Sitting of 3 December 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5026 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 21, 1912).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Portugal respecting Boundaries in East Africa (Barue Section. From the Mazoe River to Latitude 18º 30 South). Lisbon, 22nd July—9th August 1912. (With Map) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ROYAL NAVY (PAY).
Copy presented of Statement showing the present and new Rates of Pay for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 2nd December, 1912, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Appeals and Disputes) Regulations (England), 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PUBLIC BILLS (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
Return ordered, "showing the number of occasions since 1907 on which Closure by compartments has been carried; the names of the Bills to which it has been applied; the number of days, if any, devoted to each on the Committee stage before such Closure was put into operation; the total number of days, if any, devoted to each in Committee of the whole House; and the number of days allocated to each on the Report stage."—[Mr. Wright.]

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 385.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 385.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Pilotage Bill): Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Godfrey Collins, Sir George Robertson, Mr. Edgar Jones, Mr. Glazebrook, Earl of Ronaldshay, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Devlin, and Mr. Hugh Law; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Robertson, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Lundon, Mr. Doris, and Mr. O'Kelly.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee that they had added to Standing Committee A the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Pilotage Bill): Sir Joseph Rickett, Mr. Shortt, Mr. King, Mr. Rea, Mr. Denman, Major Guest, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. George Terrell, Colonel Gibbs, Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir George Doughty, Colonel Chaloner, Mr. Joyce, Mr. O'Doherty, and Mr. Thomas Richardson.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Amendments to—
North Killingholme Pier Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Slavery (Peru).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Anglo-Peruvian Slavery Treaty is still in

  2069
  force; whether he is aware that charges have been made by the Società, Pro-Indigena in Peru concerning the existence of the slave trade in the vicinity of Casco; whether he is further aware that Senor Francesco Mostajo, agent of the above-named society at Arequipa, has recently informed the Peruvian Government that in another distinct in Peru they are confronted with an attack upon humanity as nameless as that of the Putumayo; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made to ascertain if British subjects are involved in this charge?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The instrument to which the hon. Member refers is presumably the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1850, Article XV. of which deals with the slave trade, and which is still in force. Charges have been made from time to time by the Pro-Indigena Society of cruelty to Indians in the interior of Peru, but I have no information respecting their occurrence at a place of the name of Casco or of Senor Mostajo's charges. As I stated on the 14th instant, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Sowerby, if the hon. Member will furnish me with more definite information, I will inquire whether British companies are involved. I cannot promise to do more than that.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Suppose that the charges were proved and that this clause in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation is in effective operation would the right hon. Gentleman be able to take steps to bring the slavery to an end in these places?
  Sir E. GREYmade a reply which was inaudible in the reporters' gallery.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether any negotiations for the advance of an adequate loan to the Persian Government so as to enable it to restore order are still proceeding; and, if so, whether any proposal has been made that concessions should be given for a Trans-Persian Railway to India as part of the terms of such a loan?
  Sir E. GREY: The question of how the Persian Government is to get money remains under consideration. I cannot say on what conditions it may eventually be obtained. In any case the making of a Trans-Persian Railway would be subject to
  2070
  the arrangement of conditions already explained, whether it were connected with a loan or not.
  Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that there is no change of attitude on the part of the Government as regards the Trans-Persian Railway?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no change with regard to the making of a Trans-Persian Railway which was explained to the House earlier in the year.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can indicate the grounds on which His Majesty's Minister at Teheran was instructed to encourage the recall to Persia of the exiled Saad-ed-Dowleh, who was formerly one of the principal Ministers of the ex-Shah and has recently declared that he is still a strong partisan of that prince; and whether the declarations of His Majesty's Government that they will not, under any circumstances, recognise the ex-Shah still hold good?
  Sir E. GREY: I gave the ground in reply to a previous question on which the return of Saad-ed-Dowleh to Persia was desired. I am informed that it is not true that he has recently declared himself a partisan of the ex-Shah. He has not always been on good terms with the ex-Shah. The attitude of His Majesty's Government as regards the ex-Shah has not changed.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Regency has actually been offered to this Saad-ed-Dowleh by the British or Russian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: No; there is no truth in the rumour that the Regency has been offered by the British or Russian Government, because the Regency of Persia is not theirs to offer.

  Egyptian Legislative Council.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed changes in the constitution of the Egyptian Legislative Council, foreshadowed in the President's opening speech on 16th November last, have yet been communicated to His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether he can inform the House of the nature and extent of the changes and when they are likely to be put into execution?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative. I have nothing at present to

  2071
  add to the replies which I gave to questions on this subject on 5th, 21st, and 27th November.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report of the speech of the President?
  Sir E. GREY: I have only read a short summary. I have not read a report of it.

  Muscat.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House regarding the present position at Muscat; whether the recent arms regulations are being enforced by the Sultan of Oman; and whether any modification of these regulations is contemplated?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information to give beyond the fact that the new regulations are already being enforced to the extent that all arms imported since 1st September are being deposited in the bonded warehouse No modification of the regulations is contemplated.
  Mr. LLOYD: Is the regulation passed by the Sultan of Oman with regard to bonded warehouses entirely in order and infringes no treaty rights?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member would give me notice.

  Questions (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any further development has occurred in respect of the provision of a High Court for Behar?
  Mr. KING: May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member who answers questions on behalf of the Secretary of State for India is now in the House?
  Sir J. D. REES: The Secretary of State is in another place; the Under-Secretary is in India, and the officer who answers is in his office, presumably.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The answers have not yet arrived, and therefore I cannot give them.
  Mr. KING: Shall we be ruled out of our opportunity of asking these questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No. The hon. Member will have an opportunity at the conclusion of the other questions.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, under the National Insurance Act, the taxpayer is called upon to pay 9d. for medical attendance which cannot be provided and which, if provided, might, in the absence of any income limit, be claimed and would be due irrespective of the pecuniary position of the person concerned?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I regret that I am unable to discover the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's question, but so far as I can understand it the answer is in the negative.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not 9d. paid in all by different taxpayers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No taxpayer, as far as I know, pays 9d., nor is 9d. paid for medical benefit.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the question.

    CONTRACTING OUT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has seen the case of a widow in Bristol who pleaded that she had been driven to steal by distress caused by the National Insurance Act, which led to the discharge of herself and a number of other women workers; whether he is aware that large numbers of similar cases of loss of livelihood have occurred in Nottingham; and whether, in consideration of these facts, of the inability of the Government to provide medical benefits, and of the general distress and unemployment caused by the collection of the insurance tax, the Government will consider the propriety of introducing at an early date the principle of contracting out or otherwise avoiding the benefits of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have heard nothing of the alleged "facts" referred to in the question, nor of any inability of the Government to provide medical benefit, nor of general distress and unemployment caused by the collection of the insurance contributions. If the hon. Gentleman has any information in his possession on these matters I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the "Times" statement?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen nothing about it except this question.

    TUBERCULOSIS CASES.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, seeing that the Poor Law infirmaries of London and the Metropolitan Asylums Board have over 3,000 tuberculosis cases under treatment, the cost of which is at present a charge upon the rates of the Metropolis, and that the National Insurance Act and the Finance Act, 1911, made a sum of £1,500,000 available to aid the provision of sanatoria and other institutions in which both insured and not insured persons may receive treatment, it is intended to make a Grant towards the cost of these patients while retained in the various institutions, or are they to be transferred to county council sanatoria?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The sum of £1,500,000 referred to in the hon. Member's question is a Grant towards capital expenditure, not in aid of cost of maintenance. The conditions under which patients will be admitted to sanatoria provided by the London County Council will be primarily a matter for that authority, subject to any conditions required by the Local Government Board when the Grant is made, and also as regards insured persons to any arrangements made with the insurance committees.

    PROSECUTIONS (IRELAND AND BERKSHIRE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked in what part of Ireland the five prosecutions for noncompliance with the Insurance Act were instituted, and with what result; and why only five prosecutions were instituted in Ireland with a population of 4,380,000, and forty-three in Berkshire with a population of 310,000, the number of resisters being greater in proportion to population in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Proceedings have been instituted in five cases only, not forty-three, in Berkshire; and, a I stated in answer to the hon. and gallan Member for South Wolverhampton on 21st November, prosecutions have been instituted in seven, not five, cases in Ireland. Of these three were in county Cork, one in county Westmeath, one in county Louth, one in Dublin, and one is still pending in county Cork. The hon. Member is apparently comparing the summonses, a large number of which are sometimes issued in con-
    2074
    nection with a single case, with the cases themselves.
    Sir J. D. REES: Were not twenty-seven summonses taken out in Berkshire, and to that extent was there not this great difference?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Twenty-seven is not forty-three. The actual fact is that only five cases have occurred in Berkshire.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether it is the intention of the Government to increase the charges on account of the National Insurance Act from time to time, without regard to the cost to the taxpayer, as in respect of such remuneration as is necessary to obtain the co-operation of the medical profession; and, if so, whether the assent of the electorate is to be presumed to any expenditure, however large, in this behalf?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can now inform the House as to the further proposals he can offer to medical practitioners to enable them to co-operate in providing medical benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I can add nothing to my reply on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Devizes.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of that reply?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will supply the hon. Gentleman with a copy of it.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked what sums, if any, have, in accordance with Sub-section (3), Section 54, of the National Insurance Act, 1911, been ascertained to stand in the National Health Insurance Fund to the credit of the several societies, of the Post Office Fund, and of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund, respectively, as available for investment; what portions of such sums, if any, have been respectively paid over to societies for investment, retained for investment on their behalf and for the discharge of their liabilities, and carried to the investment account; and what are the investments, if any, in which such sums available for investment have been invested by the National Debt Commissioners and the approved societies, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Until the contribution cards for the first quarter have been received and dealt with by the Commissioners no sums can be placed to the credit of societies, and no amount can be determined to be available for investment. The remaining questions do not in the circumstances arise. The amounts received into the National Health Insurance Fund so far, and not required to meet current liabilities, have been paid over to the National Debt Commissioners for temporary investment, in accordance with Section 54 (3) of the Act. When the transactions of the year are completed an account will be presented to Parliament under Sub-section (6) of Section 54.

    INSURANCE OFFICERS (PAY AND DUTIES).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked how many appointments from the officer grade to sur-veyorships have, since the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise offices in April, 1909, gone to the Customs branch and Excise branch, respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Since 1st April, 1909, 123 officers of Customs origin and seventy-six of Excise origin have been appointed to surveyorships or to corresponding posts which have since that date ranked as surveyorships. There are no longer separate Customs and Excise branches in the amalgamated Customs and Excise service.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is it not the fact that during the last eight months over ninety were appointed to surveyorships, and is there not in consequence great dissatisfaction amongst the officers of Excise?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot answer that without some notice. I see that 123 officers have been appointed since 1909. That is all I know.
    Mr. POINTER: Since a great proportion of the appointments are now going to the Customs, does not that affect the Excisemen?
    Mr. WRIGHTasked whether the work under the National Insurance Act is carried out mainly by officers of the Excise branch; and, if so, whether additional present remuneration is being made to these officers in respect of this new work, and, if so, at what rate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the
    2076
    replies I gave to the hon. Member for Horncastle on the 14th and 20th November, in which I explained the conditions under which the new duties under the Insurance Act were entrusted to the Customs and Excise Service. There is no longer any separate Excise branch.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Can the right hon Gentleman say whether in fact any present increase of pay has been given to the officers or not?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I gave an answer to the hon. Member for Horncastle on that subject.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked whether in the case of Civil Servants from departments other than the Excise, who have been transferred to work under the Insurance Commissioners, additional present increases of salary have been granted; and whether similar increases have been granted to officers of the Excise in respect of their new duties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no foundation for the suggestion that the opportunities for transfer to the service of the Insurance Commission were less favourable in the case of the Customs and Excise Department than in that of any other department. As regards the second part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to my replies of the 14th and 20th November to questions by the hon. Member for Horncastle.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked if the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been called to the fact that, under a recent Order of the Board of Customs and Excise regulating the payment for overtime attendance, the surveyors formerly surveyors of Customs are called upon to give overtime attendance, for which they have hitherto been paid, without any payment, and to make night visits, for which they have hitherto been paid, without any payment unless the number of such visits shall exceed four per month; and whether, in view of his promise that members of the two services should not be made to suffer by the amalgamation of the departments, he will consider what compensation shall be paid to surveyors whose conditions of service are thus altered to their detriment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Order in question merely gives effect to the recommendation in paragraph 236 of the Amalgamation Committee's Report, which

    2077
    was issued in August, 1911, that the salary of surveyors should cover overtime, and that systematic night visits by surveyors should be specially remunerated. The Committee added the reservation that overtime by surveyors should not be allowed to become systematic. In any comprehensive reorganisation, such as the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Services, the changes in the conditions of service must be looked at as a whole. The scales of the former classes of Customs surveyor have been improved, and arrangements for relaxing the requirements as to attendance are practically complete, and will shortly be carried out.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the members of the Excise Service have not, in fact, suffered by the amalgamation of the two departments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is my impression after going into the matter. I am quite willing to hear any suggestions of facts the hon. Gentleman may make.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is it not the fact that in April of this year the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the Excise officers, and did he not admit that they were suffering great hardship?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I received a deputation; but, on the contrary, my recollection is—I had them there twice—that the Excise officers complained that they suffered and the Customs officers complained that they suffered. The complaint of the Excise officers was that preference was given to the Customs officers, and the complaint of the Customs officers was that preference was given to the Excise officers.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Could not the Royal Commission now sitting to inquire into the Civil Service, examine into these alleged grievances?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry in the meantime?

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, seeing that the Metropolitan Asylums Board have an institution at Rustington, near Little-hampton, set apart for tuberculosis cases, the cost of which is defrayed out of the poor rate for the Metropolis, it is intended to transfer this institution to the London County Council for sanitoria purposes;
    2078
    and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is proposed to recoup the ratepayers the, cost of administering this institution?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have not heard of any proposal to transfer to the London County Council the institution of the Metropolitan Asylums Board situated at Rustington. As stated in my recent reply, the institution referred to is for children only.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the President of the Local Government Board how many counties or county boroughs have not yet submitted to the Local Government Board complete schemes for detecting and treating tuberculosis; and how many complete schemes which have been submitted have not yet been approved by the Board?
    Mr. BURNS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I have already given to the hon. Member for Plymouth. Some sixty councils of counties and county boroughs have not yet submitted complete schemes, but forty-six of those councils have submitted schemes of a partial or temporary character. Of the sixty complete schemes which have been submitted, twenty-seven have not yet been approved by the Board, but in these cases the Board are in communication with the councils, either with a view to obtaining further information or the reconsideration of some feature of the scheme.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board how many beds will be required in the near future for the United Kingdom in sanatoria; and how many beds he anticipates will be needed, exclusive of Poor Law beds, in hospitals for the treatment of consumptives?
    Mr. BURNS: I do not think I can do more at present than refer the hon. Member to the estimates given in the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is the Local Government Board still of opinion that in the near future 18,000 beds will be required for sanatoria and in other institutions?
    Mr. BURNS: No; that is not our opinion.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is that not the opinion expressed in the Local Government Board's Circular of 14th May?
    Mr. BURNS: No, Sir. An estimate was formed by the Astor Committee that 9,000 sanatoria beds would be required for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Did not the circular of the Local Government Board adopt the estimate of the Astor Committee and supplement it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put a question down.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked how many of the schemes by county and town councils for providing sanatoria benefit and treatment of consumptives, wholly or partly approved by his Board, are based upon the assumption that in addition to the Hob-house Grant there would be available 1s. 3d. per annum per head of assured persons?
    Mr. BURNS: It is impossible to say what assumptions have been entertained by each local authority that has considered a scheme of institutional treatment, but it may be supposed that local authorities are alive to the situation.

  Gloucester Postal Clerks.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General whether the clerks employed at the Gloucester post office have not been paid for overtime worked on certain days in September and October in consequence of a rush in connection with the Insurance Act; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to the amount owing being paid?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. ROYDSasked whether, in view of the fact that site value of agricultural land, as now being ascertained under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is a false site value in that it is largely composed of value directly attributable to owners' improvements, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the desirability of suspending the valuation of agricultural land until arrangements are made whereby the true unimproved site value of such land can be arrived at?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not consider it desirable to suspend the valuation of agricultural land on the assumption made by the hon. Member.
  Mr. ROYDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what justification there is for the expenditure of public money to ascertain site value, which is the false value, and not the true value?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. ROYDS: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the subject on the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. CASSELasked what was the total number of provisional valuations made in Ireland and Great Britain, respectively, during the last financial year; and what is the reason why the number in Ireland was so small?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number of provisional valuations made and served in Great Britain and Ireland from 1st April, 1911, to 31st March, 1912, inclusive was 1,501,174 and 5,740 respectively. Seeing that official valuations were already in existence in Ireland when the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, was passed, the same need does not exist for pressing forward with the valuation.

  Undeveloped Land (Church Site).
  Mr. PRETYMANasked whether the demand made for Undeveloped Land Duty for the Church site in the Kennington Road held by the Rochester and South-wark Diocesan Church Trust has yet been withdrawn?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative, for the reasons of which I have already informed the hon. Member.

  Land Values Committee.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked whether any Civil servants are engaged in any capacity upon the work of the secret Land Inquiry appointed by himself; if so, what are their names; in what branches of the Civil Service are they engaged; are they doing any work for this Committee of Inquiry during the period for which they are in receipt of payment from the State; and is the chief valuer or any of the Valuation Department engaged upon the work of the secret Land Inquiry in any capacity or giving it information or assistance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Dulwich on

  2081
  23rd October last. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Oxford University (Reform of Convocation).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in 1909, the Chancellor of Oxford University issued a memorandum urging the reform of Convocation and greater facilities for students of limited means, and that neither of these reforms have been attempted; and whether the Government is now prepared to advise that a Royal Commission be appointed to carry through these reforms?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am well aware of the importance of these matters, and have given them much attention. I hope shortly to be able to make a definite statement on the subject.

  Navy Vote.
  Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that the increase in the Navy Vote in recent years has altered the question of the cost of the defence of the Empire and the contribution made by India towards such defence, whether he will take steps to have this matter again considered and, if necessary, reviewed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This question is and will be considered annually in the light of such circumstances as may arise.
  Mr. FELL: Does not the Prime Minister think that a case has arisen now for a fresh inquiry without waiting until the middle of next year in the circumstances that have arisen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Departments are constantly engaged in considering this question. There is no occasion for any special reconsideration at this moment.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if India does not contribute more than all the other Dominions and Possessions to the defence of the Empire?
  The PRIME MINISTER'Sanswer was inaudible.

  Lords of Appeal.
  Mr. WATTasked whether Lords of Appeal have to serve fourteen years as such before they are entitled to a pension; and whether any exceptions to this rule have arisen during the last six years?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no such rule. The rule is that to be entitled to a pension a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
  2082
  must either have done fifteen years judicial service or be disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office. There have, as far as I am aware, been no exceptions to this rule.

  Closure.
  Mr. WRIGHTasked if the Prime Minister will grant the Return relating to Closure as applied to Bills in this House standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no objection to granting this Return.
  Mr. KING: Before the right hon. Gentleman definitely decides to grant this Return, will he go back to the time when the guillotine system was first introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that is covered by previous Returns.

  Canada (Admiralty Memorandum).
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Prime Minister will take steps to ensure that the Memorandum prepared by the Admiralty for presentation to the Dominion Parliament of Canada shall be discussed in this House before that Assembly has an opportunity of knowing its contents?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will refer to the replies which I gave on this subject on Wednesday last he will see that I stated that the Memorandum which was prepared at the request of the Canadian Government must go before the Dominion Parliament before being presented to this House.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Prime Minister if in this House it is possible definitely to decide how many ships are required for the Navy before we become involved by any offers from any of the Colonies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That really does not arise. This is a Memorandum prepared by the Admiralty with the aid of the Dominion Parliament. I agree that it ought to be laid before the House, and it will be.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    THE SPIRITS ACT.
    Mr. GRETTONasked if there is any Clause in the Government of Ireland Bill which would prevent the Irish Parliament repealing or altering in any way The Spirits Act, 1880, 43 and 44 Vic, c. 24 (an

    2083
    Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the manufacture and sale of spirits), and, if so, which?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; Clause 2 (11) (b) of the Bill, and also Clause 15.

    FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
    Mr. GRETTONasked if there is any Clause in the Government of Ireland Bill which would prevent the Irish Parliament repealing or altering in any way the Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1879 and 1899, and, if so, which?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament repealing or altering the provisions of these Acts as regards matters within their legislative powers.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by qualifications of legislative power?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I meant to refer to the restrictions imposed on the legislative powers of the Irish Parliament by Clause 2 of the Bill.

  Borstal System.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give any information of the progress of the experiment in the Borstal system at Blairlodge by the Prison Commissioners?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Polmont Institution has now been open for a little over a year, and the first party of boys was transferred there on 18th December last. The total number of males sentenced under Part I. of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, has been up to date 101, all of whom are still under Borstal treatment. The next Report of the Prison Commissioners will contain information as to the progress of the experiment. I am informed that the conduct and progress of those in the institution have been good.

  Airdrie Arrest (James Canning).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on 24th August a youth named James Canning was arrested at Airdrie while leaving the football field, and was detained at the police office for over an hour and then released without any charge being made against; whether the police now completely exonerate him of having been guilty of any offence; and whether
  2084
  the incident is to be regarded as involving no imputation against his character?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the circumstances referred to. The youth referred to is completely exonerated of any offence, and the incident is not to be regarded as involving any imputation against his character.

  St. Kilda.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Island of St. Kilda is again shut off from the mainland for six months; whether he is aware that the wireless installation offered to the islanders has not yet been erected; and what steps he has taken to assure himself that there will be no recurrence of the events of last year, when the islanders were reduced to privation for want of food?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question of the wireless installation is one for the Postmaster - General, whose licence is required. I understand that the issue of a licence has been conditionally approved, but that the conditions have not yet been accepted. If no wireless installation is secured, I will consider whether any other arrangements for ensuring communications can be made, though in view of the general experience of the past I have some doubt whether it is necessary to share my hon. Friend's apprehensions regarding the future welfare of the islanders.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even supposing the licence can be obtained, that this cannot be erected for six months?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I suppose that is the case.
  Mr. WATT: May I ask whether the Poulsen or Marconi system will be adopted?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not within my jurisdiction.

  House-letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered any scheme whereby the exemption of rates to poor people under the House-Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, can be expedited; and whether he will consider the advisability of the local rating authorities issuing exemption cards to suitable cases for exemption, which cards could then be

  2085
  presented to the factors, who could then be repaid by the assessing authorities at regular intervals?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: Schemes for the purpose referred to by my hon. Friend are primarily matter for consideration by the local authorities. The plan referred to by my hon. Friend has, I understand, been adopted by certain local authorities.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what authorities have adopted that?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe Glasgow is one of them.

  Scottish Universities (Entrance Examinations).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that failure to pass in the leaving certificate examination in the spring of any year means that the student should he be entering on a course of medical study, requires to postpone his entrance to a Scottish university for at least eighteen months if he desires to avail himself of the Carnegie Trust's fee grant; and whether, in those circumstances, he will arrange for an autumn examination for the leaving certificate in order to meet the difficulty?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend is mistaken in his calculation that a delay of eighteen months is caused. I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on Tuesday last dealing with the last part of the question, which was in the negative.
  Mr. HOGGE: What delay is caused then?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If an examination is held annually it cannot cause a delay of eighteen months. If the student passes his entrance examination there need be no material delay at all.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the examination is held in March and the subsequent examination in March and the University Session begins in October, and therefore there must be eighteen months delay?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot agree with the calculation. If the student passes in March he cannot enter until November, and if he does not pass until the following March the delay is only for a year.

  Scottish Education Department.
  Mr. HOGGEasked (1) how many sub-inspectors of the first or second class have ever been promoted to the rank of junior inspectors in the Scottish Education Department; and (2) whether he can say if during the last ten years, during which seventeen junior inspectors have been appointed, there have been no sub-inspectors of the first or second class who have been worthy of promotion in the Scottish Education Department?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Since the grade of junior inspector was instituted in Scotland in the year 1900, three sub-inspectors have been transferred to the grade of junior inspector, of whom two have since been promoted to the rank of His Majesty's inspector. During the same period two other sub-inspectors have been promoted direct to the rank of His Majesty's inspector.

  National Galleries, Edinburgh.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is in a position to state that arrangements can be made for a series of public lectures at the National Galleries in Edinburgh, in view of the representative nature of the resolutions in favour of such a course that have now reached him?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: It is impossible for several reasons to make such arrangements for this winter, but the financial and other aspects of the question are under consideration with a view to the future.

  Forestry (Scotland).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is able to make any statement as to the progress which is being made towards the acquisition of a State demonstration area, with a school for working foresters attached, and the establishment of a school of forestry at one of the Scottish universities, as recommended by the Departmental Committee?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative. The Advisory Committee has not yet reported. My hon. Friend will understand that it is a matter which requires a great deal of consideration.
  Mr. LYELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to when he expects the Report?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I have not got information as to the exact date of the Report, but I know they are giving the matter most serious and constant consideration.

  Civil Servants' Salaries (Diligence for Debt).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to promote any legislation to remove the exemption of Civil servants' salaries from diligence for debt?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Apart from the merits of the question, I am not in a position to promise to introduce special legislation for Scotland in this matter; it must be dealt with as a general question.

  Elgin Commission Report (Universities, Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Elgin Commission, in their Report on the Scottish universities, definitely recommended limiting grants to these universities on condition of adopting the inclusive fee system, or whether they definitely abstained from recommending or criticising the institution of a composite fee?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the bon. Member to paragraph 11 of the Report of the Committee, in which the position of the Committee is set forth.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Commission deliberately stated that they were not prepared to give a definite deliverance on this question, and left it to the authorities of the university?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They mentioned the undoubted advantages which they thought would be secured by this system, but they said it was not part of their reference to recommend it.

  Scottish University Fees.
  Mr. WATTasked whether the new system of inclusive fees in Scottish universities insisted on by the Treasury will have the effect, among others, of preventing students who have taken classes without having fixed the profession, if any, which they will ultimately enter, from counting these classes in the necessary curriculum when a profession has been chosen?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no reason to think that an inclusive fee would lead to the result suggested by the hon. Member.

  Minor Legal Appointments, Scotland.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether anything has yet been done by his Department on the Report of the Commission on Minor Legal Appointments in Scotland; and, if nothing has been done, when he expects to take action?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by me to my hon. Friends the Members for Wick Burghs and Ross and Cromarty on 1st August last, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (College Division) on 10th October last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether things have not progressed since 1st October.
  Mr. URE: Yes, they have. I have given consideration to some of those recommendations.

  Sheriffs-Principal (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked how many sheriffs-principal in Scotland are, after their appointments, permitted by such to practise at the Scottish Bar; and how many are precluded from so doing?
  Mr. URE: The commissions of the sheriffs are silent on the topic refererd to in my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. WATTasked how many sheriffs-principal have been appointed under the Act of 1907 which makes solicitors who have been sheriffs-substitute for five years eligible for such positions; and, if none have been so appointed, will he say when he proposes to try the experiment?
  Mr. URE: All the sheriffs who have been appointed since 1907 have been appointed under the Act of 1907. None have been solicitors who have been sheriffs-substitute of five years' standing. Obviously I cannot answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the sixteen sheriffs-principal in Scotland are, after their appointment, permitted by their patents to practise at the Scottish Bar, at the Parliamentary Bar, at the Bar of the House of Lords, and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and whether he proposes in the future to give some of these appointments to whole-time servants of the State?
  Mr. URE: The Commissions of the Sheriffs are silent on the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. WATT: Do those gentlemen practice at all those Bars at all?
  Mr. URE: Yes.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask in point of fact whether, if the right hon. Gentleman gave effect to this suggestion, he would have to go to the Treasury for a very large increase in the salaries?
  Mr. URE: Necessarily so.

  Solicitors' Licences (Prosecutions in Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked whether any prosecutions of solicitors have taken place in Scotland during the last two years for nonpayment of the annual solicitors' licence; if so, how many, and has imprisonment for non-payment been insisted on by the Department of Inland Revenue?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: During the two years prior to the 1st December, 1912, there have been twelve prosecutions of persons in Scotland for practising as solicitors without a certificate. In three of these cases imprisonment has followed non-payment of the fine. Two cases are still pending.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is that really imprisonment for refusing to pay a trade union contribution?
  Mr. WATT: Was the main charge against those gentlemen who were imprisoned the portion of the costs?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a question.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many confirmed outbreaks of swine fever have occurred in Great Britain during the first ten months of the current year; and what is the total amount of compensation paid or payable in respect thereof?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): 2,516 outbreaks of swine fever were confirmed in Great Britain during the first ten months of this year. The total sum paid
  2090
  during that period by way of compensation for animals slaughtered was £63,350, but the amount paid in respect of confirmed and reported cases, respectively, cannot be separately stated.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the steady increase in the outbreak of this disease and the large amount of money expended on it, a review of the present method of seeking to stamp it out?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should really give notice of that.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: It arises out of the reply.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked two questions and got a full reply to them. If he wants to put further questions he should put them down.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: With all respect Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I listened attentively to the replies to the questions which were most definite questions, and they were both fully answered. If the hon. Member wishes to put further questions founded upon these replies, he should give notice of them.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked when the scientific investigation by or on behalf of the Departmental Committee on swine fever into the latency of infection and mode of communication of this disease will be concluded, and their final report, which has been pending for over eighteen months, be issued?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to say when the Committee to-which the hon. Member refers will issue their final Report. The questions which they have to consider require prolonged investigation.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: By your leave, Sir, I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can put on more investigators on this work, in view of their time being taken up by the foot-and-mouth disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The work of the Committee is being supplemented by the chief veterinary officer of the Board, who is carrying on investigations, and I believe that some of the information he has obtained is very valuable.

  Beef Supply.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present cow population of London; whether several thousands of cows, with their second calf only, after being housed in Metropolitan stables for a few months, are slaughtered annually for butcher's meat; and whether, in view of the steady decrease in the supply of homegrown beef, he is taking or proposes to take any steps to prevent the premature destruction of such animals?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of cows and heifers in milk or in calf in the county of London was returned as 2,743 on 4th June last. I am informed that the practice to which the hon. Member refers in the second part of the question is not uncommon, but no statistical information is available as to the extent to which it prevails. The Board have no power to the discontinuance of the practice, but I would refer him to the reply which I gave to him on 12th ultimo as to the steps taken to direct public attention to the importance of rearing sufficient heifer calves in order to meet the increasing demand for milch cows,
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that for the last three weeks Belgian dealers have been purchasing a considerable number of old and often emaciated cows in Smithfield market; if he can say for what purposes this new trade in inferior British stock has been initiated; and, if for consumption as beef, whether any restrictions are or can be imposed upon the sale of such of these animals as are visibly tuberculous?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate to me the information on which the statement in the first part of the question is based, I will have inquiry made. At present the Board have no information as to the trade to which he refers.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to say when the restrictions on the importation of livestock from Ireland to Great Britain will be wholly removed?
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of there having been no further
  2092
  outbreaks of cattle disease in Ireland, except at Mullingar, 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?
  Mr. FIELD: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if he can give any information as to the present position of affairs in Dublin?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give any full information, but I hear that a suspected case in Dublin has been confirmed by at least one of the inspectors over there. I am awaiting further information on the subject. In reply to the two questions on the Paper, I had hoped to be able to-day to sanction the issue of an Order reducing the period of detention prescribed in the case both of cattle and swine intended for slaughter from ninety-six hours, as at present, to twelve hours, subject to certain conditions as regards their removal from the landing place. During the last few days, however, two animals presenting suspicious appearances have been detained and slaughtered in Dublin, which are now the subject of veterinary investigations, and until those investigations are completed it would be premature for me to modify the existing restrictions in the manner I had contemplated. In the meantime both Departments are taking special precautions against the possibility of the shipment to and subsequent movement in this country of animals which may have been exposed to infection. The investigations will be brought to a conclusion with the least possible delay.
  Mr. LYELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage the discovery was made in Dublin?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The two cases to which I have referred in the answer were both caught before they left Dublin.
  Mr. LYELL: On the wharf?
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know where they come from?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Questions on that subject will have to be addressed to the Irish Office. I believe the Irish officials are pressing back all the animals. Meanwhile the shipment of animals from Dublin has been suspended.
  Mr. FIELD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to give

  2093
  further information with regard to the investigation pursued by these officials?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that the investigation will be concluded to-day. I will certainly give the House the fullest information I have at question time to-morrow if a question is put to me.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there is any objection, and, if so, what, to the removal of fat cattle from the slaughter wharf at Birkenhead for slaughter elsewhere after a detention of four days; and whether he will now consider the reasonableness of allowing fat cattle that have undergone the fullest form of veterinary examination both in Ireland and on landing to be removed for purposes of slaughter after a period of twelve hours?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Cattle sent to the Birkenhead landing place for slaughter there are not in every case subjected to so rigid an inspection prior to shipment, and are not kept under such stringent conditions there as those which are consigned for detention and subsequent removal under the conditions prescribed by the Orders of the Board. I regret therefore that I do not see my way to sanction the arrangement suggested. I regret that for the reasons explained in the reply, which I have just given to the hon. Member for North Westmeath, I cannot as yet sanction the reduction of the period of detention prescribed for fat cattle.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the number of store cattle that passed through English ports and ultimately reached Scottish feeders; and, if the quantity is considerable, whether he will direct the attention of the authorities of Scotch ports now closed against Irish cattle to the desirability and convenience of all concerned, without incurring any additional risk, that they should open their ports for the reception of healthy Irish cattle?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Licences have been issued for the removal of 726 store cattle from authorised landing places to farm premises in Scotland for detention there in conformity with the requirements of our Orders. I am in communication with the authorities at Scottish ports with a view to the provision of additional landing places. It is probable that the necessary
  2094
  arrangements will be made at an early date at Ayr, and, I hope, also at Greenock, and possibly Stranraer.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: In all these places of landing in Scotland and in this country where the cattle are detained for twelve days, does the Board insist that they shall be detained upon pavement, stones, or concrete, so that consequently it is impossible to prevent their getting sore feet?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are no animals detained for twelve days.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: For four days.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The animals detained for four days are detained as far as possible in lairs that have been properly washed out. That does not necessarily mean that they have a concrete floor.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Does it not mean that they cannot be littered, so that the animals' feet must get sore?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the animals deteriorate in quality, either in the feet or elsewhere, that is not the fact.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: When the right hon. Gentleman says that either store or fat cattle do not deteriorate by four days' quarantine, does he make the statement on information received from any practical man in the trade?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; I have received that information from meat traders—for instance, at Manchester, as well as at other centres.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether cattle landed at the wharf for the reception of store cattle at Birkenhead can, after a detention of four days, be removed, if the owners so desire, to the wharf allotted for the landing of fat cattle and there slaughtered; and, if not, will he state for what reasons?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no objection to the movement of cattle for slaughter in the landing place, as suggested, if accommodation for the purpose is available, and instructions have been issued which will remove any doubt upon the point.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: With regard to the cases reported in Dublin, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions so that the cattle and sheep detained there may be allowed to be shipped to-night?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I ought to have notice of that question; it does not arise out of the answer I have given. I will give as full information to-morrow as I possibly can.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will give the names of the ports in Great Britain at which cattle can be landed from Ireland; the accommodation at each port for fat and store cattle, respectively; whether there is any and, if so, what system for allotting the space; whether he is aware that numerous complaints have been made about the existing system that it tends to favour large companies or capitalists by allowing them a monopoly of the space to the exclusion of smaller traders; whether he will try and devise some system whereby every applicant for space will get a proportionate share; and whether, when it is necessary to refuse an application for space to anyone, the claims of the individual so refused will have priority in future before the claims of those who were satisfied when his was refused?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A list of the ports at which Irish cattle can be landed in Great Britain is given in an Order issued on the 21st ultimo, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to the hon. Member. The port of Dundee was added on the 27th ultimo. The accommodation available for fat and store stock varies from time to time according to the demand for space, the Board's inspector on the spot being empowered to make the best arrangements possible for the reception of the cattle the shipment of which has been authorised by the Irish Department. A few complaints have been made as to preferential treatment of the large consignors, but in view of the fact that the arrangements for the shipment of cattle are entered into between the consignors and the shipping companies, without reference either to the Irish Department or the Board, it is not easy to see how those complaints can be remedied. I shall be glad, however, to communicate with the Irish Department on the subject.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when removing the restriction on the moving of cattle, sheep, and pigs from Ireland owing to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease, he will consider the advisability of affording facilities for the landing of cargoes at Barrow-in-Furness in future?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I agree that Barrow-in-Furness would be a very suitable port for the reception of Irish cattle, and I am in communication with the Fur-ness Railway Company with a view to ascertaining whether arrangements can be made to provide a landing place which would satisfy the Board's requirements.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has now considered the terms of the draft Order submitted by the Irish Department of Agriculture dealing with the importation and exportation of hay from England and Scotland to Ireland and vice versâ and whether he has approved the same, and is now in a position to announce that, subject to its terms, the movement of hay will be permitted?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The representations which have been made to me on this subject will be kept in view, but at present I do not think it would be prudent for me to relax the existing regulations.

