Lords Sitting of 15 July 1925

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

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given in regard to these Bills.
Moved, That the order made on the 2nd day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 30th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

MOTOR VEHICLES COMPULSORY INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the desirability of the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles against third-party risk, and to present a Bill. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles using the public roads against third-party risk is one which has been considered for some time by motorists and, to a less extent, by the general public. The reason for the suggestion, of course, is that an irresponsible person who is driving one of these vehicles may inflict damage for which he is not able to pay when he is sued. He may be a man of straw. The general situation has been summed up by a very well-known motor writer in a recent article in the Autocar, and I do not think I can do better than read to your Lordships one or two sentences from that article to show what the contentions are.
The writer says:—
"Well, nothing matters so long as things go well, but accidents will happen, and when they do it is not inconceivable that they may inflict damage and often irreparable loss on other folk, for which there is absolutely no possible chance of obtaining any redress or getting any return whatever. The majority of us have enough common sense to insure our cars and ourselves against all eventualities, but some risk the chance in order to save their pockets, often knowing full well that they are but men of straw and perfectly incapable of being made to pay for any damage they may do…
"Innumerable instances are already on record, and this is why I am of opinion that the State ought to insist on compulsory third-party insurance, at any rate on the part of everyone owning a motor vehicle. …
"The whole matter amounts to this, that it is now possible for any ordinary law-abiding citizen engaged on his or her lawful occasions oil the road to receive injuries with no possibility of any redress. I was never one to demand impossibilities, but this case does not answer to that description, for by a compulsory scheme of third-party insurance the mischief can be obviated, and a certain amount of redress for even the worst of cases obtained."
There is one difficulty which, I think, might be dealt with at once, and that is the suggestion that there are some people whose records are so well known, and so bad, that no insurance company can be found to insure them and, therefore, if they could not drive unless insured they would be unable to drive at all. I can only say that if that were the result I do not think that the House need regret it. If the record of any driver is so bad that no person will be found to take the risk, the public will be better off if such a person is kept off the road.
Then there is the very difficult question as to the possible machinery by which this kind of thing can be done. I have drawn a Bill—no doubt very badly because I have drawn it myself—which I propose to present to your Lordships. Fortunately, it is not in your Lordships' hands, and therefore you will not be able to criticise its defects, but I have proceeded upon the principle that a licence should not be issued in respect to a motor vehicle unless at the same time a receipt for insurance is produced for that vehicle, showing that it is insured against third-party risks to the extent of £5,000. £5,000 may seem a very large sum to insure, but, in fact, the cost of £5,000 is very little. It is a good deal lower than the insurance against damage to your vehicle
78
and things of that kind and it would not cost very much. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not altogether an unreasonable sum because cases might happen, and have happened, in which a man earning, say, £1,000 a year is run down by a motor vehicle and killed and his widow and family lose the benefit of that income. There is a case where £5,000 might hardly compensate them. There have been cases, I think, in which even larger damages have been given. So long as motor vehicles are and can be driven by irresponsible people who have no means to fall back upon and no means of paying severe damages when inflicted, so long will you run the risk of perfectly innocent people being without a remedy. This is a risk which, I think, they ought not to run any longer.
I will tell your Lordships in a few words what the Bill does. Clause 1 provides that no licence shall be issued under Section 13 of the Finance Act, as amended by the Roads Act, unless at the time there is produced to the issuing officer a policy of insurance or a receipt for insurance against third-party risks in the sum of not less than £5,000 in respect of any damage caused by the use of such vehicles. That is really the operative clause. Clause 2 provides that a declaration of particulars in this matter may be prescribed under Section 5 of the Roads Act in addition to the particulars there prescribed.
Clause 3 provides for a practical difficulty which might, and must, arise where the period of the insurance policy is not co-terminous with the period of the licence, and I have provided that if the insurance policy expires before the licence expires then the date of the expiry of the insurance policy shall be written upon the licence and no such licence shall be valid beyond that date unless a fresh insurance is effected. It seems to me that is a fairly simple way of getting the insurance carried on. I have very little doubt that if, in practice, any scheme of insurance is adopted, you will very seen get these insurances issued exactly coterminous with the licence, because in my opinion all insurance companies carrying on business will adapt themselves to it. Clause 4 provides that the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, relative to the production of a licence to drive, shall have effect also as regards

79
the production of a receipt for insurance under the Bill, so that a motorist might be required to satisfy any police constable that his vehicle was, in fact, insured. If he produced his vehicle licence with the receipt upon it that would be enough to show it.
I am not at all insensible to the difficulties involved and it is for that reason that I have taken the occasion to put down a notice for the First Reading of this Bill, not with the intention of carrying the matter any further this Session, but simply that the text should get into the hands of your Lordships so that you may be able to consider the matter and, if the principle is approved by you, make suggestions as to how an application of it may be made. That there is a grievance is undoubted. That there is an injustice is also undoubted. That injustice is done to perfectly innocent people and you are not, in fact, inflicting any real hardship upon the motorist, because I do not suppose that the number uninsured exceeds one per cent.; it is probably not so much. But you are simply compelling that small and reckless minority, and possibly a minority who could not pay, and taking steps to prevent what I have mentioned happening when innocent people are injured. I shall ask your Lordships to read this Bill a first time and to consider the matter. I shall be very grateful for any assistance from any quarter of the House at a later stage. I beg now to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Russell.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill has told us that he does not wish to proceed with the Second Reading this Session and therefore, for a moment or two, I should like to indicate the sort of view that is taken by authorities and by the Government upon this subject. Your Lordships are, of course, extremely well aware of the very large increase of motors upon the road in the last few years and therefore the question of compulsory insurance against third-party risk has really become of some importance. In some countries on the
80
Continent these matters have already been dealt with. I understand that in Denmark there is a system of compulsory insurance already in existence and in Switzerland a projet de loi has been under discussion in the National Council. In Belgium the principle of the system of compulsory insurance has been already approved but has not taken any form yet as an Act or as a Bill. I understand that that country is waiting for other countries to pass similar systems.
There was a special committee of inquiry on road driving set up by the League of Nations with reference to the circulation of motor vehicles and they recommended that the possibility of the establishment in all the contracting States—that is to say, those who signed the International Convention of 1909—should consider the possibility of a system of compulsory insurance against all damage caused by motor traffic. On the whole, the view of the Ministry is that the difficulties of setting up a satisfactory system are at present very great and they do not see their way, as yet, to establish a regular system. But there are one or two points on which I shall say a few words. One is, what should be insured? Should it be the driver or should it be the vehicle? From what was said by the noble Earl I thought at first that he was going to insure the driver. Then he spoke some words later on in his speech which made me think he was going to insure the vehicle.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, the vehicle.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The view of the Ministry is that the insurance of the driver is in many ways rather a simpler process, because when he goes to get his licence or to renew the licence he will not get the renewal, if this system be established, unless he is able to produce a satisfactory insurance policy. That, no doubt, would be in some ways not very difficult to administer. On the other hand, I understand there are a good number of working men and men of the quite poor class who would find it rather difficult to pay the insurance and whose insurance would not be paid for them by owners. Another difficulty is that the amount of insurance would differ very much with the type of vehicle and also

81
with the purposes for which the vehicle was used. In that case, as a man would shift from one vehicle to another, it would be very difficult to have a sort of shifting policy which suited itself to the varieties of vehicle and to the different purposes for which that vehicle was used. Where the man was definitely employed by a fixed employer there would be no difficulty, or very little difficulty. This system would, of course, upset for the time, as the noble Earl realises, the existing system of insurance, under which a great many people have insured their vehicles and drivers and under which the companies are able pretty well to estimate the risk, while competition, perhaps, hinders the cost of the insurance from being placed too high.
Another matter which is worth considering is that the possibility of evasion is rather greater when you insure a driver, because when you insure the vehicle under the system that now obtains anybody can see, when that vehicle is being driven along the road, whether it has a proper paper which carries with it the insurance. The system, therefore, of insuring motor vehicles does not appear to be so difficult in some respects as the system of insuring the motor driver. On the other hand, in cases of an unauthorised use it would be difficult to say whether the insurance money would duly be paid. Those occasions of an unauthorised use involve a certain number of motors that are used on the rather convivial occasions when this sort of accident unfortunately, occurs, or is rather likely to occur. If the investigation of the insurance policy or certificate at the time of the issue of a vehicle licence involved the withdrawal of the existing alternative of renewing licences at the principal post offices there might be some difficulty with the public, because you can hardly expect the officials of the post office to have sufficient technical knowledge to be able to judge of the value of these insurance policies.
Those are some of the pros and cons of the question of insuring either the vehicle or the driver, but whatever system you adopt it would appear to involve a good deal of cost in officials. You would have to throw new duties upon the licensing officials. Moreover, the number of licensing authorities is something like 184, and therefore you would have to lay down
82
some general standard of approved policy which might guide all these authorities in the system of issuing their licences. Further than that, you would probably have to issue also a list of approved insurance companies; otherwise, it would be no use establishing a system of compulsory insurance. If the insurance money was not to be paid the whole of the Bill would be defeated. It has been suggested—I do not think the noble Earl suggested it—that if you had this system of compulsory insurance introduced it would involve, almost, a licence to drivers to drive carelessly, because as they were insured they would not care very much what damage they inflicted.
I should like to say that, as the noble Earl knows, there are penalties for dangerous driving under the Act of 1903, and it is hoped shortly to introduce a Bill dealing with the questions, when it is very likely that the penalties for reckless and careless driving may be increased. For my part, I trust that they will be increased. Then there would have to be exceptions for the case of those companies which were of such financial stability that they were able to meet their own insurance. There also might be involved, possibly, the question of establishing some regular tariff, because if this system was established and came into force it might very easily happen that rather high standards of insurance would be set up by the insurance companies, who would not he able to calculate the risks over so large a field of insurance. I only indicate some of the difficulties that there are in the way of establishing this system at this preliminary stage. I do so because, as the noble Earl wished the subject to be open for discussion and suggestion, I thought it might be useful to him and the House to see the general way, without committing myself absolutely to details, in Which the Ministry of Transport regarded this question.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, the noble Viscount has indicated some of the numerous difficulties which are raised by the question that the noble Earl has raised this afternoon. May I be allowed to add one or two more? The noble Viscount has not gone into great detail. It occurs to me that one of the chief difficulties which will very soon arise if

