afraid, already accustomed. It is a privilege Amendment. It places, or proposes to place, a very large charge upon the Treasury. It is also outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, it can do neither harm nor good. It is perfectly useless sending an Amendment of this kind down to another place, because even if they wished they could not accept it, as it is entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON indicated dissent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is so. Therefore, sending it down is an entire waste of time. I should, however, like to say this, because I think that anyone who has listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord would have supposed that these men who have been wounded and pensioned during the last three years had been badly, or unfairly, or unkindly treated. That I do not think can be said to be the case, because the scales of pensions for injuries vary, of course, according to circumstances and the length of service. They may in some cases amount to full pay, and the minimum is above the ordinary pension rate. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord has really no business to suggest to your Lordships' House that at any rate substantial provision is not being made for these men. He wishes to bring all these men under the additional pension terms which have been provided for the men who are being disbanded under the Bill. I need not take up your Lordships' time in trying to argue the point, because it is obviously useless to discuss a matter which is wholly outside the scope of the Bill with which we are dealing.
LORD CARSON: Not for the first time has the noble Viscount opposite given as

749
his only excuse that the matter is outside I the scope of the Bill. If that is so, so much more disgrace to the Government for forgetting these wounded men—
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are not forgotten.
LORD CARSON:—and taking no concern in having them treated as well as the men who have not been wounded. The noble Viscount said that they were so handsomely dealt with, as I understood him, that they did not require this. All I can say is—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that.
LORD CARSON:—that if they got the terms—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say so.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount did not; very well. I understood him to say so. Then, I understand him to say that they have not been handsomely treated.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The; noble and learned Viscount must not misrepresent me. That is a matter he can do in another place, but not here. What I said was that these men have received substantial pensions. That is what I said.
LORD CARSON: Of course they have!
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is what I said, and I will not have my words misrepresented.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount need not be afraid that I will misrepresent him. He need not be insolent, and he need not be always referring me to another place. I am trying to do my best for these men. He is trying to do justice to this act of surrender and abandonment of these constabulary men. That is all the difference between us. I care about these men, he cares about his Government; that is all. I do not mind his insolence, even if he treats me like a nigger, not in the least; it does not matter. The question is, what are these men to get? Let us not get away from it by any questions of that kind. The question is simply this: If these men had not been wounded they would now have been getting this disbandment allowance.
750
The noble Viscount knows very well that they got nothing like that, although they were wounded. He is asking the House to say that because they were wounded and could not go on serving up to now in the force they are to be worse off. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The statement of the noble and learned Lord, of course, is not correct.
LORD CARSON: Of course not!
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have stated that in many cases these men who, unfortunately, have been wounded are getting higher rates of pay or pension then they would have got if they had not been wounded and had come under the provisions of this disbandment. The only reason I criticise the noble and learned Lord is this. I am entirely indifferent to what he says about me but he has no business to misrepresent me; that is the only thing I shall object to if he does.
LORD CARSON: I never did misrepresent the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
First schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
PART I.
Rules.
1. The compensation which may be awarded to an officer or constable shall be an annual allowance.
2. The annual allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to receive if lie had retired for length of service under the existing enactments applicable to him, and had been qualified in respect of his length of service for a pension, save that, for the purposes of that calculation, the following provisions shall have effect:—

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

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

751
service in the third class, and, in the case of a district inspector of the second class, as if he were entitled to promotion to the first class on the completion of eleven years' service in the second class;