  Ceylon (Toddy Licences).
  Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether, when the Excise Commissioner of Ceylon proposed to sell new toddy licences in the Karunegala district, the plumbago mine-owners petitioned the Government not to issue the licences; whether, when the toddy taverns were established, the inhabitants of the village of Maduragoda, in the Karunegala district, burned down the toddy tavern in their village; whether another tavern was immediately opened in the said village; whether several stabbing affrays have occurred in this district which, according to evidence submitted in the Courts, are the result of toddy drinking; and whether he can take any steps to modify the policy of the Ceylon Government in introducing taverns into villages the inhabitants of which obviously do not desire them?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Secretary of State has no information as to the incidents referred to in the first four parts of the question, but, unfortunately, stabbing affrays resulting from toddy drinking have not infrequently occurred in the past. He has seen no evidence to suggest that they are more frequent now that licensed taverns are being introduced into places where illicit drinking was formerly prevalent. As regards the last part of the question, whether it

  2097
  is necessary that taverns should be retained in any particular place, can only be decided in the light of experience, and, as the Secretary of State has already stated in this House, local opinion will in future be consulted by means of the establishment of advisory committees. He would add that opposition to the establishment of taverns is, unfortunately, not always due to temperance principles. Opposition has been most marked in districts which were the most notorious centres of the liquor traffic.
  Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether, in the Ratna-pura district, the Ceylon Government several months ago sold over 100 new toddy licences; whether, nevertheless, only about twenty taverns have been established in this district; whether the inhabitants of Wattegama have in public meeting petitioned the Ceylon Government to remove the new taverns; whether, in the Sabaragamuwa province, fifteen toddy licences have been surrendered by the purchaser because they do not pay; what reason the Ceylon Government has for issuing licences in excess of any possible requirements of the neighbourhood and in the face of opposition on the part of the inhabitants; and whether he will order or advise an inquiry into these cases with a view of removing taverns from areas where the people are opposed to their establishment?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State is informed that the statement that over 100 licences were sold in the Ratnapura district is devoid of foundation. He is not aware of the actual number of licences issued. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, he has no information. There is no evidence that the Government of Ceylon has issued any licences that are not required. It is, of course, possible that mistakes have been made, but, if so, they will be remedied at the earliest opportunity. My hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government and the Government of Ceylon fully share his desire to reduce the consumption of alcohol in Ceylon, but they consider that that end will best be served by maintaining licensed taverns rather than by allowing a reversion to the old system under which illicit sales were rife. The Secretary of State does not consider that a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose at present.

  School Accommodation (Hackney).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that children are being refused admission at Sidney Road, Daubeney Road, Mandeville Street, Hackney Parochial, Orchard Street, Lauriston Road, and South Hackney Parochial Schools, all in the Hackney district; that the official report made to the London Education Committee states that there is no accommodation for infants in the large district covered by these schools; and whether he will now call on the London education authority to provide a sufficiency of school places in Hackney?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): At the schools named children were refused admission shortly before the half-yearly promotions were made. Since then, I am informed there has been no difficulty either for older children or for infants. Arrangements have already been made by the London County Council to provide additional accommodation in the district referred to.

  Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Mr. WRIGHTasked the Home Secretary whether, in calculating the total earnings for the previous six months of a workman, a member of the Territorial Force, who has met with an accident in the course of his employment, for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation payable to such workman by his employer under the Compensation Act, no allowance is made for the fortnight spent in the course of such six months by the workman in camp and during which he received no wages from his employer; and, if so, whether he will introduce an Amendment to the Act to remedy this state of affairs?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My attention has not been called to any decided case in which the precise point has been raised, and I have, of course, no authority to decide it; but I may point out that is the case of Anslow versus Cannock Chase Colliery Company, Limited, it was held by the Court of Appeal that a period of absence from work in respect of a holiday voluntarily taken by the workman should not be taken into account in computing his average weekly earnings, and would not therefore diminish the compensation to be paid him. This decision was

  2099
  approved on appeal to the House of Lords, and it appears to apply to the case to which the hon. Member refers.

  Fair-Wages Resolutions (Clyde Electrical Workers).
  Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the strike of electrical workers on the Clyde, the action of the employers who are Government contractors in having the electrical work performed by apprentices instead of by fully-qualified men at the proper rates of wages is held by his Department to be no violation of the Fair-Wages Clause; and, if the Department have come to no decision on the point, will he have it considered, and also have an inquiry into the conditions prevailing at the present time in order to ensure that the Clause is not being violated, and that the Admiralty is not allowing an infraction to the benefit of the employers and the prejudice of the workmen?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The complaint, which I informed my hon. Friend in my answer on the 27th November had been received at the Admiralty, refers to the subject in question. As I stated, inquiries are being made into the matter.

  All-British Atlantic Cable.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Postmaster-General if an invitation was recently conveyed by the Australian Premier to the New Zealand Government to appoint a representative to a conference to consider the acquisition of a cable in the Atlantic which shall be under British control, and has been accepted; whether, in view of the opinions recently expressed by the Canadian Postmaster-General and the Canadian branch of the Chamber of Commerce in favour of an All-British Atlantic cable, he intends to call the subsidiary conference he promised at the last Imperial Conference; and, if so, when?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware of any subsequent steps that may have been taken in Australia since the date of the Governor-General's dispatch of July last urging that a conference should be called. As I informed the hon. Member for Central Finsbury on 21st November the reply to that letter is being suspended in anticipation of the early completion of
  2100
  arrangements for further reductions of rates to Australia. I may, perhaps, add that the reductions cannot be so large as might otherwise have been expected because of the high terminal rate charged by Australia. The United Kingdom terminal charge is ½d. a word, that of New Zealand 1d., and of Australia 5d.

  Post Office Telephones.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if it could be arranged that, at all post offices where telephones for service purposes are installed, those telephones should be made available for the use of the general public at the usual charge?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The opening of call offices by using circuits already installed for service purposes is being largely extended. Nearly 200 such call offices have been authorised in the provinces since the 1st January last.

  Labour Exchange (Eastbourne).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether inconvenience is being caused at Eastbourne by the provision existing at the Labour Exchange that applicants for certain classes of work must attend between the hours of nine and twelve or two and four o'clock, in order to get their names entered on the books; and whether, in view of the fact that it is often impossible for men who have temporary work to attend at these hours, he will have inquiries made with a view to remedying this hardship, and so render the Labour Exchange more effective?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The hours in question were at the outset thought to be sufficient for the Eastbourne office, which has only recently been opened. I am making inquiries into the case referred to by the hon. Member, and will endeavour to arrange that no further difficulties of this kind shall arise.

  Irish Salt Mackerel (Tariff).
  Mr. GILHOOLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will request the British Ambassador at Washington to use his good offices with the American Government with a view to have the tariff on Irish salt mackerel abated or, at least, reduced?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend is afraid that he has nothing to add to what he stated in reply to previous similar questions. The matter is not being lost sight of, in case a favourable opportunity should arise for obtaining a reduction in the duty on mackerel.

  Castlepollard Fair (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the fair due to be held in Castlepollard on the 10th December will be allowed?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Department are not yet in a position to state definitely whether the Westmeath scheduled district can be so contracted as to admit of the holding of Castlepollard fair on the 10th December. They are in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the subject.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain by wire to-day and let me know?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will ascertain whether I can let you know by to-morrow.

  Rotunda Concert, Dublin.
  Mr. WHELERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the disturbances which occurred on Monday, 25th November, at the Rotunda at Dublin, at a concert at which the Lord Lieutenant was present, when a part of the audience called for cheers for an Irish Republic; and whether he will take any action against those persons who made those seditious utterances?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that on the occasion referred to four young men created a slight disturbance. They were removed by the police, but as those responsible for the concert expressed a wish that no charge should be preferred against them, legal proceedings will not be taken. The audience, which was very large, resented the interruption, and the Lord Lieutenant was warmly received, and on leaving the hall was loudly cheered.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the untenanted land on the Wade estate, Clonabraney, county Meath, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, and with what result; and whether he will state when the vesting orders will
  2102
  be issued to the tenants on the estate who purchased their holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants. It is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash), and will be dealt with in order of priority, but the Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when it will be reached. The owner proposes to repurchase his demesne under Section 3 of the Act of 1903, and there is no untenanted land offered for sale to the Commissioners for purposes of distribution.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when purchase agreements were lodged in the Bower estate at Tanhardstown, Kilmallock, county Limerick; has any inspection of the estate been made, and will the landlord be paid in stock or cash; will vesting orders be issued prior to the beginning of the next financial year; is there any delay in carrying through this sale; and, if so, what is the cause of it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars given to identify this estate as the subject of proceedings for sale before them under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received appeals from several public bodies in county Limerick requesting them to acquire the untenanted land on the Smith estate at Ballynanty, Bruff, county Limerick; and, in view of the fact that this land is at present worked by a grazier and is evicted land, will steps be taken to put an end to the bullock walks and have this land distributed among evicted tenants, labourers, and small holders?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the owner is not willing to sell these lands to the Estates Commissioners.

  Behar (Proposed High Court).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any further development has occurred in respect of the provision of a High Court for Behar?
  Mr. BAKER: There is nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 23rd July last.

  United Provinces (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Secretary of State in Council has decided to create an Executive Council for the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces; if so, of how many members, natives of Europe or of India, such council will be composed; and what will be the total extra cost to the revenues of India?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir, no proposal has been before the Secretary of State in Council.
  Sir J. D. REES: Before the Government of India?

  Delhi (Town Planning).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Committee sent out to report on the building of the new Delhi was informed that a particular architect had been selected to submit plans for the new Government buildings; and, if so, whether the name of such architect can be stated?
  Mr. BAKER: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. KINGasked whether any architect has yet been selected to design the Government House in the new Delhi; and, if so, whether any particular style of architecture has been imposed upon, or selected by, him for the proposed building?
  Mr. BAKER: No selection has yet been made.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the India Office has consulted another architect, besides Mr. Lutyens, on the planning and designing of the public buildings of the new Delhi, and, if so, whether the name of this architect can be given; whether his opinion agreed with that of Mr. Lutyens; and if this architect or Mr. Lutyens has been, or will be, entrusted with the designing and carrying out of architectural work at Delhi?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The India Office has not consulted any architect about the planning and designing of the public buildings of new Delhi, and no decision has been come to as to how or by whom they will be carried out.
  Mr. KINGasked whether a London journal published last July what purported to be a summary of the preliminary Report of the expert Committee which went out to Delhi to report on the planning of the
  2104
  new part of that city; whether its publication was authorised by the India Office; and whether, in future, official Reports, the full text of which is withheld, will be imparted to the public in this manner?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The newspaper article to which the hon. Member presumably refers was not authorised by nor were the materials supplied by the India Office. The information which it contained with regard to alternative sites for new Delhi and to the views of the Town Planning Committee seems to have been generally known in India.
  Mr. KING: Then we are to understand that the report published in the newspaper is not an actual summary of the official Report?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir. It was common knowledge and not the official Report.

  Indian Army (Musketry).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether General Pilcher spoke at the Meerut Rifle Meeting this month on his own account or as a representative of Army headquarters, and, in the latter case, whether it is the opinion of Army headquarters that on service it is really a disadvantage for a man to be a good shot unless he is also a good judge of distance; and whether such a speech as this, which is likely to discourage improvement in musketry in the Indian Army, will be formally repudiated on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief in India?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, with which, if necessary, the Commander-in-Chief in India is fully competent to deal.

  Religious Endowments Act (India).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, owing to defects in drafting, the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 has failed to secure the efficient management of the endowments of non-Christian religious bodies, and that abuses have arisen in connection therewith, and that this maladministration has been a matter of complaint by leading members of the native community; whether in the province of Madras, where these endowments are most numerous, committees were appointed in 1876, 1884, and 1888, presided over by a civilian member of the Executive Council, and several Bills to remedy this state of matters were drafted; that other Bills

  2105
  were introduced in 1896, 1897, and 1908, and another Bill was drafted in 1910 by the Hon. T. V. Seshagiri Aiyar, and afterwards redrafted in consultation with Sir Harold Stuart, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Madras; whether this Bill, with the approval of the Government of Madras, was submitted for the sanction of the Government of India; what reply was given by the Government of India; and whether the Government of India proposes to take any steps to redress this grievance?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State is aware of the frequent discussion on this question, but has received no official report on recent proposals to legislate in the Madras Council.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries in regard to the last part of the question?
  Mr. BAKER: I will make further inquiries, certainly.

  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, as representing the Secretary of State for India, whether a salaried whole-time official of the India Office or of the Government makes the loans to banks and firms from the balances of the Secretary of State without the intervention of any person or persons carrying on any form of financial business in the city; and, if not, will he give the name, or names, and occupation of the individual or firms employed for this purpose?
  Mr. BAKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The loans are made by the Secretary of State's broker, Mr. Horace H. Scott, member of the firm of Messrs. R. Nivison and Company, stockbrokers. He acts under the supervision of the Accountant-General of the India Office, the Finance Committee of the India Office, and the Secretary of State in Council.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked by whom and on what date Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company were informed, prior to any purchases being actually made, that silver to the value of £2,000,000 was likely to be required?
  Mr. BAKER: No such information was given to the firm either in writing or orally. The reference to the subject in the firm's letter of 5th July appears to have been made under a misapprehension.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked who was the owner on the date of shipment, 10th and 14th September, of the sycee and British dollars, valued at £500,000, referred to in the letter of 16th September from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation?
  Mr. BAKER: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on 19th November, it is contrary to custom for buyers of silver to be furnished by the broker with the names of the sellers; and the Secretary of State has never received such information, either when the Bank of England have instructed brokers to buy for him, or when he has instructed the brokers himself. He is not aware of the names in the present case.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say at the exact time who the silver belonged to, as it was stated in the letter of the 16th that the silver was on board and would be delivered at Bombay for the Government?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir; the Secretary of State sees no reason to depart from custom.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is it suggested that the purchase was made when the silver was on the high seas?
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the arrangement mentioned in Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Co.'s letter to the India Office on 21st May, by which Samuel Montagu and Co. charged 1–32 of a penny above cash price on £39,000, to compensate themselves for loss of interest, was made verbally; and, if so, when, where, by whom, and with whom was this arrangement made; why, and how long, was payment by the Secretary of State delayed; and will he explain how interest could be due to Samuel Montagu and Co. in their capacity as brokers on 21st May, when the purchase was not made till that day for delivery on 1st June?
  Mr. BAKER: After discussion at the Finance Committee of the India Office, the arrangement was made orally between Sir F. Schuster and a representative of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, at the office of the former, on the 20th or 21st of May. Payment was delayed from 22nd May to 1st June in the interest of secrecy, so as to avoid including in May a payment for silver in the India Office monthly accounts, which pass through

  2107
  many hands, and of which an abstract is published in the "Gazette" of India. The interest was due, and was paid, not on the 21st of May, but on the 1st of June.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say how interest was due on 21st May—because that is what the letter stated—when it was not due until the 1st June, and will the hon. Gentleman also say who represented Messrs. Montagu and Company at the verbal interview?
  Mr. BAKER: I fully answered the first supplementary question. If the hon. Member puts down the other question I will answer it.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If the hon. Gentleman will read the question he will see I ask specifically when, where, and by whom, the arrangements were made?
  Mr. BAKER: I fully answered the question.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I really must protest against this—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is not satisfied with the answer let him put down a question distinctly raising that single issue, and he will get an answer. It is mixed up in this question with a lot of other matters, and it is quite possible to overlook a single question. If the hon. Member will put down a separate question he will make sure of an answer.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked whether any purchases of silver have been made by the India Office since the 24th September?
  Mr. H. BAKER: A further £1,000,000 has been purchased.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Was this purchase from Messrs. Montagu and Company?
  Mr. H. BAKER: No; through the Bank of England.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what was the reason of the change of broker?
  Mr. H. BAKER: It was never intended to grant a monopoly to Messrs. Montagu and Company, and the original reasons for employing them have now ceased to operate.
  Mr. GWYNNE: On what date did the change take place?
  Mr. H. BAKER: If the hon. Member will put the question down I will give him an answer.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: Will the hon. Gentleman state why the India Office should shrink from giving a monopoly in the one case and not in another?

  Finance Act, 1910.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Camberwell, DulWich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state for each financial year the amount of rebate, allowance, or repayment made under Section 85 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of motor spirit used for the purpose of supplying motor power to motor omnibuses plying for hire in and around London; and whether he can state the amount of duty paid in respect of motor spirit used for the aforementioned purpose under conditions approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 85 (2) of the Act?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The information is not available.

  National Society of Free Workers.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the refusal of the Treasury to register the National Society of Free Workers under the Friendly Societies Act was based on the ground that the rules of the society were too indefinite; whether any, and if so, what, appeal was made against this decision; if he will give particulars of any previous cases in which the Treasury has refused to register a society for similar reasons; and if he will indicate what further particulars with reference to the organisation and objects of the society are necessary to be inserted in the rules to comply with the Treasury requirements?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The society has asked which parts of its rules are regarded as too indefinite, and has been informed in reply that the whole of Rule No. 2, except that part of it which provides for the alteration of this and other rules, is so regarded. I am not aware of any other case in which refusal has been based on precisely similar reasons, but I am not aware of any other society having made an application based on precisely similar rules. As the society has already been informed, the Treasury are not prepared to suggest amendments in the rules for the purpose of making it possible for them to alter their decision,

  2109
  but they will of course consider any amended rules that may be submitted to them.
  Mr. F. HALL: In this case were the Treasury acting under the direction of the Labour party?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, no! The Registrar of Friendly Societies has acted in an entirely official capacity in administering the Friendly Societies Act.

  Southern Command (Officers at Harnham).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it is still the intention of the War Office to proceed with the proposed new offices at Harnham, near Salisbury, for the administrative work of the Southern Command; or whether, in view of the inconvenient situation of the site in relation to Salisbury and the great public expenditure involved, he will reconsider the project?
  Colonel SEELY: This matter is now under consideration.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Were not the military authorities most directly concerned very much against this?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think so. There is a conflict of opinion as to the best site, and military opinion, I understand, is divided.

  Efficient Cavalry Remounts.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has been advised by his military experts that it is possible to train a horse so that it will be a thoroughly efficient Cavalry remount for active service in less than one year?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the affirmative.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Do the military experts advise the right hon. Gentleman that this can be done in one year?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course; I have replied to the question put to me. It depends upon the horse.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of changing his expert advisers and getting efficient advisers?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. The only possible answer to the question was in the
  2110
  affirmative. Military experts are unanimously agreed that it is of course possible to train a seasoned horse in the period. If he puts down the subsidiary point as a question I shall be able to answer it.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. HUNTasked (1) whether the 34,712 officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army, who did not attend camp at all in 1912, and the 40,684 boys under nineteen years of age, are considered by the Government as fit to take their place in the Territorial Army in case of sudden invasion? (2) Whether, as the Territorial Force is still about 5,000 officers, noncommissioned officers and men short of the number laid down by the Government as necessary for the defence of the country, he can say whether the present numbers are sufficient for safety? (3) Whether, as only 31,976 recruits of the Territorial Force and only 111,432 trained men qualified in musketry in 1911, he will say to what use men and boys unqualified in musketry would be put if, in a sudden emergency, their services were required to defend the country? and (4) Whether, as only 161,450 officers, non-commissioned officers and men out of the 313,000 laid down as required for the Territorial Army, attended camp for fifteen days in 1912, it is considered that the force is sufficiently trained to meet a sudden emergency?
  Colonel SEELY: These questions deal with the capacity of the Territorial Force to take their part in the defence of the country, which, I am afraid, I cannot adequately discuss within the limits of a reply to a question.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the use of a Territorial Force that cannot shoot sufficiently well—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is raising a matter of discussion.
  Mr. HUNTasked why disciplinary action was taken in the case of 2,490 noncommissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force in 1911 for entire absence from camp without leave, whilst in the case of the remaining 4,265, also entirely absent from camp without leave, no action was taken at all?
  Colonel SEELY: It is understood that the bulk of the remainder quoted were cases where satisfactory reasons were

  2111
  given for absence from camp, and that in a certain number of cases where the termination of engagement occurred between the date of camp and the end of the Territorial year no disciplinary action was considered necessary.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Does the opinion of the Chief of the General Staff agree with that of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know to what particular point the hon Member refers. I merely stated the facts in reply to the last question, and in reply to the previous question I said it was too large a question to be discussed at Question time.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the present numbers are sufficient for safety?
  Colonel SEELY: That was the previous question, and I said it was too large a question to be discussed at Question time.
  Mr. HUNT: Can all the Territorials stay away if they can find good reason?
  Colonel SEELY: No one can deduce that from the figures showing that a very large number have attended camp.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's questions have already been answered and disposed of. He must give some other Members a chance.
  Mr. HUNT: I was only going to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers I would raise the question on the Adjournment of the House tomorrow.

  National Reserve.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked (1) whether steps are being taken to organise the National Reserve; and whether he is aware that there is a general feeling among the members of that force that it serves no useful purpose for them to remain upon the rolls unless they are organised and are supplied with the equipment necessary to enable them to carry out some definite function; and (2) whether it is proposed that members of the National Reserve who have served in the Regular Forces and are still of military age should be formed into garrison battalions; and, if so, whether there is any reason why this arrangement should not be carried out at once?
  Colonel SEELY: The whole question of the future of the National Reserve is now receiving careful consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no time is being lost in the organisation of this valuable body, in order that they may realise that they can be of some use?
  Colonel SEELY: We are at this moment in conference on the question, and I hope in a short time to be able to make a statement.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. WHELER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of "which I have given him private notice: Whether there is any further information as to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Kent, and whether, if there is no further outbreak, it would be possible to hold the fat stock shows in the district?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot give any further information to the House with regard to the outbreak in Kent, except to say I hope the slaughter of the affected animals is now complete. I think it would be inadvisable to hold the fat stock shows to which the hon. Member refers in any place within the fifteen-mile area.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to what business is going to be taken to-morrow night after the Government of Ireland Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    TWENTY-SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 2nd December.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    PROVISIONS AS TO JUDICIAL POWER.

      CLAUSE 27.—(Tenure of Office by Judges.)
      A judge of the Supreme Court or other superior Court in Ireland, or of any County Court or other Court with a like jurisdiction in Ireland, appointed after the passing of this Act, shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall hold his office by the same tenure as that by which the office is held at the time of the passing of this Act, with the substitution of an Address from both Houses of the Irish Parliament for an Address from both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and during his continuance in office his salary shall not be diminished or his right to pension altered without his consent.
      The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I will call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Stewart), and following that I propose to call upon the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) to move his Amendment.
      Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, to omit the word "shall" ["shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant"], and to insert instead thereof the words "may, unless His Majesty otherwise directs."
      The object of my Amendment is to insert in the Clause words providing that power should be retained for the appointment of judges by the Central Government of the Crown. This is necessary in order to guard against undue pressure upon the Lord Lieutenant by parties in Ireland seeking promotion for their own individual friends. Under certain circumstances we
      2122
      can well imagine that the best qualifications for appointments of this sort need not necessarily be the strongest recommendations of those seeking office, and it is the opinion of many that the present Viceroy has proved himself very partial in the matter of appointments—
      Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is that remark in order?
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: It is distinctly out of order.
      The CHAIRMAN: I was about to intervene. I think the, hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that any action of the Viceroy should be dealt with by direct Motion and not in debate.
      Mr. STEWART: I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of the House, but I was not aware that the Viceroy had such sanctity about him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am prepared to express my Regret to the House and to hon. Members if I have said anything discourteous. I say it is most supremely important in regard to the appointment of the judges that they should only be appointed by the Crown. It is recognised both in India and in this country that such a course of action lifts the judicial bench out of the arena of party politics, and I think we should spare no efforts when dealing with such an important question as this to ensure, as far as possible, that those who administer the law should be free from the possibility of party bias. I am quite aware that every Amendment which has been proposed from this side of the House has been regarded as a wrecking Amendment to this Bill, but I do not think that the most microscopic examination of the few words which I ask the House to insert in this Bill can be regarded even by the most nervous Radical imagination as a wrecking Amendment. On the contrary, I submit that it is a strengthening Amendment. This continual cry of wrecking Amendments shows the extreme debility of the patient we have under consideration and what a delicate constitution is being set up. We are also told, if we desire to strengthen the Courts of Law in a matter of this sort, that we are attributing to the Nationalist party a double dose of original sin, but I hope that accusation will not be brought against this small Amendment. I suppose the Nationalist Members will say that we are Orange bigots, and they will ask us to trust them in the Courts they set up I

      2123
      do not say that we cannot do so, but in a case of this sort we should make assurance doubly sure, and I think we are asking the Government to take a wise course when we ask that they should lift themselves out of the atmosphere of suspicion and timidity which they have shown towards all Unionist Amendments. If the Committee adopts the Amendment I now propose, I am sure we shall do something to assuage the minds of future suitors in Irish Courts, and this will materially strengthen the Home Rule Bill.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have listened carefully to the hon. Member's remarks, and I must confess that I did not hear any argument in support of his Amendment, and I am not sure that he has explained to the Committee what the effect of it would be. The Clause as it stands in the Bill proposes that judges, after the coming into operation of this Bill, shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, on the advice of the Irish Executive. As I read it, the hon. Member's Amendment would substitute for that provision an absolutely indefinite time, "unless His Majesty otherwise directs." I believe his idea is that the appointment of the Irish judges should remain with the Imperial Executive.
      Mr. STEWART: Yes, unless otherwise directed.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Is that the intention? [An HON MEMBER: "Yes."] My hon. Friend says "Yes," but I was putting my question to the Mover of the Amendment.
      Mr. STEWART: Yes, that is what I wished to express.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I wish to ascertain the effect of the Amendment. Now we understand that the Amendment proposes that the appointment of the Irish Judiciary shall remain indefinitely with the Imperial Executive.
      Mr. STEWART: Mot necessarily, but they should not part with that right.
      4.0 P.M.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, that is an Amendment which the Government cannot accept. I remember that in the Home Rule Bill of 1893 there was a proposal of this kind, but I do not think it was discussed, under which the Imperial Executive claimed the power of appointment of the Irish judges for a definite
      2124
      period—I think it was six years. I do not think that was ever regarded by the framers of that Bill or by its supporters as a matter of very much importance, but at any rate it had the advantage, as compared with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, of limiting the power of the Imperial Executive to interfere in these matters for a definite period of time, but I am bound to say, so far as my own judgment goes and that of my colleagues, we think, if the Irish people are entitled to have a Parliament, a Legislature and an Executive of their own, they ought to have the power from the first of appointing their own judges. The hon. Gentleman has given no reason whatsoever beyond the vague suggestion that the Irish Executive might be exposed to illegitimate pressure from undefined sources for saying, "If you are prepared"—I quite agree that is the assumption on which the Bill rests—"to give Ireland such powers as this Bill gives, the power of legislating for her own affairs and the power of administering within the Executive's sphere her own laws, why should you deny to her the power which every self-governing Colony of the Empire possesses, that of appointing her own judges?" If he looks at the various Constitutions we have established under the authority of the Imperial Parliament throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire, he will find in no one of them is there any provision in the least degree analogous to that he proposes to insert in this Bill. We have in every case accompanied with the grant of self-government, of legislative and executive power, the power of appointing the judiciary. We have provided in this Clause, and I think rightly, that as a condition of the grant to the Irish Legislature of the appointment of judges, it should be subject to the provision which has obtained in this country ever since the Bill of Bights and Act of Settlement namely, that the judges appointed should be irremovable except in the one case of bad behaviour, and that in the case of bad behaviour they should only be removed on an Address being presented by both Houses of the Legislature. We believe that to be an ample safeguard. As regards selection by nomination, it is an absolutely essential condition to the grant of real autonomous government to even our most remote Colonies, and, still more, to fellow citizens so near to our own doors that this invidious discrimination of reserving from them the selection

      2125
      of their own judges should not be retained by the Imperial Executive. I cannot imagine anything which would give rise to more friction or which would be more justly resented by the Irish people, and the Government certainly cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. GOLDSMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us the object of this Amendment is to take away from the Irish Executive the power and the right of appointing their judges. I do not think that is the intention of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman will look, at the words proposed to be inserted, he will see it is intended the Irish Executive should retain the right of appointing the judiciary, but that on the other hand the Imperial Government should also retain some power and control to keep the right to step in at any moment if the Irish Executive misuse the power which has been entrusted to them. If it is the intention of the Government that Ireland should occupy the position of a self-governing Colony, then it is quite natural I agree, you should confer upon Ireland this unlimited power of appointing and controlling her judges, but I thought we had been told by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially by the First Lord of the Admiralty, this Bill was the first instalment and the first step towards setting up a federal system for the British Isles. If that is the case, I think we have a right to examine the various federal Constitutions of our Colonies. We find that every Colony before any federation was formed, had the right to appoint and to control all judges, but as soon as they entered a federal system, that right and that power to control their judiciary, was either curtailed or taken away altogether. In the case of South Africa, the judicial system is unified, and is in the hands of the central Government. In the case of Canada, although there are provincial Courts, the judges of those provincial Courts are appointed, paid, and are removed by the Dominion Government. It is true that in the case of the Commonwealth the States have their own judiciary, but at the same time the Commonwealth Government provides a National Judiciary for enforcing and guarding the Commonwealth power. Therefore, if it is the intention of the Government this Bill should form part of a federal system, then certainly Ireland
      2126
      ought not to have the absolute right of appointing and controlling her judges.
      It is, in my opinion, of the greatest importance, and it is essential, the Imperial Government should retain some sort of control over the appointment of the judges in Ireland, and that is all that is intended by this Amendment. It is of importance because everyone knows from history that by means of the judiciary you can exercise political pressure and political oppression. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. John Redmond) and his friends will no doubt be in power in the Irish Parliament, and by their past actions they have not given us any convincing proof they are going to use that power in a fair and impartial manner. It is evident, if we are to judge them from the speeches which they have delivered, they are going to use their power for their own purposes and for their own ends. I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is always telling us now that he wishes to see toleration in the political life of Ireland, but I should like to remind the Committee he used the same words after the passing of the Local Government Act in 1889 in a speech which he made at Dublin, and which is reported in the "Irish Independent" of 14th September of that year, lie said:—
      "We desire toleration in (lie public life of Ireland. We think that to adopt the policy of excluding from those public bodies every man who differed from us politically or religiously would bean absolutely suicidal policy for Irish Nationalists' future. For my part, and I know I speak in the name of the Parnellites of Dublin, I would be willing to give them not only in Dublin but all through Ireland a fair. I would even say a generous, share of representation upon these bodies."
      I daresay the hon. and learned Gentleman meant what he said when he used those words, but we know, as a matter of fact, the Unionist representation on the county councils and other public bodies in Nationalist districts is practically nil, and we know also that when a public appointment, has to be made only Nationalists need apply. However that may be, there is no doubt the minority in Ireland fear more from Executive and administrative oppression than from Parliamentary oppression. Whether those fears are founded or not I am not able to tell, but I do say it is essential we should insert in this Bill every possible precaution so as to have a fair and impartial administration of the law in Ireland and an absolutely independent judicial bench. I should also like to remind the Committee that a safeguard which was contained in the Bill of 1893 is not contained in this Bill. Under the Bill of 1893

      2127
      there were two Exchequer judges to be appointed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and to be removable only by His Majesty on an Address by the two Houses of the Imperial Parliament. At the present time all the judges under 'this Bill are to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and they are to be removable by the Lord Lieutenant on an Address from the two Houses of the Irish Parliament. That safeguard which was contained in the Bill of 1893 is not contained in this Bill, and I think it is an additional reason why the Government should accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in making an Amendment which was bad to start with considerably worse. The hon. Gentleman who moved it began by saying it was not a wrecking Amendment. I can quite believe it, but I think it was a bad one as he explained it. I understand his supporter explained it in this way. The appointment of judges is not to be in accordance with any definite rule laid down for any prolonged period, but is to be spasmodic, sometimes by the British Government and sometimes by the Irish Government, according as they think fit at the time. That was what he said, but, perhaps, he did not explain himself. I think he was also incorrect in his statement that invariably where you get federal systems the appointment of the State judges is in the hands of the federal authority. He quoted Australia, but in the case of the Australian Commonwealth the appointment of the State judges is in the hands of the State Government. I admit in South Africa a different system prevails. There is something perhaps to be said either on the one side or the other, but there is certainly nothing to be said for a system which shifts from the South African system to the Australian system, according to the whim or caprice of the British Government. He has therefore in his interpretation of the Amendment greatly worsened it. I think it is thoroughly bad. Two results will almost inevitably follow. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was anxious to remove any suspicion of partisanship which might attach to the character of the judges, but I am bound to say he was not very successful in his speech in avoiding that danger himself. Supposing the British Government took it I
      2128
      into its head at any particular moment to suddenly seize upon a vacant appointment and make its own choice to fill up the gap with a nominee of its own, one can imagine the suspicion of partisanship which would attach to a proceeding of that kind. It would be said, no doubt, in Ireland as elsewhere: "Here is a Government seeking the opportunity of a job, putting its nominee into a vacant judicial position." That judge would certainly be in by no means a strong position to carry out justice without the faintest possibility of bias attaching to him. There is another objection of a very serious kind. Some of us on this side of the House look forward to the possibility of economies in the administration of justice in Ireland. Whether that will be carried out or not, I do not know, But I should have thought that the Irish judicial system was so extravagant at the present time that there is a possibility—a real possibility—of saving money by a judicious reorganisation of that system.
      Sir E. CARSON: How much will you save if you abolish them all?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am unable to follow the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all the judges should be abolished. I do not suppose that even he would desire that.
      Sir E. CARSON: The hon. Member was saying that there could be great economy by reducing the salaries. I simply asked what, if he were to abolish the salaries of the existing judges altogether, the economy would amount to.
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have not the figures of the cost in Ireland, but I daresay some of my hon. Friends can supply the gaps. I am told, however, that the total cost of the administration of justice in Ireland exceeds £600,000 per annum. Is it really seriously argued from the other side of the House that there is no possibility of saving money on the administration of justice in Ireland? I am talking, of course, about the judges of the High Court and of the other Courts. Is it seriously contended from the other side that in the administration, for instance, of the county courts of Ireland there is no possibility of effecting a saving? I should very much like to hear what those who are much more acquainted with the conditions obtaining in Ireland have to say upon that point. So far as my own limited experience goes in this matter, however, I have