83
you compel insurance and force it upon insurance companies, is that you will also involve in that the necessity of the State fixing the rates. If you limit the number of insurance companies to a certain select few, which is what I understood the noble Viscount to indicate, you may be perfectly sure that those companies will get together, and that they will fix their own rate, which may be extremely high. In order to counteract that it will be absolutely necessary for the State to step in, and to fix what the rates are to be. That seems to me, as an old-fashioned person, to be very undesirable. The trend of modern legislation seems to be to drag the State into everything. That, I think, is a very undesirable line to pursue. If the State is called upon to fix all these insurance premiums it would mean, as the noble Viscount suggested, a special department for the purpose, involving a great deal more expense and a considerable number more officials.
As matters stand al present about £10,000,000 are paid in this country for premiums for motor insurance, and nearly every insurance policy covers third-party risks. The number of exceptions is, I think, extremely small. Most sensible people do insure and the only case which has to be met is the case of the man whom the noble Earl described as "a man of straw" who, having a motor car runs someone down and inflicts serious damage. The noble Earl said that such cases were innumerable. I am a fairly constant student of the papers and I must confess that I seldom see cases in which the defendant is unable to pay. That there may be such cases do not deny, but I do not think they occur very often and they are not present to my mind in considering this matter.
Is this proposal made in the interests of the Public? I presume it is? I can understand a proposal that no motor should be insured against third-party risk. That, I think, is an arguable case, because then every person driving would take special care not to inflict damage to life or limb of any of His Majesty's lieges, but I can also understand the frame of mind of a man who has been lunching not wisely but too well and who says: "Well, I am insured against all risks, it does not matter," and he will go ahead for all he is worth and, as likely as not, will cause an accident. But the way to insure the
84
greater safety of the public is not on the lines suggested by this Bill, but on entirely different lines—namely, by imposing severer penalties upon those who inflict these injuries, compelling bicycles at night to carry a red light—that seems to me essential—more care at cross-roads than is taken now by means of signs and otherwise, and, if necessary, impounding the motor which has caused the damage until the owner is able to produce an insurance policy which shows that he is fully insured against, any claim which may be made against him or deposit a sufficient sum of money to cover all such cases as may arise.
The noble Viscount, in his reply, cited the cases of Denmark and Belgium. May I cite the case of Greece? We learned a great deal from Greece in old times and I am not sure that we may not learn something from Greece to-day. In Greece there is a law that in cases where an accident has occurred the motor is impounded and kept until the owner is able to satisfy the authorities that he is in a position to meet all claims which may be made against him. These, my Lords, are one or two of the objections which occur to me and I trust your Lordships will scrutinise very carefully this measure when it is produced, bearing in mind also what seems to me to be the most important consideration of all, that it may eventually lead to the State not only fixing the rates but having to guarantee payment in a case where the insurance money is insufficient to meet the claim made upon the defaulting motorist.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, not-withstanding the doubts which have fallen from the noble Viscount who has just spoken, my sympathies are with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and with the attitude taken up by the noble Viscount opposite.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not speak in favour of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No, it was an attitude of sympathy. It is quite true that if there were only few insurance companies they could combine on the question of rates, but that is not the case. There are hundreds of insurance companies, and, of course, they will compete if this Bill passes just as much as they do now. The main principle of the Bill is that no one

85
should tend out to, drive a motor car any one who is not properly insured, and that is a condition which you can attach just as well as you attach other conditions. I was a little dismayed when I heard the suggestion that you should insure the vehicle as an alternative to insuring the driver. I do not know what is meant by "insuring the vehicle," but I do know that by the jurisprudence of this Empire we can make an Indian deity liable in the Courts, although he is a wooden idol, but, then we take care always to insist on this fact, that he shall have a friend who shall be responsible for the costs if the case goes against him.
The suggestion to make the vehicle responsible is, I think, a little dubious in this case. It is far better to make the driver responsible, and I will tell you why. Whose is the vehicle? The vehicle may belong to some one who has nothing to do with the transaction. It may have been borrowed for the day's outing and driven by the borrower himself, or by a chauffeur whom he gets at the shortest notice. It may be a vehicle which has been annexed by some of these light-fingered gentry who annex motor cars on the smallest provocation; and in that condition of things you want to have some one against whom you can proceed with the certainty of being able to recover something. The noble Viscount said that although he reads the papers he had not noticed that people were not able to recover damages against the driver but the reports in the papers would not, tell him anything. He would have to read what takes place afterwards when an execution is put in or bankruptcy proceedings are taken, and it is obvious that it is very speculative whether you recover anything from the ordinary driver or not. The simplest thing is to say that a driver is not to be employed unless he is properly insured. It may be that the owner of the vehicle will pay, or he may not, but it seems to me that the simplest thing to do is to see that the driver of the motor is properly insured.
You may, of course, protect the public by penalties. You do that now and you may make the penalties more severe, but what we are concerned with is the case, say, of a woman whose husband is run over and then she finds that she can get nothing, although she is entitled to it by legal process. I am quite aware that
86
there may be difficulties in this Bill and the noble Viscount opposite was wise not to commit himself even to approval of the measure as it is at present drafted. It wants looking into, but I think the problem is very far from insoluble, and I hope the Department will take it up with a desire to effect a reform which I think is in the interests of the public.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. From the point of view of the interests of the public this Bill is about as had a Bill as could have been introduced. What will happen? Your Lordships, no doubt, have known of many cases where a man has had an accident with a motor car. He will say that it does not matter because he is insured. Only the other day a large motor lorry drove into a cart of mine, threw my bailiff and coachman out, and broke a shaft. I wrote to the owners of the motor lorry and they took no notice whatever. I wrote to them again, and again they took no notice. I wrote a third letter and they replied that they were insured in such and such a company and did not care what happened or what I did. I then wrote to the insurance company, who replied that they would pay for the broken shaft, but as to taking any liability in case any injury was done to either of the two men they did not care and would fight it to the utmost of their power. Fortunately, no serious injury was done to the men, though in the case of one of them the doctor said that at first he could not tell whether or not an injury might result. I should have been in the position of fighting a big insurance company, going to law and employing lawyers, with a very doubtful result. If the owners of the lorry had been personally liable they would have told their driver to be careful in the future. As a matter of fact, they did not care, because they were insured.
It seems to me that the only result of compulsory insurance would be that nobody would care and accidents would increase. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is, if I may say so, perfectly right when he says that if there were compulsory insurance the insurance companies would combine together to fix the rate. The noble and learned Viscount

87
says that there are hundreds of insurance companies. That is a large estimate and I should say that a good many of them are not very strong in their financial position. You may be quite sure that if the directors of those insurance companies that are sound in their financial position know their business and regard the interests of their shareholders, they will come to an arrangement and the motor owner will have to accept whatever rates they choose to impose unless, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, pointed out, the Government step in and we have more officials and more expense—a development which I have always endeavoured, I am afraid with very little success, to defeat.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount opposite for his sympathetic attitude. The considerations which he indicated have been fully present to my mind. I did consider the question of whether you should insure the driver instead of the vehicle, but the noble Viscount knows quite well that the usual practice at present is to issue a policy in respect of the vehicle and the third-party risk—I think this is some answer to the noble Viscount's objection—is generally unlimited, instead of being limited to £5,000. As regards a vehicle which the owner would not be able to insure there are certainly great difficulties, and I should be only too glad if the Department which the noble Viscount represents would consider them, but I do think that some protection to the public is desirable. It does not involve such a very great upset of insurances as is suggested, because something like 99 per cent. of the vehicles on the road at present are fully covered now by comprehensive policies.
I cannot say that either of the two speeches from the other side of the House has been equally helpful. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, seemed to think that there would be a combination among these companies. But not only are there a great many of them, but this third-party risk which you are insuring is a very small part of the premium of £15, £20 or £25 which the motorist pays. He insures against other risks—risks of damage to his own vehicle, loss by theft, personal damage to the driver, and damage to himself—so that the third-party risk is only a small part of the total premium
88
that he pays, and you may be quite sure that competition between these companies will continue. The companies are not limited to this country. There are also quite strong companies abroad who would be capable of taking the risk. For this reason I do not think that the proposal need or ought to lead to State insurance.
I agree, if I may respectfully say so, with the comment of the noble and learned Viscount below me on the question of those who are unable to pay. You do not generally see these cases in the newspaper, not only because you do not see the results of execution but also because, when it is seen that a person is unable to pay and is a man of straw, it is not usually thought worth while proceeding. Therefore, you do not see reference to such cases. There is one suggestion, and one only among those that have been made, to which I should personally take no objection, and that is the impounding of the offending vehicle. That is certainly some security, though very often the vehicles would not be worth anything like the amount of the damage. I do not think that your Lordships need be afraid that a measure of this sort will increase reckless driving. It is precisely those who now drive recklessly that I want to prevent doing so, but it is no satisfaction to those who have suffered from a reckless driver to know that he has been sent to prison for three months for reckless driving, for that would not put anything in his pocket. I hope that when your Lordships consider the text of the Bill you will make suggestions of some sort or another to meet what is undoubtedly at the present time a very real need. I recognise the difficulties of this matter and am very much obliged to the House for having discussed it.
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION IN IRELAND.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved on Thursday, July 2, by the Earl of Selborne, That a Committee of Inquiry be appointed by His Majesty's Government which shall make recommendations as to the compensation which ought to be paid to those Irish loyalists: (a) Who have legal claims for

