Sitting of 2 December 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Land Drainage (Braithwaite Moss) Provisional Order Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Colonel Lockwood, (two petitions) from the Saffron Walden Division of Essex containing 4,427 signatures; and (one petition) from the Epping Division containing 4,560 signatures—total 8,987.
Mr. Haddock, (40 petitions) from the Ince Division and the North Lonsdale Division of Lancashire containing 11,145 signatures.
Colonel Chaloner, (four petitions) from the Abercromby Division of Liverpool.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the Regent of Persia is likely to visit Persia within any ascertainable period?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer is in the negative.

  Egypt.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government contemplates extending the representative system and enlarging the General Assembly which in 1910 rejected the Suez Canal contract;
  1850
  and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether the advisers of His Highness the Khedive are in favour of such action; and whether he will explain why the present occasion is taken for moving further in this direction?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question of 21st November, in which it was stated that no scheme of reform of the nature here indicated is before us at the present moment.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the Secretary of State is aware that exceedingly wide currency has been given to reports that the Egyptian Government is moving in that direction, and whether we are to understand that nothing of this kind has been contemplated?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is so. I think we are aware of the reports that have appeared, but nothing is before the Secretary of State at the present time.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state when it is probable that the four days' detention rule for imported Irish livestock will be abandoned; and whether, if no outbreak occurs, he will allow a resumption of normal conditions of import and movement?
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of there having been no further outbreaks of cattle disease in Ireland since 7th October, he is now in a position to announce the removal of all restrictions on Irish cattle, except on those coming from the Mullingar district?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a detailed statement to-morrow in regard to future arrangements for the importation of Irish animals into Great Britain.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that certain English masters of fox hounds have secretly imported Irish foxes, in contravention of the Order that no animals should be imported into England from Ireland without undergoing fourteen days' quarantine; whether he will inquire where those imported foxes were enlarged; whether any steps will be taken

  1851
  against those persons responsible for the importations; and whether he will endeavour to obtain the information if the masters of the Foxhounds Association were cognisant of those illegal proceedings?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The provisions of the Order do not apply to foxes.
  Mr. FIELD: Would the hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to whether foxhounds were imported within the period mentioned?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend will be glad to receive information as to any possible source of infection, but I must again point out that foxes are not included in the Order.
  Mr. JOYCE: If foxes are not within the category of the animals to which the Order applies, may I ask whether the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture has been called to the fact that the regimental goat of the Welsh Fusiliers was put in quarantine for a number of days?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question.

  Old General Post Office Building.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is intended to re-erect the front of the old General Post Office building or for some public purpose; and, if so, whether the intentions of the First Commissioner can be stated?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The front of the old General Post Office cannot, unfortunately, be used in the new building. The First Commissioner is very willing, however, to consider any suitable suggestion for its purchase and re-erection. Neither the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the King Edward Memorial Committee, nor the London County Council have been in a position to accept it, although it has been offered to them.

  Vaccination.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mrs. T. Kirk-
  1852
  man, of 38, Monega Road, Forest Gate, E., made statutory declarations before a commissioner for oaths under the Vaccination Act, 1907, for her twin sons before they were four months of age, and forwarded the forms to the vaccination officer for the West Ham union; whether, after the children had become four months old, Mr. Kirkman was notified that be was the proper person to have made the declarations; whether the officer is now threatening legal proceedings for the non-vaccination of the children; and whether instructions can be given to the officer not to issue sommonses?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have caused inquiries to be made into this case. The statutory declarations reached the Vaccination Officer on the 9th or the morning of the 10th of October, 1911, and were returned by him without delay and in time to enable them to be properly amended. In my opinion, however, this is not a case in which proceedings should be taken, and I will-convey this opinion to the office.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that E. C. Martin, of Dover, duly made a statutory declaration under the Vaccination Act, 1907, before a justice of the peace and forwarded the form to the vaccination officer before the child attained the ago of four months; whether he is aware that nothing was heard until after the child had attained the age of four months, when the officer sent the public vaccinator to offer to vaccinate the child on the ground that the form had been wrongly filled up and was, therefore, illegal; if so, will steps be taken to prevent any proceedings for default, seeing that the parent has not been apprised in what respect the form was wrongly filled up and that he would have been in time to rectify any error that may have arisen if he had been promptly notified after sending it in?
  Mr. BURNS: I am informed that the vaccination officer did not receive the declaration referred to in the question, and I am in communication with him on the subject.

  Sanatorium Benefit for Uninsured.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what number of local authorities have taken advantage of the offer of

  1853
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which additional assistance is given to authorities who provide sanatorium benefit for other than insured persons; whether the local authority in London has made arrangements accordingly; and, if not, what means are open for securing sanatorium benefit in London for other than insured persons?
  Mr. BURNS: Local authorities generally, in preparing their schemes, have made provision for the treatment of non-insured persons suffering from tuberculosis, as well as for insured persons. Fifteen dispensaries in the metropolis have been provisionally approved by the Local Government Board, at which treatment may be obtained by persons whether insured or not insured, and arrangements are in progress for the provision of sanatorium accommodation.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the East End there are several children for whom no sanatorium provision has been made by the local authority?
  Mr. BURNS: I shall be happy to hear of such cases, and to inform the Metropolitan Asylums Board as to the necessity of dealing with these cases at once.

  School Accommodation (Metropolis).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the divisional superintendent of the Hackney district recently reported to the London education authority that twenty-one infant children who have attained the age of five are out of school, that there is pressure on the schools in South Hackney, and that children are unwilling to attend schools where there are vacant places because of the distance; and whether the Board of Education will now call on the London education authority to supply adequate school accommodation in Hackney?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): I have made inquiries, and I find that a few children over five years old were temporarily excluded just before the half-yearly promotions were made, and have since been admitted. It is a fact that some schools in South Hackney are full, but there is accommodation available in others in the same district. I understand, however, that some parents have chosen to wait a short time in order to get their younger children into a particular school, either in order
  1854
  that they might attend with their older brothers and sisters, or for some other reason.
  Mr. KING: What is the same district? How large an area is meant by that?
  Mr. PEASE: I am told by my inspectors that in London they would not consider a school more than a mile away in the same area.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Beard of Education whether he is aware that the London Education Committee has been informed by its divisional superintendent that there is still great pressure on the school accommodation in Stepney, Mile End, and St. George's-in-the-East; and what action the Board of Education is taking to correct this acknowledged lack of school places?
  Mr. PEASE: My information is that no children of school age are out of school in the districts mentioned in the first part of the question owing to lack of accommodation. The education authority are proposing to provide two new schools in Stepney and to enlarge two of the existing schools. They also propose to provide a new school in Mile End and another in St. George's-in-the-East, and to enlarge an existing school in the last-named district.
  Mr. KING: May I ask why they are proposing such a great deal of enlargement when there are no children out of school?
  Mr. PEASE: It is in order to meet the prospective increase, and also in order to reduce the number of children in attendance at classes in the various schools.

  Tideswell School, Derbyshire.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that two children were admitted to the council school at Tideswell, Derby shire, and then subsequently excluded from the school as they had previously been in attendance at the Church of England school; and what power is there under the Code or any Statute to expel from school children already on the register on such grounds?
  Mr. PEASE: The children referred to were admitted on the instructions of the managers of the council school, and subsequently excluded by the local education authority under their regulation to prevent capricious removals. Article 53 (a)

  1855
  of the Code provides that no child may be refused admission on other than reasonable grounds, and I am prepared to consider, on its merits, any appeal made by the parents on this point.
  Mr. KING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that if the children are admitted and then excluded, it can be brought against them and their parents that the children have been expelled from school? That has actually been done in this case.
  Mr. PEASE: I think the action taken in this case would make it clear that there was no imputation of the kind resting upon the children.

  Secondary Teachers (Registry Fees).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Board are prepared to allow an extension of time for the receipt of applications from secondary teachers for the return of the fees paid by them for inclusion in the old register of teachers?
  Mr. PEASE: The Board announced on the 27th of last month that they would be prepared to receive applications for the repayment of the guinea paid by teachers on admission to Column B of the Register maintained by the previous Registration Council, until the 28th February, 1913; but after that date no further applications will be entertained.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make known to teachers this extension of time, of which I have heard for the first time?
  Mr. PEASE: An announcement was made in the "Morning Post" on Thursday, and the "Times" on Friday. It has been sent to the daily Press, and I believe also to the weekly Press, and it appeared also in the "Schoolmaster" on Saturday.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Having regard to the fact that the fee has been refunded to only 4,581 teachers out of 11,666 on the register, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that a postcard be sent to every teacher who has not received his fee, informing him of the extension of time?
  Mr. PEASE: I will consider it; but I do not know that I can carry out that arrangement.

  Women's Suffrage Societies (Pamphlet).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steps have been taken to prohibit the sale of a pamphlet by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies to which his attention has been drawn?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The Secretary of State is advised that the institution of proceedings would not be warranted in the case of this book.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the Home Secretary's Department consider that the pamphlet is a decent one, and is there no means of preventing pamphlets of this nature, in which disgusting details are told, from getting into the hands of young girls?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Secretary of State has no power to suppress a pamphlet of this kind. The only power open to the Secretary of State is to institute a prosecution on the ground that the pamphlet is indecent or obscene. I am advised that a prosecution on these lines would not be successful.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the Home Office accept the statement made in the supplemental question just now that this pamphlet is full of disgusting details and not fit to get into the hands of young persons?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The only question we have to consider is whether it is indecent or obscene, and our opinion is that a prosecution founded on either of those assumptions would not be successful.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: You think that the pamphlet is neither indecent nor obscene?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We are advised that if a prosecution were instituted it would not be successful.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is the pamphlet to be circulated in the schools of the country?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Do I understand the Noble Lord to advise this step?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Certainly not.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That matter has not been before us, and I do not think it necessary or advisable to do so.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a pamphlet written by a very highly respected doctor in Brighton, and written in perfect good faith, to warn persons of the consequences of a certain act?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: By whom has the Department been advised I Is it by its legal advisers?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In answer to the Noble Lord, I think that represents my individual opinion. In answer to the hon. Member, we were advised by those who legally advise us.

  Parochial Tithe Rent (Wales).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the rector of Carngiwch-Lithfean-with-Pistyll, united parishes in Carnarvonshire, has recently sued Mr. R. T. Thomas for £6 7s., parochial tithe rent; that the defendant pleaded that there had been very few services in Pistyll Church during six years and that the rector was non-resident; that in answer thereto the rector gave evidence that he held services pretty regularly, but the services were often attended by no person save himself; and whether, in view of these united parishes of 804 inhabitants being thus inadequately served with the religious services of the State Church, legislation will be carried through Parliament to remedy this state of affairs?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend has no information on this matter other than that given in his question by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—assuming the facts are correct, as, of course, they are?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent Bill with regard to the Church in Wales, it is still before the House of Commons.

  First Offenders (Westminster Court).
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a young soldier in the Irish Guards, named George Osbourne, being a first offender, was recently sentenced by the Westminster stipendiary to the maximum penalty, in summary jurisdiction, of three months'
  1858
  hard labour for the theft of a blanket, value 6s.; whether, as attention has been directed recently to other sentences passed in this Court, he will communicate with the stipendiary and direct his special attention to the recent Home Office circular dealing with first offenders and the Probation of Offenders Act; and whether he is prepared to advise a reduction of this maximum sentence, and to order in the meantime the removal of Osbourne to the second division?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend has made inquiry into the facts of the case, and finds no sufficient reason for recommending any interference with the sentence. The magistrate who passed it was not unmindful of the Probation of Offenders Act, and, in fact, availed himself of the Act to discharge a girl of eighteen who was charged jointly with Osbourne, and who was shown to have been coerced by his threats.
  Colonel BURN: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it far better to carry out the instructions of the Home Office in the spirit as well as the letter, and not to send a young soldier back to his regiment with the stigma of gaol on him?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If the hon. Gentleman would consult me in this case there are facts which would quite satisfy him.

  Lead Poisoning.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked what number of workpeople have been disabled and the number who have died from lead-poisoning contracted in the spelter works in the South Wales district since this disease was scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The number of cases of lead-poisoning in spelter works in South Wales reported to the Factory Department since 1st July, 1907, the date on which the Compensation Act came into force, is seventy-seven, of which four were fatal. I am unable to say in how many of the non-fatal cases the workman was disabled from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed, so as to come within the provisions of the Compensation Act. I may add that since the beginning of 1910 the number of cases has shown a marked decrease, as compared with the figures for the years 1908 and 1909, the total being twenty-six, of which one was fatal.

  Assault on Mrs. Watson (Llanystumdwy).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked whether it is proposed to take any further proceedings in connection with the charge against Ben Evans of having torn the clothes and hair and otherwise beaten and ill-treated Mrs. Watson at Llanystumdwy?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The charge in question having been dismissed, my right hen. Friend does not know of any proceedings which it is possible for him to take.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is there not an advisory committee in Carnarvon to advise the Lord Lieutenant as to who should be appointed to the magisterial bench?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Yes.
  Mr. KING: Does this arise?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It only arises rather remotely. It would be better if the Noble Lord will put a question on the Paper.

  Flannelette (Burning Fatalities).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths from burning through the use of inflammable flannelette; and whether the number of deaths is now so great as to justify the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this large and increasing number of fatal accidents?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Yes, Sir. The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this matter, but except as regards the year 1904, for which a special Return was obtained from coroners and published in the Judicial Statistics for that year, the only official statistics as to the number of deaths resulting from the ignition of flannelette clothes are those given in the Annual Returns of the Registrar-General, which are based on coroners' certificates. From the Return for 1910, it appears that the number of deaths from burning clothes in that year was 657, and in sixty-seven cases it is stated that the clothes were made of flannelette. I would remind the hon. Members that the Coroners' Committee inquired into and reported upon this question a little over two years ago, and in the circumstances I do not think that the appointment of another Committee 13 called for.

  Oakum Picking in Prisons.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1860
  ment whether he is aware that since the introduction of the new Regulations in. April last with respect to oakum picking in His Majesty's prisons, the punishments to prisoners for failing to perform their allotted tasks are much more numerous will he state the total number of punishments that have been inflicted for oakum picking during the six months from May to October last; and the total number of punishments covering the same period for 1911 for the purpose of comparison?
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEalso asked the number of prisoners who have been punished during the past twelve months in the various prisons in the United Kingdom for failing to perform their allotted task of oakum picking?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The only new Regulation with regard to oakum picking has been a reduction of the task from three to 2½ pounds, with an allowance according to the condition of the junk, accompanied by an intimation that the performance of the task so reduced will be strictly enforced. There has been a rise-in the number of punishments for idleness at oakum picking since this change, the numbers punished during the last six months rising to 11,555, as against 6,500 for the previous six months. It is believed, however, that this increase is only temporary, since the number reported for idleness is declining now that the prisoners clearly understand that the daily task, which is well within their capacity, will be exacted or marks will be forfeited.

  Shoddy Dust.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at an inquest held last Wednesday by the Bradford city coroner on the body of Herbert Denby, a willower, in the employment of A. Crossland and Company, shoddy merchants, evidence was given by a member of the said firm to the effect that the shoddy dust, after passing from the machine used for willowing the wool shoddy, was collected and sold every few months to be used as manure on hop gardens in Kent; and whether, in view of the recent increase of anthrax among farm animals throughout Great Britain and the increased risk to human life resulting therefrom, he will take steps to prevent the dissemination of the disease through the medium of possibly infected shoddy dust used for the above purpose?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend has received a report on this case. It appears that the material handled by the firm in question is the waste produced at the carding stage after the wool has passed through the stages of washing and willowing, in which the danger of anthrax is to a large extent eliminated. The Secretary of State has no information that cases of anthrax among farm animals have been traced to the use of the dust from this waste as manure in the hop gardens of Kent, but he will consult with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on the subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the considerable increase of anthrax among farm animals, will there be continued co-operation between the Board of Agriculture with the object of its suppression?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We shall be very glad to give effect to that view, and if the hon. Gentleman has any communication to make we shall be very glad to receive it.

  Pit Ponies (Inspection).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether His Majesty's inspectors of mines will, as heretorfore, be responsible for the inspection of pit ponies with a view to ensuring their proper housing, feeding, and treatment, and the special horse inspectors, constituted by Section 109 of the Mines Act, 1911, form an auxiliary staff of experts to aid in such inspection, or whether, in future, the duty of inspecting such animals will be discharged exclusively by the latter?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The duty will devolve specially on the new class of horse inspectors, but not to the exclusion of the mines inspectors, who will, as hitherto, be responsible for the enforcement of all the requirements of the Act, including the provisions as to horses. The horse inspectors will act under the supervision of the mines inspectors.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the main responsibility still rest with the inspector of mines as regards animals inspected?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The initial responsibility will rest with the inspectors when acting under the supervision of the mines inspector, but the final responsibility is with the mines inspector.

  Lifts in Factories and Hotels (Safety Doors).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether he has the power to compel the use of safety-doors or gates in hoists or lifts used for the purpose of conveying people from floor to floor in factories, workshops, hotels, etc.; and, if not, whether, in view of the number of accidents that occur in connection with hoists and lifts, the hon. Gentleman will take steps to secure such power?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Factory Act requires that all hoists in factories shall be securely fenced, and this requirement is enforced by the factory inspectors. As regards hoists or lifts in buildings used for other than industrial purposes, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on the subject on the 29th of February last. The Home Office has no jurisdiction in regard to such buildings.

  "The People's King" (Action of Lord Chamberlain).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether the Home Secretary can state with regard to the changes made in the representation of a play called "The People's King," on what day, in what manner, and by whom the Lord Chamberlain's attention was directed to the way in which the play was being put on the stage?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend is informed that the Lord Chamberlain's attention was called to the "make-up" of various characters in this play by the illustrations in a newspaper.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: On what day was action first taken?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I cannot say.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    FISHERMEN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Messrs. Letten Brothers, trawl owners, Grimsby, are making their third hands pay 4d. per week, under Part I. of the National Insurance Act instead of 3d. during the time that they are fishing in the Firth of Pentland; and if, in view of the provisions of the Act, he intends taking action in the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have no information in regard to the action taken

    1863
    by this firm, and am not aware of the grounds on which my hon. Friend suggests that 3d., and not 4d., is the correct rate of deduction in the circumstances mentioned. If, however, he has any information which would seem to show that the employé's share of the contribution is properly 3d. I shall be happy to inquire into the matter and give him an answer.

    CONTRIBUTOR'S CARDS.
    Mr. FELLasked how many cards have been sent in by the approved societies and how many by the Post Office contributors in respect of insured persons, and how many cards by those insured against unemployment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total number of cards sent in by deposit contributors in the United Kingdom is approximately 480,000. Cards are still being received from approved societies, and their total number cannot yet be stated. With regard to unemployment insurance under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that the number of permanent unemployment books issued to workpeople up to and including 27th November, 1912, was 2,218,132. Some further allowance should probably be made on account of emergency books issued, but rot yet exchanged for permanent books. It is, however, not possible to estimate this additional number with any precision.
    Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what number of people are now insured by those cards?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will be able to state the number as soon as all the cards have been sent in by the approved societies, which I hope will be in a short time.
    Mr. FELL: Have not those cards been due more than a month?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; they were only due a week ago.

    TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether the amount for medical relief allotted to each locality will be based upon the number of insured persons in that locality; and, if so, whether an additional amount will be allotted in the case of rural localities where the amount of travelling expenses involved in such medical relief
    1864
    must necessarily exceed that which will be incurred in urban districts? In asking this question, I wish to apologise for the reason of its postponement which I so rashly suggested on the previous occasion.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry I could not give longer notice. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The creation of a small special fund for mileage in districts exceptionally sparsely populated is under consideration; but no additional amount will be allotted for mileage in ordinary rural areas, and if a special fund is considered desirable for this purpose it must be formed by an insurance committee from the general amount available for medical remuneration within its area.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Am I to understand that the mileage allowance will be completely separate from the remuneration for professional services?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It may be or it may not be. The remuneration may be inclusive of mileage, or it may be that a separate sum will be set apart for mileage. It is within the discretion of the insurance committee, acting in consultation with the local medical council.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will not rural areas suffer compared with urban areas?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There will be compensations in the rural districts, where the doctors will be doing their own dispensing and getting the profits on the dispensing, and if the hon. Gentleman's contention is correct that health is much better in the rural areas they will have less work to do.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is this merely a casual and not a uniform system?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; it rests in the discretion of the local committee.

    HAND-LOOM WEAVERS (SCOTLAND).
    Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will ask Dr. Turner or Mr. Smith, of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, to summon a public meeting in Stonehouse, Lanarkshire, in order there to explain to the hand-loom weavers what is their exact position under the National Insurance Act, and to answer any questions which maybe put to them, as their recent visit to that town and their private calls have not allayed the general wish for further information on the subject?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A meeting of the kind desired by my hon. Friend will be arranged at an early date.

    CRINAN CANAL EMPLOYÉS (ARGYLLSHIRE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the employés of the Commissioners of the Crinan Canal, in Argyllshire, which is a Government-owned canal, are in precisely the same position as regards half-pay when temporarily invalided and when permanently incapacitated by old age as they were before the passing of the National Insurance Act, or whether that Act has put them in a worse position financially?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My hon. Friend puts his question in general terms, and I should be glad to know in what respect he considers that the employés he refers to have been injuriously affected by the National Insurance Act., when I would communicate with the Commissioners. As I informed him on 21st October, they will be entitled to 5s. a week disablement benefit if they are incapable of work under the ordinary conditions of the Insurance Act; and pensions for long service will not be discontinued in consequence of the Act.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as 6d. out of the 1s. 3d. available annually for sanatorium benefit, in respect of each insured person under Clause 16 (2) (a) of the National Insurance Act, is to be set aside for payment of medical practitioners, local authorities will contribute towards maintenance of sanatoria and dispensaries one-fourth of the original or of the reduced sum?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Local authorities do not contribute any part of the 1s. 3d. per head referred to in the question, nor is it proposed that the contributions of local authorities should bear any fixed proportion to that sum, or to the part of it devoted to the cost of treatment in sanatoria or dispensaries.
    Major HOPE: Is it not the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote on the 1st August that local authorities were prepared to pay 25 per cent, of the scheme if the remuneration were provided from other sources, and further added: "The Government are prepared to go a long way towards meeting your request," and does not that imply an agreement?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if the hon. Member examines he will find that refers to the provision of sanatorium benefit for uninsured persons and has nothing to do with this.

    DEDUCTIONS.
    Mr. JAMES PARKERasked whether, in the case of an employer continuing to deduct from a workman's wages more than the statutory amount under the National Insurance Act, the Commissioners can take any action to compel the employer to observe the law; if not, whether, in view of the difficulty of an employé taking his employer to court, power will be obtained for the Commissioners to take action; and whether there is any prescribed penalty for such offence on the part of an employer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury on 17th October. The Commissioners have no power to institute proceedings on behalf of a workman for the recovery of wages due. Cases have been brought to my notice in which workmen have successfully proceeded against their employers for breaches of the National Insurance Act. I shall be glad to know from my hon. Friend if the practice to which he refers is at all frequent, and, if so, the question of securing additional powers to the Commissioners for its prevention will have to be considered.

    COURT OF REFEREES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked who were the successful and unsuccessful candidates for election to the Court of Referees for the Colchester and Harwich districts, how many votes each received, and how many voters were qualified in each district to vote?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the results of these elections. I am afraid that it would not be possible, without a great amount of labour, to ascertain the number of qualified voters in the different districts in the country.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if any record is kept of the men entitled to vote and the numbers of those men?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There is no complete register. It would take a great deal of investigation to get the figures.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is possible to find out whether the right men have voted if he does not know who is qualified?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It can be done through the trade unions.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what date and by what Department or officer the nomination of Mr. Jonas Pearson by members of the Ironfounders' Society for election to the Court of Referees for the Bradford district was declared invalid; whether any other nomination for the same election was declared invalid; and whether any other nomination was made by nominators whose names were written and not individually signed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The nomination papers of candidates for election as workmen's representatives were scrutinised immediately after receipt at the Board of Trade Offices in London. I may point out that Mr. Pearson's nomination paper was not received at the Bradford Labour Exchange until 10.30 a.m. on 23rd October, when it was delivered by post, the latest time for receipt of nomination papers being 1 p.m. on that day. One other nomination paper in the Bradford Ward was declared invalid, the ground of invalidity being the same as in the case of Mr. Pearson. Taking the whole country, I find that eighty-seven nominations out of about 3,000 received were declared invalid for the same reason.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put with regard to the official who declared those nominations invalid, was it locally or at the head office?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In that case it was local, but as I have stated, the nomination papers were scrutinised immediately after receipt at the Board of Trade Offices. In that particular case there was not time.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Would the right hon. Gentleman say by whom in Bradford it was declared invalid?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I can ascertain.

    MEDICAL AND SANATORIUM BENEFITS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the compulsory collections under the National Insurance Act are to be continued, notwithstanding the inability of the Government to provide medical or sanatorium benefits?
    Mr. BOOTH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that over fifty persons are in one sanatorium under the jurisdiction of the Middlesex County Committee, and that some of them have been there since the middle of August?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that that is so. I believe there are many hundreds of people in sanatoria. I know of no reason why contributions should not be continued and benefits forthcoming as provided by the Act.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the instances now given amount to a general provision of sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman in his question says something about the inability of the Government to provide medical or sanatorium benefit. There is no such inability.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on account of his erroneous calculations in regard to cost, employers and employed who have paid their taxes under the National Insurance Act in respect of sanatoria are now to be called upon to pay part of such cost in their capacity as ratepayers also?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is calculated that this will amount to a farthing on the rates in Nottingham?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No ratepayer is called upon to bear any charge on the rates that the representatives of the ratepayers do not wish them to bear.

    NOTTINGHAM LACE OUTWORKERS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Export on the Nottingham lace out workers has been received; and, if so, when it will be disposed of?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Sir J. D. REES: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect this Report regarding a matter involving so much distress and misery in Nottingham?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An investigation is being carried out under the terms of the

    1869
    Act by an impartial person. As soon as he gives a Report, we shall take action.

    WELSH OFFICIALS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he still adheres to his declaration found in White Paper [Cd. 6000], dated 14th December, 1911, that the first officials must be appointed from among men who understand the work and have experience in these matters; and, if so, will he explain his refusal to confirm an appointment made by the Welsh Commissioners of a man as assistant secretary, thoroughly qualified, simply because he does not speak Welsh, recollecting that the secretary does speak Welsh and is capable of dealing with any Welsh letters?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The person appointed to the post of assistant secretary to the Welsh Commission will satisfy the conditions specified in the White Paper referred to, and there is nothing inconsistent with these conditions in the action taken by the Treasury in regard to this appointment.

  Scottish Universities.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether, at any time since the proposal of the inclusive fee for Scottish universities was made, the Department has received representations from any university court, senatus, or general council, or from any other body concerned in the affairs of the universities of Scotland, drawing its attention to the effect of that proposal upon the extra-mural schools of medicine attached to those universities?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Certain observation have been received wih reference to the position of the extra-mural schools as bearing on the question of an inclusive fee in medicine. Such observations, however, relate rather to the difficulty of arriving at an inclusive fee in medicine having regard to the existence of extramural schools, than to the effect of such a fee on those schools.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council was invited to pronounce its opinion on the policy of the inclusive fee for certain courses of study in the Scottish universities; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman can state that opinion?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken upon the legality of the action of the Treasury in making the adoption of the inclusive fee a condition of the increased grants from public moneys to the Scottish universities?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. WHYTE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to consult the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, on that point?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It was done before my time, and I have not seen that Act.

  Dublin (Valuation).
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the date when and the means whereby the Corporation of Dublin retarded the valuation of Dublin or expressed the wish that it should not proceed, and how they overruled the provisions of the Dublin Corporation Act under which the valuation was ordered by Parliament; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Corporation of Dublin is largely composed of publicans, and that publicans were very much alarmed by the result of the revaluation of Belfast, published in 1902 though not technically complete, owing to an error, till 1905, and was the moratorium imposed by the Corporation on the Statute after June, 1902; and is he aware there were 80,000 tenements to be revalued in Belfast and only 48,000 in Dublin?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that in April and November, 1905, and February, 1906, the Dublin Corporation decided by a majority not to ask for the revaluation of the city. I have no information with regard to the second part of the question. The number of tenements in Dublin and Belfast is approximately as stated.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. FELLasked if the death rate among old age pensioners in Ireland has now reached the normal expectation of the actuaries for persons over seventy years of age?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: For the twelve months ended 30th September last the death rate among Irish old age pensioners was approximately 99 per 1,000. I am not

  1871
  aware with what actuarial standard the hon. Member wishes to make a comparison.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can lay upon the Table the Papers or calculations on which the new Estimates have been based showing that the amount payable for old age pensions in Ireland has reached the maximum and should henceforward decrease each year?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There are no Papers in a form suitable for laying on the Table. The problem is not merely an actuarial one, but depends on considerations relating to the past history of Ireland. I will circulate some figures which go to show that the conclusions arrived at were correct. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Important Bills (Allocation of Time).
  Mr. F. WHYTEasked the Prime Minister whether he will take into consideration the proposal to establish a Business Committee of a thoroughly representative character to deal with the proper allocation of time in respect of Bills of first-class importance and contentious character?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This proposal has been frequently and carefully considered, and I regret that the difficulties which surround its practical application have not yet been removed.
  Mr. WHYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest what further step might be taken to elucidate this very important matter to this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very open to suggestions; I have taken every step I, personally, could.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a Committee of unofficial Members of this House to consider the question of whether an alternative to the Guillotine Motion cannot be devised?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the question.

  Sale of Agricultural Property (Woodstock).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the advertisement of sale of certain
  1872
  agricultural and cottage property in the vicinity of Woodstock, Oxfordshire; whether he is aware that it is stated that every holding is let at a rental far below its present-day value, and that, though many of the tenants have been in occupation for over twenty years, owing to the demand for property of this description in the neighbourhood purchasers will have no difficulty in properly adjusting the rental; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation forbidding landlords of property let at uneconomic rents from disposing of the same without Government sanction being first obtained?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had my attention called to the advertisement of sale otherwise than by the hon. Member's question. The answer to the last branch of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if he had sent down, he could not have got the information quite easily?
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Prime Minister is aware that pecuniary loss and hardship is being caused to lessees of land and cottages by the breaking up of large estates; and whether he is in a position to avail himself of the Commission now investigating abuses in the ownership and letting of land to investigate the circumstances that eventuate from any change of ownership with a view to future legislation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter was fully considered by a Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Haversham, which reported this year. The Report has been published. With regard to the last part of the question, as I have already stated, all relevant facts will be taken into consideration by the Government in framing any proposals which may ultimately be made.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    OPERATION OF CLOSURE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked if the attention of the Prime Minister has been called to the manner in which the Closure Resolution has operated to curtail discussion on the Government of Ireland Bill with regard to important proposals contained in the Bill and with regard to important alternative proposals which various Members of the House desired to submit to the consideration of the

    1873
    Committee; whether he is aware that on Tuesday night the time allowed for discussing various Government proposals was 65 minutes, and in that time the Committee had to consider and decide the method of computing the deduction from the Transferred Sum resulting from a reduction in an Imperial tax, the one-tenth limitation in the increase of an Imperial tax, the addition to the Transferred Sum on transfer of any reserved service, the right to vary the payment for ten years in the last case, the question of the Land Purchase Guarantee Fund, and the security of the Transferred Sum, the extension to Ireland of the Development Fund and Road Board, the withdrawal of the revenue from Motor Spirit Duty from the Transferred Sum, the position of the Irish Church Fund, and the question of accounts and audit; and whether, in view of the well-known difference between discussion in Committee and in the House, he can give any assurance that further opportunities will be given, by recommital of the Bill or otherwise, for consideration by the Committee of the proposals of the Government upon which adequate discussion has been proved impossible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to give time for further consideration in Committee of the matters referred to by the hon. Member in his question. We shall endeavour so to allocate the time on the Report stage as to secure an opportunity for discussion of any matters of importance for which time was not found in Committee.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us time to discuss the new Amendments put down by the Government after the Home Rule time-table was passed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any such undertaking. I will endavour to give the House the fullest possible time for the discussion of important Amendments.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the fact that the Home Rule time-table was passed in regard to the Government's proposals in their original shape?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Amendments were put down rather to meet criticisms which were made.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on several occasions Members were asked to speak in order to keep the discussion going in Committee at all?

    VOTE OF CENSURE.
    Mr. MacCAWasked the Prime Minister whether under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, it would be competent for any Member of the British House of Commons to move a vote of censure on the Irish Government; and, if so, in the event of such vote of censure being adopted by the British House of Commons, will he say by what means would it be conveyed to the Irish Government; and what effect would such vote of censure exercise on the action of that Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing in the Government of Ireland Bill to prevent a Member of the British House of Commons moving a vote of censure on the Irish Government. There is no provision in that Bill, nor would any provision seem necessary, to provide for any special communication to the Irish Government of such a vote of censure. The effect that the vote of censure would have on the Irish Government must, of course, depend on the circumstances under which it is carried.

    ESTATE DUTY.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, if the Irish Parliament increase the Estate Duty, the executors of a person domiciled in Ireland at the time of his death and leaving property in England and Ireland will be able to obtain probate in England with out payment of the duty at the higher rate; and whether, in the event of the Irish Parliament reducing the Estate Duty, such executors will be able to obtain probate in England on payment of duty at the lower rate in respect of all the property or the property situate in Ireland only?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): If the Estate Duty is increased by the Irish Parliament as respects persons domiciled in Ireland the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. On the same assumption the answer to the second part of the question is that the duty would be payable at the lower rate on the whole of the property, it being borne in mind, however, that the Irish Parliament would not have power to alter the rate of duty on real property situated in Great Britain.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, under the Government

    1875
    of Ireland Bill, in the event of the Irish Parliament varying the conditions under which relief exemption or abatement in respect of Income Tax is allowed, a person having a residence both in Ireland and in England could in England claim relief exemption or abatement under the conditions under which a relief exemption or abatement is allowed by Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom without reference to the variations made by the Irish Parliament?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any variation of the conditions of relief, exemption or abatement from Income Tax by the Irish Parliament can be made applicable to all persons resident in Ireland, even though those persons may also be resident in Great Britain.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper as to whether a person having two residences and applying for exemption in England can be refused in England on the ground that he had already a residence in Ireland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That would entirely depend on the legislation passed by the Irish Parliament. If the legislation passed by the Irish Parliament was to the effect that exemption should be allowed to all persons resident in Ireland, then that exemption would have to be given at the cost of the Irish revenue.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Irish Parliament can pass a law preventing a person resident in England claiming that exemption in England?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid I cannot follow that question of the hon. Member, and perhaps he would be good enough to put it on the Paper.

  Land Inquiry.
  Mr. LONGasked whether the non-official character of the secret Land Inquiry has been brought to the notice of all the persons conducting such inquiry; and whether such persons are at liberty to profess to be acting on behalf of the Government or any Member of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The non-official character of the Inquiry has been repeatedly insisted on by me in answer to questions, and I cannot doubt that it has
  1876
  been brought to the notice of all persons concerned. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. LONG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that notices are being issued by people who describe themselves as acting on behalf of the Government in connection with the Inquiry instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware than an inquiry has been instituted into the plutocracy of the Radical party?
  Mr. LONG: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to have that information conveyed to those people who are making those inquiries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I can do more than make this public intimation in the House.

  Hague Conventions.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked which of the fourteen Hague Conventions of 1907, including Convention No. 14, entitled a Declaration, have been signed on behalf of Great Britain, and which of them have been ratified on her behalf, together with the dates of signature and ratification of each; and will the effect of passing the Foreign Enlistment Bill, brought from the Lords on 7th November, be to authorise the ratification of any one or more, and, if so, which, of The Hague Conventions not yet ratified on behalf of this country?
  Mr. ACLAND: All the fourteen instruments published in Parliamentary Paper Miscellaneous No. 6, 1908, were signed on behalf of Great Britain and bear the date of 18th October, 1907. With the exception of No. 12 the signatures of the British Plenipotentiaries were attached on the 29th June, 1908 (see Parliamentary Paper, Miscellaneous No. 5, 1908). No 12 was signed in May, 1909. The King's Ratifications of Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 were deposited on 27th November, 1909. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has observed the expressions of public opinion in favour of passing the Mental Deficiency Bill at the earliest possible date; whether he can still find time to pass it this Session; and whether, if he cannot, he can make any statement as to its reintroduction at an

  1877
  early date next Session with a view to its passing into law next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, I fear the Government will not be able to find time to pass the Mental Deficiency Bill this Session, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to reintroduce the Bill early next Session embodying the Amendments made by the Standing Committee.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether time will be given for the consideration of the Feeble-Minded Control Bill which has already passed through Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; lam afraid I cannot give any undertaking.
  Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary gave a specific pledge that this Bill would be passed this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is subject, as all such pledges are, to Parliamentary exigencies.

  Cost of Living.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked when the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the subject of the cost of living may be expected?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I presume that the question relates to the investigation undertaken by the Board of Trade. Good progress has been made with this Inquiry, in spite of the disturbing effect on local prices of industrial and other troubles during the past year. It is not yet possible to state the exact date when the Report will be issued, but I hope that it will be published during the coming spring.

  Scottish Universities (Increased Grants).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will publish the correspondence which has passed between his Department and the various governing bodies of the Scottish universities upon the question of increased Grants and the adoption of the inclusive fee for certain courses of study?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir; I shall be glad to lay before Parliament so much of the correspondence as relates to the adoption, as a condition of the increased Grants, of the inclusive fee for certain courses of study provided that no objec-
  1878
  tion is entertained to this course by the University Courts of the Scottish universities.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: May I ask that there will be no delay in the matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will communicate at once with the University Court on the subject.

  Load Line.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Government of 1905 made arrangements with the shipbuilding interests of other countries to raise the English load line; if he is aware that it was estimated at the time that the raising of the load line was equivalent to the adding of one million tons dead weight carrying capacity to the mercantile marine; if he is aware that by raising the load line it has been the means of saving the shipowners something like 7½ million pounds; and whether it is the intention of the Government to reduce the load line to what it was prior to 1906?
  Mr. BUXTON: There is no foundation for the suggestion made in the first part of the question, and I have already informed my hon. Friend on 27th February, 1911, that the estimate of 1,000,000 tons is a great over-statement. I do not know the basis of my hon. Friend's estimate of £7,500,000. As my hon. Friend is aware, the load lines of British ships are fixed solely in reference to the question of safety and not to the possible effect on shipbuilding. As regards the last part of the question I would refer to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Glamorgan, South, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the consequence of the load line being raised moans that more tone could be carried and means preventing ships being built?
  Mr. BUXTON: It affects a certain number of tons, but I cannot give any estimate.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade if, since his appointment to his present office, he has received any communications from associations, societies, or guilds of seafaring men, or from individuals who have experienced the dangers of a seafaring life, concerning the deeper loading of ships and additional I cargoes made possible by the altered load-

  1879
  line Regulations issued in 1906; and, if so, whether he will publish these communications for the information of Members?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on 28th November to a similar question by my hon. Friend and a question by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan.
  Mr. JOWETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether he will supply the information, or not?
  Mr. BUXTON: I answered two questions together on Thursday, when perhaps the hon. Member was not here. I intend to refer all these communications to a Committee which I propose to set up in regard to this matter.
  Mr. JOWETT: The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to my question; I have repeated it, but I have not had a reply today.
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will refer to the reply which I gave on Thursday. Possibly he was not here—
  Mr. JOWETT: I was.
  Mr. BUXTON: I answered the question by saying that I proposed to refer all these communications to this Committee.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the "Seafarer" for last week, which publishes a very damaging statement against the Board of Trade in regard to the raising of the load line?
  Mr. BUXTON: I shall be glad to read it if the hon. Member will send me a copy.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I will.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked (1) the Postmaster-General if he is aware that 2,250 of the telephone employés that were transferred from the National Telephone Company are working hours in excess of those worked under the company, and if he intends taking any action in the matter; (2) if he is aware that 1,680 of the telephone employés that were transferred from the National Telephone Company now receive two-thirds as against full sick pay, time and a half as against double time for Sunday duty, and who are considered hourly instead of weekly servants; and if he intends taking any action in this matter; and (3) if he is aware that 6,514
  1880
  of the telephone employés from the National Telephone Company are working hours in excess of forty-eight hours; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am fully aware of the facts quoted, since the figures are those which I supplied in answer to the questions in this House on the 4th November. I am receiving a deputation from the Amalgamated Society of Telephone Employés on Thursday next, when no doubt these points will be raised. They are already receiving my consideration.

  House of Commons (Telegrams).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked how many letters and how many telegrams, approximately, each day on the average are sent from the Lobby post office and the Central Hall telegraph office by Members of the House of Commons?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I find some difficulty in supplying the information desired by the hon. Member owing to the facts that the use of the facilities afforded at the offices in question is not restricted to Members of this House, that the business transacted necessarily depends upon the number of Members present, and that there are many other posting boxes besides those in the Lobby. A Return shows that during the period from the 1st to the 28th November, the daily average number of telegrams handed in was 341, of which probably three-fourths were sent by Members. Another recent Return shows that an average of 2,725 letters daily were posted during a period of six days in the boxes within the precincts of the House. It is roughly estimated that an average of 1,500 letters a day are posted by Members.

  Wireless Telegraphy (Goldschmidt System).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Postmaster-General whether his Department has any information concerning the Goldschmidt system of wireless telegraphy; whether he is aware that experts in this country, France, and Germany, are of the opinion that this system will prove to be superior, both in respect of economy and efficiency, to any other; and whether he will take steps to ascertain the results of the forthcoming tests between Hanover and Atlantic City which will be carried out with the view of establishing the claim of the inventors to send long-distance

  1881
  messages cheaper and better by the use of their apparatus and methods than is possible by other systems?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been called to the Goldschmidt method of wireless transmission, and the experts of my Department who inspected the apparatus at Slough in July last are of opinion that it contains promising features. It is understood that the method of transmission is regarded favourably by foreign experts. The Post Office is in communication with the representatives of Dr. Goldschmidt, and if foreign representatives are admitted to any demonstration I will arrange to send experts.

  Telegrams (Telephone Numbers).
  Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Post-master-General whether his attention has been called to the complaint that the Regulation whereby telegrams can be addressed to the telephone number of the addresses seems to be very little known and to the fact that Post Office assistants, especially at minor offices, are not aware that such a Regulation is in force; and whether he will take steps to make this Regulation more generally known to the public, and also to his own employés at the post offices?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No pains have been spared to make known to the public as well as to all officers of the Post Office the arrangement whereby telegrams can be addressed to telephone addresses. It is advertised in the Post Office Guide and is shown in the book of rules issued to officers dealing with telegrams. The special attention of all counter officers was drawn to the rule not long ago, and a further notice on the subject is in preparation, as well as a notice to all telephone subscribers. If the hon. Member will be good enough to inform me of any post office where the arrangement has been found to be unknown I will give the matter immediate attention.

  Portsmouth Dockyard (Ambulances).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many ambulances, hand-drawn or horse-drawn, there are now in use in Portsmouth Dock yard; how many, if any, of these are covered; and how many are rubber-tyred?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There are two ambulances in use in Ports-
  1882
  mouth Dockyard, both of which are hand-drawn, rubber-tyred, and covered.