      2129
      always understood that there were opportunities by combining the County Court system in Ireland to effect some small economies which hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently think of very slight importance for the welfare of their country.
      Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is there anything in the Amendment or in the Clause that has to do, in the remotest way, with the diminution of legal expenses in Ireland?
      The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment deals with legal appointments, and I imagine that the organisation must depend to some extent on appointments.
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: That is the point I was about to put at the moment I was interrupted. It is far more difficult to secure a reorganisation if the appointments are to rest sometimes in the hands of the British Government and sometimes in the hands of the Irish Government. That being my argument, I venture to say that, on the grounds I have indicated, this Amendment, as moved by the hon. Member, is a thoroughly bad one, while the way in which it was supported by his seconder makes it still worse.
      Mr. LONG: The hon. Member who last spoke apparently advocated this Clause in the Bill on the ground of economy. He challenges us to say whether we believe there is no room for economy in the Government of Ireland. As one responsible for the Government of Ireland, I have to say I believe that many of the suggestions that have come from the other side, that we should have great economy under a Home Rule Government, are entirely without foundation. If the hon. Member had taken as much trouble as I have to conduct an investigation into the administration of the law in Ireland and the cost of it, he would have come to the conclusion that economy will be very difficult indeed to effect. I should like to make this general remark: If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have throughout their careers been remarkable for one thing, it has been for the practice of preaching economy. They put it forward as a virtue which ought to be pursued, but nobody has ever been so conspicuous as the present Government in the neglect of economy and in the increase of appointments of all kinds. Consequently their practice has differed entirely from their preaching. I rise not to support the Amendment, because, I agree, it does not do what I think it is intended to do, but
      2130
      in order to say a word with reference to the speech just made and also with respect to what fell from the Prime Minister.
      If the hon. Gentleman really desires to give the new Irish Government power to exercise its economy in the administration of the law and also to follow precedent in this case, he could not do better than adopt the Canadian system, which carries out exactly what he desires, and at the same time reserves to the federal, or the Dominion, or central Government the right of appointing the judges. In the case of Canada, the provinces decide how many judges there shall be, and the administration of justice within their respective areas enables them to decide what economy shall be effected, if economy there can be, or what shall be the increase in the number and cost of the judges. If that power were given to the Irish Government you would be following exactly the precedent set by the Dominion of Canada. I do not refer to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Australia, because everybody knows that the Australian case stands out differently from that of any other form of federal Government that has taken place within the British Empire. But in the two best known cases—the cases of Canada and South Africa—you have exactly the reverse of what you are asking us to do today for Ireland. In Canada power is given to the provinces to decide the number of judges to be appointed, but the responsibility of appointment rests entirely with the Dominion Government. In South Africa, where you had four distinct provinces, each with their own Chief Justice and their own appointed judiciary, you took the whole power away from the provinces when you unified the Government, and gave the control over the appointment of judges, including even the decision as to their number, to the Union Government. Therefore, there is no precedent whatever for the proposal except the Australian one, which is very different, because the federation of Australia was on a much looser basis than the federation of either Canada or South Africa.
      The Prime Minister told us that in every case you have given to your Colonial Government the task of selecting their own judiciary. But he knows better than I do that the only case is the Australian case, and that in the other two cases these powers have been given (o the federal Government. When I was in Canada the other day I discussed this, amongst other

      2131
      questions, with Canadians of all classes and of all kinds of political opinion, and the universal opinion was that to place the appointment of the judiciary in the hands of a subordinate Parliament would be to erect a Parliament practically independent and supreme. These are the views held by men themselves occupying positions on the judicial bench, and by men who hold Liberal views and who have been, and are now for all I know, advocates of Home Rule within the British Isles. Surely it is not necessary to suggest either that we are opposed to economy or that we are unwilling to trust this Irish Parliament, if we ask you to keep in the hands of the central or Imperial Parliament the appointment of the judiciary which has been practised in Canada, and which many of the students of Canadian prosperity, and of the increased strength of the Canadian Dominions, believe to be one of the causes which has led to the difference between the administration of justice in Canada and the administration of justice in other countries contiguous to Canada. That is one of the things upon which the greatest stress has been laid, and I submit that the Prime Minister's speech, in answer to the argument of my hon. Friend, makes it perfectly clear, if there had been any room for doubt, that the action of the Government in setting up this Parliament in Ireland does not mean the creation of a subordinate Parliament similar in its powers and duties to the subordinate Parliament of Canada or the Assemblies in South Africa, but would really mean the erection of a Parliament into whose hands you are giving all those powers which hitherto have been exercised by the supreme and the independent Parliament, and you are making not for peace, not for the avoidance of friction, but you are laying securely the foundations for far greater friction and trouble, and more bitter animosity than we have ever known even in the history of the government of Ireland b}' the Imperial Parliament.
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech not in support of the Amendment, as one would imagine from his opening observations, but with the idea of discussing whether it would be a good thing to reserve for all time the appointment of the judges in Ireland to the Imperial Parliament or the Imperial Cabinet—or whether it would be better to
      2132
      hand it over entirely to Ireland. Nothing could possibly be clearer than that if as suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member this House or Cabinet should avail itself of sporadic opportunities to-advise the Crown to appoint a judge who, I presume, would always be known as the English judge, as distinct from Irish judges, it certainly would not lead to his friendly treatment or to good fellowship as between the judges themselves, neither would it add to the confidence to be felt in that particular judge when he went on assize circuits throughout the country. We are apparently agreed that the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite would not be an improvement or constitute a desirable precedent for the appointment of judges. The suggestion, as I understood it, of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Irish Parliament should have the power to say how many judges should be appointed; that they should cast their eyes over the country, make a survey of the judicial system and the amount of business to be disposed of in the Irish Courts, and should say, "We want eight, nine, or ten judges," as the case may be; "we want so many County Court judges, so many judges of the High Court," and that then the matter should be handed over to the Imperial Parliament to determine who should be appointed to fill those particular posts. I should like to remark that in this matter we have to deal with Ireland as it exists at the present time, and I am not by any means satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman, if lie casts his mind back to the time when he was Chief Secretary, will admit that he considered that the appointment of Irish judges was a thing which, as a matter of course, was dealt with by the Imperial Parliament or by the Prime Minister of the Imperial Government. I notice that in a somewhat similar discussion, in 1893, Lord Randolph Churchill asked if the Prime Minister was or was not consulted in regard to such appointments, and Mr. Gladstone replied:—
      "My varied experience enables me to say that the Prime Minister has no concern whatever in the appointment of Irish judges."
      My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is near me, and I do not want in any way to seem to be entrenching upon his prerogative, but I think he will agree that that is the case. English and Scotch Members, not knowing how things are done in Ireland at present, are really ignorant of how these questions are disposed of. I think Mr. Gladstone states the case there in a

      2133
      very strong manner, although I doubt very much whether there are many people who would venture to contradict even his memory.
      Mr. LONG: I did not intend to suggest that under our present system of administration the Chief Secretary, who is the Minister who conducts the' Government in Ireland, refers to the Prime Minister in regard to every appointment. Of course he does not. It is the case in Ireland, as in ether Departments of the Government here, that power is delegated to the head of that Department, and he is trusted to carry out that administration. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that if the Chief Secretary or any other Minister sought to make an improper appointment the Prime Minister has not full power to interfere and to prevent that being done which would be injurious to the administration of the law.
      Mr. BIRRELL: I do not in any way differ from the extreme case which the right hon. Gentleman puts, notwithstanding this very tremendous obiter dictum of Mr. Gladstone. I almost think that Mr. Gladstone went a little bit too far in saying that he had no concern whatever with the appointments. What he meant, no doubt, was that it did not enter into the ordinary life of the Imperial Minister here to concern himself with the appointment of Irish judges, although if so be that some improper appointment was made I do not know that the Prime Minister would be able altogether to say he had no concern with it. What I mean is that, as a matter of fact, the administration of justice in Ireland and the appointment of Irish judges has been under the existing system and is still considered as an Irish concern, that the appointments are made on Irish grounds, of Irishmen, and by an Irish Minister, who is, I admit, responsible to this House and a Member of the Cabinet. It is undoubtedly the fact that the administration of Irish affairs and the question of the Irish judges have been considered by themselves. If you are going to discuss the question at large whether the appointment of judges either in England or in Ireland has always been made solely out of regard for the legal capacity and eminence of the person who is appointed, I dare say there would be a very good case probably all over the world. I do not think you will make much out of that. If you are going to discuss generally whether any Minister ever yields to pres-
      2134
      sure or ever appoints a person who may be importunate, in order that he may see his face no more, if you cast your eye over the last hundred years or so, I am afraid examples of that kind of appointment might be found. I do not think you will, therefore, make very much out of that. You cannot imagine anything worse than to have the suggestion proposed by this Amendment embodied in this Bill, namely, to enable the people over here to interfere whenever they chose, by saying that they have a right in all cases to interfere. Therefore, confining myself to-the Amendment, I think that by general consent of the Committee, at any rate of the majority of those who have spoken on both sides, this Amendment is one which ought to be rejected.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I think it is a pity that on an important subject of this kind—for I conceive there is nothing more important, having regard to the position of parties and, unfortunately, of religions in Ireland, for it is no good burking a matter of that kind—the Debate should proceed merely on the terms of the Amendment. All that the Amendment itself states is that His Majesty -which, of course, means the Government for the time being—should be able to interfere, if it became necessary by reason of injustice which was being done, or if there was anything improper in a promotion to the Bench.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Does it not. go further than that?
      Sir E. CARSON: The Amendment says that the Lord Lieutenant is to appoint, unless His Majesty otherwise directs.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Does that mean that when the Imperial Executive like they can claim the right of appointment?
      Sir E. CARSON: I agree that in form it does. The object is to retain some control in the Imperial Government over the appointment of judges.
      The CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not wish the Debate to be restricted to the particular form of this Amendment. If that is so, would it not be better that the Amendment should be withdrawn, then the right hon. Gentleman could move to-leave out the words "the Lord Lieutenant," and propose to substitute the words "His Majesty."
      Sir E. CARSON: I think it would.
      The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member who moved the Amendment agreeable to that course being pursued?
      Mr. STEWART: Yes.
      Mr. LOUGH: Would not appointment by the Lord Lieutenant be an appointment by His Majesty? Would the question that it is desired to discuss be raised as well by the Amendment you have suggested, as by the Amendment before the Committee now.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think it raises it in a clearer form, and makes the issue clear.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Nobody appears to be much enamoured of the Amendment now before the Committee. The Government would certainly not raise any objection to the larger question being raised, if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) desires to raise it. If it is clear that he does desire to raise it I will not oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "the Lord Lieutenant" ["shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant"], and to insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty."
      I am obliged to the, Prime Minister for allowing us to raise this question, because, to my mind, it is a matter of very extreme importance, having regard to the position of affairs which exists in Ireland now, and which will be very much aggravated if this Bill in its present form is persisted in. The question I desire to raise by the alteration in the Amendment is whether the appointment of judges should remain with this Imperial Parliament and with the Ministers responsible to this Imperial Parliament, or with the Irish Parliament and the Ministers responsible to the Irish Parliament. That has reference to the question of the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) in relation to the Dominion Parliament in Canada and the Parliament in South Africa, and the Provincial Parliaments that are under those Parliaments. It is true, as the Chief Secretary has said, that the Committee is very often ignorant as to how these appointments are made, and it is well that they should understand what the procedure is at the present time. So important has it always been considered in elation to the United Kingdom that the judges in Ireland should be appointed
      2136
      by the Imperial Parliament that I think I am right in saying that one of the matters excepted from the Lord Lieutenant's warrant—or whatever it is that appoints him—is the creation of judges. The Lord Lieutenant in Ireland is especially forbidden by his warrant of appointment from creating judges for the special reason that it has always been thought right, having regard to the state of affairs in that country, that the creation of judges should rest in the hands of this Imperial Parliament, which means of course the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. The practice certainly has been on many occasions, whoever may be the right person to suggest the appointment of a judge, that the Government of the day, i.e., the Cabinet, has been responsible for the appointments. I think I am right in saying, although I have not had the honour of being at a Cabinet meeting when these matters were discussed, that these questions come before the Cabinet.
      The PRIME MINISTER: No.
      Sir E. CARSON: They certainly came before the late Cabinet when the Unionist party were in power.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say anything about that. I can only say, and I say it for the information of the Committee, that I have never known the appointment of a judge coming before the Cabinet.
      Sir E. CARSON: I do not know whether it is very important, but I believe the appointments did come before the Unionist Cabinet. At any rate they were excepted from the Lord Lieutenant's power. There is no doubt about that. If excepted from his power they must be appointments by the Imperial Government. There is no question about that. I daresay the Prime Minister, with the great confidence he has in his Chief Secretary, probably thinks that having regard to the peculiar condition of affairs in Ireland the Chief Secretary is more capable of selecting the individual to be appointed than he could be, as he could only obtain his information second-hand. The main point is that it has always been considered desirable, having regard to the position of Ireland, that the appointment should be an Imperial one, and not left with the Lord Leiutenant. So important was this question of the appointment of judges and the administration of the law by them considered when the last Bill was before this House, that in the Bill of 1893 not only was it safe-

      2137
      guarded by retaining the appointment of judges in this House for a period of six years—a period of which we complained, and tried to make it absolute for an indefinite time—
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the Amendment was moved.
      Sir E. CARSON: At any rate there were Amendments put down. So important was it looked upon by Mr. Gladstone, and so important has it always been considered, as going to the very root and foundation of what I may call fair play in Ireland, that Mr. Gladstone in his Bill of 1893 put in a special Court, the Exchequer Court, which was to be for all time a Court in which two judges were to sit who were to be appointed by the Imperial Government. They gave them in the first place the power of adjudicating in all questions of revenue.
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Court, not the judges.
      Sir E. CARSON: I mean that the Court had the power and the duty of adjudicating in all questions of revenue between the two countries under a Bill in which the financial questions were not nearly so complicated as they are under the present Hill. I look upon that as being very important for the prevention of friction between the two countries or in regard to any difficulty this country may have in securing revenue in Ireland. That was not the only function of the Exchequer Court set up by the Bill of 1893. There was also the power of any subject in Ireland to take his business into that Exchequer Court and to do that as a real guarantee for the administration of the law. The present Bill, which is abounding in safeguards, not a single one of which is any use, abounding also with ideas of the sovereignty of the House, is abrogating the whole of these functions and proposes to hand over the whole of the powers in relation to Ireland, the whole of the powers affecting the life and liberty and property of every individual in Ireland, to this newly set up so-called subordinate Parliament under the strange and very difficult circumstances which exist in Ireland for anybody taking the most optimistic view of the results of this Bill.
      I believe there will be no Clause in this Bill which will be more resented by those who are determined opponents of the Bill in Ireland, and especially in the North of Ireland, than this. The Irish Executive
      2138
      will always be composed, in the majority, of persons whose whole ideals and whole ideas as regards the administration of the law and liberty are entirely different from those who are opposed to them in Ireland, These people will always be in a majority, and will always have the power of putting upon the bench, for trying their cases, whether civil or criminal, men to whom they are absolutely opposed in every idea they have as to how the law ought to be administered in Ireland, and that is what raises the great importance of this question. I do not believe anything you ever could do will force them to submit to tribunals of this kind. I believe they will resent them from the start. I believe they will look upon them as being put upon the bench there, rightly or wrongly, for no-other purpose than to act unfairly to them and oppress them in regard to the various rights which they conceive they have. No-one who knows Ireland and who looks at the real Ireland can look at that operation coming into force the moment thi3 Bill passes without the very gravest misgiving. That is the way in which it will affect the minds and the ideas and the attitude of these people as regards this Bill, and if I were asked to point to any one thing more than another which is objectionable as regards this, I should say, putting it plainly, apart from all language of the law or anything else, that the ordinary citizen in the North of Ireland who objects to this policy would say above all things, "I object to my life and my liberty and my property being subject to a number of people whom I look upon as absolutely unfitted to be put over me in relation to the adjudication of any such judicial matters as may have to come before them." I do not think Members of this House understand the strong feeling as between the two different classes in Ireland.
      There is nothing in the world I hate talking more about than the religion of the two parties in Ireland, but there is no use shutting your eyes to the fact, when you are setting up a Constitution, and when the Protestants of the North and other parts of Ireland know they will be subject to a perpetual Catholic majority which* will always have the power of putting any persons, if they so please—I am not saying whether they will, but that is their idea—of one particular religion into the adjudication of these matters, that you will have a state of affairs which it will be impossible to cope with. At the present

      2139
      moment people talk a lot about the bigotry of these men. I believe there is a great deal of talk upon that score which is absolutely unfair and unjust, because what is called bigotry arises out of the history of the country. It arises out of the different races in the country. The whole reason why questions are called bigoted questions in Ireland is to a very large extent historical. For instance, the Protestant religion has always been confused with British rule in the past. It has always been looked upon as somewhat of a foreign religion, as something which came in there, which was anti-Irish and was British, and therefore was hated because it was British, far more, perhaps, than because it was Protestant. I know everyone hates to talk about these matters, but that is the truth in relation to Ireland, and you cannot get over 200 years of this history by the passage of any Bill and say that the moment we pass this Bill the history of 200 years will be wiped out. It is ridiculous. You cannot do it. We have at present in Ireland a Chief Secretary—and I am not doing this as a matter of criticism for a moment, though I am quite ready to criticise it at the proper time—who has thought it right to adopt the policy of making his appointments so as to be appointments which will be popular with his Nationalist supporters.
      Mr. BIRRELL: I do not recognise that as a perfect description.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I am not put-thing this forward in the least as a matter for which at the moment I am criticising the right hon. Gentleman. I am saying this now on this false accusation of bigotry. Take the present moment. I am not quarrelling with your appointments. I have never quarrelled with one of them, or said a word in Ireland against one of them, and, what is more, I have not heard anyone quarrelling with them in the North of Ireland, where the people are Protestant, because they are made by the Imperial Parliament. But at present your Lord Chancellor is a Catholic, your Attorney-General is a Catholic, your Solicitor-General is a Catholic, your Serjeant is a Catholic, your Chief Justice is a Catholic, your Chief Baron is a Catholic, and the Master of the Bolls is a Catholic.
      Mr. LOUGH: How many are Protestants?
      Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman mistakes my argument. I am not objecting to that. I have never said one word against any one of these appointments. I am prepared to admit that they were proper appointments.
      The PRIME MINISTER: By both parties.
      Sir E. CARSON: Yes, by both parties. But I believe if these same appointments were made under an Irish Parliament with a permanent majority, as it must be in the Irish House, of one particular persuasion, the appointments would be not merely criticised, but objected to, and looked upon as an engine of oppression. I hope I am not misunderstood. Certainly, one of the things which to me would be most distasteful would be to criticise any man's appointment in consequence of his religion. I have never done so, and all these Gentlemen to whom I am referring, I hope, are in various degrees my own friends. If even these appointments had been made by an Irish Government with a perpetual majority of one particular persuasion, I believe it would be looked upon as having been done purely for denominational reasons and for no other. I believe that would be, in regard to judicial appointments, disastrous to the administration of the law, and I think it was for that reason that Mr. Gladstone, when he brought in his Bill, not only set up a Court of Exchequer, but he retained the appointment of the judges for six years, as well as I remember, in the Imperial Parliament. That, I think, although a very limited matter, is a very wise matter. But to say that at once when this Bill passes, at a time when parties in Ireland will probably be more polemic than they have ever been before, the whole distribution of the basis of society is to be handed over to an Irish Parliament is in my opinion a fatuous proposal, and one which will lead to the greatest disaster in Ireland. Then what reason is there for it? There was some question mentioned about a compromise, that the salaries and the numbers of these gentlemen should be within the regulation of an Irish House of Parliament. You have no real precedent. Australia stands out in a peculiar way in consequence of the number of independent Governments which have been from time to time set up, and which were brought into somewhat closer union at all events by the Australian Commonwealth Act. In the Dominion Parliament and in the South African Parliament the emblem of unity

      2141
      between them all is strengthened in every way by retaining in the Central power the appointment of these judges. I really think that in countries so closely connected as England and Ireland, where the Common Law of the two countries is the same, and where hitherto it has been always attempted to keep the progress and the advancement of the law running upon the same lines, it would be disastrous if anything happened that there should arise any feeling as between the two countries that there was a difference in jurisprudence in any way arising by reason of the way in which appointments were made, and I think it is well worth the consideration of the Government as to whether they ought not to do something, at all "events for the time, if they are not prepared to do it perpetually, to see that any changes of this kind which are made—though I should deprecate them at any time—should be made after you have known how your new Parliament, and the Executive responsible to it, are likely to act in the case of such important matters as this.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not know that any proposal in the course of these Debates has been made which I regard as more offensive, more impractical, and more prejudicial to the administration of law in Ireland than the proposal just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are one or two observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to which I must express my entire dissent. We must look at historical causes in this matter. What is the position in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put the judiciary in Ireland? He proposes to make it to all intents and purposes a foreign judiciary, and not an Irish judiciary. He proposes that the judges in Ireland should not be chosen by the Executive Government of Ireland, but by the Executive Government of this country. I put it to any man who looks at the question free from party bias or religious or other prejudice—[HON. Members: "Oh."] I do not know whether I succeed or not, but I try to look at the question in that way—I put it to any man, could there be any proposal more calculated to destroy all confidence among the Irish people in the judicial system than the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman? I go to the historical case, too. Everybody who has read the works of Dean Swift knows that one of the most constant criticisms of Irish administration was the character of the bishops
      2142
      appointed to the Anglican Church in Ireland by the Imperial authority. He said that these bishops were usually so bad that the only explanation he was able to give was that on their way through Hounslow Heath the bishops were taken out of their coaches and that highwaymen were put in their place. Any man who has studied the history of the Episcopal Church in Ireland will know that, according to some of its wisest heads, a great deal of the comparative failure—I use the word "comparative" in quite a non-contentious sense—of the Anglican Church in Ireland was due to the fact that its bishops were created by the Imperial authority and not by the Irish authority. I put it to anybody, what would be the position of an Irish judge in a judiciary chosen not by the Government of his own country, but by the Government of this country? Why! you would cut at the root of any popular confidence in any such judge or in such an administration of justice.
      The hon. Gentleman who proposed the first Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if everything were quite satisfactory in Ireland now as regards the judiciary. I abstain from any language which might be regarded as provocative, but I think I am justified in saying that there is a profound want of confidence among the Irish people at the present moment in the whole judicial system of the country, and it is not, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because of any religious ground. I wish he would try to inculcate his friends in Ulster with his own enlightened opinions. He said that he had nothing to say against Catholics being judges. He told us that he had no criticism to make on that matter. I have a criticism to make, and it is this. I know some Protestant judges in Ireland who enjoy the confidence of the people, and I know some Catholic judges who enjoy no such confidence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely misconceives—and he has no excuse for misconceiving it, for he knows Ireland—the position in this matter of religion of the party to which we on these benches belong. In our politics, both in private and in public, we allow no sectarian issue whatever to guide our action. [Cheers and a laugh.] That observation was received with what, I suppose, were meant to be jeers from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and it is not creditable. If you look at these benches at this period of Irish history, or at any period since this party came into existence, you

      2143
      will find always a considerable Protestant minority. You will find that since it came into existence three powerful Protestant leaders were elected by the party. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I said this before, and it does not seem to get credence; it seems rather to annoy him—that if any man in the councils of our party, either public or private, would affirm preference for or hostility to any man for any public appointment on the ground of religion, he would be ruled out of order by the chairman of any such meeting, and he would be howled down by any such assembly.
      I put it to any man, could you do anything worse for the administration of justice in Ireland than to make the appointment of the judges remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament I The man appointed might be an Irishman, probably he would be an Irishman, but, as the Chief Secretary said, he would be known and regarded as an English judge—a judge imposed on Ireland by the Imperial authority, and not because he happened to be in sympathy with the national aspirations of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the mistakes made by those who do not understand Ireland. One of the mistakes is that the party which he represents, known as the English garrison, have been regarded as representative and typical of the English people, and as a sort of citadel and safeguard of English authority in that country. As a matter of fact, although that View is now rapidly passing away, there was a time when it was true that the Irish people regarded the English garrison as typical and representative of the English people, instead of being its negation. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to teach the people in whose name he speaks here how misguided they are in some of their opinions. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no objection among his friends in the North of Ireland to the Government appointing a Chief Justice and a Master of the Polls although they were Catholics? He said there would be no objection if Catholics were appointed by the Irish Government. What is the distinction? They would be Catholics in the one case as well as in the other. Does anyone suppose that we are not going to have a rational and civilised Government in Ireland as in every other country? I know the hon. Member for North Armagh gives the majority of the Irish people credit for toleration.
      Mr. MOORE: Not the majority of the Nationalist party, which is a different thing.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The majority of the Nationalist party represent the majority of the Irish people. You have tried that issue several times, and I cannot congratulate you on the result. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a strange, crazy, topsy-turvy idea of the character, ideas, and purposes of the Irish Nationalist party, and of anybody that will be elected by them. The right hon. Gentleman, talks about the majority in the Irish Parliament being Catholic. That may be. The majority of the Irish people are Catholic, but it does not- follow that the majority of the judiciary, or the majority of the Cabinet, would be Catholic. In my opinion, in my confident hope, in my sincere desire, political lines in Ireland, after Home Rule, will not be drawn on sectarian, but on economic lines.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think we are getting back on to a Second Reading Debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite legitimately referred to the origin of certain feelings in Ireland, and the hon. Member is now making a reply, but I think in dealing with interruptions the line he takes is calculated to lead to a Second Reading Debate all over again.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not desire to go one hairbreadth beyond the legitimate limits of debate. I will get back more closely to the Amendment than in the observations I was making, which were partially provoked by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I come back to this point. If you want a judiciary which will administer justice fairly and will be a safeguard of law and order, you must have a judiciary which has the confidence of the nation over which it presides. You cannot carry on law in any country unless you have the sympathy of all the citizens in the country.
      Mr. MOORE: Your Bill is going to break down for that reason.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will put two questions to the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. Has the judiciary in Ireland the confidence of the Irish people?
      Mr. MOORE: Yes.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I know it has the confidence of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and that is just the reason

      2145
      it has not the confidence of the majority of the people. Secondly, I will give hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway from the North of Ireland full reason to take any steps they like, even civil war, the first day that an Irish Parliament, or an Irish judge, interferes either with their property or their liberty.
      Mr. MOORE: We will not wait for that.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I say you would absolutely deprive the judiciary of the confidence of the Irish people if that judiciary were imposed by another authority. The true, proper, and democratic road for the judiciary in Ireland is to leave it in the hands of the Government of that country.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: This seems to me one of the most instructive and interesting discussions to which? have ever had the pleasure of listening. The Chief Secretary, in a speech, not on a different, but really on the same question earlier in the Debate, pointed out how very Irish the existing Government practice was, and he seemed to me incidentally to convince me that it is quite untrue to say that in this matter of appointments the Irish Government under the Act of Union is not conducted according to Irish ideas. I thought that an interesting contribution, but it is one inconsistent with other declarations. We have had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and from my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson). The hon. Member for the Scotland Division says that the judiciary must be trusted, and that the history of Ireland proves, among other things, that the judiciary appointed by the Imperial authority never would be trusted. That is a very striking statement, because the judiciary in Ireland has always been appointed by the Imperial Government. When there was an Irish Parliament the Executive were chosen by Imperial authority. Home Rule is a new experiment in two respects. It is to be a Parliament representing the whole people, and not merely the aristocracy or the Protestant party, and also the Executive and the judiciary, if the Clauses pass, will be appointed by the Irish Parliament. The old historic arrangement was that the Executive and the judiciary were in the hands of Great Brtain. What is the hon. Member's objection to retaining the judiciary, as they always were, in the hands of the Imperial Government? It is that they will not regard them as national judges.
      2146
      These are his very words—that they will not belong to his own countrymen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foreigners."] I do not remember his using the word "foreigner," but that was the sense of what he said. Does it not occur to hon. Members opposite that that sort of statement is absolutely conclusive against the position which they have taken up all through the Debate? If Ireland and Great Britain are not to be one country after this Bill passes, to such an extent that you can trust the judiciary to be appointed by the Imperial Government without creating in the minds of the Irish people a feeling of prejudice against the judiciary, does anyone really conceive that the arrangement set up by this Bill can be permanent?
      Is it not perfectly clear that, according to the hon. Member's own opinion, what you are really doing is to create a state of restricted separation and not a state of extended connection'? You have got two separate nations and a certain artificial connection, but the moment you come to make one of those artificial connections so important as the one to keep the judiciary in the hands of the Imperial Government, that moment it becomes intolerable to Irish Nationalist sentiment, and the plan is to be rejected. How profoundly, significant is that statement by the hon. Member of the whole attitude of the Nationalist party towards this Bill. In his view the two countries are separate, distinct nations, and every connection that is left in this Bill will be an artificial connection contrary to the inherent nature of what you are doing. I would like to have that speech, properly interpreted, sent to every Liberal supporter of Home Rule. If they did not altogether misunderstand that point of view-it would convert them all to be Unionists. The hon. Member misapprehends the force of what my right hon. Friend said about Catholic appointments. My right hon. Friend not only did not say that the existing appointments were open to objection, but he did not say that the appointments of the Irish Government would necessarily be open to objection, or would be made on sectarian grounds. What he said was that they would be suspect, that they would be thought to be made on sectarian grounds. There again what a light from another point of view is thrown upon the workability of the Bill. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division says that if the judges are appointed by the Imperial Government, they will be regarded as English judges. My right

      2147
      hon. Friend says that if they are appointed by the Irish Government, they will be thought Popish judges. Without sympathising with that point of view, may I say, what a prospect of Home Rule working under these terms; how clear it is that the whole thing is unreal, that the whole erection is on quicksand, and that no sooner is it set up than it is certain to be swallowed up by these two great forces, the Nationalist antipathy of England felt by the Nationalist party, and the Protestant antipathy of Romanism felt by the Protestants in Ireland. I am not setting up my own judgment; I am merely drawing attention to the very important testimony of the very experienced Members who have spoken, one from the Nationalist and one from the Unionist benches.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: What would the Duke of Norfolk say?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I have no idea, but I am sure that it would be more worth hearing than what the hon. Member would say. It is certainly desirable that the judiciary should be trusted, and it is apparent from the speeches to which we have listened, that it is literally impossible to make a judiciary which will be trusted by all parties, or schools, or thought in Ireland; but we cannot but remember that both the Government and the Nationalist Members have repeatedly invited the minority in Ireland to formulate any demand for safeguarding them under this Bill, and that they have been told, not once, but many times to do so. While the actual exclusion of Ulster it is said cannot be considered, any safeguards short of that will be considered. Not for the first time, not because it meets their objection to the Bill—for nothing will meet their objection—they have asked for a safeguard in response to these invitations. Is it to be refused? It is perfectly plain that an independent judiciary is, so far as safeguards can be of any real value, when you distrust the whole machinery of government, as good a safeguard as can be set up. When this safeguard is asked for, the response from the Nationalist benches is that it is an insult to Ireland and that it would bring the judiciary into contempt in every part of it. What is the use of telling the minority in Ireland you are going to treat them fairly, and that you are really anxious to offer them safeguards if they only ask for them, if, when they do ask for safeguards, when they make
      2148
      some proposal which does offer some apparent protection to themselves, they are at once told that such protection is impossible because it is an insult to Ireland? Yet in the very speech in which the safeguard is refused language is used which might reasonably cause apprehension in the mind of any of the men who dissent from the majority in Ireland. We are told about the future Nationalist judiciary being quite different from the present one. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division says that he does not like the present judiciary, and that he does not think it is to be trusted. We are actually asked to invite the minority in Ireland to acquiesce in this arrangement, that the Nationalist party are to have the, power of appointment and removal of Irish judges, because the safeguards which are absolute in our case, by the Address of both Houses of Parliament, may well be believed not to be a safeguard in this case, where the two Houses are animated by feelings less reasonable than prevails in the Houses of Parliament here. The minority in Ireland are asked to trust this judiciary, which is to be quite different from the judiciary which now presides in their Courts. Is it possible to approach this matter in a spirit less likely to cause reasonable apprehension among the minority in Ireland? The deplorable part of these discussions is that they are very thinly attended by Members of that majority that decide the issue. I cannot count, without unduly delaying my speech, how many Liberal Members are present at this moment, but there is certainly not one-sixth of the party which will afterwards vote in the Lobby against this Amendment.
      Mr. PRINGLE: What about your side?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: That does not make it any better. This Debate is not any bettor because it is not listened to by Conservative Members. The deplorable thing is that those who are the deciding authority, who are the majority in this House, do not attend. I am not blaming them. If I were in their place I would do exactly as they do. But it is a deplorable arrangement in conducting a discussion of this kind, full of new lights and instruction on the whole Irish question, that there should be no one present who really matters to listen to it. So I submit that this Amendment ought to be adopted, first of all, because it is claimed on behalf of the minority as a safeguard for what it is

      2149
      worth, and because the speech in which it has been opposed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division is absolutely inconsistent with all the foundations of the Bill as laid down on those benches, and also because in that speech he used language which was calculated in the highest degree to excite apprehension as to the character of the judges to be appointed under this Section.
      Sir WILLIAM BYLES: The Noble Lord has blamed hon. Members of the party to which I belong for not being present in larger numbers, but whenever we do come into these Debates we find exactly the same thing going on. Whatever the Amendment may be, it is always an attempt to destroy Home Rule bit by bit. The party opposite no doubt does not want to concede Home Rule to Ireland. Our party does want to concede it. The plan of the Opposition is to object bit by bit to everything that is proposed. I think one of the first Amendments was an attempt to prevent the Irish people speaking their own language. The next was an attempt to prevent them controlling their own workpeople as to the conditions under which they should labour. A little later efforts were made to take from them every power of taxing themselves, as if self-taxation was not the first essential of self-government; and now, by this Amendment, the endeavour is to man all the local Courts by English judges. Why there would be no Home Rule if these things were done. I do not in the least wonder at my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division saying it would be an insult to the Irish people to keep them in English judicial leading strings all the time. We want Home Rule; the Noble Lord does not. He thinks that Ireland should still be a county. We do not. We think that it should be a separate Government, and we hope that that is what we shall see. I may be allowed to make one general observation. I really do wonder that the Tory party do not take up this Bill. It may seem a bold suggestion to make, but it would be tremendously for their own interest. They might get Amendments in the House of Lords and pass the Bill this year and send away sixty Irish Members, and then perhaps they might hope to break up this Government and come into power themselves.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The only-observation which the hon. Member has permitted himself to make on this Amend-
      2150
      ment was a grotesque travesty of it. He spoke about it ensuring that the Irish Courts are going to be manned by English judges. It is nothing of the kind. The Amendment proposes that the power of appointing judges in Ireland shall remain, as it does now, in the Imperial Government. How many judges in Ireland now are English judges? [An HON. MEMBER: "Every one of them."] Somebody on the Nationalist Benches says, "Every one of them." That is the confusion of mind which is unable to distinguish between an Imperial appointment and an English appointment.
      Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Of course what I meant was that they would be English appointments.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We say that they are Imperially appointed judges, and Nationalist Members are only doing what the Noble Lord has said, emphasising more and more the idea of nationality which makes them demand this Bill, and getting further and further away from the idea of federal government. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) has dealt with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I do not propose to make any comment on what I can only describe as an amazing piece of Parliamentary effrontery on the part of the hon. Gentleman, further than to say this: He accuses those who represent Ulster constituencies in this House of sectarianism; he assures us that our Amendment suggesting that the judges should be appointed by the Imperial Parliament is offensive and prejudicial, and would destroy confidence in the judges. He went on to say that if the appointments were given into the hands of the Nationalist Parliament we might be assured that there would be none of that sectarianism; that he and his party would never have anything to do with sectarianism, and that any fears that we may have on that ground are entirely groundless. Could anything be more ridiculous than that. As the Bill stands the judges are to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and that is, in effect, by the Chief Secretary. Members on the Nationalist benches are never tired of boasting that the real Chief Secretary in Ireland, the man who really pulls the strings, is the hon. Member for West Belfast. Who is the hon. Member for West Belfast? He is the head of a secret organisation whose first principle is to impose, as a test for membership, that a man shall not hold