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

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

Provided that in the case of the surgeon of the Royal Irish Constabulary his compensation allowance may, should he so desire, be calculated in like manner as the pension which he would have been entitled to receive on retirement under the existing enactments applicable to him if the years to be added as aforesaid were added to his years of age instead of to his completed years of actual service.
3. The allowance awarded to an officer or constable shall in no case exceed two-thirds of the salary on which the allowance is calculated.
4. In the event of an officer or constable dying after an annual allowance has been awarded to him under this Act, the Treasury may, if they think fit, grant a pension or gratuities to the widow and children of the officer or constable in tike manner as if the allowance were a pension granted to the officer or constable on retirement, and as if his years of service had been the years in which the allowance was calculated.
5. In these rules the expression "existing enactments" means enactments in force at the time of the passing of this Act, and includes any orders made under those enactments and in force at that time.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, at the end of paragraph 2, to insert:
" Provided that in the case of a county inspector who has served as a divisional commissioner his compensation allowance shall be calculated as if he were serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary and holding the rank of divisional commissioner therein and his entire salary as such commissioner were actual pensionable salary."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the ease of the divisional commissioner. Your Lordships will remember that the divisional commissioners have to do the most responsible work of all in the Constabulary and take risks equal to, if not greater than, those taken by any other officer or man. My Amendment seeks to provide that in the, case of a county inspector who is now serving as a divisional commissioner, his compensation allowance
752
shall be calculated as if he were serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary and held the rank of divisional commissioner therein, and his entire salary shall be regarded as his actual pensionable salary. That is to say, I am endeavouring by this Amendment to provide that the divisional commissioner shall have his pension fixed on the basis of his salary as a divisional commissioner and not on his previous salary as a county inspector.
There were, I think, six of these very distinguished officers who were chosen from the ranks of the county inspectors, and who did this very responsible work. The appointments were made about two years ago, and their salaries were fixed at £1,200 a year. Some time after the appointments were made the officers in question were told that they were only to consider their posts as temporary ones, with the implied inference, therefore, that on the abolition of the posts they would not have pension rights on the basis of their position as full commissioners. The moment these officers realised this position they sent a deputation to the Chief Secretary, and they received from time to time various assurances.
On the occasion, for example, of one of their number losing his life, the Chief Secretary is understood to have said to I them: "If you live through, I will see that you are generously dealt with." Presumably it was already known that these men would become entitled to pensions as county inspectors, and, therefore, I think it is an obvious inference that the Chief Secretary's words implied that something more than a county inspector's pension should be given, for he said to them: "If you live through, I will see that you I are generously dealt with." On another occasion the Chief Secretary said to these officers: "You need not continue to press for new legislation to regulate your claims as, knowing your dangerous work, you are only kicking at an open door." Again, when these representations were made, and the officers pressed for legislation, the Chief Secretary used these words: "Legislation is not necessary, as we have every means to meet these claims."
I do not want to emphasise at length the great responsibility and importance of the work of these very distinguished officers, as I think it is known to your Lordships, but their duties were very onerous, and were carried out in the midst of great

753
danger. Of the very small number of district commissioners, two unfortunately lost their lives. I do not think that I am putting it in an exaggerated way when I say that of the officers in Ireland at the time, civil or military, none were called to take such great risks as these divisional commissioners. Their claim is that they should not be treated merely as county inspectors for the purpose of pensions, but as divisional commissioners—that is to say, that in the assessment of their compensation they should be treated as existing officers at the time of the disbandment of the force, and as holding the rank of district commissioner. They also claim that they should be given compensation of one year's salary for disturbance. I do not set up as an arbiter as to what is the correct monetary compensation that should be awarded to these very distinguished officers, but I think their claims are entitled to be heard by your Lordships.
They make this further claim, that on a previous occasion district commissioners were not treated as it is proposed to treat them on the present occasion. I will take an example of what occurred at the end of the last century. One district commissioner appointed in 1893 received, when the office was abolished in 1898, a pension of two-thirds of his salary as a district commissioner. His pension was not based upon his previous salary as county inspector. At that time, therefore, the district commissioners received more generous treatment than the district commissioners themselves are now asking to be granted to them. I have put down their claim, which I venture to press upon your Lordships, in the form of an Amendment. If it is certain that their particular case can be heard by the tribunal I agree that it would not be necessary that these proposed, words should be added to the Bill, but without the assurance from the noble Viscount that these distinguished officers will be able to go before the tribunal I must press my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I must apply one observation that I have already made to my noble friend's Amendment, and that is that he seeks to impose by his Amendment a further charge upon the
754
taxpayers. He proposes that the compensation allowances should be calculated on the acting rank in the case of these district commissioners. The acting rank carries with it, I think, £1,200 a year, and its effect would be to increase the compensation allowance from £600 to £800 a year. My noble friend must be aware that he is starting upon a very wide business indeed by suggesting that the allowances should be based upon the acting rank and not upon the substantive rank.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: If I may interrupt for a moment, I did not make myself quite clear, as I did not wish to detain your Lordships more than was necessary. I have stated the claim of these officers, which I thought they were entitled to have laid before your Lordships. I have not said what my opinion is as to what exactly they should get, but have said what their claim is. I am asking your Lordships to consider whether the tribunal I should not be allowed to deal with these cases.
VISCOUNT PEEL: All I wished to point out was the result of the far-reaching suggestion made by the Amendment. You could not confine the compensation allowance based on acting rank merely to commissioners. If you conceded it to commissioners you would have to extend it to other ranks. You could not do it in the one case, without doing it in the others. But in answer to the specific question put to me, I understand that these men can represent their case before the tribunal. I am not sure that does not meet the point made by the noble Earl. I could not, of course, accept an Amendment of this kind, because it would set up a very difficult precedent, and one which could not be applied in one case only but would have to be applied all round.
THE EARL OF DESART: I am glad my noble friend put this Amendment down, although I recognise what the noble Viscount has said as to the difficulty of making it a practical Amendment. I do not think the noble Viscount realises the position in which we all find ourselves. We receive communications of every sort and kind, some reasonable and some not so reasonable, from very many people, and we find that there is a widespread feeling among these men, who have served you so well, that they are not getting justice this way, that way, and another way.