  Australian Defence Act.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to recent efforts to enlist public opinion in favour of compulsory military service in this country, and particularly to speeches of Lord Roberts, he can inform the House as to the working of the Australian Defence Act; whether he can say how many boys of fourteen years of age were ordered to enrol at the last annual enrolment, and whether only 40 per cent, of them obeyed the law; and whether there is any evidence of general resistance in the Do minions to the compulsory Clauses of the Act?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The latest information available with regard to the working of the Defence Act of Australia is contained in a Paper laid before the Commonwealth Parliament, which will be placed in the Library, and which will afford my hon. Friend the information for which he asks. I am not aware of any evidence of general resistance in the Commonwealth to the compulsory Clauses of the Act.

  Gilbert Islands (Phosphates).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when the concession of the phosphates of the Gilbert Islands was granted to Lord Stanmore; if Lord Stanmore was the High Commissioner in the Pacific at the time, or how long before the concession was granted he had enjoyed that office; if he will state what consideration, either in cash or in kind, the Government received in respect of the concession granted; if the concession has been granted for an unlimited period, and, if not, when will it come to an end; if there is any information at his disposal to show how many tons of phosphates have been exported from the islands and the approximate value; and whether the natives of the islands have received any more benefit from the concession granted to a few individuals than the natives of the Congo received from King Leopold?
  Colonel SEELY: The concession was originally granted in 1901 to the Pacific Islands Company, of which the late Lord

  1883
  Stanmore was one of the directors. He had retired from the post of High Commissioner twenty years before that date. The present concession is for 99 years, dating from 1st January, 1901, and the company pays to the Protectorate Government 6d. a ton on all the phosphates annually exported from the island, but arrangements are now on the point of completion with the company under which they will make a further annual contribution of 6d. a ton for the special benefit of the natives. The exports to the end of 1908 were given in reply to a question on 6th April, 1909. For the years 1909–1911 they amounted to 122,000, 167,000 and 135.000 tons. I am unable to give the precise value of the exports, which of course depends on market prices. The last sentence of my hon. Friend's question is one which I cannot answer.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what dividend is paid by this company?
  Colonel SEELY: I will inquire, and if the information is available—I think it will be—I will reply to a further question.

  Bristol Channel Pilotage.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the death by drowning, on the 10th November last, of George Pead, the employé of a Cardiff pilot; whether any inquiry has been held; whether he is aware that the fatality was attributable to the practice of the pilot being transferred from his cutter to the ship in a punt manned by only one man and the ship not waiting until the punt had safely returned to the cutter; can he state the number of lives lost in this manner in the Bristol Channel during the year, and whether any inquiries have been held regarding them; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to preventing this loss of life?
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, and an inquiry into the circumstances has been held. I find from the reports received by the Board of Trade that the facts are as stated in the question, except that the steamer did not proceed, but remained on the spot. The Board of Trade have no record of any similar case having occurred during the present year. I will communicate with the Cardiff Pilotage Board as to whether any steps can be
  1884
  taken to prevent a recurrence of such a casualty.

  Cable Rates (Australia).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked when steps will be taken to further cheapen deferred cable messages to Australia?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am in negotiation with the Pacific Cable Board and the cable companies on this subject, and I hope before long to be able to announce the introduction of a system of week-end cable letters with Australia and New Zealand.

  Retiring Viceroys (Portraits).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Under - Secretary of State for India whether, in future, when commissioning State portraits of the retiring Viceroys to be painted, the commissions may be placed in the hands of British portrait painters when, as is now the case, there is as much ability for such work in this country as in any other?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): It is the practice that the retiring Viceroy selects the artist by whom he is to be painted; and the Secretary of State sees no reason for imposing the restriction suggested by the hon. Member.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Could it not be suggested to retiring Viceroys that it would be as well under these conditions to employ British instead of foreign artists?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: As the portrait is presented, I think full discretion must be left.
  Sir J. D. REES: Why not a British-Indian artist?

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Popham estate, situated in Boyle parish, county Roscommon, has been offered to the Congested Districts Board for purchase; whether he is aware of the intended sub-division of one of the large nonresidential grazing ranches by a method which must prove prejudicial to the interests of the occupiers of uneconomic holdings which are numerous in the parish; and whether, in view of the intentions of Parliament, he will take steps to prevent the proposed sub-division?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This estate has been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board, but they have no information as regards the proposed sub-division of the lands referred to, and unless they purchase the property they cannot take any steps to prevent it. There are no untenanted lands on the estate, and the Board hope to make an offer for its purchase at an early date.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have taken or are taking any action in regard to reinstated evicted tenants in the townland of Edenmore, Cornaheive, Derryleabeg, and Derryleamore, in county Monaghan, who have not complied with the requirements of the Commissioners as to residing on and working the holdings; if he is aware that in several of these cases substantial Grants of public money were made to tenants, who, nevertheless, have neglected to till their farms, and in one case continues to live in England; and if he will direct that a full report of the investigation now proceeding, and the results of the action taken by the Commissioners, shall be presented to Parliament without delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the reinstated evicted tenants referred to failed to comply with the Estates Commissioners' requirements. Five out of the six evicted tenants reinstated on the lands mentioned in the question to whom free grants were made by the Commissioners for repairs of buildings and purchase of stock are residing on their holdings and appear to be working them in a proper manner. The sixth tenant, who was keeping house for her children in England, has promised to come and live on the holding with some of her family as soon as possible, and in the meantime has put the house on the land in repair.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the total number of outrages reported to the police for the county of Clare since 1st January, 1910; the number in which firearms were used; the number of cases of malicious injury and threatening notices; and the number of persons who, during the period named, have received special police protection?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The total number of serious offences reported to the police in county Clare from 1st January, 1910, to 31st October, 1912, was 457, in fifty-four of which firearms were used. There were thirty-two cases of injury to property, and 125 of threatening letters or notices. The number of persons receiving protection in the county during the period mentioned varied from time to time, but on the 1st January, 1910, the number was seventy-one, and on 30th September, 1912, it was sixty.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of serious offences in the city of Belfast for the same period?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no figures

  Ex-Soldier Clerks (War Office).
  Sir EDWARD COATESasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to existing privileges accorded to ex-soldier clerks employed in the War Office in the matter of pay whilst on sick leave as well as free medical attendance for his family, and seeing that other unestablished civilian employés are compensated for the loss of existing privileges, he will say what are the reasons, if any, for excluding ex-soldier clerks from such compensation; and whether he will issue instructions to the effect that present privileges shall be safeguarded?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: Ex-soldier clerks in the War Office come under Section 47 of the Insurance Act, and every care has been taken to reserve to present holders a fair equivalent for their existing privilege. If in any respect this is not so, I shall be glad to make further inquiries.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the fact that, out of an establishment of 196,627 non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Infantry, only 88,720 did their training in camp this year for fifteen days and over, he will inform the House what steps he is taking to induce more men to put in their full training, so as to allay the feeling of apprehension which is felt in the country by the knowledge that such a small percentage of the Territorial Infantry is fully trained; and (2) whether, with a view to encouraging employers to induce their men to join

  1887
  the Territorial Force and give them leave for fifteen days' camp per annum, he will consider the question of returning to those employers the amount of contribution they have paid in each year under the National Insurance Act (Health Insurance) for each employé for each year he serves, provided that he attends camp for a period of not less than fifteen days?
  Colonel SEELY: The length of the period of attendance in camp chiefly depends upon the facilities granted by the employers of men serving in the force. The suggestion made in the second question will be considered.

  Army Horses.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to show that the bulk of the large and increasing number of horses, valued at a million and a half pounds, annually exported from the United Kingdom are unfitted for military requirements at home, and are not in fact used for military purposes abroad; and, if so, what is the source of such information?
  Colonel SEELY: The statement which I made in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question on this subject on the 27th November, to the effect that 50 per cent, of the exported horses were sent for slaughter, was based on information regarding their sale value supplied by the Board of Agriculture. It may be assumed that all horses sold for less than £5 and a large number of the horses sold for less than £10 are unfitted for military requirements at home.

  Regent's Park.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if a plan has been proposed to continue Portland Place through Park Square, along the Broad Walk, and across the playing fields in Regent's Park to Portland Town; and, if so, is there any prospect of it being carried out?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No proposal to continue Portland Place into Regent's Park has been submitted to the First Commissioner, and there is little probability of his agreeing to such a scheme, should it be put forward.

  London University Site.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if the Government is under a promise to find a site for the London University; is it intended to give a site in the Botanic Gardens for the purpose; and what area of land, if any, during the past twenty years has been taken from the enclosures and added to the space to which the public have access?
  Mr. W. BENN: The Government is under no promise to find a new site for the London University, and it is not intended to use part of the Botanic Gardens for this purpose. The area of land taken from the enclosures and added to the public part of Regent's Park during the last twenty years is two and a half acres.

  Indian Government Contracts.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the firm of Messrs. W. and T. Avery, scale makers, of Smethwick, have any contracts with the Indian Government; and, if so, whether he is aware that this firm are not paying the rates of wages recognised in the district as fair to the various grades of workmen employed?
  Mr. BAKER: The firm hold several contracts with the India Office, all of which contain the usual Fair-Wages Clause. The Secretary of State for India is not aware that the Fair-Wages conditions are not being observed, but if my hon. Friend will furnish particulars, inquiry will be made.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the Secretary of State consider it necessary to charge the Indian ryot the British trade union rate of labour as an essential condition of supply?

RAILWAYS BILL.
Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: May I ask when the Government proposes to introduce the amended Railways Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would like notice of that.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  OUTBREAK IN KENT.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: May I inquire whether the President of the Board of Agriculture or other Minister can give any information as to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Kent?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis, for Mr. Runciman): On the afternoon of Saturday, 30th ult., suspected foot-and-mouth disease at Willmington Farm, near Ashford, Kent, was reported by Professor Cave, veterinary inspector to the local authority; the following day (Sunday) one of the veterinary inspectors of the Board visited and found typical lesions in two cows and one heifer, and the existence of disease was confirmed by the chief veterinary officer. There were seventeen cattle, seven pigs, and 466 sheep on the farm; the valuation and slaughter of all these animals was ordered forthwith and is now proceeding. An Order prohibiting the movement of animals within a fifteen-mile radius was also made the same day, and became operative thereupon. The most recent movement of animals off the farm was on the 19th ult.; the animals then moved are being traced. There has been no movement of animals on to the farm for some three months, except that of certain animals for breeding purposes. Illness was first noticed in a heifer on Thursday, the 28th ult. No cause can at present be assigned for the outbreak.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    CHRISTMAS VACATION.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I inquire as to the business on Friday, and, also, whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to state the arrangements for Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: On Friday we will proceed with the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill. With regard to the Christmas Vacation, as at present advised, the Government will propose that the House do adjourn from 20th December to 30th December.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how Scotsmen usually spend the first week in the New Year? Does he think it is fair to bring us back here then?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have spent it with them before now. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"]

  COUNT OUT: POINT OF ORDER.
  Mr. GINNELL: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question, of which I have given you private notice: whether it was in order for the Chief Secretary's friends, Members of this House, when the count bell rung last Friday evening, to prevent the formation of a House by standing at both extremities of this Chamber and dissuading hon. Members from entering when the Irish Government was charged with complicity in crimes in Dublin Castle, and whether you have any means of preventing a recurrence of this abuse?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I have no means of preventing circumstances similar to those to which the hon. Member refers; neither are they out of order. Such things have occurred before.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will you allow me to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give an early opportunity for discussing this matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not in a position to do so.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    TWENTY-FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 27th November.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 26.—(Revision of Financial Arrangements in Certain Events.)
    (1) If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that during any three successive years after the passing of this Act, the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes are so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled, exceeded in each of those years the amount of the Transferred Sum, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services, the Board shall present a report to that effect to the Treasury and to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Treasury and the Lord Lieutenant shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Irish Parliament respectively.
    (2) The presentation of such a report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act, with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom and extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes.
    (3) For the purpose of revising the financial provisions of this Act in pursuance of this section, there shall be summoned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom such number of Members of the Irish House of Commons as will make the representation of Ireland in the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom equivalent to the representation of Great Britain on the basis of population; and the Members of the Irish House of Commons so summoned shall be deemed to be Members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of any such revision.
    His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision for so summoning the Members of the Irish House of Commons

    1911
    as His Majesty may think necessary or proper, and any provisions contained in any such Order in Council shall have the same effect as if they had been enacted in this Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I propose to take on this Clause is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), raising the question of method of computation by which the Exchequer Board is to decide when the time for a revision of the financial arrangements has come. There are other Amendments dealing with the same point, and I am afraid it is not possible to separate them. The second Amendment is also in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), and there are two Amendments in the name of the Postmaster-General dealing with the same point, and two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton. I think it would be convenient that on the first Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield I should permit a discussion also on the several alternative methods of computation.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Before I come to the substance of my Amendment, I suppose I may take it your ruling does not prevent the later Amendments being put with a short explanation of the points 'involved. I take it you do not cut them out altogether.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will not put the Question on the first so as to exclude the others. The only point is that it does not seem to me possible that the one should be proposed without the others being brought into the discussion.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "during any three successive years after the passing of this Act the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland, as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes, as so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled, exceeded in each of those years the amount of the Transferred Sum, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services," and to insert instead thereof the words "the deficit as in this Act defined has been extinguished in any financial year."
    1912
    This Amendment raises a point of very considerable complexity and that complexity is increased by the fact that what we have to bear clearly in our minds is not the Clause in the Bill, but the Clause as it is proposed to be amended by the Postmaster-General, which Amendment makes a total change in the whole substance and material of the Clause. I think it really would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to read out first of all the Clause as it is proposed to be amended by the Government; and, secondly, 1he Clause as it is proposed to be amended by my Amendment. I am not now proposing the whole of my Amendment as it appears on the Paper, because to do so would increase the complexity of the subject which is sufficiently complex already itself. I will read the Clause as proposed to be amended by the Government, which will read thus:—
    "If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that during any three successive years after the passing of this Act, the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes 'and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services' as so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled exceeded in each of those years the amount of the Transferred Sum, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services, the Board shall present a report to that effect to the Treasury and to the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury, and the Lord Lieutenant shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Irish Parliament, respectively."
    If the Clause is amended by my Amendment it will read:—
    "If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that the deficit as in this Act defined has been extinguished in any financial year," then the revision shall take place.
    I must now ask the Committee to turn to Clause 47, and there they will find an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir Harry Samuel) to this effect:—
    "The expression 'deficit' means the amount by which the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland falls short of—

    1913

    (a) the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the services transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government at the time of such transfer; and

    (b) the net cost for the time being to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the reserved services."

    4.0 P.M.
    I would ask the Committee to consider what the position will be if the Clause is passed as proposed to be amended by the Government. I do not think the Government Amendment falls in very well with the idea of revision as it was first set forth by the Postmaster-General when he made his original speech explaining the financial provisions of this Bill. That speech led the House to believe that revision would take place before many years were out. lie even mentioned the figure of ten years as the possible date when revision would take place, and he seemed to imply it certainly would take place in ten or twenty years, and the impression left was this, that if you could get the Irish Government fairly going when they were able to avail themselves of the economies that the Government expected they would be able to effect, and when the country had settled down and got on a normal path of prosperity, then within a certain period—ten or twenty years—by an ordinary automatic process a balance would be taken and the Joint Exchequer Board will declare what has been the effect, and the Imperial Parliament would set about the revision of the financial conditions of the Act. But as a matter of fact the process will not be an automatic one at all. It can be hastened or retarded by deliberate action on the part of 1hc Imperial Government or of the Irish Government. First, take the position of the Imperial Government. If it desires revision and thinks the time has come when there ought to be revision, and if it thinks the Irish Parliament are not dealing quite fairly with it, it can in certain circumstances bring about that revision by its own act. Suppose it is necessary to raise for Imperial purposes a new tax or to raise revenue by an increase of taxes, and if the Imperial Parliament chose to do it by way of a tax which presses with special incidence upon Ireland that will increase the pressure of Imperial taxes in Ireland, and that will of itself tend to reduce the deficit and bring about revision. For instance, if the Imperial Government finds itself in a difficulty with regard to Imperial expenditure
    1914
    and increases the taxes on whisky and tea, which press with special incidence in Ireland, then by that very act it would be able to bring about a revision, supposing the Irish Government had no weapon with which to reply, because if you increase the proceeds of Imperial taxation you would have this very strange situation, that because extra taxation was imposed upon Ireland the result would be the Imperial Government would have the right to bring about revision with the object of imposing further taxation. I do not take any special objection to this, because I am against the whole proposal, but it is a curious result and would involve a real grievance and injustice to the Irish taxpayer. That is a very whimsical thing and one which the Government could hardly have contemplated, and now the Irish Government would have the weapons in their hands to delay the period of revision, and they could do it in several ways. Supposing one year passed and that it was obvious that in that year if a balance was struck the deficit would be wiped out. The Irish Government might feel anxious as to the position next year and the third year, and they could take steps to prevent the deficit being wiped out, and thus prevent the period of revision when they might be called upon to pay further taxes. They could keep the deficit going in more than one way. They could reduce their own Irish taxation, grant exemptions, and reduce the balance in that way. Perhaps I am wrong there, but for the purpose of preventing this revision, at any rate, they could do it by reducing Irish taxation or by reducing the cost of the Irish services. It might pay them to bring about a deficit in their own Budget which they might make up by loans in order to bring about that deficit with a view of keeping it alive and preventing the revision. In that case the motive for economy is gone, because by economies in the total cost of Irish administration they would be hastening the time when the deficit has, in accordance with this Bill, to be wiped out, and they will be called upon to make further contributions. You might have the result of the Imperial Government during the three years contemplated trying to obtain a revision by extra taxation, and the Irish Government plunging into extravagance to prevent it, and pushing against each other in this strange fashion. If a position of this sort were intended to bring about a true union of hearts, then all I can say, to use the Chief Secretary's

    1915
    phrase, "Good God, there never were such provisions for causing friction and turmoil."
    Why these strange proposals? I can only suppose that they have been designed to say different things to different classes of people. To the English supporters the Government say, "When Ireland, by economies and by prosperity which self-government will bring about, is able to pay her way, you obtain from her a substantial contribution to Imperial purposes." To their Irish Friends the Government say, "We had to put in these provisions for the sake of giving something to satisfy our stupid British supporters, but you quick-witted Gentlemen can plainly see that you can prevent this revision coming about, and thus avoid having to pay any contribution for Imperial purposes." If there is any other reason which can explain the peculiar contradictions of this Clause, I trust the Postmaster-General will be able to set it forth. I now come to my Amendment. I do not profess that it will make the Clause a good one, but I think it will do something to mitigate its present absurdity. In the first place it does not destroy the motive for economy on the part of the Irish Government, and that motive will remain there, and they will be able to exercise it without jeopardising their future position. It does not seek to inflict on Ireland any increase in the cost of the reserved services, but it says that the £200,000 which has to be paid as part of the Transferred Sum as a free grant shall not be taken into account when the revision comes about, or rather that it should not prevent the revision coming about, and in due course of time the £200,000 shall be wiped out and a revision shall take place, notwithstanding that the £200,000 has in the meantime been paid. This Amendment starts with what has been called the basic fact of the deficit between the gross cost and the Imperial receipts from Ireland, and it says when the natural Imperial receipts from Ireland exceed that present stereotyped deficit, and when the national receipts from Imperial taxation exceed that sum, then the revision shall come about, and then the Irish Government shall be asked to pay a proper contribution to Imperial services.
    In this Bill, and particularly in these financial Clauses, the Government, in spite of foreign warnings, are deliberately creating difficulties from which this
    1916
    country has been free, although other countries have suffered under them. In the great federal system of Germany, so mixed up is their federal finance that it weakens them at every turn, and in particular imposes a special heavy call upon certain sources of taxation, and it remains a standing weakness in the great empire of Germany. In the case of Austria-Hungary this weakness is still more manifest, because there they suffer, and have done for many years, from the financial arrangements made between the two countries, which are supposed to be revised periodically. It is interesting to turn to this comparison, because Hungary ought long ago to have paid a greater contribution, owing to her increased prosperity, than is provided by the terms of this financial arrangement between the two countries; but whenever the question arises in some way or other they always manage to prevent a revision taking place. The consequence has been to the last degree weakening and a source of difficulty to the strength of the Austria-Hungarian Empire. In this country, without any need or political necessity, you are now creating exactly the same kind of weakness in this Empire. I do not profess that the passing of this Amendment will go a very long way to strengthen the Imperial position in this respect, but I do put-it forward as at any rate some mitigation of the difficulties and dangers which this Clause will bring about, and it is in that spirit that I move it.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I should like first of all to say a few words with regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the Postmaster-General. Perhaps the hon. Member who has just spoken will allow me to enter into some explanation of that Amendment, as the greater part of his remarks have been addressed to it. I had hoped until I heard the hon. Member's speech that hon. Members opposite would have allowed this Amendment to be carried without a Division, because it appears to me to have in front of it the object that is sought by many of the Amendments on the Paper standing in the name of hon. Members opposite. I understand their object is to accelerate the day when the financial revision shall take place. That is also the purpose of this Amendment, but I approach the subject from a slightly different point of view, and it is that I believe that not many years will have elapsed before a very powerful sentiment will arise amongst the

    1917
    successors both of the present Nationalists and the present Unionists in favour of a wider degree of financial freedom for Ireland. As the Bill stands at this moment, no effort on the part of Ireland can bring the day of revision a moment nearer. This Amendment will enable the Irish Parliament, by efforts and sacrifices which would be well within its powers, to meet the deficit and to secure the period of financial revision. At the present moment the payment from the Imperial Exchequer on behalf of Ireland after the Bill is passed will consist of the Transferred Sum and the cost of the reserved services. At the beginning of the Bill the receipts of the Imperial Exchequer from Ireland will fall short of the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer on behalf of Ireland by about £2,000,000. The Bill provides at present that when the receipts have equalled and have passed the payments then there shall be a period of financial revision. The point of the Amendment is that it might well be that the amount of money which Ireland is receiving from the Imperial Exchequer, that is to say, the Transferred Sum would be actually more than she would really need in order to cover the cost of the Irish services, therefore the Amendment suggests that you should not wait for the period of revision until Ireland is receiving no subsidy at all from the Imperial Exchequer, but that you should leave it within the power of the Irish Parliament, if it wishes, to secure that the period of revision should come when she no longer needed any subsidy.
    Let me take an illustration. Ireland would not hasten the period of revision by any economy in her expenditure or any increase in her taxation. Suppose, for example, that Ireland were to effect economies in the administration of the constabulary, and suppose that she wished to put by the money she had saved, not for increased expenditure but in order to meet the deficit and secure greater financial freedom. As the Bill stands she could not do so. The fact that she could save money on the constabulary would make no difference to the amount of the Transferred Sum, and it would make no difference to the amount that she receives from the Imperial Exchequer, because that amount would have been settled once and for all until the revision when the constabulary was originally transferred. The fact that she has saved money on the constabulary, on the other hand, will make a difference to the cost of the Irish services. That is why the Amend-
    1918
    ment suggests that for the words "The amount of the Transferred Sum" there should be substituted the words "the total cost of Irish services." Take the opposite case of an increased Irish taxation. Suppose we had reached a period when the deficit has been reduced to £100,000. That would mean that the receipts of the Imperial Exchequer on the one side of the account fell short of the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer on the other side of the account by only £100,000. Suppose, then, the Irish Parliament levied increased taxation which yielded £100,000 and she wished not to spend the money or increase the cost of her services but to-put it by in order to wipe out the deficit, as the Bill stands her efforts would defeat themselves. What would happen? The receipts into the Imperial Exchequer would, of course, be increased by £100,000, because the produce of Irish taxation goes to the Imperial Exchequer in the first instance. If that fact stood by itself, then, of course, the receipts into the Imperial Exchequer would have been brought up to a level with the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer, but the produce of Irish taxes is added to the Transferred Sum, and the Transferred Sum would therefore also be increased by £100,000, The payments out of the Imperial Exchequer would be increased by £100,000. The receipts into the Imperial Exchequer and the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer would still be separated by £100,000, and the day of revision would be no closer than before; but, although the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer would have been increased by £100,000—this is the point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee—the cost of the Irish services would not have been increased by £100,000, because Ireland would not have spent the money upon increasing the cost of her services. Therefore, the receipts into the Imperial Exchequer would equal the cost of the Irish services, and, according to the Amendment which is on the Paper, the period of financial revision would have arrived.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the hon. Gentleman still arguing on the probability of the Irish Government wishing to bring about the revision in order to get further powers?
    Mr. LEES SMITH: Yes. I wish to point out that, as a matter of fact, the powers which this Amendment would give

    1919
    to the Irish Parliament might, under certain circumstances, become very important, because it might easily happen the deficit had been diminished by such a sum that it would be well within the power of the Irish Parliament to meet it. Then it might quite easily happen that from various causes the yield of Imperial taxes in Ireland remained stationary for a great number of years. During all those years the Irish Parliament would be able to meet the deficit, would be willing to meet the deficit, but would not, by the present Clauses of the Bill, be allowed to lift a finger in order to do so. In that situation this Amendment would, of course, give them a most valuable power. I do not wish to speak at great length on this Amendment, because I am bound to say the more elaborate I endeavoured in preparation to make my explanation of it the more intricate it became, but I just wish, in conclusion, to say a word with regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield. I gather he proposes the financial revision shall take place if the deficit has disappeared, not during three years in succession, but in any one year. The difficulty I see in that proposal is that it substitutes a standard which might be exceptional for a standard which would be normal. Take, for example, the case of forestalments. The revenue in any year, as the result of forestalments, might be driven up by hundreds of thousands of pounds, as, in fact, happened in connection with the Budget of 1909. According to the hon. Member's Amendment, he would then say, "Owing to this increase in revenue, there is no longer any deficit; let us proceed to the financial revision," but the very next year, because the revenue had been driven up, the revenue would be down by several hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the deficit would be larger than before. That is a point which it seems to me the hon. Member has not calculated upon in his Amendment, and it appears to me to be a conclusive argument against it.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: After the hon. Gentleman had been speaking for some time, he at last approached the Amendment supposed to be under discussion today. He said the more elaborate he endeavoured to make his explanation the deeper were the difficulties into which he got. That only shows how extraordinarily difficult it is to discuss this
    1920
    Clause under the present rules and regulations. I find it almost impossible to discuss either of these Amendments without discussing all this Clause; yet, according to the very ridiculous gag and Guillotine Motion of the Government, we are actually precluded from passing Subsection (3) of this Clause until the magic hour of 7.30 has passed, unless you, Sir, with your usual width of view, allow us to have something like a Second Reading Debate on the whole of the Clause. It is as though a lecturer dealing with the anatomy of the wasp was told that up to 7.30 he was only allowed to discuss the head, and after 7.30 the body and sting. That is the position in which we find ourselves. It is impossible to discuss any of the Clause without we take a general survey. The Government have put down this Clause in order that they may have an argument with which to go among their constituents, who are rather shocked at the idea that Ireland, when she becomes opulent, as hon. Members opposite are so fond of prophesying she will become under the Bill, shall not pay any share of the common expenditure of the United Kingdom while Scotland pays many millions—and even the Malay States offer now to give us a ship—and by which they can say to them, "Oh, we have provided for all that. You will find, in Clause 26, that under certain circumstances and conditions we shall be able to revise the whole of this financial system, and Ireland will pay a contribution towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom." If the Government want to say that, why do they not say it in unmistakable terms? Why do they not clarify the whole of this Clause?
    I object to the Amendment because I think it introduces another element of uncertainty into the whole of this Clause. The whole Clause is full of uncertainty. First of all, it lies with the Joint Exchequer Board to say whether or not the time has arrived, and a particular arithmetical calculation is to be made to see whether Ireland should be called upon to pay some contribution either under the one Amendment or the other. I do not know what "in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board" means. Does it mean the majority? It is quite likely the minority representing Ireland on the Board will say, "It does not appear to us the time has arrived," whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried or the Amendment of the Government. It would be

    1921
    perfectly possible for the Irish Treasury to say, "We did not make those calculations; they are not our calculations." Then, on those calculations, the Joint Exchequer Board is to present a Report. There may be a Minority Report. Altogether, the whole of this Clause wants clarifying. Supposing they do present a Report, what is the real value of it? It is presented to both Houses of Parliament, to the Commons House of Parliament, and to the Irish House of Parliament. The Commons House of Parliament possibly might take some action, because it is to be "a ground for revision," but the Irish Parliament might say, "Well, but our officials on the Board do not agree that it is; we do not think there is any ground whatever for making a revision." There is nothing mandatory in the Clause, and all that would happen would be that the Commons House of Parliament might say, "The circumstances are such and the calculations are such that a revision ought now to take place." Thereupon what can it do? It can do nothing except send a polite message to the Irish Parliament to send her representatives here to discuss the situation, either under my hon. Friend's Amendment or under the Amendment of the Government, it does not matter which. The Irish Parliament might say, "Thank you, we are not going to send representatives over; we are not Irish flies to walk into your parlour; we do not intend to walk into your parlour," and nothing whatever would happen under the Clause. The Irish Parliament would dimply refuse to send over representatives.
    We do really want this Clause a little bit clarified. What do the Government really mean? If they really do mean they are most anxious for a revision of the financial arrangements, why do they not say in unmistakable language that, when certain calculations have been made, and certain balances have been struck, it shall be mandatory that some revision shall take place between the two Houses. For my own part, I do not attach very great importance to any of these Amendments until the whole Clause has been put into a different shape and order altogether. If we are to discuss the Amendments, I prefer the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I think he at all events makes it more certain on the whole that some period of revision will take place, and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lees Smith), which I understand is to be fathered by the Government, only adds
    1922
    another uncertainty to the position. I know the Postmaster-General and the hon. Member for Northampton both think halcyon days are about to arrive in Ireland. Both of them think that in a very few years Ireland, under this Bill, will find herself in the position of having a surplus and of wanting to accelerate the day when she puts herself in the same position as Scotland and the other portions of the United Kingdom and contributes something towards the common expenditure—the Army, Navy, National Debt, and so on—of the United Kingdom. But that is not the May in which I read the financial portion of the Clause. I have said again and again, in the course of these discussions, that I believe the money for these transferred services will not allow Ireland to effect any economies. I believe, for instance, that education will swallow up any surplus Ireland is likely to possess. I believe too, if the Amendment of the Postmaster-General is carried, the cost of these services will be found to increase, and as the standard rises in England and Scotland for education and for other social developments, so it will rise in Ireland, and, instead of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer finding himself a few years hence in possession of some remarkable surplus, which he will be only too anxious to dispose of for the common purposes of the Army and Navy, the cost of the services will rise, and the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will not find himself in possession of any surplus of this kind. I would rather omit the Clause from the Bill altogether, and leave it to the goodwill entirely of the Irish Parliament as to whether or not it will offer any subscriptions to these common services for the United Kingdom.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I will, in the first place, answer one of the contentions put forward, not for the first time, by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He said that by our Bill we are introducing a system of finance of much complexity into a state of things which is now comparatively simple. The argument which he has used on several occasions is that this has been found to be a great evil in other countries, and particularly in Austro-Hungary. He suggested that parallel powers are given to the Austro-Hungarian Parliaments and that has been a great drawback. All through these Debates right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quoting Mr. Gladstone

    1923
    in this connection, and have suggested that he instanced Austro-Hungary and Norway and Sweden as examples of Home Rule that we might imitate without disadvantage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the experience of both those countries has not been a happy one. What is the answer to that? The answer is, in the first place, that Mr. Gladstone never used these words without most carefully qualifying them by saying that the proposals he was making with regard to Ireland would place Ireland on a different fooling to Austro-Hungary and Norway and Sweden. If these two pairs of country are seeking revenue harmony, far more so would Ireland be doing so. But the subsequent history of these European countries does not disprove the argument which Mr. Gladstone advanced in this particular matter of finance. The difficulties that arose between Austro-Hungary arose from the fact that you had coequal Parliaments, each with sovereign authority, and neither in any degree subordinate to the other or bound by the legislation of the other.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: How about Croatia?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that case is analagous. One might just as well suggest the case of Ontario and Canada. But the hon. Member's illustration was Austro-Hungary and I should like respectfully to make an answer to that. Austro-Hungary has two Parliaments of equal authority, and when a question of financial arrangement arises it has to be dealt with by an equal number of members from each Parliament, who form a joint delegation, and, if these two bodies cannot arrive at an agreement, there is a deadlock, and there are no means of relieving it. These two countries are more or less equally impoverished, and there is no such great disparity as there is in the case of Great Britain and Ireland In the case of Great Britain and Ireland the Parliament of one country is definitely bound by the legislation of the other. When we come to the end of the deficit period and review the financial arrangements we do not do it on the lines adopted in Austro-Hungary. The ultimate decision is left in the hands of this Imperial Parliament, and it is the Imperial Parliament which settles the matter. What is the purpose of this Clause to which this Amendment has been moved? As the Committee is well aware, after
    1924
    the discussion which has taken place on the finances of this Bill, the present scheme will come into operation when the Bill becomes law, and that scheme is largely based on the consideration that Ireland does not now pay her way. But that cannot be a permanent arrangement in the case of a country which has a measure of self-government, no matter how limited, with some power of collecting its own taxes, and keeping for its own benefit any increase in the taxes which it collects itself. I must say that no confederation throughout the world of subordinate Parliaments has larger powers than are given to the Irish Parliament in this Bill. In the main they have larger powers of collecting their own taxes and of enjoying the increase than have the subordinate Parliaments of Canada and Australia. Therefore it is right and proper the present arrangement should last only so long as the deficit continues, and no more money should be drawn from the British taxpayer for Irish purposes when that deficit is wiped out. When Ireland claims she should be given wider powers the Imperial Parliament is entitled to ask her to take her place as a full member of the United Kingdom, and pay such charges as her resources will allow towards the common expenses of the United Kingdom and of the Empire at large.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said there was nothing mandatory in the Bill and that Clause 26 did not enforce this. He suggested, further, the Imperial Parliament may take action in that direction, but that the Irish Parliament may refuse to send Members here, and, therefore, the Clause would not operate at all. If the Imperial Parliament does not choose to make a change, of course the change will not be made, and nothing we can put into this Bill will bind our successors. The right hon. Gentleman must know we cannot put into an Act of Parliament a mandate to say that Parliament at some future date shall revise the provisions of this Bill in a certain direction. If Parliament does not do so, you cannot compel it to do it. If you say your scheme shall come to an end and no more revenues shall be raised unless Parliament does this or that thing, you may find yourself in a great difficulty, and you may find your whole machinery at a standstill. You cannot make this mandatory as far as Parliamentary affairs are concerned. Surely the hon. Member has only to glance at the Clause itself to see

    1925
    that it requires that an additional number of Irish Members shall be summoned to sit in this Parliament, and if, out of perversity, the Irish Parliament refuses to send them, the Imperial Parliament would go on its way and do what it thought proper. That would, of course, be entirely within the power of the Imperial Parliament.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Will the British Parliament under such circumstances have power to make the revision?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I did not know that we were to be allowed to discuss Subsection (3) at this juncture. I thought that under the Guillotine Resolution we should not be allowed to discuss it until after half-past seven.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham did make some considerable reference to the subject, and I have felt a little uneasy both about what he said and about the reply of the Postmaster-General. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I state that after half-past seven I propose to call the first Amendment, which is down in the name of the hon. Members for Northampton, Kingston, and South Bucks, to leave out Sub-section (3), as that raises the whole of this question. If I may suggest it at this stage, we might delay these points until then.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will strictly follow your ruling. My remarks on Subsection (3) were very closely limited to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said that the whole Clause would not work, either with or without the Amendment, because the Irish Parliament under this Sub-section might refuse to send representatives here. The hon. Member asked when the Clause was to come into operation and when circumstances requiring it were likely to arise. On several occasions, inside this House and outside as well, I have been represented as having said, on the First Reading, that a period of ten years might elapse before the deficit period was ended. I would like to remind the Committee what I did say with regard to that matter. I pointed out that last year's revenue very clearly showed an increase of no less than. £700,000 on the previous revenue. I said it was not to be expected that that increase would be regular, and I suggested that in future years it might be £200,000. That was,
    1926
    perhaps, an over-sanguine estimate. But, at any rate, I said that while there were no means by which we could tell what the increase would be, I thought that in ten years the Irish deficit would disappear and Ireland would no longer be a charge upon the British taxpayer. If there were to be a decrease, then the situation would be the same as if no Home Rule Bill had been passed, and the deficit would be accordingly increased. If the increased revenue was less than £200,000, I said the deficit period would be longer than ten years. It is quite obvious I could give no estimate other than that ten years might be the period or that £200,000 might be the amount per year. It was for purposes of illustration that I said it would work out in that way, and if it were £200,000 more or less the period would be more or less accordingly. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), in moving the Amendment, said it was totally impossible to form an estimate of what the Irish revenue would be in the next fifteen or twenty years, and one could only judge from the steady increase of revenue, since Ireland is now more prosperous, and it shows what an agricultural country can do under Free Trade. We hope and believe that this prosperity will continue. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield said that the day when the deficit would be over could be hastened or retarded by the Imperial Parliament or by the Irish Parliament at their will.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I did not say by the Irish Parliament.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I took down the hon. Member's words. With regard to the Imperial Parliament, I agree that the ending of that period could be either hastened or retarded by the Imperial Parliament, if it wished to do so. Whether it would be right or just to do so is another matter. But since the Bill does reserve to the Imperial Parliament its present taxing powers, this Parliament could, if it wished, according to the law, impose additional taxes upon Ireland with a view to wiping off the deficit immediately; but such a thing would be so grossly unfair, so patently unjust, so contrary to every intention of the Bill, that it is inconceivable that any body of fair-minded men, unless animated by bitter hostility to Ireland, would take such a course. The Imperial Parliament could hasten the day by reducing expenditure on the reserved services; on the other hand, it could retard

    1927
    the ending of the deficit period by lowering the taxes of Ireland or increasing expenditure on reserved services. These matters are entirely in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, just as they are today. The passing of this Bill will not make any difference to the powers of the Imperial Parliament in these respects, for they remain as now. But with regard to the Irish Parliament I do not at all agree with the hon. Member. As the Bill stands, the Irish Parliament can neither hasten nor retard the day when the deficit is over. It cannot hasten the day when the two sides of the account will balance, because if it were to increase the taxes on the Irish people, and so increase Irish revenue, the Transferred Sum would be increased to an equal extent; and, although the deficit would be diminished by the larger revenue coming from Ireland owing to Irish taxes, it would be increased to an equal extent owing to the larger sum to be handed to the Irish Government. It could not hasten the day, as the Bill stands, by reducing expenditure on its own services, or reducing expenditure, let us say, upon Poor Law or education, or whatever service might be at its own command. Those are not particularly good instances. Perhaps the cost of administering justice is better. If they were to reduce that expenditure, as the Bill stands they would not hasten the day when the deficit would be over, because the Transferred Sum would remain the same, and the sum which was economised by the Irish Government would be in their own pockets, so to speak, to spend on other purposes, and would not revert to the Imperial Treasury. On the other hand, the Irish Parliament would certainly not be able to retard the day when the deficit is over. They have no control over the reserved services.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What about land purchase?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They have no control over land purchase.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not through the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They have no power to increase the cost in regard to land purchase. We have argued that before, and I am sorry that the hon. Member does not accept my view. If they increase the cost of their own services, such as education, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    1928
    Fulham, that does not increase the deficit, because they must do it out of their own moneys, and not out of moneys which come from the Imperial Exchequer. If they have not got moneys of their own to spend, then they cannot spend, and they therefore have no power, by that means, to retard the day when the deficit is over. These are the reasons why I suggest to the hon. Member that as the Bill now stands, while it is true that the Imperial Parliament can take such action as will bring Clause 26 into operation earlier or later as it wishes, the Irish Parliament can do neither. The Amendment which I have put on the Paper has been clearly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), who has had a similar Amendment on the Paper for some time. His object and our object is this: To enable the Irish Parliament, if they wish—and I would emphasise the fact that it is entirely left in their own control—to use any surplus in their own hands, not for expenditure upon other purposes, not for reducing taxation upon the Irish people, but to bring nearer the day when the deficit is ended. Our Amendment would enable them to do so if they so desired. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know that there is any harm in giving them that option. Suppose the Irish Parliament find themselves within measurable reach of the situation contemplated by the Clause and they wish to bring that day nearer, and they find that their own revenue from their own taxes is increasing, while their expenditure is stationary, they may wish to say, "Next year we will not take the surplus of £100,000; we will leave that as a surplus," and under the finance of the Bill that will be taken into account by the Joint Exchequer Board, who would be able to say, "The accounts are now balanced." It merely means that the Irish unspent surplus is to be taken into account for the purpose of writing off the last item of deficit that remains on the accounts between the two countries. The way in which it is done is this: We take into account on the credit side all the receipts of the Imperial Exchequer from Ireland, also all the receipts of the Irish Exchequer; and on the other side we take all the expenditure of the Imperial Exchequer, and also the expenditure of the Irish Exchequer. Added together, the whole will show accurately what is the total revenue from Ireland in that year, and on the other side what is the total expenditure. That, I think, is the fairest

    1929
    and simplest way of determining when the day has arrived when, as a matter of fact, Ireland is no longer a charge upon the Imperial Exchequer. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield says that the arrival of this day can be evaded by the Irish Government, supposing that they wish to postpone the date. It is improbable, because their ambition will probably be to get larger fiscal freedom. Suppose they should wish to postpone the day, the hon. Member says they can deliberately manufacture a deficit on their own accounts, and fill it up, not from taxes, but from loans. That is an extremely farfetched proposition.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: It is done in Germany.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If it were done, and the Irish Exchequer were to take that course, it would not have the effect the hon. Member suggests, because he speaks as if they will take on the credit side of the account the Irish revenue from taxes only. That is not so, for the Clause of the Bill speaks simply of Irish revenue, and revenue may be from either loan or taxes.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Do you regard loans as revenue?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any sum which goes into the Exchequer for the payment of the services of the year out of borrowed money is certainly revenue.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Where is that provided in the Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know whether it is in the definition, but certainly I am advised by the draftsman that that will be the meaning of the Bill. Here is an Exchequer which has to pay for certain services, costing so many millions a year, and which has to meet the cost of those services from its own resources. Its resources may be obtained from taxes or from Exchequer Bills, or they may be obtained from other sources, borrowed money, for instance.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a loan, for instance, to drain the river Bann would be treated as revenue?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly, the sums that go into the Exchequer in that year from the loans would be revenue for the purposes of this Clause, if they
    1930
    were spent in that year upon Irish services. What else would they be? Would they be non-revenue? Hon. Members speak as if the word "revenue" were synonomous with the word "tax." They cannot find any authority for declaring there can be no revenue of any kind except revenue derived from taxes.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Can the Irish Parliament hasten the day immediately by borrowing enough money to square the accounts, and clear off the deficit at once? I purposely put an extreme case.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Borrow for three years successively! Well, the Irish Parliament would be in a very sad way if they did. The Imperial Parliament here would know what was going on, and would naturally act accordingly. It might conceivably occur, if the Irish Parliament were to take such an unheard-of step as borrowing enough money and transmitting it to the Imperial Exchequer. That is what they would have to do. It would not be for their own purposes—it would not be enough to borrow money and spend it in Ireland for their own purposes: that would make no difference at all to the deficit due to the Imperial Exchequer. They would have to borrow £2,000,000 a year for three years and provide interest and sinking fund and hand it over to the Imperial Exchequer as a free gift in order to bring Clause 26 into operation. Could there be a more impracticable suggestion? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have any doubt as to the minor point as to whether the money could be borrowed by the Irish Parliament to make good the deficit, I shall be very happy to consider it in order to see whether the word "revenue" means only tax or not. I will look that question up, but I confess it never occurred to me that the word "revenue" could be limited to mean "tax" only. Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the point I will look into it further and see whether that requires amendment. [An HON. MRMBER: "The word 'revenue' is not in the Clause."] It is mentioned in our Amendment. I come lastly and briefly to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member which has been the basis of this discussion. He gives another definition of deficit, and suggests that his is better than ours. I will give the Committee three reasons why his Amendment is not acceptable, which I think will bring conviction home to the minds of most Members