89
compensation for post-Truce malicious injuries, but who have not received from the Free State compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Acts; and (b) Who have no legal claim for compensation under existing legislation, but who have suffered in person or property owing to the withdrawal of British protection in Southern Ireland.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Motion which was introduced a fortnight ago and adjourned until to-day deals with matters that have frequently been discussed in your Lordships' House. Last year at this stage of the Session—that is by July—there had been three debates upon these questions of Irish compensation in each of which the Labour Government was strongly attacked, although it was only carrying out the policy of its predecessors. Despite that fact no member of the Front Opposition Bench last year rose to take part in the work of resisting those attacks. I am quite willing, however, so far as I am concerned, to take such small share as I can in reply to at any rate some of the speeches that were made a fortnight ago.
There have been, during the last two or three years on the part of the loyalists in Southern Ireland, so many misconceptions, exaggerations and misstatements with regard to these questions of compensation, that it has required a considerable counter-effort to present anything like the true perspective of what has been happening. At the same time, I do not wish to make the same mistake as is made by those whom I am criticising: I do not wish to overstate the case. I say again, as I have said before, that undoubtedly owing to the troubles in Ireland many persons have suffered serious loss and injury. At the same time, I also say again, as I have said before, that great efforts have been made to compensate those who have suffered. Looking at the matter as a whole, taking that which has been clone under the Wood-Renton Commission, that which is being done under the Free State Act of 1923, and the further help which the British Government has given and will give, I think it will be found that no Governments in the course of history have made more generous provision to compensate those who have suffered from damage in civil strife than have been made during the
90
last two years by the Free State Government and the British Government. It is quite impossible to have strife raging over long periods—and, unhappily, strife did rage over long periods—and for everybody to be satisfied with the compensation awarded. As a matter of fact, even in this country, it is rarely that anybody is satisfied with a compensation award—at all events, the award of a court.
I come now direct to the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. What does that Motion do? It charges the British Government with the breach of a pledge. I am going to examine that very carefully. It is quite true that a certain pledge was given by the Coalition Government of 1922, which was endorsed by the Conservative Government of 1923, and which was under-written, so to say, by the Labour Government of 1924. All that is true, but in view of the terms of the Motion and of some of the statements that were made during the last debate, it is really necessary to examine this pledge carefully and see exactly what it was, because extraordinary and quite untenable interpretations have been placed upon it by the noble Earl and by some of his friends.
I will take the matter step by step. The history of this pledge is, to be found in the White Paper of July, 1922, and its origin is in the words which were quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Let me read those exact words:
"It was also agreed in January last"—
that is, in January, 1922—
"that claims in respect of malicious injuries, whether to persons or property, sustained after July 11, 1921, should be dealt with in the usual way by the County Courts and discharged by the local authorities."
Now those are the words, and of course they mean, or did mean, that procedure was to be in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts. It is highly important to realise the circumstances in which this Agreement came to be made. It was an Agreement to deal with post-Truce compensation in the circumstances which then prevailed—that is in January, 1922, when it was made.
What were those circumstances? There was in Ireland, in the Free State, at that time profound peace. Arrangements had previously been made for dealing with the great problem, the very big problem, of

91
pre-Truce compensation and it was next agreed, in the words that I have quoted, that post-Truce compensation, which seemed then a comparatively small affair, should be dealt with by the county courts in the way which those words which I have read indicate. That was in January, 1922, but unfortunately the peaceful conditions which prevailed then did not last. On the contrary, in the following June a very serious rebellion broke out and immense damage was done. Thus the whole situation was entirely changed, and if the British Government is to be held literally to that pledge, the pledge of January, 1922, let me tell your Lordships what would have happened. The eases might have been taken to the county courts, but they could not have been discharged by the local authorities because the local authorities, or nearly all of them, would have gone bankrupt. That is what would have happened. So that if the British Government is to be held literally to that pledge then the claimants would have got little or nothing, though the pledge would have been fulfilled in the sense that the words were adhered to.
In those circumstances it was that the British Government wrote in July, 1922, to the Free State Government asking that Government what it proposed to do. In writing to that effect—and all this is down in the White Paper and can be seen by anybody who will read it carefully—the British Government said that the responsibility for meeting this large body of claims for compensation—large because of the rebellion which had broken out—must rest on the Irish Government, but they, the British Government, could not divest themselves of the duty to see that the claims were met equitably and as promptly as inevitable difficulties would allow. That is really the pledge and I can demonstrate to your Lordships that that pledge, looking on the matter as a whole and taking everything into account, is being kept by the Free State Act of 1923, combined with the further assistance which has been given, is being given, and will be given by the British Government.
Everyone who reads properly and fairly this White Paper in which the pledge is given can only come to one conclusion—that after the rebellion in June no pledge was given that compensa-
92
tion was to be awarded in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts. No such pledge was given. On the contrary, it is quite clear that the whole purport and object of this White Paper is to recognise that procedure through the county courts and by the local authorities in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts had broken down and the British Government asked what, in the changed circumstances, the Free State Government proposed to do. Subsequently the Free State Government passed the Free State Compensation Act of 1923.
I say, and it is proved by the White Paper, that there is no breach of pledge because the Act of 1923 goes on rather different lines to the Malicious Injuries Acts. The quarrel of Lord Selborne and his friends is really with the Conservative Government of 1923, because it was in the lifetime of that Government that the Free State Act of 1923 was passed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, told your Lordships a fortnight ago that at that time he went on a deputation to the Conservative Government and he asked them to do certain things in connection with this Act, but he says that he got no satisfaction. They would not do them. Why would they not do them? Obviously, because they did not agree with the noble and learned Lord in his interpretation either of the pledge or of the Act. That was why.
I want to examine in more detail some of the complaints which have been made regarding inadequate compensation. Many of these awards about which complaints have been made are concerned with the destruction of country houses. Everybody knows perfectly well that country houses have become a drug on the market in this country. If anybody has any doubt about that they can dispel it any week by looking through the advertisement pages of Country Life Houses of this sort can be bought for a fraction of their original value and for a still smaller fraction of their replacement value.
Let me take an example. There may be a house which cost £30,000. To-day, if it came to be sold, it might bring £5,000 or £10,000 if the owner was fortunate enough to find a buyer at all. If it was burned down and the owner sought to re-

93
build it, it might well be that it would cost £50,000 to re-build it. A man might be desirous of selling his country house in the Free State and there, as here, he can only get a poor price for it. If it happened to be burned down, and the owner then argued that it would cost ten times as much to re-build it as the selling price at present day values, that contention might be perfectly true. I submit that, looking at the matter as a whole, there will not be any substantial injustice done if the owner receives an amount more or less equivalent to the actual selling value of the property. That is all the more true as it is well known that many owners have for a long time left their houses and many others have for a long time wished to do so, just as in this country many owners of country houses would be only too glad to get rid of them at almost any price if they could find a buyer.
Let me put the matter in another way. In the case of a house for which, it may be, that £50,000 has been claimed under this Act, it would be extremely interesting to know what valuation for Death Duty purposes would have been put upon that house if it had not been burned down and if the owners had died. I will undertake to say that in a large number of instances the valuation put by the executors of the owner for Death Duty purposes would be no more, and in many cases would be less, than the compensation awarded under the Free State Act. Your Lordships had before you last year the case of a noble Lord who had claimed for his house, pictures, etc., no less than £300,000. The case came to be tried. It was what is called an undefended case. At that time cases were not being defended by the local authorities, and, therefore, only the evidence of the plaintiff, the noble Lord, was taken into consideration. But this claim of £300,000, although it was not defended, was cut down to £63,500. Subsequently, the case properly enough came to be reviewed before the Wood-Renton Commission, and the 263,500 was cut down to £51,600. The noble Lord felt himself greatly aggrieved.
Let me put this point. Supposing, there had been next to this property of the noble Lord a property with an identical house, identical pictures, etc., which had not been burned clown and the owner had died. Does anybody believe for a moment
94
that his executors would have valued the estate at £300,000 or anything approaching it? Does any one believe that they would have valued it, at the £51,600 which was awarded? I very much doubt it. Here, I maintain, we have some explanation of this disparity in values of which we have heard so much in these debates.
It was almost suggested a fortnight ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, whom I am sorry not, to see in his place, that compensation claims, that is pre-Truce and post-Truce claims, had been cut down from £60,000,000 to £10,000,000, and that if the pledge were o be fulfilled preperly the British Government ought to make up a large proportion of the difference. That, or something very like it, was the suggestion made. Does anybody suppose for a moment that the British Government gave any such pledge at all? I have no doubt I shall be told that it is not a question of the amount, it is a question of justice and good faith, but what I am trying to do is to state the facts and to show your Lordships that there has really been no breach of faith. Any such amount of compensation as £60,000,000, named by the noble and learned Lord, cannot, for a moment, be maintained on any proper computation. It is well known that many of the claims made were grossly excessive—I repeat, grossly excessive.
I have just given your Lordships the case of a claim for £300,000 which was cut down to £51,600 and I showed your Lordships last year, in debate, that that was after a very careful hearing. £51,000 is practically one-sixth of £300,000 so this case affords some explanation of the charge that compensation has been cut down from £60,000,400 to £10,000,000 because the latter sum is again one-sixth of £60,000,000 though, as a matter of fact, the total compensation, pre-Truce and post-Truce, will, I believe, taking everything into account, amount to very much more than £10,000,000.
Let me give your Lordships another case which was mentioned in the debate last Friday by the noble Marquess opposite. This will show your Lordships how much basis there is for the suggestion that the compensation should amount to £60,000,000. This is a case which, as I said, was brought up last, time, very much to the discomfiture of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. This also was