755
If they could look to some place where they could get their cases heard and reconsidered, that would give them some satisfaction. I received only two days ago a letter from a number of men—not a large number—who think that they suffer from some such hardship as that indicated by my noble friend. I was very glad to hear what the noble Viscount stated, because I think the one thing we can do in Parliament for these men is to make them feel that there is a place to which they can go to get these things considered and reviewed. If we can do that, I think we shall have done good work for them. Do not let these men have the feeling that they have not had a chance of going before some tribunal to state their grievances.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that I address myself exactly to the Amendment moved by my noble friend—
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not think I have gone beyond it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not suggesting that. I ought to say that they do get disturbance allowance. They have been allowed it in the revised terms on their acting rank.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: If I understand that these individual cases will be treated by the tribunal—
VISCOUNT PEEL: Can be, not will be.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH:—that the tribunal is still empowered to act with regard to these cases, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Tribunal for dealing with Individual Cases of Hardship.
The powers and duties of the Tribunal appointed under this Act shall be as follows:—
1. To recommend—

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

756

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

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

2. To deal with matters referred to the Tribunal under the Third Schedule to this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Viscount not to move his Amendment to omit this Schedule? I do not think the Amendment is in order as the Second Schedule is embodied in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move the Amendment because I am afraid that both the Second and Third Schedules have not been carefully drafted. There is a reference to an officer who has entirely ceased to exist, and they omit from the functions of the tribunal very important functions as regards computation. If you are going to put a number of these administrative duties in the Bill it should have been done fully. To leave out some and put some in will lead to great confusion. Under the unfortunate drafting of these Schedules great confusion will be caused. I am not responsible for that because I moved to omit the particular Amendments. I was defeated by your Lordships. Your Lordships are entirely responsible for what will make sad nonsense of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Second Schedule.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that the drafting of these Schedules will have to be considered, but as you have them in the body of the Bill I do not think you should move them out.
VISCOUXT PEEL: I shall not divide.
LORD CARSON: As I understand there is to be no Division, all I need to do is to protest against the noble Viscount's statement that the Government have no responsibility, when this House passes a Resolution, of seeing that the draftsman puts it in proper form. I think it is the duty of the Government to see that the will of the House is carried out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had not intended to take part in the discussions again, but I think I must make our view perfectly plain. We were prepared, in

757
ordinary Committee of this House, to give any assistance in our power to those who hold the view that the proposals of the Bill wore inadequate, and they would not have found us inattentive to, or impatient of, any Amendments they might have brought forward. The House, by a most unfortunate Resolution, decided that these matters could be better investigated by a Select Committee. I ventured humbly to express my opinion that it was a most unfortunate decision, but the House, nevertheless, persisted in it. They set up this Select Committee, and either myself or my noble friend Viscount Peel would have felt it our duty, though we disapproved of the procedure, to have assisted the Committee had we been invited to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble and learned Viscount allow me for a moment? He was not present earlier in the proceedings when I explained that I took responsibility for what occurred. I understood that the Government did not wish to be a party. I know now that that was a mistake; and I expressed my apology.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will not say another word about that. We who had given great attention to this Bill, were prepared to consider the matter in all its bearings, but we felt that we had been rather repelled from its consideration.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule.