    1931
    of the Committee. In the first place, his Amendment says that on the debit side shall be taken into account the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of transfer of the reserved services. In other words, he means that if in the meantime they have taken over, for example, the National Insurance Act, that there shall be charged against the Irish Government in this account which has been presented by the Joint Exchequer Board, the sum which insurance was costing the Imperial Government at the moment when insurance was taken over by the Irish Government. That is his proposal. That will not necessarily bear any relation to the tax. The hon. Member, who is usually so very careful in putting down his Amendments, and who is a conscientious student of any Bill he is criticising, as I have had reason to know for some years, has omitted to notice that in Clause 17, Sub-section (4) where this matter is dealt with, there is this provision:—
    "And in determining that equivalent—"
    that is the sum to be paid from the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer—
    "regard shall be had to the prospect of any increase or decrease in the cost of that service which may be expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration."
    5.0 P.M.
    Take this question of insurance. The cost this year in Ireland is a comparatively small sum, about £200,000. If the Irish Parliament were to take over insurance now they would not be receiving £200,000 a year, but in the course of years the sum would be fixed with regard to the future increase in the cost of insurance, and automatically we know that the cost of insurance will go up. Per contra, if they were taking over old age pensions, the cost is going down, and they would not receive the actual sum which was being paid in the year in which they took it over, but they would receive a sum based upon the cost of old age pensions—the future calculated cost—taking into account causes which are in operation which are not due to administration and which may, for convenience sake, be described as natural causes. Therefore, the Amendment as it stands would not represent the facts at all, and the actual deficit on the Imperial Exchequer might be greater or it might be less than it would be calculated
    1932
    to be if we took the Amendment as the basis of calculation. That is the first reason why the Amendment will not do. Secondly, the Bill provides that there shall be handed over to the Irish Exchequer, year by year, a sum of £200,000—at first £500,000, but the margin gradually reducible to £200,000, at which figure it remains. The Amendment ignores that altogether.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Purposely.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I know, but I do not think it should treat that £200,000 as if it did not exist. Two hundred thousand pounds is the sum which is actually being paid out of the British taxpayer's pocket for the benefit of Irish services, and so long as that sum is being paid, so long there will be a deficit, and the hon. Member, while he has been speaking in the interests of the British taxpayer, is not really safeguarding those interests if he treats that sum of £200,000, which is actually being paid in cash, as if it were non-existent. The third reason is that he does not give the Irish Parliament what we propose to give it under our Amendment, the power to use any surplus they may have in hand to accelerate the day when the deficit is paid off, if they so desire. For these three reasons, and for the other reasons which I have already given, I trust the Committee will accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the Government and not the one now before us.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very charcteristic of the course of our discussions under the procedure the House has been induced to adopt that the right hon. Gentleman only comes to the Amendment which is before the House at the very conclusion of his speech, and like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), almost the whole of his speech, and the whole of that part m which he argued at all seriously upon the question, was devoted not to disposing of the Amendment before the House but to recommending other Amendments. Why? Because in all probability, under the rules under which we work, when that Amendment is put from the Chair there will be no opportunity of saying a word about it and the House will have to vote upon it there and then, and, accordingly, the Postmaster-General evades, for the purposes of the Government, a check which the Government have imposed upon the whole Committee and in what, under any other circumstances, would be a grossly disorderly manner dis-

    1933
    cusses his own Amendment out of its turn because he knows that when his turn comes he will not be allowed to discuss it.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I should like to ask whether it is not merely allowable, but usual, if there are two Amendments on the Paper which are alternatives to one another, as in this case, when we are discussing the first alternative to make reference to the second of the two between which the Committee is asked to choose.
    The CHAIRMAN: I pointed out before the discussion began that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) was one of several alternatives proposed, and it did not seem to be possible to limit the Debate to any one of them at one time. So far the Postmaster-General of course was justified, and that was the reason why I did not interfere with what he said.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I perfectly recognise that for the Postmaster-General to have referred to another Amendment which he will submit to the House later as a better alternative, would have been in accordance with the usual practice of the House, but what the Postmaster-General did was not, in accordance with the usual practice, though I do not say it was not for the convenience of the House that yon, Sir, allowed it to be done. It is only for the convenience of the House, because of the perfectly absurd rules under which we are attempting to discuss this Bill. I thought it worth while to call attention to the course to which the Government were forced by the restrictions which they have put upon debate in this House. I am afraid under the circumstances I must follow the Postmaster-General. In the Amendment which stands in his name I cannot take a very profound interest. I understand that the object of the Postmaster-General in putting that suggestion on the Paper was to give the Irish Parliament, an opportunity, if it wished, of extinguishing the deficit by some special exertion of their own instead of waiting for it to be extinguished by the growth of the Imperial taxes in Ireland and the lapse of many years. What would be the object of the Irish Parliament in hastening that extinction? Are we to suppose that the Irish Parliament will really be so anxious to volunteer a contribution to the Imperial expenses for the defence of the Empire, for instance, or for the maintenance of diplomatic representatives abroad if they were actually
    1934
    to put on new taxes or diminish Irish services for the sole purpose of hastening the day when they might make their contribution. If really either the Postmaster-General or the hon. Member opposite think that is a likely thing for the Irish Parliament to do, they are dwelling in a land of fancy where I think it is quite futile to follow them.
    I am bound to say, however, after listening to the Postmaster-General, that there is one reason for which conceivably they might desire to have this Amendment, and that is in order to take advantage of the very vague words with which the Subsection concludes: "Whenever the balance described in this Section has been reached and maintained for three successive years," then that is to be considered an occasion for securing the proper contribution from the Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. Not only for that, but also for extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes. The Postmaster-General said that when this time came the Irish Parliament would be entitled to claim wider powers in the matter of taxation. I call attention to that phrase because I think it throws rather a sombre light upon what our future is likely to be. These declarations of the intentions of the Government which introduced the Bill are likely to be quoted in future Parliaments as an indication of the obligation of those Parliaments when the circumstances have arisen. Before I make any comment on the wider powers let me ask what the present powers are? I asked the other day for an expression from the Government, for our guidance, as to the principle on which the present financial powers were allotted to the Irish Parliament, and the Solicitor-General, who is always very courteous, very frank, and very direct in his endeavour to meet the arguments addressed from this side of the House, took up my invitation and stated the principle on which the Government have proceeded in perfectly clear language. The principle was that you were to give to Ireland the widest possible control compatible with Imperial interests.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I think I said I thought the principle was to give the Irish Parliament the widest measure of financial discretion which was consistent with Imperial interests and practical working.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Therefore the Committee will see that embodied in the Bill are provisions to give to Ireland the widest possible measure of control over Irish finances compatible with Imperial interests and practical working, but the moment, if ever, when after three years Irish income is balanced by Irish expenditure Ireland is to be entitled to come and claim something more, says the Postmaster-General—a greater liberty in Irish finance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because, in the words of the Solicitor-General, you have already given in this Bill all the liberty that is compatible with Imperial interests and practical working. Therefore, what the Post-in aster-General points to as our future is, that whenever a balance has to be struck under Sub-section (2) of this Clause, Ireland is entitled to come and claim a liberty which is inconsistent with the practical working of our finances or with our Imperial interests. That is a pleasant prospect. That is a hopeful settlement. That is wise statesmanship, is it not, deliberately to march towards that result? Let me say another word. I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) himself quite understood the effect of his own Amendment. The Postmaster-General gave a reading of it which rather surprised me. I should agree with my hon. Friend that under the Amendment the Irish Parliament could delay the day for the resettlement of the financial arrangements by raising money by loans. The Postmaster-General says that is not so, and that money raised by loan is properly revenue. That is an amazing statement to come from a Member of the Government. I do not think it is compatible with our ordinary fiscal vocabulary. We distinguish between Imperial expenditure and expenditure from revenue. During the war, for instance, each year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be asked and would tell the House how much of the expense of the war during the year was met out of revenue and how much was raised by loan, and these two terms are always used in contradistinction, and not as if the one covered the other, and I cannot believe for a moment that the word "revenue" would cover capital raised by way of a loan. I do not think the Postmaster-General was very sure of his own ground even as he spoke. He boldly and baldly stated that money raised by loan was revenue, but afterwards, in a second sentence—I do not know whether accidentally or as a material qualification—he said it
    1936
    was revenue if it was spent within the year. I should be much obliged if he would tell me whether that was an accident to which he attaches no importance or whether he meant that qualification to be one of substance to which he wishes to adhere.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I was dealing with what I regarded as the somewhat impossible case put by the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope), that the Irish Parliament would deliberately have a deficit by increasing their expenditure on education or what-not, and instead of making good that cost by levying more taxes they would borrow money year by year and make up their accounts, and this marginal loan, made each year, would not be taken into account, while, if they raised it by taxes it would be taken into account. My reading of the Amendment is that it says that all Irish revenue is to be taken into account for the purpose of determining what the total receipts are—wThether raised by loans or Exchequer Bills, or anything of that kind. Whether the revenue is raised under taxation would make no difference for the purpose of this particular Clause, I will look into the matter further, and if a drafting Amendment is needed, I will see that the Clause is made clear.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I still do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's position in regard to loans. Does he consider that every loan is revenue, and. if he does, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorse that proposition?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He does not. Anyone who reads the Bill will see that it was obvious they did not intend to include a single loan. Loans were excluded, and they have drawn their Amendment to include loans by accident. The Postmaster-General used that argument without thinking where he was going.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Read the actual Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have read it very carefully. If the Postmaster-General tells me that the Amendment was drawn to exclude loans, it is singularly obscure. If it was their intention to include loans, I think it is wrong, for loans are not revenue, and ought not to be treated as revenue. Take the case which calls for the Postmaster-General to make

    1937
    the modification to which I have alluded. My right hon. Friend said supposing the Irish Parliament raised a loan for the drainage of the Bann or the Shannon. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bann."] We have heard a great deal about the drainage of both rivers in this House, and we are told that these are great, works of importance which an Irish Parliament would carry out, though this House has neglected to do it. Would loans raised for that purpose be included in the revenue of Ireland? I invite the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the answer which the Postmaster-General gave, "Yes, certainly, if spent within the year." Did you ever hear such an absurd statement? To say that whether a loan is to be counted as revenue or not is to depend upon whether it is spent in one year or spread over two or three years is the reductio ad absurdum. I do not think it is possible for the Government to maintain a distinction of that kind. In my opinion it is perfectly ludicrous to treat the produce of a loan as if that were revenue for this or any other purpose, and I doubt gravely whether the Amendment of the Government does that. I think if they really intended to do that they should have made it much more clear. All these provisions turn upon the time—the three successive years in which Irish income shall have equalled Irish expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statements he made on the First Reading of the Bill as to the time when that event was likely to occur. Anybody who listened to the right hon. Gentleman will understand his vexation at having it supposed that he ever said in that speech anything definite on the subject. He said that the various statements he made amounted to no more than this, that when the revenue would be equal to the expenditure the expenditure would be equal to the revenue, and that when this happened in each of three successive years there would be a revision. That was the very cautious and moderate attitude the right hon. Gentleman adopted on the First Reading, and I think it has scarcely been maintained by himself and his Friends in subsequent discussions.
    They have been rather pressing forward this uncertain date, and in order to reassure their English supporters they have professed that the thing was likely to happen in a very short time. The Postmaster-General does not confine himself to the cautious prophecies he made on the
    1938
    First Reading. Only a week or ten days ago he was calculating the increase of Irish revenue in the past, and foreshadowing from that the early arrival of the day when revenue and expenditure would be equal, but he vitiated the whole calculation by omitting to make any allowance for the new taxes which have been imposed in the interval. This accounted for the greater part of the margin of which he spoke. I invite him to obtain from the Treasury a Return showing the amount by which, after making allowance for the new taxation imposed, the Irish revenue, as calculated by the Treasury as nearly as they can, has increased since 1903–4, which was the date he took. I invite him to get from the Treasury and to lay before the House a Return upon which we shall have something better to go upon than the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, which made no allowance for the new taxation, though he did take notice of it in his speech. I do not think that time is likely to occur soon, if you look to that process. I note the boast of the right hon. Gentleman that Irish revenue is steadily increasing and has been for several years. He said that is a tribute to Free Trade. I say it is a tribute to Unionist constructive legislation in Ireland. It is a tribute to the work of the Congested Districts Board established by my right hon. Friend. It is a tribute to the work of land purchase carried on by successive Unionist Ministries and arrested by the present Government. It is a tribute last, but I think not least, to the inevitable and wise action, good counsel and energy of Sir Horace Plunkett, who, it, is curious to note, is, as the reward for his services in that respect, hounded out of office by the future governors of Ireland, and his association is refused by the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
    There is another way in which the balance might be brought about. I really do not quite see what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this matter. I refer to the levying of new Imperial taxes in Ireland. Is this Parliament, or is it not, entitled to levy new Imperial taxation in Ireland after this Bill passes'? The other day I think it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that it was. If, for instance, to-morrow or next year, we had to raise some millions additional for the Navy, we would be perfectly entitled, and it would be the right thing, to spread the new taxes, not only over Great Britain, but over Great

    1939
    Britain and Ireland. Rut the Postmaster-General says that would be so patent an injustice that, though Parliament has the technical power under the Bill, it is unthinkable that anybody would ever exercise it. See how little the Government have thought out their own scheme. See the pitfalls which are in the way.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I said it would be a gross injustice if this Parliament, in order to pay off this deficit in this year or soon afterwards, were to levy heavy taxation in Ireland, but that is a very different matter from saying that it would be an unjust thing to tax Ireland in common with the rest of the United Kingdom for common purposes.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very far from desiring to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept the correction he has made. I understand the position is that this House is entitled, the moment this Bill passes, to include Ireland in any additional taxation which is proposed for England, but the Postmaster-General's qualification is that we are not to levy special taxation in Ireland merely to fill up the deficit.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)indicated assent.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chief Secretary confirms that. Observe, in the first place, that technically this Parliament has the power reserved to it to levy that taxation if it pleases. That is one of the inherent powers of what is called the sovereign Parliament; but the Postmaster-General says it would be patently unjust to exercise your inherent power. What is the value of your supremacy if you cannot exercise it? Suppose we had new taxation for new Imperial expenditure, what effect has that under the Amendment which some Minister is going to move? What effect will that have on the future day contemplated by this Clause? Supposing that next year a new Imperial tax—not necessarily a new tax in itself, but an additional tax—becomes necessary to pay for the Navy, would you extend that to Ireland? What, then, is the position of that taxation in relation to this Clause? Does it count under this Clause at all? Does it come into one side of the account or the other? It cannot come into both. It must come into one, and have an effect upon it or not at all. I should be glad if the Government would explain their intentions in regard to
    1940
    that. I do not know what their intentions are, nor do I know where these intentions are carried out in this Bill. So far as I can see the effect would be to upset their calculations as to the day when the particular balance contemplated in this Bill would arrive. I am sorry I have been led to take a longer time than I intended over details, but they are very important details.
    Before I leave the Amendment I want to say a word upon broad principles which interest me very much more than this or that Amendment, whether the one moved by my hon. Friend or the one to be moved on behalf of the Government later. What is the scheme of the Bill in this respect? It is at the present time that Ireland is to make no contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, but that if for three successive years revenue and expenditure balance, then special Irish representation is to be summoned to this House, and this House is to determine what shall in future be the Irish contribution, and what further power beyond those now given by the Bill shall be given to the Irish Parliament. This is one of the matters in which the Government have deliberately departed from the recommendations of the Primrose Committee. The Committee was appointed, not with a free hand, not with a reference to say whether separate finance was desirable or not, but assuming there was to be Home Rule, what conditions ought to govern the financial relations between the two Governments? And it was solemnly laid down that one of the most important considerations to which they should have regard was the necessity for obtaining finality at once, and leaving no difficult questions unsettled for future determination. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment referred to the case of Austria-Hungary, which was a very favourite case with Mr. Gladstone eighteen years ago. The Postmaster-General lightly swept aside the reference to Mr. Gladstone and Austria-Hungary, because he said that Mr. Gladstone had always explained to the House that the scheme which he proposed to set up was different from the scheme which existed in the cases of Austria and Hungary and Sweden and Norway, and, indeed, from any scheme in existence. I do not refer to those qualifications, for I have not verified all Mr. Gladstone's references, but Mr. Gladstone undoubtedly cited Norway and Sweden to show the unifying effect of Home Rule, and how countries, one of which was always trying to tear itself

    1941
    apart from the other, were entirely reconciled the moment Home Rule was given. Similarly he referred to the Austria-Hungary arrangement as showing that countries which had been engaged in bitter struggles worked easily and harmoniously as soon as the principle of local autonomy was recognised. No doubt the subsequent history of those two countries has not been such as to encourage a belief in Home Rule, and I do not wonder at the anxiety of the Postmaster-General to get rid of it. But would it be believed that the Primrose Committee appointed by this Government to advise them, itself took the illustration of Austria-Hungary to show the danger of a course which, the Government are now deliberately adopting. As the matter is so important, I may ask the permission of the Committee to read a rather lengthy extract from the Report of that Committee. In paragraph 28, page 12, they say:—
    "In making arrangements for any new departure of a complicated kind, there was naturally a temptation to escape from the difficulty of solving embarrassing problems by postponing their solution for a future date."
    How clearly they foresaw the temptation to which the Government would be subjected and to which, unfortunately, they have yielded.
    "Under certain circumstances there may be no other alternative, and always there is the hope that increase of knowledge, or even the mere lapse of time, may eventually aid in the solution."
    As I read this paragraph I seem to hear the speeches of the Postmaster-General in defence of the course of the Government.
    "But in this particular case ii is certain that, however great may be the difficulties encountered in the original settlement, those that will surround revision will he incomparably greater. At the original settlement there can be no parity of status between the parties to the contract. In fact, one of the two Mill not he in corporate existence. It will be merely represented by the individuals of whom it will eventually be composed, and by those who sympathise with them. The other party will he in a position of such preponderating authority that it will practically he able to dictate the terms on which the settlement, must be accepted or the whole enterprise he foregone. At the time of the revision the position will he entirely changed. There will then be two parties each fully clothed with a definite authority constitutionally or legally conferred, and failure to reach agreement will not be susceptible of any such short method of solution as might be resorted to at the original settlement. It follows that it is extremely undesirable to leave open for future determination any questions of a kind that would demand settlement as a condition of the continued working on constitutional lines of the machinery set up in the first instance."
    After some further observations it goes on to illustrate, as I have said, the difficulties of leaving these matters open by the extraordinary position of affairs which continued in Austria-Hungary from 1897 untiltenyearslaterin1907,when
    1942
    the revenue had to be raised, as the Report says, by extra legislation, because no agreement could be come to. The only answer of the Postmaster-General is that he makes a distinction between our future and the past of Austria-Hungary, because it is not left to the two Parliaments to negotiate on equal terms. It is for this Parliament, with an additional contingent of Irishmen, to settle what shall be done whenever the event in question arises. How is that comparable with the right hon. Gentleman's own attitude towards the Bill. He treats this Bill as a treaty, as a bargain or an agreement. He says that there are powers in it reserved to this Parliament which it would be perfectly unjust for this Parliament to exercise. Again and again when we come up to one of these reserved powers that affect the Irish Parliament, Ministers say that they do not expect them to be used, that they ought not to be used, and that nothing but extreme necessity would justify them being used. How are you going, with an Irish Parliament in existence, having made a preliminary agreement with that Parliament, to force new taxation on Ireland? You had better, as the Primrose Committee says, face these difficulties while you have a position of unmistakable preponderance. Once you have set up the other Parliament in Dublin you cannot ignore it. You cannot legislate in this Parliament without regard to the feeling of the Dublin Parliament. You have to bargain, to contrive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is exactly what those hon. Members want. We all know what hon. Members below the Gangway want. That is their view of the Act. Once they have got this Parliament, once they have got this plant of revolution, you have put into their hands the weapons by which they can extort more. Then, in that case, there is an end of the pretence that this Parliament remains supreme, and you have admitted that the action of the Government destroys the finality of the settlement and the supremacy of this Parliament.
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope that the Committee will excuse me for intervening, but the right hon. Gentleman made a reference to something which I said in an earlier Debate, and I trust that I may be allowed to deal with it. Before referring to it, I will deal shortly with the point which the right hon. Gentleman has last made. The matter is fresh in the recollection of all of us, and I do not think that I misrepresent

    1943
    the right lion. Gentleman when I say that he called attention to the Report of the Primrose Committee with the view of urging that it is wrong for us in this Bill to leave such a question as the future contribution of the Irish Parliament and the Irish people for Imperial purposes to be settled or discussed hereafter.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question whether there should be any.
    Sir J. SIMON: There follows from that the question whether or not the contribution should be of such and such a character. I quite recognise that we on this side of the House are open to the criticism that in some respects we have not precisely followed the recommendations of the Primrose Committee. If the Primrose Committee's Report is going to be used, and used on this topic, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that it is used as a whole. May I call attention to the exact facts here? The right hon. Gentleman quoted an extract—I do not complain, because it was elaborately quoted—from pages 12 and 13 of the Committee's Report. It occurs in the course of a review and criticism of the second scheme, or the Bill of 1893. I turn over to page 16, and I find a passage which certainly bears on this matter, and to which I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I find in the middle of page 16 this extract: they are now going to deal, not with the criticism of some past scheme, but with what they regard as a practical and definite thing to be done now: and in the paragraph, headed "Irish Contribution to Imperial Expenditure." I find:—
    "The local expenditure of Ireland already exceeds her local revenue and it could not be contemplated that, in making arrangements for granting her political automony, she should be saddled with liabilities that would impose on the Irish Government the obligation to make an increase in taxation its first legislative measure. This being so, it seems to us that it would not be wise to endeavour at this stage to define the standard by which eventually the measure of Ireland contribution to the common expenditure of the revenue should be fixed."
    And they go on in the next sentence:—
    "The data on which a scheme would have to be framed would almost certainly be largely obsolete by the lime when it could be brought into operation. For thin reason we do not propose to make any recommendation as to the character or the extent of future Irish contributions."
    And yet we are criticised on the basis of the Primrose Committee's Report because we do not adopt the course which they say is not wise. They continue:—
    "At the same time we are of opinion that in the contemplated settlement there should be an emphatic
    1944
    assertion of the principle that when able Ireland should bear a properly proportioned share of the common expenses of the country as a whole."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that we are all agreed about that. I turn to the Bill for a moment now to show what the Bill says about it. In order that we shall not be told that the passage which I have read is a mere incidental passage not essential to the Report, I may further call attention to the recommendations which appear on page 28. In the summary of conclusions and recommendations they deal with the very topic which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking about, the question whether or not in the circumstances it is desirable that we shall fix clearly now that there shall be a contribution and what it should be, and the second of the recommendations which they make in their summary of conclusions on page 28 is:—
    "We recommend that the obligation of Ireland to contribute to the general expenditure of the realm be affirmed, but that a settlement of the amount of the contribution be allowed to remain in abeyance."
    What can any hon. Member who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman gather, but that the Primrose Committee urged the Government here and now to fix the amount of the Imperial contribution, whereas what happened is, that they have gone into the matter and have pointed out the criticisms which may very fairly be made with respect to the second scheme of 1893, and they then say, "In spite of all that and in view of the fact that the Irish revenue to-day is not as large as the Irish local expenditure, we do not find ourselves able to recommend that there should be any fixed Irish Imperial contribution, but we think that that is a matter which might be, and ought to be, left to be dealt with in the future." That is what our Clause here provides. Now let us see whether the Clause does not do that very thing, substantially, which the Primrose Committee recommend. Clause 26 is certainly open to the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman has urged, that it is postponing to a future day a problem which probably at all times will involve a great deal of discussion between Ireland and England. He is entitled to make that point, and I think that he has made it perfectly fairly. But he seems to think that the Primrose Committee supports his view. Clause 26 proceeds upon this, that as things are to-day, the true revenue that comes from Ireland, though no doubt it is not known precisely, yet none the less it is less than the expenditure in Ireland.

    1945
    It then proceeds to say, that being so, there must be left for revision and re-setlement hereafter what may be the proper contribution of the Irish revenue towards the common expenditure in the United Kingdom. That is laid down in Sub-section (2) of Clause 26. It does not take a single year, because you might have abnormal circumstances in a single year which would not justify the revision of arrangements which we are now seeking to make, or the setting up of a new fiscal arrangement to come into operation. The Clause does not take the case of one year, it takes the case of three years, and if you allow for the change proposed in this Clause the formula comes to be this: On the one side you will have the total Imperial revenue in Ireland, the total sum of money which is properly to be regarded as paid by Ireland in respect of Imperial taxes. In the second place you will have the total of the Irish revenue. If you add together the total Imperial revenue from Ireland and the total Irish revenue, you have got the total which you are to put on the one side to compare with the total expenditure on the other.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmade some observations which were inaudible.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that I do not mean to forget it, but I am simply stating the formula. Clause 26 provides that we shall ascertain in each year, as we go along, the total Imperial revenue from Ireland, and add it to the total Irish revenue, to see whether or not the two added together are indeed equal to the cost of the reserved services for which the Imperial Parliament assumes the responsibility, and the cost of the Irish services for which the Irish Parliament is responsible. And when you find that the true revenue of Ireland, which involves these different elements, is in excess of the true expenditure of Ireland for three years running, that, on being ascertained by the Joint Exchequer Board, is reported accordingly under Sub-section (2), which reads as follows:—
    "The presentation of such a report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom, and extending the powers of
    1946
    the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes."
    On that two questions arise, both of which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the course of his speech, and one of which pointed particularly to myself. Let me deal with the first one. It cannot be too generally understood and too definitely stated that the view which we take of this Bill is not that it is going henceforward to disentitle the Imperial Parliament to tax Ireland, it by no means contemplates, because Home Rule is established under this Bill, that henceforward the proposals made from this box year by year by the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer will be proposals which will not affect the people that live in Ireland. They will be Irish taxpayers no doubt, but that is no reason why they should not come under the scheme of taxation settled by this House, to which they will continue to send, a substantial number of representatives. There may be cases where there may be reason for a different treatment. I am not laying down, and I think it would be very unwise to lay down—probably the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree with me that it would be very imprudent and wrong to do so—what the cases are which will fall on one side or the other. But it is very important that there should be no misunderstanding, and certainly it is not within our contemplation that the circumstance of this Home Rule Bill coming into operation, should, in itself, disentitle the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, not as a matter of technicality, but as a matter of substance, from laying before the Imperial House of Commons proposals which involve taxing of the Irish people, supposing the general purposes of the country require additional revenue. The citizens of Ireland and the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole will send representatives here, and the Irish people certainly are not, in our view, entitled to come here and say, "We claim that while the Imperial Parliament have got technical authority over us, the circumstance that we have got self-government under the Home Rule Bill in itself disentitles the Chancellor of the Exchequer from modifying the general taxing arrangements so far as we are concerned."
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he also proposes that there may be a reduction of Imperial taxation?
    Sir J. SIMON: I was going to show that while that is so, of course the Irish people are entitled to have the benefit as well as the disadvantages of their connection with the Imperial Parliament, and, unless there be some special reason to the contrary, I should have thought that it was in the highest degree unfair that, while on the one hand we are claiming to exercise a financial control over Ireland which might involve the raising of Imperial taxes in Ireland, it should be suggested that we are disentitled to give them the advantage of reducing taxation. No doubt every case will have to be dealt with on its merits. I lay down no absolute rule to govern every case at all, and my only concern is that I should put in the plainest language, or at all events in language as plain as I can make it, the fact that it is not contemplated by us, in promoting this measure, that it will be on a basis which would put the Irish people altogether out of the region of the operation of Imperial taxation. There is an obvious reason for that. Amongst other things there is this, that the Irish people are sending their representatives—a smaller number it is true—to this House, and the circumstance that those representatives are sent here—and we think must be sent here as long as this scheme continues—is in itself proof that of course they as well as we, who come from England, Scotland, or Wales, have got an interest in the taxation of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that it will be unjust if the Irish were not to benefit by the reduction in Imperial taxation while the deficit continues?
    Sir J. SIMON: I carefully guarded myself from laying down any hard and fast rule, because I say that each case will have to be judged by its circumstances; but neither as regards the increase of Imperial taxation nor the reduction of Imperial taxation is it to be assumed as a matter of course that Ireland is outside the arrangement made by this House. That is the proposition I make.
    Mr. CASSEL: On what principle do you act?
    Sir J. SIMON: The House and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Air. Austen Chamberlain) will judge and will agree that it certainly is not desirable that a junior Member of the Ministry should make any more definite declaration than that, and I am not going to do it. The
    1948
    right hon. Gentleman reminded me that one day last week I used a phrase as to the review of financial relations. He quoted my words:—
    "The view which we have adopted and have endeavoured to apply in drafting the Financial Clauses of the Bill, is that we should give to this Irish subordinate Parliament as wide powers of finance as appear to be consistent, with Imperial convenience, the fair claims of Great Britain, and practical working."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1912, cols, 911 and 912.]
    The right hon. Gentleman reminded me that this is the basis on which Imperial financial arrangements are to come into-operation, and that it is already the high-water mark to which we can go. The right hon. Gentleman criticised Clause 26, and said, "If all these considerations are to be given full effect to in the financial arrangements proposed for immediate application, are you not going hereafter, under Clause 26, to commit yourselves to what is inconsistent with Imperial convenience, the fair claims of Great Britain, and practical working?" If the right hon. Gentleman can make that point good, it would indeed be very material, but I think he misconceives the situation, at any rate as we understand it The practical working and fair claims of Great Britain may involve a restriction of arrangements as long as we are dealing with a deficit, which certainly would no longer be required when we get revenue sufficient from Ireland to more than pay her own expenses. When Ireland makes a contribution in hard cash towards Imperial purposes it may very well be consistent with Imperial convenience and practical working to give her a larger measure of fiscal freedom than in existing circumstances.
    6.0 P.M.
    One of the very things which is mentioned in Clause 26 as a topic for reconsideration is the collection of taxes. As long as Ireland is in the position in which she stands to-day we have insisted that it should be the Imperial authority that collects the taxes. No other arrangement could be possible in view of the fact that the Irish true revenue is not equivalent to the Irish expenditure: and if the Irish were going to collect their own revenue under a slack collection or a friendly collection, you might very easily aggravate the present-situation without justification. But when Ireland has reached a position of financial stability, in which she has for three years running shown a balance on the right side, when, after consideration in this Parliament, we find that it is possible to secure a proper contribution from Irish revenues to the

    1949
    common expenditure of the United Kingdom, the reason which now justifies us in saying that we will keep the collection of taxes in our own hands, may be largely diminished, if it does not utterly disappear. I do not discuss in any way how Clause 26, if brought into operation, would be used by the Imperial Parliament, when that time comes. I am not attempting to do that; I am offering no comment about it; I am giving no undertaking about it; but I would point out that it by no means follows that the restrictions which are to be put upon the fiscal independence of Ireland, under the existing circumstances, will remain the same when Ireland puts herself in the position where she is making till Imperial contribution and putting herself in a condition of things where we can no longer fairly insist on equally stringent conditions as in the past. These Financial Clauses were drawn with a view to giving Irishmen the fullest fiscal freedom consistent with Imperial interests and practical working, without qualification one way or the other, when Ireland has shown herself capable of paying her own way and capable of making a proper contribution. Therefore, while I trust and believe that Imperial considerations and considerations of fair play to Great Britain and considerations of practical working will always guide our deliberations in financial limitations, I do think it may very well be found that those same considerations will produce a different degree of fiscal independence and judgment when the occasion contemplated under Clause 26 arises as compared with the relations which now exist.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Hon. Gentleman give a specific answer to the question which I put, namely, what would be the position if next year or the year after the passing of the Home Rule Bill the Government had to raise, let us say, half a million more from Ireland towards the Navy? How would that affect the coming of the day when under this Clause the revenue and expenditure in Ireland would balance?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think I answered the question by implication, but it is better to answer it in plain terms. By Clause 26, as it is drawn, and as it is intended to apply, the proceeds of Imperial taxes in Ireland would certainly include the proceeds, it may be, of some future Imperial tax in Ireland, whatever be the purpose or the special occasion that calls for it. The comment which may very well be in the
    1950
    right hon. Gentleman's mind is that, after all, that sudden raising of an additional sun of money does not in itself justify the claim that we are approaching nearer to the happy future adumbrated in Clause 26. That is met in this way. It is only if this thing happens for the three years that the Joint Exchequer Board reports at all. If it does report, it will then be for this Imperial Parliament to determine what is right to be done under the circumstances. Certainly, we could not exclude from the calculation certain Imperial taxes, and therefore the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, whether it is satisfactory or not, certainly it is intended to include that in calculating the proceeds of Imperial taxes in Ireland. I am sorry I should have detained the Committee so long, but I think those are the answers to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put. I do respectfully submit that we are abundantly justified in saying that this Clause is a Clause which we think necessary.
    Mr. CASSEL: The Solicitor-General in his speech has not made his point quite as clear as he generally does. He complained that I addressed a question to him which he, as a junior Member of the Ministry, was not able to answer.
    Sir J. SIMON: I did not intend to do so.
    Mr. CASSEL: I asked whether there was any principle at all by which the Imperial Parliament should be guided in the future.
    Sir J. SIMON: What I intended to say was that I do not think it is wise for us here, speaking from this box, whoever he may be, to lay down in advance precisely what, are the circumstances under which this House will and precisely what are the circumstances under which this House will not seek to include Ireland in changes of Imperial taxation.
    Mr. CASSEL: I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say that. Our complaint is that we do not get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us of the principle in this matter. He has not said a single word yet in this Debate, and I do not know whether he intends at a later stage to enlighten us upon the matter. I asked was there any principle in the future to guide the Imperial Parliament in its relation to taxes in Ireland. Supposing that expenditure on Imperial defence increases, is Ireland to bear its share of that future increase of taxation? We do not know. Assume that it is and that additional taxation is imposed on Ireland, and the result

    1951
    of that will be to wipe out this deficit and bring nearer the day when Parliament has to deal with revision. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Parliament, when that occurs, may do whatever it pleases in the matter. Ireland is to make a proper contribution to Imperial services, but the additional tax which is imposed upon Ireland by reason of the increase of expenditure, say, on the Navy, will not be a contribution to Imperial services, but will simply tend to wipe out the deficit, and therefore will only be a contribution towards its own contribution until the deficit is gone, so that the result of the additional increase of Imperial taxation imposed on Ireland will be to bring still further taxation on the country. I do not know whether that is intended or not, or whether that is the principle upon which the Government intend the future Chancellor of the Exchequer to be guided, but whether it is the intention or not it seems to me to be the result of the Bill. Assume, on the other hand, that the expenditure on the Navy diminishes, possibly by better relations with other Powers, or for other reasons, and that in consequence of that you are able to reduce taxation, is Ireland going to have the benefit of that reduction? Why should she when she contributes nothing at all to Imperial expenditure? I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer that question.
    Supposing that as a result of the reduction of expenditure on the Navy we were able to take off the Sugar Duty, would it be taken off in Ireland as well? The result of doing so would be to increase the deficit and postpone the day when Ireland had to make an Imperial contribution. Surely such an arrangement is absurd on the face of it. Before this House can be asked even under the guillotine to give its assent to such a proposal we are entitled to have some explanation from the right "hon. Gentleman who is supposed to be the guardian of the finances of this country. Suppose that there is some reorganisation of the taxes of this country. I believe there are as many as 180 Gentlemen opposite who say that all our present taxes on food, those on tea and sugar, ought to be abolished, and that a tax on the capital value of land ought to be put in their place. I see that that has the assent of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Supposing such a reorganisation as that were carried out, would that apply to Ireland
    1952
    as well or would it not? Can we have any sort of principle by which we are to form any idea as to whether that would be done? Suppose that did apply to Ireland the result might be enormously to diminish the deficit or to wipe it out, nobody can tell for certain. If you do not apply that to Ireland, and if you took off the duties on sugar and tea in England and Scotland alone, you will have that very result of a difference in the taxes in those duties between the two countries which seventy hon. Gentlemen were so strongly objecting to the other day when they induced the Government to alter the whole scheme of the Bill. Whether the Irish Government have an inducement to make the day come when the deficit is to be wiped out depends on what chance they have of getting increased powers.
    On that question it is very important to look at the words of Sub-section (2), because it is the increase of power in respect of the imposition and collection of taxes. The precise words are important, for the reason that this will be no ordinary Act of Parliament. For the moment I must digress and refer to Sub-section (3), which bears on my argument as to Sub-section (2). This will be an Act of Parliament not passed by Members of Parliament, but by Members of Parliament and persons who are deemed to be Members of Parliament, but who are not Members of Parliament. Whenever such an Act of Parliament comes before the Courts, the Courts will have to look and see whether it is precisely within the terms of Sub-section (2). For that reason they would have to say that anything which authorised the reduction of Imperial taxes by the Irish Parliament would be ultra vires. When the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the powers which could be increased, the only specific suggestion he could make was that the Irish Parliament could be given the power of collecting their own taxes. He did not mention a single tax which they could either impose or reduce. I assume that the great desire to have the power of collection will be somewhat diminished by the fact that, with the actual power of collecting, will also go the privilege of paying the cost of that collection. I do think it is very important that we should have from the Government a clear understanding of what kind of taxes they think the Irish Parliament could be empowered to impose under this Clause, because I think the Solicitor-General was right when

    1953
    he said we have gone to the limit of what we can give consistently with the interests of the United Kingdom.
    Sir J. SIMON: Under present conditions.
    Mr. CASSEL: And under altered conditions, and I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why. So far as independent taxes are concerned we have given absolutely free power, there is no limit what ever. So far as Income Tax is concerned, there is a limit upon their power, because they cannot vary the rates. The hon. And learned Gentleman explained the reason, namely, because we collect the Income Tax at the source, that is how I understood him. I suppose even when Irish expenditure and revenue balance—
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the whole Clause now?
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not object to what he said about Sub-section (3), but he cannot go back on the question of policy which we dealt with. That can only be brought in here as affecting the question of the retarding and accelerating of the time of revision.
    Sir E. CARSON: Having regard to the speech of the Solicitor-General, in which he said that his previous observation would not apply to the altered circumstances, is not my hon. Friend entitled to follow that up and to show why it could not be affected by the altered circumstances?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Solicitor-General was replying to something said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. The hon. Member for St. Pancras was getting away from the purpose of our immediate discussion.
    Mr. CASSEL: I was dealing with the Solicitor-General's statement that in the altered circumstances there might be taxes which the Irish Parliament could impose without interfering with the convenience or interest of the United Kingdom as a whole; and I was trying to point out that there were really no extended powers that could be given. If you tell me that I am not entitled to point that out, I must obey your ruling, but I submit that it places us in a position of great difficulty. I was going to take the main taxes seriatim. In the first place, with regard to independent taxes, the Irish Parliament
    1954
    already have full power. With regard to other taxes, the only restriction upon the Income Tax is the 10 per cent, limit and the restriction with regard to the rate. The restriction with regard to the rate is imposed, I understand, and I entirely agree, by reason of the fact that Income Tax is collected at the source; and it is absolutely inconsistent with the collection of Income Tax at the source that you should have different rates in different parts of the United Kingdom. Are we going to give up collecting Income Tax at the source when the happy day of revision arrives?
    The CHAIRMAN: This is clearly going back to the argument on preceding Clauses. In so far as it is a question affecting the retarding or acceleration of the time of revision, it is permissible; but it is certainly not in order to have an argument on the merits of the future powers which may be given when the Clause comes into operation.
    Mr. CASSEL: I was dealing with the question as it affects the retarding or the acceleration of the day of revision in this sense: Whether the Irish Parliament will have a stimulus to accelerate or to retard the day will depend on what they will get when the day arrives. I submit with some certainty that under this Clause there is really no additional power of any value which, consistent with the interests of the United Kingdom, could be given to the Irish Parliament, and because there is no such power there will be no stimulus or inducement to the Irish Parliament to endeavour to make that day arrive. Are you going to increase the powers of the Irish Parliament to deal with Customs and Excise! Hon. Members opposite have been saying that the powers already given in that respect go as far as the interests of the United Kingdom can possibly allow. We have even been told that the only reason why there is a variation in this Bill from the arrangement in every federation of not having Customs and Excise under the federal Parliament is the fact that there is a deficit. When the deficit is wiped out, are you going to leave Customs and Excise to the federal Parliament? Hon. Members for Ireland think that they are going to get greater powers of dealing with Customs and Excise. I think they will be very much mistaken. It is a misleading and unfair provision to put into an Act of Parliament, because it holds out

    1955
    hopes and suggestions which the Government know very well they cannot carry out. They know that they cannot give any increased powers of imposing taxes over and above those that they have already given in the Bill. That will be the case just as much when the deficit has been wiped out as it is to-day.
    The Solicitor-General omitted to deal with one point with which I expected he would have dealt, and that was whether the word "revenue" included borrowed money. That appears to me to be a matter of legal interpretation. I was surprised to hear it even suggested that revenue included borrowed money. If I were describing my own revenue I certainly should not include anything that I had borrowed, nor do I think that any Government in the world has ever included it until to-day. It would have been interesting to have heard the views of the Solicitor-General upon that question of legal interpretation, and also whether capital expenditures were included in the cost of Irish services. It seems to me that the persons who will really have to determine whether or not revenue includes borrowed money will be the Joint Exchequer Board—the five accountants, as they were described by my right hon. Friend—who major may not as they please, refer the question to the Privy Council. That brings me to the whole position of the Exchequer Board in connection with the period when the deficit is wiped out.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: What about the Amendment?
    Mr. CASSEL: We were specially allowed by the Chairman latitude to deal with the whole question. It seems as if my observations were getting home on the other side, as hon. Members are so anxious to prevent my making them. Let me remind them that under the guillotine procedure we shall probably not be able to reach any of the other Amendments. I am entitled to point out, therefore, that the period when this revision is to take place is left extremely vague and very much in the power of an arbitrary Board. This Board is not even bound year by year to make a Report on the position. As the Bill stands, there may one morning be found a registered letter in the letter-box of the Lord Lieutenant, and a Report may be presented to this House, saying that it appears to the Board that Irish revenue and expenditure have balanced for three
    1956
    years. That is all the Bill provides for. No reasons may be given. There is no opportunity of testing the facts or the figures upon which the decision of the Board may have been based. It is true that the Board itself has an opportunity of going to the Court.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is really abusing the liberty that I have tried to grant. He is travelling, not only over this Clause, but over half a dozen other Clauses, some of which have already been passed, and others of which we have to pass on subsequent days. May I ask him to keep strictly to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield?
    Mr. CASSEL: I am trying to deal with the power of the Board, under the Clause as it stands, of determining when the period of revision has arrived. If I am not entitled to deal with that, I can say nothing further upon it. My submission is that (he matter is left so indefinite, and so much in the power of the Exchequer Board, that there is really no opportunity for anyone who wishes to do so to challenge any of the facts on which the Exchequer Board bases its decision. If I am not in order in pursuing that argument, let me say that so far as the alternatives of the Bill and the Amendment of the Postmaster-General are concerned, I prefer the Amendment. I do not know whether I am entitled to speak on the Postmaster-General's Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: As an alternative.
    Mr. CASSEL: As an alternative I prefer it to the Bill. So far as it goes it is an improvement, but how it will work out in practice I am at a loss to understand without further explanation. I do not know how the period is to be fixed or what opportunities there will be of checking it. Moreover, I do not know how you are going to work it out in the event of there being a surplus arising from the fact that the Irish Parliament have effected economies while the Imperial Exchequer still pays the whole Transferred Sum. Perhaps at some later period the Chancellor of the Exchequer or another Member of the Government will tell us what is going to happen with regard to that surplus. As to the Amendment, the Clause including the Amendment simply leaves the matter in a vague, nebulous, and hopeless state of chaos.
    Sir HARRY SAMUEL: We have had an extraordinary Debate, and one which