      2151
      certain religious principles. Yet we are assured that appointments by the Nationalist Parliament would be non-sectarian. That is all I desire to say about the religious point of view.
      I wish to say a word about the constitutional aspect of this subject, which is somewhat more important than the Chief Secretary suggested. The Chief Secretary went back to the time of Mr. Gladstone, and he quoted an obiter dictum of Mr. Gladstone. I am not so much concerned on this question with the obiter dicta of Mr. Gladstone as I am with what Mr. Gladstone put in his legislative proposals. The Chief Secretary completely failed to remember that Mr. Gladstone in his 1893 Bill, in Clause 19, Sub-section (2) provided for the appointment of two Exchequer judges; he, in point of fact, provided that these two Exchequer judges, to whom there was to be appeal, were to be appointed and removed, not by the Irish Parliament, not by the Lord Lieutenant, but by His Majesty, which is the Imperial Government. The right hon. Gentleman might have gone on to say that in the Bill of 1886 not only two judges, but in the whole of the Exchequer Division of the High Court, every judge was to be appointed, not by the Lord Lieutenant, but by His Majesty on the joint recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. The precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is in support of the Amendment and against his contention. But there is a wider point of view in which to discuss this matter. The Debate we have had on this Amendment only illustrates once again the way in which the Government change their point of view with regard to the whole question of the granting of self-government to Ireland, exactly as they choose. They hop about like so many kittens on hot bricks. At one moment they stand on the Dominion analogy, at another moment they go on the Colonial and provincial analogy; if that does not suit they hop off, and they fall back and say, "This is a case not on exact precedent, but it is consonant with the eternal principles of essential justice."
      I do think the Government should make up their minds as to where they do stand. If they have got a platform they should try and stick to it if they possibly can. The Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman have quoted the Colonial precedent. It has been pointed out already that the Colonial precedent ought to be
      2152
      considered on the assumption for the moment that the Government are really sincere when they say that this Bill is the first step in a system of Home Rule all round; that they are going at some future date to fulfil their pledge and set up separate Parliaments in Scotland, England, and Wales, as well as in Ireland. I say that if we take the case of the great Dominions there is not a single one, not even Australia, which supports the Government proposals. Not only that, but the United Slates precedent is against the Government. In the United States the State chooses the minor judges, but the major offices are filled by the federal Government, who appoint the judges. The case of Canada has been mentioned. In regard to Canada the facts are extremely plain. In 31 Vict., Section (96) (i.e., the Act of 1867), it is provided that the Governor-General, who corresponds to His Majesty, shall appoint the judges of the Superior Courts and the County Courts in each province, except the Courts of Nova Scotia and Brunswick, for which there was no particular reason at that time to provide. That is the position with regard to Canada. All these judges are appointed by the central federal authority, and the privilege of appointment is carefully guarded.
      I believe there have been two or more cases in which a Legislature has attempted to pass an Act appointing new judges. What has happened? I have a note of one case—I believe there was one about the year 1907—so long ago as the case of the Quebec Act, 51 and 52 Vict., cap. 20. The Quebec Act proposed to set up District County Courts in Quebec; it proposed to set up County Court Judges, and it made provision for the appointment of those judges. What happened? The Federal Minister of Justice (Sir J. Johnson) wrote a long and elaborate report, of which the hon. Gentleman, if he cares to look up "Lefroy on Legislative Powers in Canada," will find a summary. The Minister of Justice wrote this long and elaborate report advising very strongly that the Act should be disallowed as a complete infringement of the power of the federal Government. He indicated what ought to be the power of any federal Government, and so strongly did the report impress His Majesty's Government that in point of fact the Quebec Act was disallowed and the power of the different States in regard to the appointment of judges was

      2153
      definitely declared, once for all, to reside, not in the States, but in the central federal Parliament. I do ask the Government, and I think the Committee are entitled to ask them, to make up their minds where they are going to stand. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about the appointment of judges being in the hands of our autonomous Colonies. I want to know whether we are going to have Ireland in the position of an autonomous Colony or under a federal system? If any reply is to come from the Treasury Bench I hope that a reply will be given on that point. I say perfectly distinctly that the appointment of the judiciary is always treated in our Imperial Possessions as a badge of sovereignty. The appointment of the judiciary is the act of a self-governing community with an independent Parliament. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly explicit—he said, "We want a separate Government in Ireland, and a separate judiciary." Is that what the Government mean? I hope we will have an answer.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Member for Trinity College (Sir Ed. Carson) said that this Amendment was probably the most important Amendment in the whole of the Bill, and the one to which most interest attaches in the North of Ireland. It struck me as rather odd that the Amendment should not be on the Paper. The Conservative party during the last few months have been drafting Amendments to this Bill, and apparently this point never struck them.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I explain that the Amendment was put down in this particular form in order to comply with what was believed to be the Rules of Order, but on subsequent consideration it appeared to your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, that it might be modified with a view to its being submitted in this form.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is rather curious that the Prime Minister was left exactly under the same impression as I was, because the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was only, by the grace and leave of the House, the unanimous leave of the House, allowed to withdraw it, and this Amendment was substituted. It is news to me if Amendments of this kind are put on the Paper in concoction with the Chair, which is the suggestion—in other words, you are to go to the Chair with
      2154
      your Amendment to see whether it is in order or not. I do not think that practice has hitherto prevailed. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) complained of the paucity of attendance in the Home Rule Debates. Will he allow me to give him the reason? In past years I do not think I have been absent a quarter of an hour from any Irish Debate. What has taken the life out of these Debates is this: It is perfectly plain that you are all reading from briefs. It is all cut, dried, and prepared like horses' fodder. The Conservative organisation prepares a long list of matters, mostly nonsense, in a printed form, and it is then given to hon. Gentlemen to be phonographed. That is not debate; that is absurdity. It is the first time it has ever been tried in this House, and it has failed. It is that which drives Members out of the House. While I would not go within miles of supporting this Amendment, I do think this question is one of great importance, and it is an issue that well deserves the attention of the House. As regards religion, let me say that the only occasion on which, so far as I know, the present Irish party intervened was to prevent the appointment of a Catholic. When Mr. Bryce was Chief Secretary he was waited upon by two members of the Irish party to protest against the appointment that was about to be made, with the result that the Catholic was prevented from being appointed a High Court Judge, and a Presbyterian appointed in his place. So that, therefore, I think I will be able to convince the Committee that, as far as religion goes, the action that was taken upon that occasion had no religious purpose of any kind.
      Secondly, I would like to point out that while the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin has suggested that the present Government have appointed as High Court Judges a large number of Catholics, the fact is that until last year they appointed no Catholic whatever. They appointed first the Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. Mr. Meredith, a most excellent man, and not only a Protestant but a Conservative. That was the first appointment made by the present Government, and they appointed a Unionist, a Conservative, and a Protestant to the greatest office in their gift. Their next appointment was the appointment of Mr. Wylie, a Presbyterian gentleman, certainly not a Nationalist, and a most excellent appointment. Their

      2155
      third appointment was the appointment of Serjeant Dodd. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side may remember him. He was also a Presbyterian appointment. I am quite satisfied that not one of those appointments would have been made if they would have invoked or provoked the disfavour of the majority of the Irish Nationalist party. So it is absurd to suggest in this matter there is any religious feeling of any kind. Then again, of course, we can remember the vacancy in the Lord Justiceship. Ireland had a great loss in the death of Lord Justice Fitz-Gibbon, one of the greatest men probably that ever lived, and it is always a regret to me that this House never had the honour of having him as one of its Members, because I think he would have adorned and made famous the name of his country. That vacancy occurred, and a fourth appointment was the appointment of a Presbyterian in the person of the present Lord Justice Cherry. Thus the four appointments made under the Administration which had then lasted six years to High Court judgeships were appointments of Protestants. I should also have mentioned that Lord Chancellor Walker was also a Protestant appointment, so that in this Administration for five or six years everybody connected with the administration of justice appointed by the Liberal Government was in fact a Protestant.
      Then what happened? The right hon. Gentleman suggests that recently Catholics had been appointed. Quite true and quite inevitable. The position of Master of the Polls became vacant owing to the illness of Mr. Meredith, a really great judge, and they appointed their Attorney-General, Mr. Charles O'Connor, who happened to be the very man, whose original appointment was objected to by two Nationalist Members when they waited on Mr. Bryce. That will show you he had not taken a very large part in, at all events, extreme Nationalist politics. What was the other appointment? It was that of his predecessor, Mr. Redmond Barry, to the Lord Chancellorship, when the vacancy occurred, and which was inevitable, since he had been Attorney-General and therefore got the appointment. Everybody here will remember his great moderation and high character. Therefore, so far as this Government is concerned, acting, I have not the smallest doubt, with the approval of the present Nationalist
      2156
      party, they have appointed a series of gentlemen, judges, against whom not a word can be said. Let the Committee remember that this Amendment deals, not merely with High Court Judges, but with County Court appointments; and of all the suggestions of absurdity I ever heard, it is that the County Court judges should in future, under a Home Rule system, be appointed by the Imperial Government. That is the Amendment, but when I say that, I am far from belittling the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made his speech. In dealing with this, I should like to say a word as to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. He has made us this reproach, that we have said we are willing to give any safeguard. I think there are words to that effect to be found in the speeches of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). I do not go quite that length, but in this matter I am quite prepared to agree that something might be done, provided there comes to us some suggestion of a settlement. Allow me, at all events, to express my own thoughts on the subject.
      We are told again and again and again that we show no response to the appeals that are held out to us. What response can we make to threats of civil war? It is absurd. I understood my Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), even in this Committee this evening, to say, he is going to go to war before even a single hair on the head of anybody is hurt. It is the first time in history such a thing will have occurred. How then can we, met by arguments, if they be arguments, of that character, say anything that would go to mollify fears and apprehensions such as those expressed. For my part I take this view, that the present system of appointment by the Imperial Government is a bad one. It has not led to any good results in the whole of the century, and you propose to perpetuate it. I say it is a bad and impossible system. I do not agree that the position of the Irish judges is the same as it was twenty years ago. Their influence in the country has largely ceased. They no longer intervene in politics, they have to a large extent become Civil servants, and when I hear what I may call the Mid-Victorian arguments that we used to address to this House thirty years ago, reproduced by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) it seems to me such speeches do not keep in touch with the realities of the present time. There was a time when

      2157
      the judges in Ireland attended every Privy Council meeting, and when their names were appended to every coercion Act proclamation, and when their one object in life was to set themselves against the Irish people. That has utterly disappeared. The Irish representation in this House by long and constant criticism has absolutely killed and broken that power; so that to consider this question now from the standpoint of thirty years ago, is really antediluvian.
      On the other hand, people in the North of Ireland, I do think, are entitled to have upon the judiciary a fair proportion of Protestants. But what is the present system which is so much belauded in Belfast. You have the Chief Secretary for Ireland driven from pillar to post on the look-out to get a Protestant Recorder for Belfast. Why, Sir, the Protestants of Belfast would have been delighted if they had appointed a Catholic Recorder. I venture to say that the present system, which seeks to accommodate itself to the North of Ireland by looking here and there on religious grounds for an appointment, is not good for the administration of justice, and I say especially in Belfast, and I doubt if the people of Belfast are especially satisfied with the appointment, to say no no more. What is the solution which one would like to find. Is it to be found in this Amendment? I say no more absurd Amendment was ever moved or was ever proposed. The notion that in the state of things where there will be some forty Irish Members left in this House to criticise, and where in fact any criticism can be interpolated, to say that in that condition of Parliament you should leave the Executive Government on this important point in the hands of the Imperial administration is, to my mind, something absurd. We have suggestions of analogies drawn from Canada and Australia, and the Cape of Good Hope. I would as soon draw them from Morocco and Persia, and they would have just as much reality or actuality in them. The peculiarities of Ireland and its peculiar circumstances will not be provided for by pills, either from Canada or Australia or the Cape of Good Hope. I therefore say that, such an Amendment as this cannot be supported by any Nationalist, or by any man in favour of Home Rule, but let it not be said that we are unconscious to the necessity for meeting Protestant opinion.
      What is the present system? I may name with honour the name of a man who is a constant adviser of the hon. Gentle-
      2158
      man the Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for Mayo. It is a scandal that in the case of a man like Mr. Stephen Ronan, one of the ornaments of the Irish Bar, that neither side has appointed him a judge, and I challenge any man on that bench to say that that is not a disgrace to your existing system. The Tories would not appoint him, and the Liberals dare not appoint him, and yet he is a man of the very highest and most subtle intellect, and would be an ornament to the bench. What you do is this: You look to your party hacks in this House.
      6.0 P.M.
      I remember well, when for over a year the late Mr. Justice Munro, a great man, was stricken with paralysis, and when for twelve months before his death he was unable to attend Court. That judgeship was allowed to remain vacant in order that when you came in you should be able to appoint one of your own members. There was The MacDermot, who also would have been an ornament in the administration of justice. He would not be selected at the hands of the Tory party when they were in office for twenty years. They preferred to appoint men inferior to him in position. Therefore to suggest that the present system is a system which we ought to go back to, or a system which deserves any eulogy, is to speak of a system which has been tried and failed, and which has absolutely broken down. I have an idea in my mind, but it is no good my making a suggestion, and on that account I will not make it. But a system could be devised which would meet the reasonable fears of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. So long, however, as they say they have nothing for us but the sword, we can only treat in this House the arguments they put forward in the spirit in which we believe those Amendments are moved. Their system has been this: Attack everything in the Bill whether it is good, bad, or indifferent.
      Mr. MOORE: There is nothing good in it.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: There it is. Attack the Bill in every Clause, line, and comma, and then complain that nothing is done from our side to meet you. I believe I am expressing the spirit of the Irish people when I say that there is no desire to confine these appointments either to Catholics or to Nationalists. I further say that at any moment when a system of rota or otherwise is forthcoming from the Bar of

      2159
      Ireland, by which fit and suitable men can be proposed, I believe it will meet with general and hearty acceptance.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: All sides will agree that probably the most real and vital of all safeguards that could by any possibility be introduced into a Bill of this kind is one that would secure that impartial and able men are appointed to the judiciary in Ireland. Therefore we are entitled to say, and we do say, that this Amendment—I am not wedded to its form—affords an opportunity to the Government to demonstrate the sincerity of their oft-repeated profession of willingness to give to the loyalist minority in Ireland any reasonable safeguard that they demand. Nothing more vitally affects the loyalist people at home, nothing appeals to them more strongly than the fear that under a Home Rule system the men who will be appointed to the judicial bench would not satisfy either of those requirements; and it seems but a reasonable request that some provision should be made, if not by this Amendment, at any rate in some form, to meet that fear. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) says that that is impossible as long as we retain our present attitude on the question of Home Rule. I should have thought that that was a poor way of dealing with a matter of this kind. Either it is right or it is wrong that judges should be appointed by the Irish Executive and the Irish Parliament. If it is right, the question cannot be affected by the opposition to the loyalist minority to Home Rule. If, on the other hand, it is wrong in itself, the mere fact that the loyalist minority in Ireland object to Home Rule root and branch ought to be no reason, even in the mind of the hon. and learned Member, why this Committee should not do what is right. But assume that the loyalist minority are not to be taken into account because of the attitude which they adopt, and I hope will continue to adopt throughout, with regard to this Bill. Is there not public opinion in England to be affected? No man knows better than the hon. and learned Member that there are hundreds of thousands of people in England and Scotland who are just as much alarmed on behalf of their loyal fellow-subjects in Ireland as are the Ulster loyalists themselves, and I should have thought that they deserved some consideration in this matter. The hon. and
      2160
      learned Gentleman has suggested that we on this side are speaking throughout these Debates as phonographs. He will hardly deny that my right hon. Friend and colleague and myself have as much knowledge of Ireland as most men in this House, and that we are competent to speak in matters of this kind without instructions or brief. I listened with some interest to the account which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave of the judicial appointments made in the course of the last six years. It is quite true, as he stated, that four of the gentlemen appointed were of the Protestant religion, but he omitted to mention that in one case it was not an original appointment, but a case of transfer.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: And promotion.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Promotion of a not very elaborate kind. It was a case of transfer from being Judge of the Land Commission to being Master of the Rolls. The hon. and learned Gentleman also omitted to mention that the other three were pronounced Home Rulers. They would have had no more chance of selection, as he knows, had it not been for that fact, than I would. I regret that he thought it necessary to make an attack on my friend the Recorder of Belfast. I have known Mr. Walker Craig for over thirty years. A more upright, honourable, and straightforward gentleman I have never known, and I believe that his appointment to Belfast was welcomed by everybody in that place who has any regard to the fair and impartial administration of justice. But I was glad that he referred to the case of the present Master of the Rolls, because I cannot conceive a better illustration of the reality of the danger which we apprehend so long as under any Home Rule system the uncontrolled appointment of the judiciary is left in the hands of the Irish Executive. What was the history of that appointment? A vacancy occurred in the judgeship of the Irish Land Commission owing to the fact that the Government transferred the then judge (Mr. Justice Meredith) to the Rolls Court. The Government of the day selected Mr. Charles O'Connor, who also is a personal friend of mine of many years' standing, and a most upright and able gentleman. At once hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway interviewed the Chief Secretary of the day. They took him by the throat and said, "You must cancel this appointment." He

      2161
      asked why. Would the Committee believe—they may take it from me, because I am acquainted with the facts—that the sole and only objection was that some years before this gentleman had in his professional capacity acted as counsel for a landlord who was involved in litigation with his tenants. That was the sole and only objection urged against him. [Laughter.] Laughing does not get rid of a fact of this kind. Whoever wishes to contradict my statement let him get up in his place and do so. It is notorious that that was the sole and only ground of objection against this gentleman. The proof of it is seen in the fact that subsequently he was made Attorney-General. His position in his profession and his claims were so strong that the present Chief Secretary found it impossible to ignore him. But on the occasion when his predecessor had selected him as one of the leading men in his profession for this judgeship, he was compelled to cancel the appointment after he had actually recommended it, on the sole and only ground that on one occasion he had taken, as lie was bound to do in his professional capacity, a brief for a landlord.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to another case, and I am glad he mentioned it—the case of a leader of the Bar at home, a friend of his own and of mine, a very eminent and distinguished lawyer. He said that that gentleman, a Roman Catholic, had never been appointed by either Government, a fact which he described as a great scandal. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know—he probably has forgotten—that about the year 1905, when the late Government were going out of office, there was a vacancy in the judiciary, and the popular opinion of the Bar was that this gentleman would get the post. There and then there appeared in the columns of the "Freeman's Journal" a violent article, attacking and denouncing him as a Castle Catholic. They said they would prefer any other person to be appointed in his place.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: They immediately appointed him their counsel.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I cannot help that. They have done me the honour to do the same. But the fact remains that the very cases which the hon. and learned Gentlemen gave are positive illustrations of the danger that we anticipate and desire to meet by this Amendment. There is one other point to -which I wish to draw atten-
      2162
      tion and particularly desire to impress on right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Be the system of appointing to the judiciary distingushed members of the profession who are advocates of the policy of the Government who appoint them a good or a bad system, it is the plan that has prevailed, and prevails to-day, in England and Scotland, and the plan that has prevailed in Ireland ever since the Union. The result, speaking generally, has undoubtedly been that these different countries have got the very best men in the profession. It is quite true that, perhaps, once in a generation, a man may have bad luck, like the late Attorney-General, to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, a very distinguished lawyer indeed, The MacDermot. There was no ostracism of The MacDermot; he was simply the victim of fate. He was Attorney-General when the Liberal Administration went out of office, and had he survived to the next Administration they would have undoubtedly selected him for either their Lord Chancellor or their Attorney-General, but, to the regret of all of us, he was removed by death before that opportunity arrived. Therefore the case has no application to the point under discussion. He was the mere victim of circumstances; his non-appointment was not-due to any attempt by his own party or by our party to boycott him or to deprive him of legitimate promotion. That system being prevalent, as the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chief Secretary know, many prominent men in the ranks of the profession at home—it would be invidious to particularise or to say what the proportion is, but it is a substantial proportion—are declared and pronounced Unionists, and in the ordinary course of things if the Government remained as it was—that is to say, if there was an interchange of Conservative and Liberal Administrations—those gentlemen in the future would get their legitimate chance. It is in view of that, I assume, that in one of the former Bills a provision was made that the transfer of the power of appointment was not to take place for a certain number of years. There is no such provision in this Bill, and the inevitable result will be that all these gentlemen, who are legitimately entitled to look forward to promotion in the ordinary course of time, will, as I believe, be for ever debarred therefrom. I do not think that is reasonable or right. You have even in the case of the constabulary—I admit to suit your own purposes,

      2163
      and to give you a force to back you up if you wish to collect your taxes or coerce Ulster—retained them for six years. Surely if you have not confidence in the Irish people to allow them to have their own police, except after an interval of six years, it is much more important and material that you should secure to the minority some arrangement by which they will at least have the guarantee that those who represent their views and opinions, and whom they regard as honourable and impartial men, will get their fair chance in the distribution of these great offices!
      So long as the proposition of the Government remains unaltered, so long that will be impossible. I have never in this House and never will criticise any members of my own profession at home who have, been fortunate enough to obtain these appointments, or draw invidious comparisons with those who are there today as compared with those who were there a few years before, or make observations of any kind derogatory to these gentlemen, who, while I do not in the least begrudge them their good luck, and am glad, indeed, to see them get these prizes—for their time has come and they are entitled to them—yet I do complain, in the interests of these men, who are to-day many of them prominent and foremost men in the rank of their profession, that under this Home Rule scheme, if carried out on these lines, they will be entirely and for all time deprived of their legitimate chances of promotion and advancement. That can be easily secured. I do not say that this Amendment may not go too far, but at least I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that something should be done in fairness to these men, who have no desire to leave their country, and cannot, of course, leave their profession, who have continued in their profession and gained eminence with the hope and reasonable ambition—at least in the case of some of them—that they will ultimately find their way to office of high dignity and importance. I think it is only fair and right in their interests, and in the interest of those anxious for some security and some guarantee, that all should feel that those who are competent and able to fill these places should have their legitimate opportunity and chance.
      I think it is a reasonable suggestion to say that the Government at least should insert an Amendment in this Bill that for a definite period of years to come—I do not
      2164
      want to dogmatise as to the particular period, which I leave to the Government's own good taste and sense—but that for some particular period to come appointment to the judiciary should remain as it is at present, leaving it after a certain number of years to lapse to the Irish Executive, if at that time their conduct and actions have been such as to justify reposing in them so great confidence. I put that forward in the interests of my own profession, and I hope, in the interests of those who at home are clamouring for a safeguard of this kind. I am not putting it in the interests of those who, like myself, say that this Bill in all its branches will be a disaster and danger to Ireland. I firmly and honestly believe that, and I hope I am Irishman enough to say that which I honestly believe. If I believed that the Bill was going to be for the permanent good of my country, I hope I would willingly stand aside, and not oppose it, but I am opposed to it, and will oppose it, because I believe in my heart and conscience that it will destroy the prosperity that Ireland at present enjoys. Instead of peace, it will introduce a sword. Instead of progress and prosperity, it will bring disaster and decay. That is my own opinion. It is an opinion that justifies me in the attitude and position I have taken up in regard to this Bill. Nevertheless, I have to think of those of my fellow-countrymen at home who have been loyal in their devotion to the Union, who have been Unionists in politics and principle. I say on their behalf that I think it is eminently unfair that they should be left, as they will be if this Bill passes in its present form, with no chance of realising what is the legitimate and honourable ambition of those who fill a foremost position in the distinguished profession of which I have the honour to be a member.
      The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The right and learned Gentleman who has just spoken in the latter part of his speech, travelled to regions much more appropriate to Second Reading.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I was replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman behind me.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not in the slightest degree attempting to criticise what the hon. and learned Gentleman said in his speech other than in the most friendly spirit. What I meant was that

      2165
      during the course of his speech, particularly towards the latter part of it, we were being led, I think over ground which has been travelled so often during these Debates, that I think we are justified now in taking it as the well-settled dividing line between the two camps in this House. On the one hand we know that hon. Members opposite of the Irish Unionist party, of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of the distinguished leaders, are opposed root and branch to this Bill. I have never said one word, do not say one word, and never shall attack in the slightest degree, the earnestness or sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But I do say, without discussing or debating some of the propositions which he put forward during the latter part of his speech, that I shall ask the Committee to assume that we, on this side of the House, adhere to the view we have taken, and we equally ask that we should be taken as sincere and earnest in our views. Having said that, I am really very anxious to pass into what is the proper sphere of this Debate. It is worthy of observation when we are told what we are, that the opposition to this Bill does not seem, even yet, to have quite made up its mind what Amendment it is it wants for this Bill. I have some ground for that observation. Just let me recall to the Committee what has happened this afternoon. We had the Amendment moved to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division made a speech on behalf of the Opposition. He said quite frankly during the course of his observations that he did not support the Amendment; that he was opposed to the Amendment, upon which my right hon. Friend and others spoke, and upon which this Debate opened—an Amendment which gives power to His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to interfere in the appointment of judges, if thought desirable.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, when he spoke on this Amendment during the course of his arguments, developed a far wider range, the result of which has been that we have had a substitute—I am not going to criticise the words of the Amendment, because though they may not be very apt for the purpose, they have, at any rate, afforded an opportunity for this very interesting, and no doubt very valuable discussion on both sides. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who
      2166
      has just spoken, has put forward another Amendment. As I understand him—I will not go so far as to say that it is inconsistent with the view of his colleagues—but it is another Amendment and he has asked us to take into account, during the discussion of this Amendment which is to limit the appointment in Ireland of those who are not at the present time judges in Ireland, the question of not interfering in any way with the appointment of those judges who have been appointed by the Executive here—that is appointed during the period before the Government of Ireland Bill becomes operative. That, as I understand it, is his proposal. There is another proposal suggested, that we should allow this system at present in vogue to continue for some few years. I think I could show that there is no consensus of opinion on the Opposition side as to what is the particular Amendment desired.
      I shall address myself to some criticisms and observations made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Trinity College. He pointed out that in 1893 there were two safeguards—I am not sure whether he used that word—which are absent from the Bill. First of all, in the 1893 Bill, there was a power of appointment reserved for six years to this Parliament. Then, he continued further, there was the appointment of the Court of Exchequer. Let me deal with those two points. First of all, with regard to the Rill of 1893; it is quite true that during six years matters remained as they were. I want to show this Bill, which is different to the Bill of 1893, has far greater safeguards than the Bill of 1893, both in regard to this first matter and the Court of Exchequer, because here what we have done is to give under Clauses 29 and 30 the right of appeal to the Privy Council. There is a far better right than was given in the Bill of 1893, which enables both Governments, it enables anybody to petition the Governments, and to go direct to the Privy Council instead of having to go to the Privy Council through the Courts. That is a far better safeguard than the one to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, the six years limitation before the appointments will begin in Ireland, or to the Court of Exchequer.
      Sir E. CARSONmade an observation (which could not be heard) as to the Constitution.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Gentleman is technically right. He is not right if he refers to the words on the Paper and the result of discussions which we have already had for some two or three days. With reference both to the constitutional question and also to other questions which may arise in regard to legal interpretation, or in regard to the decision of law, it is impossible, so far as I can think, to devise a better safeguard than that. We are to continue the judges in the same conditions of tenure as they are now, and they can only be removed upon an Address to both Houses of Parliament. It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says well, that confidence is essential to the administration of justice. Of course it is! I am not going to attempt to travel into the various differences there may be between certain particular judges in Ireland or, it may be, between certain particular classes of appointments. What I do know with reference to it is this: that in any event what must determine whether or not there is confidence in a judge is, I should have thought, not so much the person who appoints him or the Government who made the appointment; not so much the particular gentleman; what will determine whether the judge has the confidence or otherwise of the people is the soundness and impartiality of his judgment.
      Sir E. CARSON:: You do not know-about those qualities.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, you know nothing about any man before the appointment is made. But what you do know is something of his capacity, something of him as a man. You appoint him because you think he will make a good judge. It is quite true you have to wait a little to determine, but, in any event, what more can you do than to give power to select, from amongst the best men, irrespective of religion? You appoint this man whom you think will be the best man, I really cannot understand how it can be said, if you are granting this Parliament to Ireland with all the powers you are going to grant to Ireland for the government of Ireland, that you should not include in them also the appointment of judges. And, indeed, so far as I understand the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it is not that you should not give the power of appointing judges to Ireland, but that you should not
      2168
      do it for a few years. That, I think, is the utmost to which he goes, and after listening to the whole of this Debate I gather that was the view put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, who instanced what happened in 1893. So far as the Government's views are concerned in this matter what we have done is this: We have taken elaborate precautions to safeguard the Irish people and to safeguard the minority under this Bill. I am not going to argue these things again; they have been discussed on several occasions. All I desire is that those who do so argue should bear in mind the safeguards which we have put into the Bill.
      The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), who spoke in the course of this Debate, challenged us to say what precise precedents we were following. I will answer him. As I said before, if I may for once quote my own words, used in a much earlier portion of these Debates, we are not following any precedent. What we have said all along is you will not find any exact parallel for this Bill. We never suggested you would. It is not as if some Member discovered that the precedent in Australia and in South Africa, and so on, are not exactly like what is done here. Of course they are not. The circumstances are not the same, and you cannot find an exactly similar set of circumstances. We have not slavishly followed everything done with regard to our self-governing Dominions, but we have derived from the long experience which this country has had in creating Legislatures what is the best course to pursue and the best expedient to resort to in order to give a symmetrical measure to Ireland which will enable the Irish people to value the Parliamentary Government they have themselves, and which will give confidence to the people of this country in that measure.
      Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: My point was this. The Government told us they are going to treat Ireland as they treat the Colonies. The question I ask is this, When you say you are going to treat Ireland as a Colony, do you mean as a dominion or a province?
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think anybody has said that we are treating Ireland as a Colony. It is very difficult, of course, to pledge oneself to exact words, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find he is mistaken in saying that we said we

      2169
      are treating Ireland as a Colony, whole basis of the argument from hon. Gentlemen opposite, from first to last, was that that was not so. I remember, not so many weeks ago, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College and the Leader of the Opposition both said, "We would far sooner you treated Ireland as a Colony, and give her all you gave to South Africa, Canada, or Australia, than the way in which you are treating her." It is really a little difficult to see how anything that was said from these benches conveyed the idea that we purported to treat Ireland as a Colony. I do not dispute the proposition if the hon. Gentleman means what, I think he means. In certain aspects of the matter, no doubt, what we have done is to refer to other Constitutions for the purpose of seeing if we could find some precedent for this or that particular aspect of our Bill. In that sense I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he will agree with me that that is a very different thing from saying that we are attempting by this Bill to treat Ireland exactly as we treat one of our self-governing Dominions; and that brings us back to what I was saying just now, that we base this Bill on experience which we have obtained of Constitutions and of the making of Constitutions. Undoubtedly the history of the British Empire, and certainly during the last twelve or fifteen years, there has been a good deal of experience in that direction, and the result has been we have taken, no doubt here and there as we thought right, from particular Sections of the Acts passed portions which we have introduced into this Government of Ireland Bill, but we never said that we attempted to deal with Ireland as a Colony, and I said myself there was no parallel for this Bill. I am glad if I have rightly interpreted the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and to learn that he did not mean to go further than I understand him. I have only one or two more words to say as to what fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. He told us you cannot deal with this matter without at the same time arousing religious feeling in Ireland, and that there was bigotry in Ireland.
      Sir E. CARSON: No, I did not say that.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it follows from his argument. I am not suggesting that he said on which side it existed. I
      2170
      understood him to say that it was the result of the experience of 200 years.
      Sir E. CARSON: I said there was no bigotry in the ordinary acceptation of the word, but that there was a history which made the question of religion difficult.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree entirely that represents it. But I say this, in regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations upon this question I am sure that the Committee feel that nothing could be more moderate and nothing could be more reasonable than what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in dealing with one aspect of this matter, and I know perfectly well that he meant and felt every word of it, and that he would be the last to attack any person or to make any adverse criticism with reference to any person on account of his religious beliefs. I accept that fully and entirely. But still as a result of it you do get to this, that the right hon. Gentleman says if you appoint a Roman Catholic the Protestants will be suspicious of that appointment if made in Ireland. Equally, I suppose, if you appoint a Protestant in Ireland it might be said that the Catholics would be suspicious. That was the logical result of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Sir E. CARSON: No, it was not.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It was the result of what he said. He pointed out that where you have an appointment which is made by the Nationalists—I am assuming for the moment that the Catholics are in the majority and have the power of appointment—that moment, as I understood his view, that judge would become suspect.
      Sir E. CARSON: I said that under Home Rule the difference would be you would have a perpetual majority of the Catholic religion, and I said that matter would render suspect as regards the Protestant minority the appointments made by Catholics.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will take what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I will not attempt to reintroduce in my own words the effect of what he says. What does it mean, after all? Look at what happens at the present day in connection with appointments. It seems to me quite clear, according to what we are told, that here you have a Government, which is said to be run entirely by the hon. and

      2171
      learned Member for Waterford and his party, and which we are always told dare not make any appointments or any move without the sanction of the hon. and learned Member. Now what has happened? Apparently more Protestants have been appointed than Catholics. That seems to be established beyond all doubt. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) gave us a history of what had transpired in Ireland during recent years. It was a very interesting history, and it showed that there was not the remotest foundation for the suggestion that if the appointment of judges were in the hands of the Nationalist party that the result would be that none but Catholics would be appointed, and, in consequence, there would be all suspect judges. I submit to the Committee no one who is responsible for the appointment of judges would appoint men whom they thought would be bigoted or partial. When you get actual responsibility that does not happen. Men are careful whichever party is in power to select the best men. I grant you it may be that at times some man is appointed who, according to the views of many, does not happen to be the best man for the place. I grant you, if you like, that there may be occasions when it may be thought that it would have been better to appoint some other person or some other man of a different political party, but dealing with this matter broadly and in substance, I think we are entitled to say that the responsibility of the Irish Executive would be the best corrective to any tendency, if there was one, towards appointing men who would make bad judges.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: King James II.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That was a very long time ago. If the Noble Lord has to go back all that time to find a precedent, I am afraid it is a little stale. All I desire to impress upon the Committee is this: That when we grant responsibility to Ireland we do believe that the effect of it, the power that would be placed in their hands, the desire to have their country properly governed, and also to have impartial judgments delivered in their Courts, so that they might secure the confidence of their own people, would be the best incentive and the strongest inducement to them to select the right men, absolutely regardless, as I confidently
      2172
      believe they will be, of either religious or political feeling to occupy such high positions in their country.
      Mr. MOORE: I have listened with pleasure, so far as one can take any pleasure in these speeches, to the speech of the Attorney-General. I must say I would much rather have listened to him than take part in the harlequinade of the Chief Secretary, or to endure the superciliousness of the Postmaster-General. There really is an atmosphere of conciliation about now, because, although the Attorney-General was most careful and tried in a meticulous fashion not to make any concession of any sort, still, his manner of refusing it was so genial that for the present, following the conciliatory speech of my right hon. and learned Friend below me, I should be very sorry to say or do anything which would cause any rupture in the harmony which has at present settled down; and therefore I say very little indeed about the speeches we have just listened to. In the earlier part of his argument, the Attorney-General seemed to say, "We are so very careful of you all in Ireland, in drawing up this Bill, that even if you had as many bad judges as you like we have given you an appeal to the Privy Council." You reply that there is a Privy Council. The unfortunate litigant is to be swindled out of his right by a corrupt judge on the bench, and the remedy is that he can go to the Privy Council direct. There is not a word about the successful litigant before the Privy Council getting his costs. Fancy a humble litigant, defrauded of his rights by one of your Nationalist judges being told that he can go to the Privy Council in England and pay his own expenses! That is one of the safeguards. The Attorney-General told us with great candour that when you come to search, there is nothing like it to be found in the world. I noticed the apologetic manner in which the Prime Minister spoke, and I am sure he was ashamed of his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Yes, he was because I watched him. You can always tell when the Prime Minister is doing something he likes and is not ashamed of. To-day he was uneasy and fidgetty, and he was at his wits' end to find a precedent. The right hon. Gentleman said the analogy of the whole world was in his favour, and the Attorney-General stated that we are not bound by analogies or comparisons, and we are going to do the best we can for ourselves regardless of