THIRD SCHEDULE.
(a) Disturbance Allowance.
If any officer or man, owing to molestation or danger or for any other cause whatsoever, moves his home either to another place in Ireland or to any place outside Ireland, he shall be entitled to be repaid the reasonable costs incurred in connection with such removal up to a maximum of one month's pay for unmarried men, two months' pay for married men with less than three children, and three months' pay for married men with three or more children.
These allowances will be payable on application at any time within six months of the date of disbandment.
In order to avoid any delay in the payment of these allowances, they will be payable on demand at the date of disbandment or at any time within six months thereafter; every officer or man who receives such allowance will be required to produce to the Tribunal appointed under this Act, evidence that he has in fact moved his home; and if he has not moved his home or if the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such removal are less
758
than the amount of the allowance which he has received, the Tribunal may require him to refund the whole or part of the allowance, as the case may be.
In cases of officers and men holding acting rank above that of their substantive rank, disturbance allowance will be calculated upon the pay of the acting rank. In cases where officers or men holding acting rank have already been disbanded and have received disturbance allowance calculated upon their substantive pay, application may be made to the Deputy Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin Castle, for the payment of the difference between the sum received and the disturbance allowance that would have been payable if it had been calculated upon such acting rank.
(b) Free Railway Warrants.
Every officer and man will be entitled to a free railway warrant from the place of his disbandment to his home. In addition to the above, it will be open to any member of the force who considers that he would be in danger if he were to return or after having returned to remain at his home after disbandment, to apple for a free travelling warrant to enable him to remove himself and his family to any place in Great Britain and Ireland. Such warrants will be issuable in respect of the member of the force, his wife and children, or other dependent normally supported by him as a member of his household. Where a member of the force is moving his family, and finds it inadvisable actually to accompany them, a separate warrant will be issued for their use. Travelling warrants will be issued on application prior to dispersal.
(c) Separation allowance.
Separation allowance will be payable during the first three months after disbandment to any married member of the force whose home is outside Northern Ireland and who proceeds either to Great Britain or Northern Ireland, leaving his family in Ireland. This allowance will be in addition to the compensation allowance granted under section one of this Act, and will be made at the rates approved for the several ranks of the force, viz., 14 s. a week for constables and sergeants, 17 s. 6d. a week for head constables, and 28 s. a week for officers of higher rank.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move, formally, to leave out the Third Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Third Schedule.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Third Schedule agreed to.

AIR MINISTRY (KKNLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD GORELL): My Lords, this Bill, as its title shows, is to confirm and give Parliamentary sanction to an agreement come to between the Corporation of the City of London and the President of