95
the case of a noble Lord and he claimed £50,000 for his place. His family had not lived in the house for thirty-four years. From 1899 to 1913 the house had been let at £100 a year. Well, the case came to be tried and the compensation awarded was £4,500—£1,000 in cash and £3,500 to be spent in erecting suitable houses in the locality.
Let me assume that, instead of the house being let at £100 a year, it was let at £200 a year gross, which would come down to something like £165 net. £165 at 5 per cent. represents a capital of £3,300. This noble Lord was awarded a sum of £4,500. Can anybody say that that was inequitable? Can anybody say there is any real basis for claiming £50,000 in that ease I should add that there was a point about some timber but no compensation would have been awarded in that matter even before the days of the Free State Act of 1923. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, seemed to think that this case should not have been brought up at all. Why not? The noble Lord concerned, whose property it was, apparently thought it was a strong case—such a strong case that he wrote to the Press about it.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Lord give us the name of the case?
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, it was the case of Lord Headley. I had refrained from giving the name, but as the noble Lord asks for it I give it. Lord Headley wrote to The Times and, if I remember rightly, he said he was going to bring the facts before the Irish Claims Compensation Association but what happened? In December, 1924, the High Commissioner of the Free State wrote to The Times and smashed this case to smithereens. Since then, except for an ineffective rejoinder, practically nothing has been heard about the case. No wonder Lord Carson did not want this case to be brought up and preferred to talk about the Crosby case. I will speak about the Crosby case in a minute.
I say that this case which I have just been describing and cases like it go to show how an estimate of £60,000,000 is arrived at. When the noble and learned Lord. Lord Carson, suggests that the compensation should amount to £60,000,000 I wonder whether he realises
96
what that really means. Let us examine it. The Free State is a country with a population of about 3,000,000 persons, and the capital wealth of the country is, proportionately to the population, very much less than the capital wealth of Great Britain. Now, let it be assumed that there had been in Great Britain similar troubles to those that have taken place in Ireland. If in the Free State the compensation for the troubles there ought to amount to £60,000,000, the equivalent figure, when everything is taken into account, would in Great Britain be between £1,500,000,000 and £2,500,000,000. Does anybody believe for a moment that that amount of compensation for damage would have been clue for troubles here corresponding to the troubles in the Free State? Does anybody believe for a moment that that amount ought in equity to have been paid by this country? I say that the proposition is absolutely untenable.
Let me once again, and for the last time, take the analogy of the Death Duties. Does anybody believe that these properties, for which it is now said there ought to be a compensation of £60,000, would have been valued at £60,000 for Death Duty purposes? The idea is ridiculous. I question very much whether they would have been valued at as high as the compensation which is awarded under this Act, and I cannot understand upon what principle of right and justice the British taxpayer—because that is undoubtedly the proposition—should be asked to make up the difference to a grossly inflated valuation.
Much was said on the last occasion about certain cases which were intended to prove that the compensation was inadequate and I would like to say something about the matter. Under any system of compensation there are, no doubt, a certain number of exceptional cases which may seem hard. That will always be so. It would be perfectly possible in this country to produce a large number of instances of persons who are profoundly dissatisfied, as I indicated earlier, with the compensation they receive in the Courts. In fact, your Lordships know perfectly well that the exception is to find any one who is satisfied. A fortnight ago the noble Duke the Duke of Northumberland, quoted some words of a Free State Judge who

97
deplored in certain cases that he could not under the law give more compensation. The noble Duke quoted those words and impressed them upon your Lordships. But it is not at all unknown for Judges in this country to use such words as those in certain eases, particularly in what I might cull marginal cases, where just a slight difference in the circumstances would allow much bigger compensation to be awarded. If I thought it to take up your Lordships' time I could prove that point, and prove it easily, from the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act and, again, in the granting of many disability War pensions; but I will not take up your time with it. You can, under any system, produce a certain number of exceptional cases. Surely it ought to be remembered in your Lordships' House that these cases are brought here on the complainants' side and we do not hear the other side at all. I am bound to say that again and again when I was at the Colonial Office and cases of this sort were brought to my notice and probed to the bottom, there was quite a reasonable explanation forthcoming of why the award complained of had been made.
Let me come now to the Crosby case. Mach was said on the last occasion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, about the Crosby case. With those great gifts of his, which I personally admire more than I can say, the noble and learned Lord almost succeeded in creating in your Lordships' minds the impression that every case was like the Crosby case. When that case was brought before your Lordships' House last year I commented on it. I do not know all the circumstances of that case. I have not heard the arguments on the other side. Neither have your Lordships heard the arguments on the other side. But let it he assumed that that case was exactly what it was represented to he, and, even so, it only brings that case within the area of the exceptional or marginal cases of which I have been speaking and which are to be found under any system of compensation. Compensation must, after all, be awarded in accordance with certain rules and regulations.
Let me give your Lordships particulars of two eases which are very much more typical of what is going on than the
98
Crosby ease—very much more typical. The first is the case of a house and 250 acres which were bought, I think in 1920, for £6,000. The house was burned down, and compensation was claimed. It was stated in evidence that it would cost £19,000 to rebuild the house. I dare say that was true. The compensation awarded was £4,900, plus a provision for replacement. The owner, of course, still had the 250 acres of land. If you take that land as worth, say, only £10 an acre, that is £2,500. If you add that to the £4,900 you arrive at £7,400 for property which originally cost £6,000. Let me give your Lordships another case, the case of a house which was bought, I believe—also a post-War purchase—for £5,000.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will the noble Lord tell us where those houses were and who were the owners?
LORD ARNOLD: I will let the noble Earl have particulars later. Surely he does not doubt it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I do not doubt it; I would only like to know the names.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD I will give them to the noble Earl later. I will not now be deflected from my argument.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Lord give me the names?
LORD ARNOLD: No, not at the moment. I will not be deflected from my argument; let me proceed. I have one more case of a house which cost £5,000 It was stated in evidence that it would cost £10,000 to rebuild. I dare say it would have cost that. I think, in fact I know, that the compensation was £6,000, but whether there was a provision for replacement I am not quite sure. In any case, I think that compensation was fully adequate.
Great complaints were made a fortnight ago, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, and by other noble Lords, about these replacement provisions, but it was not explained to your Lordships that if the proper steps are taken it is quite feasible in a large number of cases to get permission to use the replacement money not for re-erecting the house which has been burned down, and which, as a rule,

99
the owner does not wish to re-erect, but for building property of a different character in the same neighbourhood, just as happened in the case of Lord Headley. In some cases I understand suburban villas are constructed or shops can be built which can be sold or held as investments; so I submit that in all the circumstances such provisions are not unfair in giving an award when everything is taken into account.
In regard to consequential damage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, dwelt upon it at great length on the last occasion. He complained that the Free State Act of 1923 was unjust because it does not give compensation for consequential damage. Even under the old Malicious Injuries Acts it was not, as a rule, the custom to award compensation for consequential damage. No doubt there were instances such as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, which might appear to suggest the contrary, but generally speaking such compensation was not awarded under the old Malicious Injuries Acts. That was the position. I raised this question again and again when I was at the Colonial Office and again and again that was the information given to me, and although I am not a lawyer I have no reason to doubt that, speaking broadly, it is correct that such compensation was not awarded under the old Malicious Injuries Acts. But now the demand is made and was made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I think, that such losses shall be compensated for.
So the position with which we are asked to agree is this: it is actually contended that the Government ought to go further than it has gone and to do that in au unprecedented number of cases. I ask your Lordships this question: Does any body believe that any British Government, whether Coalition, Conservative or Labour, ever gave any pledge of that character? That is a pledge that compensation was to be awarded on an immense scale involving liabilities for damages which, generally speaking, were not compensated in the old days. I say emphatically no such pledge was ever given, no such pledge was for a moment contemplated.
Another great complaint which was made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, particularly, was that
100
there is delay in hearing cases. I dare say that is quite true because of the enormous number of cases. The Wood-Renton Commission sought to deal with this inevitable congestion by means of investigators. What happened then? Immediately the complaint went up that every case was not being tried direct before the Judges themselves. I do not think that there is the smallest reason to suppose that the Free State Government is delaying the trial of cases, and I would remind your Lordships that it is to deal with delayed compensation, or at any rate part of the functions of the Irish Grants Commission is to deal with delayed compensation, and make advances in those cases.
I myself presided for some time over the Irish Grants Committee and I know that Ministers in each British Government have taken the closest possible interest in its proceedings, which is a further evidence that they are not unmindful of their obligations in this matter. In fact, so far as I am concerned, the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, was good enough, a fortnight ago, to say kind words about the sympathy I had shown in considering certain cases which were submitted to the Colonial Office. I was gratified by what the noble Duke said, though it is true my appreciation was slightly tempered by his succeeding remark, which was that he thought it was a very good thing that the Labour Government had been defeated. I must not however, digress into that, although it is a very tempting theme. I must take occasion to reply to that on some other occasion.
I will proceed now to reply to what the noble Duke suggested as to what are known in Ireland as agrarian outrages. As regards those outrages they are, unhappily, nothing new in the Free State or in Ireland. They have long been known in that country and indeed, when I was in office last summer, I was informed that they were then rather less than they used to be in pre-War days, when no compensation was payable at all in many instances.
I must draw to a close, but I wish before sitting down to say a few words about the complaint regarding payment in Bonds—depreciated Bonds, I think, are the words of the Motion. The facts about this matter look very different, as is the