    1957
    points out the extreme hardship under which we who are entrusted with the care of the interests of the British taxpayer are suffering under the present system of Guillotine Closure. I understand that under the latitude which you have allowed us we have three courses before us: the original course proposed in the Bill, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), now adopted by the Government, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. It seems to me that the whole result of the Debate has been to give us a definition of terms, or an expression of intentions, which the Government have not been able clearly to set forth in the language of their Bill. Under these circumstances, seeing that there is only one hour left before the guillotine falls, we are placed in a position of great difficulty and anxiety. I cannot help feeling that the thing the Government desire least is that exhausive Debate in this House should be able to inform clearly the British taxpayers of the difficulty under which they will be placed and the onus that will fall upon them if this Bill becomes law. The Clause under discussion is one of infinite importance to the British taxpayers, because it deals with the moment at which a revision of the financial arrangements established by this Bill between the United Kingdom and Ireland shall be undertaken. Until that time arrives, whenever it may be, the gravest problems are left over for consideration, and the taxpayers of Great Britain are placed, as far as the chances of a settlement being favourable to them are concerned, in a far worse position than if a final arrangement were, made now. We have had pointed out to us to-day two aspects for consideration from the Primrose Committee. When my right hon. Friend spoke on thy particular points made by the Primrose Committee, he was answered by the Solicitor-General. I do not think there is any doubt, if you read the whole report, that a desire was expressed that if an equitable arrangement were to be arrived at between this country and Ireland, it should be made as definite as possible. I do not for one moment believe that anything in the nature of a definite arrangement can possibly be arrived at under this Bill.
    Let us consider for a moment what a revision involves. Ireland will have to make a substantial contribution to Imperial services, whenever a revision takes
    1958
    place. But whenever it does take place, she will have her own Parliament and her own Executive. Things then will be infinitely more equal so far as Ireland is concerned and between this country and Ireland. Therefore, she will be undoubtedly in a position of negotiating with considerable force and power to obtain a revision which will be favourable to her. I do not think there is much doubt that one of the terms she is likely to ask—and her power will largely consist of the power of the forty-two men who will represent her in this House—a very great power and one which we are denied in anything we may desire to do with regard to arrangements in Ireland—the terms she is likely to ask, I do not think there is much doubt, from what we know of the past, will be fiscal autonomy. Not only with regard to foreign nations, but against this country. Undoubtedly I think we shall have to give her far more under those circumstances than we really otherwise should do.
    When can this revison come? There have been different estimates advanced as to when it can take place. I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Waterford, estimated it at something about ten years. The Postmaster-General's observations were couched in more general terms, and he put it from ten to twenty years. He does not give us the smallest idea of it coming in the near future. I do not think that if I were to say thirty years or thereabouts would be the likely period before we can arrive at any final determination that I should be guilty in any way or shape of exaggeration. One thing I would press home en this Committee is that during all this long period the, British taxpayer will have the Irish deficit and that Ireland will not be contributing one single penny to Imperial services. We should neglect our duty as English Members if we did not endeavour by all means in our power, not only to press home that injustice upon all shades and sections of opinion of this Committee, but also to endeavour to try and to get our people's voices heard outside this House in order that the British taxpayer may be warned—and I hope effectively warned—and may understand—and I hope completely understand—the lot that is destined for him if this Bill becomes law. The difficulties are largely increased by this adoption by the Government at this very late hour of an Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. I think the hon. Member himself has told us that the difficulty he

    1959
    experienced was that the more he endeavoured to explain the intricacies of these financial arrangements, the more difficulty he found the whole thing becoming to him. If that is so—and no doubt the hon. Member had the advantage of some help and assistance from His Majesty's Government in this matter—what must it be in the case of humble Members on these benches who endeavour to discover the period! If originally these huge intricacies troubled him, what must it be at this moment when he finds himself confronted with an absolute change?
    Let us look at the Government's original scheme. It proposed that the revision should take place when in three successive years the proceeds of Imperial taxes and Irish taxes, together with Ireland's share of the micellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom, exceeded the Transferred Sum and the cost of the reserved services. We must recollect that the transferred services under Section 14 consist of three different things: Firstly, the cost of the transferred services; secondly, the Irish taxes; and thirdly, the subsidy. We can neglect altogether the question of Irish taxes in this matter. The proceeds of Irish taxation can have no effect in determining the period when revision can take place. The sums paid on the transferred services are a fixed amount. The cost on the reserved services and the Imperial taxes alone are variable. The rise or fall in the cost of the reserved services under the Government's original scheme would delay or expedite the time for the revision. A fall, I think, is most unlikely, and the deficit could only be extinguished when the Imperial taxes should have increased by this amount. What happens now that the Government have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton? Though there seems to be a considerable amount of doubt in the various remarks we have heard from both sides of the House, I think the Amendment would give far more power to the Irish Parliament than it would have under the original scheme. I believe myself that it gives the Irish Parliament power either to expedite the revision or to delay it. Economies in the transferred services, and the Irish share in miscellaneous revenue, will tend to shorten the time which will elapse before revision takes place. So, if economies are possible and desired by the Irish Parliament, the Amendment will enable them to
    1960
    hasten the period of revision. If revision is not desired—and recollect it carries Imperial contributions with it—the taking up of Imperial contributions once again, and one can imagine without any very great difficulty that the Irish Parliament might not feel particularly anxious on that account to obtain revision—then, in my opinion, if those economies cannot be effected, or if there is no desire to effect them, the date of revision undoubtedly can be retarded. It gives very large powers to the Irish Executive. It might well suit Ireland—and once again I do put forward this plea—but there is no certainty that that which suits the Irish Executive at the same time will suit the interests of the British taxpayer.
    The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield does put something definitely forward. In the original scheme of the Government it was three years, and three years with equally good financial results. That seems to me to be a very high level. One knows how difficult it is in the matter of sport, say, to win a challenge cup for three consecutive years. Therefore in our small way we can realise the extreme difficulty for the Irish Financial Executive always to provide us with what I may call the high-water mark of successful revenue. I plead for simplicity. Simplicity is a thing we ought to desire very much in view of the difficulties of explanation we have heard this afternoon, and the difficulty of understanding what the different Members of the Government really mean by the expressions they have used; the difficulty of understanding precisely the terms in which these things are couched—that difficulty is so great that I venture to plead, at all events, for simplicity, and for the Amendment which it is my pleasure to support.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: In answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down may I point out on behalf of the English Members that there is another side to the shield, and that it is not altogether a question of taxation. Just let me give the hon. Member one or two facts. Is he aware, for example, that something like £77,000,000 has been invested in land purchase by this country in Ireland. Surely, in the interests of the English Members, and in the interests of the English investors—as a large part of that capital comes through Great Britain advancing money for land purchase—this country should treat Ireland very generously. Even from

    1961
    the financial point of view it behoves us to be very careful as to the adjustment and allocation of the taxes, and to give Ireland every opportunity to prosper. In the interests of Ireland whose lenders are the people of Great Britain we should do so too. I would ask the hon. Member to put his thoughts round, and not to be consumed with the sole idea of doing all he can for the English taxpayer. If there is any default on the part of Ireland the British taxpayer would have to pay it. It is in the interests of the English Members and of great Britain generally to see to it that Ireland is generously treated, apart from the higher interests of doing what we think to be right.
    The hon. Gentleman who last sat down repeated what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for St. Pancras, who repeatedly asked a question of the Government, and addressed it more particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is just possible that the Chancellor may reply to the hon. Member, but perhaps I may venture to give a reply. He asked us repeatedly what was the principle that would be applied in drawing up the taxes either on the part of the Imperial Treasury or on the part of the Irish Treasury. I think a very good answer to that is that the principles which surely will actuate the Government or any British Chancellor of the Exchequer would be those of common sense! The Chancellor in drawing up his Budget will, I think, have regard to the taxes already existing in Ireland, and if there should be a somewhat similar measure of self-government extended to Scotland or Wales the Chancellor would study the several parts and adjust his taxes accordingly, so that they will fall on those best suited to bear them. Ireland thus will be treated in accordance with the state of the existing Irish finances. To try to divide and lay down definite rides for the Irish or the British Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to defeat the object which the hon. Member has in view. We are not just now going to Budget for Ireland. We are trying to frame a Constitution for her. It is not a question as to whether this or that tax is a good tax The duty of hon. Members is to give powers, as the Solicitor-General so well said, in accordance with what is possible to Ireland and compatible with Imperial interests and practical working. I should like to add a few words to what fell from the Solicitor-General with regard to the point as to what con-
    1962
    stitutes practical working. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire referred to that very point, and I interrupted him. I am sorry for having interrupted him and stopped the flow of his eloquence, but my point was that until the revision should come about, and this deficit should be got rid of, that that in itself would be eloquent proof that it was necessary to again look into the powers given to Ireland. Naturally the hope is held out, as is stated very specifically in the Clause, of the possibility of the powers being extended when that time came. I assume the "practical working" will then come into our consideration as it does now.
    If I understood the Solicitor-General when he made that statement the thought that he had in mind—very wisely as a statesman—was the state of feeling existing in this country to-day, and undoubtedly the fact that there are a number of Members on this side who are a little afraid of the possibility of Ireland being drawn away into Protectionist theories, and attempting to draw up a tariff against this country In the solution that is arrived at now let us take that into account in settling what are to be the powers that Ireland is to have. I for one believe, as I have said already, that we are not drawing up an Irish Budget. We are drawing up a Constitution. We must give a certain amount of chances. I for one have confidence in the Irish people, for I think they are not going to do anything foolish or excessive.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is falling into the same course which a while ago I had to deflect, and that is discussing what might happen if this Clause at some future date is put into operation. Let us now keep to the financial point of the Amendment.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I am sorry, Mr. Whitley, that I was drawn away somewhat widely from the Amendment, immediately before us; but, as I have said, my point is that the criticisms surely must have regard to the fact that unless you give wide powers, you cannot expect Ireland either to do very well or very badly. Ireland must have an opportunity of managing her finances either one way or the other. You cannot cripple her or confine her too minutely. There has been another point raised this afternoon of considerable importance, and laid stress upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). He

    1963
    made a great deal of capital with regard to the statement made by the Postmaster-General as to what constitutes true revenue, and said the right hon. Gentleman said that loans in any circumstances could not be regarded as revenue. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to misrepresent the Postmaster-General, because I do not for a moment believe that the Postmaster-General contended that loans, as such, should be regarded as revenue. As I understood him he meant surely that it was the effect upon the revenue produced by loan. We all know, for example, that should Ireland enter into considerable loan transactions, that unquestionably would affect the revenue of Ireland. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) knows well that if Ireland were to engage in considerable borrowing operations, that unquestionably would swell the revenue of Ireland for the time being.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I will answer the lion. Gentleman on that if I get an opportunity.
    Mr. D. MASON: I hope the hon. Baronet will agree as far as that is concerned. It is the annual expenditure we are dealing with and what would take place in the event of Ireland borrowing loans. Hon. Members know that if Ireland were to borrow from this country for the purpose of public works, that would entail large expenditure of money in Ireland. It would probably mean an increase of the imports of this country into Ireland, all going to swell the revenue, and therefore should Ireland engage in the wild game of borrowing, that unquestionably for the time being would swell the revenue of Ireland, and might indeed bring about a state of affairs enabling her to balance her accounts. Of course, it would increase her capital liabilities; but everyone knows that wild borrowing on the part of Ireland would unquestionably tend to swell the revenue of Ireland for the time being, and might temporarily bring about the state of affairs to which the Postmaster-General referred. But I do not think that the Postmaster-General intended to argue as the right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to make out, that loans were regarded as in any sense of the word revenue as such. I think the Clause as drawn is much better than the Amendment, because, as pointed out, the idea of giving three years is surely a much better
    1964
    system of arriving at what is the true condition and the financial conditions of the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament. You may have in one year this deficit wiped out, but you will not have conditions which would justify you in bringing about this revision contemplated in the Clause, whereas if you get it in a succession of three years you are justified in dealing with these things, and adjusting the relations between the Irish and the Imperial Parliament; and it is because I believe that there is a fair way of dealing with the matter that I think it ought to commend itself to anyone taking a temperate view of the situation.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Although I have, listened with attention to most of the speeches made opposite I own there are points of really great importance which I am unable to understand, either in the old plan of the Government or in the new plan. The new plan in which the Government want to embody the alternative of the hon. Member for Northampton, I take it, is the one which we must suppose will be in operation when the Bill becomes law, if it ever does. The right hon. Gentleman who defended the proposals of the Government in that shape, made what I thought was at the moment a slip with regard to the use of the word "revenue," but which I gather was not a slip, but is a vital part of the case of the Government. The case of the Government is that the Irish Parliament cannot by any means in their power affect the happy day on which there is to be an equalisation between the two Exchequers. It is perfectly clear that they cannot affect that day if the money derived from loans is, as every human being, until the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, supposed it was not to be counted as revenue, but to be counted in the nature of capital expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman. I believe, quoted in support of his view the opinion of the draftsman, that money derived from loans was really revenue. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had the smallest right to quote the draftsman. It is never done. The office of the draftsman is an office which every Government consults on some occasions, and we are not going on this side of the House to discuss the draftsman's competence to give a legal opinion. I have consulted my legal Friends on this side who are quite able to give an opinion, and they declare that this use of the word "revenue," which the Government has adopted, is not only absolutely contrary to ordinary

    1965
    practice, as every human being knows, but is not the meaning of the word any lawyer would recommend or any Court of Law would sustain. I am sorry that the learned Solicitor-General, who made an elaborate speech earlier in the afternoon, and who, as my lion, and learned Friend behind me said was as perfectly competent as any Member of the Front Bench opposite to answer this point, left it entirely upon one side. It is really not simply a question of the use or the misuse of the word "revenue," but it directly affects what is apparently a critical point in the Government policy as to whether this House should not have some power over the day, the happy day, which is to arrive, and that the Irish Parliament should not be entitled to delay, as they could, if loans are revenue. I should very much like to know whether the right lion. Gentleman opposite, after consulting his legal friends, still thinks that when a country borrows money, what it gets through these loans is to be counted as part of its true revenue.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right lion. Gentleman asks me a question. Of course the word "revenue" by itself may bear the meaning the right lion. Gentleman says. But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the context in which it is used in this case. The Clause will read:
    "Aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland … and the total proceeds of Irish taxes 'and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services.'"
    Therefore it is clearly receipts which are other than taxed receipts. That might conceivably mean only such receipts as from the Post Office, which are non-tax revenue; but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that taken in that context the word "revenue" might well include the kind of revenue the hon. Member has in mind, namely, when the Government finds itself with the deficit of a million to make good, it might borrow Exchequer Bills to make good the deficit towards the ordinary expenditure of the year. It is merely a verbal question, and in no degree vital; and I would gladly put in a drafting Amendment to make quite clear what is the intention.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that with sc many things to do, we need not waste time over a discussion on words. But is there not something besides words When the Gov-
    1966
    ernment put down a Clause or an Amendment, using language for revenue, it is on the interpretation of the word "revenue" there that the power of the Irish House of Commons to deal with the happy day really depends. The right hon. Gentleman says that by implication the meaning of the word "revenue" must include taxation. He knows perfectly well that not merely the Post Office, but many other sources of annual income may come into the Exchequer which are revenue, and not taxes, but are not the proceeds of loans, and when the right hon. Gentleman attempts to make this clear, in what sense is he ready to make it clear? Is it to define revenue as meaning the proceeds of loans or that it does not mean the proceeds of loans. Can he tell me that?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The sort of Amendment that I may move is something to this effect: Instead of using the word "revenue," I might use the words "money made available for Irish services" or "normal Irish expenditure of the year," or words to that effect. Supposing in one year the Irish Government raises a loan of £2,000,000 to be expended over a number of years, we must devise such words as would exclude a case of that sort.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman now proposes at some stage so to settle the words of his Amendment that the proceeds of the loans shall not count as revenue—or that they shall.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Bonâ fide loans!
    Mr. BALFOUR: I really only want to know what it does, and as to whether the proceeds of a loan count as revenue or not. What is the difference between bonâ fide and mala fide loans—I will take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's epithet. Do the proceeds of a bonâ fide loan count as revenue in the intentions of the Government?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have endeavoured to make clear the intentions of the Government. You are dealing on one side with the annual expenditure for the year. On the other side of the account you have to deal with the money available for that annual expenditure. If the Joint Exchequer Board find that for the services of that-particular year the expenditure of that particular year is over the amount of expenditure raised from

    1967
    taxes they have to put on the debit side the sum of money as raised through taxes and the margin from loans, and they would include that. If the money is not intended to be expended on the normal annual expenditure of the year, it will not be included.
    Mr. BALFOUR: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it is the intention as to the use to be made of the money.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The use made of it in the year.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALFOUR: If the use made of the money is to meet the ordinary expenses of the year, then it is quite clear that by borrowing and spending money in that way the Irish Government can alter the period of revision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I quite recognise that perhaps through my fault in cross-examining the Postmaster-General, the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to drive into my dull brain the reals views of the Government on this question. I must leave it to abler hands and to a clearer expounder to solve the problem, the bottom of which I have vainly attempted to reach. May I come to some other questions in which I hope I shall meet with more success? One of the objects everybody is apparently looking forward to when the happy day arrives is that Ireland should contribute towards the probable expenditure of the United Kingdom. It is upon that point that I want clearly and concisely from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is our position in regard to Ireland. I understand there are two possibilities, and, as far as I can see, only two. We may say that we regard Ireland, so long as there is a deficit, as having no further obligation towards Imperial defence than she now has, and therefore any taxation put on for Imperial purposes will have to be borne by England and Scotland. The other point is to say that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom under the supreme authority of this House, and, therefore, when we have got to put on additional taxation for Imperial purposes Ireland must be taxed and pay her share of that taxation. I understand from the nod of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is the second of those alternatives the Government are going to put forward. I do not see that Ireland is going to pay any additional contribution after the
    1968
    happy day than she does before, because I understand that she will have to pay her full quota of any new taxation for Imperial purposes. What are these proper contributions which she is going to begin to pay after the happy day? How do they differ from the improper contributions she is going to be asked for before the happy day? I think that is a very definite question to which a clear answer should be given. I have a sincere desire to find out what the policy of the Government is on this point, because, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, it seems to me that the contention put forward is wholly inconsistent with the general tenour of the Bill. I hope, before we divide at 7.30, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make this point perfectly clear. I want to know what the different condition of Ireland will be before and after the happy day respectively in proportion to any new taxation placed upon England and Scotland by this House, and raised by this House, for the purposes of general Imperial defence? That is a question to which I hope we shall get a definite and clear answer.
    The whole purpose of the Amendment moved by the Postmaster-General was to give Ireland an opportunity of gaining certain privileges with regard to her own taxation at an earlier date than she otherwise might do. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) gave the first explanation on behalf of the Government Amendment, and he prefaced his, speech by saying it was impossible not to foresee that Ireland would require much greater autonomy in the matter of taxation than she now possesses, and it was in order to give Ireland that greater autonomy that he and the Government desired to have placed upon the Paper an Amendment to enable Ireland to achieve this object. What are those advantages which Ireland is going to have? What kind of additional freedom in dealing with Irish taxation does Ireland want? Is it greater freedom in dealing with Customs? Is Ireland to have a larger power of managing the Customs House barrier which this Bill sets up between England and Scotland on the one side and Ireland on the other? If it is not that, is it greater freedom for the Post Office or is it greater power over the Income Tax? Remember that on these points the Government have always taken up an attitude which absolutely precludes them from giving any explanation except that which they have had to admit under

    1969
    pressure from their own side—namely, that this question of managing the Customs is a difficult and a delicate one, and they have actually diminished the powers which the Bill originally gave to the Irish Parliament over the Customs and over the Post Office. Therefore in two particulars which have nothing whatever to do with the appointed day, the Government have said that the original liberties given by this Bill were too large. Are they going to be increased after the appointed day? A similar question may be asked with regard to the Income Tax. The arguments put forward by the Government show that the Income Tax cannot be entrusted to an Irish Parliament. This has nothing to do with the Irish deficit. Are you going to give greater liberties in regard to the Income Tax after the appointed day than are given now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The happy day.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment talked about the great motives the Irish Government have to hasten the happy day, and the opportunities by which they can reach the happy day, and I want to know what great things are going to occur, what are these great liberties, and what are the things which the eighty Members who will come here are going to get out of us. I cannot imagine a picture of what the new state of things is going to be. I hope on that point also we shall have quite a definite answer from the Government. There remains one and only one point on which the powers may be extended, and that is the collection of taxes. Again, the taxes which the Trish Government will presumably collect, after the happy day are largely Imperial taxes. I think this afternoon somebody got up—I think it was the Postmaster-General—and told us that you could not trust the Irish Parliament to collect Imperial taxes, because if they were slack the Irish taxpayers would gain whereas the Scotch and the English taxpayers would lose. I do not see how you would be better off after the appointed day as regards the collection of taxes. Those are the three questions or groups of questions on which I desire to have an answer. I am not going to ask any more the question whether the proceeds of a loan are revenue or not, because I am quite, sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with the Postmaster-General on that point, and I should be sorry to put him in the embarrassing
    1970
    position of having to use his well-known powers of rhetoric denouncing one of his colleagues, but I will ask him to consent to answer the other two sets of questions I have put to him. The first is, what will be the difference in Ireland's position as regards Imperial expenditure for Imperial purposes, such as additions to the Fleet? What is the difference between Ireland's position before and after the happy day, seeing that she has in respect of the happy day to contribute her fair share, and before the happy day the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to see that she contributes her fair share. The second question is the one I have been dilating upon, namely, what is the sort of freedom which is supposed to be the sole desire of Ireland to have, which she so much wants to have, and which it is said it is so important she should have with regard to her powers over the collection and the raising of revenue? Those are two quite clear groups of questions, and I earnestly trust before we divide at 7.30 we shall listen to the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope he will tell us exactly what the Government plan is in framing this Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know it is a very dangerous thing to take part in a debate which one has only heard part of. I am sorry to say that, owing to a deputation I have been receiving, I was not present to hear the whole of the Debate, although I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and a good part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has absolved me from any obligation to answer the first question upon the amiable suggestion that he would not like to see one colleague denouncing another. May I suggest another reason? The right hon. Gentleman argued the case, and on a point like this, as he generally does, he came to the conclusion that it was a thoroughly bad point. I know the right hon. Gentleman so well that I thought I could see the exact moment that he discovered it was a bad point. On such occasions it is customary for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I won't put the right hon. Gentleman to the trouble of answering that point," although I do not think he will admit it. Now I come to the other points, and I will endeavour to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman asked, what is the

    1971
    difference between the position of Ireland before the appointed day or the happy day and the position after the happy day? I do not see any distinction between the two because they are both happy days. From the first moment of the introduction of this Bill, or even before its introduction, I do not think that we have ever departed from the position that Ireland will be liable to a share of any burdens that are cast upon the United Kingdom, as a whole, for any Imperial purposes.
    Let us take, first of all, an instance of a fresh burden to be imposed. I will take the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. Let us assume there is a naval crisis, and it is necessary to raise an additional sum by means of taxation. That burden will be borne by the United Kingdom. What will be the position of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer then? The position would be this. He would levy a tax which would extend over the whole of the United Kingdom to meet an absolutely new emergency. Let us suppose he puts an additional twopence on the Income Tax to meet a great naval crisis; not only would he be in a position after the appointed day to make that charge over the whole of the United Kingdom, but I think it would be his obvious duty to do so. It would be a charge that ought to be borne by the whole of the United Kingdom. That is my view with regard to that question. I do not think there will be any difference so far as the general Imperial burden or obligation is concerned after the passing of the Home Rule Bill from the position which obtains at the present time. If it was a charge with respect to some burden for the benefit of Great Britain alone, some charge, for instance, for a social scheme which was purely for the benefit of England. Scotland, and Wales, then I should consider it a distinct breach of faith to put a charge on Ireland for something in the benefit of which she did not participate unless there was some Grant to Ireland equivalent to the benefit conferred upon Great Britain. That is my answer to the first question put by the right hon Gentleman.
    Mr. BALFOUR: What do these words mean, "With a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues"?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I understood to be the second point; I was coming
    1972
    to that next. Then the right hon. Gentleman said: "What difference is there between the time before the happy day and the time after the happy day?" The difference is this. I am presupposing a contribution for a new Imperial burden; but let us assume there is no new Imperial burden at all after the happy day. If the prosperity of Ireland is such that she wipes off the deficit, then Ireland will be called upon to make her contribution, and can be made to contribute, towards Imperial expenditure, although there is no fresh burden for Imperial purposes. That is the difference. Take another alternative. The deficit now is £2,000,000. Supposing new taxation is imposed and Ireland's share of that new taxation is £500,000, It is true Great Britain gets £500,000 a year from Ireland she was not getting before, but, after all, it only reduces the deficit. You might, after the happy day, have Ireland so prosperous that she wiped off all the deficit. Ireland could then be called upon to contribute without any additional Imperial burden at all. That is the difference; that is a real difference. We have always presupposed Ireland would pay her share of the burden of the United Kingdom for Imperial purposes. The only reason she is not doing so is one which has absolutely nothing to do with Home Rule. She is not contributing now. The cost of Irish services themselves produces a deficit. That has nothing to do with Home Rule. As a matter of fact, if you have no Home Rule, that deficit in our judgment will increase. There is no contribution now from Ireland for Imperial purposes. What has been our position? We say that under Home Rule, and for other reasons into which I need rot enter now, Ireland will increase in prosperity; her revenue will become greater, and gradually she will work off this deficit without the imposition of fresh taxation. The moment that happens, we feel Ireland ought to contribute her share of the Imperial burden, and that is when this readjustment takes places. That is the difference between the two positions. I hope I have made it clear to the right lion. Gentleman, but, if not, I am perfectly prepared to answer any further questions.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the third point of my right hon. Friend about the object for which the Irish Parliament wants greater freedom, and for that reason I did not dream he was coming to the end of his speech. I would like to look at the speech

    1973
    to which we have just listened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by saying my right hon. Friend had discovered it was a bad point. He did not accept his explanation and I expected he would immediately set my right hon. Friend right, but evidently he had discovered that though the point was bad the answer was worse. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us the information on Saturday that occasionally he strolls into the House while we are engaged in the Home Rule Debate. That is very condescending of him. We are very grateful. I do not think he could have selected a worse day on which to honour us with his presence than the day on which we are discussing this Clause 26. In my opinion, it is a perfectly useless Clause, and it has absolutely no meaning in any shape or form. The right hon. Gentleman said he had met the point made by my right hon. Friend. That point was this: "What is the difference between the contribution Ireland will make to Imperial expenditure before this Clause comes into operation and after it comes into operation?" Consider what the position is before it comes into operation. Any tax imposed on Great Britain for the purpose of an Imperial service of any kind falls automatically on Ireland. She is going to be taxed if we have to spend more money on the Navy or for any other purpose just as if the Home Rule Bill had not passed. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes, but when the time comes and the deficit is wiped out by the increased yield of taxation, then that moment she ought to make a contribution; she is contributing nothing now, because there is a deficit." The rate of taxation for these purposes is to be the same in Ireland as in England before as after the happy day. If they have got rid of their deficit, they have got rid of it by paying precisely the same taxes for Imperial purposes as are paid by England or Scotland. The moment the deficit is got rid of, they will give their contribution in the same way as England and Scotland gives it, by paying the same taxes, and the amount will go naturally into the Imperial Exchequer.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the other side of the arrangement which is to be made, namely, that the Irish people are in future to have control of a larger sphere of finance. They need not be paying the same taxes.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming some great change is to be made between the two countries. When that time conies it is to be made for the sake of getting Ireland's contribution for Imperial purposes, but it is quite obvious without any change you do get a contribution precisely in the same way from Ireland as from England. I do believe neither of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite has ever thought out what their Bill means. I am convinced everyone thought when this Bill was introduced—certainly the speeches of the Prime Minister and of everyone else on the Second Reading led us to suppose—that what the Government were doing was to stereotype the existing financial relations between Ireland and England. They saw Ireland was not paying her way, that we were giving her a contribution to enable her to pay her way, and that until she paid her way she was to have no additional burdens thrown upon her. That was how I understood the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "For Imperial purposes."] What is the object of it otherwise? If you are going to tax Ireland after Home Rule precisely as before for Imperial purposes, what is the use of saying she has a deficit? The deficit will be wiped away the moment you put on new taxes, and the whole thing is in your own hands. I am sure that is obvious to every Member in the House, or at any rate to everyone who has thought anything about it. Let me deal with Clause 26, or the first part of it, which we are at liberty to discuss under this Amendment. What is the meaning of it? It is to give a revision when the deficit is wiped out. Surely it is obvious, if you set up a Parliament in Ireland which is controlling the internal affairs of Ireland and you have a Parliament in this country, then, whatever the nominal powers of the Imperial Parliament may be, you cannot make financial arrangements without the consent of the Irish Parliament. Is not that obvious? Yon cannot have the Parliament there and all their representatives here saying, "We object to the arrangements you are making, and insist on some other arrangements." If that is the fact, what is the use of all this elaborate machinery? It has got to be done by agreement between the two Parliaments, and there is not the slightest use or object in having this Clause 28.
    There is another point I should like to put. It is a matter of detail. The Postmaster-General says the Irish Parlia-

    1975
    ment would have no power to defer the day. I admit this is technical, but I think he is wrong. Under the Bill as it stands that is true, because the period will only arrive as the result of the growth of Imperial taxes, but, as I understand it, the difference the Amendment makes is that the whole of the Irish revenue and expenditure is to be taken into account, and not until the whle balances, or as soon as the whole balances, is this Clause 26 to come into operation. If that is so, is it not perfectly obvious the Irish Parliament can defer it for ever by increasing her expenditure on Irish services? If they find they are coming near the time when they would have the power to contribute to Imperial expenditure, they might say, "We can afford more on education," or "We can afford to give more bounties to establish industries in Ireland." They will never allow it to come so long as it is to
    their interest the money should be spent in Ireland instead of coming to England. In the same way we can prevent it when we like. Both parties can prevent it. What is the object of the Clause? It only has one object. It is part of the make-belief which characterises the Bill from beginning to end. Its one object is to make people in England and Scotland believe the Government are going to insist on a contribution from Ireland, and, on the other hand, to enable hon. Members from Ireland to say, "We will never make a contribution until we choose, and we will never choose as long as we can spend the money in Ireland."
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'levied' ['Imperial taxes levied'] stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 372.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Adamson, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hackett, John

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Crooks, William

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Armitage, Robert

    Cullinan, John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple)

    De Forest, Baron

    Hayward, Evan

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Delany, William

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Barton, W.

    Dillon, John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Doris, W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bentham, G. J.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hinds, John

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hodge, John

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Boland, John Pius

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Falconer, J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Brace, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ffrench, Peter

    John, Edward Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Field, William

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Burns, Rt. Hon, John

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Gill, A. H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ginnell, L.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Keating, Matthew

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Goldstone, Frank

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    King, J.

    Clough, William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

    Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Leach, Charles

    Ogden, Fred

    Short, Edward

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Grady, James

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lewis, Herbert

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    O'Malley, William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lundon, T.

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Shee, James John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    McGhee, Richard

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sutton, John E.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Tennant, Harold John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Thomas, James Henry

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    M'Kean, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wadsworth, J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Martin, Joseph

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Primrose, Hon, Neil James

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Meagher, Michael

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Waring, Walter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Molloy, M.

    Reddy, Michael

    Watt, Henry A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Webb, H.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Redmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Munro, R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Winfrey, Richard

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Rowlands, James

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Young, William (Perth, E.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Campion, W. R.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Ashley, W. W.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Baird, J. L.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cassel, Felix

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Forster, Henry William

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lon.)

    Cave, George

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Barnston, Harry

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chambers, James

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Grant, James Augustus

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Gretton, John

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Bird, A.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Blair, Reginald

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Boyton, J.

    Croft, H. P.

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    1978

    1979

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Hills, John Waller

    Moore, William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Swift, Rigby

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Nield, Herbert

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Kerry, Earl of

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Touche, George Alexander

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Lewisham, viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Winterton, Earl

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Royds, Edmund

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Rutherford. Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent. S. Augustine's)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Fell and Mr. Hewins

    Malcolm, Ian

    It being Half-past Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Government Amendment: In Subsection (1), after the word "taxes" ["the total proceeds of the Irish taxes"], insert the words "and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 373.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

    Adamson, William

    Brace, William

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Dawes, J. A.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    De Forest, Baron

    Armitage, Robert

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Delany, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Dillon, John

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Doris, W.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Duffy, William J.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Clancy, J. Joseph

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Clough, William

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Barton, W.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Falconer, J.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Ffrench, Peter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Crooks, William

    Field, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Crumley, Patrick

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cullinan, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Ginnell, L.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Kean, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Goldstone, Frank

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Greenwood, Granville (Peterborough)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Robinson, Sidney

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roch, Walter F.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Martin, Joseph

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Rowlands, James

    Hackett, J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Molloy, M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Sheehy, David

    Harvey W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Shortt, Edward

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Muldoon, John

    Snowden, P.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Munro, R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Henderson, J. M, (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hinds, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hushes, S. L.

    Ogden, Fred

    Wadsworth, J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Grady, James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Malley, William

    Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Waring, Walter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shee, James John

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Watt, Henry A.

    Keating, M.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Webb, H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    King, J.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Leach, Charles

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Lundon, T.

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Radford, G. H.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    MacGhee, Richard

    Reddy, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Barnston, Harry

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Baird, J. L.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Bird, A.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Blair, Reginald

    1982

    1983

    Boscawen, sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Boyton, James

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Campbell, Fit. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Cator, John

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Royds, Edmund

    Cave, George

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Chaloner, Col. Ft. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Chambers, James

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kerry, Earl of

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Swift, Rigby

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Croft, H. P.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Fell, Arthur

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Fleming, Valentine

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Malcolm, Ian

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Goldman, C. S.

    Moore, William

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Grant, J. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gretton, John

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Younger, Sir George

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

    Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne, Sussex)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Hickman and Mr. Brassey.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Further Government Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "amount of the Transferred Sum," and insert the words, "total cost of Irish services."—[Mr. Birrell]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 374]

    AYES.

    [7.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Actand, Francis Dyke

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Adamson, William

    Beck, Arthur

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bentham, G. J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Armitage, Robert

    Black, Arthur W.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Arnold, Sydney

    Boland, John Pius

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clough, William

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Brace, William

    Compton-Rickett, Hon. Sir J.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barnes, George N.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cotton, William Francis

    Barran, sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Barton, W.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Crooks, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Keating, Matthew

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sip J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    King, Joseph

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

    Reddy, Michael

    De Forest, Baron

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Dillon, John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Albion Peckham

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Doris, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Falconer, J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowlands, James

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Kean, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ffrench, Peter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Field, William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sheehy, David

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gill, A. H.

    Martin, Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Snowden, Philip

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Molloy, Michael

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Griffith, Ellis James

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sutton, John E.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Mooney, John J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morrell, Philip

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hackett, J.

    Morison, Hector

    Thomas, James Henry

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Munro, Robert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wadsworth, John

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Waring, Walter

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Ogden, Fred

    Webb, H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Grady, James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Hodge, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shee, James John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hudson, Walter

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Winfrey, Richard

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    1986

    1987

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nield, Herbert

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goldman, C. S.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Grant, J. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, H.

    Gretton, John

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Royds, Edmund

    Bird, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Blair, Reginald

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boyton, James

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hills, John Waller

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Lancs., Ormskirk)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Home, E. Surrey (Guildford)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cator, John

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Chambers, James

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Winterton, Earl

    Croft, Henry Page

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Younger, Sir George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Moore, William

    Ronald M'Neill and Mr. Neville.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move to omit Subsection (3).
    The effect of the Sub-section is that for the purpose of revising the financial provisions of the Bill there shall be summoned to this House a certain number of Members of the Irish House of Commons. There are certain questions which at once arise on this Sub-section. I think no one will say that it is clearly expressed. The first point is: How are these Members to be chosen? There is no guidance in the
    1988
    Clause itself. Are they to be chosen entirely by the Irish House of Commons—that is, by the Irish Government of the day—and, if so, are they to be chosen on any principle at all? For instance, the position will be this: There will be in this House at that time probably some forty-two Irish Members. Under this Clause there must be summoned to this House sufficient additional Members to make the Irish representation proportionate to the population. Taking the fair Irish representation to be some sixty-six Members,

    1989
    this would mean that twenty-four additional Irish Members are to be sent here from the Irish House of Commons for this purpose. Are these to be entirely chosen by the majority in the Irish House? If so, it is very likely that they will all belong to one political party. Whereas, it may be, until that time the different parts of Ireland will be represented here in proportion to their Members, from that time there will be no such fair representation, and we should have a predominant number of Irish Members belonging to one party. There is no provision at all for the representation of minorities in Ireland among these additional Members. That is the first point I would like to make, and I should have thought the Bill might give us some guidance and lay down some principle in that respect. The Bill of 1886 expressly provided that additional Members might come to the House when it was proposed to alter the Act, and that they should be chosen one from each constituency, and in cases where the constituency had more than one Member, two from each constituency. There is no such provision in this Bill, but it is left purposely vague, and I do not see how the Privy Council will be bound, or indeed will have the power to make provision for the representation of minorities.
    The second point that arises on this Sub-section is this. What will be the effect of this invasion of additional Irish Members upon the position of the Government of the day? Take this hypothesis, which might easily be true. Suppose the Government of the day has a small majority—something like twenty Members. On all home matters, and on all Imperial matters, it would have a sufficient majority to carry its proposals. Here you are going to get, for this one purpose, something between twenty or thirty additional Members from Ireland. It may well be that they would be enough to turn the scale, and while the Government of the day were strong enough to carry their proposals on home and Imperial matters, they would find themselves on this question of Irish finance to be in a minority. What is to happen to a Government which finds itself in a minority? Are they to give way or are they to resign, and in the latter case would not the result be that this invasion of extra Members for the one purpose must upset the whole tenour of the Government of this country and the proceedings of this House? It seems to me that if that kind
    1990
    of thing is possible, there would be a very serious temptation to the dominant party of the day to make terms with the Irish Members—indeed, to make any terms which they would accept, and to give them too good terms, and so bring about injury to the country as a whole. I do not think one need impute to the Government of that day any greater measure of political sin than that which Governments have been found to possess, and it is highly likely, if the Irishmen are here with a vote of between sixty and seventy in all, that the Government will feel disposed rather than imperil their own existence, to give to Ireland terms better than, according to fair and right principles, Ireland ought to have. That question of the effect of this addition of Irish Members upon the Government of the day, and the position of affairs in this House, ought to receive some consideration.
    Another point on which we should like an explanation is this. When this proposed revision of the financial relations of the two countries has been made, apparently the extra Irishmen are to go back and to go back for good. Does that mean that when once finance has been revised it has been fixed for all time? Is it never to be revised again? If it is not to be revised again the House is placed in a rather serious position because circumstances may alter and the finances may require revision. On the other hand, if it is to be revised again why is no provision made in this Bill for bringing again the same deputation over here to perform the same process? It is pretty obvious that if they ought to be here the first time the matter is dealt with they ought to have a chance of coming here on every subsequent occasion when the finances of the two countries are under consideration. It seems to me that the very fact that this provision is made in the Bill throws a good deal of light upon the fairness of the Bill as a whole. This Clause provides that Ireland shall be represented, for one purpose only, in proportion to her population. If that is a fair mode of dealing with Ireland why does not the same principle obtain with regard to any alteration of this Bill or any matter which affects the position of Ireland? And yet during the next few years this House will be in the position of imposing taxa-on Ireland, Ireland only having a representation of forty-two. We shall be in a position if we think fit, as we are told, of revising this Bill and of passing measures

    1991
    overriding the decisions of the Irish Parliament, and during all that time the Irish representation will consist of the forty-two Members only. But the moment we come to touch what, after all, is a minor matter, the financial relations of the two countries, then for the first time Ireland is to have its fair representation according to numbers. One may add this. If that is a fair representation for Ireland—some sixty-six Members, or thereabouts—how is it that we are to-day dealing with a measure of this tremendous importance, the Home Rule Bill itself with 103 Irish Members here, far more according to the admission implied in this Clause than Ireland is really entitled to? The mere fact that the Government themselves, when they come to deal with the question in their own Bill, reduce the representation of Ireland as compared with that of to-day, shows that they are conscious that to-day Ireland is over represented and in this matter of Home Rule a measure of redistribution ought in ordinary fairness to have preceded the introduction of this Bill.
    These considerations need to be answered, and we ought to have an explanation and a defence of the Clause. Indeed, this provision shows the confusion which underlies the whole Bill, and especially its provisions for representation. The simple fact is that the Government are endeavouring to ride two horses. What they ought to have done, and what is the proper and scientific thing to do, would be to form at once a federal Parliament in which, to begin with, Ireland and Great Britain should be separately represented in proportion to their population or in some other fair and proper proportion. If we had done that, and if we should afterwards have a measure of Home Rule for other parts of the Kingdom, it would have been quite a simple process to divide the British representation into members from each part of the Kingdom, whether they be three or four or a dozen, each part having its own proportional representation in a federal Parliament. If you had done that there would be no need whatever to make this extraordinary provision for the special purpose of the revision of finance. We should have had from the beginning a local Parliament for each country and a federal Parliament dealing without change with matters of this kind which affect the Kingdom as a whole. You would have no
    1992
    need to have this kind of in-and-out Clause if you had dealt with the matter on scientific principles from the beginning. But the Government, may be because they are hardly industrious enough to deal with the matter scientifically, or may be because they have some other inducement which prevents them from doing so, propose this confused arrangement which requires these extraordinary provisions. If it is not possible to deal with the matter in that, which I believe to be the scientific way, at least this particular question of financial representation might have been dealt with upon a better basis than that which you find in the Bill. Why is it not possible, when this question of financial revision arises, to form, at all events, some kind of federal committee to which might be sent proportionate numbers of experts from one country and from the other, who might, as a federal committee, representing the whole Kingdom in fair proportions, deal with this matter upon proper financial lines. That, at all events, would have been a possible way, and I think a more practicable way, of dealing with the matter than that which is proposed in the Bill I see so many objections to the proposal in the Bill that I can not think it has had fair and proper consideration. I think we in this House are entitled to an explanation of the points that arise, and in order to elicit that explanation I beg to move the omission of the Sub-section.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I bog to second the Amendment. Whatever may be said as to proposals made in the past, I do not think this proposal, at any rate, was ever before the electors of the country either in this Bill or in any other Bill dealing with the Home Rule question. My hon. and learned Friend has reminded the Committee that in Mr. Gladstone's Bill certain provisions were made for the reinforcement of the Irish Members at any time when any great alteration in the Home Rule Act, as it would have been if passed, would have been proposed. This Sub-section is reminiscent of nothing except those in-and-out Clauses which were so disastrous in the Bill of 1893 to Mr. Gladstone's Government, and to the Home Rule Bill in particular. The Bill of 1886 proposed that the reinforcement should come over, at any rate, representing somebody. It was to represent the Irish constituencies, but for that proposal there is substituted now—I do not see the reason why, and we shall be very grateful if the Government would