      2173
      what happens elsewhere. With regard to the appointment of judges, I have not the least objection to Roman Catholic judges, and why? I have personal friends on the Bench who are Roman Catholics. I know in Belfast your Roman Catholic judge comes down there, and he has to sentence a great many people who are not of his own religion, and I have never heard a complaint against him on account of his religion. Why is that? Because if you put a Roman Catholic judge on the Bench now he is a high officer of the United Kingdom under one Constitution. He is not independent of Parliament, but he is there to carry out the laws of the Imperial Parliament, and his position gives him a respect which everyone recognises, no matter what his predilections are.
      What respect is he going to have if the judge happens to be a gentleman at present unknown, nominated not by the Imperial Parliament, because you have now betrayed your trust to a majority composed of cattle drivers and moonlighters. Under those circumstances, if your judge is the most impartial man in the world, do you think he gains in reputation for impartiality or ability if he permits himself to become the nominee of the men who will appoint him in the new Parliament in Ireland? What respect could he have? I heard the hon. Member for Cork speak in a manner in which he has frequently done in this House. He advocated toleration for Protestants, and we are very much obliged to him, and I know he is quite sincere. He is a leading Member of the Nationalist party, and I wish to remind him that if he had not been so pronounced in his desire to see fair play for Protestants and his fellow countrymen he would now have been sitting for North Louth. I do not want to say anything very harsh about people because the Blue Book is good enough for me. If you look at the report of the Louth election petition, it illustrates what happened to my poor Friend. We loyalists are accused of having undue apprehensions, but when you hear all these professions from courageous Nationalists we cannot forget their treatment and what their course of conduct has always been. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) says there are no people so tolerant and anxious to give Protestants fair play as the Nationalists of Ireland. He puts this view week by week in a weekly journal for which he is responsible, but the people in Ireland, who have
      2174
      to live there as a matter of daily life, do not believe all this. They are the people in contact with Nationalist machinations. They have to live with this majority, and you cannot get more than 1 per cent. of these people to believe all these professions. You know this yourselves, otherwise you would not go about saying, "Look at the safeguards." If there is no cause for anxiety, why put in those safeguards, in regard to which you have shown your cleverness by making them illusory? You say to your supporters you have safeguarded these people, and you wink the other eye to the Nationalist Members. I know the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) agrees with that, because he says that the safeguards are no use whatever.
      The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool said you cannot have any satisfactory system of judges unless it is one which commands the confidence of the entire people. Those are not his actual words, but that is the effect of them. With regard to the judges appointed by the Imperial Parliament, the hon. Member said two things. First of all, he had the audacity to say that a judge appointed by the Imperial Parliament, Irishman though he might be, would be a foreign judge. At present a man cannot be made an Irish judge unless he has been an Irish barrister for ten years, but because the Parliament of the United Kingdom appoints him, he is considered a foreign judge. That is the standpoint of hon. Members below the Gangway. We loyalists are supposed to be a bigoted people, but that is not our standpoint, because, although our relations with the Radical party are not very cordial, we look upon Englishmen as our kith and kin, although hon. Members below the Gangway do not. We look on the Union Jack as our flag, and they call it "the pirate flag of England." The hon. Member for the Scotland Division referred to us as a Protestant garrison, but we happened to be rather proud of that. The Committee will recollect that that term appears also in the Blue Book, and it is to be found in the findings of a Commission appointed by this House, which declares that the leaders of the Nationalist party had associated themselves with a career of crime and outrage to expropriate from Ireland the landlords, who were called a British garrison. You will find that in the Report of the Parnell Commission, and you will find a great many men involved in that finding who will be in the Irish Parliament in Dublin. And we are asked to

      2175
      believe that from such people you will never get anything but the purest justice.
      Whether you like it or not, you have to recognise that there are two nations in Ireland, and if you are going to have a judiciary it will not be enough to have one that gives confidence to the majority only, because you will have to secure also the confidence of the minority, and more especially have you to do that when the minority happens to be the industrial and revenue-producing part of the country. It is not a matter of counting heads, and you cannot ignore these facts. You must gain the confidence of the minority, and you cannot do this by putting in power to rule over them a series of gentlemen appointed by the people who started this conspiracy of outrage and crime and everything else against the British garrison, men who have kept up outrage and intimidation in every part of the country, who have broken every law in the most cowardly way, and who at the present time are the only people in Ireland who are causing the Chief Secretary trouble. You now say that these law breakers are now to become the law makers, and they are to appoint the judges. How is that going to give confidence to the minority. Take the case of a Peer who has often been attacked in this House for the share he has taken in politics—I mean Lord Ashtown. He has been attacked again and again. I do not want to go into ancient history, but the Committee will remember that Lord Ashtown had an explosion at his house in Waterford, and an attempt was made to fasten the blame upon him. Lord Ashtown has a gamekeeper who is either an Englishman or a Scotchman, and that man on two different occasions has caught a Nationalist absolutely in the act of poaching. [HON. Members: "Oh, oh!"] This is not for amusement; it is a fact. On two occasions that gamekeeper has brought a Nationalist before the local Bench, and on both occasions the local Bench have acquitted the Nationalist and lodged the prosecutor in gaol. On two occasions the Chief Secretary has been obliged to telegraph over to Ireland to have that man liberated.
      Earl WINTERTON: Is there anything funny in an innocent man being imprisoned?
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. MOORE: I make that statement with full responsibility, and the Chief Secretary cannot deny it. By this Bill you are
      2176
      taking away the Executive, and the more you weaken the Executive, the more we require an impartial Bench for the protection of the minority. I will give an illustration. Suppose a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians comes on my land, and I will assume I am in the right, that I do not use force and I take out a summons against him. I have to get a constable to serve the summons who is a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. When I enter the charge, a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians takes it down, and if he is at all friendly with me he will probably laugh at the idea that I should bring such a charge. I go before a Bench of magistrates, packed to such an extent that even the Chief Secretary himself cannot get a conviction in Nationalist Ireland. I either have my charge dismissed or I am treated like Lord Ashtowms gamekeeper, except that there is no one to let me out. Then the Attorney - General suggests you are going to have such pure unpartisan excellent judges in Dublin that you can get a certiorari from one of them. I go to that judge, or my counsel does, and I find he is a Member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians as well, and after that I am told, "Why should you grumble, you can always go to London and appeal to the Privy Council?" I say the whole thing is perfectly ridiculous. I will assume for the sake of argument that when the lawbreakers and cattle drivers have nominated a man, he will be anxious to do what is right. What will be his position? Will he be independent of the Irish party? Not a bit of it. He can be removed, as the Prime Minister told us—this is another safeguard, please note the safeguard—on an Address from both Houses. There will be no difficulty in the first House. There will be 160 sworn members of the brotherhood, for those who are not members of the United Irish League will be Ancient Hibernians. How about the Second House? The Second House is to contain forty Members. Will the Attorney-General tell us whether the provision about sitting together applies only to Bills, or does it apply to an Address from both Houses of Parliament on the conduct of judges? If it does not apply to such an Address, what is the remedy of the judge? It will be as easy to get a resolution denouncing a judge passed by the same forty Members in the Upper House, as by the subservient 160 Members in the Lower

      2177
      House. Suppose they do sit together, then the greater House will absorb the smaller, and the judge is gone. And that is how an impartial and independent judicial bench is to be maintained in Ireland.
      We had a case where a judge—one of the Chief Secretary's appointments; I think he was a most excellent judge—had the audacity to sentence a member of the Limerick Corporation to a month's imprisonment for burning the Union Jack in the street before a crowd and assaulting a man. The Limerick Corporation, carrying on the business of the people, discharging their duty to the ratepayers—a miniature Parliament, exclusively Nationalist—adjourned their business for a month as a protest against the action of the judge in venturing to send one of their members to imprisonment for a month. Supposing the Irish Parliament were to adjourn their business for a month in a similar manner. Do not you think it would be a lesson to all the other judges? Then you say to us people in the North, knowing this Nationalist majority in Dublin is dominating the whole thing from the humblest member of the Executive to the highest person on the judicial body, "Rest and be thankful; it is all right for you." I think my right hon. Friend was perfectly right, when he said those men may do their duly, but it is not fair to put them in that position, because when they go to the North of Ireland they will be looked upon not as judges but as nominees of the Nationalist majority in Dublin; not independent of them, but absolutely dependent upon them and as being sent down, as it will be put, to do their dirty work. How can there be security on the commercial side if commercial men cannot trust the administration of the law, and how can you have peace preserved if people do not trust the administration of the law in criminal matters? The thing is absolutely a deadlock. There has up to this been only one solution, and you will never get a better one. When you have your two sets of people in Ireland, the majority and the minority, the only safe rule of statesmanship is that you should not put one of them under the heel of the other.
      You talk about analogies and every time we have Africa, Australia, and Canada brought out. You have never had a case in Australia, Africa, or Canada of a minority up in arms against the majority determined not to submit to any invasion of their rights. The African Bill was an
      2178
      agreed Bill by all parties. This will never be that. Do not let there be any illusion on that head. This may be passed by force, but it will never be an agreed Bill, and, if it is not an agreed Bill, you have not an analogy for it. It has at last been conceded we are honest in our belief that these rights are in danger. There is no more certain way of impairing them than to have a partisan judiciary, and we can expect nothing else under the circumstances of the case. It is not a matter of appointing a Protestant judge or a Roman Catholic judge. It is a matter of appointing an impartial judge by the central authority which sees fair play between the two sets of the people. That is the statesmanship which has made the law respected in Ireland, because, in spite of what the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has said, I still think the law is respected in Ireland, and the judges are respected, too. If they were not you would not have the Courts, the County Courts and the High Courts, flooded by litigants from all over the country as you do. I have never heard a word against any judge by a Nationalist except in this House, when it is done as part of the party game. The ordinary Nationalist farmer has just as great a confidence in the judges of the High Courts as any Unionist living in the North. The only system that can ever work in Ireland, where you have these two conflicting interests is the system of an impartial, independent, irremovable bench appointed by the central authority and not by either of the warring factions in the country. That is why this Amendment ought to be supported, and why the proposal in the Bill, above all others, is thoroughly bad. It will only have the effect of doing away with confidence on the part of the minority in the existing system of justice.
      Mr. LARDNER: I think this is about one of the most interesting Debates we have had in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill since the Committee stage began, and I have been very much struck to-night by the tone of the speech of the senior Member for the University of Dublin. Whilst the hon. and learned Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore) was speaking, I was asking myself whether the hon. and learned Member for Armagh had run away with the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, or whether the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had run away with the hon. and learned Member for Armagh. The hon. and learned Member for Armagh said

      2179
      you could never have a fit and impartial judge, in whom the people would have full confidence, unless he was appointed by the Imperial Government. The view of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin is that if this Bill is going to pass you ought at least to retain the power of appointment of judges in London for ten years, so that our Unionist friends in the day of their power should not miss their opportunity. There was one thing which the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin said which I cannot allow to pass. He said that in 1905 there was a vacancy, and it was about to be offered to Mr. Stephen Ronan.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: No, I did not say it was about to be offered to him, but that his name was mentioned in the Press in connection with it.
      Mr. LARDNER: That was the reason given why his name was not considered further.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: No, I said that was followed by an article in the Nationalist Press attacking him as a Castle Catholic.
      Mr. LARDNER: That, I understood, was the reason given why his name was not considered further. I am surprised to hear the Tory Government in 1905 was terrorised by anything which appeared in the Nationalist Press. One would think listening to the hon. and learned Member for Armagh that the magistrates all over Ireland were without stain or blot of any kind. What happened at Belfast only a few weeks ago? You had a panel of magistrates—
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting a long way from the Clause.
      Mr. LARDNER: I must bow to your ruling. The hon. and learned Member for Armagh said, "We do not object to a judge in Ireland because he is a Catholic," and the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University, with regard to the Protestant appointments made by the present Government said they were all Home Rulers. Has the hon. Gentleman for Armagh such a poor opinion of his colleagues at the Irish Bar as to think it is impossible for a Roman Catholic, who is also a Home Ruler, to be impartial Hon. Members above the Gangway do not object to a Roman Catholic, quâ Roman Catholic, and the hon. Member for Dublin University said all the appoint-
      2180
      ments made by the present Government were Home Rule appointments, although they were Protestants. You do not object to a judge because he is a Home Ruler; you do not object to him because he is a Catholic; but you do object to him because he is a Catholic and a Home Ruler. That is what we are driven to. All I can say is, if the judiciary is to have the confidence and the respect of the people in Ireland, the judges should be appointed from Dublin and by the Irish Executive. It struck me to-night the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University did not get the reply he wanted from the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned Member said he wanted some concessions and some safeguards. The Attorney-General got up and said, "You have the appeal to the Privy Council." That is the last safeguard the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted.
      Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: It appeared to me that the points raised by the hon. Member were deliberately intended to convey a misunderstanding of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University. My right hon. Friend did not say that judges in Ireland are objected to on the ground of religious or political opinion, but he did suggest that if the appointments were carried out under the proposals of this Bill they would be tainted with some suspicion in the eyes of a large portion of the people of Ireland. In the speech made earlier in the evening by the Attorney-General there was one phrase which struck me very much. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, in framing these provisions, the Government had gone on the experience they had gained in making other Constitutions. Unfortunately there will not be time to get a reply from the Government as to the conditions under which we are working, and I think it is a very great pity, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that they had framed these provisions in the light of experience of Constitution making elsewhere he did not tell us what that experience was. I would ask, is it the experience of our own Dominions? After all, experience can only be of value if we know how these institutions have worked. Does the Attorney-General seriously tell us that the Government, before they drafted this Clause, had taken the trouble to inquire from sources of authority in Cannda. Australia, or South Africa, whether the working of the judiciary in those Dominions

      2181
      had or had not been a success? I think it was the hon. Member for North Armagh who pointed out that, in this matter, the Attorney-General is entirely at variance with what was said earlier in the evening by the Prime Minister.
      The Prime Minister said they had followed the examples of all the Dominions with regard to this matter. But in the course of the subsequent Debate it was pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong, and we have been endeavouring to discover where the Government are seeking to place Ireland under this Constitution in a similar position to the Dominion Government, or in the position of one of the provincial States forming part of a great federation. It has been brought out in this Debate that, so far as the provincial Governments are concerned, whether in Australia, in South Africa, or in Canada, in every case the appointments of the judges in the provinces of a federation rests in the hands of the central Government. When the Attorney-General said there is no analogy which we can follow in this Bill, but we must take a bit here and a bit there, and take them in the light of experience elsewhere, surely it is reasonable for us to point out that in this particular regard there is a perfectly consistent series of precedents, and it is also reasonable for us to ask the Government if they are departing from that series of precedents, and, if so, what is their reason for so doing? We have had no reason given to ns why, when we have got a perfectly consistent series of precedents, they have been neglected instead of being followed.
      There is one other point I am particularly anxious to put to the Attorney-General. So far as I understand it—I may be wrong—in this Clause there is practically no limitation on the power of the Irish Parliament in regard to the appointment of judges, and, under those powers, of the creation of new Courts. Is there anything in this Bill to prevent the Irish Government, if they feel so disposed, from appointing an Ecclesiastical Court for the trial of matrimonial causes? Under this Bill the whole of the law of marriage and divorce is given over into the hands of the Irish Government. We have had precedents in our own past history, and I believe there are precedents in other countries of the establishment of an Ecclesiastical Court for the trial of cases of that sort. But from our own experience that is a sort of Court which would certainly stink
      2182
      in the nostrils of the people of this country, and it also would do so in the nostrils of the minority in Ireland. I do not like touching on the religious aspect of this great controversy. I am not saying this in any offensive way to my Catholic fellow subjects in Ireland, but it is well known that there is, in this matter, an ecclesiastical view which is distinct from the civil view, and there is not an unlikelihood that, under the powers given in this Clause, the Irish Parliament would set up an Ecclesiastical Court for the trial of matrimonial, probate, and other causes. I say that that is a power, even if it is not exercised, the very existence of which would perfectly legitimately arouse a great deal of apprehension in the minds of the minority in Ireland, who take a view entirely hostile to ecclesiastical institutions of that sort. I think it would be consistent. We always have been told that we have only to ask for any reasonable safeguard and it will be granted by the Government. I think that when a possibility of this sort is obviously on the face of the Bill it would be reasonable on the part of the Government if they would give us a safeguard in regard to it.
      I have not the smallest doubt that the only reason why the precedents from the Dominions have been departed from in this case is simply because a demand has been made by the Nationalist party in Ireland that they should have the appointment of judges, not because they think that those judges will command anymore confidence in Ireland or be more efficient than if they were appointed by the Imperial Government, but simply that through that provision a badge of sovereignty will be conferred on their new Constitution in Ireland. Some of us on this side are perfectly persuaded that this Bill, if it is carried into law, will be used, and is intended to be used, as a mere lever for the obtaining of very much more extended powers than are given under this provision. I remember that in a recent Debate the Prime Minister laid it down that there was a gulf between the two sides of the House represented by alternative hypotheses. He said that on the one side the hypothesis was that the Constitution would be accepted by the Nationalists in a spirit of goodwill and with every desire to work it out loyally, while on the other side the hypothesis was that it would be worked in a spirit of hostility and with a desire to wrest something more than is already conceded. I

      2183
      have not time to discuss these two hypotheses or the reason for advancing them. I think it would not be difficult to show a good deal more evidence in favour of one than in favour of the other, and I should like to read a few words from a speech made by the hon. Member for West Belfast on another occasion—a speech which has already been quoted before, although not these particular words. Speaking in New York, the hon. Member said:—
      "I know there are many men in America who think the means we are advocating to-day for the good of Ireland are not sufficiently sharp and decisive. But I suggest that those who constitute themselves censors of our movement might very well give our movement a fair chance and allow us to have, as owners and tillers of the land, an Irish Parliament that will give our people authority over the police and judiciary. …. When they have authority over the police and judiciary, when they are equipped with comparative freedom, then will be the time for those who think we should destroy the last link that binds us to England and to operate by whatever means they think best to achieve that great and desirable end."
      At all events in the mind and intention of a very prominent Member of the party below the Gangway the object of getting control of the police and judiciary is in order that they may achieve the desirable end of complete separation from this country. When these words, which are perfectly familiar to us, are quoted in the House of Commons or elsewhere, as showing the real intentions of these people, hon. Gentlemen shrug their shoulders and regard them as a negligible quantity, and take up the position that they are at liberty to disregard and disbelieve this statement and many others that might be quoted. But we are asked to assume, notwithstanding this statement as to the control of the judiciary and police, that the powers given by this Bill will be used in a spirit of perfect goodwill and loyalty towards this country. I cannot agree, and I have no hesitation under these circumstances in supporting this Amendment. I am sorry to hear from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that he regards this proposal as the most offensive proposal brought forward on this side of the House. I have not the slightest desire to be offensive to the hon. Member and his Friends, but we cannot absolutely disregard the plain facts that lie on the surface, and if we have regard to the statements of the hon. Members themselves I do not think that, in the interests and safety of this country, and also in the interests of the spirit of unity, this Amendment ought to be carried and
      2184
      the appointment of judicial officials maintained in the hands of the Imperial Parliament.
      Mr. MACMASTER: As there are only two minutes before the guillotine falls, hon. Members have the best guarantee that I shall be brief in my remarks. For my part, having been brought up in a Mixed community of Roman Catholics and Protestants, I am heartily sick of these references to these two religions. I have had a very extensive practice in the Law Courts, and I find I get just as good law from Roman Catholics as from Protestants. But that is not the real question. The point is, is it in the best interests of all concerned that the judges in Ireland should be appointed by the Government of the United Kingdom or that they should be appointed locally. If you refer to experience, we gather from the Attorney-General that there is no parallel in our great self-governing Dominions over the seas. But we have in the Dominion of Canada judges appointed by the central power for the various provinces, not Englishmen or English appointed judges, for such a thing could not possibly happen, but judges appointed from their respective bars in the different provinces. I can say that these judges are not regarded as Dominion judges but as judges coming from the bars of the respective provinces, although receiving their appointments from the central power. In all my experience I never heard in any province a contention made that the judges should be appointed by that province, and I venture to suggest that, in the present case, they will be appointed from the bar in Ireland, and one of the greatest safeguards we have that good appointments will be made is in the fact that there is a strong bar there which would insist on the right men being appointed, and the value of the appointment would not be diminished by the fact that it was made by the central Government.
      It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 194.

      Division No. 378.]

      AYES.

      [7.30 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lynch, A. A.

      Adamson, William

      Field, William

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      McGhee, Richard

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      France, G. A.

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

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Macpherson, James Ian

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

      Gilhooly, James

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Armitage, Robert

      Gill, Alfred Henry

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Ginnell, L.

      M'Kean, John

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Glanville, Harold James

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Goldstone, Frank

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Manfield, Harry

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Barnes, G. N.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

      Martin, Joseph

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

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

      Barton, William

      Gulney, Patrick

      Meagher, Michael

      Beale Sir William Phipson

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Hackett, J.

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Bentham, G. J.

      Hancock, John George

      Molloy, Michael

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Boland, John Pius

      Harmsworth, R. J. (Caithness-shire)

      Mooney, J. J.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morrell, Philip

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Morison, Hector

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Brace, William

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Muldoon, John

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Munro, Robert

      Brocklehurst, W. J.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Hayward, Evan

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Hazleton, Richard

      Neilson, Francis

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      Nolan, Joseph

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

      Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Hinds, John

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Clancy, John J.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Clough, William

      Hodge, John

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Clynes, John R.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Ogden, Fred

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Grady, James

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Holt, Richard Durning

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

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Malley, William

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Crean, Eugene

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      O'Shee, James John

      Crumley, Patrick

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Cullinan, John

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

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

      John, Edward Thomas

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

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

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

      Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

      De Forest, Baron

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Delany, William

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Pointer, Joseph

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Joyce, Michael

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Dillon, John

      Keating, Matthew

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Doris, William

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Duffy, William J.

      Kilbride, Denis

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

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      King, J.

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

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

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Eiverston, Sir Harold

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

      Radford, G. H.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Leach, Charles

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Reddy, Michael

      Falconer, James

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Lundon, Thomas

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      2186

      2187

      Richards, Thomas

      Snowden, Philip

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

      Watt, Henry A.

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Webb, H.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Sutherland, J. E.

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Sutton, John E.

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

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Rowlands, James

      Tennant, Harold John

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Thomas, James Henry

      Whyte, A. F.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Wiles, Thomas

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

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Wadsworth, John

      Winfrey, Richard

      Sheehy, David

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Wardle, G. J.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Waring, Walter

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Fell, Arthur

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

      Archer-Shee, Major Martin

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Macmaster, Donald

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

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Barnston, Harry

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Barrie, H. T.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Moore, William

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Nield, Herbert

      Bentinck, Lord H Cavendish-

      Grant, J. A.

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

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Gretton, John

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

      Bigland, Alfred

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

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Blair, Reginald

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

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffiths-

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Boyton, James

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Bull, Sir William James

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

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Butcher, John George

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Cassel, Felix

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Cator, John

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hills, John Waller

      Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Royds, Edmund

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

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

      Chambers, J.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Hunt, Rowland

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Jessel, Captain H. M. M.

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

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Stanier, Beville

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Croft, H. P.

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Swift, Rigby

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Law, Rt. Hon. Bonar (Bootle)

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      2188

      2189

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

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

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Touche, George Alexander

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Yerburgh, Robert A

      Valentia, Viscount

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      Younger, Sir George

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Winterton, Earl

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Stewart and Mr. R. M'Neill.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
      Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes 320; Noes, 193.

      Division No. 379.]

      AVES.

      [7.40 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Dawes, J. A.

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

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      De Forest, Baron

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Adamson, William

      Delany, William

      Higham, John Sharp

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hinds, John

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hodge, John

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Dillon, John

      Hogge, James Myles

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

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Armitage, R.

      Doris, William

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Arnold, Sydney

      Duffy, William J.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Hudson, Walter

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      John, Edward Thomas

      Barnes, George N.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

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

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Falconer, James

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Barton, William

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Ferens, Rt. Hon, Thomas Robinson

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Bcanchamp, Sir Edward

      Ffrench, Peter

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

      Field, William

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Keating, Matthew

      Black, Arthur W.

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Boland, John Pius

      Gilhooly, James

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Gill, A. H.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Ginnell, L.

      King, J.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

      Brace, William

      Glanville, H. J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Brady, P. J.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Goldstone, Frank

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

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Leach, Charles

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

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

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

      Lundon, T.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Guiney, Patrick

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Hackett, J.

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      McGhee, Richard

      Chapple, Dr. W. A.

      Hancock, John George

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

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

      Clough, William

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Clynes, John R.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      M'Kean, John

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

      McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald

      Cotton, William Francis

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

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Crean, Eugene

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Manfield, Harry

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Cullinan, John

      Hayward, Evan

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

      Hazleton, Richard

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Davies, Ellis William, (Eifion)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      Martin, J.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

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

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Meagher, Michael

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Menzies, Sir Wlater

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Sutherland, John E.

      Molloy, Michael

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Sutton, John E.

      Moiteno, Percy Alport

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Mooney, John J.

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

      Thomas, James Henry

      Morrell, Philip

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Morison, Hector

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Radford, G. H.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Muldoon, John

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Munro, R.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

      Reddy, M.

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Walsh Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Neilson, Francis

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Nolan, Joseph

      Richards, Thomas

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Wardle, George J

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Waring, Walter

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Roch, Walter F.

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      O'Donnoll, Thomas

      Rowlands, James

      Webb, H.

      Ogden, Fred

      Rowntree, Arnold

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      O'Grady, James

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

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

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      O'Malley, William

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Wiles, Thomas

      O'Shee, James John

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

      Wilkie, Alexander

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Sheehy, David

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Sherwall, Arthur James

      Williams, Penry (M'ddlesbrough)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Shortt, Edward

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

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrock

      Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

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

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Snowden, Philip

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

      Grant, J. A.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Chambers, James

      Gretton, John

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

      Archer-Shee, Major M.

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

      Ashley, W. W.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Baird, J. L.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Haddock, George Bahr

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

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Barnston, H.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Cripps Sir C. A.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Croft, Henry Page

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Blair, Reginald

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Hills, John Waller

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Boyton, James

      Falle, B. G.

      Hohler, G. F.

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Fell, Arthur

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Butcher, John George

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Horner, Andrew Long

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

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Houston, Robert Paterson

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

      Gardner, Ernest

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Hunt, Rowland

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Cassel, Felix

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Cator, John

      Goldman, C. S.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Cautley, H. S.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Kerry, Earl of

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      2192

      2193

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

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

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Valentia, Viscount

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

      Macmaster, Donald

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

      Rothschild, Lionel de

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

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Royds, Edmund

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

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Winterton, Earl

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Moore, William

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Wood, John (Staiybridge)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

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

      Nield, Herbert

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

      Stanier, Beville

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Younger, Sir George

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Swift, Rigby

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir J

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Lonsdale and Mr. Barrie.

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Talbot, Lord E.

      CLAUSE 28.—(Irish Appeals.)
      (1) The appeal from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease; and where any person would, but for the Act, have a right to appeal from any court in Ireland to the House of Lords, that person shall have the like right to appeal to His Majesty the King in Council; and all Enactments relating to appeals to His Majesty the King in Council, and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, shall apply accordingly.
      (2) When the Judicial Committee sit for hearing any appeal from a Court in Ireland in pursuance of any provisions of this Act, there shall be present not less than four Lords of Appeal, within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and
      at least one member who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court in Ireland.
      (3) A rota of privy councilors to sit for hearing appeals from Courts in Ireland shall be made annually by His Majesty in Council, and the privy councilors, ar some of them, on that rota shall sit to hear the said appeals. A casual vacancy occurring in the rota during the year may be filled by Order in Council.
      (4) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction of the House of Lords to determine the claims to Irish peerages.
      Question put, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 316; Noes, 192.

      Division No. 380.]

      AYES.

      [7.55 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

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

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Adamson, William

      Bentham, G. J.

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Clough, William

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Ciynes, John R.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Black, Arthur W.

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greanock)

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Boland, John Plus

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Armitage, Robert

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Cotton, William Francis

      Arnold, Sydney

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Brace, William

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Brady, P. J.

      Crean, Eugene

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Crumley, Patrick

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cullinan, John

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Barnes, G. N.

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

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

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire).

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Barton, W.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      De Forest, Baron

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Delany, William

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Priestley, Sir W. E. 8. (Bradford, E.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Dillon, John

      King, J.

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Donelan, Captain A.

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

      Radford, G. H.

      Doris, W.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Duffy, William J.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

      Reddy, Michael

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Leach, Charles

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Richards, Thomas

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Falconer, J.

      Lundon, Thomas

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehavan)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Lynch, A. A.

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Ffrench, Peter

      McGhee, Richard

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Field, William

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

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Fitzgibbon, John

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

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Rowlands, James

      France, G. A.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Rowntree, Arnold

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Gilhooly, James

      M'Kean, John

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

      Gill, A. H.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon Reginald

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Ginnell, L.

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Glanville, H. J.

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Manfield, Harry

      Sheehy, David

      Goldstone, Frank

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Shortt, Edward

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Martin, J.

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Griffith, Ellis J.

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

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

      Meagher, Michael

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Snowden, Philip

      Guiney, P.

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Seames, Arthur Wellesley

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Hackett, J.

      Molloy, M.

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Sutton, John E.

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Mooney, J. J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Morrell, Philip

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Morison, Hector

      Tennant, Harold John

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Thomas, J. H.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Muldoon, John

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

      Munro, R.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Neilson, Francis

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hayward, Evan

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wadsworth, John

      Hazleton, Richard

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanc., Ince)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nuttall, Harry

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Wardle, George J.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Waring, Walter

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Hinds, John

      Ogden, Fred

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Grady, James

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Hodge, John

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

      Watt, Henry A.

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Webb, Henry

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Malley, William

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Shee, James John

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Whyte, Alexander F.

      Hudson, Walter

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

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

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

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Nots, Rushcliffe)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Joyce, Michael

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Keating, M.

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

      2196

      2197

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Gibbs, G. A.

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

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Archer-Shee, Major M.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baird, J. L.

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Peel, Capt. R. F.

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

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Grant, J. A.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gretton, John

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

      Pretyman, E. G.

      Barnston, H.

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

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Beresford, Lord C.

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

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Blair, Reginald

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Royds, Edmund

      Boyton, J.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Sanderson, Lancelot

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

      Hills, J. W.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hoare, S. J. G.

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

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hohler, G. F.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Stanier, Beville

      Cator, John

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Horner, A. L.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

      Hunt, Rowland

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Chambers, James

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

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

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry

      Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kerry, Earl of

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

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lewisham, Viscount

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

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Lloyd, G. A.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

      Long, Rt. Hon. Waiter

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Croft, H. P.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      McCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      Danniss, E. R. B.

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Winterton, Earl

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Macmaster, Donald

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Eyrcs-Monsell, Bolton M

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Worthington-Evans, L.

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

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

      Falle, B. G.

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Fell, Arthur

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Moore, William

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Nield and Mr. Swift.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Clause 29.—(Special Provision for Decision of Constitutional Questions.)
      (1) If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question wheher any Irish Act or any provision thereof, or any Irish Bill or any provision thereof, is beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament, he may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon the
      2198
      said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, constituted as if hearing an appeal from a Court in Ireland.
      (2) Upon the hearing of the question such persons as seem to the Judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were

      2199
      the decision of an appeal, the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open Court.
      (3) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any other power of His Majesty in Council to refer any question to the Judicial Committee or the right of any person to petition His Majesty for such reference.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, at this stage on a point of Order which I raised the other day? It refers to another compartment of the Bill upon which we have not yet entered, but, though it does not refer to the Clause we are about to discuss, I feel that if I wait for the Clause the guillotine will fall again, and it will be difficult for me to put the point of Order under these circumstances. I observe that the Attorney-General has given notice of Amendment on Clause 30, extending the right of appeal from decisions of the Exchequer Board, and what I wish to ask you is whether, the House having already decided under the guillotine that the words at the end of Sub-section (2) of Clause 22 stand part of the Clause, namely, that decisions of that Board on any matter to be determined by them shall be final and conclusive, it will be competent for the Attorney-General to move the Amendment standing in his name?
      The CHAIRMAN: I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman an answer now. He will recollect that on Wednesday last, in the course of the Debate, reference was made to an Amendment the Government proposed to bring forward. I had not then seen the Amendment, and when the right hon. Gentleman put the question of order to me I said that I must wait until I had seen the Amendment before giving a decision. On the following day two Amendments were submitted to me, namely, the one on the Paper on Clause 29, and the other which has been referred to on Clause 30. I then gave my decision. After examining the first one I said it would come in on Clause 29. As to the second one on Clause 30, I said that it did seem to contradict words which had been left in Clause 22 by the Committee, and that therefore I could not allow it to be moved on the Committee stage. I understood from the Government then that they proposed to put it on the Paper in order that hon. Members might see what it was their intention to move on the Report stage.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What you have stated just now is quite correct. It was stated in the Debate on behalf of the Government that we would introduce an Amendment on Clause 22, and obviously, in view of that promise, it did become necessary to put down the Amendment on Clause 30. What I am going to ask is whether it will be possible—I ask this in the interest of the Opposition, in view of the fact that we are going to put down an Amendment in Clause 22 on the Report stage—to discuss the Amendment on the Paper on Clause 30? If it is thought desirable to discuss the Amendment on Clause 30, of which notice has been given, I wish to know whether you could allow it to be discussed, in view of the Amendment which must be made on the Report stage, on Clause 221 I am told that if an Amendment is going to be made on the Report stage you can, if the Committee wish, allow a discussion on the Amendment on Clause 30, although it would not be directly in order, and could only be directly in order on the Report stage. Our anxiety was to put the Amendment on the Paper so that it might be seen by hon. Members, and that we might hear any criticisms upon it they have to offer.
      The CHAIRMAN: On that point of Order I am afraid I could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have to apply the same ruling to a Government Amendment as to any other Amendment on the Paper. We have passed Clause 22 in a particular form, and as the Amendment on Clause 20 is something contradictory I could not allow it to be moved in the Committee stage.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the necessity for amending Clause 22 was recognised by hon. Members on this side of the House, but our representations on the subject were very lightly treated by the Attorney-General. I pointed out that the Government ought to have made the Amendment when Clause 22 was before the Committee.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not dispute that.
      Mr. SALTER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "State" ["If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State"], to insert the words "or any person affected thereby."
      Hon. Members will see that the Amendment is designed to make the Privy

      2201
      Council under this Clause accessible to every subject, and not merely to a few high officials by whom only the provision could be put in motion. I hope to show that there are serious grounds for thinking that this Amendment is an improvement upon the Clause as it stands, and that it ought to be adopted in the interest of the Imperial Government, the Irish Government, and the minority in Ireland. The Clause provides quite a novel machinery for dealing with ultra vires and excess of jurisdiction by the Irish Parliament. It is a new method altogether, and therefore an experiment. It is one of three methods by which excess of jurisdiction by the Irish Parliament can be dealt with under this Bill. The others are the exercise of the Lord Lieutenant's veto in dealing with Irish Statutes, and action in the Courts by means in ordinary private litigation. With these exceptions, there is no means of dealing with excess of jurisdiction except the novel means provided by this important Clause. I think any Member who applies his mind to the matter is likely to agree with me, that by far the best of these three ways is that which is provided by this Clause. If you attempt to deal with excess of jurisdiction in the new Parliament, in Ireland by refusing the Royal Assent, which would be done on the advice of British Ministers, you immediately get serious conflict between the British Government and the Irish Government. Unless we had in this country a British Government independent of Irish support, it is not very likely that the Grown would ever be advised by the British Government to refuse assent to a Bill passed by both Houses of the Irish Parliament.
      If you consider the only other way, namely, that of challenging Irish Acts in the Courts by litigation, that again presents every kind of difficulty, because rights are in doubt for a long period until the particular action is brought. When the Privy Council decides a matter in an ordinary appeal, it does not quash the Statute. It merely deals with it ad hoc on the particular case, the Statute impugned remains on the Statute Book, and it is extremely difficult to say that the judgment applies to persons outside of that particular suit.
      Then there is the further great difficulty with regard to challenging Irish Statutes in the course of private litigation, namely, that there is no knowing, and no one has explained, how the judgment of the Privy
      2202
      council in England reversing the decision of the two Irish Courts is ever going to be enforced in Ireland. It is not, I think, very likely that the Irish Government is going to provide military and police for the purpose of enforcing a British judgment overriding their own Courts with respect to a Statute passed by the Irish Parliament. If the Irish Parliament will not provide a force, the British Government will not be likely to do so. Therefore, I hope the Committee will agree with me that the method of testing and checking ultra vires legislation which is provided by this Clause is a valuable piece of machinery, and that it ought therefore to be made as extensive and flexible as possible, because it provides a means of testing this question which has three great advantages. It enables you to test the question of ultra vires at the earliest possible stage, while the Irish proposal is only still a Bill, and before rights have grown up under it; it enables a very speedy determination, because the Privy Council can decide this matter within a few months at any rate and it provides also a final decision upon the point. I submit to the Committee the question: ought this useful machinery to be made accessible to every subject of the Crown who feels himself aggrieved by legislation or ought it to be limited, as it is limited as the Clause now stands, to the Lord Lieutenant or a British Secretary of State? I do not overlook the fact that under this Section the Crown can be set in motion by a petition by a subject, but that is only another way of saying the same thing, because such a petition would be dealt with by the Crown on the advice of responsible Ministers and therefore it is done by the official again. As the Clause stands what is the position where ultra vires is alleged under this Bill? Supposing a Bill exciting strong feelings in Ireland and touching upon religious matters creates excitement in the public mind of Ireland, this, which as I have tried to show, is the best and quickest and simplest method of dealing with this matter, can only be set in motion by the Lord Lieutenant or a British Secretary of State.
      Suppose that the Lord Lieutenant does not move and a British Secretary of State does not move, and the Crown on being petitioned replies that the Crown is advised that the petition should not be acceded to, then there would undoubtedly be the strongest feeling in Ireland that the matter was being dealt with by politi-

      2203
      cians in a partisan spirit, and that the Imperial Government under pressure from Ireland was not allowing the Lord Lieutenant to set the Section in motion and a British Secretary of State would not move for the same reason, and for the same reason the Crown had been advised to disregard the petition. There would be the greatest suspicion and the greatest dissatisfaction in Ireland. The difference if this Amendment were carried would be that any subject or body of subjects who desired seriously to impugn the validity of an Irish Bill would have the right on their own motion without the co-operation of any politicians or officials, to set this machinery in motion and have the matter determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It would have many advantages. First of all, it would be of advantage to the Imperial Government, who would be saved from the odious necessity of either taking proceedings under Clause 7 or else putting the Lord Lieutenant in motion under this Clause and raising all sorts of political suspicions. It would be of advantage to the Irish Government—and I ask the Nationalist representatives for this reason to consider this modest Amendment in a very sympathetic way before deciding not to support it—if the validity on ultra vires grounds of an Irish Bill is really challenged in Ireland, that any Irishman should have a free right of access to the Privy Council, and that there should be no question of setting the officials in motion, and no possibility of bandying recriminations as to whether the British Government was being kept quiet because of Irish pressure or anything of that kind.
      Is it not all in the interests of the Irish Government that free access should be had to the Privy Council in such a case? A Bill is ultra vires or is not. If it is ultra vires it is to the interests of the Irish Government that that should be established at the earliest possible moment. If it is not, if the appeal fails, the Irish Government is stronger than ever it was before, and stronger for every unsuccessful appeal; and I ask the Government and the representatives of Ireland to consider whether in times of stress and turmoil in Ireland it would not be a great reassurance to the minority, and a great safety valve for them, to feel that the doors of the Privy Council were open to them, whether the Irish Government or the Imperial Government desired it or not, and that no inter-
      2204
      vention of politics or politicians entered in, but that they had a right as subjects at the Privy Council to challenge the validity of any Irish Bill? I shall hear with great interest what objection can be urged against this very modest proposal. I have only been able to think of one, which seems to me a very small and trumpery matter. That is the danger of frivolous and vexatious appeals. I do not know that I should trouble the Committee with what is so trumpery a point as that, even if there was anything in it, in weighing such a thing as expense or anything of that kind in connection with frivolous appeals against great considerations such as I have endeavoured to lay before the Committee for the avoidance of trouble and the quieting of the population in Ireland.
      But what is there in this fear of frivolous and vexatious appeal? The Privy Council have the power to prevent themselves from being occupied with what is frivolous, and if the Attorney-General or anybody else thought that that inherent power was insufficient I would be very glad, and we would all be very glad, to insert in this Clause any further express provision that the Attorney-General thought fit to devise for seeing that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should have summary powers to decline to hear any attack upon an Irish Bill or Statute which seemed to be frivolous or vexatious. Quite apart from that, I should have thought that the good old-fashioned protection of costs was a pretty fair safeguard. The Privy Council will no doubt have power, and by all means let us give it power, of requiring sufficient security for costs to make it extremely improbable that anybody would be so ill-advised as to bring frivolous appeals. No responsible body of men in Ireland who are opposed to the Irish Government are likely to bring frivolous and unsuccessful appeals, because if they do they will lose a great deal of money, and the Irish Government will become stronger. Nothing could more strengthen a new Irish Government than for somebody like the Ulster Unionist Alliance or some Irish Unionist body to bring a series of frivolous appeals which would be contemptuously rejected by the Privy Council. I respectfully submit to the Committee that if nothing can be urged against the Amendment except some danger of frivolous appeals that is an argument that should not prevail against it.