101
case in nearly all this trouble, when the other side is put. It is a proportion of the compensation that is paid in these Bonds which are redeemable at par over a period of 10 years by 10 annual drawings. It is true that the Bonds are at a discount but not a substantial discount. The last price that I saw a few days ago was £91 to £92 for the £100 Bond. In 10 years the holder should have received the full par value together with 5 per cent. interest in the interval.
I would like to point out to your Lordships that the Free State main Loan, the Free State Government 5 per cent. Loan, stands, or stood a few days ago, at £93½ to £95. That is to say it is only a few pounds below the 5 per cent. War Loan of the British Government, Yet I remember very well last December that the Free State Land Guarantee Act was before your Lordships' House and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, said that these Bonds—they were 4½ per cent. Bonds—if they were not guaranteed, would stand at £30 to £40. I have pointed out that to-day the 5 per cent. Loan stands at £93½ and if the 5 per cent. Loan stands at £93½ the equivalent price for the 4½ per cent. Loan would be somewhere about £84 as against the £30 to £40 suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. That is to say, there was an exaggeration of about 250 per cent. I am very glad to have the opportunity of pinning down one of those exaggerated statements which are so frequently made in the course of these debates. As I have said, these compensation Bonds are not at a substantial discount at all. The reason for payment in Bonds is due to financial exigencies, and I cannot see that in all the circumstances there is any very great grievance in paying a proportion of the compensation in Bonds, especially in view of what the British Government is prepared to do in this matter, as was announced by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the last occasion.
I have only two further things to say. The first is this. I notice with very great interest a few lines in a pamphlet issued by the Irish Claims Compensation Association. They refer to the question of pre-Truce compensation and the Wood-Renton Commission, and on page 9 I read these words:
"In the cases heard by the three members of the Commission personally the Associa-
102
tion is satisfied front their inquiries that substantial justice has been done."
It goes on to say that great dissatisfaction exists in the case of the investigators. That was suggested to me last year, but the odd thing was that no complaints, or practically none, reached me at the Colonial Office. What did reach me were the greatest complaints about the awards of the Judges themselves. I suggested that on the whole they were fair except in exceptional cases, but noble Lords would not hear of that and now we have the admission in this pamphlet of the Irish Claims Compensation Association that on the whole these awards of the Wood-Renton Commission have done substantial justice.
I want to add this. I may be too, sanguine, but I am not altogether without hope that perhaps in another year or two there will similarly be a recognition, looking at the matter broadly and considering all the difficulties, that substantial justice has been done by the Free State Act of 1923 combined with the further monies found and to be found by the British Government through the Irish Grants Committee, and in that which was announced by the noble Marquess, the Marquess of Salisbury, in our last debate. Everything which the British Government has done or promised to do is, judging from the reception given to what he said in debate a fortnight ago, to be considered of no account, whereas as a matter of fact big sums are involved and they will be considerably increased by the further undertakings which the noble Marquess gave.
My last point is this. It might very well be imagined, by those who do not know the facts, from the terms of this Motion and from various speeches and writings that this Act of 1923 was deliberately designed by the Free State Government to injure loyalists. Nothing could be more untrue, nothing could be more devoid of truth. This Act does not apply only to cases of loyalists. It applies to all cases and a great majority of the cases, I believe, are not cases of loyalists at all. They are cases of Sinn Feiners and supporters of the present Government. I believe Mr. Cosgrave's house itself was burned down. So that if all this injustice is being done, which I

103
deny, it is being done not only to loyalists but also to supporters of the Free State Government. There is a great deal more ground that I should like to cover but I refrain from doing so. What I have tried to do is to put all these matters before your Lordships in true perspective and to show that there is another side, and a very different side, from that which was put forward a fortnight ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it has been my misfortune to be somewhat intimately concerned with some of the incidents which we have discussed during the coarse of these debates and your Lordships may not take it amiss if I venture to lay before you some of the impressions which I have been able to form. I wish, in the first place, to join with those who have expressed their gratitude to Lord Selborne for taking up this question. We could not have had an abler or more authoritative champion. He has at any rate one qualification and that is that he is not an Irishman. He is not a member of that rather pitiable fraternity to which I imagine I belong—the fraternity of Irishmen with a grievance, who are I fear regarded by their friends rather as a nuisance, and who are fortunate if they encounter nothing worse than an attitude of toleration tempered by incredulity. Lord Selborne has held high office in this country. He has been a colleague of noble Lords who sit below me. He has held high administrative posts in the Empire and, with all his experience and from an entirely independent point of view, he has come to the conclusion that a great wrong is being done in Ireland and demands an investigation.
I have never myself been able to see why the Free State Government should not welcome such an investigation. A great many hard things are being said about them. Many of them. I have no doubt, are undeserved, and while I do not go so far as the noble Lord who has just spoken, I agree with him in thinking that there have been a great many misstatements and exaggerations in connection with these claims for compensation. If I were called upon to hear witness from my own experience, I should say that my evidence, while it would be unfavourable to the Free State at some points, would certainly be favour-
104
able to them at others. I will say a further word upon that point later, but at any rate, I deprecate anything like wholesale and indiscriminate charges against the Free State Government and its officials. But there is a great conflict of evidence, and surely we are not unreasonable when we suggest that in the circumstances a dispassionate investigation of the facts could produce nothing but good result. And may I be allowed to say that I entirely agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House when lie suggests that an investigation of that kind would be more likely to produce good results if it could be arranged that it should be carried out in co-operation with the Government of the Irish Free State? It would be interesting to know whether, in the suggestions which the noble Marquess has thrown out from time to time, he is inspired by anything that has passed between himself and the Free State Ministers.
But before I speak of His Majesty's Government may I say one word about His Majesty's Opposition and the speech to which we have just listened? The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, will forgive me if I say that I thought his speech rather disappointing. We have very fresh in our minds the statement made by the noble Lord himself in this House in 1924. A Labour Government was in power and I asked His Majesty's Ministers whether they could tell us whether, in the spirit of continuity which they had accepted in regard to other questions, they were ready to step into the shoes of their predecessors in regard to this Irish question. Nothing could be more precise or categorical than the noble Lord's reply. This is what he said:—
"The position of the Government can be stated almost in a sentence. The present Government in this whole question have considered and are adhering to the policy followed by their predecessors and they see no ground for departing from that policy."
What was that policy? It was the policy embodied in the letter written on behalf of Mr. Lloyd George's Government to the Provisional Government of Ireland in July, 1922, which contains this oft-quoted passage:—
"While, however the responsibility for meeting these claims to compensation must rest upon the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably and as promptly as inevitable difficulties allow."

105
That pledge was taken up by Mr. Bonar Law's Government and in December, 1922, the Duke of Devonshire, whose absence we all regret, said this:—
"It is for us who have accepted that responsibility to see that full and ample justice is rendered in all cases. We do realise these responsibilities and we shall act upon them even if we have to make considerable demands upon the people of this country."
That was a pledge which certainly could not have been given without previous consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, made the announcement which I have just quoted the Duke of Devonshire on the same occasion thanked him for the assurance he had given and considered it satisfactory that there should be such a degree of continuity existing in the policy of the three Governments. There is no doubt as to these pledges because the text is there for your Lordships to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has been at great pains this afternoon to explain that circumstances alter cases and that a pledge which might have been appropriate in 1922 might well cease to be an appropriate pledge when the conditions of the country had altered.
LORD ARNOLD: I am extremely loath to interrupt the noble Marquess but this is rather an important matter. My point is not that the pledge was altered but that if the pledge given in 1922 had been literally adhered to the claimants would have got little or nothing, and that there-upon the British Government wrote and asked what was suggested should be done in the changed circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is a new rendering of the pledge, and it is not one which I can accept. It is, in effect, a suggestion that if this is left, to the Irish Government to deal with they will have to make default and only pay a few shillings in the £. That has never been suggested on their behalf by any one as far as I am aware. The noble Lord also made great play with the old story of the high demands made as compensation for the destruction of Irish country houses. There is a great deal to be said about that. I quite agree. I remember when the Compensation Bill was going through the Irish Parliament paying some attention to the discussions
106
which took place, and a phrase was frequently used in those discussions to the effect that what were called "white-elephant houses" should not be made the subject of inordinate claims. That is quite sound.
I can imagine, and I think I know of, Irish country houses, virtually derelict, quite unsaleable and quite unlettable, probably not very habitable, for which nobody could reasonably claim to be paid the price of replacing them by houses of the exact size and dimensions at which they now stand. But that does not touch the question which concerns us most—namely, the ease of houses which were anything but white elephant houses, houses of moderate dimensions which have been inhabited by their owners, which have been centres of order and civilisation and which have been destroyed, although the owners desired to reoccupy them and would have done so if they had been provided with the opportunity. Does it not after all come to this, that with regard to this question of compensation there is great controversy of opinion but no agreement, as to the facts? In such a case surely my noble friend is not unreasonable when he suggests that the whole matter should be dealt with by a competent investigation, and that the facts should be sifted so that we may really know where the right and the wrong lie.
May I now pass from His Majesty's Opposition to His Majesty's Government? I cannot help thinking that my noble friend, the noble Marquess, must not have been sorry to have had an opportunity provided for him by my noble friend Lord Selborne of clearing up the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this question. My noble friend will forgive me if I say quite frankly that a good many of us have been puzzled as to the precise position which His Majesty's Government desired to take up. We have had debates and we have had deputations, but we none of us really knew exactly where the Government stood in relation to this question. My noble friend made a courageous effort to clear up the situation. He made various admissions which were noted with satisfaction and which seemed to us very important. There was no doubt as to the sincerity of his language, and there was no doubt as to his honest desire to help us if he could. It is true that at one moment he

107
struck a note of despair when he said—I am afraid with a good deal of truth—that, having once abandoned your friends, you can no longer look after them. But I think my noble friend means to try, all the same.
Let me say two or three words as to what I would venture to call my noble friend's plan of campaign. In the first place, he made the novel and rather ingenious suggestion that my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, should proceed by means of excursions—I suppose I might almost say personally conducted excursions—to the Colonial Office. By all means let us have excursions to the Colonial Office if my noble friend thinks that any good can come of them, but some of us are a little discouraged when we remember that we have already been to the Colonial Office and that our excursions have not been altogether profitable to us. We have been at immense pains to marshal our facts and figures, we have put all our cards on the table and we have challenged cross-examination; but nothing has happened. We may be more fortunate another time.
Then, if I remember aright, my noble friend made one or two concrete suggestions. He suggested, in the first place, that persons who had obtained advances and who were likely to be penalised by having to repay them in Irish securities which had depreciated in value might have their loss made good to them. I think his suggestion was that for the purpose of repayment they might be allowed to use Irish securities at their nominal or face value. That is a very friendly and helpful suggestion, but, of course, it touches only a comparatively limited number of cases. So far as it goes, we welcome it. His other suggestion was to this effect. He said that as to compensation—
"In a certain number of cases they "—
that, I presume, means His Majesty's Government—
"are prepared to go beyond anything which Ins been clone up to now.…"
That seems to open a hopeful prospect, but my noble friend will forgive me if I say that we should like to know rather more about the details of the proposal before we can express an opinion as to
108
the value that we can attach to it. Any suggestions of this kind, coming from him, will always be treated respectfully, but he will forgive us if, at first sight, it seems to us that our proposal for an investigation of the whole question was a more reasonable plan.
Then the noble Marquess asked us what kind of inquiry we favoured. I think the answer to that is that, in a case of this kind, we should expect the Government themselves to put forward their own scheme for the best kind of investigation, the kind that is most suited to the circumstances. But I will take upon myself to tell my noble friend what we do not want. I do not think that any of us want what is known as a Departmental Inquiry. We do not want an inquiry undertaken by subordinate officials on the back stairs of the Colonial Office. We should like to have the case examined by men of experience, of knowledge, of high standing and authority and, above all, of complete independence of character.
I will not take up your Lordships' time by an enumeration of the subjects that we should like to refer to such an inquiry. Obviously in the first rank comes the question which my noble friend Lord Selborne has raised, the question of compensation. I am not going to lose myself in details, but I do put it to the House that one fact has been clearly established, and that is that the law has been changed by the Free State Government greatly to the detriment of those who invoke its aid. We are under the belief that these sufferers had a right to expect trial of their cases in the usual way, under existing Imperial Statutes, that the compensation which they would be able to claim was what is described in the reference to the Shaw Commission as that which they could demand in reason and fairness, and that they would be allowed to receive compensation for any damage which was, as the Court of Appeal put it in a case quoted last week by my noble friend Lord Carson, "the natural and direct consequence of the wrong." We are under the impression that such compensation has now been denied to these claimants and that all that they can look for, under Section 6 of the Act of 1923, is compensation for the actual damage done to their property and no more. We all know, and Lord