    1993
    give us information on this point—this Order in Council by which twenty or thirty Irish Members, or whatever the number may be, are to come over to represent their position ad hoc as representatives for the time being in the British House of Commons. I associate myself with what has fallen from the Mover of the Amendment, that we should know who is to determine this representation that is to come over. I think it is important that the obscurity resting on this Sub-section should be cleared up, in order to enlighten two sets of people, namely, the English majority in the House of Commons and m the country, and also the Irish minority in Ireland. I think the British majority here in England may have reason to complain, when they know what the proposals of the Government are, that by some finesse in Budgetting, or by some variation in taxation, the Irish Parliament may postpone the evil day when they will come to the House of Commons and ask that the British subsidy shall cease.
    During all that time they will be prolonging the period when the British taxpayers of our own country will be paying in full the subsidy which will fall very heavily on them. During that time, which is long enough now, and which may be prolonged by such arrangements as some Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland may make, we shall have no representatives over in the Irish Parliament to criticise the Budgetting of which we might complain, or the variations in taxation to which we might take exception. I think we have a right as the British majority, or the English majority who are against Home Rule, to get a definite statement as to the composition of this reinforcing Irish brigade which is coming across the Channel when the financial provisions are to come under consideration. I think, also, the Irish minority have a definite right to have from the Government here and now, not only the declaration of a passing opinion, but what would correspond to a statutory enactment that they shall be fully represented in the delegation which is to come over from the Irish Parliament. I think, considering the enormous proportion of taxation which that Irish minority pays, it is the least they could expect or ask for at the beginning. It seems to us quite intolerable that they whose voices after the passing of this Bill, if it ever should pass, will be in the proportion of eight to thirty-four, should stand the mere risk, owing to
    1994
    the idleness of the Government through not putting some provision in the Bill by which an addition of twenty or thirty Nationalist Members would come over to discuss this question of the revision of finance, which certainly will, until eight years have passed, fall more heavily upon the shoulders of our Irish Unionist friends in Ireland than on any others in that country. Why should this in-and-out Clause be confined to finance only? There may be some good reason, which we shall hear from the Treasury Bench, why it should be for finance only, and only for certain aspects of the financial position.
    If, for instance, a great War Tax were to be put on the United Kingdom, it would fall equally heavily, I take it, upon Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. For that there is to be no change in the representation at all. If you take an extreme case, and it should be suggested that the Act should be repealed, supposing it were quite impossible to carry on the government of the United Kingdom with a Parliament here and a Parliament in Ireland, there is to be no reinforcement of Irish Members in this House to discuss the proposition. And yet it is only for the revision of the financial burden to be borne on the other side of St George's Channel that this extra number of Irish Members are to be asked to come here. But perhaps the guiding principle which led the Government to put that in the Bill will be explained to us by the Postmaster-General or the Chief Secretary I think it will be admitted in all parts of the House that, as things point now, in future there will be much smaller majorities in this House than has been the case from the beginning of this century. I think the majorities cither of Unionists or Liberals will be fifty or sixty, whichever party comes into power, and then they will be brought up against the difficulty indicated by my hon. and learned friend, namely, if the votes of these ad hoc British Parliamentarians be combined with the votes of the Opposition of the day and swamp the votes of the Government party, what attitude is the Government then going to take? Is the Government going to treat the matter, if beaten on some financial resolution proposed in the British House of Commons, as a snap Division and rescind the whole matter and begin again as if the defeat had never taken place? Or is it going to resign, as hitherto has generally been the case, and put the whole of Great Britain to the ferment and trouble of a General Election? What we want to

    1995
    know is not only what this Sub-section really means, but what is at the back of the heads of the Government. Suppose this should occur, which is very likely, that the Members who are brought over from Ireland to discuss financial relations should combine with the Opposition in overturning the proposals of the Government of the day. We must not forget that this Bill if it means anything is meant to be the model sealed pattern for more Parliaments, three or four Parliaments in the United Kingdom. Imagine the confusion there will be when Welsh ad hoc Members or Scotch ad hoc Members turn up to reinforce their colleagues on these benches. The result will be that the tenure of office of a Government at that time will be more insecure than at present, and the administration of the whole Empire, which is a far greater thing than the fate of any particular Government, will be at the mercy of a handful of politicians who come from one portion of the United Kingdom. This whole Sub-section seems to me to be wrapt in such obscure language in itself and also to contain within it so many possibilities which occur to all of us and demand explanation, that I hope before this Debate comes to an end we shall have a full explanation, not only of what the Sub-section is but of what it really means, and how the Government means to deal with those differences which we foresee and try to put before them in courteous and quite plain terms.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I think that we should have sonic explanation from the Postmaster-General on the basis on which the delegation of Members from the Irish Parliament is to be composed. If a body exists merely for general purposes or for general legislation and administration I can understand that those interests should be represented in proportion to the population of those who are affected, but here is a totally different case. It is one dealing with something very specific, the revision of financial arrangements. For this purpose you call into existence a body of men who come from Ireland to deal with financial revision. On what basis are you to introduce Members here? The basis of population is adopted, but it seems to me that it would be far better to adopt the basis of the tax revenue of the country. For instance, the tax revenue of the United Kingdom is £153,000,000, and that of Ireland is £9,350,000. Ireland's proportion is therefore one in sixteen and a half.
    1996
    The present representation of the different countries is: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; and Ireland, 103; and if Home Rule is passed it will be: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; and Ireland, 42. If Ireland has to be represented for any other purpose in proportion to its population the figures will be: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; and Ireland, 61, so that nineteen delegates would have to be provided from Ireland. But on the basis of tax revenue the representation would be: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; Ireland, 57. In other words, it would mean a reduction on the basis of tax revenue of five Members. I cannot conceive why the Postmaster-General should select this method of dealing with the matter unless there is some ulterior motive. If it is merely a question of having a financial revision and fixing the amount to be contributed in respect of Imperial revenue, I could understand the proposal which I have now submitted. Of course, if it is intended to use this body for other purposes so as to introduce a new system of bargaining, Ireland contributing to Imperial revenue on condition that we give her fiscal autonomy, I can understand the proposals of the Postmaster-General; but if it is intended purely for the modification of the contribution for the Imperial Exchequer when the time shall have arrived, it seems to me that a more reasonable proposal is found in a basis of tax revenue than in a basis of population.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We have now reached a stage in the Bill when we have to pass the proposals that there shall be a fundamental financial revision at such times as Irish accounts do not show a deficit, and the Committee has sanctioned the proposal this evening that when that time arrives the main financial proposals of this Bill shall be subject to review. The question then arises, What is to be the constitutional engine which shall effect this revision? There are three possible alternatives. One is that we should say that the two Parliaments should agree together as to the form revision shall take and as to the amount of contribution, and so forth. That is a plan which has a great deal to recommend it, but it offers the risk that the country might at times find itself in a deadlock, just as has been pointed out this afternoon the twin kingdoms of Austria and Hungary find themselves in a deadlock when the representatives at the joint delegation of the two are unable to

    1997
    agree on any scheme. Besides which, such a proposal is derogatory of the Imperial supremacy which is expressed in the Bill, and which it is its purpose to maintain. The second plan might be that the Imperial Parliament, constituted as it then would be, should meet and deal with this matter, as though it were a matter of ordinary legislation, with the forty-two Irish Members then sitting in the House. We think, on the whole, that that would be unfair in view of the fact that the Irish people, according to population, might at that time, if the proportion of population remained the same as now, be entitled to some sixty-five or sixty-six Members in this House, and they might legitimately complain that a matter of this fundamental importance, which would affect the finance, probably vitally, doubtless for a long period of years, should be settled by a Parliament in which there were, not merely a minority, but a minority artificially reduced, so to speak, out of the proportion to which they would naturally be entitled on the basis of population, and we think, on the whole, that that would not be a just proposal.
    The scheme of the Bill which enables the Irish Membership to be reduced to forty-two is, of course, a proposal by itself not fully logical, but it effects rough justice in view of the fact that the Irish people will have a Parliament of their own dealing, in the first instance, with the greater part of their own local affairs. In those circumstances it is thought that, on the whole, they are not entitled to be represented in the Imperial Parliament in the affairs with which this House will deal in the full numbers to which they would be entitled if they had not got a Parliament of their own to manage the greater part of their own local affairs. Therefore we come to the third alternative, that for this purpose, and this purpose only, their representation shall be extended to what might be regarded as its natural level. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment and those who followed him raised a series of objections to this proposal.
    They say, in the first place, if the number is to be increased in this way, we, at all events, are entitled to know quite definitely how they are to be chosen. There is to be an additional delegation consisting of members of the Irish House of Commons, and the reason for that is that we ought to have people in this House who represent constituencies. We cannot throw out the net broadcast and bring in
    1998
    people to this House who may be chosen by nomination or in some other way; they must be representatives of the people in some form, and therefore we choose them from members of the Irish House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member said the Irish House of Commons means, of course, the Irish Government. I do not see why it should necessarily do so. The Irish Government, in such a grave and fundamental matter as this, would naturally take the opinion of the Irish House of Commons upon it. The hon. and learned Member said what surprised me very much, that by the Order in Council, which is to determine the precise method by which to choose these members, the Government would not have the power to make provisions for the representation of minorities [An HON MEMBER: "It could not be done by Order in Council."] I fail to see any provision in the Bill which would preclude such an arrangement, or which indeed would interfere with financial arrangements. The Bill says with respect to the Order in Council:—
    "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provisions for so summoning the members of the Irish House of Commons as His Majesty may think necessary or proper, and any provisions contained in any such Order in Council shall have the same effect as if they had been enacted in this Act."
    If it were thought by the Government of the day that members should be chosen by some system of proportional representation, there is absolutely nothing in this Clause to prevent that from being embodied in the Order in Council.
    Mr. CAVE: I confess I thought that the Order in Council enabled the Privy Council here to regulate the procedure of summoning the members, but would not enable the Privy Council to dictate to the Irish House of Commons how they should deal with individuals.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am unable, I confess, to follow the lion, and learned Member. The words are very clear:—
    "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provision for so summoning the members of the Irish House of Commons as His Majesty may think necessary or proper."
    They may determine what members shall be summoned. I see no reason whatever why the members of the Irish House of Commons should not be summoned in such a way as that which has been sug-

    1999
    gested, and, indeed, speaking for myself, I imagine that would be the mode in which the members would be summoned.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Supposing, with regard to this House of Commons, the Privy Council could not suggest to us, in the case of Ireland, who were to be sent over, and they tried to dictate to the House of Commons, what would be the position?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If we are working under a Constitution and an Order in Council might declare how the Members of Parliament should be summoned, then naturally, in such a case, the Order in Council would do so. Of course, the case the lion. Member put is so completely different from anything which now exists that the comparison made by him is not really a very relevant one.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Is this to be an Order in the Irish Privy Council?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, it is in the Privy Council here, as with all other Orders to be given under the Bill. In dealing with a matter which may naturally become operative only after some consider able number of years, I have no doubt whatever that when the time comes it will be a question of great interest both to England and to Ireland what will be the best means of selecting the additional twenty or twenty-five representatives, or whatever the number may be, according to the then population, to sit in this House; but I have no objection to making one suggestion to hon. Members, namely, to insert a provision that the Order in Council should lie on the Table of this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under the guillotine."]— and, if this House passes an Address—as we have provided in regard to other Orders in Council—the Order in Council may be modified. I shall be very glad to do that. I do not think that the Order in Council ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, be cause it is a purely financial matter dealing only with the composition of this House of Commons; it deals with Members to be drawn from the Irish House of Commons, and, therefore, I do not think the Second Chamber should have a right to determine that matter. If it is desired that an Order in Council should come within the cognisance of the House—
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman put that down for discussion on the Report stage?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If it is desired, I will put it down on the Report stage, and perhaps the hon. Member, who-may speak afterwards, will say where it is to be inserted. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment dealt with a similar matter in connection with the Bill of 1886, and he dealt with much more definite propositions as to what Members were to be chosen and from what constituencies. But then, of course, the case was very different, because in the Bill of 1886 there were no Irish Members here ac all, no forty-two Members, and when the Irish Members were to be brought lo this House for the purpose of altering the Constitution passed by this Parliament, you naturally had to make some very definite provisions, which was a much large matter than this proposal to take out a certain number from an already existing representation. We think that the matter can be easily dealt with by simply requiring the Irish House of Commons to select from its own Members the number required. The hon. Member who has just spoken said the population basis could not be a proper one, but that the basis of taxed revenue should be followed. Had we proposed that, I am sure that such an innovation would have met even more criticism than the proposal now laid before the Committee. Why should we take in regard to this one institution taxed revenue, and depart from the population basis, which is the basis of every Constitution throughout the Empire, and almost of every Constitution in the world?
    Mr. MOORE: This is a financial question.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The people are influenced by taxes. The poor people are influenced by taxes even more than the rich people, and even if Ireland is paying less per head of the population than the English are paying at that time, still individual Irishmen would be affected as much as individual Englishmen by any particular alteration that might be made. If it were the case that we had to deal with Ireland on the basis of revenue contributed, then the wealthy constituency in England ought to return two Members where the poor constituency returns one. The answer, the obvious answer, is that it is the poor man who is very much more closely, and sometimes vitally, affected by the financial and fiscal methods of Parliament than the rich man is. The hon. and learned Member made a second objection.

    2001
    He supposed that at that time the Government of the day had a small majority, and that the addition of these twenty Irish Members might make a difference to them. What would occur? Would they be led to frame the whole of their legislative measures on a temporary basis at the time the Irish Members were here? The answer is clearly no. While Irish Members are here they must frame their legislative proposals, on which those Irish Members can vote, in view of the then existing composition of the House. If the Irish Members here made such a difference in the composition of the House that the Government of the day could not carry proposals dealing with the Irish finances which it would wish to carry, the Government must either resign or make other proposals. Those Irish Members are here for that one purpose, and that one purpose only. They will vote on no other matters. When this question of the revision of the Irish financial arrangements is settled, the additional Irish Members will go home, and the composition of the House of Commons will remain precisely as it was before. [Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL made an observation which was inaudible.] If the Government has gone out then another Election has to be held, but I can see no possible reason why the Government of the day should not so frame its measures before the readjustment of the financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland as to be able to secure the assent of the He use of Commons of the day. Thirdly, the hon. and learned Member said if the finance has to be revised once, what is to happen suppose it was to be revised in the future. What would occur when the initial revision takes place under this Bill would be that legislation would have to be carried to effect the revision which was then contemplated.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Would the extra Irish Members have a voice in that?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is what they are here for. What else do they come for, and this Clause says so:
    "For the purpose of revising the financial provisions of this Act in pursuance of this Section there shall be summoned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom such number of Members of the Irish House of Commons as will make the representation of Ireland … equivalent to the representation of Great Britain on the basis of population, and the Members of
    2002
    the Irish House of Commons so summoned shall be deemed to be Members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of any such revision."
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman does not follow my point. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that once the revision was settled that then it might be that legislation would be necessary. Dealing with the point as to whether a second judicial revision might be necessary in the future, you are answering that by saying that when it was settled on the first occasion legislation would then be introduced to put this revision on a permanent basis. My question was, in carrying out that legislation, would you recall your extra Irish Members?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid I could not have made myself clear. When the day comes which the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) calls "the happy day," the Irish Members will come here for the purpose of passing a Bill. That Bill will be a Bill for the amending of the financial system laid down in the Bill we are discussing tonight. In that legislation which will then be passed provision must necessarily be made for the then future. We are providing to-day for the future between now and that date. When that date comes the Parliament of that time must provide for what will be to them the future. If they decide at that time once and for all on a permanent new financial system, which will last for all time, then they will no doubt think it unnecessary to make provision for additional Irish representation. If, on the other hand, they should think well to provide for the revision of financial arrangements at intervals, say, of ten years, if they should wish to do so, then naturally in that same Act of Parliament they could provide for the Irish Members to reappear on the occasion of those financial revisions.
    Mr. CAVE: Surely the additional Irish Members will only be here for the purpose of the one revision of the financial provisions, and if there were inserted in a Bill to give effect to that revision any additional provision dealing with the future, the Irish Members voting on that would be going beyond their powers.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The provision must necessarily be for the future. You cannot do otherwise but deal with

    2003
    the future. Hon. and learned Gentlemen must remember that the Parliament of that day is entitled under this Clause to say, "This shall be the revision for the future." Of course, they will have power to provide for the future. I entirely fail to follow the reasoning of hon. Members opposite. The revision can either be a permanent revision or a revision which is subject to revision. Parliament may enact the latter as well as the former. In addition to which let me point out that the Parliament of that day can do as it chooses. If it thinks well to deal in a separate Bill with the reappearance of Irish Members it can do so. It is perfectly impossible to tie the hands of a future Parliament. All this does is to give occasion for Parliamentary action and to enact what the framers of this Bill in this year of grace 1912 intended Parliament should do when the time arrives when the deficiency is at an end.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Is there anything to prevent a second revision being carried out under this Clause? Suppose a revision took place ten years hence, and that ten years later it appeared to the Joint Exchequer Board that there was a still larger balance, is there anything to prevent them proposing a revision for a second time?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When the first revision takes place, it naturally will take such form as profoundly to affect all these Clauses. These Clauses will no longer remain standing, and very likely there may not be a Joint Exchequer Board. The Act which effects revision will not leave standing legislative provisions in this Bill which would then have had their effect and which would be proper for that reason for repeal. The hon. Member says, further, if they are to be here for these purposes, why not for any other? This, he said, is a minor matter, and I here may be even larger measures affecting Ireland and the Irish people even more gravely than this, and yet, he says, you do not propose to increase the Irish Members for them. The reason for that is that this financial revision will be a grave departure from the financial arrangements included in the Constitution of the Irish people. It is possible to conceive of even greater departures the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) said. Suppose this Parliament were to repeal this Bill itself and to abolish Home Rule, low could you do that without the presence
    2004
    of those additional Irish Members I Surely it cannot be contemplated that this Parliament would ever repeal a Constitution of this character, if there was only a majority of twenty-three votes in this House for so drastic a revolution as that. The case is really impossible to occur whereby an exceedingly small majority of the Imperial House of Commons would cut about or destroy the Constitution of the Irish people of its own making. It is so improbable that we need not take it into account. This particular proposal is a plan for the definite revision at a particular date of a very important part of the financial constitution of the Irish people. It is right and proper in such a case as that, for the reasons I have mentioned, that the Irish representation should be enlarged. Then says the hon. Member, taking the opposite view, "How is it that you go on discussing this Bill to-night with the presence in this House, or the precincts of the House, of 103 Members from Ireland if you admit they are over-represented according to population, and why do you not precede your Home Rule Bill by a Redistribution Bill and cut them down to sixty-five." That, of course, is a point which has often been answered. We are now legislating on the basis of the Act of Union, which is the Ark of the Covenant to hon. Members opposite. The Act of Union assures to the Irish people a representation in this House of 103 Members for ever.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: And an Established Church.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. It was described as a Treaty of Union, and when you have a treaty between two parties that treaty can be modified with the consent of both parties, but cannot honourably be modified without the consent of both parties. In the ease of the Irish Church there was the consent of both parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Unquestionably. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that Irish churchmen consented to their Church being Disestablished?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When I say both parties I mean the Irish people on the one hand and the British people on the other.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman does not think there was any

    2005
    necessity for the people chiefly concerned to be consulted.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not what I said or suggested. What I say is that Ireland as an entity by an enormous majority, even larger than the majority in the case of this Bill, was in favour of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and there can be no suggestion of a breach of faith between Great Britain and Ireland, on the ground that the Irish Church was Disestablished, although the Act of Union said that it should be Established. If you wish to reduce Irish representation from 103 members to 65, you can only do it with the consent of the representatives and the public sentiment of Ireland.
    Mr. W. MOORE: They have agreed to forty-two.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is precisely why we do it—because they have agreed. If, as part of the readjustment of our relations, under which we are giving them a Parliament of their own, and to that extent repealing the Act of Union, the Irish people were not willing at the same time to consent to a reduction of their representation, I do not think it could honourably be done. I am perfectly certain that if Ireland were Constitutionally and in international law a foreign country, and this Parliament attempted to reduce the representation which Ireland was guaranteed by the Act of Union, and the representatives of Ireland appealed against that decision to The Hague Tribunal, The Hague Tribunal acting as a judge would say that under the Act of Union, as a treaty, you could not, without the consent of the Irish nation, reduce the number of Irish Members below the figure then guaranteed. That is my answer to the hon. and learned Member's point. He then made the most remarkable suggestion that a far better proposal than the one we put forward would be to appoint a federal committee of experts, who, I suppose, would sit in a room by themselves, and determine for the two countries what the future financial relations should be. That, he said, would be a far better and more practical way of dealing with the question. We have been criticised so much for making our proposal with regard to the Joint Exchequer Board, enabling that body to deal with little more than purely arithmetical matters, and seldom with matters of more than mere calculation, that I am astonished that the hon. and learned Member should suggest as a better plan a
    2006
    federal committee of experts to decide the matters which we propose should be left to the House of Commons, with the addition of a certain number of Irish Members.
    Mr. CAVE: Not to decide, but to report to this House.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not understand that that was the hon. Member's proposal.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: It is what he said.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think so. Either the hon. and learned Gentleman did not sufficiently expound his remarks or I misunderstood him. If he says that the committee should merely report to this House, well and good. But that could be done at the time. If the House wished to have further information on any question affecting the fiscal relations between this country and Ireland, unquestionably a committee could be appointed at the time. The only point with which I have not yet dealt is that put by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm), who said that we were to understand that this Bill was to be the model sealed pattern for all future extensions of local self-government in the United Kingdom. I do not know from whom he understood that. As far as the Government are concerned, we have always said precisely the opposite—that, so far as the details of this Bill are concerned, while necessarily they would be taken into consideration, we do not in any sense bind ourselves to follow them in future legislation. As regards the finance of the Bill, it has been said again and again that since Scotland has no deficit in the sense that there is a deficit between the United Kingdom and Ireland, there is no reason why it should, and there is no probability that the fiscal scheme of a Scotch Home Rule Bill would follow the same lines as that of the Irish Home Rule Bill. Therefore I trust the Committee will not discuss this Clause in particular on the basis that what is done by Parliament now must necessarily be done in future in different circumstances and under other conditions.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I wonder how the Postmaster-General would consider this Sub-section if he were an Irish Unionist. I think he would be inclined to ask the Government if this was another safeguard. What provision is made in the Bill for the representation of the minority in this

    2007
    matter? We know what the constitution of the Dublin Parliament will be; we know from bitter experience what chance the minority representation in that Parliament will have of even a very minor share in the delegation that will be sent to this House. A great deal has been said as to the method by which the Government have arrived at the Clause we are now discussing. The Postmaster-General told us that three plans were considered by the Government. The first was that the two Parliaments together, I suppose by two delegations, should adjust the revision. A part of the reason he gave for the abandonment of that plan was that it would have been derogatory to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Our view is that the whole enactment is derogatory to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I submit that there could be no stronger proof of the permanent injury that is being done to the Imperial Parliament than the Sub-section with which we are now dealing. The next plan was that the matter should be dealt with by the forty-two Irish Members under the Bill. The Postmaster-General dismissed the second suggestion very summarily; but I submit that if there is any equity in the arrangement to reduce the Irish representation to forty-two Members, there are equally strong reasons why that number should have been left to make the best case they could for Ireland on the floor of the House when the time arrived. Consider the third plan which the Government have apparently finally settled upon, and which has been presented to the House. The Postmaster-General has told us, for instance, that members comprising the delegation must be elected by "the people," and be representative of the people. In all these considerations no part has been given to the position in Ulster, a part of the country which is the largest contributor to the revenue that will have to be considered in the collection.
    The reasons adduced in favour of this Clause only make the absurdity of it even more transparent than it appeared to be when we read it in the Bill. I ask that the Postmaster-General should consider whether, if the Government are sincere in the reasons which they have given for producing this wonderful plan, the time is not due when we should ask them to put in the Bill, or promise on the Report stage, such a safeguard as would be useful to the
    2008
    minority, so that when the time comes, whenever it does come—and personally I do not think it ever will come—the Government will safeguard the minority and give them at least the safeguards to which they are entitled. To the subject of machinery which has been elaborated by the Postmaster-General, we attach not the slightest importance. We know enough of the probabilities of the Irish Parliament to know that the happy day, which the Member for the City has more than once referred to, will be indefinitely deferred by that Parliament. They have nothing to gain by that readjustment. A good deal was said to-day about the time when a prosperous Ireland will be ready to bear its quota of the cost of maintenance of the Army and the Navy. Irish Unionists who know the position and know the real feeling animating hon. Members below the Gangway have felt that that speech was made for English consumption only; that it would be unpalatable indeed to the Irish Nationalists at home, and would be assessed at its true value by Irish Unionists, who are at present not proportionately represented in this House.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not think any Government ever occupied such an unenviable position as this Government in debating any measure, because whenever they are unable to be rescued from their difficulties by either the gag or the guillotine they fall back to Clause 44 or to some miraculous Order in Council, which they invest with attributes no lawyer has ever attributed even to an Order in Council. We have had some very remarkable statements, some prophetic statements, as to what that Order in Council is to be. It has been pointed out by the Postmaster-General that one of the difficulties lies in the fact that nobody knows who is to summon these Irish Members of Parliament. I suppose that is all to be explained to some of us by the Order in Council? Is it to be an Order in Council framed after a vote in this House, or how is the Order to be given? Who is to be really the author of the Order, and is the Order itself to be debated? I am very glad to hear that the Postmaster-General is willing to meet the arguments which have been adduced from this side of the House, and that he has tabled some Amendment which will, at all events, secure that this House will be able to discuss this Order in Council. At all events, it will lie on the Table of the House and offer some chance of being discussed.

    2009
    We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that concession.
    Speaking for myself—and perhaps for those who take part in these Debates—we are grateful to him for that concession, provided, of course, that we get some opportunity of discussing this matter on Report, so far as he is able to assure us that opportunity. Then comes a very much larger question as to not only who was to summon these Irish Members of Parliament, but who are the Irish Members of Parliament to be summoned. That question has been asked by my hon. and learned Friend who opened this Debate. It has been asked by other speakers in this Debate. I think the matter requires a little more elucidation. We are told the Order in Council will settle all this; that the Order in Council will tell the Irish Parliament, will tell the Prime Minister of the Irish Parliament who he has to send for. It will tell him, "You must send over so many Members from the counties and so many Members from the burghs, and you must take care that the minority are represented—at least that is what we gather from the Postmaster-General. We gather that the Order in Council will tell the Irish Parliament that they must elect these Members by proportional representation. Was there ever such an Order in Council? This Order in Council, in fact, is to be a kind of Redistribution Bill which is to entirely alter the general methods proposed on which Members of Parliament are elected.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Elected by the constituencies.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No, elected, as I understand it, by the Irish Government in the Irish House of Commons. I am the last person to put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman words or expressions he did not use, but I thought he used those words—that it would be quite possible for that Order in Council to order that these Members shall be elected by some system of proportional representation.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Within the Irish House of Commons.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Within the Irish House of Commons—yet we have never heard of any Member of Parliament being elected by proportional representation in the House of Commons. I am only saying that this is a very miraculous Order, something for which there is no precedent whatever.
    Mr. MOORE: That does not matter.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My hon. and learned Friend says it does not matter. I do not think it does much, because there is so much in this Bill that does not matter. The Postmaster-General, I think, must himself admit that this is the very largest Order in Council that any Minister over invented. I should like him to tell me of any Order in Council which does half as much as this Order in Council. This measure does practically tell the Irish Government, which may have a very great interest in sending over certain Members, whom they are to send over. There may be a minority, and a very big minority, in that House of Commons which takes the view that Ireland ought to contribute something towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. Obviously, if the Government in Ireland does not take that view, and the Government in Ireland thinks that the time has not come for contributing, the Prime Minister in Ireland will be governed by this Order in Council, or Order emanating from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who has an interest in Ireland contributing something: then as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—or the Commons House of Parliament, as it is called—will issue an edict to the Prime Minister of the Irish Parliament and say, "You are not to be the judge of whom you are to send over to the English Parliament: we are to be the judges as to the Members you are to send." It might make the whole difference to the fate of the Government.
    This Clause, however, ought not to have been left in this cruel and inchoate condition. It needs clarifying, and it needs a great deal more clarifying than has been given to it to-night by the Postmaster-General. This is a matter, surely, which might be in the Schedule of the Bill. Why not? We have not to deal with the forty-two members to be elected in Ireland. That is all provided for in the Schedule of the Bill: how many Members are allotted to the urban districts, how many to the counties, and how are the minorities to be protected. Belfast gets its representatives, and the North-East corner of Ireland its representatives. Is there to be anything in this Bill to secure the proportion of these Members to come from Ireland; that any proportion of them are to represent the minority in Ireland. Yet, under this Bill as it is drawn, it is quite possible that the whole of these Irish members who are to be sent over here may be of one accord

    2011
    to come over here and resist any endeavour at all to obtain a contribution from Ireland for any purpose. Many other questions have been asked the Postmaster-General. To one and all of them he makes the same answer, "Oh, wait till you see the Order in Council." I would like to ask him one or two questions. First of all, I want to remind him of the answer he gave to me this afternoon in discussing Sections 1 and 2 of this Clause.
    I suggest it is quite possible that the Irish House of Commons might take the view that there was no necessity whatever, and that the time had not arrived for any contribution to be given by the Irish Parliament towards the common expenditure, and although a summons might be issued by Order in Council to the Irish Parliament to send over Irish representatives here to discuss the matter with representatives of the Commons Parliament, yet that need not be obeyed by the Irish Parliament. Then the Postmaster-General went on to say—I took his words down—"If the Irish Parliament does not obey the summons, revision will go on without them." I am glad I have not misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. He tells this Committee that if a summons is sent out to the Irish Parliament to send representatives over here for the purpose of discussing the possibility of revising the financial terms and arrangements under this Bill, and if the Irish House of Commons say, "We do not intend to send anybody over because we do not think the time has arrived when we ought to contribute anyting under this Clause of the Bill," then says the Postmaster-General, "it is open to the Commons House of Parliament, without any of these extra Irish representatives, to proceed with the revision." Will the Irish Parliament be affected by the vote of this House without the attendance of those extra representatives to protect Irish interests, ordering them from that day and in future to contribute from the Irish Exchequer something additional to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. I am amazed that the Postmaster-General should take up an attitude of that kind. I can imagine the Commons House of Parliament possibly revising the financial arrangements under this Bill, and possibly saying that, in their view and in common justice, Ireland ought to contribute something towards, the common expenditure, but I cannot imagine if they choose to do that that they would dare
    2012
    follow it out by imposing new taxation upon Ireland and attempting to collect new taxes from Ireland in the shape of a contribution which the majority of Irishmen were not willing to pay. I do not envy the collectors of those taxes from Ireland if they went to Ireland after the Irish Parliament had said that the time had not come when Ireland should contribute towards the common expenditure. I do not envy those collectors of those taxes, if the Irish House of Commons, and possibly the forty-two Members over here voted against the collection of these new taxes, and stated that the time had not come for Ireland to pay a contribution towards Imperial purposes. I do not believe such a situation could possibly occur. I have put the case of the supposition that Irish Members did not come when summoned. Now I put the case if they do come. Let us look at the position then and the utter chaos the incursion of those Members will bring into our own Parliament. Is this magical Order in Council going to get us out of this difficulty too? Let us say that according to the present basis of population thirty Members would come in addition to the forty-two here already.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think on the basis of population it would be twenty-three extra Members—sixty-five in all.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am quite willing to take that correction, because in the earlier stages of these Debates I showed that there had been at least a dozen instances in modern times where Governments had been defeated by majorities of even ten or twelve, or even less. That has occurred, as we all know, over and over again. Governments have, indeed, resigned after being beaten by one only. I do not say a Radical Government would do it; it takes two more than twenty-one, we all know, to make them do that. At all events, it is quite likely to happen. There would be an incursion, let us say, of twenty-three additional Members from Ireland, and these twenty-three voting against the Government would be ample in many circumstances to upset the Government. But, said the Postmaster-General, "Supposing that the Government were beaten by twenty-three, they need not resign; they need not be so squeamish as we are; they could bring forward other financial proposals." But I think that by that time this question of contribution from an Irish Parliament to the United Kingdom

    2013
    would have been a burning question, and if one side of the House of Commons took an entirely opposite view from the Government of the country on a question of that finance, I do not believe any Government would remain in office after being-beaten upon a trial of that kind. And Why? Because undoubtedly if these proposals were carried or defeated they would alter the whole nature of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for that year, but for many years to come. I do not believe it would be possible for any Government to remain in office if beaten upon financial proposals by which they sought to exact from the Irish Exchequer contributions to the common expenses.
    Therefore, I say this incursion must make a very big inroad into our Parliamentary customs and traditions. Does the Postmaster-General say they are to be only here for this purpose? One would think they were only to be here for the day, for a kind of week-end visit, and that after they had given one vote or so in reference to these financial arrangements they would go back again to Ireland and that we would see nothing more of them for many years to come. That will not be all that will happen. There will be many discussions upon this question of this revision. There must be in the nature of things. There will be Financial Resolutions to be moved. All this revison will take a long time. It will be the subject of a Budget and an Act of Parliament. It will go through all the stages of an Act of Parliament, and these stages cannot be taken in one day and they cannot be taken in one week or one month. They will be spread over periods from time to time, and the Government, depending upon the actual number of votes from Ireland, will not know whether its existence is worth one month's purchase. We shall have to make different rules for these in-and-out Members of Parliament. Is that to be done by Order in Council? Is the Order in Council to alter all our Standing Orders and to lay down whether these Gentlemen coming over for a week-end shall vote or not? Will they be allowed to move for Returns, which are very valuable, when we are going to make up our minds as to what contribution each party shall make to the common purse? All this will have to be regulated by Standing Orders and Orders in Council. I do not know an Order in Council that alters and regulates the Standing Orders under which we conduct
    2014
    our Debates. And yet we shall have to have a large alteration to meet this peculiar arrangement under which some Members are to be here one day and not here another day. This in-and-out system of Members of Parliament defied all the magnificent genius of Mr. Gladstone, and I am sure it is not going to be solved by the Postmaster-General.
    After all, we have to look at this question as the basis of a future federal system, and if we do that we are only obeying the actual instructions laid down by the Prime Minister, who said all through, that the House of Commons must look at these proposals from the point of view that there will be Parliaments set up in Scotland and in Wales, and he further stated that he would not have brought these proposals forward if he had not had in mind the federal system. Therefore, you have to look at this question from that point of view, and whether it is the Customs or the Post Office or the Joint Exchequer Board we are always headed off by the Postmaster-General, who replies. "Oh, no, the Customs and Excise! That is, of course, a matter we should not think of giving to Scotland or Wales to control? Do not trouble about the Post Office, because we shall not follow the Irish precedent in the ease of England, Scotland, or Wales." In the case of the Joint Exchequer Board, we fell foul of that the other day and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "Please do not think we shall ever set up a Joint Exchequer Board for England, Scotland, or Wales." From what has been said, one would gather that there is not a single part of these proposals which would ever be extended to other Parliaments. We have been told by the Prime Minister that we must always-keep our eye on the fact that before many years are over the Government will propose Parliaments for England, Scotland, and Wales. All we have to do now is to recollect that there can always be an Order in Council, and that will explain everything. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put the whole of the Bill into an Order in Council, because that would save a very great deal of the energy we are now wasting discussing this Bill. I said earlier this afternoon that this. Clause is unworkable, and it can never be made operative, and, in fact, I doubt whether the Government ever meant it to be operative. I believe that these Clauses are merely colossal frauds on the British

    2015
    electorate, and are not worthy of discussion, because they would be inoperative and cannot be made operative even by an Order in Council.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I would like to deal with some of the points which have been raised by the Postmaster-General, who stated the case for the Government with clearness and with very great credit. As far as I can make out, the only merit this proposal has is that it is original. I did not hear from the Postmaster-General that there is any precedent for such a proposal as this, nor do I know of any. I do know where it was taken from, but certainly there is no analogy for it in any part of our Constitution or in any of our relations with any of our Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were only three possible ways of dealing with the necessity for a revision of our financial relations The first was to leave it to the two Parliaments, and he pointed out, I think fairly, what was to happen in the case of a disagreement. A deadlock would arise, and therefore they rejected that proposal, although it would have been open to them to fall back on the Joint Exchequer Board. The Postmaster-General said it would be derogatory in a case where this Parliament disagreed with the Irish Parliament that they should delegate their powers to any other Board where they had already set up a Joint Exchequer Board which interfered with many of the functions of this Hosue, and which would have to determine very grave and important questions affecting the relations between the two Houses in matters of finance. Therefore, in this particular case, they had thrown over their own analogy of a Joint Exchequer Board. I am not inclined to quarrel with the objection raised by the right hon. Genetleman to the first proposal, because I take the view that there would be a certain deadlock, and in a case of that kind it would be derogatory to the Imperial Parliament, just as it is derogatory to the Exchequer Board, to delegate their functions elsewhere.
    I come to the second alternative, and in that I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for the Government desiring a second alternative, and that was that the Imperial Parliament should deal with this matter, with the assistance of the forty-two Irish Members, who on the assumption that this Bill becomes law, are to deal with all other matters affecting the welfare of Ireland in
    2016
    any shape or form. If forty-two is a fair representation on the assumption of a Home Rule Bill passing for Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, I confess I do not know on what basis of fairness it is arrived at. I think it is grossly unfair, and you should either adhere to the Act of Union and leave the number at 103, or you should adopt the principle of redistribution and give in that case what Ireland would be entitled to in regard to population, and that is a representation of about sixty-one. But you have cut it down under this Bill without any logical reason, and without giving any explanation which I can follow. If forty-two, in the opinion of the Government, is a sufficient number to protect the interests of Ireland on every question, no matter how grave or vital it may be, why are they not enough to deal with this question, of the financial relations? The right hon. Gentleman said they arrived at forty-two in a rough sort of way, and the reason they reduced it from sixty-one to forty-two was that Ireland was to have a Parliament of its own, and therefore it would be quite sufficient to be represented here by only forty-two Members. If forty-two is sufficient, why should we go through the farce of admitting them on this one matter of revision, which raises some of the most important issues which this Imperial Parliament can deal with. Suppose this House thought it necessary to radically alter the Home Rule Bill after it had been in operation. We know that in this Bill whole Clauses will be passed without any discussion. In the Clauses we have been allowed to discuss we have pointed out blots, many of which the Government have agreed to remove later on, and of course there are blots in the Clauses which we have not been allowed to discuss.
    Later on the Imperial Parliament may be called upon to amend this Bill, and are those Gentlemen not to be summoned for that purpose. No, they are not, for under this curious freak Clause which we are now discussing they are only to be called in on the one occasion when there is to be a revision of the financial relations between the two countries. Hon. Gentlemen say they will only be here for a short time, and will not interfere with our Imperial discussions in this House, but now the right hon. Gentleman has told us that that is an entire mistake, and that the financial revision will involve legislation which will have to provide also for future revision, or it may determine that that revision is to be final for all time. He said that

    2017
    would not be likely, because no Parliament could bind the hands of its successors—that is true—and therefore the legislation would be much more likely to take the shape of providing for periodical revision. If that is so, that legislation would take, not weeks, but months, to carry through this House. What is to be the position of those visitors during those months? Are they to walk out during that portion of the afternoon when we are discussing other matters, and are they to come back the moment we take up the Bill dealing with financial revision? Are they to be here during Question Time, and are they to get £400 a year, or at that rate while they are here? None of these things have been foreseen; there is no provision made for any one of them, and when we call attention to them they say, "Oh, that will be done by Order in Council." That is most ridiculous in a matter of this kind, because it is obvious such things cannot be provided for by an Order in Council. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to say an Order in Council can interfere with the Standing Orders of this House. Surely he does not mean to suggest that an Order in Council can give these gentlemen privileges on the floor of this House while they are here. That would be in violation of our Standing Orders? Of course, he cannot suggest that. No Order in Council could possibly do that.
    We are left in this extraordinary position. We are bound whenever this period arises to have these vistiors. They will be here staying for months in this Assembly, taking part in our Debates in so far as they relate to this financial revision and this future legislation without, and we have knowledge and no information is contained in the Bill as to what is to be their status during all that time, or what are to be their rights in so far as they are Members of the House. Are they to have all the privileges of Members, or are they simply to be here for the sole purpose of taking part in this revision and voting upon it? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say they had fixed forty-two because the Irish people had consented to forty-two. I protest against that. The Irish people have never had an opportunity of expressing any opinion about these forty-two Members, and they are not going to be given an opportunity. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that any Unionist representative from Ireland was consulted about these forty-two Members? He knows they were not. They never heard of this until they saw it
    2018
    in this Bill, and in so far as he suggests it was done by consent he means, I assume, it was done by arrangement with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but they have no power or right to bind the Unionist minority in Ireland, who have never been consulted about this, and certainly, speaking for them, I protest as a grave act of injustice towards Ireland and the Irish people that under this Home Rule system, if it ever becomes law and if they are to have a representation at all in this House, that they are not to have it on any logical basis, either conforming to their population or contribution.
    There is one other point. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was very satisfactory when he attempted to explain why these Gentlemen should not be here when this House was engaged in dealing with other grave and important matters that affected or might affect the future or the welfare of Ireland. I could not follow, nor do I think any Member of the Committee who heard the right hon. Gentleman could follow, the reasons he gave why this intervention should be confined to this one matter of financial revision. We do no deny its importance, but surely he cannot deny, nor will any Member of the Committee deny, that it is not only conceivable, but highly probable, this Imperial Parliament will be called upon to deal with matters of far greater importance and of a more permanent character as affecting Ireland than the mere question of a financial revision. Upon all such questions—and we can conceive many of them—Ireland is to have no representation in this House beyond the forty-two Members. If on such occasions forty-two is a fair representation, why does it become unfair for the purposes of this financial revision? It not only does not become unfair, but you are exposing this House and your Imperial Parliament and your Government of the day to unnecessary and gratuitous risk, because it is plain that the intervention of twenty-one Members coming over for a matter of this kind, which will surely be one of friction between the two countries, might on any day during all the time this legislation is going through, determine the fate of the Government and throw this entire Kingdom into the confusion and turmoil of a general election. Why all this risk has to be run and why all this trouble is to be taken for the mere single occasion of a revision of these financial arrangements is a thing that up to the present has not been satisfactorily explained,

    2019
    and I hope some hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they honestly believe, as I think they will on reflection, that this is a piece of humbug and an unreal and unworkable plan, for which no good or solid reason has been given, they will have the courage of their convictions and get up and say so, and, if they do say so, I hope they will back up their convictions in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. MARTIN: Reading this Clause, I cannot make out how the Irish Members who are to come here for the purposes of the revision, are to be chosen, but the Postmaster-General has told us the manner in which they are to be chosen is to be provided for by Order in Council. It seems to me the word "summoning" has a definite meaning. It means to call people, to tell them to come. That is the only word that is used. If the Postmaster-General is right in his interpretation it means very much more than that, but it does seem to me, if it is the intention that the Irishmen who are to come are to be chosen by the Government by Order in Council, it would be very easy to make it perfectly clear by adding the words "selected and summoned." Why take any chance if that is the intention of the Government? Personally, while I am quite willing to accept what the Government may decide, I should have thought the Irish Parliament was the much better body to choose the additional Irish Members to be summoned here, but, if the Irish Members are satisfied, I certainly am, though I do submit it should not be left in a doubtful way at all, because it is a most important provision. I view with a great deal of alarm, from a Liberal standpoint, the idea of bringing over for a specific and particular occasion about twenty or thirty men of whom Ave know nothing at all. I can well understand the Government might be forced to take this step, in view of a Report of the Joint Exchequer Board, when they have a majority of less than twenty-five or twenty. I cannot agree at all to the suggestion that if a Government measure deliberately brought into this House was defeated by the House as constituted under this Act, it would not be a clear case where the Government would be obliged to resign. It would not be a snap Division. It would be a Division which would comply with all the laws laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in his speech which has been so
    2020
    much quoted. The Government would be called upon to resign at once. Why? Not because this House was against it or because the constituencies were against it, but because twenty-three or twenty-five men brought in for a special purpose happened to be against the Government of the day. That would be placing a tremendous power in the hands of these additional twenty-three, or twenty-five men. If the Government happened to have a majority less than they represented, it would be forced thereby to bring in measures and to make revisions not, as they considered, in the interests of the Empire, but such as would be acceptable to the twenty-three or twenty-five men. It seems to me that the proper course is to accept the House as constituted under the Bill, with the constituencies of England, Wales and Scotland represented as they now are, and with forty-two Members from Ireland. What good will the additional representation from Ireland do? In the event of the Government having a majority they could only put the case of Ireland before this House, and, surely, among the many Members who will come from Ireland in the ordinary course, there will be twenty at least who will be entirely capable of putting that case in the very best possible way for that country. For this reason I suggest that this matter should be made perfectly plain by putting in the words that have been suggested, and that the Liberal party should take no chance in the future, when we are engaged on some social reforms; they should not run the risk of being knocked out of power by a contingency of this kind.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Even with the forty-two Members it is proposed to have in this House it might be possible, with a Radical Government in power at the time this revision came up for discussion—it might be quite possible to conceive that while, the Nationalist Members might be supporters of the Government, should the Government be forced by the opinion of the country to suggest that the Nationalist party should be called upon to pay contributions to the Army, Navy, and other Imperial services, hon. Members below the Gangway might promptly turn against their former friends. So it is quite true they will be better off to the extent of the twenty-three Members whom it is proposed to send to the House of Commons under this proposal. It would not be safe if the Radical party had such a narrow majority, and by voting in the opposite Lobby they

    2021
    might turn the Government out. I do not think the Radical party would feel at all safe under such conditions. I desire to make one or two general remarks on this Amendment. First, it is a curious fact that, practically speaking, on the only point in which Members of the opposite party have taken any interest—I refer to the unofficial Members, of course—the only one who has taken any part in these Debates is the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), one of the three hon. Gentlemen in whose name this Amendment stands. It is, I repeat, a curious fact that that hon. Member has not come forward to move his own Amendment. I am told, that he is away from the House, but I think we are entitled to draw the conclusion in his absence that he thinks there is something wrong with this Clause. In his absence we may assume that if he had been here he would have objected to this Sub-section, and I think we are also entitled to claim that his dislike for it is by no means confined to this side of the House—indeed, other speeches made on that side of the House have fortified us in that opinion. We have been told that there is no intention on the part of the Government to allow this particular Clause to form a pattern for any federal system that may be set up hereafter in the case of Wales and Scotland. I think that furbishes another very strong proof of the statement we have made all along, that it is an absolute fraud on the House of Commons, and a most indecent attempt to take advantage of the good nature and amiability of hon. Members when the Prime Minister and other Members of the Front Bench have informed us that this Bill is to be the beginning of a federal system. Nothing more ridiculous or absurd could be put forward than the suggestion, first, that this was to form the basis of a federal system; and, secondly, that we should have these disclaimers. These frequent disclaimers on the part of the Government are absolute proof of the fact that tinder no circumstances can this ever be the basis of a federal system. It was never intended that it should be. Still further, it was a fraud on the House of Commons to pretend that in bringing this Bill before the House they intended it to be the first serious step towards federalism. I confess it is difficult for me, as an Ulster Unionist, to accept these statements from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. A very considerable number of years must elapse before this so-called
    2022
    revision can come before this House, and before that can happen, before Ulster can be affected by this or any other Clause of the Home Rule, it must have been dragooned or forced into accepting the Home Rule Bill. What the feelings of Ulster would be if ever they were dragooned and forced into accepting Home Rule, I can leave hon. Members opposite to imagine.
    If we have to be, as we certainly will have to be, dragooned into accepting this Bill by open force, by bayonets, bullets, cannons and guns, I do not think hon. Members opposite can look forward to our coming to this House—such of us as may be allowed to come under this Order of the Privy Council—with any great feelings of love towards this country, nor can they expect us, if we do come, to expedite the passage of this revision Bill, or to help this country in any way in this matter of finance, or, indeed, in regard to any matter connected with Ireland. The very reverse will be the case. If we are ever forced into accepting Home Rule by the only means by which it would be possible to compel us to do so—that is, a superior force to anything we could put forward—the position we should be in, if we came to this House, would be one of bitterest enmity towards this House. It is not likely we should do much to help on a revision which would be satisfactory to this House and to this country. I do not think it is very likely that many Unionists from Ulster, if ever we are Members of a Home Rule Parliament, would ever have a chance of coming over here, because this extraordinary Sub-section, and, in fact, the whole Clause, is so preposterous and absurd, that whatever else might happen, and whoever else might come here, it would be as difficult for a camel to get through the eye of a needle as for a Ulster Unionist Member to sit in this House for the purpose of revising the financial relations between the two countries. In the earlier Debate neither the Solicitor-General nor the Postmaster-General were able to show that there is any necessity on anybody to bring it about that the question of the revision of the financial relations shall take place immediately after the Exchequer Board has made its Report. Sub-section (2) says:—
    "The presentation of such a Report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act."