      2205
      I would like, in conclusion, just to address one respectful word, if I may, to hon. Members from Nationalist Ireland. Ought they not to consider very carefully whether they could not support this Amendment, and whether they have not an opportunity in supporting this Amendment, at no cost to themselves, but with great advantage to themselves, to show how sincere have been some of their statements which are not always accepted on British platforms. They have been going about England during the last few months with a new song. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Hear, hear."] I am very anxious to avoid controversy if I can. I have described those statements as a new song, but let us call them an old song—statements addressed to the British elector about matters which the British elector loves—legality, order, conciliation; and I am appealing to hon. Members for this reason, that those statements have been received with incredulity by a large body of opinion in England. The Irish Members have gone about saying, "We desire to act loyally and in the spirit of the Home Ride Bill. We shall make no attempt to exceed the limits which that Bill imposes; and we desire to act most uprightly and without any oppression towards the minority in Ireland." Could there be a better way or a less costly way of proving the truth and sincerity of those statements than by supporting this Amendment? If those professions were not sincere, and if the Trish Members intended when this Bill comes into operation, to exceed those powers, and then to rely upon their political influence with the British Government to prevent intervention, I can well understand their opposing this Amendment, and saying, "No, this must be a political matter and a matter for the British Government to deal with."
      But if they have no such feeling, is it not a natural thing for them to say, "By all means throw open the doors of this Court. We have nothing to fear; there will be very few of these appeals; there will be no ultra vires legislation; we have nothing to fear at all; we have no desire to oppress the minority, and if any member of the minority thinks that he has been oppressed by ultra vires legislation, let the door be open, so that he may go to the British Privy Council." I cannot help thinking that in times of civil strain and stress, which we may see in the near future, it would be a matter of the greatest importance by way of reassuring the minority and quieting public feeling
      2206
      for it to be known to all Ireland, especially to the minority, that the door of the Privy Council was open to them. I think it very likely that that knowledge would prevent the right of appeal being much used, but there would be the knowledge that the door was open, and, without passing through, it would be of incalculable value in reassuring the minds of the minority in Ireland. I repeat my appeal to Nationalist Members and to the Government to consider very carefully what are the reasons why the doors of the Privy Council should not be thrown open to the public, and I respectfully commend this Amendment to the Government and to the Committee in the interests both of the Imperial Government, the intended Irish Government, and the Irish minority and their friends.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this Amendment has undoubtedly made a very moderate speech and a very moderate appeal both to Nationalists and to the Government to consider this matter. He has put his argument in such a form that I confess that, if we had been disinclined to listen to him, he certainly removed any such disinclination. I can assure him, on behalf of the Government, that this matter of appeal to the Privy Council has occupied a very considerable share of our time and attention, particularly in regard to the discussion that has taken place recently, not on these Clauses, but on earlier Clauses; and, as will be seen from the Paper, we have given effect to promises which were made, and we have gone beyond the promise made in this House in the Amendments we have put upon the Paper. But the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been asking us to accept goes very much further than any suggestion that has been made during the course of the Debates that we have had upon this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I say that it does. We have had to consider the Debates very carefully in order that we might meet the legitimate desires of hon. Members opposite so far as they commend themselves to our judgment.
      I think we are justified in saying that we have met the points, but it may be said that the time has not yet come, and that what we were dealing with was the Joint Exchequer Board and the right to appeal from taxation. I agree with that, but it justifies the observation I made that the Amendments which were put down,

      2207
      have been framed in order to meet the promises which have been made during the discussions which have taken place. But I say that this Amendment which is now proposed is going one step further than that. That is perfectly common ground between us. The hon. and learned Gentleman described it as a very modest Amendment, not of very great importance; in fact, according to him, perhaps of small importance in one aspect, but he said it might have the effect, and he thought it would have the effect, of settling disputes which will arise, and serious disputes, in times of great agitation and commotion, when this Bill first comes into operation, and when, no doubt, according to his view—and I think he is quite warranted in putting that view before the Committee—it might be that there would be violence and something in the nature of rioting. If the hon. and learned Gentleman means that the acceptance of this Amendment would put an end to all possibilities of that character, of course it would commend itself very much more to the Government than, I am sure, to some hon. Members opposite. I see at least one representative of the Ulster Unionists present. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view that supposing the Amendment were accepted, and that right of appeal to the Privy Council were given to any person, would lie accept that as a settlement of this matter? Would he take the view that that in any way mitigated the dangers of this Home Rule Bill?
      Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Certainly not.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I expected that answer from the hon. Gentleman, and I make no complaint with regard to it; but it carries out the view which has been put forward, and the hon. Member to whom I appealed has replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and who addressed his appeal to Nationalist Members. The answer which has been given seems to me to be a complete answer to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not expecting him to admit that. The proposition which he put forward was that this Amendment should be accepted by the Irish party because it would make an end—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—allow me to finish the sentence, because it would make an end of difficulties, doubts, dangers, which might be expected to occur after the Bill had come into opera-
      2208
      tion. That was what he said, and it was in order to test whether he was right and whether that argument was well founded or whether he was expressing merely a pious aspiration and hope of his own. If he had been saying that as something which would have commended himself to the Ulster Unionist party, it would have been a very different matter. Let us consider it, having regard to the answer given from the Ulster Unionist party. First of all, let us see what it is we give, so that we may understand the proposal. We give an appeal to the Privy Council if either the Lord Lieutenant or Secretary of State thinks it expedient in the public interest that there should be an appeal, and not only upon an Act of Parliament. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must have omitted to take into calculation the further important provision that the appeal is also upon any Bill which is introduced into Parliament. I do not say the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that, but I say he must have omitted to take it into calculation, and I will show why. When he tells us that there is no danger of any oppressive use of this appeal to the Privy Council, if it is given to any person, has he considered what it means in regard to Bills?
      Let us take into account that there was such a right of appeal from this House to the Privy Council in order to test a Bill, and that any person who was affected thereby, not merely the Government, but that any person without limits could upon any Bill that was introduced into this House, go to the Privy Council and get the opinion of the Privy Council upon it, does anyone imagine, particularly with party wrangling running very high, that there would not be applications to the Privy Council with regard to Bills, which were frivolous and vexatious applications, and which were introduced either for the purpose of delay or for the purpose of annoyance, or for the purpose in some way or other of indirectly bringing pressure to bear on the Government? Does anyone who has had any part in political life doubt that that is what would happen, if we had such an appeal from this House? If, for example, we introduce some Bill like the Budget Finance Bill, or the Insurance Bill, or this Bill, would there not be applications to the Privy Council with regard to them, and the more it was obvious that it was necessary to get the Bill through quickly, the more, of course, pressure would be

      2209
      brought to bear on the Opposition? I am not making any reflection upon this Opposition; I mean any Opposition. The Opposition would seize hold at once of this weapon which was open to it, and would use it as a perfectly legitimate weapon of warfare between the two parties, and would do everything it could to delay the Government and to injure it, and to prevent the passage of the measure. We meet the question, I think, in a reasonable way, and I will show the Committee. We give an appeal to two parties—that is either the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State. Just consider what that means. I think it must be obvious that at least we have given a new and additional means of appeal to the Privy Council, and an appeal which has never existed hitherto, both on Bills and Acts. There is no such appeal in existence at the present moment.
      We enable this matter not to be litigated in the Courts, but to be taken straight, either by the Irish Government or by the British Government, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Then let us consider what that means. The Government might say that it did not consider it in the interests of the public that they should take the appeal to the Privy Council; but suppose there is a strong feeling of a minority, and that opposition is got up by certain sections of the Opposition and pressure is brought to bear, then I cannot myself conceive that any Government could resist, under the circumstances, if you have strong pressure, as it would be if you had an oppressive Bill or an oppressive Act, taking that measure to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I might be answered that it might be inconvenient for the Government to do so, or I might be answered that the minority might be a very small one, but still might feel very keenly about the matter. My answer to that is that they are not devoid of remedies which are open to every litigant and which are open to them, and which are the same remedies which are open to every citizen of Great Britain. Apart altogether from this appeal direct to the Privy Council, every person in Ireland will have exactly the same right as every person in Great Britain, and the moment a Minister does an act which is ultra, vires, and which exceeds his powers, then, as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite correctly said, there are means open of bringing him to book, either by resisting the enforcement of the Act by any private liti-
      2210
      gant or by means of the well-known remedy of mandamus or certiorari. All those means are open as they are in this country.
      What we are doing is, we are saying that all those means shall be open by which you can eventually get to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, if private persons chose to challenge an Act. We say, having given the opportunity of the same remedies as are in this country, and also with regard to this Clause having added a safeguard and an additional remedy which is quite new, we give that which we think meets the difficulty that might occur. I do therefore submit to the Committee that we really have met everything that can be legitimately suggested as the evil consequence of not accepting this Amendment. I say there is very grave danger of the power proposed in this Amendment being abused if you throw it open as the hon. and learned Gentleman would do, I think not intentionally, because he says he only means it to be used by a person who is really anxious to know what the law is—that is to say, that it would be used by the Irish people very sparingly. As I have pointed out, that leaves entirely out of account the seriousness of the litigation which must necessarily ensue if the Opposition, by means of any person or persons, had the right to go to the Judicial Committee on any Bill of Act of Parliament. On those grounds, although we have accepted in the fullest degree the suggested Amendments with regard to the Exchequer Board and also as to the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State on other matters, we cannot accept it here because, as I have pointed out, the remedies are already sufficient and this additional remedy is not necessary as a safeguard.
      Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I rise to support the Amendment, because I have always understood that the Government, in their attempts throughout the length and breadth of the country to make this Bill popular, have been declaring that any reasonable safeguards against injustice or ill-usage would be given to the minorities in Ireland. It seems to me that this is a very small concession to make to the ordinary layman. The expensive methods of going to the Privy Council mentioned by the Attorney-General are not available to people with small means. Moreover, that method of redress could only be availed of after a Bill had become law, when the mischief had been done, and rancour and bitter feeling had been stirred up. There

      2211
      are many limitations, although not half enough, on the powers of the Irish Parliament. Those limitations to a large extent may affect people personally. I would like to mention some of those limitations which might be overstepped by the Irish legislature acting ultra vires. I do not say that they would do it deliberately. That would be foolish, because it would draw attention to their illegal act. But they might bring in a Bill which indirectly affected the rights of individuals in a way that they are not empowered to do. For instance, they are prohibited from interfering in any way with the Army, the Navy, and the Territorial Force. There is no doubt that the Army, the Navy, and the Territorial Force will not be very popular in Ireland, except in the North, after Home Rule is passed. Some Act might be carried through the Irish Legislature seriously affecting an individual Territorial, an individual soldier, or an individual sailor, and the person affected might require direct access to the Crown or to the Privy Council to obtain a decision there and then as to whether the Act did infringe his rights. There is also the question of dignities and titles of honour. I do not suppose that that would affect the individual very much, but, as hon. Members are aware, there was a law once passed in England under which nobody was allowed to use a title conferred by the Pope. Such a measure would affect the individual.
      There are also questions of naturalisation—of alienage. Acts might be passed by the Irish Parliament directly affecting the individual in reference to those matters. They might not be of sufficient importance for the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State to interfere officially, but an individual might be prepared to take steps to protect his rights. Questions affecting trade marks, patents, and matters of that kind are not, perhaps, individually of sufficient importance to cause high officials of State to take action, but they would be quite sufficient to move an individual. The Irish Parliament are prohibited from interfering with navigation, including merchant shipping (except as respects inland waters and local health or harbour regulations). They are allowed to make local health and harbour regulations, and a question may arise how far they are allowed to go, where inland waters commence, and the high seas finish. In such a case the rights of the individual ought to be safeguarded. It is all very well
      2212
      for the Attorney-General to ask my hon. Friend whether he would be satisfied with this concession. If you were being compelled to eat rotten eggs you would like to avoid eating as many as possible. If you could save eating one it would be an advantage, but you would not admit that you liked eating rotten eggs. Not being a lawyer I do not understand lawyers' arguments. I presume it is all right, but as a layman I do not understand it. All the safeguards are a sort of contract between the Government and the King's subjects in Ireland, and every subject is entitled to see that this contract is fulfilled.
      What you want is to attempt to give Ulstermen, O'Brienites, and others, some confidence that they will not be unduly oppressed by the majority in Ireland. Therefore, I think the Government might very well grant this small concession. The right of the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State to appeal to the Privy Council on the question whether or not an Act is constitutional, will not give any confidence to minorities in Ireland. Both the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State will probably be nominees of the Radical and Nationalist Government. What confidence will minorities have under such a Clause of getting justice from them? There will be a certain amount of political prejudice, and even if the Amendment were of no practical good at all it would, at any rate, show the minority that the Government were making some slight attempt to protect their interests. The power to which the Attorney-General has referred can only be exercised at enormous cost and after a Bill has been passed. Those are two grave objections, and, in addition, there will be considerable delay which may be very serious after an Act is in force. Governments sometimes act very illegally; they collect Income Tax which they should not, and do other things like that. In this particular instance there is no precedent for guidance. We have no written Constitution in the United Kingdom, but Ireland is to have one of a sort. Therefore I cannot see any analogy between what might happen in the English Parliament and what would happen in the Irish Parliament.
      We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that this power may be used vexatiously; that it may be used to delay legislation. Personally, I should be quite willing that some short form of words should be added which would safeguard that. I think that

      2213
      the cost would be enough to deter most people from bringing a vexatious action. To do so they have got to come over to England, and to approach the Privy Council in a proper manner. "Proper manners" at law are very expensive manners, and nobody knows that better than the Attorney-General. That alone would deter people from making a vexatious use of this provision. If that is the only drawback which the right hon. Gentleman sees, why not enact that any applicant shall show to a judge, either in Court or in Chambers, that he is a fit person, and has a fit case to bring before the Privy Council? I do not say he ought to ask for the fiat of the Attorney-General, because the Attorney-General is always a political personage, and might not give it; but let an impartial judge decide whether a man has reasonable cause and is a fit and proper person to approach the Privy Council. Surely that would be a sufficient safeguard against any vexatious use of this power. Then all fear of all political partisanship may be swept away, for the subject of the Crown in Ireland would feel that he had free, rapid, and easy access to the Privy Council in case he felt that he was in any way aggrieved by any Act which was passed, in his opinion, ultra vires by the Irish Parliament.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman's main contention was, firstly, that he tried to make us shudder by imagining a sort of running fire of interference with our proceedings during the passage of a Bill through this House—I mean a running fire of interference by the appeals of an outside body. In that case I thought the fundamental conception of this Bill was that this Irish Parliament was not going to be a sovereign body, whereas this House of Commons is a sovereign body. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects to giving this power to the subject in case of Bills as well as in the case of Acts, is not that really an objection to the provisions of this Clause, which interprets Bills as well as Acts? Does not the same objection apply with even greater force to his proposal that the alternative remedy should be used, of applying, as the individual wronged, to the Courts not for the ordinary remedy, but for a mandamus to issue? I do not know that anybody ever heard of a mandamus to a legislative body to arrest incomplete proceedings which had not got beyond the stage of merely informally expressed opinions! The argument of the right hon.
      2214
      Gentleman was also directed to asking whether my hon. Friend who sits for a constituency in the North of Ireland would accept this as doing away with the possibility of disturbance and resistance. It is very interesting to lookers-on if such a little bargain was made, but I happen to be one of those who think that these questions ought to be looked at from an English point of view as well, and from that calm standpoint one cannot help but observe that this question, that this kind of question, which this Clause makes possible, will not only end with the passing of this Bill, but fifty years hence may come up and be not less important then than at the passing of the Bill.
      9.0 P.M.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that we had already got a great many concessions in the provision of Amendments to Clause 30—that the right of appeal from the Joint Exchequer Board should be given the subject, and that this was really going further than that. I submit that the concession of that Amendment makes the concession of this Amendment right and just a fortiori; for this reason, that appeals from the Joint Exchequer Board will be appeals from the power of taxation in which it is much more likely, or as likely,. as public questions as distinguished from private questions will be involved. The question of taxation for which the Joint Exchequer Board will have to deal will no doubt affect private individuals to some extent, but it is more likely to affect the balancing between the Imperial and Irish Budget and other like questions wholly and solely of political meaning. Why is it that we contend that the right is in the subject, in the individual, in the private citizen, to bring these appeals to the Privy Council against the misuse of its powers by the Irish Legislature? The Bill only provides us with such an appeal upon the initiative of either the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State. We say that both these provisions are perfectly illusory safeguards as to the rights of individual. The Lord Lieutenant is an official who will act, if he wants to save his own skin, or if he wants to lead a quiet life, upon the advice of Ministers in whose support the majority of that House will be acting that will be passing the Bill. An Irish Secretary of State, even supposing him to be a Minister opposed in policy and sentiment to the existing majority in the Irish Parliament—I take that case because it is the I worst against myself—he will have to be a

      2215
      man who has to face, if he takes that kind of action, if from a sense of duty he is persuaded to take action of the kind, and bring an appeal to the Privy Council, will, there is no doubt, lose a day from Debate that Ministers may be most unwilling to give. This is one of these questions of processes which we are debarred applying to an Act completed or a Bill in course of passing through the Legislative House; and it does quite clearly raise questions which it is desirable in everybody's interest, and most of all that of private people, to have decided most efficiently and at the earliest possible moment. On these grounds, I think the Government and hon. Members from Ireland who are so full of lavish and abundant professions of their desire to be conciliatory, might at least give way at this late stage, and in this one solitary instance give something like a tangible proof of the reality of their professions.
      Mr. SANDERSON: I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. I listened to the speech that the Attorney-General has just delivered, and I quite appreciate his arguments. I think that perhaps one real objection to this Amendment is that there will be great danger of many appeals, which are partly vexatious, being made to the Privy Council. But I do not think it is a sufficient answer to the arguments that my hon. and learned Friend has put forward. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to two or three points. This Clause gives the power to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Secretary of State to move under two conditions. In the first place, the matter must be one of public interest, and, secondly, it must be one which requires speedy determination. Anyone who wanted the Lord Lieutenant to move would have to convince him that the matter was a matter of public interest, and, secondly, they would have to convince him that it was a matter which required speedy determination. He might think the matter was important, but he might come to the conclusion that it was not a matter of public interest; or he might think that although it was a matter of public interest it was not one that required a speedy determination, and he might feel it his duty to refuse the request. Now it seems to me that that being so there ought to be this right of intervention, not only for the individual, but it may be for a certain class of individuals—
      2216
      a certain religious sect or a certain trade. It might be that a particular Act of vital importance to that particular sect or trade, and if it was passed into law or allowed to remain it might have most injurious effects upon that particular sect or trade, and if they went to the Privy Council, the Privy Council might say it was certainly a matter of public interest and ought to be speedily determined.
      I remember, if I may give an instance, although it is not quite on all fours—I remember one day being at the Privy Council waiting for a case to come on. There was a counsel there who had come all the way from Canada to ask the leave of the Privy Council for an appeal which had been refused by the Courts in Canada. He was representing a certain religious sect. The learned judge who was presiding over the Privy Council on that day said, "Mr. So-and-So, we have read your appeal, and we are clearly of opinion that this is a matter which affects so many people in Canada that it may well be a matter of public interest, and we give you leave to appeal." That counsel never opened his mouth, because the Privy Council was clearly of opinion that it was a matter of public interest, whereas they thought in Canada that it was not a matter of public interest. And so here; the Lord Lieutenant might quite honestly in the exercise of his discretion come to the conclusion that in a particular matter which affected a certain class, or was calculated to affect a certain class of the community, say, a certain religious sect, might not be a matter of public importance, or might not require speedy determination, whereas when the matter was brought before the Privy Council that body might decide it was a matter of public interest. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend is really a matter of substance, and the mere answer that there may be frivolous and vexatious use made of this right of appeal is not a sufficient answer, because everybody knows that every Court that has any respect for itself or for the proceedings that are taken in it can always prevent frivolous and vexatious abuse of its procedure. This Amendment seems to me to raise a matter of importance. We are setting up for the first time in Ireland a written Constitution. We are setting it up under conditions which nobody can say are likely to be peaceful, and I submit it would be a matter of the greatest gratification to

      2217
      everybody who had the real interest of Ireland at heart if he could feel that any member of the community or any section of the community which felt that an ultra vires Act of Parliament was about to be passed or had been passed, could go bonâ fide, at once to the Privy Council and get the matter decided so as to avoid irreparable injury to that particular class or sect. That certainly would be a matter of great public interest.
      Mr. NIELD: It seems to me that the words used by the Prime Minister some months ago, in connection with the earlier stages of this Bill, affect the whole of his followers. The Prime Minister professed himself a prejudiced optimist, and it appears to me that, in obedience to the settled practice of this House, whatever the Prime Minister says is impressed upon his followers, and that we may take it, therefore, that they are prejudiced optimists with regard to the future of the country which this Bill is intended to govern. Another thing, it seems to me, is that the plausibility of the Front Bench is likely really to be a curse to the party they represent, and there is no more plausible person in this House when he has got an Amendment which, on the face of it, is reasonable, but which the Government, have come to the conclusion they have not-got the permission of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to accept than the Attorney-General. We all appreciate the difficulty of the position of Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite when, after their morning conferences, they have to make straight their own views with the opinions of Members who come from the other side of the Irish Channel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bosh!"] I do not often speak from this corner of the House, and perhaps it is just as well I do not, because the observations which I hear made from the Nationalist benches, and which I do not like to refer to are certainly unparliamentary, and I think hon. Members will do well to avoid them. The question here is whether or not this Parliament which is about to be set up in Ireland is a sovereign Parliament. That is really at the bottom of this matter, and one can see perfectly clearly the reluctance on the part of the Government to accept a reasonable Amendment of this sort intended to give to the ordinary subjects in Ireland protection which is not given as the Section is drawn, and which is resisted by the Government because it is an attack upon the sovereign
      2218
      position of the Parliament we are setting up. I venture to submit that that is the kernel of the whole of this matter. If the Government had any real intentions of setting up a subordinate Parliament they would at once concede this reasonable proposal that any subject may have the right to take this matter to the Privy Council. I think we have a right to assume this at any rate that the present Government will not always have a lease of the benches opposite, and it is admitted also that if this Bill once becomes an Act it will be very difficult to repeal it. It can only be repealed by armed interventions in an extreme case. I am supposing no such thing ever became necessary, but I put to hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway that the possibility and probability is if the country gets an opportunity of expressing its views upon this particular legislation that it will serve notice to quit on the Government, and therefore we may find that although a Home Rule Government may be in existence in Dublin there may be a Government of a totally different complexion to the present one in power in this House, and I submit that hon. Members below the Gangway from Ireland would be wise to contemplate such a condition of things.
      Mr. CLANCY: Do not speak to us.
      Mr. NIELD: I am going to speak to all parties in this House, and having that fragment of Irish blood in my veins I am going to speak all the more if I am interrupted. But I will address myself, not to those interrupting Members behind me, but to the Chair. Supposing the Lord Lieutenant appointed to represent His Majesty was appointed not by the present Government but by one holding views directly opposite to the present Government, and there was an English Chief Secretary here whose views were out of harmony altogether with those of the representatives who will come to this House from Ireland and also out of harmony with the Parliament sitting in Dublin, is it not for their protection that any person subject to the qualification my hon. and learned Friend proposes to insert, and is it not reasonable that patriotic Nationalists should have the opportunity of coming to the Privy Council and getting any grievance which they regard as a grievance redressed by such an appeal? Surely it is, I will not say absurd, but unreasonable to suggest as an analogy that we must take an appeal to the Privy Council or another

      2219
      body to arrest or suspend the proceedings of this House. We must remember that this House is a supreme Sovereign Parliament and in a very different position from that which we are told is to be set up in Dublin. Therefore it is no analogy to take the case of a Parliament in Dublin endeavouring to pass legislation which is opposed to the interests of a large body of persons in Ireland and acting unfairly or hostile to an individual. The individual has to petition the Lord Lieutenant, with all the delay which that would involve. My right hon. Friend has pointed out how very improbable it is that a Secretary of State or his Government will be prepared to afford facilities for discussing a matter of that sort. We must test the attitude of the Government on a matter of this sort as a test of their bona fides with regard to the real intention to bring this Bill into operation. If they resist Amendments which are reasonable in themselves and couched in moderate language to protect subjects in Ireland against the abuse of power by this subordinate Parliament, then we must conclude that they do not wish this Parliament really to pass this Bill, or else they are so much in the grip of hon. Members below the Gangway that they are obliged to resist this most reasonable Amendment.
      Mr. CASSEL: I wish to make it clear why I support this Amendment, and why I do not wish to give a silent vote upon it. My reason is rather different from some of my hon. Friends. I am opposed to the whole Clause, and it is astonishing to me that a Clause of this kind should be accepted which introduces so novel a principle into our judicial administraton without a word of protest. If we ever come to debate the question, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," I shall then give my arguments on this point in full. I wish now simply to indicate that I consider this Clause introduces a most dangerous, novel, and unprecedented proposal. Even under the American Constitution, although they have to decide on the validity of Acts, they have always been very careful to do it only in cases where the question arises in a real suit. The danger of anything less than that must be obvious. You may have a question raised, and the Privy Council may say that the parties interested are to appear. It may be to nobody's interest to appear, and the case may be prejudged against a person without him having had an opportunity of
      2220
      appearing. There is in this case a peculiar feature. After the Privy Council has given its decision it is not binding on the House of Lords, and it is possible that parties can start litigation raising that very point in England, in which case it would go to the House of Lords, and a decision which is not judicial, but purely consultative and advisory would not be binding as a legal decision. I object to the whole Clause, and we ought to have an opportunity of discussing such a Clause as this fully before it is adopted in our administration of justice.
      Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I wish to refer to something which I said by way of interjection in the Attorney-General's speech when he asked whether the acceptance of this Amendment would make any difference in regard to our attitude to this Bill. Of course, it would make no difference whatever. During all the discussions on this Bill we have taken up the attitude that it is our duty to take part in the discussions, and to try and make this a less evil measure than when it was first introduced. It is an extraordinary thing to me that the Government should make such a fuss over so small an Amendment as this. All we ask is that the right should be given to an individual who considers himself aggrieved to have the liberty to go to some tribunal and put his case before them as to whether the Act of Parliament that has been passed by the Irish Parliament is ultra vires or not. Supposing an Act has been passed, and an individual considers himself to have had his property or his liberties endangered, and he thinks it is ultra vires, we ask that that individual should have the right to go direct to the Privy Council to have the question tested as to the legality or otherwise of the Act of Parliament. What possible objection can there be to that? The only real objection raised by the Attorney-General is that opportunities would be left open for individuals to bring frivolous actions, but I think that argument may be dismissed in a very few words. I think it has been shown already by hon. Members on this side of the House that there are perfectly well-known means by which frivolous actions can be discouraged and made practically impossible.
      The other argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that hon. Members from the North of Ireland would naturally refuse to accept such a concession as a settlement of their opposition to this Bill.

      2221
      That argument has not been used by the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary, the Solicitor-General, and other Members of the Cabinet in dealing with other Amendments moved to this Bill. The Attorney-General knows perfectly well that certain Amendments have already been accepted by the Government, and I think I am right in saying that some of my colleagues from the North of Ireland have already declared that this is not going to make any difference to their attitude in regard to this Bill. With regard to the argument that we should accept this Amendment as doing away with our opposition to this Bill, I would like to know why he uses that argument now for the first time when other Amendments have been accepted and when precisely the same arguments have been used by us. I do not think there is much in that argument, and I do not believe it is seriously meant, because some of us will vote against the Third Reading no matter what the right hon. Gentleman does, and, furthermore, we will take every step in our power to prevent it coming into force in our own particular part of the country. I do not think any weight ought to be given to the Attorney-General's argument with reference to frivolous appeals to the Privy Council. I think this Amendment is a perfectly legitimate demand. If anyone could imagine for a moment that after Home Rule has been established in Ireland the Government official who has to answer for Ireland in this House of Commons is the present Chief Secretary, and if we could further imagine that the same individual fills the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who does so at the present moment, does anybody imagine those two officials would be likely, except in very extreme cases indeed, and in the last resort, to move to upset any Act of Parliament passed by a Parliament in Dublin I We know perfectly well it would have to be a very outrageous Act, and a very extreme Act of Parliament before the right hon. Gentleman would ever interfere, because his principle of government during the four years he has been Chief Secretary has been to leave everything that could possibly be left to the Irish people. In our view, he has entirely handed over the responsibilities he was appointed to perform to certain hon. Members whose usual place in this House is below the Gangway. That being so, it is no encouragement whatever to us to know that practically the only two
      2222
      people who can move in this matter are the Lord Lieutenant, in whom, I may say, if he should be the same individual as at present occupies that office, we should have no more confidence—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Perhaps the hon. Member will leave out any observations as to the present Lord Lieutenant.
      Mr. C. CRAIG: I am speaking of future Lords Lieutenant, but taking it, for the sake of argument, that the same individual might be Lord Lieutenant after the Bill is passed as before, in the same way as we may be afflicted with the same Chief Secretary. If that were so, we should consider it absolutely no safeguard to have the provision that the only two people who could move in the matter to contest the legality or otherwise of an Irish Act of Parliament were the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. It is true it is stated in the Section "a Secretary of State," which includes him, but we know perfectly well no other Secretary of State would move in the matter, because, as some right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day, all matters appertaining to Ireland are inevitably and very properly left in the hands of the one Minister responsible for Irish affairs. Therefore, under the circumstances I have mentioned, the Section, as it stands, is of no use in the wide world to us. I cannot conceive hon. Members opposite who are so clamorous in their desire to provide us with all reasonable safeguards, can for One moment object to this very reasonable and small Amendment.
      Captain CRAIG: Perhaps the Chief Secretary who, so far, has not intervened, will be able to answer one or two points which seem to me to require clearing up. It appears to a layman, at all events, that this Clause as it stands is very one-sided. Presuming it is possible ever to carry this Bill into law, everybody admits it will be necessary that both sides of the question should be as readily accessible to the highest tribunal as possible. Here is a Clause putting it in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to settle whether an Irish Bill or any provision of a Bill is beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament according to this Bill. I cannot see why, if a keen party politician or partisan like the Lord Lieutenant for the time being might be, or like his representative the Chief Secretary is sure to be, has the power of having the question speedily settled, similar powers should not be given to someone

      2223
      who cared to move in this way in the public interest. Why should the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary be the sole judges whether a matter is for the public benefit or not. I have the gravest distrust of certain Lords Lieutenant and Chief Secretaries, and I would be the last to put into their hands a decision as to whether a certain part of an Act, or the whole of an Act, was really of benefit to the people of my country or not.
      Supposing we stretch our imagination so far as to picture a Nationalist Parliament sitting in Dublin. A grossly unfair and partisan measure might be introduced which would have the effect, either directly or indirectly, of disfranchising a large number of the loyal population in Ireland in order that the Nationalists might have even a larger representation either in the Irish House of Commons or over here. The only persons who could arrest that Bill at the time would be the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. Of course, it might, after it had become an Act, be held to be ultra vires and have no effect in law, but consider all the trouble to which the country would be put before that was determined. I presume it could only be determined by a test action in the Courts. The simpler method would be to find out, when it was introduced, whether it was an Act within this Rill or not, and so have am immediate decision and settle the matter at once. Hon. Members might say it would certainly be worth while waiting in order to find out later whether it was an Act or not according to this Bill, but we have had experience of having to wait, and I do not recommend a long waiting period. It is intolerable to have to wait a year or two years to know whether at the end your position would be one of equality with other citizens of the United Kingdom or one of inferiority under the Nationalist party. I think it would be a very bad thing that we should have to wait while matters of the gravest concern, stirring to the hearts the people of the country were determined. Supposing one of the hon. Members for Cork saw this Franchise Bill was going to strike very hard at that minority, they would warn the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant that the Irish Parliament were wandering entirely outside their powers as a Legislative Assembly, and they would say,. "We shall take the earliest opportunity of proving this Bill is ultra vires." What is their remedy? They can appeal
      2224
      to the good sense of the Lord Lieutenant and say, "For goodness sake have this case brought up and settled at once; do not keep these people you are attempting to disfranchise in suspense any longer." But the Lord Lieutenant, I understand, under the new scheme, is to be an absolutely partisan politician. How can it be expected that any Nationalist Parliament in Ireland, if this Bill passes, will fail to pick out the most rabid Member of the whole Nationalist party, to act as Lord Lieutenant. Picture that man being appealed to for any sense of justice to the minority! I do not see how anyone can expect even a shred of justice in a case of that sort.
      What will be the position of an aggrieved party I understand that the objection to allowing any individual to have the power of appeal would be frivolous, because it might be brought forward to delay the progress of some Act through the Nationalist House of Commons. But there are two great cheeks. First of all, look at the machinery. Any man who goes into a case of this sort will incur very heavy responsibility and very heavy costs. I do not know what it costs to bring a case before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but I should imagine it amounts to thousands and even tens of thousands of pounds. Of course the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary knows better than I do. That is a point on which I desire to get information. If the case is brought by a private individual before the Privy Council, what will it cost him? Another check is this. I am informed that the costs of a successful action cannot be recovered by the plaintiff. The Attorney-General was cross-examined on this point, and answered a good many questions, but he was very careful not to give this particular information. What is the position? An appeal is permissible to the Judicial Committee, but are there any funds provided whereby in the case of a successful appeal the person who initiates that appeal will have the costs paid to him, as is the case in an ordinary Court of Law? I am told you cannot claim costs as against the Crown, but surely in a case of this sort, of such vital importance to the whole community, where the appeal is brought in the public interest, it ought to be possible to give the private individual, in the case of his appeal being successful, his costs as against the Crown. I cannot see why it should be such a one-sided bargain, and why all the power and privileges should be on the one side.