109
Arnold must know, that there are cases in which the rigid application of that section has led to most disastrous effects to men who have suffered through these outrages.
May I say one word as to another aspect of this question of compensation One of the greatest hardships of which these Irish sufferers complain is that they are now denied any compensation for damage due to plunder or depredation. Lord Arnold will probably tell me that under the Malicious Injuries Acts no compensation could be claimed for larceny. That is perfectly true and I think the framers of the Statute were probably wise in their generation; for if, in a country with a loosely organised society where the distinction between meum and tuum is not always sufficiently recognised, every villager was allowed to claim compensation at the public expense for the theft of his potatoes by his neighbour, there would be no end to it. But the kind of robbery we are talking of has nothing to do with ordinary larceny at all. There may be something to be said for excluding ordinary larceny, but we maintain that there is nothing to be said for the rule or practice under which sufferers during the reign of terror arc refused compensation unless they can prove destruction as distinct from theft. Robbery and destruction have gone hand in hand and are inextricably mixed, and to throw on the sufferer the onus of proving that his property which has disappeared is actually destroyed and not stolen is preposterous, whether judged from the point of view of law or of common sense.
I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me for a moment while I tell you how this doctrine was applied in a case in which I was myself personally concerned. My house was wrecked, plundered and burned during the earlier part of the month of September. I was left with the bare walls of the house and with only a certain portion of its contents restored to me owing to the friendly action of some neighbours and the courage of a public-spirited priest. I put in a claim for compensation for the reconstruction of the buildings and also for the loss of the contents. Let me say at once, so far as the buildings are concerned, that I was met it a reasonable
110
spirit by the Free State officials, that my claim was promptly settled and the money punctually paid out as the work of reconstruction proceeded.
But, when I come to the question of compensation for the loss of the contents of the building I have a very different story to tell. I was at infinite pains to obtain a perfectly just and fair valuation of the contents of the house. I was determined that nothing should be over-valued and I have nothing but commendation to give to the Public Works officer who was sent down to investigate my claim and decide whether it was reasonable or not. We had no difficulty in arriving at an agreement with him as to the question of values and at one moment it looked as if the whole case was going to be settled by consent. At the last moment there appeared on the scene a sinister personage in the shape of the State Solicitor, and the State Solicitor warned us that my claim on account of furniture, and so forth, would he disputed on the ground that I could not prove that it had all been destroyed, and that some of it must have been stolen.
I put in a carefully-drawn memorandum, reciting the circumstances in great detail, pointing out that the wrecking extended over several days, that communications were cut off, that the Royal Irish Constabulary had been taken away and the Civic Guard had not yet been formed, and that something like pandemonium went on. I contended that it was clearly established that the whole of the depredations were consequent upon and indissolubly concerned with the wrecking, and I said that even if it were conceded that there were some cases of loss owing to mere theft it was humanly impossible to distinguish between those and the losses occasioned by fire and wreckage.
It may interest you to know that my facts and arguments were not disputed, but were used against me as an admission that a part at any rate of the loss was due to larceny and not to destruction. The State Solicitor, when the case came on for hearing—I got his words not from the files of the Colonial Office but from those of the Cork Examiner—announced that "no deduction could be made as regards value, that in fact most of the articles were very much undervalued, but

111
as some of the property was not destroyed but was probably looted," and "as it was practically impossible for Lord Lansdowne to say how much was destroyed and how much was looted," he had suggested to my solicitor to accept £2,000 instead of the £4,000 I had claimed. My solicitor was a shrewd gentleman who knew something of the previous findings of the same learned Judge on the "looting" question. He knew that it was absolutely impossible for us to prove that a particular chair or a particular table had been destroyed and not stolen, and in view of my obvious desire to be rid of the whole case he advised me to accept my £2,000 and be thankful it was not worse. I accordingly did so.
I remained under the impression that the decision was a very iniquitous one, and your Lordships may judge of my satisfaction when not very long afterwards I came across a speech made in the Dail by a very well-known member of the Irish Ministry—one of the ablest of them—Mr. O'Higgins, in which he used these words:—
"It is a hardship that as yet there is no recognised compensation for loot. It is a hardship that whereas if a man's goods were brought out of his backyard and burnt, as did occasionally happen in these good old days, there would be compensation, but if they were thrown in a lorry and driven away there would be none. That is an anomaly, and it is something that would require treatment in the future.…
We want to establish by agreement some court, committee or tribunal which will deal with cases of loss and injury that are not covered by the terms of reference of the existing Commission."
Those are brave words. They were spoken exactly a year ago, but has Mr. O'Higgins brought in a Bill for remedying the grievance? Not a bit; nothing has happened, and the grievance remains. One feels when we are told to go to the Colonial Office about these questions, that as they have already been before the Irish Government, and as the Irish Ministers have formed an opinion and yet nothing has happened, the excursion to the Colonial Office may possibly not be very fruitful of results.
My noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne has, I see, an Amendment to Lord Selborne's Motion on the Paper, in which he desires that the House should examine not only the matters covered by Lord Selborne's Motion but the question of the terms of land purchase given under the
112
Act of 1923. I do not know whether your Lordships will desire to take up that question at the same time as this, but I do wish to say that this question of the terms of land purchase is one which cannot be brushed on one side, and which, we hope, will either now or hereafter be thoroughly examined by some competent authority.
Here again I come to the suggested excursions to the Colonial Office. My noble friend Lord Midleton, who was here a moment ago, took a number of us, a year ago, to the Colonial Office in order to discuss this question with the Secretary of State. We were able to show, and we showed by documents and evidence, that the terms which the owners of lands will receive under the Purchase Act of 1923 fall considerably below the terms embodied in the Convention scheme of 1920, that they fall below the terms embodied in the Government Bill of 1920, which was accepted on both sides as the proper basis for land purchase whenever land purchase should take place, and we showed that the terms were also below those which at the present time are being given to the agricultural tenants of Ulster who are acquiring their holdings in the same way. We showed that this reduction from twenty years' purchase to fifteen years' purchase had the effect of diminishing by about 20 per cent. the available income of the vendors; we showed that the reduction would have the effect of obliterating entirely in a great many cases the narrow margin upon which the vendor had expected to live, and that to many of them it could spell nothing but simple ruin.
We were listened to respectfully, but again nothing has happened. If I may give your Lordships an illustration of the hardship of these terms, these fifteen years' purchase terms, let me mention this. Some Irish landlords were, probably your Lordships might say, so unwise as to spend money in improving the buildings upon their property. I have a list of cases from which I gather this, that the vendor will receive as purchase money for the fee simple of the farm a sum which will often he actually less by a few pounds than the amount which he spent in equipping the holding with suitable buildings. That is to say, if you admit that the value of the build-

113
ings is still there and that the buildings are the landlord's he will get literally nothing from the Government for the land.
I may be told that this is a proper retribution for landlords who were so foolish as to spend money in erecting valuable buildings on a farm which has little or no value. It is not true that these farms have no value. We occasionally get a glimpse into the question of the value of the farm. Let me tell your Lordships the story of a little farm with which I am personally familiar. The rent is £15. The estate expenditure upon building was £235. The vendor will receive £233 only. Now the tenant of this farm the other day desired to divest himself of it and he sold the good will in the open market. He received £1,025, whereas the owner of the fee simple of the soil comes out actually on the wrong side of the account.
To sum up, let me say this. I am in entire sympathy with the Motion that my noble friend Lord Selborne has made, and I would gladly support it. But if, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury indicated when he spoke last week, he sees great difficulty in giving effect to it and if, on the other hand, he sees his way to alleviating the lot of the sufferers by other means which he has partially indicated to us—if he will somewhat amplify the statement he made the other night and tell us with rather more detail and precision what his scheme is, then personally I shall not regret it if my noble friend Lord Selborne decides not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but in that case he would, I have no doubt, do so with the reservation that, should the result of the noble Marquess's negotiation prove unsatisfactory or abortive he would hold himself free to revive the Motion which he has already put on the Table of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have no right, of course, to address your Lordships again, but, in view of the appeal which has been made to me in the closing words of my noble friend's speech, perhaps I might ask your Lordships' indulgence in order to respond to it in a very few phrases. I recognise that he commented on—perhaps I might say criticised—the vagueness of some of the observations
114
which I made a fortnight ago, and he expressed the view that it was for His Majesty's Government to indicate the form of inquiry which they advocate. May I try to put in a more precise form the actual suggestion which we make?
My noble friend has referred to the suggestion which I made in the debate of July 2 that representatives of the loyalists in the House should confer with representatives of the Government with a view to helping as far as possible the loyalist victims of malicious injury in the troubles. My noble friend asks me to state in more precise form the offer I then indicated on behalf of the Government. The difficulties in the way of a formal committee such as my noble friend Lord Selborne proposed are, as I stated, considerable, but if two or three noble Lords representing Lord Selborne's and the Duke of Northumberland's point of view would consent to join members representing the Government in an informal Committee we should welcome it. As to the procedure, we should be glad to take into consideration any suggestion they might put forward, but our idea is that the Committee should thoroughly sift a certain number of typical cases of hardship. In this way we might, I hope, agree as to the limits of what is possible and what is not possible in the treatment of them. We suggest that the cases might be divided into three categories—(1), cases covered by the Free State Act in which the compensation awarded is considered to be inequitable; (2), cases in which compensation has been awarded but undue delay has occurred in the payment, or improper deductions have been made in respect of Income Tax; (3) cases not covered by the Free State Act.
We would leave the selection of the cases, which no doubt my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland's organisation could furnish, entirely to my noble friends, of course upon the understanding that they select what they believe to be typical cases of hardship, and that, if for any reason they select for discussion exceptional cases, they will so inform us. Although, of course, we cannot commit the Government at this stare, we will give the fullest and most sympathetic consideration to the recommendations of such a Committee as that which I have indicated. My noble friend will see that the proposals which we make are something