759
the Air Council. The Air Council are acquiring by agreement 50 acres in the Kenley Common area for an aerodrome, and by arrangement with the Corporation of the City of London they are acquiring and giving to the Corporation a contiguous estate of 60 acres. It is necessary to ask for Parliamentary sanction because the Kenley Common estate was acquired by the Corporation under the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878, in 1883, and they cannot voluntarily cede it without Parliamentary sanction. All the rights of the public have in this case been fully safeguarded. Under the Bill if the estate of 50 acres is no longer required as a military aerodrome it will go back to the Corporation of the City of London as well as the 60 acres mentioned in the Bill. Under the Second Schedule the public will have the right still to use the common on public holidays, and the Air Council further undertake not to place any buildings upon it. At this late hour I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into detail.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had given Notice to call attention to the opposing views publicly expressed by Cabinet Ministers upon the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they do not regard this question as one of Imperial importance upon which it is imperative that the country should have the guidance of an united Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I did not perceive when I put down this Question that I should be keeping two or three of your Lordships so late, while I was making a few remarks to the Editor of our debates. But this controversy about Canadian cattle has raised quite a definite issue which I thought required special notice. That issue lies in the fact that this very day two Cabinet Ministers, I understand, are leading opposite sides on this question in the House of Commons. My Question has nothing to do with the merits of the embargo. I feel profoundly the importance of the Imperial question, so forcibly stated by Lord Long of Wraxall, that I could hope
760
that some answer to him has been agreed upon. I think the whole business of shipping cattle overseas is a cruel business.
My only point is that the Government are not entitled to indulge in a neutral mind on a question like this. I do not want to speak too strongly, but, as the noble Lords representing the Government know, there are numbers of people, like myself, who have come to assume that a Coalition Government was a natural form of Government. Now we are, day by day, being driven from that position by remarking that on numbers of questions the Government has alternating minds in alternating months, and on numbers of questions it shows an immense resolution in facing both ways at the same time. I do not know whether this is the result of Coalition, or whether it is part of the illustrious qualities of the Prime Minister, but it is at any rate an instance of that of which so many of us complain.
Is there any real precedent for the action the Government are taking in this matter? I understand there was the case concerning Canadian cattle in which, under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Government left it as an open question to the House of Commons, and different Ministers took different sides. That was a question of Canadian cattle, no doubt, like this, but was it any real precedent? There was no question of a pledge then; no question of the honour of the country; no question of the subtle foundation on which the stability of this Empire rests. It is not a question like Woman Suffrage, that has been left open in the same way. A question on which a Cabinet has no better means of judgment than I have, or the 'bus conductor has, was quite rightly left open.
But it seems to me that this is a question of a totally different kind. What is the position? On one side there is a pledge, given or allowed to be understood to have been given, by one country within the Empire to another country within the Empire. That is the case on one side, and the possible case on the other side—I should like to think that there is a possible case—is that, in all the circumstances, the circumstances in which the pledge was given, the present circumstances of agriculture on both sides, the present state of feeling on both sides, and so forth, the pledge is not one of which instant and literal fulfilment is due, as between one

761
self-respecting country in the Empire and another.
If that is a fair statement of the case, surely it seems to follow that no one else can have the knowledge of the matter and means of judgment that the Government are bound to possess, and that it is emphatically a question of a kind on which, after the right usage of our Constitution, the Government must give us a decided lead. I shall be very glad indeed if my noble friend who answers me has a case which will enable him to crush me, and I shall accept, on public grounds, that uncomfortable process with some relief. But I think your Lordships will perhaps pardon me for having thought that this is a point to which some one ought to have called attention in this House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend is very pessimistic if he thinks that I am going to crush him. Far from it; I shall do nothing of the kind. The views of Cabinet Ministers upon this point are conflicting. There is no concealment of that fact. The difficulty arose at a moment when post-war problems, problems which did not necessarily arise out of the war, did not receive the attention, in the spring of 1917, which immediate war problems did receive, and, as Lord Charnwood has observed, the result is that Cabinet Ministers take different views on this particular subject.
It is, of course, a subject of great importance, and Lord Charnwood claims that he is entitled to the guidance of an united Government. If the Government is not united, he cannot get its united guidance, and I suppose he argues from that—quite a legitimate argument—that the Government ought to retire forthwith. But the Liberal Party is not united, and, if Lord Crewe, Lord Charnwood and their friends came into office to-morrow, the same fissure would appear between members of that Government. I believe that the Labour Party is not united. England, as a country, and Scotland as a country, are disunited on this problem.
When Lord Charnwood said that neutrality is unjustifiable, he immediately quoted a very obvious and very well-known precedent, where, on this very point of Canadian cattle, neutrality was justified, not by this Government, but by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. At that time the Liberal Party was so much divided that, since this was not a Party question
762
in the least, it was not considered necessary to put on the Party Whips. I do not think Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman ought to have been blamed for refraining from bringing Party pressure to bear upon his supporters when no Party problem was at issue. Not only then, but on the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, on Woman Suffrage, and, I dare say, on many other important, subjects, it has been recognised that, where great divisions of opinion exist, apart from legitimate divisions of opinion on ordinary Party questions, matters are left to the judgment of Parliament as such; and this is a case, for right or for wrong, where that precedent has been and will be followed.
[From Minutes of July 20.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Post Office (Pneumatic Tubes Acquisition).

Saint Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  SHEPTON MALLET WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  [From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, July 21.]

GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
House adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.