      2225
      Of course, it will be said you will have your turn, but hon. Members in this House always forget that there is no such thing as our having any chance when you set up your Nationalist Parliament. It will be Nationalist for all time, unless if some hon. Members opposite go over to Ireland and seek the suffrages of the men of Mayo or Galway or some other of those inviting places. It appears to me that hon. Members are living in a fool's paradise so far as dreaming for a moment there can be any opposition. The only people prepared to accept the Home Rule Bill are Nationalists. They will be the one party; they will appoint the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant, and there will be no opposition possible, unless indeed the hon. Member for Pontefract is willing to go over there and stand as a party of one.
      Mr. BOOTH: Yes, I will go over.
      Captain CRAIG: I must say that is not a very good earnest for the future, seeing that the hon. Member is one of the most subservient followers of the Nationalist party in the Division Lobbies of this House. It does not seem to matter what Amendments have been put down. This is the only opportunity that we have of pointing out the one-sided way in which the Bill is drafted, and as for hon. Members opposite suggesting that our Amendments are dealt with in a conciliatory spirit, I can only say that they are always negatived and not infrequently laughed at.
      Mr. MOORE: I hope the Committee will remember the great powers that this Bill is giving to what they call the Irish people, who represent perhaps two-thirds of the population. But I want to point out that we were not allowed to discuss an Amendment to this Bill which would prevent the Irish Parliament suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. The Irish Parliament can suspend that Act, and I think even the Chief Secretary will not contradict that. It may be suggested that such action would be disallowed, but will anyone tell me that a Radical Government are going to disallow any act of the Irish Parliament when they have forty-two Nationalist votes in this House to consider? It would be entirely contrary to past and present history. It may be taken as an axiom that it is within the power, and quite within probabilities, that the Irish Parliament will suspend the habeas corpus as far as Ulster is concerned. That Act is part of the Charter of English liberty. It is to
      2226
      be taken from us, and, instead of it, we are to be given an appeal to the Privy Council in case we have reason to complain of any illegality. Where is the safeguard for the individual? The Lord Lieutenant is to be a party man. He may do as he likes. The Secretary for State may do as he likes, and all the individual will be able to do will be to appeal to the Privy Council under the limitations laid down in this Clause. What are First of all, if you ever get the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State set in motion—and if they are political partisans they are not going to be moved to tears or justice by the complaint of an Ulster man—it may be the Privy Council will say, "So-and-So are necessary parties to the suit," but unless the Privy Council chooses to do that after the case has been brought to them and has been opened, the individual does not come in. If an individual sees that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary will not do it, what has he to do? He has to go through the circumlocution office; he has to petition the Sovereign, and if he does that, he must first get the fiat of the Secretary of State. He may petition the Sovereign to have the matter referred to the Privy Council. All the formality of a petition to the Sovereign and the hearing of the petition by the Privy Council has to be gone through before his case can reach them. Why should not the individual, in the case I have put, where you have put it in the power of this new Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, have his right under that charter of liberty, which is supposed to be a charter of liberty for the minority, of going to the Privy Council? Why should the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State decide whether or not he should go to the Privy Council? The King's Courts are open to all. You are setting up a Court, yet you will not allow an individual to go to it. If there is any sincerity in the protestations of the Government of their desire to give safeguards, the individual should not be shut out of the right to go to the only Court that can protect him. You will be doing that unless you accept the Amendment. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, and I shall certainly support it.
      Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig) asked me to answer one or two questions, and I am quite willing to do so. He did not, I think, hear, neither did I hear, the speech of the Attorney-General, therefore

      2227
      in that respect we are both at the same disadvantage, but I understand from those who did hear the Attorney-General that he dealt with some of the points raised by the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down. The hon. and gallant Member is always haunted by the idea that I and other persons connected with the present administration of Ireland are immortal, that we shall live for ever, and that for all time we shall be there defeating the ends of justice and refusing to set the ordinary laws in motion. I know that he really rejoices with me that that is not the case. The time will come when the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland and the Secretary of State here will be of a different political complexion than those who now occupy this bench. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member did not hear the very short reference made to this Clause by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), because the hon. and learned Member showed a greater appreciation of why this Clause was inserted in the Bill. He expressed a very strong objection to it altogether, saying, with perfect truth, that it is a novelty to introduce into legislation a proposal that there should be a means of testing the validity of a Bill, or what would be its validity if it became an Act of Parliament. He said that it was a very dangerous thing to introduce the Clause at all, and that he would vote against the whole Clause as being one which ought not to be introduced into a measure of this kind. I do not doubt that the hon. and learned Member, as is usually the case with him, would be able to give reasons for objecting, on grave constitutional grounds, to a Clause of this kind. But those of us who were concerned wtih the preparation of this measure thought that the special circumstances of the case were such that it was a desirable thing to give the earliest possible opportunity to stop a measure the ultra vires of which was considered to be apparent.
      Mr. CASSEL: What I did say was that I objected to the whole Clause, but that if you have the Clause I thought the subject ought to have the right as well as the Government.
      Mr. BIRRELL: I quite understood that. I only mentioned the hon. and learned Member because he objected to the introduction of this Clause. No doubt he said that if it was to be in he preferred it to be amended in a particular way. I think the
      2228
      justification for the Clause requires to be stated. I agree with him in thinking that it is somewhat of a novelty in constitution-making to insert a power to take the earliest possible opportunity of getting from the greatest possible authority, the highest Court in the land, a decision upon the question whether a proposal should be stopped although it could not purport to be an Act.
      Sir E. CARSON: Does it not only refer to an Act?
      Mr. BIRRELL: No. It refers to—
      "any Irish Act or any provision thereof, or any Irish Bill or any provision thereof."
      The Court may be applied to while the measure is still in the stage of a Bill. That was the point which attracted the attention of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras, and he expressed a constitutional objection to it. I think it does require some justification.
      Mr. CASSEL: I put down Amendments to deal with that afterwards.
      Mr. BIRRELL: I agree. I think it is a desirable thing that there should be this Clause, and that there should be, in limited circumstances, when public interest demands it and a speedy determination can be predicated, this means of taking the earliest opportunity of going to the Privy Council in the matter. I therefore think that the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland should have this power. Of course, I can not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Down in his supposition as to every Lord Lieutenant at any time once this extraordinary, infamous measure to which he referred has been set in motion. He thinks the contagion will spread to every successive Lord Lieutenant by whomsoever appointed, and whatsoever may be the independence of his character, and that he will be perfectly incapable of gauging honestly whether there is in Ireland any feeling upon a question or whether public interest is involved. I cannot argue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that footing. I am very sorry, because I have great appreciation of his ability and of the way in which he always puts his case, but I cannot fight him on that argument, because I am bound to proceed upon the assumption, and I do proceed upon the assumption, that in the years to come there

      2229
      will be honest Lords Lieutenant of Ireland, possibly Tory Lords Lieutenant of Ireland, and men who will make it their duty in their high office under the Crown to discharge every function that this Bill will impose upon them. I am sure that there will be.
      Captain CRAIG: Show your sincerity by making a change as soon as you possibly can.
      Mr. BIRRELL: I must leave it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and those who think with him to make that change. I have no doubt that in the fulness of time that change will be effected. Therefore I argue that there will be a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland and a Secretary of State over here who will be able to judge whether public interest and speedy determination require that this unusual provision should be put into force. That was the only reason why this Clause was introduced, and that was the reason why it assumed what the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls its one-sided character. But it is a very different thing altogether to insert in a Clause of this sort, not a highly placed and responsible public official, such as the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland and the Secretary of State here, but to allow any person who conceives himself likely in future to be aggrieved, of his own motion, and notwithstanding the difficulties which, I quite agree, may be placed in his way by reason of the expense of the proceeding, to go to the Privy Council. I think, therefore, that such a novelty as is involved in this Clause, should be of necessity severely restricted to cases of public interest, and that the only way of ascertaining whether that public interest exists is by entrusting the operation of this Clause to such public officials as the Lord Lieutenant for the time being, who knows Irish feeling, and the Secretary of State over here, who will be able to comprehend the gravity of the application.
      Then with regard to the cost, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he supposed it would cost £10,000 to take the opinion of the Privy Council upon a case. I think he takes a rather exaggerated view of the horrors of litigation. I do not think I could imagine any such charge, unless counsel's fees in the Elysian days of the future assume Gargantuan proportions, for taking the opinion of the Privy Council, argued as it might be for even an unreasonable length of time by counsel on
      2230
      both sides. I think £10,000 is a very extravagant figure. But that it would be a grave and serious step for any single private individual to take I quite agree, and that is one very good reason for not including him within any such Clause as this, and tempting him into litigation which must be beyond his means, and for which no provision as regards the payment of his costs is made by this Clause. Nor do we contemplate any such case as that. Therefore the exclusion of the private individual from this Clause is really rendered necessary by the exceptional character of the Clause itself. I think, nevertheless, that the Clause is a good one, and I shall be very surprised if constitutional authority denies the excellence of a provision which enables, after grave cause shown, the functionaries I have described to go to the Privy Council and ascertain whether the actual Act before it has come into operation, or the Bill before it even becomes an Act, is or is not ultra vires. I think, therefore, the Clause as it stands is a good one, but I do not think, as amended, it could possibly be recommended to the House.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: There is one reason why this Amendment is of very considerable importance, and it is due to the fact that probably the majority of the Committee never heard of, and the few who did hear of it have forgotten; that is to say, that at a very early stage of these Committee discussions an Amendment was on the Paper by which it was guaranteed that no subject of the King in Ireland should be proceeded against, or his property affected, except by due process of law—an Amendment inserted by Mr. Gladstone in his Bill and stated by him to be fundamental and essential in every Constitution and to be merely a repetition of what had been centuries ago secured for this country by Magna Charta. That Amendment was put on the Paper. The Government, under orders as I have no doubt, refused to accept it. They failed to give any reason which would commend itself to any man of intelligence. [Interruption.] I challenge the hon. Member who is so ready with his sneers and gibes to explain any reason which was given for refusing that Amendment. It is only another illustration of the habit he is so fond of indulging in of these cheap sneers and gibes at any hon. Member on this side of the House who is attempting under very great difficulty to discuss this Amendment,

      2231
      and I can only suggest to him that insolence is not argument and that his manner is exceedingly offensive to those on this side of the House. It becomes all the more important after the refusal of that Amendment that we should, if we can, secure to every subject now the right of appeal to the Privy Council, more particularly as it is plain that that is an appeal that cannot and will not be taken on frivolous occasions. It is an appeal which will cost money and time and no man is going to rush into an appeal of this sort unless he feels that he has a real and a substantial grievance.
      It is proposed by the Bill that the party to set the Privy Council in motion should be the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State. Assume that it is a Lord Lieutenant appointed by a Government in sympathy with the Irish Executive. Is it reasonable to expect that in such a case as that either the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State will raise objection to the proposed legislation which has the support of his own Executive in this country? You are putting him in a wrong position. It ought never to be the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to put himself in direct friction and in direct conflict with the Executive of the country over which he is the Lord Lieutenant. But that is the duty you are imposing on him here. It is quite right to impose that duty on the Secretary of State because he is an Imperial official, and he is responsible to this House and can answer in this House for anything he does. But the Lord Lieutenant will be the Governor of the country against whose action he is going to take steps with a view to having it reviewed. I would suggest that there is no reason whatever why this right of appeal to the Privy Council should not be extended to every subject of the King who believes that he has a real and substantial case. It is quite easy to prevent the abuse of any such power. You can give the Privy Council power, if they think the appeal is frivolous or vexatious, to punish him in the matter of costs. It will be a very severe handicap to him at the outset to have to start such an investigation as this at his own expense. He runs a very great risk of very heavy costs and of ultimate failure, and therefore it is not a procedure which should be undertaken lightly or without good reason. But so long as you only leave this power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and
      2232
      a Secretary of State it is practically nugatory and a denial of justice in very many cases. I can only say that it really makes one utterly disheartened, and feel a sense of utter degradation in continuing to take-part in these discussions under the promises and pledges which have been showered upon us that we have only to ask any reasonable precaution, safeguard, or guarantee, and it will gladly be-afforded. Every time we make any proposition tending in that direction that will alter a single comma or sentence in the Bill we have the entire force of the Government getting up to tell us that the Bill is excellent as it stands. That makes the whole of the proceedings here a sham and a farce, and it intensifies in me the conviction that, so far as we are endeavouring to amend this Bill, so far as we are endeavouring to secure on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite the fulfilment of the promises and pledges which they have so lavishly bestowed, we are simply wasting our time. The whole Bill has been signed, sealed, and delivered by agreement with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. No argument, however convincing, no matter however clearly proved, will obtain for us or those we represent, any concession of any sort or kind that has not already got the consent and approval of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
      Therefore I say the whole proceeding we are engaged in is a humiliating and degrading farce, and so far as I am concerned I should be very glad to see it concluded by the guillotine falling entirely on these discussions at half-past ten. I believe you would save a great deal of public time and a great deal of inconvenience to every Member of the Committee, but so long as this thing drags along so long shall we endeavour to discharge our duty under the conditions imposed upon us, and so long shall we endeavour to test the sincerity of those professions to give us guarantees. This is a typical case. Remember there is no appeal to the Privy Council to the individual except in regard to the decisions of the Joint Exchequer Board. An appeal is to be given to the individual, as the result of an Amendment proposed to be moved, in the case of the action of the Joint Exchequer Board; but will the action of the Joint Exchequer Board be of more importance than the action of the Irish Parliament? Which is the more likely to affect private individual rights—the action of the Joint Exchequer Board or the action of the new

      2233
      House of Commons? Is there any man on the Government side who will contest my statement when I say that the action of the Joint Exchequer Board will be small and insignificant in the matters with which they have to deal as regards individuals as compared with the enormous powers which this Home Rule Parliament will exercise over the lives, liberty, and property of the people, and yet, as to attempted legislation, you give no appeal whatever to the individual, though you do give it to him, for some reason not quite clear to me, as regards the action of the Joint Exchequer Board?
      How can you give the right of appeal in regard to the action of the Joint Exchequer Board and deny it in the case of the Irish House of Commons? The position cannot be defended. If an appeal for the individual is justifiable and right in the case of the decisions of the Joint Exchequer Board, whose acts primâ facie are to affect the people as a whole and not the individual, why should you deny an appeal for the individual who honestly believes that the legislation actually intended or carried is to affect him, either in his person or property, to a degree which the Privy Council would not be inclined to sanction? I say here, again, is one of the many instances in which we have brought to the test of actual experience the sincerity of those oft-repeated professions. The denial of this right we claim of an appeal for the individual is only another illustration of what has become so clear throughout the Debate, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not free agents in this matter, and that they cannot give a concession on any particular of the Bill unless, in the first place, they have
      obtained the consent of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I will answer the single question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to why we draw a distinction in this case from the rule we have adopted in the case of the Joint Exchequer Board. The brief answer is that in the case of the Joint Exchequer Board, in regard to matters left to their decision, there is no appeal at all to the ordinary Courts. He can have no remedy of any kind, sort, or description, for any wrongful action committed in these matters by the Joint Exchequer Board. The matters on which we are now giving an appeal from the Joint Exchequer Board to the Privy Council are matters on which there would not be in the ordinary course recourse to the Courts of Law.
      Sir E. CARSON: Why not if the action is ultra vires?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These are not matters that are now the subject of appeal. We are giving an appeal now because the point was made by the Opposition that there would be no remedy in the ordinary Courts of Law in the case of action which was ultra vires by the Irish Government or the Irish Parliament. The subject is not denied a remedy, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. He may find his relief in the ordinary procedure in the Courts.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 273.

      Division No. 381.]

      AYES.

      [10.15 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cater, John

      Gardner, Ernest

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Chambers, James

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Baird, J. L.

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Balcarres, Lord

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Banbury, sir Frederick George

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Gretton, John

      Barnston, Harry

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

      Barrie, H. T.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Croft, Henry Page

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

      Bigland, Alfred

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Blair, Reginald

      Dixon, C. H.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Doughty, Sir George

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M.

      Hickman, Col. T. E.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

      Hills, John Waller

      Butcher, John George

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzoy

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

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Fleming, Valentine

      Hope, Major A. (Midlothian)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Fletcher. John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Cassel, Felix

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Houston, Robert Paterson

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

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Swift, Rigby

      Hunt, Rowland

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Touche, George Alexander

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

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Royds, Edmund

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

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

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

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Macmaster, Donald

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Stanler, Beville

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Moore, William

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Nield, Herbert

      Stewart, Gershom

      Salter and Mr. Hewins

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

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

      Hodge, John

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Dawes, J. A.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Adamson, William

      De Forest, Baron

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Delany, William

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hudson, Walter

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hughes, S. L.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Dillon, John

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

      Doris, W.

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Armitage, R.

      Duffy, William J.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Arnold, Sydney

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Essex, Richrd Walter

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Joyce, Michael

      Barnes, G. N.

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Keating, M.

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Barton, W.

      Field, William

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Kilbride, Denis

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

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      King, J.

      Bentham, G. J.

      France, G. A.

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

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Gill, A. H.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Boland, John Pius

      Ginnell, L.

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

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Brace, William

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Lundon, T.

      Brady, J. P.

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

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Guiney, P.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Gulland, John William

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      McGhee, Richard

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hackett, John

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

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

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Hancock, J. G.

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Hardie, J. Keir

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      M'Kean, John

      Chancellor, Henry G.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Clancy, John Joseph

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

      Manfield, Harry

      Clough, William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Clynes, John R.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Martin, J.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Hayward, Evan

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

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Meagher, Michael

      Cotton, William Francis

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Crean, Eugene

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Millar, James Duncan

      Crumley, Patrick

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Molloy, Michael

      Cullinan, J.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Molteno, Percy Alport

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

      Higham, John Sharp

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Hinds, John

      Mooney, J. J.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Morrell, Philip

      2236

      2237

      Morison, Hector

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Snowden, P.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Muldoon, John

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N. W.)

      Munro, R.

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

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Sutton, John E.

      Nannetti, Joseph P

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

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Neilson, Francis

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Nolan, Joseph

      Reddy, Michael

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Richards, Thomas

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      O'Connor, T, P. (Liverpool)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Wadsworth, J.

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Ogden, Fred

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      O'Grady, James

      Robinson, Sidney

      Wardle, George J.

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

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Watt, Henry A.

      O'Malley, William

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Webb, H.

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

      Rowlands, James

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Rowntree, Arnold

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

      O'Shee, James John

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

      Whyte, A. F.

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Sheehy, David

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

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Pointer, Joseph

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.

      The CHAIRMAN: Since I announced the first two Amendments to be proposed, an Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, which, I think, arises out of the discussion which has been going on, and I therefore propose to put it.
      Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in. Subsection (1), after the word "thereof" ["any provision thereof"], or leave out the words "or any Irish Bill or any provision thereof."
      This Amendment is one which I have already indicated, while the previous Amendment was under discussion. I move to leave out those words by reason of the fact that the previous Amendment has been rejected; because we have now got to deal with the fact that the only person who can apply to have an appeal to the Privy Council is the Government, and not the subject. Under these conditions the proposal to refer to a Court of Law a Bill which is actually under consideration before Parliament is absolutely ridiculous and unprecedented in history. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will give fair consideration to this Amendment they will agree with me in thinking that those words ought to be omitted from the Bill. There are a good many written Constitutions in the world, and if you search the whole of them there is not one of them in which you will find a provision under which a Bill actually be-
      2238
      fore Parliament can be taken to a Court of Law to see whether it is intra vires or not. I agree that in the Canadian Constitution an Act of Parliament, when once passed, can be submitted to the Supreme Court, even before an actual case has arisen. Under the American Constitution the question of the validity of a Statute is only considered in a case which actually arises, and in which the litigants are actually concerned. But this proposal goes further even than the Canadian practice: it proposes that you shall take a Bill which has been introduced into Parliament to the Privy Council to see whether or not it is intra vires. At what stage are you going to take the Bill to the Privy Council—as soon as it is introduced, or when some Member in the Committee moves an Amendment and a question arises as to whether the Amendment is intra vires or not? And what is the position of Parliament while the Privy Council is considering the question whether the Bill—which is actually under the consideration of Parliament—is intra vires or ultra vires? Parliament will be placed in a very ludicrous position. The proposal of the Bill is an absolutely absurd one.
      You have also to consider that when the Privy Council comes to deal with questions of this kind you bring the Courts at once into the arena of politics. Can you

      2239
      imagine anything worse from the constitutional point of view than that, a controversial Bill in dispute between the parties before even it is discussed in Parliament, can be taken before the Privy Council to decide upon it. Just consider the application of such a system to one of our Bills, like the Insurance Bill or the Licensing Bill, to have its validity adjudicated upon while it was under consideration, and that any Amendment moved in Committee could stop the whole proceedings and take the Bill to the Courts. I look upon it from this point of view: that I think it is a most dangerous thing for our Courts and for the authority of the Privy Council that you should place the Privy Council in that position of adjudicating upon the validity of a Bill while it is actually under the consideration of Parliament. I venture to say that that is a position in which the Privy Council ought not to be placed. It is most unfair to the subject to give a decision in advance in this way, for this reason. It is quite true that the Privy Council can say that the persons interested are to appear before it, but who is going to appear before it when it is only a Bill. Suppose it is some Bill which imposes taxes, and the question is whether the tax is valid or invalid, do you suppose anyone would take the trouble to spend money to go before the Privy Council to contend that the tax is invalid when he does not know whether it is ever going to be imposed? Are all the parties who appear before the Privy Council in these questions to be paid out of Government funds? If so, are they to be paid out of Imperial or Irish funds? At whose expense are these questions to be litigated? You cannot possibly expect the person who may be interested, if the Bill becomes an Act, before it is an Act to incur the expense of going before the Privy Council and stating his views. If the Privy Council does not have the benefit of those parties interested appearing before it, then I say its decision is worth nothing, and will count for nothing. Moreover, in the way in which you have worded this Clause you have put it in the power of the Government to obtain a decision whenever it likes.
      Supposing the Government itself is doubtful as to the validity of a Bill, it can arrange some suit before the Privy Council, before whom parties appear who are not the real parties interested when the
      2240
      real question arises. You get in advance a hole-and-corner decision which, when the case arises, will be binding on those really affected. Take a taxing Statute, and suppose while the Bill is under consideration the Government arranges to take the question to the Privy Council, and it puts up dummy parties to argue both sides, and some decision is given, and thereafter you find someone who is heavily taxed under the Act, and when that person says, "No, I am not liable because it is ultva vires." Can the Government then answer, "While the Bill was under consideration we got a decision of the Privy Council, and so you are bound by that decision." Either that decision is binding or it is not. If it is binding, it is grossly unfair; and if it is not binding, then you are wasting your money and your time in obtaining the decision, I do not know whether it has occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that under the curious provisions of this Bill you have got two ultimate Courts of Appeal. You have got the House of Lords and the Privy Council. It just depends on whether you choose to commence your action in England or in Ireland. Many of these actions can be commenced in England just as well as in Ireland. It is simply a question of service. If you can serve the defendant in England you start your action in England, and you land yourself in the House of Lords as the ultimate Court of Appeal. If a decision of the Privy Council is cited, the House of Lords will probably say, "That decision was taken before the real facts in issue were before the Court; it was a mere consultative opinion by which we decline to be bound." I venture to say that even the Privy Council itself would feel some hesitation in acknowledging its own previous decisions if they had been given simply in the air before the actual questions had arisen or before there was any matter actually in litigation which bonâ fide parties had argued before them. The Amendment becomes vital now that the previous Amendment has been rejected. It will be in the power of the Government to obtain a decision, but it will not be in the power of the Opposition to do so. The Irish Government would not introduce a Bill which they considered ultra vires, and they would naturally advise the Lord Lieutenant that any appeal to the Privy Council was unnecessary and frivolous. Similarly the Secretary of State in England might be placed in a most embarrassing position. Supposing the

      2241
      Opposition in the Irish Parliament approached the Secretary of State in reference to a Bill which it was vital to the Irish Government to get through quickly: he would be placed in a position of extreme difficulty and embarrassment. This provision is unprecedented in the history of the world. I challenge any hon. Member to cite anything similar in any Constitution anywhere. It is fraught with such grave danger and constitutional disadvantage that I move its omission from the Bill, This measure is really a museum of legislative curiosities, and of all the curiosities to be found in it this is the choicest specimen.
      Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Member, who throws his adjectives about with very great freedom, suggests that this is legislation run mad, and that there is nothing like it in any other Constitution in the whole world. But let us consider the matter for a moment. The hon. Member speaks as though the provision imposed an obligation upon the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State to interfere with Bills in the course of their passage through the Irish House of Commons in order that the proceedings might be arrested until a decision had been taken. He puts various questions, which he thinks are puzzling, as to the stage at which these legal proceedings would begin. I put it to him that this course of proceeding will probably be very infrequent; but it might very well be, without imagining any of the absurdities which the hon. Member so freely supposes, that during the passage of a Bill a genuine doubt might arise in the mind of the persons engaged in introducing or discussing the measure as to whether it was intra or ultra vires. That was the sort of case we had in mind when we inserted these words. Written Constitutions are of necessity somewhat complicated in character; they involve nice legal points, whether the Bill, or some particular provision of the Bill—which is perhaps more likely than the whole Bill itself—some Clause in the Bill, does or does not controvert in one way or another the provisions of this Constitution. Therefore, in order to save the time of the Irish House of Commons and to prevent people from wasting their time over the discussion and consideration of a measure which may be open to this grave doubt, we thought it a desirable thing—I quite agree it does not occur in any other Constitution, but I am not aware that that in itself is any limita-
      2242
      tion—we are not here to put a period to Constitutions or to their development in different directions—we thought, I say, it well to do this having regard to the fact that the Irish House of Commons would have to legislate more or less in chains, as all assemblies legislate in chains when they have to legislate in accordance with a written Constitution. [HON. Members: "Hear, hear."] Quite so! We do not want to have any written Constitution at all. This is an argument, that it is open for hon. Members to use. But when you are creating a subordinate Parliament it is absolutely essential that there should be a written Constitution that will impose obligations, restrictions, and limitations upon the powers of the subordinate Parliament.
      It may very easily happen to such a Parliament in the course of its deliberations that some ingenious gentleman, such as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, may raise the point. In the course of the proceedings in the Irish Parliament the question, "Aye" or "No," as to whether a particular provision was or was not a violation of some provision in the Constitution might be raised. That might be a very desirable thing in the interests of Parliament itself. We are not contemplating acting contrary to the wishes or desires of the Assembly. They may wish to know themselves whether or not a particular provision in a particular Bill under consideration is ultra or intra vires. I think it is an excellent and admirable precedent, which very likely may be followed by other Empires and other Constitution makers. They may wish to take time by the forelock and enable a decision to be obtained at once, before going to the trouble and subsequent expense and annoyance of passing into law a Bill which, may be, contains only one ultra vires Clause. We therefore, for reasons I have given in speaking just now to the other Amendment, thought it a most desirable thing in the case of an Act, to allow a speedy recourse to a final Court of Appeal, and without going through any preliminary steps or acts to obtain an authoritative declaration upon this subject with regard to the Act, I think with reference to the Bill, although I agree the circumstances are unlikely to be of frequent occurrence, that nevertheless it is most desirable in the interests of the Irish House of Commons itself, against whom we are not acting in any way what-

      2243
      soever, that they or their Ministers, or the members of the Opposition, or any other person, who entertains grave doubts as to whether this particular Clause may be or may not be ultra or intra vires, should be given this opportunity of taking appeal to the Privy Council. There is the whole of the matter. It really does not deserve all the wealth of adjectives which the hon. and learned Gentleman has imposed upon it. I think on consideration it will be found to be an admirable and wise provision in the interest of the subordinate Legislature of Ireland itself.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I think my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment had a desire—a very worthy desire—to strike out what is comic in this Bill. But really, if we were to strike out all the fantastic and comic provisions of the Bill, the limited time we have at our disposal would be further curtailed, and the right hon. Gentleman, I think, must see it was comic, although he thought it was better to leave it as it was, as he said it would do practically no harm, and probably that was the real reason in his mind, and in the same way he thought probably it would do no good, so it might be as well to leave it there as part of the Bill. But this Amendment did draw from him one important sentence, which I think is worth emphasising—that we were legislating in chains under the Parliament Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
      Mr. BIRRELL: What I said was that any subordinate Parliament was legislating in chains—
      Sir E. CARSON: Under a written Constitution.
      Mr. BIRRELL: Under a written Constitution.
      Sir E. CARSON: What the right hon. Gentleman said was that the moment you proceed to legislate under a written Constitution you were legislating in chains. We are legislating under the Parliament Act, and therefore we are legislating in chains. I really do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should interrupt me because I do not very often agree with him, but I do agree with him upon this occasion, and let us, at all events over this comic portion of the Section, have this little bit of agreement—that we are legislating in chains. I think everybody will
      2244
      agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it is quite true there never has been anything like this conceived by the wisdom of any other Constitution, subordinate or insubordinate, but he said it might well be imitated. If we could make no other contribution to the European situation let us suggest it as a new Constitution for the Balkans. I think in that way, at all events, we would have shown that the discussions on the Home Rule Bill have not been in vain, and it would be handed down to posterity that the conception of England towards Ireland when they were separating was to give something so new and novel that it might be imitiated in the Near East. I do not really think this part of the provisions of this Bill really does any harm; no more do I think it does any good, but I think it is comic, unworkable, and impracticable. And I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. He proposes that his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State shall at any stage, of his own free will, move the Privy Council that a Clause in a Bill, or the whole of a Bill of the Irish Parliament, shall be disallowed. The right hon. Gentleman has a great sense of humour. Does he not think that comic?
      Mr. BIRRELL: No.
      Sir E. CARSON: He does not think it comic. How on earth is the Lord Lieutenant to know whether the provision which he is going to bring before the Privy Council will ever pass in Committee or on Report—I suppose the Irish House of Commons will have some formal procedure—or that it will not be amended? If the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General gets called to the Irish Bar and gets so enamoured of the Irish Parliament that he goes over there to practise in Ireland, he will give them solemn advice that this thing is probably outside the bounds of the Irish Parliament. They do not even wait until they pass it.
      Mr. BIRRELL: They may wait.
      Sir E. CARSON: They need not wait. Before that provision is accepted or divided upon and before it becomes law, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, or the Secretary of State here, or some busybody like the Minister for Agriculture or the Secretary for Scotland, who will, no doubt, be looking for a federal system for Scotland, will solemnly bring this matter which is under the consideration of the Irish Parliament over to the

      2245
      Privy Council. Now, am I wrong in saying that it is comic. Let me see who the Lord Lieutenant is. He is the representative of the Sovereign in Ireland. He is the head of the Irish Government when he is in one capacity, because he has several capacities under the Bill, and which leg he is dancing upon nobody can ever find out. He is the Gentleman to decide for Ireland, and I believe he will know more about it than the Secretary for Scotland. The Secretary for War may probably be a lawyer for all I know, at the time, and the Secretary of State and the Lord Lieutenant, then being the head of the Government in Ireland, is, of course, advised by his Ministers. That, I suppose, is the constitutional position, and he is a great man advised by a whole Parliament himself. The Ministers come up, and, as one of them has brought the Bill into the House of Commons, are they going to come and say, "Your Excellency, we have brought in a Bill within the purview of the House of Commons, but we think it is expedient in the public interest that steps should be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether the Bill is within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons that we have brought it into." That is what this Act is. Will he be advised in this matter by his Ministers? If not, who else is to advise him? You will not have a Chief Secretary then, and the Law Officers will have to advise whether the Bill is within the purview and powers of the House of Commons. Whose advice will he take? Perhaps mine for all I know. What I really want to know is whether the Lord Lieutenant, apart from his Ministers and his Law Officers, is to have a staff to advise him, or how is he to be set going in relation to this matter when he takes a step which is plainly one against the authority of the Irish Parliament which is asserting its right to have this Bill and its particular provisions. The other point is what is the Secretary of State to do? Has he got to examine every Bill that comes into the Irish Parliament, and, after looking through them and comparing them with this Bill and making up his mind when he thoroughly understands this Bill as to whether it comes within the purview of the Irish Parliament, has he to take advice? Where is he to get advice? I really cannot see how this part of the Clause is anything but futile. Anything more calculated to bring the Bill into ridicule I can hardly imagine. During the discussion on the
      2246
      last Amendment we were told this was a great protection to the subject. It may be some protection, though I think it would have been much more of a protection if any subject were allowed himself to raise it without waiting for the Lord Lieutenant. But the right hon. Gentleman says now, "It is not merely a protection for the subject we are thinking of; it is also a protection for the Irish House of Commons. They may bring in a Bill, and they may get nervous about it. They may not be quite sure where they are, and the 'Freeman's Journal' or some other paper may be commenting upon the fact that they are going beyond their powers. Surely it would be a great satisfaction to all concerned to at once pop over here to the Privy Council and try and get a decision on it before they go any further." I can conceive a Motion by some hon. or right hon. Member, or some Minister, "That the House do now adjourn until the Privy Council in London have given their opinion as to whether we are going on in a legal fashion or not." Then comes what is not an unimportant matter. When the Lord Lieutenant or this Secretary of State have brought the matter before the Privy Council there is, as far as I can see, no provision in the Bill as to there being any opposing counsel there. It is quite true it says any person interested may be allowed to attend. I do not know who that means, but I suppose he is to come at his own cost. But supposing nobody desires to come over here to raise this, is the Lord Lieutenant himself going to instruct counsel on both sides so that an argument may arise, or will it simply be an ex-parte statement, so as to prop up the Irish House, or how is it to be carried out? The Bill is singularly unfortunate in never laying down any process or system or principle of any sort or kind. Really, it does not in the least trouble me whether the words are left in or taken out, but I do submit these are matters in the Bill requiring serious reconsideration as to how the Clause is to be worked at all, and that before we come to deal with the matter, at all events upon Report, the Section ought to be further reconsidered, so that if it is to remain in the Bill at all it may take some practical shape.
      Mr. MACMASTER: It seems to me these words in the Bill discriminate unfairly against the Opposition in the Irish Parliament, but they are absolutely unnecessary.