115
much more than excursions to the Colonial Office. They are of a formal character which, for my part, I earnestly hope may lead to some definite result.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury was good enough to inform me beforehand of the details of the offer he was going to make on behalf of His Majesty's Government and I have had time to consult with my friends who are acting with me in this matter, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I stated at once the course we propose to take. I do not profess that the offer of His Majesty's Government goes so far as we would like it to go. We would have preferred a more formal Committee and a more complete inquiry. But we welcome the offer conveyed by my noble friend the Leader of the House as an indication of what we never were in doubt about—the real desire of His Majesty's Government to find, if possible, some means of dealing with a very difficult situation. Therefore, as we are asked to co-operate we will not refuse that co-operation; always, let it be understood, with this proviso—that if, unfortunately, the representatives of the distressed loyalists and the representatives of His Majesty's Government are unable to come to an agreement on the principles or if, having come to an agreement, His Majesty's Government do not find themselves able to act upon those principles, then we hold ourselves absolutely free to renew this debate and our Motion. Therefore, I will not ask the House to go to a Division to-night. But if your Lordships accept the suggestion that my friends and I make we would adjourn the debate to no fixed date.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I am glad to have heard what the noble Earl has just said because it has carried further what was stated by the noble Marquess. What I desire to do is to point out that considerations of great gravity must be taken into account in regard to what has been said. The whole tone of the noble Earl's speech in making this Motion has been that those who have been injured—I use the term advisedly—have some kind of legal claim which this Government is bound to take into consideration, and which must be judged on ordinary juridical principles. That leaves out of account that after peace was
116
made liability for these things and liability for the things which subsequently occurred was transferred to the Irish Free State Dominion. The Irish Free State is a Dominion, and I ask your Lordships to consider what would happen if you made such a suggestion as the noble Earl has just made or, indeed, such a suggestion as the noble Marquess has made, in the case of Canada or Australia. You would have a hornet's nest about your ears at once. And the greatest care is required in dealing with this matter. You cannot have claims put forward as though they were legal claims which we could take into account despite the views which were taken account of in Ireland. The noble Marquess, in his speech the other day, which I have read very carefully, spoke of the reasonable attitude of Mr. Cosgrave in this matter. Mr. Cosgrave is a very reasonable man, and I think that the Irish Government will probably show that they are reasonable if only you treat them properly. But do not approach the question in the tone of the noble Earl.
I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, with the greatest sympathy. He confined himself to a statement of what had happened and he detailed to us a very lamentable state of things. I am quite inclined to take the whole of his testimony and to think that a great many people in Ireland have suffered injustice, and cruel injustice. But I am pointing out to your Lordships that Ireland is a Dominion. Ireland was made a Dominion, with the status of Canada and Australia, by your Lordships' own House. It is there on the Statute Book, and so far as I have any responsibility, sitting where I do on this side of the House, it is to see that you do not stumble into things which may get you into very great trouble.
That is no reason why the Government should not take this matter into consideration. But there is great reason why they should proceed with the utmost caution and why they should proceed in close cooperation with the Irish Free State. So long as I have any breath to expend I will never consent to anything which will re-open the questions of the past between Ireland and this country. Thank Heaven they are settled at last, and I will do nothing to disturb that settlement. Therefore, I am most

117
anxious that the noble Marquess in his announcement should not be taken to mean that we are going to trench on things which belong to the province of the Irish Government. As I have said, I believe that the Irish Government will be glad to have your assistance in settling these difficult and dangerous things. I do not think they have any desire to go back upon the justice of which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke. But you will have to proceed very delicately indeed, and to use your Cabinet machinery in the most delicate fashion, if you are going to make an inquiry which does not get you into trouble. I would far rather see this made a Cabinet Inquiry under the new machinery with which the noble Earl opposite is so familiar, an inquiry to which, if necessary, you could bring the representatives of the Irish Free State Dominion into consultation.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will not be discouraged by the speech to which we have just listened in the policy that they have announced. For my own part I welcome it heartily as being a method by which this very difficult question may eventually be settled. I hope I may take it for granted that His Majesty's Government meanwhile have assured themselves that the suggestion which they have made to your Lordships' House this afternoon will meet with the approval of the Free State. I suppose that I may not unfairly take it for granted that the Free State Government will not object to the course which has been proposed by His Majesty's Government. I am taking that for granted. I would venture to say for myself, and I think I may also say for my noble friends, that the action which has been foreshadowed by the noble Marquess and the course which he suggests do not seem to me in any way to re-open all the unhappy matters of controversy, but may, I hope, on the other hand lead to a settlement of this question which undoubtedly has in the past and does even now cause a great deal of ill-feeling between certain people in this country in regard to Ireland.
For my own part, if I feel any regret at all with reference to the policy which was announced by the noble Marquess, it is that it prevents me from answering some
118
of the figures and facts and arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. We have listened to two speeches delivered on the same subject, and it would be difficult indeed to find a greater contrast between two speeches than that which was afforded by the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold I, however, feel myself precluded now from saying anything more upon the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. If I were to say what I think about it, it might not bring about that harmony which I hope may reign in this House in regard to this question. For my own part it does seem to me that, leaving noble Lords on the back benches free to act in any way that they think right after this inquiry has been made, the policy announced by the noble Marquess is a wise one, and I hope that it may meet with the success that it deserves.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I feel somewhat in a difficulty because there stands on the Paper an Amendment in my name to add to the Motion of the noble Earl the following words: "or owing to the failure of His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge to pass the Land Purchase Bill of 1920 simultaneously with a measure granting Home Rule to Ireland." I had intended to argue that this was included within the orbit of the Motion of the noble Earl, but now that he has stated that he is prepared to withdraw his Motion it appears to me that I should be out of order in moving an Amendment to it. At the same time the matter is one of the very greatest importance. It is one in which not only I but a great many Irishmen take very much interest, and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Lansdowne say that some steps will have to be taken to deal with it.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House read out a short statement of the particular cases which it was proposed this Committee should consider, and amongst them, I am sorry to say, there was no reference to the question of land purchase or, where any pledges had been given by preceding Governments, whether those pledges have been fulfilled, or if not whether steps should be taken to fulfil them, or, on the other hand, whether His Majesty's Government

119
repudiated any responsibility for action which has been taken by their predecessors. If the matter cannot be included in the inquiry which it is proposed to make, I shall feel it my duty on a subsequent occasion to raise the matter again in your Lordships' House. I should be very sorry to trouble the House again at short notice with another discussion on Irish affairs. For that reason I was very anxious that it should be included in the debate to-night. It seems to me now, however, that I should be out of order in moving any Amendment to a Motion which is to be withdrawn, but I think I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether he can give me any reply to the question as to whether it is proposed, or will be permitted to the small Committee which is to be set up, to consider this very important question in addition to the equally important, or perhaps even more important, one of the compensation due to loyalists.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, before I deal with the general question I should like to say a few words with regard to the speech delivered by Lord Arnold. Lord Arnold dealt with a number of cases, but in regard to some of them he declined to give the names. He only stated one case, which I knew perfectly well. Previous to that he mentioned the Wood-Renton Commission and stated that the Free State Government were satisfied with that Commission.
LORD ARNOLD: Will the noble Lord excuse me? We must be careful in these debates. I did not say the Free State Government was satisfied with the Wood-Renton Commission; I merely read out a passage from a pamphlet issued by the Irish Claims Compensation Association.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I stand corrected. The Commission consisted of Sir A. Wood-Renton, who took the place of Lord Shaw. Mr. J. C. Dowdall, a member of the Irish Free State Senate, and Mr. J. C. Howell Thomas, chief valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue. Lord Arnold's speech does not help us very much. He informed us that country houses were a drug in the market, and that if they were put up for sale they would fetch nothing at all. I am very
120
much obliged to him for those remarks. I have had my house burned down, and they do not help me very much. I expected something more from Lord Arnold than statements full of financial quibbles and curiosities.
Let me come to a much more serious matter. I must deal with the speeches made on July 2 when, I am sorry to say, I was unable to be present to hear Lord Selborne move his Resolution. I am not in the least surprised that Lord Selborne should have asked the Question he did, and moved such a Resolution. You cannot have a great war, you cannot have a revolution, you cannot have civil war without terrible suffering, and those who suffered, and still suffer, are those who live in Ireland. They have to pay the price. The noble Earl, Lord Sel-borne, was quite correct in his dates. He asked your Lordships to remember the date when the Truce was brought about, and the occasion—nobody has mentioned this in the debate—when the Lord Lieutenant. Viscount FitzAlan, handed over from the Imperial Government to the representatives of the Free State the government of Ireland. I remember that day well. We had no Royal Irish Constabulary—now the Civic Guard—we had no Army to keep order—we had nothing. That was a very serious position in which to be left, and nothing has been said about it in this debate.
Lord Arnold stated that after the Truce there was profound peace in Ireland. I wish the noble Lord had been there. Profound peace, indeed! Every sort of dreadful thing happened. I warned the Government then that we were in for very bad times. I warned them of the sulky nature of my countrymen, but no heed was taken of my warnings. My diagnosis of the situation turned out to be quite correct. However, I am not going into the past; it is a bad dream, but you must remember that in the Free State there are only twenty-six counties, and the effect of a great war, a revolution and civil war in a small country like that is very terrible.
The noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, in answering Lord Danesfort in this House on June 17, said this—I must quote this because it is very important. Let me read the whole passage—