    2023
    10.0 P.M.
    It does not say the ground, or the only ground, but only a ground for the revision. There is nothing in the Clause which is mandatory or which would compel this Government to call upon the Irish Members to come over here, or which give power to the Irish Parliament to insist that its representatives shall be sent over here to settle the question forthwith. There is nothing which prevents the Government of the day, if it realised—as it would if it were a Radical Government in power at the time—that it was not to its interest to have the matter threshed out in the House of Commons, putting the matter off for a year or two. Therefore it is not, as the Committee has been led to understand, that immediately the deficit disappears the question shall automatically come up here for discussion, and the moment there is a surplus in Ireland, Ireland shall be called upon automatically to make some sort of contribution towards the Army, Navy and Imperial services. There is nothing of that kind in the Bill. Yet both in the country and elsewhere that has been the line taken by hon. Members opposite. They have said to their constituents that it is unfair, while Ireland has its deficit and cannot pay its own way, to ask it to make a contribution to the services of this country. That may be right or wrong, but I have seen reports of hon. Members' speeches in which they have said that as soon as the deficit disappeared provision was made in the Bill by which Ireland should be called upon to contribute to the upkeep of the various services in this country. I am sure that is the idea which the ordinary Liberal in the country thinks that this Bill is going to carry out. You find that in the Bill there is no such provision whatever, and that the Government may put off until the crack of doom the settlement of this question. Supposing that the happy day arrives, I want to know, if twenty-three Irish Members are to come over to this country, what the procedure is to be? Is the matter of revision to be carried out by an Act of Parliament or by Resolutions of this House? Who is to say what is included within the meaning of the word "revision"? A great many things might be included in that. Supposing the House comes to the conclusion that some contribution is to be made by the Irish Parliament, is the Irish Parliament to be entitled to say anything in the matter?
    2024
    I should like to remind the Committee that the Postmaster-General, much to my amazement, and, I think, to the amazement of most hon. Members, informed us that it was by no means likely that there would be only one visit of the Irish Members to this House. He led us to understand they were not to be here for a day or two, but that we might expect to see them for a very considerable time, and that the visit which we all looked upon as a single visit was more likely than not to be extended into a number of periodical visits. He said it was quite open to the House of Commons, consisting of the ordinary Members of the House and these extra Irish Members, to say that there should be a revision of the financial relations between the two countries for five years. There is not a solitary soul in the House who for one moment imagined that it was proposed in this Sub-section that we should have more than one visit at the outside from the extra Irish Members, or who supposed that the question of the financial relations between the two countries was not to be fixed once and for all at that particular time. The Postmaster-General went on to say that the House of Commons might at that time, not only arrange for periodical visits of these Members, but might amend this Bill practically in any way they like. It seems to me that if they have power to say that if there shall be annual revisions, or five yearly revisions, of the financial relations, it is equally competent for them to say that after Ireland comes to the position when she has to contribute a certain sum towards the upkeep of the Army and Navy and so forth, she is entitled to have her Members present here when the Budget for the year is being discussed. The Budget is going to affect Ireland just as much as it affects England, and she is going to have to pay her share of the money required under that Budget, and she can very properly claim, if she happens to be in the happy position of holding the Government of the day in the hollow of her hand, as she does now, and it is more than likely that she will be successful in claiming, that the extra twenty-three Irish Members shall be permitted to come into the House of Commons during the discussion of all financial questions. That is quite a new vista for Members to look forward to when the House of Commons will not only consist of the ordinary fixed number, but when anything in the shape of a financial Bill, and certainly

    2025
    of a Budget, comes up there shall be this influx from the other side of the water. Then the question arises who is to say what is in the nature of a financial question or a financial Bill, and, in fact, I see no end to the difficulties which this Parliament will let itself in for if it ever passes such a vague, ridiculous, and absurd Clause as that which we have had before us to-day.
    Just one word with regard to this Order in Council, which apparently the Government rely on to get them out of all their difficulties. Let mo fly into the dim future when the deficit has interfered, and let us suppose, for the want of a better example, that someone, like the present Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, is Lord Lieutenant of that day. We have not been told how these Orders in Council are to be made. I was not clear from what the Postmaster-General said whether it was to be an Irish Order in Council or an English Order in Council.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: An Imperial Order in Council.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am afraid I do not know very much about Orders in Council, but I am certain that the Government in power, especially if it was a Radical Government, would not allow any Order in Council to be promulgated which would even remotely affect their position in this House of Commons, and therefore I am quite certain they would see to it that that Order in Council was not promulgated at any time when it would be to their disadvantage to have this matter opened up. Furthermore, I am perfectly certain that if they saw any likelihood of an undue number of persons being sent over here from Ireland, whether Ulstermen or Nationalists, which ever happened to be mostly in opposition to the Government of the day, they would manage it some way or other that the method of selecting the Members who are to come in from Ireland would be such that the party which was inimical to them would not find a very large representation in this House. In any case, it is obviously unfair that a matter so important as the selection of the Members who come over from Ireland should be left in this vague way to a body about which I, and probably a great many other Members, know very little, and in which we have not very much confidence. Some method ought to be plainly included, either in this Sub-section or in the Bill, providing that a proper representa-
    2026
    tion should be given over here and that all the parties in the Irish House of Commons should be represented in precisely the same way as parties are represented in Select Committees-of this House. However we look at it, this Clause, and particularly this Sub-section of it, is full of absurdities and anomalies, and I am quite convinced that if the Bill ever passes and becomes operative with such a Sub-section as that in it, it will lead to the most endless confusion, and it would be, I am sure, an infinitely simpler matter for the Government to deal seriously with the question now instead of putting in a few general words which will stave off the evil hour until such times as the deficit has ceased to exist. It seems to me that the absurdity of the Clause is the best proof that the Government themselves do not expect that the deficit period will conclude for a very great number of years, and therefore they think it is so far in the future before the day will arrive when Ireland will be able to contribute anything to the Imperial service of this country that it is not worth while wasting very much time, very much paper, or very much ink in setting up a more elaborate but more sensible and consistent system of arranging the financial relations of the two countries.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: We have had to comment on very many fantastic provisions in this Home Rule Bill, and the Government have been relieved from commenting on many fantastic provisions of the Bill by means of the Closure and the guillotine; but when this Clause is looked at it is the most fantastic provision, not only that we have had to consider, but that has ever appeared, or which could ever have appeared, or been thought of, in relation to any Constitution which has ever been set up, not only in any part of the United Kingdom, but in any part of the world. Really, the only explanation of it is that the Government in framing their Bill not only had some prevision for what might happen in the future in their dealings with Ireland, but they were trying to make watertight not merely these provisions as regards the Government or as regards discussion in this House, but as regards their proceedings on the platforms in this country. This is a window-dressing Clause; a Clause to be able to go to the country and to say, "Look how anxious Ireland is to contribute to your Imperial necessities. They are burning to support your Navy." According to the new policy

    2027
    of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), they are now so proud of the Empire that they only want an opportunity of coming over here and framing provisions in this Bill which will give them what they are burning for, the power to contribute to your Imperial resources. That is the whole object of this Clause. There is nothing else in it.
    When this Home Rule Bill has started, if ever it should, which God forbid, will Ireland be in a position, of its own volition, to offer, as other places have clone in the Empire, "Dreadnoughts" for the assistance of the Imperial Government? I see nothing in the Bill to prevent it. It can tax Ireland for a "Dreadnought," or a regiment, or anything else. If it has that power, what on earth is the use of spending time in discussing these Clauses in this Bill? You all tell us that the moment the Bill passes all these sores of the past will be healed. Ireland will then be at peace. It will be one with this country. We shall be all one great brotherhood and one great nation. Why on earth do you not leave it to their own generosity to offer you that assistance towards Imperial needs which you think you are setting up by this Clause of the Bill? If Ireland is not willing to do that—and some people anticipate from past history that that may be the case—I hope it will not be the case—do you think that having set up a separate Parliament in Ireland, whatever may be in your Bill, you will be able to tell these people, with their own claims, their own ideals, and their own want of development in Ireland, that by an Order in Council you are going to summon over some of them to this House of Commons, and that, whether they like it or not, you are going to compel them to make a contribution to your Imperial Exchequer. The thing is absurd. You could not do it, and you know you could not do it, and that is why I say that the whole of this Clause is a pretence at the present moment. But see how your scheme hangs together. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us to-night, not for the first time, "I mean whenever there is an increase in Imperial charges, to tax Ireland just as we have done before with reduced representation. If I want an increase in the Navy or in the Army in the next year after this Bill has become law, I will put as much taxation upon Ireland as I like with forty-two Members here, instead of
    2028
    103." He says he can do that. I do not think he will be able to do it in fact. Really, if he can do that, and if that is the meaning of this Home Rule Bill, I do not think that anybody has yet given any explanation of why you are to go through all this performance of supplementing the Irish Members in this House for something which may cost a great deal less than they are entitled to do under the representation as it will stand after this Home Rule Bill passes.
    What an outlook for this country! Let me leave Ireland out of the question altogether for the moment. Next year you may want more "Dreadnoughts," or more money for the Army. You pass this Bill starting with a deficit of £2,000,000 a year, which I think will be a great deal more, because I think we have never had any real Debate yet as to the proper contribution to Ireland or the relation of the taxes between the two countries. Take it, however, at £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, with the declaration of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford—who is now imitating the Prime Minister in not being present—that they will hardly be able to make ends meet in Ireland with that contribution from this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that you are going to set up increased taxation in Ireland for Imperial purposes. What a prospect for peace! What a prospect for the millennium in which everybody is to get everything for nothing, or pay nothing for anything, which is putting the case in a different form! As everybody knows that has been the kind of exaggerated statement—I take this on the authority of the hon. Member for Cork—which has been made for many years throughout Ireland, and then on the top of that you are going to have for Imperial purposes increased taxation with reduced membership in this House of forty-two. I do not know how you are going to carry out that in your own finance. I do not know how you are going to segregate your own taxes, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down next year and says, "I must have a loan of £100,000,000. I see other nations are building large fleets, and although we are the most anxious in the world to reduce our armaments, we must keep pace, and we must have a loan of £100,000,000." And thereupon at once he says, "And remember this: Ireland must pay her share towards the £100,000,000." What an extraordinary way of setting up the

    2029
    government in Ireland, with the reduced membership here, to think that you can set up these loans which, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, means increased taxation in Ireland, not for one year, but for many years, paying interest and sinking fund. Why on earth are you going to call together, under this Clause, Irish Members back to this House, when, because they have made ends meet for one or two years, you are going to ask them to agree to some indefinite scheme by which they are to pay, not merely the addition to the Navy or the Army, or other Imperial expenses, but what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls something existing at the present time, I suppose in the nature of the National Debt which has been contracted in the last several hundred years?
    The whole of this Clause really has no meaning. I do suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at the realities of Ireland, and not to the kind of Ireland which the Solicitor-General is always imagining. The kind of Ireland he has in his mind—it is very kind of him—is something very perfect, but if you really believe that that is the Ireland you are legislating for, why do not you trust the Trish Parliament itself? Why do not you say as regards future contributions that the method in which Ireland is to contribute to Imperial expenses is that she should pass an Act and we should pass an Act to be called an Act of the two Houses? You do not do this because you do not believe that you would ever get the money, because you know that you would never get it. But then look how silly your position is. You are going to summon over Members to this House no matter what the state of parties is. You are going to bring them here when a bell rings, and turn them out when a bell rings, and you are going to upset the whole of your Session, no matter what the state of your legislation, and you are seriously pretending that if the twenty-two Members, or whatever you summon over, are against your proposals for increased contributions towards the Imperial Exchequer, you will disregard the Members you have summoned over from Ireland, in addition to the forty-two Members who are there already, and you will say, "We do not care one straw about the Irish Parliament which we ourselves created, and having summoned these Members and heard their views, we will pass this legislation whether you like it or not."
    2030
    Was there ever such a vista of friction in the setting up of constitutions as between two countries? I do not believe that once you have set up your Parliament, either in regard to this or any other matter, you can do anything except with the consent of the Irish Parliament, and I am not sure that you ought to be able to do anything, because you have done this act yourselves, and one of the greatest flaws in the whole of this Bill is that here at the heart of the Empire not only are you crippling Irish financial methods, but you are crippling your own financial methods, and in the times of your greatest difficulty you will have to consult not only the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. One word more as regards this matter. I have never heard of such a suggestion as that the Order in Council was to regulate who were to be the Members to be summoned over from Ireland. My hon. Friend behind me who has just spoken said he did not know much about Orders in Council. I know a little about them. I had six years in the Law Office, therefore I know something about Orders in Council. An Order in Council means the Order of the Government, nothing more nor less. And, therefore, what does this last Sub-section in the Clause mean? It means this, that the Government of the day are themselves to select what Members they shall call from Ireland. It is not merely to be done on any principle of constituencies. There is to be no majority and no minority representation. They are simply to look out in Ireland who are the men to help them, and therefore to summon the Member over from Dublin, Cork, Skibbereen, or wherever else it may be, and order him to come over here to discuss these matters. Was there ever a Constitution set up like that? "We are the Government. Why should we consult as to whether Members from the north or south should be brought here? That is nothing to us. We, the Government of the day, say that So-and-so and So-and-so are to come over here, and we say that So-and-so and So-and-so are not to come over here, and, therefore, we frame our Parliament as we like." Really, to use the phrase of the Prime Minister, "we are getting on." This is the democratic principle. The Members of the House of Commons in future are not to be elected by the constituencies, but to be selected by the Government of the day. I should think if the House of Commons passes-

    2031
    that they will pass anything. I do not wonder that the hon. Member for Hackney said that he did not altogether like it. I think that was as far as he went on this provision.
    Mr. MARTIN: I said I did not like it at all.
    Sir E. CARSON: He does not like it atall, but on the whole he is satisfied to vote for it.
    Mr. MARTIN: I said no such thing.
    Sir E. CARSON: I think he said he was satisfied with it, as the Irish accepted it.
    Mr. MARTIN: That is the choosing of Irish Members by the Government.
    Sir E. CARSON: The hon. Gentleman who comes from the Colonies is satisfied, after his experience, that the Dominion Government of Canada, in the Dominion Parliament ought to have the selection of Members from the Provinces to fill up that Parliament. I really do hope the Committee will pause before they create such a precedent as that the new electoral system we are to have is not to be by the constituencies, but by the Government of the day.
    Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has asked us to observe the realities of Ireland. I reply to him by saying that in my judgment no fallacy could be so gross as to attribute to a community, when it feels that justice is being done to it, the sentiments that it might probably entertain if it felt that it laboured under an injustice. For my part, I am one of those who think that in Ireland, as in other parts of the Empire, when you produce the feeling that you have done justice to national aspirations you will produce very different consequences.
    It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant, to the Order of the House of the 11th October, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'summoned' ['there shall be summoned'], stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 177.

    Division No. 375.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Field, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Adamson, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Flavin, Michael

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Clough, William

    Gill, A. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Ginnell, L.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Armitage, R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Crooks, William

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Hackett, J.

    Barton, W.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hall, F. (Normanton)

    Beale, Sir W. Phipson

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    De Forest, Baron

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Delany, William

    Harvey, T. E. Leeds, W.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Boland, John Plus

    Dillon, John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Doris, W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hayward, Evan

    Brace, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Brady, P. J.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Falconer, J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hinds, John

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hodge, John

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Ffrench, Pater

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Holt, Richurd Durning

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morison, Hector

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hudson, Walter

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Munro, R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Smith, Albert (Lancs. Clitheroe)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Snowden, P.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Dennell, Thomas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Ogden, Fred

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Grady, James

    Sutton, John E.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    King, Joseph

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    O'Malley, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Thomas J. H.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Shaughnessy, P J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

    O'Shee, James John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Leach, Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Lundon, T.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Waring, Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    McGhee, Richard

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Webb, H.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    M'Kean, John

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Radford, G. H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

    Molloy, M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roch, Walter F.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    NOES.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Falls, Bertram Godfrey

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Fell, Arthur

    Ashley, W. W.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Baird, J. L.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cassel, Felix

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Forster, Henry William

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

    Cave, George

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Barnston, Harry

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chambers, J.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Grant, J. A.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Gretton, John

    Bigland, Alfred

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Blair, Reginald

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds))

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Croft, H. P.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Boyton, J.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

    2034

    2035

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Martin, Joseph

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Middlemore, J. T.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Swift, Rigby

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Moore, William

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Jackson, Sir John

    Parkes (Ebenezer)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Rawlinson, J. F. P.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T, H'mts, Mile End)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Royds, Edmund

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Younger, Sir George

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Barrie and Mr. Bird.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock, at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 174.

    Division No. 376.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Adamson, William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Falconer, James

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Hey wood)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Armitage, R.

    Clough, William

    Field, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Barnes, George N.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Glanville, H. J.

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Barton, William

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Goldstone, Frank

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Crooks, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis, J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cullinan, John

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hackett, J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Black, Arthur w.

    De Forest, Baron

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Boland, John Pius

    Delany, William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Dillon, John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Brace, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Doris, William

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Duffy, William J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Buckmaster, Stanley Owen

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, M.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Rowlands, James

    Higham, John Sharp

    Mooney, John J.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hinds, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hodge, John

    Morison, Hector

    Scan Ian, Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Muldoon, John

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Munro, R.

    Sheehy, David

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R, C.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hudson, Walter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Shortt, Edward

    Hughes, S. L.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheres)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones, Rt. Hon Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Snowden, Philip

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sutton, J. E.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Ogden, Fred

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Grady, James

    Tennant, Harold John

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Malley, William

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    King, J.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    O'Shee, James John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wadsworth, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Leach, Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Waring, Walter

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Pointer, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wiles, Thomas

    M'Callum, Sir John M,

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    M'Kean, John

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T McKinnon (Glas.)

    Martin, Joseph

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robinson, Sidney

    NOES.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cator, John

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Cave, George

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bird, A.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Blair, Reginald

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Baird, J. L.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Chambers, James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Boyton, James

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bull, Sir William James

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Barnston, Harry

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Barrie, H. T.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Croft, H. P.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cassel, Felix

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    2038

    2039

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Fell, Arthur

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Royds, Edmund

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gordon, John (Londonderry South)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Grant, J. A.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gretton, John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Swift, Rigby

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Talbot, Lord E

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Mills, Hon Charles Thomas

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Moore, William

    Touche, George Alexander

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hills, John Waller

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wolmer Viscount

    Hohler, G. F.

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Younger, Sir George

    Jackson, Sir John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    J. Gordon (Brighton) and Mr. Tobin.

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Tuesday).

  NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER)— [EXPENSES.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of workmen employed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to enable the Admiralty to construct and maintain a pier at North Killingholme, on the River Humber, and for purposes in connection therewith."
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is always inconvenient to consider a Resolution of this kind during the Committee stage, because hon. Members are not favoured with a copy of it, but on the Report stage we have the opportunity to calmly peruse it in a printed form. This Resolution creates a new pre-
  2040
  cedent, and, in my opinion, it is one of the utmost importance. I think the House is entitled to know the amount of public money involved in this Resolution, and we ought to have some further explanation as to the operation of this provision. It is for the medical and surgical treatment of the workmen employed in building this pier at North Killingholme, on the River Humber. I understand that to mean that for the first time the Admiralty is compelled to act up to its responsibility with regard to housing and hospital accommodation of the men to be employed on this construction. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) made a gallant fight upon this point. I believe he was on the Committee which considered the Bill, and I think the House is entitled to know whether he is a party to this arrangement and whether it satisfies the claim he made. It is an elementary responsibility of employers that they should consider the housing of their workpeople and also ambulance and hospital accommodation. I only need to remind the House that a controversy arose on this point with regard to Rosyth. I only mention that point to show the importance of this point in its

  2041
  future application. The ordinary employer has always been expected to consider this as an initial problem. Any business man in the House knows that one of the chief concerns in any firm on establishing new works is the provision of housing and hospital accommodation for the people engaged in the construction. Up to the present, the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent alleges that responsibility has been rather shirked by the Admiralty. I must say the Admiralty gave a fairly exhaustive reply with regard to that question at Rosyth, and I understand this is to prevent a repetition of controversies like that which might otherwise crop up from time to time. I think we are entitled to know from the Admiralty whether, in adopting this new idea, they wish to make it permanent in future constructions. If so, it is an important departure which I, for one, welcome, providing it does not take the Admiralty beyond the ordinary responsibilities of a private firm. No private firm would be considered to have much standing if it simply looked to profit-making, and to the actual construction of the works regardless of the workpeople; and, if this is an admission of the Admiralty that for the first time that there are obligations connected with employers of labour, then I think a great step forward has been achieved, but the words are very vague, and I am not quite satisfied. I am not aware whether the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent can throw any light upon it in case the Government are unable to do so, but take the phrase, "medical and surgical treatment of the workmen employed." I would like to ask whether it is contemplated by this expenditure of money to erect hospital accommodation upon the site, or whether the Government are simply taking authority to spend money in quick means of transit. I think we ought to know how far the work is removed from the Hull Infirmary and what amount of time it would take to convey any unfortunate workman who was injured to this place of excellent surgical treatment. It does seem to me the House would not be justified in passing over a great change of policy like this without getting some assurance from the Admiralty that it is not merely done because the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent raised a point which was a little awkward, but because the idea is commendable and they are prepared to adopt it permanently. That is what I wish to elicit, because it seems plain to me that in
  2042
  the past the Government has not always lived up to the standard that they should be models as employers of labour. I have never identified myself with the doctrine that they should be more lenient in business transactions than other people, but surely we have a right to demand they should not be behind private employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "They ought to be in front."] Yes, they ought to be in front: The Government, in a matter of this kind, should, at any rate, be alongside the finest private employer in the country, I do not think I am overstating it when I put it as high as that. The Resolution seems to confine itself to the medical and surgical treatment of workmen. I understood that money was to be granted for housing accommodation, but I do not see any power being taken to supply a deficiency of cottages or rooms or desirable sheds where the men could be housed. I therefore ask that some light may be thrown upon this subject. It is necessary to see that these men live in well-ventilated and sanitary cottages. The Resolution seems to be limited in its scope, but the Admiralty ought to set an example with regard to these matters. Here they are on the banks of a great river and the Clauses seems to indicate that dredging will be necessary. I want to know how far we shall be justified in passing a Bill dealing with this great expenditure on dredgers unless the Admiralty also make proper provision for dealing with the cottages and the draining and sewering of the villat which will spring up in connection with this industry.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: This Resolution is necessary as a result of the efforts of the Select Committee appointed by this House to go into the subject. This is the first occasion on which the Government have recognised their duty with regard to housing accommodation for men on public works in the way other directors and promoters of this kind of works are compelled to do. In this case we are asking the Admiralty to do nothing more than is done by ordinary promoters of similar undertakings. In the Keighley and Birkenhead Water Bill, and in the Belfast Corporation Bill, passed this Session, much more stringent regulation relating to these matters are imposed, and while in their case the Local Government Board can compel the promoters to do these things, in the case of this Bill we shall be obliged to rely on the amount of pressure we can

  2043
  bring to bear on this Admiralty to comply with conditions of this kind. I hope that this innovation will bear fruit and prevent a repetition of the state of affairs we had at Rosyth. It is a good step in the right direction towards making decent provision for a deserving body of men.

  NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.— [Lords.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.— [Lords.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Male Tier.)
    (1) The Admiralty may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary, construct and maintain the pier hereinafter described in the line and according to the levels shown upon the deposited plan and sections, together with all works and conveniences necessary or proper for use in connection with the pier or for the use of vessels using the pier.
    (2) The pier above referred to is—a pier or jetty in the Parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, in the parish of North Killingholme and rural district of Glanford Brigg, commencing at a point on the foreshore of the River Humber, three hundred yards or thereabouts measured in a north-easterly direction from the north-west corner of the New Inn at North Killingholme Haven, and extending into and terminating in the bed or soil of the said river at a point distant two hundred and eighty yards or thereabouts measured in a north-easterly direction from its commencement as hereinbefore described.
    (3) The pier shall be of open pile work. At two points at convenient intervals from the end of the pier there shall intervene between the pairs of piles a space of twenty-five feet; and the underside of the floor or deck of the pier shall be at least ten feet above the level of high water at ordinary spring tides.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: This Clause is an operative Clause, and I rise in order to induce the Government to make some announcement with regard to their future inten-
    2044
    tions. As they by inadvertence omitted to take advantage of the opportunity, I now give them another. Clause 1 begins as follows:—
    "The Admiralty may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary, construct and maintain the pier hereinafter described in the line,"
    and so forth. I have read the first words to show that this is the most operative Clause of the Bill, and therefore, I think, a convenient opportunity for the Admiralty to make some announcement to the Committee, either confirming or otherwise the statement made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). It is a very important matter that the Committee should know whether all the arrangements made in connection with the Bill are to be part of the future permanent policy.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Any announcement by the Government upon that point would come on Clause 7, not on this Clause.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can I have an assurance that the Government will take the opportunity of making it on Clause 7?

    CLAUSE 2.—(Acquisition of Land.)
    Subject to and in accordance with the Admiralty Lands and Works Act, 1864, the Admiralty may, by agreement or compulsorily, purchase or take all or any part of the lands delineated in the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference, or any interest or easement in or over those lands or any of them:
    Provided that if any part of the pier or works is not executed within the period of seven years from the passing of this Act, or within such further period as Parliament may sanction, any easement acquired from the Humber Conservancy Board over any portion of the bed and foreshore of the Humber exclusively for or in respect of the unexecuted part shall revert to and vest in the Board and be held by them under the same conditions and covenants as before the easement was so acquired, unless the Board shall consent to the retaining and holding of the easement by the Admiralty, and in the event of any such reversion to the Board a proportionate part of any rent-charge payable in respect of the easement shall cease to be payable.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: This Clause deals with the purchasing or taking of lands which are delineated in the deposited plan. It says:—
    "Provided that if any part of the pier or works is not executed within the period of seven years from the passing of this Act."
    Then certain things shall happen. I think we are entitled to know why the period of seven years has been chosen. Why not five, or why not nine? So far as this House is concerned, this seems a purely arbitrary figure. I know there is some charm in the number seven, but I do not see that it has any particular application to this Clause. The very wording of this Clause shows what a complicated matter the holding of land is. When you come to deal with land, as you do in this Clause, then you begin to hear of—
    "conditions and covenants as before the easement was so acquired."
    That is a little object lesson. You cannot even have a small pier built by the Admiralty without taking into account the question of easements. There is a great deal more in the question of easements than hon. Members are aware of. If I were so minded there are many useful lessons that could be drawn from the discussion of this word "easement." It almost invariably means that there is someone in possession, either a ground landlord or some board or elected authority—and there is nothing like the never-ending audacity of elected persons; it is more tyrannical than a private owner. It is almost exactly the same problem that you get in a coal easement.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled on a Clause of this kind to raise a general discussion on the word "easement."
    Mr. BOOTH: The point with regard to this is that in a work of this kind, which I presume is for the public good, you cannot make any headway without taking into consideration this question of easement, although in this case it comes from the Humber Conservancy Board. I wanted to draw the general lesson that there is the same obstacle—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to draw a general lesson.
    Mr. BOOTH: Then I will draw attention to the particular lesson which is contained here. This is a particular instance of the position when you are carrying out something quite useful and you find that you have to consider obeying and acknowledging the authority of the Humber Conservancy Board over any portion of the bed and foreshore of the Humber. Is it reasonable that in considering the North Killingholme Pier something useful to the Admiralty—we should have to be bothering our heads with regard to the bed and foreshore of the Humber? The Government have not explained what connection the foreshore of the Humber has with this particular work. Who is the owner of the foreshore of the Humber? In whom is the foreshore of the Humber vested? Why is it that better terms could not be obtained? The Admiralty seem to have been in a great difficulty, and I should have thought, this was rather a clumsy way to get out of it. It would have been much simpler to put a definite sum in. When it comes to a definite period of years they can agree upon a definite figure—seven years—although they wanted no justification for showing that number; but when they come to the latter part they do not put in a definite sum. The last few words are the most important:—
    "Any proportionate part of any rent charge."
    We are entitled to some guidance. What is the rent charge of which we are to bear a proportionate part? How much is it? How long will it continue? Is it a ground rent? Is it a leasehold rent? Or exactly of what nature is it? Can any Member of the Government clear up the meaning of an obscure proviso like this? I draw the attention of the House to this fact: that this proviso contains twelve lines in one sentence. Any phrase like that is almost beyond any ordinary man to interpret, You are simply preparing for law suits of an expensive character. There is no necessity for bringing in a tremendously long sentence with only two commas.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks are not in the question of the merits of the Clause. It is within the experience of the House that such a sentence is of quite common occurrence.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes, it is of too common occurrence, and that is why I rise to protest against it. There is no necessity whatever for these long-winded sentences

    2047
    in Bills. They appear again and again, and I make an appeal to the Government on the draftsman to word Bills in future in a simple form and not in this way. It was simply meant to be passed in a hurry with the idea that the bulk of the Members need not take any trouble to object because it is a Government Bill.
    Mr. COTTONmade a remark which was inaudible.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Dredge.)
    (1) The Admiralty may deepen, dredge, scour, cleanse, alter, and improve the bed, shores, and channel of the River Humber adjoining or near the pier for any purpose in connection with the construction and maintenance of the pier, or for the purpose of securing sufficient depth of water at and near the pier, and providing convenient access for vessels to the pier.
    (2) The Admiralty and the Humber Conservancy Board may enter into agreements for the carrying out of any dredging works authorised by this Section on behalf of the Admiralty by the Board upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed.
    (3) No materials excavated or dredged under the powers conferred by this Section shall be deposited below high-water mark of ordinary spring tides otherwise than in such places and under such restrictions as the Humber Conservancy Board, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may sanction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: I want to ask what is the idea of the Admiralty in taking these large powers and spending money in deepening and scouring this river. What is the reason that the river is in such a state? Simply because certain places in the West Biding put such a large amount of sewage into it as to necessitate the proposal of this Clause. Some of the townships along the banks do their duty. I am bound to say that the townships in my constituency do their duty, but there are large townships up stream which say that they cannot purify the effluent flowing into the river because the manufacturers object to have the necessary rates imposed. The River Humber is in a filthy state because they refuse to spend money in doing a public duty. If the public authorities of the West
    2048
    Riding did their duty in this matter of the purification of the river. [Interruption.] The township which I have the honour to represent has run up the rate to 10s. 8d. in the £. This is a rural parish and is done in order to avoid the necessity of cleansing the river of refuse lower down. If other councils had done their duty in the same way—I do not mean at the same expense—there would not be any necessity for all this dredging, scouring and cleansing that takes place. The melancholy fact in regard to the Humber is that instead of there being an abundance of pure water flowing down the river cleansing out the channel the water coming down from some of these large towns is as black as ink. It is all very well for hon. Members who represent some of these towns to dissent, because they do not want the rates to be raised, but they ought to have consideration for other places lower down the stream.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is dealing with matter which is not relevant to this Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: We are passing this with very great speed. Clause 4 deals with cleansing, dredging, and scouring the channel of the River Humber, and I submit that there will be much more of this work to be done if the river is not kept free from the impurities which come from the manufacturing towns.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is persisting in a line of argument which is not in order.
    Mr. BOOTH: The Admiralty cannot do the work without spending money which will fall on the public exchequer, and the expenditure will be larger for the reasons I have given. With regard to Subsection (2), I would like to know with whom are the agreements contemplated—with private firms or with some other Government Department? The meaning of Sub-section (3) I take to be that the material excavated will be taken out beyond the harbour bar, and I would like to know is it intended as far as possible always to go beyond the harbour bar? I should think it would only be, after all, in a case of extreme emergency, that they would put this refuse inside the bar, or somewhere in the estuary. We are entitled to know whether any intimation has been given to the Conservancy Board that this Sub-section (3) will be put in operation, and if so, we should like to know what precedent there is for it.
    Mr. WATT: I ask the Government to give some satisfactory answer to what has been said. We are entitled to have some explanation of what is to be done. The stuff that is dredged should be taken out to sea. On the Clyde it was deposited on the shore around Greenock.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What was done on the Clyde is not relevant.
    Mr. WATT: I merely mention that by way of illustration. I think that this system which is proposed on the Humber is a bad one, and that the refuse should be taken right out to sea.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Penalty for Obstructing Works.)
    If any person wilfully obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Admiralty in setting out the line of the pier or works connected therewith, or pulls up or removes any poles or stakes driven into the ground for the purpose of setting out the line of the works, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: This Clause provides for a penalty, which is not to exceed £5. From that you would think it was a trifling offence. It is nothing of the kind. It is where "any person wilfully obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Admiralty in setting out the line of pier or works," is liable to the penalty. The obstruction of this mighty Admiralty which protects us from all the world, only involves a penalty of £5. Are the Admiralty prepared to say that anyone who opposes their wishes is to be let off with a penalty of £5? If a pole or stake to mark the line of pier is removed in defiance of the Admiralty, to say that the penalty shall be only £5 is ridiculous in the extreme. We know that the limit is £5 and that the magistrates will make it about ten shillings or a pound. I appeal to the Admiralty to increase the amount to some substantial sum.
    CLAUSE 6 agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Accommodation for Workmen Employed on Construction of Works.)
    (1) The Admiralty shall erect, fit up, and maintain or provide—

    (a) Such huts or buildings for the accommodation of the workmen employed in and about the construction of the works authorised by this Act;

    (b) Such hospital accommodation for the treatment of cases of sickness or accident among such workmen including accommodation for dealing with infectious diseases

    as shall be reasonably necessary having regard to the accommodation available in the neighbourhood of or conveniently accessible from the said works, and shall provide and maintain proper and sufficient sanitary accommodation in connexion with every such building and hospital.
    (2) The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable, costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workman employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them except in so far as such costs and expenses are payable under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or otherwise.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to insert the words, "The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workman employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them." I wish to explain the purport of this Clause which is the one alteration in the Bill made by the Select Committee. I may say I explained this matter very carefully last Wednesday, but I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I will do so again. When this Bill came up for Second Reading on October 24th the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) moved a declaratory Amendment asking the House to refuse the Second Reading unless there was a provision in the Bill as to house accommodation and medical and hospital treatment. He further added that we were not to pay less then 6d. per hour. I pointed out to him then that Standing Order, 184 (A), of the House empowered the Select Committee to look into the matter and to see whether it would appear that these works would

    2051
    take into the locality a larger number of men than the existing accommodation provided, and if so the Standing Order empowered the Select Committee to put a provision in the Bill to make that provision, should it be necessary. There has been provided a model Clause, No. 14, and under the Standing Order the Select Committee with our entire concurrence put in that provision. The hon. Member for Stoke, who has always displayed great interest on behalf of the navvy, is entitled to ask us how we propose to proceed under the Clause. The Clause empowers us to make careful inquiry, and if we find we shall be taking men there beyond the accommodation of the locality we are to make provision. I have already in anticipation of this had a careful report made to me as to the housing in the locality, and as to the number of men we are likely to take there. I do not think we shall take more than forty men for this particular pier, the cost of which will be from £7,000 to £9,000. Certainly we shall deal sympathetically with this matter which we are bound to carry out under the pledges I have given and under the obligations which this Clause lays upon us. If we find that these works bring into the locality men for whom there is no reasonable accommodation within reasonable distance, having regard to the light railway which now exists to Immingham, my hon. Friend may take it from me that we shall carry out fully the provisions of this Clause which have been introduced with our full concurrence.
    Mr. BOOTH: I rise to thank the Government for having met us in such a handsome manner. As the right hon. Gentleman has himself explained the Clause, there is no need for me to do so.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    CLAUSES 8 and 9 agreed to.
    Bill reported with an Amendment.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understood you to put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." If that is so, there must be a Report stage. You cannot take the Third Reading.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): This is what we are now about to do.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But can you, on the same evening that you have taken the Committee stage, take the Report stage of a Money Bill which has been amended? I really must protest. The whole proceeding is absolutely out of order. Under these circumstances I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not a Money Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means. There was a Money Resolution before the Committee, which is quite a different thing. There is nothing to prevent the House from taking the Report stage now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: With all deference, although the Bill itself was not a Money Bill inasmuch as it did not originate in Committee of Ways and Means, this particular Clause, which has been amended, did originate in Committee of Ways and Means, and it is because it is that particular Clause which has been amended that I venture to say the proceedings are out of order. I really do not see what the Government gain; we shall have no objection to taking the stage to-morrow.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as the Government are concerned, we have no objection to the further proceedings being adjourned.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I should like the hon. Baronet clearly to understand that the Ruling I gave is perfectly correct, as the Bill did not originate in a money Committee. But if the Government agree to adjourn the Bill, that is another matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was quite aware that the Bill did not originate in Committee of Ways and Means, but this particular Clause did, and the Money Resolution had to do with this particular Clause.
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow (Tuesday).