      2247
      I submit that under the powers given by this Act, namely, the power to regulate peace, order, and good government of the country, the Irish Government would have the power to refer the matter to the Privy Council. Therefore, this Clause is entirely unnecessary. Suppose a Bill is introduced by the Government, it is improbable there would be any interference with its progress through the House because the Ministry of the day in Ireland must advise on the introduction of the Bill. That being so, of course the Government would never think of making a reference to the Privy Council. I would call attention to the powers conferred on the Irish Legislature under this Act to make laws to regulate the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. Under the Clause the Irish Parliament may pass a Resolution to refer to determination of the Privy Council the question whether a particular Clause in a Bill is within the competence of the Irish Legislature. There would be
      a very good precedent for that, as recently a Colonial Legislature which has the same powers did actually refer a Bill pending before Parliament for determination by the Privy Council. One is familiar with the discussions which took place with regard to the Marriage Laws of Canada, and the question whether particular powers were vested in the several legislatures became so controversial that it was decided to refer the matter to the Supreme Court with the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The same procedure might be followed by the Irish Parliament, which would be competent to refer the very question raised by this Amendment to the determination of the Privy Council. Therefore, I say it is absolutely unnecessary.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 148.

      Division No. 382.]

      AYES.

      [11.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Cotton, William Francis

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Adamson, William

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Crean, Eugene

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Agnew, Sir George

      Crumley, Patrick

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

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Cullinan, John

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

      Davies, Timothy (Louth)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Armitage, Robert

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

      Hayward, Evan

      Arnold, Sydney

      Dawes, J. A.

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      De Forest, Baron

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Delany, William

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Denman, Hon. R, D.

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Dillon, John

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Barnes, G. N.

      Doris, W.

      Hinds, John

      Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

      Duffy, William J.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hodge, John

      Barton, W.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Hogge, James Myles

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Bentham, G. J.

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Hudson, Walter

      Black, Arthur W.

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Hughes, S. L.

      Boland, John Pius

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Field, William

      John, Edward Thomas

      Brace, William

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Brady, P. J.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Gill, A. H.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Joyce, Michael

      Carr-Gomm, H. W

      Goldstone, Frank

      Keating, M.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Chancellor, Henry G.

      Guiney, Patrick

      Kilbride, Denis

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Gulland, John William

      King, Joseph

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

      Clough, William

      Hackett, J.

      Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Hancock, J. G.

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

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Lewis, John Herbert

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Lundon, T.

      Ogden, Fred

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      O'Grady, James

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

      Lynch, A. A.

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

      Sheehy, David

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      McGhee, Richard

      O'Malley, William

      Shortt, Edward

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

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

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      O'Shee, James John

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Sutherland, J. E.

      M'Kean, John

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Sutton, John E,

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Manfield, Harry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Pointer, Joseph

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Thorne, W. (West Ham)

      Martin, Joseph

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Toulmin, Sir George

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

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Meagher, Michael

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Millar, James Duncan

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

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Molloy, M.

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wardle, George J.

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Reddy, Michael

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Mooney, John J.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Morrell, Philip

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Webb, H.

      Morison, Hector

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Richards, Thomas

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

      Muldoon, John

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Munro, R.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

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

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Whyte, A. F.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Neilson, Francis

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

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

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Rowlands, James

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Hills, John Waller

      Ashley, Wilfrid

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Croft, Henry Page

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Dixon, Charles Harvey

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Doughty, Sir George

      Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Barnston, Harry

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

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Barrie, H. T.

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Kerry, Earl of

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Fell, Arthur

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Fleming, Valentine

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

      Bigland, Alfred

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Bird, Alfred

      Foster, Philip Staveley

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

      Blair, Reginald

      Gardner, Ernest

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownice

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Gibbs, G. A.

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Macmaster, Donald

      Butcher, John George

      Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Malcolm, Ian

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

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Grant, J. A.

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Gretton, John

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Cassel, Felix

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

      Moore, William

      Cator, John

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

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Nield, Herbert

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

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

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

      Chambers, James

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

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Fretyman, Ernest George

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Howins, William Albert Samuel

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      2250

      2251

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Swift, Rigby

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      Royds, Edmund

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

      Sanderson Lancelot

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

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Touche, George Alexander

      Younger, Sir George

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Stanier, Seville

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Larmor and Mr. Jardine.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Question put, and agreed to.

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

  NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIEB) BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered, Bill read the third time, and passed with an Amendment.

  PILOTAGE [SALARIES AND EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the Salaries and remuneration of the Commissioners or others, and of the allowances and Expenses to members of advisory committees, appoint 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."
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  LAND VALUATION.
  Mr. ROYDS: The points I desire to raise are these: On 20th June we considered in Committee of Supply the Vote for the Valuation Department. In the discussion on that occasion I made two charges against the method of valuation employed by the Valuation Department. The first charge was that the site value of agricul-
  2252
  tural land as ascertained by the Government valuers was not the true site value of the land, but included a very large part of the owners' improvements. I instanced that there were included in that site value a very large part of the value attributable to farmhouses and buildings, and the whole of such improvements as drains, dykes, gates, stone walls, embankments, works of reclamation, and so forth. The whole of these are included in the so-called site value of agricultural land as ascertained under the provisions of the People's Budget. The result is that the site value of agricultural land is grossly inflated and does not represent the value of the site at all, but mainly represents the value of improvements effected by the owners of the land and their predecessors. The second point I made was that, Increment Value Duty has been claimed not only where there has been an increase in the value of the site, but in respect of buildings, builders' profits, occasional profits, and, indeed, where there had been a loss and no actual rise in the value of the site. I assert without any fear of contradiction that that method of valuation was being pursued, and is being pursued, by the Valuation Department.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On a point of Order. I have waited until the hon. Member stated his two points. I want to know whether the case he was making out was a case of administration or one which involves an alteration in the Act of Parliament. I gathered to-day at question time that it was a matter which involved legislation, and I am confirmed in that by the statement the hon. Member has just made. In regard to the first point, it undoubtedly would involve an alteration in the Finance Act for a valuation such as he suggested. The hon. Member moved an Amendment on the Finance Act to effect the purpose which he now suggests he wants to achieve. The same

  2253
  observation applies to number two. Both of the points were raised by way of Amendment to the Finance Act. I submit that the questions involve legislation, and that they cannot be discussed. If it is a pure question of administration within the limits of the Act of Parliament I have nothing to say, but on the two points raised by the hon. Member legislation would be necessary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I am not sufficiently familiar with the Finance Act to say whether the points raised are matters of administration or matters which require an alteration of the law. If they involve an Amendment of the law, they cannot be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment, but if they simply refer to the method in which the Act is now being administered by those whose duty it is to administer it, then the hon. Gentleman is entitled to criticise that administration.
  Mr. ROYDS: If I may say so, I agree entirely with your ruling. My objection was to the methods of administration. I admit frankly, having regard to the methods of administration, it is absolutely impossible to say whether it is a question of law or not, because the Valuation Department, as advised by the Treasury, seem to me to take the law into their own hands. But my objections are purely on points of administration. It is absolutely impossible for me or the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone to say what the construction of the Finance Act is. I am objecting purely on grounds of administration. Whether it is in accordance with the law or not is a matter for the Law Courts.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the Act under which he says this is being done?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have got a copy of the Act and I do not think that the hon. Member will deny what I have said. This is the point: That improvements which are effected purely for agricultural purposes are not deducted, and that they ought to be deducted. That is a matter for argument, but at any rate under the Act of Parliament the valuer is expressly prohibited from deducting improvements effected for agricultural purposes, because as we contend that would increase the increment afterwards, but
  2254
  still that is a matter for argument. The Act says:—
  "The assessable site value of land means the total value after deducting (a) the same amount as is to be deducted for the purpose of arriving at full site value for gross value, and (b) any part of the total value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works executed, or expenditure of a capital nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred bonâ fide by or on behalf of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land, or for the purpose of any business, trade or industry other than agriculture."
  The hon. Gentleman's complaint has been that the improvements effected for agricultural purposes have not been deducted. He may be right or wrong, but that is the express direction of the Act of Parliament and the Commissioners simply act upon that. The hon. Gentleman says that they have broken the law. There is a remedy, and cases have been taken to the Law Courts upon this question. There is a direct remedy in the Law Courts on that express point.
  Mr. ROYDS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt solely with Section 25, Sub-section (4). But there is another Sub-section, Sub-section (2) of Section 25 which defines the full site value of land as
  "The sum the land might be expected to realise if divested of buildings and of any other structures including fixed or attached machinery on, in or under the surface which are appurtenant to or used in connection with any such buildings, and of all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes, and other things growing thereon."
  I have always understood that that includes anything in the nature of agricultural equipment for agricultural purposes as well as houses and buildings. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with Sub-section (4) which deals with claims for deductions after the land has been so divested, but I think that the Act means that all these things should be deducted from the value of the site.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter surely for the Law Courts. You cannot expect me to decide that.
  Mr. ROYDS: I do not ask you to decide it, but I ask that you should not give a decision against me by precluding me from catering on the matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am asked to decide whether what is now being done is being done under the Act or being done outside the Act. The hon. Gentleman says that the Act is being violated by reason of certain things being done by the valuers. If I decide that that is so, that the Act is now being violated by the valuers, then, of course, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed, but he does ask me to come to that decision. Now it appears to me that the matter is one of contention between the construction of two Sections of the Act—the hon. Gentleman takes one view and the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes another. It must really be a matter for a Law Court to decide.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: This question arose on an Amendment proposed by myself, and in answer to my Amendment and in asking me to withdraw it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly said it was provided for in Sub-section (4), with a good deal more than I asked for. This may be a question of law, but it certainly is also a question whether the Act is being administered in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that under this Section agricultural improvements should be deducted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The point seems to me to be whether the valuers are properly construing the Act. That seems to be the point. I cannot decide that.
  Mr. ROYDS: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) was that there should be deducted from the site value all improvements of whatever nature under, on or in the soil. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment so that he might introduce a more comprehensive Amendment covering mere even than was included in my hon. Friend's Amendment. It seems to me therefore that it is purely a question of administration, and without any question whatever the new Amendment was passed as embodying what the meaning and intention of the House was. I do allege that the Act is not being administered in accordance with its provisions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that the hon. Member moved an Amendment to the last Finance Bill shows that he was not satisfied with the state of the Bill as it then was, and that he wished to make the law other than as it was proposed. The fact that the Amendment was not accepted I think rather goes against the hon. Member than otherwise. The fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have promised to deal with the matter in another way, and that in the view of hon. Members he has not carried out that, undertaking in a way satisfactory to them, is another matter altogether. I still do not see how I can possibly be asked to decide whether the law is or is not being properly carried out.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I recognise the extreme difficulty of the case. The point, as I conceive it, is that if the question is decided in a Court of Law none of those concerned can say what the decision of the Court of Law will be, but when the Act was under discussion we received certain assurances from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Amendments were unnecessary, and that the Bill as drafted provided what we wished to secure. Our present contention is that the declarations by which the Government induced the House to pass the Bill are not now being accepted and worked upon by the Revenue authorities. Is it possible for my hon. Friend to raise that question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is now too late. It seems to me that the proper time to raise that point would have been cither when the Amendments proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were before the Committee, or on the Report stage or Third Beading stage, and hon. Members ought then to have said: "What you are now inserting in the Bill does not carry out what was said." It seems to me too late now to argue that question. There is the law! The law is such as passed the House on the Third Reading. It is not administered in the way in which the hon. Member for the Sleaford Division thinks it ought to be administered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, says it is now administered according to law. It seems to me that the proper course is first of all to bring it into the Law Courts and see what is really intended by the Act, and if that is not satisfactory suggest an Amendment of the Act.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I see the great difficulty of presenting the matter, but I do not think it was possible, if I may submit so, for us effectively to raise this while the Bill was under discussion, because we were not met by the Government at that time with the declaration that those things ought not to be done, but we were met by the declaration that they would be done under the Bill as drafted, and not that the Amendments were wrong, but that they were unnecessary. My hon. Friend wishes to raise the case that the administration of the law does not comply with the announcement of the intentions of the Government which induced the House of Commons to pass the law. We could not press the Government further at the time when the law was under discussion because they said the law was that which we desired it to be. We now find that as administered it is not. I do not know whether it is possible for us to raise the question under those circumstances, but I think you will see that our remedy was not when the Bill was under discussion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman, but there is the law. Good or ill there it is. There arises the question, is that law being put into operation by the valuers? If it can be shown before the Law Courts that the law is not being properly administered, then, of course, the hon. Member for Sleaford will have a proper and legitimate reason for discussing the question. But I think first of all he must show that the law is not being carried out in the sense in which it received the assent of Parliament.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman as to what passed at the time. I do not want to go beyond that now, but I am bound to enter a caveat.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question I want discussed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot be expected to recollect everything that took place in a six-months debate, but all these points were raised on the Finance Act this year, when the hon. Gentleman took the natural course of moving a couple of Amendments to that Act. I remember one of them raised this very specific point which has never been challenged in the Law Courts, and I venture to say no one would dream of challenging it in the Law Courts. The hon. Member adopted the
  2258
  one way of doing so by moving Amendments.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I say that the point took place not on an Amendment to the Budget, but on the discussion on the administration of the Act, which was on June 20th, when this matter was being discussed. It was on the administration of the Department, and was not raised on an Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was raised on an Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask you, Sir, whether it would be in order to draw attention to the working of the Act, with the object of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider any Amendments.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, that is the difficulty in the way of the hon. Member. You cannot on the Motion of Adjournment discuss the Amendment of an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. ROYDS: Perhaps I shall be in order if I draw your attention to the fact that in the discussion on the administration of the Act on 20th June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that all the cases I have mentioned should be referred to a Committee of experts. His words were:—
  "They can refer nil cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Member, and other cases which have been mentioned from time to time by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I propose that a Committee shall be appointed at once in order to get its report upon these very important matters."
  Although five months have elapsed no Committee has been appointed. Land valuation has proceeded since that date, and, according to my contention, a false value has been placed on the sites of agricultural land. I maintain that the value is wrong on the construction of the Act itself. I argued it on this ground on June 20th, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to appoint a Committee to inquire into the express point, but no Committee has been appointed. I have pelted him with questions since, but have been able to get no redress. It is a public scandal that this valuation should be allowed to proceed on these lines. It is a useless valuation; it is a false valuation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon Member is now trying to get round my ruling. He is entitled to criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not appointing the Committee; that would be in order.
  Mr. ROYDS: I am quite willing to confine my remarks to that. It is quite true that since June 20th communications have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the terms of reference to this Committee, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to make the scope of the inquiry wide enough to embrace the two points of charge to which I have referred, and the result is that nothing has been done. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer these simple questions. Is he or is he not prepared at once to act up to the promise which he gave me on June 20th to appoint a Committee of experts to inquire into the working of the valuation under the People's Budget? [HON. Members: "Hear, hear."] It was always called the People's Budget; the people have not forgotten it; and it is high time we inquired how it is getting on. Is he prepared to make the inquiry wide enough to embrace the two points of charge which I made? Is he also prepared to allow the House to discuss the terms of reference and the constitution of the Committee? Will he agree to suspend the valuation of site value of agricultural land until that Committee has reported? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has hinted rather broadly that he intends to have a second scheme of land reform shortly. I suggest that it will be in the interests of this House, the country and indeed of the right hon. Gentleman himself that, before he embarks on a second scheme, we first inquire how the first scheme is getting on.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has asked me questions as to whether the Government is prepared to stand to the pledge which I gave, in a discussion in this House, to appoint a Committee of experts to inquire into the administration of the valuation under the Act of 1909. I have always been prepared to adhere to that pledge. I am prepared now to adhere to that pledge. The pledge I gave was that I was prepared to submit to a Committee of experts the question of the administration of the valuation under the Act of 1909. I have offered to do that over and over again—to submit the terms of reference. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General read out those terms, I believe, and he has submitted them to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. So
  2260
  long as it is on the question of administration—
  Mr. ROYDS: Of the valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it is to be a question of the best methods of valuation, which involves legislation, that is obviously not a question to be settled by surveyors. That is a question which involves policy. I ask again what I have asked repeatedly, which of the two positions do the Opposition take up? Do they want to inquire into the question as to whether the valuers are carrying out the law as it stands, into administration? I am quite willing to assent for a Committee of experts to be set up to consider that one question—a narrow question I agree—as to whether or not the Act of Parliament is being carried out. If they want to go beyond that and consider the question as to whether this Act of Parliament prescribes the true or right value—surely that is not a question for valuers: that is a very important question of principle where you need a different Committee. I do not care which of the two the Opposition want. I am willing to refer the first to a Committee of experts, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) knows roughly the kind of experts I mean. He agrees I am perfectly certain, that the general lines on which we would proceed are those that will guarantee the impartiality of the inquiry. If they want the second—it would be a different Committee. I should like to know their view. There is a great deal to be said for considering the question of valuation, which might be useful—[HON. Members: "Hear, hear"]—Yes, for other purposes—for controversial purposes. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants? I should like the Opposition to decide for themselves what it is they are really asking for. If they ask for the second, I have told them that I am quite willing to take that into consideration, but it would be a different inquiry.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have two minutes. If I express myself imperfectly it is because of the pressure of time. The right hon. Gentleman offered us an inquiry. Negotiations took place between hon. Members on the opposite side and myself as representing my hon. Friends on this side as to the nature of that inquiry. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that what he offered us was an inquiry by experts as to whether

  2261
  the administration of the Act was in accordance with the terms of the Act. But the terms of reference were not wide enough to decide that question. That was the point on which our negotiations broke down. The Government insisted that the only valuation that should be inquired into should be the original valuation as at April 30th, 1909. We asked that they should inquire not only into that but into such valuations as had taken place since—where the tax had been paid. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an inquiry into the valuations under Part I. of the Act, that is of both the valuations, we will accept it. If he refuses to give us an inquiry into both—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that does not involve legislation.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If it does not involve legislation. I will be quite
  2262
  frank with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that such an inquiry might lead the public to think that the Act is not wisely drafted. But what we want to know is whether the two valuations are true valuations and not whether one or the other is true. That is the point on which we differ. The point on which the negotiations broke down—I think the Attorney-General will agree—was that the Government offered us an inquiry into the first valuation only, and that we said we did not care for that unless we were allowed an inquiry into both valuations—
  And, it being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Coalfields Development (Ireland).
  Coalfields Development (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Intermediate Examinations (Ireland).
  Intermediate Examinations (Ireland).
  Damage Through Coal Pits.
  Damage Through Coal Pits.
  Belfast Trial.
  Belfast Trial.
  Judicial Rents.
  Judicial Rents.
  Drillers' Wages.
  Drillers' Wages.
  Army Horses.
  Army Horses.
  Elementary School Inspectorships.
  Elementary School Inspectorships.
  Expert Committee (Delhi).
  Expert Committee (Delhi).
  Boundary Arbitration (Amazon).
  Boundary Arbitration (Amazon).
  Railways Bill.
  Railways Bill.
  Pilotage Certificates.
  Pilotage Certificates.
  Postal Cash Balances.
  Postal Cash Balances.
  Livestock from Ireland.
  Livestock from Ireland.
  Small Holders (Tiree).
  Small Holders (Tiree).
  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
Committee for Privileges met: The Attorney-General further heard on behalf of the Crown: Counsel heard in reply: Petition of the Duke of Atholl for the termination of the abeyance of the dignity of Earl of Oxford in his favour and for a summons to Parliament as Earl of Oxford, considered: Then it was resolved that the Petitioner hath not made out his claim to the said dignity: Report thereof to be made to the House.

BARONY OF FURNIVALL.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the Claimant; the Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the Crown: Committee adjourned till To-morrow.
The Lord DECIES—Took the Oath.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
(Reading (Financial Adjustments) Order and Bath (Financial Adjustments) Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Provisional Regulations, dated 2nd December, 1912, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Appeals and Disputes) Regulations (England), 1912: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 178.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition in favour of; of the Presbytery of Edinburgh; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Report from, with an appendix made, and to be printed. (No. 179.)

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this is a Bill to amend the Act of 1893 under which co-operative societies are constituted. There is no new principle introduced. The Bill merely deals with certain minor points. Its object is to extend the facilities which co-operative societies enjoy, and in the main to bring them up to the level of the advantages at present enjoyed by the friendly societies. It also has the laudable object of tightening up the provisions as to auditing and triennial returns and such like machinery, and it also removes one or two anomalies that exist in the present Act. This Bill is introduced at the instance of the Treasury, very largely at the request of the Co-operative Union, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies has been consulted throughout upon the measure. The co-operative societies at present in existence in this country number no less than 3,278, with a membership of 2,800,000 and of these societies the Co-operative Union, who are mainly interested in promoting this Bill, represent 1,550 societies with a membership of over 2,000,000.

49
I will allude briefly to the clauses in the Bill before I say a word upon a possible objection which may be raised to the Bill as a whole. Clause 1 increases the limit of holding which an individual may have in a co-operative society from £200 to £300. Clause 2 enables two societies to combine for any purpose without having resort to the present evasion to overcome the difficulty of the seven shareholders who are needed to form a company under the law as it stands. Clause 3 enforces a public auditor. Clause 4 deals with the date of the annual return, and Clause 5 makes a triennial return necessary. This is done in the interests of the shareholders and with a view to checking any possible fraud on the part of the officials of the society. Clause 6 is concerned with a certain privilege which co-operative societies enjoy—that of nomination. Nomination is really a testamentary right. The member has a right of nomination up to £100. The clause enables the member of a society to bequeath such interest as he may hold in the society to his heir or anybody else whom he may name. It is an important and very much valued privilege. This clause removes certain anomalies which exist in the present Act. Clause 7 is merely a drafting clause. Clause 8 deals with insanity. Clause 9 amends an oversight in the Act of 1893. Clause 10 overcomes certain conveyancing difficulties which sometimes arise on the dissolution of a society. Clause 11 deals with expenses; and Clause 12 renders individual members and officials of a society liable to penalties which arise on the commission of certain offences which now only have relation to the society as a body. Your Lordships will see that this is merely a Bill to remove certain anomalies in the present law and to grant slight extensions of privileges to co-operative societies.
The only possible objection that I can conceive being raised to the Bill would be the objection put forward by the Traders Association before the Income Tax Committee of 1905, of which the late Lord Ritchie was chairman. It is often said that the co-operative societies do not pay Income Tax, and the traders assert that owing to that these societies have an unfair advantage over individual traders. I think it is worth while in this connection to give your Lordships the finding of the Committee which sat in 1905. The Com-
50
mittee point out, in the first place, that the co-operative societies do pay Income Tax under Schedules A and B—that is to say, on land and buildings; and, secondly, that the exemption which they have under Schedules C and D—that is, on profits—is more apparent than real. It is important to remember that there is no such thing as profit arising under the management of a co-operative society. What a co-operative society really does is to charge its members rather more than the cost price of the articles with a view of keeping something in hand for expenses of management, and so forth. They do not pay a dividend to their members; they merely return at the end of a certain period that margin which was charged to the members above the cost price, and the Income Tax Committee are quite clear that no profit or dividend exists in the case of co-operative societies. But, in any case, the vast majority of members of co-operative societies are individuals who are in receipt of far less than £160 a year, the limit of Income Tax taxation, and therefore it would be necessary to return to these individuals at great cost to the Treasury what had been deducted at the source in the shape of Income Tax. As a matter of fact, co-operative societies do have to pay Income Tax on transactions conducted with individuals who are not members of the society, and the leakage, if there is a leakage, in Income Tax is very small. The Committee concluded—
"We do not think, therefore, that any case for an alteration of the Income Tax law was made out by the Traders Association; certainly none is required in the interests of the revenue."
I thought it worth while to give that finding of the Committee in case it may be said that in view of their exemption from Income Tax under Schedules C and D co-operative societies should not be given further facilities for extending their useful work. I feel sure your Lordships are in general sympathy with the movement, and I hope you will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this Bill, as your Lordships are aware, contains a schedule of Acts which are very familiar to your Lordships, and I do not think I need say anything upon them. I should mention, however, that the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1886, which was in last year's schedule, is now omitted. It has been repealed to some extent by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911. Another Act which is omitted from this year's schedule is the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907. Last year my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack gave a pledge that he would not reintroduce that Act into the schedule this year, and he said that if, through unforeseen circumstances, we wished to further extend that Act we would introduce a Bill. It has not been found necessary to extend the Act, as all the cases to be met under it are thought to have been dealt with, and therefore it disappears from the schedule. I do not think I have any other observations to offer on the schedule, which is, as I have said, the same as has appeared in recent years with the exception of the Acts to which I have referred.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

THE CLOSING OF RURAL TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
VICOUNT GALWAY VICOUNT GALWAY rose to call attention to the manner in which the Post Office authorities are using the Shops Act, 1911, to close telegraph offices in rural districts for one half-day a week, thereby causing great inconvenience to the public.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am anxious to call your Lordships' attention to a great grievance that has been inflicted on rural districts through the action of the Post Office authorities in closing telegraph offices for one half-day a week. The case is different in a town where there is another telegraph office a little distance away, but in rural districts telegraph offices are several miles apart. No doubt when these telegraph offices were originally started there was some guarantee given that there
52
would be a sufficient number of telegrams sent every week to justify telegraph offices being placed in those districts. For many years the inhabitants of these rural districts have had the right to demand that telegrams should be despatched and received from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on week-days, and from 8.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Sundays. It is not merely a question of the despatch of telegrams, but, what is more important, the receipt of telegrams. It is under the œgis of the Shops Act that these rural telegraph offices are being closed for one half-day a week, but I am quite sure your Lordships never intended for a moment that the Shops Act should have that effect. On looking at the Shops Act I find a provision there that nothing in that Act is to apply to premises such as those to which I have referred. It is also provided that the Postmaster-General shall make the best arrangements possible with a view to giving persons engaged in post offices a half-day's holiday a week. That is one thing, but the convenience of the public has to be considered.
The small rural telegraph office at Oldcotes in my neighbourhood was closed for one half-day a week, and the inhabitants wrote to me about it. I expressed the opinion that in all probability the closing did not apply to the receipt and dispatch of telegrams, but after some little time I received the following communication from the Department—
"Under the Shops Act of last year we are required to close for one half-day a week. This causes little or no inconvenience, especially as the business transacted after one p.m. on Thursday is very small. Telegrams after that time will be delivered from Blyth with an additional charge."
I ask your Lordships whether it is consistent with fair play to the public that the telegraph office should be closed, thereby not only compelling persons who wish to send a telegram on that half-day to go several miles to the next office, but requiring the recipients in the rural district in which the telegraph office is closed to pay an additional charge in respect of telegrams sent to them during the half-day's holiday. In the rural districts these small telegraph offices have very few messenger boys, and if you suddenly put double work on any rural telegraph office there will be no messengers to carry the telegrams to the people concerned. Let us presume that the telegraph office in the district in which the noble Lord the Paymaster-General resides is closed for a half-day on a Wednes-

53
day or a Thursday, and I have a most important telegram to send to him. That telegram goes to a place six or seven miles away, and if there is no messenger boy available to take it the noble Lord probably would not receive it that day.
I have no objection to telegraph clerks having a holiday, but this ought to be arranged without incurring this great inconvenience and expense to the public. If it is necessary to close these telegraph offices for one half-day a week there should be an additional staff of messenger boys at the offices which are substituted. But, what is much better, a telegraph clerk from a neighbouring town should be sent round to take the duty at one village telegraph office say on Monday afternoon, at the next one on Tuesday afternoon, at the next on Wednesday, and so on, by which means the half holiday could be given to the regular operator without the telegraph office serving the particular district being closed for this half-day. I do not think the seriousness of the matter is fully realised by the authorities. A most urgent telegram might be sent to one of these districts where it was a case of life or death, and instead of the inhabitant being able to rely for certain on receiving the telegram it may be sent to a distant office and may not be delivered that afternoon at all. This half-day's closing has not only taken place in cases where there is a shop connected with the post office business. I know one rural village post office which has nothing to do with any shop at all, and I was informed yesterday that it was going to be closed for one half-day each week. In old days we understood that the officials of the Post Office were for the good of the public, but it seems now that the public must suffer for the benefit of the officials. There is no reason why the departments which deal with money orders and the other routine business of the post office should not be shut on this half-day, but I ask that telegraph offices should be kept open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and that the inhabitants in these districts, who have been accustomed to rely upon the telegraph offices being open during these hours, should not be put to the great inconvenience to which I have referred. I hope I shall get a satisfactory reply from the noble Lord opposite.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to disabuse the noble
54
Viscount's mind of the idea that this action of the Postmaster-General has anything whatever to do with the Shops Act of 1911. I can assure him it has nothing at all to do with that Act. There may be incidental circumstances which may make it easier to close telegraph offices in consequence of the Shops Act, but as long ago as 1907 a recommendation was made by a Parliamentary Committee that a weekly half-holiday should be given, and it was in consequence of that recommendation that the Postmaster-General decided to inquire into the matter and see whether a weekly half-holiday could not be given in rural post offices where in many cases there is only one person who is able to look after the telegraph business. The noble Viscount has referred to my own telegraph office. When it was first proposed to close that office for one half-day a week I anticipated that there would he inconvenience, but I find that in practice no inconvenience has arisen. In the great majority of cases where these offices are closed for a half-day the telegrams are sent from an office not very far off. In the case to which the noble Viscount has referred, that of Oldcotes, telegrams are sent from another office two-and-three-quarter miles off.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Three miles.
LORD STRACHIE: I expect the noble Viscount would find that telegrams for people in the Oldcotes district would arrive quite as soon from the substituted office as they would if sent direct to Oldcotes. It certainly is so in my own case, because the telegraph office two-and-a-half miles off which is substituted on this half-day is a larger one and it is much easier there to get a messenger. Although I live only a mile from my telegraph office it sometimes takes an hour to get a telegram delivered owing to the difficulty in finding a messenger. I do not think that in practice there will be found to be any delay arising from this arrangement. The Post Office began to deal with this question of a half-holiday in 1909, and they revised their regulations in 1910. It may interest the House to know what these regulations are. They have been very carefully drawn up with the idea of giving the minimum of inconvenience to the public. The first regulation is that there must be another telegraph office not more than three miles away during the time affected, so that special difficulty and expense would not be involved in the reception and delivery of telegrams during

55
the hours of closing. The next is that the office affected and the temporary telegraph office have the same transmitting centres which are themselves in direct communication. The last regulation is that an average of not more than five telegrams in all, both sent and received, would be dealt with in that part of the afternoon during which telegraph business is suspended. Therefore the Postmaster-General has taken the greatest care that this closing shall only apply in small villages where there is not a great deal of telegraphic business done, and as it is provided that there must be a telegraph office within three miles there cannot be any considerable inconvenience. I notice from the return sent to me that there are only about fourteen houses in Oldcotes which receive as much as one telegram a week on an average. In regard to the letter as to an additional charge, which the noble Viscount read, I think he must have left out a word, because I have a copy of that letter here and it reads—
"Telegrams after that time will be delivered from Blyth without additional charge."
I agree that if an additional charge was made there would be a distinct grievance.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The original letter, which I hand to the noble Lord, distinctly says "with an additional charge."
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Viscount is right. The word in the letter to him is "with" an additional charge, but the copy which has been furnished to me reads "without" an additional charge. No doubt it is a typist's error; but if the noble Viscount will let me retain this letter I will bring it to the attention of the Postmaster-General. In the great majority of cases I am informed that there is never any objection by the local authority. In fact, some local authorities have asked for the post offices to be closed upon the general closing day, and that certainly seems reasonable when there is a general holiday for everybody concerned in business in the town. The noble Viscount has not given any cases of actual hardship except that of the additional payment, and, as I have explained, that is based upon an inaccuracy in the letter which the noble Viscount received. These telegraph clerks work from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night on week-days and also have to be in attendance on Sunday mornings, and I think it is only reasonable, if there is no
56
practical inconvenience to the public, that they should benefit by a half-day's holiday a week like other people.
THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure that neither my noble friend nor any member of your Lordships' House would desire to stand between these employees of the Post Office and the half-day's holiday which it is proposed to give them, a holiday which I must say they are amply entitled to, because, as we all know, their hours are very long and while they are on duty they are tied to their office very closely. But there is no doubt, as my noble friend has said, that the closing of these offices may involve a good deal of inconvenience to private individuals, and I was glad to gather from the speech of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House that the Post Office are watching that aspect of the case and are determined, so far as possible, to minimise that inconvenience. I understood the noble Lord to say that these offices would not be closed unless there was another office within three miles.
LORD STRACHIE: Those are the regulations.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That seems to me to be a reasonable stipulation. Then there is the additional stipulation, I understand, that in such a case the message is sent from the more remote office free of charge to the recipient. There was an unfortunate lapsus in the letter which my noble friend became possessed of, which from his point of view no doubt very materially altered the case. If the Post Office are content, as I think they evidently are, to watch this matter carefully and see that no undue public inconvenience is occasioned, then I feel sure that no one will in the least criticise them for giving this slight concession to their employees.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: It is only fair that I should say that the letter which I received had great influence upon me, because I thought it was most unfair that an additional charge should be made in this case. But as I now understand that the matter is on a different footing I am satisfied with having raised the point to-day; and I would only ask, further, that where it is found that in any case there are not enough messenger boys to take important telegrams, complaints will be carefully listened to with regard to the appointment of additional telegraph boys.

DUTIES ON ESTATES OF DECEASED LICENCE HOLDERS.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay on the Table of the House a Memorandum showing the principles on which Death and Estate Duties are assessed in the case of the estates of deceased holders of licences in Scotland; and whether the figures of actual cases without names or identification can be given illustrating the method adopted.
The noble Lord said: I think I ought to offer an apology to the noble Lord for the shortness of the notice which he has had of this Question. The fact of the matter is that I endeavoured to get it on the Paper last week, but the House rose rather earlier on Thursday than I had expected and I was too late. The noble Lord will notice that I am not expecting, on the short notice that I have given, that he can to-day supply the information for which I ask. It is much better, I think, that we should have it in permanent form. The object of the Question is this. The House will recollect that last week we were discussing the question between one period of years and another for the coming into operation of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill. What I felt at the time of that discussion was that we had really no data upon which to go. We do not know what the fair thing as between the holder of the licence and the public is. We do not know accurately what is estimated to be the value, and I am quite sure that all of your Lordships, whether in favour of public-houses or not, will desire that justice should be done to the existing people who have a certain interest in the present licences. Some people put it higher than others. Some go so far as to deny that there is any asset or any interest to be compensated for. It has always seemed to me that when the Revenue authority put a value upon the actual fact that a man is holding a licence for a period and that it is likely to be continued to one or other members of his family and assess Estate and Legacy Duties in respect of that, it is impossible to deny that there is some interest which it would be arbitrary to take away from the holder and which should be subject to compensation. I do not say that this is a perfect means of
58
assessing value. It may not go far enough, but I venture to think it would give a certain indication; and if the information I ask for can be given it would, I think, once for all put an end to the insinuation that there is no value for which compensation should be sought.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his preliminary observations. The time has not been very long, as he says, in which to get the information he requires; but I hope it will be possible to furnish him with something of the kind which he has in mind either to-morrow or the next day and to lay a Memorandum such as he asks for on the Table of your Lordships' House. I may point out, however, that it would be difficult to give any very precise information on the subject., because, as the noble Lord will see, the value of the estate of a deceased holder of a licence in Scotland, has to be estimated at the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased. Clearly, therefore, no exact principle can be laid down with regard to that. The Memorandum will probably take the form of that issued on the Licensing Bill, 1904, making allowance, of course, for the difference between England and Scotland. I think it will also be possible to give some figures illustrating the method upon which the Commissioners proceed, without, of course, giving names or identification. I hope t hat may go sonic way to giving the noble Lord the information he requires, of course entirely without prejudice to the merits of the question to which he alluded in the observations he addressed to your Lordships' House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow. I therefore move that the House do adjourn until Thursday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at, Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Two o'clock.