121
"The sum of £900,000 to which my noble friend has referred, covers the British liability for awards made by the Wood-Renton Commission alter June 30 of last year, and the British Government is still liable for those awards made prior to that date.
"LORD CARSON: They have been paid.
"THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Not altogether. Our liability with regard to the awards made by the Commission prior to the date I have mentioned amounts to £400,000, and this is included in the figure of £650,000 to which I have just referred. All liabilities as and from July 1 of last year, as well as those which I will mention later, are swept away by the new Agreement, that is to say, by the payment, which is subject to certain deductions, of the £900,000 to which my noble friend has referred. It is not suggested that the arrangement which has been come to is as favourably as these figures would seem to indicate."
I hold in my hand a Paper showing the estimate of receipts and expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1925, prepared by the Executive Council and presented to the Dail in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of the Constitution. I know it is difficult for noble Lords in England to understand these figures and follow them, but you must remember that in Ireland there is a written Constitution and the Minister is bound to furnish these figures in detail. Under the head of "Miscellaneous" there is for the year 1923–24 a sum of £1,953,628, and there is a footnote to this effect:
"This figure includes an item of £1,021,086, receipts into the Exchequer in respect of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts, 1891, 1903 and 1909. Since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1923, these annuities no longer pass through the Exchequer, being payable to the Purchase Annuities Fund set up under that Act."
If I deduct that sum from the sum I have mentioned the residue is £932,542, or very nearly the figure that Lord Clarendon quoted.
I now come to the Budget for the year ending March 31, 1925, and it shows that there will be a deficit of £1,730,000. We, in Ireland, are very heavily taxed, and this is the Budget that the Finance Minister has to make. Irishmen have always paid their debts and we intend to pay them again. That will be borne out by all noble Lords who remember the debates upon the old Land Acts. I have this further to say, that when this Budget was framed by the Finance Minister, Mr.
122
Blythe, he stated that the duties we have to pay on things coming into the country were for the purpose of revenue and for the purpose of paying our debts. I do not always agree with the Irish Free State and its Ministers. I profoundly disagree with them on many occasions, and I tell them so.
The proposal which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has made to the noble Earl who introduced this subject is very distinct and very clear. A hope was expressed by the noble Earl, Earl Beauchamp, that the Irish Free State would take part in some of these proceedings. I think it my duty to tell your Lordships that I have communicated with Dublin and I have it from the authorities there that they will take no part in any negotiations of this sort, nor will they afford witnesses. They consider that the Wood-Renton Commission was a perfectly fair Commission. They had their representative on it and they do not wish the question to be reopened. I hope your Lordships will think I have not exceeded my duty in making that statement.
I should like now to deal with a remark made by the Duke of Northumberland in his speech the other evening. He quoted a great many cases and I am certainly not going to go through them again; but in his speech he made this observation:—
"Some people seem to have an idea that all these cases happened a long time ago, that they are a very old story, that they only happened during the Civil War, and that Ireland is now a perfectly peaceful place, a kind of earthly Paradise. I can assure your Lordships that is not so at all. Violence intimidation and boycott are still going on."
In answer to the noble Duke, I may say that we are taught that Paradise is a very difficult place to get into, and, when you are there, you cannot get out. Ireland is quite an easy place to get into, and equally easy to get out of. I wish the noble Duke were here, because, if he wants to go to Ireland, I could tell him that he could take his motor car there with the greatest of ease and see the state of the country for himself.
We are at last entering upon a peaceful period, and I may say that the speeches that are made in this House do not help us very much over there. I hope that, in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has said, we shall not have any more of these Questions and the

123
raking up of the past, which was as bad as it could be. I do not wish to speak of myself, but I was all through it from the beginning to the end. I landed in the middle of the rebellion, and I have seen it right through. I always said that we should pull through and see the country peaceful at last, and it is so now. Anybody who cares can take his motor car over there, tour through the country, enjoy himself most thoroughly and be welcome. I have here a document, an English one, issued by the Automobile Association and Motor Union. It says:—
"Since the adherence of the Irish Free State to the International Convention, the Automobile Association has been authorised to issue the international travelling pass—as well as the triptyque—to members visiting the Irish Free State or coming from there to Great Britain."
Triptyques can also be issued as between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.
I have nearly done. There is, of course, a dark side to the question. We have difficulties, and there are still people who are ready to commit outrages in Ireland. Only the other day I had some cattle driven off a farm on which I take in cattle to graze. That farm is now protected, and it is full of cattle, which are doing very well. You must remember that, for those who live in Ireland and have to live in Ireland, it is not all so pleasant as it might be, but it is getting better and better, and I hope, at all events, that we have heard the last of these continual complaints about the action of the Free State. I have been a member of the Senate since 1921, and I have taken part in nearly every deliberation that has taken place.
I wish now to deal with the noble Duke's remarks concerning demobilised soldiers. He suggested that they had very little chance of getting employment in Ireland, and he mentioned a contractor's advertisement for the rebuilding of barracks in the town of Kildare, close to me, in which it was stated that the contractors would employ men of the Free State Army who had been demobilised. That Free State Army guarded me, and were shot down by the Irregulars very much in the same way as the rebels, as you call them, shot the Imperial troops, but let me tell the noble Duke that, notwithstanding all this, we now have colonies in Ireland of soldiers who have
124
been demobilised from the Imperial troops and from Irish regiments. There is one such colony close to one of the villages that belong to me, there is one close by, on the left-hand side as you go to Dublin from the Curragh, and another large one down in County Limerick. These demobilised soldiers in some cases found themselves put into their houses in the winter and they behaved very much as some of the troops did in France—they helped themselves, being hungry, to their neighbours' goods and victuals. But they are now being kept in order because we have a Civic Guard. I can assure the noble Duke that in the Free State we shall see that these colonies are properly built and properly looked after. There had been a dreadful winter and in some cases they found themselves standing in the mud. I know that well because the colony near the Dublin road has entirely spoilt some of the best of our hunting country, a thing that has come home to us very forcibly.
The noble Duke must remember also that the Shannon scheme has now passed both Houses in the Free State. A great many demobilised soldiers of the Imperial troops are experts in mechanical work. They will be employed in working the standing engines that are to drive these big grubbers, and we shall take very good care that they are not put together with men who may feel a certain amount of jealousy regarding them. Until things settle down and the scheme is carried through there are to be a sort of local police who will have nothing to do but to look after the men and see that there is none of this nonsense going on. We are going to stop it. In addition there is no doubt that some of the men will be fit only for a labour corps, as they were in the Army, and these will be employed, if they care to take the wages, as labourers. Here also they will be separated from the jealousy of the local men, who are always jealous in these matters and want to have the work to themselves. I hope that this satisfies the noble Duke.
One of the reasons why we have to pay taxes and duties on a great many things that we can get very much more cheaply in this country is that we have to pay for all those activities of which this is one of the items. Dublin is a very much more expensive place to live in than London.

125
Of course those who live in the country and have a garden and live on the products of their farm, like myself, can live very comfortably. The people who live round Dublin and have got those advantages are certainly very much better off than the people who live on the outskirts of this great City. When Lord Arnold talks in the way he does about Ireland you must remember that the taxation there is very heavy. He does not give us any credit at all for trying to meet our debts.
LORD ARNOLD: I do not know to what the noble Lord is referring. I did not touch on that matter at all.
THE EARL OF MAYO: That is exactly what I mean; you did not touch on it. I am astonished you did not.
LORD ARNOLD: It is not relevant to the subject.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I give the noble Lord that for what it is worth. We will do our best to meet our liabilities in every way, but give us time. We cannot do everything in a week-end in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOE (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, before this debate is adjourned I will only trouble your Lordships with a few sentences, and they will be in answer to questions to His Majesty's Government. My noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne referred to the question of land purchase and asked whether we intended to abide by the pledges given on this subject, and especially whether the subject would be included in the reference to the informal Committee which is to be set up. Of course, we do not repudiate any pledges, but it is most undesirable that the important questions that have been raised in the main part of this debate should be complicated by having added to them the very difficult question which arises as to land purchase. Accordingly it is our desire that the informal Committee referred to should not deal with that question.
With regard to the main debate, it is, of course, needless for me to enter into any discussion after the statement that has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I will only say that the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, need not have been under the least apprehension lest we should act without caution or without due regard to the position of the Irish
126
Free State. The Irish Free State, of course, is the body primarily responsible for the compensation which we have been discussing. It would be absurd if we went into the matter without, at all events, endeavouring to co-operate with the Government of the Free State. We must abide by the pledges given by us and our predecessors and we must see whether some redress can be found for the complaints that have been made. I believe that an informal Committee of the kind which has now been arranged would be better able to deal with these matters than the kind of Committee which was suggested by the noble Earl, and I am very glad that the noble Earl has seen his way to accept the proposal made and on those terms to adjourn the debate.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I understand that the Government think it advisable that the question of land purchase and the obligations of the Government on that subject should not be considered simultaneously with those raised more specifically by the noble Earl. I am rather anxious to know whether the Government propose to take any other steps with regard to this question of land purchase. If necessary, I will put down a Question on the Paper, but I do not want to have another Irish debate in a short time. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can give me some assistance which will enable me to avoid doing so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot give any specific reply to that. If the noble Lord puts down a Question, of course we will deal with it, but I have not had the opportunity of consulting my colleagues on the point he has just raised.
LORD DANESFORT: I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned sine die.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.