  PILOTAGE [SALARIES AND EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the Salaries and remuneration

  2053
  of the Commissioners or others, and of the allowances and Expenses to members of advisory committees, appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Pilotage, and of any Expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in the execution of such Act, provided that such payment shall not exceed the sum of six thousand pounds in any one year."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words "the salaries and remunerations of Commissioners or others." These important matters should not be passed without discussion. If hon. Members below the Gangway think they ought to be they are perfectly at liberty, if they want to go home and go to bed to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I am not going to get on. Hon. Members who support the Government have no right to decide whether or not arguments for or against should be put forward. I object to all these Resolutions which are going to appoint "Commissioners or others." What is the object of appointing all these people if not in order that fat jobs may be given to supporters of the Government? No wonder hon. Members below the Gangway do not want to discuss these matters! I have taken time to see whether or not there is any justification for this Resolution. In all the preceding Pilotage Bills which have been passed—the last was passed five or six years ago—there is not one in which Commissioners have been appointed. The right hon. Gentleman asks us for a blank cheque and has not the courtesy to tell us how much money he wants, or why it is needed! What do we want Advisory Committees for? Why do we pay the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade £5,000 a year except to see that these matters are looked into? I want to be perfectly accurate in moving this Amendment, because this Resolution is one of the things which is hidden in the Clerk's desk, and with the exception of myself and possibly the right hon. Gentleman—and I am not too sure about the right hon. Gentleman—there is not any Member of the House who knows what it is about—
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope the hon Baronet will make an exception in my case?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member is most diligent, and great credit is due to him for that diligence, on behalf of the extravagant party which he nominally supports. I propose to leave these words
  2054
  out in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving us some explanation of the meaning of this Resolution. Unless the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is satisfactory I shall move an Amendment limiting the amount of money which is to be spent.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I do not quite know why the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of discourtesy in not explaining the provisions of this Bill. I took the opportunity when introducing the Bill to explain fully the reason why the Bill was introduced, and the reason why the Commissioners are necessary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That took place at six o'clock on a Friday evening. We are not obliged, all of us, to remain here until such an hour on a Friday evening.
  Mr. BUXTON: As a matter of fact it was at half-past three on a Friday afternoon. I explained this was a Consolidation Bill and an endeavour to bring together in one Act the whole of the numerous local and general acts in order to bring about uniformity and simplicity in the pilotage system throughout. In order to bring about that uniformity and simplicity it is necessary to appoint certain persons, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know there are no new posts to be created and no new jobs to be filled. The Bill itself states that the persons to be appointed will be purely temporary, and there is no intention to appoint anyone to permanent posts, and there will be no new department created. We shall utilise the existing staff of the Board of Trade to the fullest extent for all those inquiries. The whole matter involves a comparatively small sum. It is not possible to give an absolute estimate at the present moment because under the provisions of the Bill if a pilotage authority can show that the existing syestem is a good one and a proper scheme no inquiry shall be necessary in such cases, and therefore it is not possible at the present moment to say the instances in which inquiries will have to be held, but subject to that the total cost may roughly be estimated at £1,200 to £1,300 a year for two years, and about £1,300 a year in addition. There will be nothing in the nature of permanent posts or an additional department.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say no posts will be created?
  Mr. BUXTON: No permanent posts.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman did not make that quite clear.
  Mr. BUXTON: There will be these inquiries and the persons undertaking them will be paid fees as is always done in such cases.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There will be no permanent posts only temporary posts for two or three years, or longer or shorter.
  Mr. BUXTON: I think the hon. Baronet is trying not to understand me. They will not be temporary or permanent posts. We shall appoint persons and they will be paid by fees as is usually the case in regard to such inquiries. In no senses are these posts permanent or temporary posts.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They are not to be permanent or temporary. Possibly it is my stupidity, but I do not understand how there are to be posts which are neither temporary nor permanent. Am I to understand that a certain person at present in the Civil Service and receiving £500 a year is to be appointed to make certain inquiries under this Bill and in addition to his £500 a year is to be paid certain fees? That must be so if there are to be no posts. Why should that person not be content with the salary he is receiving, and if he is taken off his work to do something else why should he receive an extra salary? I really think we ought to have some further explanation. There is great difficulty in finding out what all these things are for, and it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman himself for bringing these matters forward at such a preposterous hour. I do not wish to press my argument if the right hon. Gentleman will give me a clear explanation of what is going to be done with the money. He says the limit will be £2,600, and I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment limiting the amount so that we shall have some assurance that the money will not be dissipated in some other way after Ave have passed the Resolution.
  Mr. BUXTON: I stated that these posts would be neither temporary nor permanent because the hon. Baronet accused me of creating fresh posts to provide fat jobs for my friends. These are not posts in the sense he had in mind. These inquiries will be held by persons at the Board of Trade competent to carry them out. This kind of thing is constantly being done and they will be paid by fees. There will also be
  2056
  the expenses of shorthand writers and typists and other expenses which will amount in three years to about £1,300 a year. There will have to be some additional staff appointed to carry out the permanent parts of the Act which will cost certainly not more than £1,300 a year. That I think is a clear answer to the hon. Baronet.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: The President of the Board of Trade told us that he explained the appointment of these Commissioners on the Second Heading. I listened with the greatest possible attention to every word which the right hon. Gentleman uttered on the Second Reading and as far as my recollection serves me no reasons at all were stated for the appointment of these Commissioners. As I pointed out at the time he ought to have obtained the information quite easily and readily before presenting it at all. Now he comes to the House and wants a grant of something like £8,000 or £9,000 for the purpose of obtaining information which could have been obtained without any cost to the State at all. It is a wicked and wilful waste of public money to conduct the business of the country in that way. I support the Amendment, because the information could have been obtained through the Government departments or by a semi-employed Member of the Government without any expense to the country at all. No explanation has been given by the President of the Board of Trade as to how the money is to be spent or how many inquiries are to be held or in how many districts it is necessary to hold inquiries. Anyone who has any knowledge of pilotage matters knows the number of districts is extremely limited. Under these circumstances, I offer the strongest opposition to this Resolution which is wholly unnecessary and support the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to explain now that the Commissioners will be persons employed temporarily for certain inquiries when they are made. I think that is perfectly clear, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation. He says, however, there would have to be additional assistance provided for the Board of Trade. That means permanent appointments. It means more officials at the Board of Trade, and those officials will be appointed permanently. Then I must point out his previous statement that there were going to be no permanent posts was

  2057
  not quite accurate. If I had not pressed the matter we should not have got the admission. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will note that fact. Under the circumstances it seems to me there are only two courses open: either I must press my Amendment to a Division or ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment providing the moneys to be provided by Parliament shall not exceed, say, £4,000 in one year, or some such limiting Resolution.
  12.0 M
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think I could be fairly asked to do that. It is impossible to say at the present moment how many inquiries will be held, but the best estimate I can make is the figures I have given. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press me further. It is on record what I have estimated upon, and if I have stated anything wrongly it will be open for the hon. Member to draw the attention of the House to it. As regards the posts he has been speaking of—the Commissioners' posts and the "fat jobs," all I can say is that the two or three additions which will have to be made to the Hoard of Trade stall to carry on the permanent provisions of the Act will be Civil Servants, brought into the Service under Civil Service conditions, and therefore it cannot be a question of a job.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will amend my Amendment. I moved to leave out the words "salaries and remuneration of the Commissioners or others," but I will now simply move to leave out the words "or others."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member asks leave to withdraw from the Amendment the words "salaries and remuneration of the Commissioners"?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. BOOTH: I take it that this Amendment has to be further discussed. To my mind these Commissioners are not required at all, and I ventured on the Second Reading of the Bill to enter my protest against their appointment. I am very glad once again to find myself in unison with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in opposing the creation of these posts. No case has been made out for them at all, either last Friday or to-night. I do not believe there is a single hon. Member here who would be willing to go down to his Constituents and declare that there is any need for these additional
  2058
  appointments. I shall look with very great interest for any action of that kind. We are continually criticised in the country for multiplying these appointments, and I sincerely hope that this is the last batch that the Government will create. I say it in all sincerity because of the criticisms which we have to fight in the country in connection with this matter. Again, I think we have cause for complaint that in the month of December we should be discussing a huge Bill of fifty Clauses which will be found to be exceedingly controversial. Since Friday last I have been approached by Members in all parts of the House to go on to the Committee to fight this Bill. I have declined to do so. I do not think that the Bill has any chance of getting through, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman, when he said it was an agreed Bill, could not have been aware that not only the pilots, but all kinds of people are opposed to it.
  Mr. BUXTON: The Second Reading was agreed.
  Mr. BOOTH: It does not follow because we did not go to a Division that the main bulk of the Liberal party welcome this Bill. I know it is not so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making remarks suitable to a Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is, I know, the Money Resolution on which the Bill is founded, and on it I submit we are entitled to discuss the merits of the scheme.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not so, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks within proper limits.
  Mr. BOOTH: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to these appointments. Every Government Bill that is now brought forward contains provision for the appointment of Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman has hinted that these particular appointments are to be temporary. I must say I have no faith in that. Xo doubt while the right hon. Gentleman is in office he will do his best to keep them temporary, but I fear that when once the House has sanctioned this expenditure of £2,600 per annum we shall ever effect any economy under this head. I am of opinion that the expense will grow rather than diminish. The Government, in bringing in a Bill like this, necessitating a

  2059
  Money Resolution like this at the beginning of December is subjecting its loyal and patient supporters to more than they can stand.
  Mr. MARTIN: I know that it is quite impossible to offer any arguments at this time, but I should like to bear out what the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) has said as to the feeling in the country, especially among Liberals, against the large number of officials who are created practically under every Bill we have had before us since I have been in the House. I know that is the feeling among Members on these benches, especially the Labour Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe they have great difficulty in explaining it to their Constitutents.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a general comment on a matter of policy. If the hon. Member has any further remarks to make he must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. MARTIN: The Amendment is to cut off expense which I object to. I protest against being obliged to discuss a serious matter of this kind, in which we are all interested, at this hour of the night. The Committee is not ready to listen to arguments. If the Government have no time this Session to put through Bills of this kind, let them wait until next Session. I dislike very much voting against the Government's policy, but no argument has been offered in opposition to the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). It is said that these appointments will not be permanent. It makes very little difference whether they are permanent or accidental, so long as they cost money. That is what the country is thinking about—the large amount of money spent under Bill after Bill that comes up. It would be much better for the Government if, instead of attempting to overwork Members who attend here—we are warned that there must be 300 here all the time—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really do not see that these remarks have anything to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. MARTIN: I can understand the unwillingness of hon. Members to listen.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Talk to the subject.
  Mr. MARTIN: The question is whether we should pass a Resolution providing for
  2060
  an indefinite number of Commissioners. The President of the Board of Trade tells us that while he thinks the cost will be £1,300 a year he is unwilling to assent to a limitation of £4,000, which is nearly three times as much as he thinks the cost will be. I repeat that it is against the interests of the Liberal party to have these Commissioners and special agents and all kinds of officials appointed under almost every Bill that is brought forward.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is the third time I have asked the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee and not to deal with general matters in regard to which other opportunities are open to him in connection with the proceedings of this House. If I have to call him to order again I shall have to put the Rules in operation and ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Before we support the Government in this blank cheque let us consider the figures which have been put forward. £1,300 a year permanently, quite contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman explained to us. You are going to vote that. To whom s We are not told. An extra staff of the Board of Trade. What for? We are not told. A second £1,300 a year for two or three years to Commissioners to make inquiries in different parts of the country which ought to be made before the Bill is introduced. The right hon. Gentleman will not take a limit of £4,000. Let us offer him a limit of £6,000. Surely we ought to put some sort of limit upon voting money after Twelve o'clock at night on such an explanation as we have had, just to show that the House of Commons is not a farce and still has some control over the finances of the country.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will say something. Will he accept no limit whatever? He is asking us to pass this Resolution giving him a blank cheque for the appointment of Commissionerships and other appointments, which he says are neither temporary nor permanent. He gives us officers, as he pretends for three years, and has to admit a moment later that half of them are permanent, and he will accept no limit, whatever. His own figures amount to £2,600 a year. He has been asked to accept £4,000 and £6,000 as a limit. He has refused the £4,000 and gives no answer to the £6,000. I think he is trifling with the House. Surely it is not consistent with the dignity of a

  2061
  Government Department and a Member of the Cabinet to treat the House in this way. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude this evening has been endeavouring to conceal the true facts of the case. It is one of the most barefaced attempts to keep facts back and conceal the whole truth that we have seen even in years "which are full of barefaced attempts of a
  Captain JESSEL: The President of the Board of Trade has given us no proper explanation of these figures. In reply to the hon. Member for the City of London we were told that these figures were neither permanent nor temporary. In the course of the said speech we find that £1,300 is for occasional Commissioners,
  similar kind. I must press the right hon. Gentleman to give some sort of reply before the matter goes to a division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 18.

  Division No. 377.]

  AYES.

  12.15 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Shee, James John

  Armitage, Robert

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Hudson, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Brace, William

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Keating Matthew

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clough, William

  King, J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cullinan, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Scanian, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Doris, W.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sutherland, John E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Sutton, John E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Falconer, J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Martin, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meagher, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morison, Hector

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Muldoon, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Munro, Robert

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  NOES.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Terrell, George Wilts., N.W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Watt, Henry A.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Pringle, William M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

  Sanders, Robert

  Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

  and the other £1,300 is for permanent officials of the Board of Trade. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade has been most unsatisfactory. He refused to accept the offer to reduce the expenses to £4,000 or even to £6,000. I was glad to find myself voting with the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

  2063
  Well, then, I was surprised he had not the courage of his convictions, and that he did not go into the Lobby with us. He knows as well as we do that the people in St. Pancras are poor and cannot put up with these extravagant salaries. The matter should be adjourned and the President of the Board of Trade in consultation with his expert advisers should give the matter full consideration and get all the facts. I therefore move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Surely we are not going to be treated with this discourtesy. Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take any notice of anything that has been said?
  Mr. AINSWORTH: On a point of Order. Did you not put the question? I distinctly heard it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I proposed the question; I did not put it.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I wish to repeat the question which I asked a moment ago as to whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should continue to treat the Opposition with the discourtesy which he has shown. He has given us absolutely no explanation whatever of this Bill. He has given no answer to the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and he made a statement which he admitted a moment or two later is in part false. He has given estimates which he has to admit he does not himself rely upon; and I do think we are entitled to ask for further explanation of the proposal of the Government and some further justification of the estimates and figures which they put before us previous to our being asked to pass a Resolution such as that which you, Sir, have put from the Chair. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not continue to be so discourteous. Because we happen to be discussing the matter at this hour is no reason why we should not be treated with proper courtesy.
  Mr. BUXTON: I intended no discourtesy. The hon. Gentleman simply moved the Adjournment of the Debate, and he asked no further question. I should have been very glad to answer any questions he might have asked. Various questions were put to me which I had already answered, and I can assure hon. Members that no discourtesy was intended.
  Captain JESSEL: I moved to report Progress because the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the questions put to him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why he should not accept the Motion for the Adjournment to report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman simply got up and said that he had answered the questions previously put to him. He gave no reason why the Debate should not be adjourned. I propose to give reasons why the course proposed by my hon. Friend should be followed. The right hon. Gentleman does not quite know whether it is going to cost £3,600 a year or more. This is an important question, and an adjournment of the Debate would give him an opportunity of consulting with his advisers, and of coming down to the House and being able to tell us, in the adjourned Debate, when it is resumed, what is the exact amount which he thinks the new Commissioners, or the new people, whatever you may call them, will cost. It may be possible that, on further consideration, he would be able to accept a money limit to the Resolution. In those circumstances I think I have advanced some strong arguments, which deserve an answer, for the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again—first, economy; secondly, good management; and thirdly, the interests of the House of Commons.
  Question, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to add at the end of the Resolution the words, "Provided that such payments shall not exceed the sum of £6,000 in any one year."
  Question proposed, "That these words be added to the Resolution at the end thereof."
  Mr. BUXTON: I think the hon. Member who proposed the limit of £6,000 originally did not make things quite clear. I thought he meant that the limit was to be £6,000 in all. I could nor accept that, as part of the expenditure will be permanent. I am willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet that there shall be a limit of £6,000 in any one year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution, as amended, put, and agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

  RAILWAYS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at. Twenty-six Minutes before One o'clock.

  Heavy Motor Omnibuses.
  Heavy Motor Omnibuses.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Provisional Valuation.
  Provisional Valuation.
  Archdale Estate.
  Archdale Estate.
  Lough Swilly Railway Fares.
  Lough Swilly Railway Fares.
  Census Statements.
  Census Statements.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Agricultural Prices.
  Irish Agricultural Prices.
  Recruiting (Royal Irish Constabulary).
  Recruiting (Royal Irish Constabulary).
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  LORD LIEUTENANT'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  LORD LIEUTENANT'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
  Fort Matilda Torpedo Factory.
  Fort Matilda Torpedo Factory.
  Royal William Victualling Yard.
  Royal William Victualling Yard.
  Royal Small Arms Factory.
  Royal Small Arms Factory.
  Colonial Military Training.
  Colonial Military Training.
  Canada.
  Canada.
  Commonwealth of Australia.
  Commonwealth of Australia.
  New Zealand.
  New Zealand.
  Union of South Africa.
  Union of South Africa.
  British Guiana.
  British Guiana.
  Jamaica.
  Jamaica.
  Antigua.
  Antigua.
  Dominica and Montserrat.
  Dominica and Montserrat.
  St. Kitts-Nevis.
  St. Kitts-Nevis.
  Indian Medical Colleges.
  Indian Medical Colleges.
  Indian Finance.
  Indian Finance.
  Indian Railways.
  Indian Railways.
  Indian Silver.
  Indian Silver.
  Police Court Case.
  Police Court Case.
  Metropolitan Traffic Regulations.
  Metropolitan Traffic Regulations.
  Votes for Women (Rex v. Pethick Lawrence and Others).
  Votes for Women (Rex v. Pethick Lawrence and Others).
  Hague Convention.
  Hague Convention.
  Phthisis Notifications.
  Phthisis Notifications.
  Pilotage Bill.
  Pilotage Bill.
  Co-partnership and Profit Sharing.
  Co-partnership and Profit Sharing.
  Import and Export of Woollens.
  Import and Export of Woollens.
  Tea Exports from China and India.
  Tea Exports from China and India.
  Carriage of Frozen Meat.
  Carriage of Frozen Meat.
  Board of Agriculture Orders.
  Board of Agriculture Orders.
  London Telephones.
  London Telephones.
  Post Office (Unrest in the Engineering Classes).
  Post Office (Unrest in the Engineering Classes).
EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the Claimant the Duke of Atholl: The Attorney-General heard on behalf of the Crown: Committee adjourned till Tomorrow.
Charles, Lord Bishop of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
NORTH KILLINGHOLME PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to meeting places of Approved Societies: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 176.)

THE LAND INQUIRY.
THE EARL of HALSBURY THE EARL of HALSBURY rose to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the distribution of printed matter without the name and address of the printer in legible characters on the matter so distributed is not an offence punishable by a fine of five pounds for each copy of the matter so distributed; and to call attention to the circumstances under which certain papers have been distributed.
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, before addressing to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack the Question of which I have given notice I think it desirable to explain that there has been distributed very widely over Great Britain a number of documents, in connection with which I will not impute anything that I cannot absolutely prove but which look to me very much as if the person who had devised them had intended them to be understood as official and authoritative documents that required to be answered, and I know certainly of more than one person having been misled into the belief that failure to comply would subject them to a penalty. In pursuance of that belief a great number of these

3
documents have been answered—how we do not know, but upon that I shall have a word to say presently. I should like your Lordships to understand the sort of documents these are. I hold two of them in my hand. They are headed "Private and Confidential," and their origin and object are expressed very neatly in these words—
"The fact that this inquiry is definitely for the object of providing information for a Liberal Government makes it naturally difficult to expect help from those who are opponents; but there may be a good many cases in which such opponents, if they are convinced that the real object is to get at the facts impartially stated, may be willing to give information. In such cases information would be readily welcomed."
I do not suppose anybody familiar with public affairs will be misled by such phrases as that the facts are to be "impartially stated." Of course, you cannot expect that a person would ask for facts not to be impartially stated. Neither, I suppose, would anybody he misled by the statement that it is only intended to get facts and not to derive inferences, and that people should be very careful what they say. Those are words which anybody distributing documents of the sort would be likely to use; but if I were to go through the questions—I do not know whether your Lordships have observed what a volume there is—I might point out that the tone and object of the interrogatories are such as to make them what we would call in the Law Courts leading questions.
But my object is not so much to call attention to the actual questions themselves, some of which I dare say might be usefully and properly asked before an impartial inquiry which sat in public and heard witnesses, in which case—and this is, perhaps, the most important point of all—the answers given, however favourable or unfavourable to the person asking the question, would be published and known; but this volume of questions is presented to Great Britain to be answered, so it is suggested, by every town and village in it, and the inquiry is to be private and confidential. The questions scattered through these documents show the tone of the inquirer. How much the land is kept away from being built upon and affording opportunities for small cottages for small people, etc.—what questions of that sort can be put can be easily imagined. But, as I have said, if His Majesty's Government would be good enough to appoint a Com-
4
mittee and ask these same questions only in public and not secretly and not regard the information as private and confidential, I do not think anybody would complain. It is, however, obvious that a roving inquiry of this sort over all these fields may produce, and no doubt will sometimes produce, ill-feeling between landlord and tenant, which appears to be the object principally aimed at here. These questions if properly asked might very properly be put, and the responsibility would lie upon the persons with respect to whom they are said whether they would take notice of them or not; but what one does object to here is a collection of malevolent gossip by private and confidential inquiries, when no one will see the answers except the person who has been good enough to print all this, and no one will know what the accusation is that is made. I can imagine that in view of a General Election it might be convenient enough for a collection of this sort to be given into the hands of a candidate, without any authority and without any knowledge of where it comes from, as an example of the way in which land is held in this country and the sort of treatment that small tenants receive, etc., etc. I can imagine a good many electoral speeches made on this subject without the least authority beyond saying "I have been told" so on and so on, and perhaps the speakers might add "privately and confidentially," that such are the relations between landlord and tenant in that neighbourhood. It is most formidable that this sort of thing should be allowed with the qualified approval—I am not quite certain of the exact phrase I ought to use—with, I think, the qualified approval of the Prime Minister given in reply to a Question addressed to him in the other House.
My first objection is that the distribution of this printed matter in this way is contrary to law, and that is why I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether the Statute to which I refer does not forbid it. That if it is in force it does forbid it there is no question. No question can arise about the language of the Statute, because it says that "any printed matter whatsoever" shall require the printer's name and address, and that in respect of every document distributed without the printer's name and address a fine of £5 may be enforced. I suspect that if I could attach the person who did this it

5
would be rather a large fine that he would incur, from what I hear. But if it is contrary to law I suppose the answer would naturally be, Why not prosecute? Therein appears to me to come in the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. The old Act, the 93rd, I think it was, of George III, is repealed whereby anybody could prosecute, and now only the Law Officers of the Crown can prosecute. It is within their power to suppress this. But to again quote the language of the gentleman who contrived this document, the inquiry is "definitely for the object of providing information for a Liberal Government." That is what seems to me to bring in the responsibility of the Government; and if this is contrary to law—and I should be very much surprised to hear the Lord Chancellor say it is not—they are, by noninterference at all events, approving of this proceeding, which appears to me so liable to produce ill-feeling as it is so obviously information, unauthoritative and anonymous, for a Liberal Government at election time. It is to be "secret" and "confidential," and this is the sort of inquiry which is to proceed all over the Kingdom, and whenever an election occurs it would not surprise me very much to hear that a good deal of the information so collected was being put at the convenience of Liberal candidates. Having made that preliminary statement of my object, I ask my noble and learned friend the Question of which I have given notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I do not know why the noble and learned Earl should find anything so unusual in the course that has been taken to make inquiry in the matter to which his Question refers. This inquiry is being made by Mr. Lloyd George. No Minister can divest himself of his official capacity, but so far as it can be done he is doing it unofficially. The cost of the inquiry is not defrayed out of any public funds, nor is it defrayed out of Party funds. The inquiry is being made quite unofficially under the direction of a gentleman who was a very well-known member of the other House at one time—Mr. Arthur Acland. The object is to collect information for Mr. Lloyd George, who wishes when he has got a certain amount of information to know where he stands on a very great and important question. I conceive that to be a perfectly legitimate mode of procedure. It may be
6
followed by a public inquiry hereafter. It may be that the information will come to nothing. It may be that it will come to a great deal. It is obvious that it is not official information and cannot be information which is binding on anybody until it has been considered and further steps taken in order to sift it. That is my comment on the first part of my noble and learned friend's Question.
Now I come to his next proposition. He says that he has grave objection to this on the ground that it is an illegal proceeding under the terms of an Act of Parliament. I think he refers to the Newspapers Act of 1869. That Act I have here, and the terms of it are very simple. It is a venerable and somewhat musty revival or keeping alive of a part of the Statute of George III, which was passed at a time when the country was in great fear of seditious movements. The particular section has been kept alive with some alterations as regards penalties, to which the noble and learned Earl has referred, but kept alive to this extent. The original Act was repealed by the Statute of 2 and 3 Victoria, and now 2 and 3 Victoria is repealed, but two sections of that Statute are kept alive which are material for the present purpose. The relative section is Section 2 of the Newspapers Act, 1869, which says this—
"Every person who shall print any paper or book whatsoever which shall be meant to be published or dispersed, and who shall not print upon the front of every such paper, if the same shall be printed on one side only, or upon the first or last leaf of every paper or book which shall consist of more than one leaf, in legible characters, his or her name and usual place of abode or business, and every person who shall publish or disperse, or assist in publishing or dispersing, any printed paper or book on which the name and place of abode of the person printing the same shall not have been printed as aforesaid, shall for every copy of such paper or book so printed by hint or her forfeit a sum not more than £5."
And then it is provided that without the initiative of the Law Officers of the Crown the penalty cannot be recovered. I agree that that is a most formidable section, antiquated as it may be, if the penalties have been incurred; but I can reassure your Lordships upon this point.
In order to make the penalties recoverable there must be publication or dispersal. Now "dispersal" means broadcast dispersal. It does not mean sending a

7
private document to private persons selected and picked for the purpose. Certainly I do not disperse a letter if I post it to some particular person, nor do I disperse 200 letters if I post them to named persons. Dispersal means something akin to dispersal broadcast. I have made careful inquiry, and I find that in all cases the recipients of these circulars have been selected. In fact, that is one of the things to which the noble and learned Earl objects. The circulars have not been dispersed; they have not been published; they have been sent to people who are able to give information. Careful inquiries have been made as to who the people should be who should receive the circulars, and here and there persons have turned out not to be so friendly to the inquiry as they were expected to be and have published the documents in the newspapers or something of that sort. But as for dispersal, there has been no dispersal in this case.
Now what is dispersal? I am able to give your Lordships an example of what dispersal is. The inquiry to which the noble and learned Earl has referred is not the only inquiry which is being made at the present time. There is a rival body, an important and unofficial body, called the Rural League, which has been set on foot, it is said, to get at the truth. Its president is the Right Hon. Jesse Collings, and it has a set of vice-presidents comprising many distinguished persons, including the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House. This body sent out a circular headed "Important and Urgent." This circular runs—
"DEAR SIR,—The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the consent of the Prime Minister, has appointed a committee to inquire into the question of the further taxation of land, or land values, in the rural districts. The Rural League feel that it is the intention of the Government, sooner or later, to place further taxation on agricultural land, whether owned by cottagers, small holders, village tradesmen, farmers, or larger landlords. Accordingly the executive committee of the League have themselves just appointed a sub-committee (consisting almost entirely of those who cultivate land) to ascertain what the effect of the taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends would be. That taxation would be on the capital value of the land. I am therefore requested to ask you if you would be so kind as to reply to the questions on the enclosed form; or to get some other person to do so who is interested in agricultural land. I am sending the form out extensively, and I shall be glad to send you further copies if you can get them filled up, and if you will be so kind as to apply to me for the same. You will, I am sure, recognise the importance of the matter."
8
And then the secretary (Mr. J. L. Green) adds—
"A report on the information obtained will be duly published, but without, of course, giving the names of those supplying the particulars and without in any way identifying the properties."
Appended to that is a list of questions. I look upon this as a most valuable procedure, because you get thereby a great deal of information which is not binding upon you and into which you can inquire; and if it appears profitable you can investigate it still further and subject the thing to the scrutiny of the official expert. But attached to the questions in the Rural League's circular is this note—
"Liberals propose to tax any village labourer, widow, shopkeeper, tradesman, farmer, or other person who owns a bit of land. It is to be an annual tax of 1d., 2d., or 3d. in the £ on the total value. The following will show how the proposal would work."
I have myself no knowledge of these proposals, but it is desirable that somebody should make all the inquiries possible, and I am sure we are all glad of knowledge, however obtained.
The secretary to the Rural League has accompanied his circular by a letter to the newspapers which I have in my hand, in which he contrasts his mode of sending round the League's questions with the mode adopted by the other Committee. The other Committee, he says, proceeded in a hole-and-corner way. They sent round questions in quite a different fashion from the way in which the Rural League is sending round its questions. For whereas the other Committee is not circulating its questions in a generous form but in a fashion which I have described to your Lordships, Mr. Green says—
"On the other hand, look at the League's inquiry so far as fairness is concerned. For instance, it has been made by means of forms sent to some 3,000 people occupying land— cottagers, small holders, small farmers, and larger occupants—the forms being sent by post from this office direct to individuals, irrespective of politics and without the intervention of Liberal, Conservative, or any other agents to put leading questions, and so on. Mr. Lloyd George's inquiry is being made through Liberal agents, all of whom know the sort of answers that are expected to the inquiries put, and who will no doubt achieve the end they have in view. As far as the Rural League's inquiry goes, it must, I think, be admitted that it is impossible for me or for any one else to pick out 3,000 names from agricultural publications all of whom would be of one political way of thinking. As a matter of fact, I have not the slightest idea of the politics of the people to whom the forms were sent; whilst the replies, which came to hand

9
in shoals, have been tabulated just as they came in. Compare this with the Chancellor of the Excheqer's methods. Ours is at least open and above board; whilst the other is a backstairs inquiry of the meanest possible description."
What does that mean? It means that the unfortunate senders out of the Rural League's circular have made themselves liable, under the terms of the Statute to which I have referred, to large penalties. I do not share my noble and learned friend's regret that the Law Officers of the Crown have discretion as to whether proceedings shall be taken in a matter of this kind, and I will promise my noble and learned friend that so far as I am concerned I will use any small influence I possess to prevent the Law Officers of the Crown prosecuting those who have made these, as I think, very useful inquiries, though I wish they had been made in a tone a little more complimentary to the Liberal Party. I have demonstrated the difference between the two modes of inquiry from the letter by Mr. Green to the newspapers, and this has made it unnecessary for me to go into the details. In the case of the Rural League there has been a clear dispersal, and therefore the case comes within the penalty; but in the other case in which the inquiries were addressed to selected persons, though I have the profoundest respect for the opinion of my noble and learned friend I doubt whether he will contend that there has been in that case a dispersal within the meaning of the Act. As to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inquiry I cannot help thinking that it will for better or for worse put us in possession of information which we did not have before.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If my noble and learned friend challenges me as to my opinion I should have not the slightest doubt in the world in saying that the printed matter to which I refer has been dispersed to a very great extent.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, when I came down to the House this afternoon and read the noble and learned Earl's Question I had not the smallest conception of what it meant, but the noble Earl in putting it unmasked his batteries and I think with a great deal of what he said most people would be in agreement. He said he had no objection to questions being asked before a Public Committee. I do not suppose any human
10
being would have any objection to that. But what he objected to was the tone of this inquiry. He objected to the inquiry because it was a roving one. He stated that it was calculated to raise ill-feeling between landlord and tenant, and he went on to talk about malevolent gossip and ended as he began by stating his objections to a private inquiry. But we have heard from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that, after all, there cannot be so very much harm in this because it is a private inquiry. The inquiry did not start with any ill-feeling between landlord and tenant, and I do not for one moment suggest that the inquiry which is being conducted on the other side has for its object the provoking of malevolent gossip. But it seems to me that precisely the same inquiry is being conducted by the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong, and the object naturally is in that case to obtain information for a Tory Government. There does not seem to me to be very much objection to that.
As to whether or not it is contrary to law, of course as a layman I dare not for a moment express an opinion upon that. But I should like to point out to the House that this is not at all a new thing. Many years ago a noble Lord on the other side of the House said to me in confidence, "You know we are looking very sharply into your estate, and making some very grave inquiries into how things are managed on your estate." The inquiries were really practical ones, because a well-known London land agent and a land agent for one of the largest properties in England took a drive through the portion of the country in which I happen to have a farm or two, and, curiously enough, the horse became a little exhausted and they had to pull up exactly opposite a farm which belonged to me. The horse was so thirsty that they said to a man in the cottage, "Do you think anybody would be kind enough to give us a pail of water?" The man said "Certainly," and he gave them water for the horse. The animal put his slobbering mouth and filthy bit into the pail and drank his fill, and then some of the remaining water was taken up to London and analysed, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that it was hardly up to sample. Then they went into one of my cottages where there was a smoky chimney, which sometimes happens in ducal castles, I believe. The ceiling

11
was black and the house was, I confess, not in as spick-and-span a condition as it ought to have been; but, of course, as your Lordships know, the tenant does all the inside repairs. I was astonished to see in The Times two or three days afterwards a long letter about the cottages which I happened to have built for £150 apiece, and the world was told that Lord Carrington's cottages were unfit for human habitation. I did not complain of that. I did not believe it was done from any malevolent reason or to bring discredit on the office which I held or the Party to which I belonged, and I only mention it now to show that inquiries, and very practical inquiries, have been made at different times in different parts of England as regards people's property.
This discussion shows one thing very clearly—namely, what a wise man the late Lord Beaconsfield was. Your Lordships have no doubt read the second volume of Lord Beaconsfield's "Life," written by the late Mr. Monypenny, in which Lord Beaconsfield is reported to have said—
"In an aristocratic country like England, if you want any extreme thing said or done you should always get a patrician to do it."
And he clinches his argument by the well-known remark that—
"Wat Tyler was hanged, but Bolingbroke founded a dynasty; Jack Straw was also hanged, but the Right Hon. John Straw might become a Secretary of State."
I do think this proves how extraordinary a judge of human nature Lord Beaconsfield was and how acute an intellect he had, for this discussion shows, if it shows nothing else, that one man may steal a horse but that it is a criminal offence for another man to look over the hedge while the horse is being stolen.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, whether those who are responsible for the publication of these documents have or have not brought themselves within the meshes of the law is a point which I must leave to the two noble and learned Lords who have addressed us this evening, but I wish to say one word as to an argument used by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack which apparently gave him great satisfaction—the argument, namely, that the procedure followed by the authors of these papers is comparable with that followed by those who are responsible for the management of
12
the affairs of the Rural League. It is no doubt the case that the Rural League has endeavoured by circulars and otherwise to collect information about various questions connected with agriculture. But surely there is this fundamental difference between the operations of the Rural League and the operations of this nameless committee—that in the case of the Rural League no attempt has been made to base upon the information collected an attack upon a particular class, and, what is still more to the point, that in the case of the Rural League no attempt has been made to parade the inquiry in a kind of semiofficial disguise. The Rural League, to the best of my belief, never has had anything to do with Public Departments. I can remember pretty distinctly the inception of the League. I think my noble friend behind me (Lord St. Aldwyn) was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am quite certain that we never ran round to him to ask him to authorise us to say that our proceedings were instituted at his desire. That, it seems to me, at once establishes a clear distinction between the two inquiries.
I cannot help regretting that the noble and learned Viscount did not give us a little more information as to the second part of my noble and learned friend's Question, that which had reference to the circumstances under which these papers have been distributed. I sometimes wonder whether we shall ever succeed in obtaining from His Majesty's Government a coherent account of the origin and purpose of this inquiry. What are we told about it? On the one hand, it is said to be an informal and unofficial inquiry. On the other hand, we find one of the Government Whips appointed to take part in its proceedings, and we have had from the Prime Minister or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I forget which—an admission that the questions embodied in these circulars were actually submitted to His Majesty's Government and approved by them. Then there are papers which are being circulated—I have a copy of one of them here—in which the writer, who describes himself as the head organiser of this inquiry, begins his letter by saying, "You may have heard of the informal inquiry which has been instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Well, it is instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, as we have heard to-

13
night, it is not paid for out of public funds. The sinews of war are found, unless we are misinformed, by certain benevolent millionaires, with a distinct Party complexion.
Then look at the boundless area covered by this inquiry. Look at the countless problems it raises. And remember, my Lords, we were told in the month of July last by the noble Marquess who leads the House—I am sorry he is not here this evening—that this information was going to be used by His Majesty's Government at sonic future time. In spite of the fact that this information is to be so used, we have an inquiry of, it cannot be denied, a purely partisan character. I ask your Lordships to consider the extent of the ground covered by this investigation. Your Lordships have no doubt seen the circulars, which have appeared in the public Press. I take at a venture a few of the subjects which are going to be investigated. The social and economic conditions in the rural parts of Great Britain—that is a pretty large order to begin with. Questions like co-operation, the law of entail, the game laws, primogeniture, railway rates, transit facilities, the whole question of rating, Crown lands, small holdings. That is the agricultural part of the inquiry, and there is a not less copious bill of fare in regard to the urban portion. Besides that there is a further series of interrogatories with regard to the Scottish branch of the question. This inquiry is a colossal inquiry. It is an inquiry which would find ample work not for one Royal Commission but for two or three Royal Commissions.
And what adds to the wonder of the whole story is that we find that His Majesty's Government, or at any rate the more conspicuous members of it, cannot even wait until this Committee has begun to collect evidence, but are already pronouncing the conclusions at which they have arrived. I wonder whether most of your Lordships have seen the speech made two or three evenings ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to wait until he gets this evidence before him in order to make up his mind what is the matter. Remember we had it from Lord Crewe last year that this inquiry was to deal with
14
the Scottish land question, and in particular with the question of rural depopulation. Well, here is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say on the subject. He announces that in Scotland every year scores of thousands of the most able-bodied, robust young fellows are fleeing from their native land as if it were stricken with pestilence. He is not going bank to the history of the depopulation of the Highlands. He is describing what is happening "every year" at the present time. He speaks of great tracts lying waste, "turned over to deer and grouse." "The people," he says, "have been driven off amongst other things by the difficulty of obtaining sites for houses"—every one knows that the housing problem is not the difficulty in obtaining sites but the difficulty of finding money to build houses—"and by sport." All this is laid to the charge of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pleased to call the feudal system. Whether the feudal system ever had anything to do with grouse moors and deer forests I really am not aware. Nor, I fancy, had it much to do with the system of ninety-years leases as we know them in Scotland.
My complaint is that this language used by one of the most conspicuous members of His Majesty's Government is altogether without that quality of impartiality which has been claimed on behalf of the promoters of this inquiry. He entirely ignores the investigations that have already taken place into the question of agriculture, and particularly into the question of agriculture in Scotland—inquiries which have thrown a great deal of light on this question of rural depopulation, and which I think would have shown the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is altogether mistaken in believing that the movement from the country to the town—which has taken place not only in Scotland but in other parts of the United Kingdom, and not only in the United Kingdom but in foreign countries as well—is entirely due to the preservation of game or to the spread of deer forests. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have forgotten all the legislation for which his own Government has been responsible for the purpose of improving the position and adding to the security of those who till the land, and particularly in that very part of Scotland to which his remarks had reference. Can His Majesty's Government be surprised that these kinds of ebullition should

15
occasion a certain amount of alarm? Lord Crewe last year endeavoured to reassure us. He told us that our apprehensions were not well founded. He deprecated in particular what he called "sensation-mongering." Was a more sensational speech than that which I have just quoted ever delivered by an English Statesman? And above all things Lord Crewe begged us not to be too credulous about these statements. I deplore these outbreaks. I deplore these statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intends to what he calls "burst up" the present land system. I venture to say that that is not the proper frame of mind in which to approach the consideration of this enormously important question. We know there is a land question. We are anxious to help to solve it. Many of us in a humble way have done something in that direction ourselves. But, my Lords, if the question is to be approached on the one hand by the kind of surreptitious inquiries which we are discussing this evening, and on the other by inflammatory speeches of the kind which I have just quoted, made before any evidence has been collected, we must despair of a reasonable and statesmanlike solution of the difficulty which we all desire to solve.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this discussion, like some others which I have listened to in this House before, has not been productive of ally facts except some autobiographical details furnished by the noble Marquess opposite, the ex-Agricultural Minister—information which he is always ready to supply upon any occasion. On this particular occasion I have gathered that a horse's thirst was assuaged at the door of one of his farms, that the chimney of one of his cottages smoked, and we have had also his impression upon the recent volume of Lord. Beaconsfield's "Life" which appeared the other day. These facts are no doubt interesting in themselves, but they do not appear to have any particular bearing on the question we have been discussing, and I only rise to ask one single and extremely simple question. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack informed us, I thought with particular care, that this inquiry was not paid for out of public funds and he said it was not paid for out of Party funds. In that case I confess I feel some legitimate curiosity to know who is actually providing the funds. It seems to me that if
16
this is the meritorious investigation which we are assured that it is by noble Lords opposite, it is only right and fit that the names of these public benefactors should be disclosed as soon as possible, and I hope that without any further delay noble Lords opposite will relieve my anxiety on the subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken I may say that I have not the least idea who is finding the money. But this I do know, that a very large number of persons are greatly interested in the land question as in other questions, and whenever money is needed for an inquiry of this kind there is no difficulty in finding it.
LORD NEWTON: May I be allowed to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that perhaps his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to furnish him with the information.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Notices to Quit for Purposes of Sale.
1.—(1) Where the landlord of a holding gives to the tenant notice to quit in view of the sale or offering for sale of the holding or any part thereof, the notice shall state that it is so given, and a notice to quit so given shall be void unless an agreement for the sale of the holding or of some part thereof is entered into, and information in writing thereof is given to the tenant before the date on which but for this section the notice to quit would have taken effect; and if an agreement for sale is so entered into, the notice to quit shall not take effect until one year from the day of expiry next succeeding the date on which information that an agreement for sale has been entered into is given to the tenant:
Provided that within two months after the receipt of a notice to quit under this section a tenant may give notice ill writing to the landlord that he accepts the notice as notice to determine the tenancy on the date on which but for this section it would have taken effect, and thereupon the notice to quit shall operate to determine the tenancy as if this Act had not been passed:
Provided further that if, not later than two mouths before the expiration of the notice so given by the landlord, an agreement is entered into for the purchase of the holding or any part thereof by a council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for the purposes of small holdings, and notice of such agreement is given to the tenant, the notice given by the landlord shall, as regards the land to which the agreement relates, be treated for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1910, as having been given at the request of the council with a view to the use of the land for the provision of small holdings.
(2) The expression "day of expiry" means the day on which a year of the tenancy expires.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY To THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): The first Amendment standing in my name is one of which I gave notice in Committee. It is simply intended to prevent contracting out of this Bill. We have had a great deal of experience in connection with previous Acts that unless some words of this kind are inserted the Act gets very freely contracted out of. I could instance the case of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, now dead, and-the Market Gardeners Compensation Act. The latter Act did not contain any provision of this kind and the result is that the Act has been to a great extent a dead letter simply because it is the custom to contract out of it. We want to prevent that in this case, and therefore I move to insert these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, after ("(1)") at the beginning of the clause insert ("Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: The next five Amendments are of a drafting, character.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("be void") and insert ("not take effect")
Page 1, line 15, after ("information") insert ("in writing")
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("under this section") and insert ("to which his section applies")
Page 1, line l9, leave out ("notice to determine") and insert ("determining")
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("the notice so given by the landlord") and insert ("a notice to quit to which this section applies"),—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: The next Amendment is rendered necessary because the provision to a similar effect which was in the Bill originally was deleted by Lord St. Levan's Amendment. The provision when it was in the Bill before did not arouse any debate in this House. I think your Lordships were prepared to accept it in principle, but it was deleted by Lord St. Levan's Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("as regards the land to which the agreement relates") and insert("operate to determine the tenancy as if this Act had not been passed, and").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("and allotments").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Avoidance of Certain Notices to Quit.
2. A notice given to determine a tenancy from year to year of a holding or any part thereof on a date earlier than one year after the date of the service of the notice shall be void:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a notice to determine a tenancy of an allotment given under section thirty of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
LORD LUCAS*LORD LUCAS had the following Amendment on the Paper to Clause 2—
Page 2, line 11, at the beginning of the clause insert ("Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary") and after ("given") insert ("by a landlord") and leave out ("from year to year").
The noble Lord, in moving the first part of the Amendment, said: The same observations apply to this Amendment as applied to my first Amendment tonight. We want the necessary words to prevent contracting out.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at the beginning of the clause insert ("Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary").—(Lord Lucas.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I should like to ask the reason for the Amendment standing in the noble Lord's name. As the law is at present, a year's notice is bound to be given unless a landlord and tenant choose to agree between themselves to a six months notice. That is the almost universal custom in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and in some portions of Derbyshire and Yorkshire. I ask why the noble Lord proposes to alter that system altogether. Surely the farmers and landlords are the best judges in a matter of this kind as to what is the most convenient for the district in which they live. I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment for the reason that it would unnecessarily and unreasonably disturb a custom which has obtained for many years. If a tenant who has not sufficient means wishes to get out of his farm in six months, why should he not be allowed to do so? The longer a tenant without sufficient means goes on farming the land the worse it is for the farm and the whole district as well. The noble Lord professes

19
to wish to encourage agriculture and good farming, but the steps he is taking now can only prejudice it by keeping a tenant without sufficient means on the farm for a year and a-half when he himself would like to get out at six months and the landlord would be in a much better position without him.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that in Committee I moved an Amendment to insert at the end of the first subsection of this clause the following words, "except by mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant." I said that I did not specifically disagree with a year's notice per se and that in most cases it would be more convenient than the shorter time, but that there might be other cases where it might be to the mutual advantage of the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement to vacate the tenancy at a shorter notice. It is easy for noble Lords to see that such cases might, and perhaps do, frequently occur. Speaking upon my Amendment in Committee Lord Lucas said—
"This amendment, if we were to accept it, would practically leave the law as it stands at present. I would point out that there is nothing to prevent a landlord and tenant agreeing to the surrender of a tenancy at a shorter notice, but the tenancy would then be terminated by agreement. What we object to is the termination of a tenancy by a notice under 12 months."
Then I went on to say that on the understanding that there was nothing in the clause to prevent a mutual agreement on the subject I would not press my Amendment. Then after that come these sweeping words, "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." I labour under the disadvantage of not being a lawyer and I do not know the exact value of those words, but it might be that the words which it is proposed to insert now would take away that very power which the noble Lord said existed previously to this Amendment coining on—namely, that there is nothing in the law to prevent the surrender of the tenancy at a shorter notice by mutual agreement between the two sides. I think the House would like to have some authoritative statement as to what the exact effect of these proposed new words would be, because I need not repeat that it would be a lamentable state of affairs if in no circumstances whatever agreements such as I am speaking of should be allowed to be carried into effect by mutual consent between the two sides.
LORD LUCAS: I think the position is perfectly clear. These words are intended to prevent there being inserted in the lease an agreement by which the lease or contract shall be determined at six months notice. That is a different point from the tenancy being terminated by an agreement come to quite apart from any provision that there may be in the lease—a mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant to enable the lease to be brought to a close. If your Lordships insert the words which I am now proposing, nothing would prevent the landlord and tenant coming together and making a mutual agreement for terminating the tenancy, but it would prevent the insertion in the terms of the lease of words enabling a six months notice to be given.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am not quite sure that I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's explanation. The point appears to me to be this, that in parts of England yearly agreements are the rule. In many parts of England we never think of having an agreement for a farm or agricultural holding with less than twelve months notice. But in other parts of England, especially, I believe, in Lincolnshire, that is not the rule, and what the noble Lord has tried to do is to apply a hard-and-fast rule of twelve months notice all over England contrary to the custom in some parts of the country which I believe is appreciated both by landlords and tenants. That is not all. The noble Lord does not apply it to both sides, but only to the landlord. The tenant might still give six months notice, but the landlord would only be able to give twelve months notice. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I confess that for myself I very much object to interfering so harshly with the agricultural customs of England by a law which really will be, I believe, odious to Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire farmers, and I hope the Government will not think it necessary to press this clause as part of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS: There are two entirely separate points raised in this Amendment, and I have only moved and spoken hitherto upon the first point—namely, the insertion of the words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." The later part of the Amendment raises an entirely different point which I think ought to be treated separately. I do not know whether your Lordships would deal with the first part of the Amendment and then discuss the later part.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: By inserting the words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" now the noble Lord is prejudicing the question. I therefore hope your Lordships will not agree to insert these words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the last occasion when this Bill was under discussion several members sitting on this side asked the Government before they persisted any further with Clause 2 to state some reasons why they considered this clause an advisable change in the law. I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to make that statement now or whether he would rather postpone his explanation until later.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): The course which would probably be most convenient would be that my noble friend in charge of the Bill should say what he has to rayon the later Amendment to omit Clause 2. The Amendment now before the House deals with two quite different points. There is, first, the point with regard to allowing agreements to be broken; and, secondly, the point as to whether landlord and tenant should have separate powers. The latter point is distinct from the one now before the House, which is whether you should allow landlords and tenants as a normal custom to contract out of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out that the first part of the Amendment only deals with a matter of drafting, for whether you insert "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" or not, you are saying exactly the same thing. The words add nothing, but merely call attention to the fact that no agreement to the contrary would prevail.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble and learned Viscount is quite right. The words are not material. The question that is material is whether or not we should retain Clause 2. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Hylton) has an Amendment for the deletion of Clause 2, and it is on that Amendment, I think, that the discussion could most conveniently be taken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: Now I come to the second part of my Amendment, which raises the whole point of Clause 2. I was instrumental in Committee in having the words struck out which I am now moving to reinsert. I dare say your Lordships will remember that the clause as it came to this House gave power to a tenant to give six months notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy, but made it incumbent upon the landlord to give twelve months notice. In the course of the Second Reading debate noble Lords pointed out that what applied to one party ought to apply to the other, and I gave rather undue weight to that argument with the result that I moved the omission of these words. On further consideration, and especially in view of what was said in Committee, I think I made a mistake. The provision ought to have been left as it was originally drafted—namely, giving the tenant power to quit after giving six months notice but making it incumbent on the landlord to give twelve months notice. In the first place, the landlord is in a very much stronger position to deal with this question than is the tenant. If the landlord objects to his tenant being able to go at six months notice it rests entirely with him. He draws up the form of the lease, and he need not insert a provision for a six months notice at all. He could make it a yearly notice, and then the question of the six months notice does not arise at all. As was pointed out, especially in the case of Lady Day tenancies, circumstances do arise under which it is a great advantage to the tenant to be able to quit at six months notice. Some of your Lordships pointed out that it is a great advantage to a man to be in a position, after his harvest is over, to make up his mind whether or not he will quit on the following Lady Day. Very often his intention to remain or to go depends very much on the kind of harvest he has had. Therefore it is a great advantage to him to be able to go at six months notice. We do not want to take that advantage away from him, and consequently we think that we ought to allow matters as regards the tenant to remain as they are at the present moment—that is to say, that he should be in a position to give six months notice of his intention to quit. On the other hand, we think it might cause an undue amount of hardship to the tenant to be made to

23
quit at six months notice. The view that this Bill is framed to carry out, and it as been freely expressed al] through the debate, is the view your Lordships accepted in the case of Lord St, Levan's Amendment—that a tenant ought to have a year to be able to look round for another farm.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the case of sale.
LORD LUCAS: Yes, in the case of sale. But, after all, it is immaterial, looking at it from the tenant's point of view, whether the farm is going to be sold at the end of his tenancy or whether it is going to be passed on to somebody else. The position which we want to obtain for the tenant is that he should have a clear twelve months to look round in order to find another farm.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The landlord ought to have a clear twelve months also to find another tenant.
LORD LUCAS: If he wants it, it rests entirely with him to make it a case of a twelve months notice in the lease. That is where the landlord has the advantage, and he apparently does not mind its being a six months tenancy or he would not have his lease drafted in that way. In all these questions of bargaining the landlord has the best of it. The form of his lease is drawn up for the landlord under expert advice.
LORD HYLTON: The tenant does not agree to it if he does not like it.
LORD LUCAS: The landlord, especially at the present time, is in a very much stronger position than the tenant is in that matter. There is another point of view that one has to consider this matter from, that is from the point of view of the actual results both to the landlord and to the tenant. The landlord where a tenancy is terminated has the farm on his hands, and he may or may not obtain another tenant. In most cases he does obtain another tenant, but even if he does not do so the amount of inconvenience and loss that he suffers is certainly not comparable to the amount of loss and inconvenience the tenant suffers who has to give up his home, sell his stock, and clear out, and find, if he can, another farm. I think one
24
is bound to admit that the tenant has very much more at stake; he stands to lose a great deal more by a change of tenancy than the landlord does, and that is a thing you have to give due consideration to in considering this point. As I said before, the position really is this, that it is a valuable privilege to the tenant especially in the case of Lady Day tenancies to be able to go at six months notice. But if the landlord has a strong objection to his tenant quitting at only six months you must remember it really lies with him, because, practically speaking, he can insist on a yearly notice. Therefore, my Lords, I think on those grounds there is a clear case for differentiating between the tenant and the landlord. This is one of those cases where, to use the words of the noble Viscount opposite, what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander, and I think it is only fair to allow this differentiation of treatment as between the landlord and the tenant.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("given") insert ("by a landlord").—(Lord Lucas.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord has made a statement, for which I am very much obliged to him, as regards the position which the Government take in this matter; but I world like to remind him that the statement he made was purely a priori. What your Lordships wanted was some information which would lead the House to conclude that the tenants in the parts of England referred to really did desire a change in the system which exists there. As the noble Viscount who sits behind me has already told your Lordships, in Lincolnshire and in Nottinghamshire and in parts of Yorkshire this system of six months notice to quit, ending at Lady Day or May Day, is a very common practice, and according to a great deal of information which has been submitted to me it is a very popular practice. I am quite aware that there is evidence upon the other side. It is a very difficult question. Some people like this system and some people do not, but in order to justify a change in the law the Government have to make out their case; they have to show that on the whole the system has worked badly, and that people do not like it. I am sorry to say I have no connection with that part of England myself, but I have taken some trouble to inquire into the

25
working of this system, and I am told that it makes for good husbandry—in fact, that during the interregnum the land is kept in proper cultivation all the time. The system is that the incoming tenant has the right to go upon the land and see that the outgoing tenant is performing his duty there. Supposing the cultivation of the land during the last six months is not properly performed he has a remedy, and the result is that when the expiration of the tenancy takes place the land is in the very best order, and the success of Lincolnshire farming is well-known all over the world. You have to deal with one of the most successful farming districts in England, and I am told on very good authority that this system works exceedingly well there and that the people do not want it altered. I wrote to a gentleman who I was informed knew all about it, and he writes this to me in reply—
"I am distinctly of opinion that if we could consult or take a plebiscite vote of the tenant farmers in the county of Lincolnshire there would be a very large majority in favour of six months notice to quit."
That is from a gentleman whom I believe to be thoroughly reliable in his information.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Universal six months notice instead of twelve?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will read the words again to the noble Marquess if he would like me to do so, because it is very important.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Yes, it is—six months notice instead of twelve?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree. That is the point we are discussing. Then I have another letter from a gentleman who writes to me—
"We are and have been agents for no less than 120,000 acres of land in Lincolnshire"—
Your Lordships will admit that a man who is agent for 120,000 acres of land in Lincolnshire has a right to an opinion on this subject—
"and other places, and practically the whole of the tenants are under six mouths notice. I am of opinion that you cannot do a tenant a greater injustice than to force him to take a twelve months notice."
I do not think your Lordships could agree to the proposal of the noble Lord opposite
26
to make a difference between the landlord and the tenant in this matter. It is quite true that when times are as they now are the market is rather in favour of the landlord, but, of course, we must not anticipate that we are always going to have good times. In bad times, of course, the market is against the landlord, and if it is easy for a landlord to get a tenant now formerly it was not easy for him to get tenants. If it is fair, therefore, that in these times the tenant should have more than six months notice then it would have been fair in old times that the landlord should have had more than six months notice. But I submit that there is no general opinion that either one or the other wants more than six months notice. I desire to be quite fair with your Lordships' House. I have myself received letters from tenants in favour of the change, but I have read to your Lordships two letters which show that the present system works well, and that there are very strong grounds for not altering it, and I do not think until the Government have made out a stronger case than they have done that one ought to alter the law.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: It seems to me that this Amendment would not work fairly to both sides. Take the case, not of a lease necessarily, but of a yearly agreement, which is a very common form of tenure. A yearly agreement is an agreement, and yet something may be done under this Amendment notwithstanding any agreement that has been previously made. This might be construed as allowing the tenant, notwithstanding the agreement which he has made by which there is to be a year's notice given on either side, to terminate at a shorter notice. I would further point out, although I do not wish to quibble about words, that as the words run nothing is said about a six months notice at all, so that, assuming my contention is right for the moment., the tenant in that case might give notice to go at a very much shorter notice than six months—even at one month or two weeks. I am assuming the existence of a yearly agreement where a year's notice on both sides is put into the agreement and agreed to by both sides. Then come the words, "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD LUCAS: The next Amendment, to leave out the words "from year to year" is rather a technical one, but it is to prevent contracting out of the clause. It would be perfectly possible, if you confine it as the Bill does in its present form to yearly tenancies, to get out of it by letting land to a man for a term of years, say on a seven years lease determinable by either party at the end of any year of tenancy by a six months notice. That is, practically speaking, in effect a yearly tenancy terminable by six months notice, although technically it would not be. You could override this provision simply by a condition of that sort, and so these words are proposed to be inserted in order to prevent evasion of the provision.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, to leave out the words ("from year to year").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON: Clause 2, as now amended, runs—
"Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, a notice given to determine a tenancy of a holding or any part thereof on a date earlier than one year after the service for the notice shall be void,"
and then follows the proviso. I have ventured to give notice to omit Clause 2 from the Bill, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with more than a few words on the subject, because the noble Viscount, Lord Galway, and the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords with much greater personal knowledge and experience than I can pretend to possess have already described that over very large portions of the country, in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and other districts, it has been found for a great many years a convenient and workmanlike method of letting farms, agreeable both to owners and to tenants, to allow a tenancy to be drawn up with power to the landlord and tenant alike to terminate it at any later day by giving notice the preceding Michaelmas, and I respectfully venture to submit to the House that not one word that has fallen from the opposite Benches shows any cause whatever why that practice should not be allowed to go on. I do not want to touch upon the extraordinary suggestion of His Majesty's Government, that that which is to hold good against the landlord is not to hold good against the tenant,
28
because that has been dealt with. I venture to rest the grounds for asking your Lordships to strike out this clause on what has fallen from Lord Galway, the Marquess of Salisbury, and other noble Lords on this side of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: As the noble Lord says, this matter has been already discussed to a certain extent, but I would like to point out one thing with regard to it. The very strong Committee over which my noble friend Lord Haversham presided, on whose Report this Bill is based, were absolutely unanimous—in fact, I think it was one of the few recommendations on which they were absolutely unanimous—in recommending that six months tenancies should be terminated, if possible. Your Lordships have discussed the subject from one point of view, but, after all, Lincolnshire is not the only county where six months tenancies exist, and the opinion of the Committee was that undoubtedly they did exercise a very detrimental effect on agriculture generally. To give your Lordships one instance. If you take the case of Michaelmas tenancies under a six months agreement it becomes a physical impossibility for the tenant to carry out the terms of his agreement.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Are there many six months tenancies?
LORD LUCAS: Yes, there are a great number, and the tenant is put in an extremely difficult position thereby, because if he only receives notice to quit at Lady Day and has in his lease certain conditions with regard to cropping it becomes a physical impossibility for hint to carry them out. After all, the process of agriculture, the rotation of crops, is a process which takes a complete twelve months. Therefore there is a very strong case from that point of view for giving a notice which shall include one complete rotation of the process. Had your Lordships been prepared to accept an amendment, which I think would have covered the Lincolnshire case perfectly plainly, it would have been to the general advantage of agriculture in other parts of the country to have left Clause 2 in and to have done away with six months agreements in other parts of the country.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The only information the noble Lord has given us is practically that a Committee has reported in favour of this clause. He has not told us that there has been any application either from tenants or landlords in any bulk for this clause. What I look at as still more important is this, that by this clause as it stands the noble Lord will have virtually upset the whole of the custom in three large counties with innumerable tenancies simply because a Committee has made a Report that it may be desirable in certain cases. Surely Lincolnshire men and Yorkshire men may be trusted to know how to make a good bargain for themselves. Personally I have never yet found that a tenant is not quite as good a hand in making a bargain as any landlord I have ever known.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I should like to say that all of us on this Committee had the most overwhelming evidence that there is a great hardship now on tenants who hold Michaelmas tenancies. If I had known that this question was going to be brought up I could have quoted the evidence to that effect of Mr. Hall, the agent for the Duke of Bedford's large estates; of Mr. Vergette, who is a member of a great firm of auctioneers at Peterborough: of Mr. Rawlence, a member of a large firm at Salisbury; and of others who were unanimous that a great hardship is created by turning a man out at six months notice if he holds a Michaelmas tenancy. The man receives notice that he will have to no at the next Michaelmas, but he does not know until the next June whether he will hive to go at all, because he does not know for certain that the property will be sold. He does not know who his new landlord will be, and therefore he is unable to make any arrangement for himself. Then it appears he has only got about two months in which to look about for another farm, and we thought, and all these agents thought, that if the man had an additional year after the notice was given to him he would have plenty of time to turn round and find another farm. Undoubtedly you will do a very great injury to all the Michaelmas tenants —and these are the usual tenancies in the South of England—if this clause is struck out. The Committee over which I presided went thoroughly into the case and were unanimous in their submission that this clause should be inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it is material to the point which we are considering to remember that this clause is really an excrescence upon the general scheme of the Bill. This Bill is designed primarily to mitigate the hardship undoubtedly sustained by tenants who find themselves dispossessed of their holdings in consequence of the sale of the estate by their landlord. The Committee presided over by the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, was appointed for that purpose, and that purpose only. It was not a Committee to inquire into the general question of the law of agricultural tenancies. It was appointed to inquire into the best means of meeting the case of the tenant who was dispossessed in connection with the sale of the estate. We have dealt in Clause 1 with this case. We have not only dealt with it, but we have strengthened Clause 1 very considerably, and it is now a much more favourable clause to the tenant than it was when the Bill was first introduced to the House. Clause 2 makes a change in the general law, and a change which, I venture to think, ought not to be lightly made. My noble friends behind me have been able to cite cases in which the change in the law would be very inconvenient, not to the landlords but to the tenants who are used to the local custom under which they have held their lands and prospered in the past. The particular case in which this clause would, as far as I can make out, be inconvenient to the parties concerned is the case of the Lady Day tenant, and I would suggest for the consideration of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he could meet us to the extent of allowing the clause to be made applicable to Michaelmas tenancies only, so as to leave outside its scope those Lady Day tenancies which my noble friend Lord Galway and others have particularly referred to. I should be very glad if the noble Lord would consider that suggestion.
LORD LUCAS: We would like to consider the noble Marquess's suggestion, and perhaps we may bring forward an Amendment dealing with it on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: After what has been said, would it not be better that the clause should be negatived now, because we strongly object to its application to Lady Day tenancies while at the same time feeling the force of what has fallen

31
from Lord Haversham with regard to Michaelmas tenancies. It would be perfectly easy if this clause were struck out of the Bill for His Majesty's Government to consider the matter before the Bill was dealt with in another place, and then they might send it back to your Lordships with an amended clause such as they might think right.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I should like to press strongly on my noble friend to accept that proposal. I think the real hardship is on the Michaelmas tenant.
LORD LUCAS: I am glad to agree to the suggestion of the noble Viscount that the clause should be struck out this after-noon, and I trust to be able to bring forward a new clause on Third Reading to which the House will be able to give its assent.
LORD HYLTON: May I point out that under the existing law shorter notices than one year are ineffective except in those cases where the landlord and tenant have agreed and signed, presumably for their mutual convenience, agreements embodying a six months notice. I cannot in these circumstances see where the hardship comes in of retaining the six months notice to which both parties have agreed. Neither party need accept it if they do not like it either in the case of Michaelmas or Lady Day tenancies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Saving for certain Notices.
3.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to a notice to quit given—

(a) to determine the tenancy of land in respect of which undeveloped land duty is charged; or

(b) with a view to the use of the land by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon; or

(c) for any purpose specified in section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1008, or any other industrial purpose; or

(d) on account of a breach by the tenant of the contract of tenancy, or any condition of tenancy; or

(e)on account of a receiving order in bankruptcy having been made against the tenant; or

(f)by or at the request of a Secretary of State with a view to obtaining possession of any land for military purposes

if the notice states that it is sc given, and specifies the purpose for which the land is required or the matter on account of which the notice is given, as
32
the case may be; and in any such case the notice to quit shall take effect as if this Act had not been passed.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of a notice to quit served before the commencement of this Act.
LORD LUCAS: My Amendment in paragraph (b) of Clause 3 is largely a drafting Amendment, but I have added at the end of it "or for any purpose other than agriculture." That is to meet the point which was raised at the Committee stage by Lord Hylton. He has an Amendment down a little later on to insert those words, and I would suggest to him that from the point of view of drafting our Amendment is slightly preferable. I do not know whether he is prepared to accept our Amendment.
LORD HYLTON: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment put down by Lord Lucas in paragraph (b), after "thereon," to insert. "or for any purpose specified in Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," but as a matter of fact I think, owing to some printer's error, I ought to move first my Amendment in line 21. There is no question of policy involved. I move to put it in in consequence of the alteration made by Lord St. Levan when we were in Committee. Perhaps I had better read the paragraph to your Lordships as it runs at present. It is provided that nothing in this Bill shall apply to a notice to quit given—
"(b) with a view to the use of the land by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon."
I have given notice of an Amendment that it shall run as follows—
"(b) with a view to the use of land comprised in the holding to which the notice to quit relates by the landlord or a purchaser for building thereon."
As the paragraph stands at present it would appear to indicate that the whole of the land in the holding must be acquired for building purposes. As I understand, that is not the real intention of His Majesty's Government. I therefore move the words that I propose to insert, because only part of the land might be required for building purposes.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out the second ("the") and after ("land") insert ("comprised in the holding to which the notice to quit relates").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: I now move my Amendment to add to paragraph (b) the words which I explained to your Lordships a moment ago.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22 after ("thereon") insert ("or for any purpose specified in section twenty-three of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or for any purpose other than agriculture").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: The next is simply a drafting Amendment. I have already taken the substance out of paragraph (c) and put it into the previous paragraph.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 23 to 25, leave out paragraph (c).—Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Determination of Questions.
4. If any question arises under this Act as to whether a notice to quit has been given in view of the sale or offering for sale of a holding or part thereof, or as to whether the provisions of this Act with regard to the service of any information or notice in connection with an agreement for sale have been complied with by a landlord or by a tenant, or as to the purpose for which or matter on account of which a notice to quit has been given, the question may at any time after the notice is given be referred by the landlord or the tenant to arbitration tinder the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
LORD LUCAS: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("service") and insert ("giving")
Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("to") ill line 6 to ("the question") in line 8, and insert ("whether a notice to quit is a notice to which this Act applies").—(Lord Lucas).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HYLTON: The next Amendment stands in my name. Before making a few remarks on this Amendment I should like to ask Lord Lucas how exactly in his opinion the word "may" in line 8 will take effect. Your Lordships will notice that the clause runs—
"If any question arises under this Act…the question may at any time after the notice is given be referred by the landlord or the tenant to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908."
34
If "may" were a purely permissive word there would obviously on the one hand be no reason for putting the clause in, and there would equally he no object in any of us who do not approve of the clause moving its omission. Although I have no legal training, I think the word "may" does in this clause indicate that either the landlord or the tenant, if he wishes, may proceed to this particular arbitration. If I am incorrect would the noble Lord tell me?
LORD LUCAS: I think the word "may" is simple common form; it occurs in all Acts, and in this particular context it means that if a question arises and either the tenant or the landlord wishes to go to arbitration he can do so.
LORD HYLTON: It does not mean that they must, but, on the other hand, that if they want to each of them can?
LORD LUCAS: If they decide to go to arbitration the arbitration will have to take place, but it is permissive to them to go to arbitration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Permissive to either of them?
LORD LUCAS: Yes.
LORD HYLTON: I should like in these circumstances to call your Lordships' attention to the considerable difficulty in the class of questions that will be submitted to an arbitrator under this Act and the class of questions submitted under the Act of 1908. Under the Act of 1908 the questions that had to be submitted and are being submitted to arbitrators from time to time now, as eases arise, are really questions of fact. They are questions about the amount of compensation payable, the valuation of improvements, what rent is to be paid by county councils for taking land for small holdings, and so on, but they are none of them legal questions, and there is a special proviso in the Act of 1908, to which I will refer in a moment, dealing with legal questions that may arise under that Act. But in this Bill the questions that would arise under Clause 4 and which His Majesty's Government propose to submit to this single authority cannot, I think, be ever regarded as questions of facts. They will nearly always be legal questions. They

35
will be questions dealing with the exceptions as to the Act which are contained in Clause 3, and your Lordships will see that all the rather complicated questions that may arise under Clause 3 are questions as to which any layman in this House would say, "I cannot deal with them myself; I must refer them to my lawyer." I think some of your Lordships have strong opinions as to the expediency or inexpediency of allowing even under the Act of 1908 a single arbitrator to decide questions of fact without any power of appeal. But when it comes to questions of law, legal questions such as will have to be dealt with under Clause 4 of this Bill, surely it is in the highest degree dangerous to entrust these arbitrators from the Board of Agriculture, gentlemen who may or may not be expert—surveyors, auctioneers or land agents, or members of a similar class—with the decision of these questions of law. I venture to say that they would not be any more competent to deal with questions of law than any other layman, and that all their expert knowledge as regards surveys and valuations of land, and so on, can be of very little assistance to them except so far as a good general education can be of assistance in deciding the legal points that not only may, but I think must, arise under Clause 4.
I venture, therefore, to ask your Lordships to say that when these legal questions come up they shall be referred to a legal tribunal, and the legal tribunal to which I ask leave of your Lordships to refer them is a County Court Judge. A County Court Judge is the officer selected under the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, subsection (9). where it says—
"Where any arbitration takes place the arbitrator may at any stage of the proceedings, and shall if so directed by the Judge of the County Court, which direction may be given on the application of either party, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of that Court any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration."
Perhaps His Majesty's Government will tell your Lordships that that Schedule would apply to the Act now before us; but a good deal of power under the Schedule of the Act of 1908 is put into the hands of the arbitrator, as your Lordships will see in the words I have just read out. It is that lie may state a case, but it is not directed that he shall state a case, and in any view of the subject the course that I
36
am suggesting now to your Lordships must be much simpler and shorter and more convenient to the parties who are unfortunately involved in a dispute of this kind. Under it they may go straight to their County Court judge and get his decision on these purely legal matters. That must be simpler than for them to have first of all the arbitration under the gentleman appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and then in the second place to have these legal points decided by a County Court Judge. Those are very briefly the reasons I have for my Amendment.
When this Bill was in Committee I was anxious to see Clause 4 out altogether, but the noble Marquess inquired, if it was to be omitted, what was to be suggested in its place. I had not at that time thought out the question so carefully as I have tried to do now. It has occurred to me now that the County Court Judge would be a very proper person to decide these questions, and I hope that the course I suggest will be agreeable to His Majesty's Government, because he is the person under the Bill of 1908 whom they themselves chose to decide such legal points as must necessarily arise under this clause. I confess that I have a further reason for wishing to see the power of appealing to the law not taken away from us under this Bill, as it was very nearly taken away from us under the Act of 1908 and other measures that have been passed by His Majesty's Government. It is because I think both landlord and tenant alike would be more inclined to put confidence in the decision of a County Court Judge than they would in that of a gentleman, as I have said, who may or may not be qualified, such as one of these arbitrators sent out by the Board of Agriculture.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908") and insert ("by a judge of a county court").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: Perhaps I may make clear one point with regard to which I do not know whether I made myself plain to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. As I understand the position is this, that if a dispute arises either the landlord or the tenant may claim as a right an arbitration under this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD LUCAS: I now come to the point which Lord Hylton raises. It is quite true, as he says, that there will be a number of questions arising under this Bill not strictly analogous to the questions that arose under the Agricultural Holdings Act, though I think to a less degree than he makes out. Our practice with regard to this, as I stated in the Committee stage, is invariably to appoint, as arbitrators, surveyors and valuers of the very highest standing and experience. I could read out to your Lordships a number of names to show that our invariable practice when we have to nominate these arbitrators is to select men who have had very wide experience, who are generally respected and whose word is always taken in any case of this kind. We have had the Hon. Edward Strutt, who is President of the Surveyors' Institution, Mr. John Farrer, Mr. Herbert Smith, Mr. Morton, Mr. Oakley, Mr. Trustram Eve, and I have a list here of the most prominent members of the Surveyors' Institution, men who really stand at the top of their profession. After all, what is the kind of question that will come up? With one or two exceptions they are practical questions which nobody would be better fitted to deal with than a land agent in a big way of business. The cases that will come up under this Bill are typical examples of the kind of questions that come up for solution, I will not say in the every-day work of estate management, but that constantly occur during a long period of estate management, and therefore in our opinion the arbitrators who have been appointed to work under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and who have, I say it with the greatest certainty, done their work uncommonly well under that Act and to the general satisfaction, are really better fitted than a County Court Judge for this particular class of arbitration, and we are firmly of opinion that you will get a better decision under arbitration from them than from anybody else that you could nominate.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I feel a great deal of sympathy with what was said by my noble friend behind me on the general question of taking the decision in matters of this kind away from the Courts of Law. I think we had a good deal of argument on that matter when the Agricultural Holdings Act was before your Lordships' House. But I must confess that I should feel some difficulty in agreeing
38
with my noble friend on this particular matter. I think there is great truth in what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite with regard to the qualifications of the gentlemen who have been nominated as arbitrators by the Board of Agriculture under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I have the names of two such gentlemen in my mind in my own county, and, without any disparagement to the capacity of the County Court Judge for that county, I would infinitely sooner have any matter in this Bill referred to either of those two gentlemen than to the County Court Judge, because it does seem to me that at first blush, at any rate, the questions arising under this Bill—they are not precisely analogous, I admit., to many matters of valuation under the Agricultural Holdings Act—can hardly be considered prima facie questions of law. It is a question of fact, surely, whether, to use the words of the Bill, a notice to quit has been given in view of the sale or offering for sale of the holding or any part thereof, and as to whether information in writing has been given to the tenant before the date, and all the rest of it. In both of the paragraphs in the first clause the matters do seem to me to be prima facie questions of fact which I think might, very well be decided by these arbitrators, considering the great experience they have had in dealing with all kinds of matters affecting the tenancy and ownership of agricultural property and agreements between landlord and tenant. They might perfectly well be decided by those gentlemen if they be, as I gather they would be, subject to an appeal in the event of a question of law arising. The next clause provides that this Act shall be construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. Therefore I assume that any provision for an appeal on points of law under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, would also apply to this Bill. If that be so, I confess I hope my noble friend, though I admit he has said a good deal in favour of his Amendment, will not press it to a division.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that if there was a dispute either the landlord or the tenant might go to arbitration, but I should like to hear it stated from the noble Lord opposite whether the landlord and the tenant can, if they choose, instead of going under the Bill to arbitration before a single arbitrator, go direct to the County

39
Court Judge to settle the matter; or is it compulsory under this clause that they must go to the arbitrator and not to the County Court Judge, even if they both desire to do so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I might answer this question. If the landlord and tenant both agree they can go where they wish and take the matter to the jurisdiction of a Court of Law; but if either of them claims the right to go to arbitration the clause gives the right to go to arbitration. That is what was stated in answer to the noble Marquess's question, and stated rightly, by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
LORD HYLTON: I think the position is not quite as the noble and learned Viscount thinks if a legal question arises under the Act of 1908. If a legal question arises under that Act, either party or both parties can bring it to a County Court Judge. The subsection says this—
"The arbitrator may, at any stage of the proceedings, and shall if so directed by the Judge of the County Court, which direction may be given on the application of either party, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of that Court,"
and so on; but if the County Court Judge does not so direct I presume it will not be so decided.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that will be so, but I take the words from the noble Lord. The meaning of what he has quoted is this. The arbitrator may be asked to state a special case or he may not. If the parties are dissatisfied with his decision, then they may go to the County Court Judge, and the learned Judge may give a direction. That is all.
LORD HYLTON: I withdraw my Amendment after what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Short title Construction and Commencement.
5.—(1) This Act maybe cited as the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1912, and shall he construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and that Act and this Act may he cited together as the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 and 1912.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen.
LORD HYLTON: I have an Amendment to Clause 5 to leave out the last word "thirteen" and to insert "fourteen." At the end of Clause 3 it is stated that—
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of a notice to quit served before the commencement of this Act."
To-day is the 2nd of December. This Bill cannot possibly reach another place until January, 1913. When this Bill was brought in a reprieve was given, but seven or eight months have elapsed since the Bill was introduced. I think it only fair that we should have an extended reprieve in regard to the provisions coming into force in this case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD LUCAS: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS: We shall have one other Amendment to put down, and I would like to ask whether it will suit the House if we take the Third Reading in about a week from to-day. Would Wednesday of next week be convenient?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what business is down for 1Vednesday, but if the noble Lord will put it down provisionally for Wednesday we can see.
Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday the 11 th instant, and to be printed as amended. (No. 177.)

REGISTRATION OF STALLIONS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I will be as brief as I can in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time. You will remember that the late Minister for Agriculture, the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lincolnshire), did a considerable amount of good work in connection with the breeding of horses. Amongst other things he instituted the Advisory Council, and from that the county committees were instituted. King's premium stallions were

41
sent to various centres and a great point was made of the registration of stallions. Considerable encouragement was given to owners of stallions all through the country to have them registered, and up to May 3 of this year there were 261 light stallions registered, of which 170 were thoroughbred horses. There were 109 ponies, besides hackneys and others, a considerable number of shire horses, and in comparison a very few Clydesdales. The matter has been taken up by owners of stallions, and they have registered with the Board of Agriculture a considerable number of horses, and the register is increasing rapidly. Of course, the most important thing in breeding is that the stallion should be sound, because a stallion serves from sixty to sixty-five mares every year, and the result is that if the horse is unsound a very large percentage of unsound produce is left behind, whereas if a foal is bred from an unsound mare she can only leave one unsound foal behind her. That is an important: thing to remember.
I will read a few lines from the Regulations for the Registration of Stallions, which are very important—
"The object which the Board have in view in promoting the registration of stallions is the elimination of the unsound sire. The decline in the light horse breeding industry and the deterioration of the quality of many of the horses bred are in great measure due to the use of stallions which are affected by hereditary disease and unsuitable for breeding purposes."
That is the object of the Board of Agriculture in getting stallions registered, and it shows how important they consider the soundness of the sires. When the county committees were instituted I was appointed chairman of the committee of the county in which I reside. We had a premium horse down last year, and he was fairly successful. The committee took an enormous amount of trouble in finding suitable mares from which to breed, and, on the whole, the result was very creditable and satisfactory. But this year it came to be known that the premium horse was going about, and the result was that we have had a great number of very doubtful horses going about in front of the premium horse and going actually to the doors of tenants and small farmers, who very naturally, instead of having to send a mare four or five or six miles to the premium stallion, take advantage of the animal which is brought to them for a very small fee.
42
I would like to trouble your Lordships, because I feel very strongly on the point, with a letter I received some little time ago, which seems to me to put the case very much in a nut-shell. My correspondent writes—
"It seems to me that since a King's premium horse has been up here and stirred up a bit of enthusiasm in the light horse breeding line the owners of unsound crocks of all types of light stallions (hackneys, Clevelands, Yorkshire coach horses, and all sorts of nondescripts) have taken advantage of it, and the country is swarming with these poachers who creep or hobble about from farm to farm and catch on mares at fees of 12 s. 6d. upwards. They would not have had any encouragement from the farmers before, but now the light horse breeding is being pushed and talked about they are reaping the advantage of it by coming in at a cheaper rate than the premium horse."
That is absolutely the fact. I believe there are as many as fourteen horses travelling about in my own county, and I know also that this is the experience in a number of other counties. Your Lordships know the great difficulty there was in supplying horses to the Army during the South African War. Yet in those clays you had all the omnibus horses and any quantity of different kinds of horses to draw upon, but since those days the advent of motors and different kinds of mechanically-propelled vehicles has cut all that out, and in the time to conic it will be found much more difficult to find horses for the Army. The Board of Agriculture have the right to stamp out all kinds of diseases in cattle, sheep, and pigs, and sometimes they order the slaughter of a whole herd of cattle because of a contagious disease. I cannot for the life of me see why they could not also have the power of saying that unsoundness should be eliminated from horses that are sent round as stallions. I think it right to pay a tribute to the Advisory Board. I quite recognise that they have done a great deal of work. I know that at the present moment they are inquiring into this subject, because I myself caused it, I think, to be brought before them, but if nothing is done just now to prevent inferior horses travelling it will be almost impossible to catch up the time that is lost. It is impossible for the Advisory Board to report before another year. Then it will take at least a year to draft a Bill and get it introduced, and probably two years before it becomes law. So that three or four years would be absolutely lost, and by the time such a Bill is passed the very horses that are being bred now and are foals this

43
year will be those that you require to breed from, and if you allow this absolutely unlimited competitorship to go on amongst the stallions used all over the country you will have thousands and thousands of unsound produce which will be the only things eventually from which yon can breed.
That is all I have to say at this late hour in regard to the Bill. The Bill is not a very stringent one, but I feel that something must be clone, and therefore I have ventured to bring this Bill before your Lordships. Clause 1 says that every stallion which travels for a service fee shall be registered in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Agriculture. Any horse, whether he is sound or not, may stand, and if anybody wishes to send his mare to an unsound horse he is, of course, at liberty to do it. The second part of that clause says that in respect of every stallion so registered a certificate of registration shall be issued by the Board. I understand that the conditions as to soundness have not been absolutely settled by the Board, but there are conditions which have been already laid down which, to my mind, are very fair, and if those are adhered to I do not think there would be very much to fear; but, at all events, the Board have the right to alter any regulations that may be made from time to time whenever they choose. The second clause gives the Board power to make regulations. The other clauses deal with offences and penalties. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I should like to say at once, on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, that we welcome the Bill of the noble Lord. When I say we welcome it, we are in absolute agreement with him as to the principle that is contained in it. But when we come to the details of the Bill I am afraid we shall find a great many points to differ on. As to our own position in the matter, I am afraid we do not agree with the noble Lord that the need for hurrying is quite so great as he made out. After all, the present system of horse-breeding has gone on for a great number of years, and in spite of there being a great many unsound stallions in the country the fact remains that we have the best horseflesh in the world. You have to move with a certain amount of circumspection
44
before you upset a system that has gone on for a considerable time. I do not want it to be thought that I am for a moment taking up a brief on behalf of the unsound stallion, because I am not. Very much the opposite. We have ourselves moved in the matter, not by way of legislation, but rather from the point of view of getting public opinion focussed on this question by the issue of the Board of Agriculture's certificates. They have, I am glad to say, been fairly well taken up. This year we issued 715 of them, and this is only the second year of their existence; and from the information one gets I think that owners of mares, who of course are the people chiefly interested in the thing, are getting more and more into the habit of asking to see the Board's certificate before they send their mare to a horse. That is all in the right direction.
I do not think, either, that this is a matter in which we want, if we can help it, to move absolutely single banded. After all, there are the big breed societies, very important bodies, and as regards their shows and things of that kind they exact a careful and searching veterinary examination, and a certificate is required. I think it is not an unrealisable ideal that we, the Board, and all the breed societies and the other bodies interested in this matter should agree to accept some common formula of soundness—that is one of the first things we ought to do—and that we should then co-operate on some lines and all work together for the elimination of the unsound stallion. Personally I regard that as an indispensable preliminary before we set to work and take what you might call violent measures against the unsound stallion. I am afraid the question is not quite such a simple one as perhaps the noble Lord thinks it is. It is fraught with a large number of difficulties, and I may say his Bill falls short on a considerable number of points.
I would also like to say at once that there are a number of points in the Bill with regard to which we ourselves are not prepared with a solution. The moment one begins to go into this question one finds that it will be a very difficult and rather delicate task to undertake. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to one or two points on which it seems to me that the Bill falls short. First of all, the Bill legislates against the travelling stallion only, and does not deal in any form with

45
the stallion that stands at stud at any particular place. Of course, that saves the noble Lord from having to deal with some of the difficulties that have been raised by breeders in that connection. Then there is another horse which you might almost call of the intermediate class. Fie does not travel; he stands for service at a particular place but is paraded a good deal for exhibition at markets and various places, and he is advertised as standing for service at such and such a farm, usually a place easy to get at, and a great many mares are sent to that horse. If you pass the Bill as it stands no doubt a good many of the horses that the noble Lord has referred to in his speech and rightly complained of would become that type of what you might call intermediate horse, and I do not know that you would have done much good. No doubt they would procure fewer mares, but that they would obtain mares is undoubted. Then there is a remarkable omission in the noble Lord's Bill. He omits all heavy horses and ponies.
LORD SALTOUN: I intended ponies to be included in "horses."
LORD LUCAS: Horses are horses and ponies are ponies as a rule, and it would require an amendment of the Bill to make the matter clear. But that is only a small point. I do not know why the noble Lord leaves out heavy horses. As we know, the percentage of unsoundness in heavy horses is probably higher than that in any other breed, and I do not think we could ever regard any Bill as satisfactory which did not include heavy horses. Then there is the question of when the Bill should take effect. The noble Lord suggests 1913. I think it would be very hard on a number of these stallion owners to make it impossible for them to use their horses after the end of this year. Apart from the merits of the question one has to remember that a number of these horses, unsound as they are, are very valuable animals still, and that their present owners regarded them as an investment when they purchased them, and you would certainly have to give a considerable amount of notice in order to allow these men to replace the stallions they had bought.
Then as to one or two smaller points. First of all there is the question of suitability. It is quite true that in the certificate that we issue we require suitability —that the horse should be considered from the point of view of suitability before he
46
gets a certificate. I rather think that as a result of our experience we should not advise that to be continued. It is a very arbitrary thing to ask a veterinary surgeon, even where there is an appeal from his decision, which we provide for, to decide whether a horse is suitable, because you have to take both the horse and the mare into consideration when deciding the question of suitability. Then there is the question of the stud book. I think the noble Lord would meet with great opposition from all the people who run stud books, with the possible exception of the Hunters' improvement Society. It is not really a register of stock but a register of pedigree, and the opinion is that the two things should not be mixed up. There is also a good deal in the drafting of the Bill which would have to be overhauled. I will not detain your Lordships by going into that.
As I say, we are very glad to see the Bill and we welcome it, and I may be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it in, because I think it is a very good thing that a move should be made in this direction. But I hope the noble Lord will be content with the Second Reading now, and not press the Bill further, because it has very little chance of passing into law this session and I dare say the noble Lord does not anticipate that it will do so. Then if I might make a suggestion to him it would be this, that between now and next session he should redraft his Bill covering some of the points I have mentioned and bring it up again. If we could be of any assistance to him we should be most happy to do everything we could to help in the redrafting of the Bill, but even then when it came up again there would still be a number of these difficult points that would want to be settled. I think the best way, probably, in which to deal with the matter would be for the Bill after it is redrafted to be referred to a Select Committee of this House. I can think of no body better qualified than a Select Committee of your Lordships' Rouse to deal with a question of this kind and with the number of very difficult points that arise. If I may make that suggestion to the noble Lord I believe that would be the best way of arriving at what we all want, which is a suitable Bill for dealing with the elimination of unsound stallions.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.