Sitting of 10 December 1912

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill, by—
Mr. John Gordon, (Brighton) containing 6,500 signatures.
Mr. Harry Lawson, (17 petitions) containing 2,060 signatures from the Boroughs of Poplar and Stepney.
Mr. Goldman, (24 petitions) containing 11,163 signatures from Falmouth and Penryn.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return ordered "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1912 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before the Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved: And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session have been dealt with."— [Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee A.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 390.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 390.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, without Amendment.
Criminal Law Amendment Bill, Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to—
North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893." [Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend Section 8 of The Medical Act, 1886." [Medical Bill [Lords.]

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 337.]
MEDICAL BILL [Lords]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 336.]

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 391.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.[No. 391.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 7th December, 1912, made by the Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, as to the Administration of Medical Benefit [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of Amendment (Form 21) of Rules made by the Commissioners in Lunacy, 1895 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Egypt (Sentence on Ahmed Mukhtar).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any official knowledge of any serious Nationalist movement against the Government of Egypt; if not, can he inform the House what were the special instances which justified the severe sentence of ten years' imprisonment passed upon Ahmed Muktar for sedition; and whether the sentence is open either to appeal or review?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): In regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, he may have seen in the Press the report of the circumstances in which three individuals were condemned on the 13th of August last for conspiracy to assassinate His Highness the Khedive, the Egyptian Prime Minister, Lord Kitchener, and Magdi Pasha and Monsieur Dilberoglue, judges in the native Court of Appeal. I have received a report upon this case. With regard to the case referred to by my hon. Friend in a question on 28th November, I understand that Ahmed Mukhtar was arrested on arriving in Egypt with a number of copies of a seditious manifesto, advocating the systematic formation of terrorist societies for the assassination of Egyptian Government authorities.
  In regard to the second part of this question, as I have already informed the hon. Member, in reply to his question of 25th November, I have no official information respecting the sentence passed on this individual. In regard to the third part of this question, I added on 25th November that the matter is one within the competence of the Egyptian judicial authorities, and that no question arises as to approval by His Majesty's Government. I am awaiting a report on the case, and till this is received I cannot give more information about it.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the latter part of my question?
  Sir E. GREY: I am awaiting a report and until I receive it I cannot give that information.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will a translation of the alleged seditious document be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of Members?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say until I have seen a report of the case.

  Government of Columbia (Mr. W. S. Hughes).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now make a further statement about the treatment of Mr. W. S. Hughes by the Government of Columbia.
  Sir E. GREY: The Columbian Government state that they are unable to take action either in abandoning or accelerating the trial. Instead of dealing with this matter as a case of simple assault, the Colombian Court has opened a criminal case against Mr. Hughes which cannot be decided upon before March. As the alleged assault took place in February last, the case should have been dealt with long ago, and I am making a further communication to the Colombian Government on the subject.

  War in Balkans (Consultation of Ambassadors).
  Mr. KINGasked whether it is in tended that the Ambassadors of the Great Powers should meet in conference in one of the European capitals in order to formulate a common policy on the questions arising out of the Balkan war; and whether any information can be given on this matter?
  Sir E. GREY: All the Great Powers concerned have cordially approved the suggestion that the Ambassadors in one of the capitals of Europe should engage in informal and non-committal consultations to facilitate exchange of views between the Powers. It will not be a Conference. I cannot give further details at present, but I would propose to give the fullest information I can at the end of questions on Thursday.

  Chinese Government and Tibet.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether any answer has been received from the Chinese Government to the

  225
  memorandum of Sir John Jordan on the subject of Tibet; and how the British Government proposes to give effect to this document.
  Sir E. GREY: No answer has yet been received from the Chinese Government. I am unable at present to give any further information on this subject.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any communication with the Chinese Government on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: The whole subject is under consideration and will remain so until a settlement has been arrived at.

  India (Gold Standard).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, as representing the Secretary of State for India, if he will say whether he is satisfied that the amount of the Gold Standard Reserve is sufficient for all possible demands, having regard to the development of India's trade requiring annually larger remittances Eastward, and the consequential risk of larger adverse balances having to be met in times of depression, coupled with the transfer of capital from India in any political trouble; and can he say if his views are shared by the Government of India?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): "Sufficient for all possible demands" is a very wide term. But the Secretary of State is satisfied that the recent decision to allow the reserve to rise to £25,000,000 before any part of the profits of coinage is used for other purposes provides for all probable demands. In fixing this figure the Secretary of State acted in consultation with the Government of India and in accordance with their views.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary if he can refer to any Statute or authority which provides that satisfaction of the obligations against which the paper currency reserve is held can be demanded otherwise than in silver?
  Mr. H. BAKER: By Section 3 of the Paper Currency Act of 1910 currency notes are payable to bearer on demand. The Act does not give the bearer any specific light to demand payment in silver or in any other particular form of money, and the notes are therefore payable, at the option of the Government, in whatever money is legal tender in India—that
  226
  is, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Coinage Act of 1900, in sovereigns, half-sovereigns, rupees, or half-rupees.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Has the holder of the note a right to demand payment in legal tender other than silver?
  Mr. H. BAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the latter part of my answer he will see that whatever money is legal tender can be used, such as sovereigns, half-sovereigns, rupees, etc.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Does not that represent the right of the Government to pay silver obligations in gold and not the right of a holder of a note to demand payment in gold? That would be paying 1s. 4d. for what is worth only 9d.
  Mr. H. BAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice of that.

  Purchase of Silver (India).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked on what day the Bank of England was first instructed by the India Office this year to purchase silver on their behalf; and if he will give a copy of the whole of the correspondence which has passed during 1912 between the India Office and the Bank of England relating to the purchase of silver?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The date referred to was the 30th October. The whole of the correspondence of 1912, between the India Office and the Bank of England on the subject, will be included in the White Paper which has been promised in reply to the hon. Member's question of 4th December.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: As the hon. Member has admitted in this House that it was known in the market early in August that the Indian Government were buying silver, why were not future purchases from that date carried out through the Bank of England, instead of waiting until the transactions were exposed in this House?
  Mr. H BAKER: I should like to have notice of that.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether the whole of the cash balances of the Government of India shown in the Return given on 4th December were on loan during the months of April, May, June, July, and August of this year; if so, what was the average rate of interest received each month; and, if any of the balances were not on loan but were kept ready to meet the payments for silver purchased, will he say how much each month was lying unemployed?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The whole of the cash balances referred to were on loan, except the standing balance, which, under an arrangement that has existed for many years, was at the Bank of England. The average rate of interest received was approximately £3.00 per cent, in April,]912, £2.49 per cent, m May, £2.66 per cent, in June, £2.59 per cent, in July, and £2.63 per cent, in August. No special balance was kept ready to meet payments for silver.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much the standing balance was?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I must consult the Secretary of State before answering that.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what words are contained in the contract notes sent to the India Office by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company which indicate that they acted as brokers, and not as dealers; whether a different contract note is issued by them when they act as dealers; and, if so, will he give a specimen copy of both these different notes?
  Mr. H. BAKER: When acting for the India Office, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company sent contract notes, showing that the silver was "bought for" or "sold for" the Secretary of State in Council, thus indicating that they acted as brokers. Specimens of "bought notes" were circulated with the Votes on 19th November and 2nd December, and I am to-day circulating a "bought note" and a "sold note." It has been ascertained that when the firm act as dealers the business is usually confirmed by letter without a contract note; but that, when a contract note is used, it shows that the silver is "bought from" or "sold to" the other party to the transaction. The form used in such cases is being circulated with the Votes.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say why the letter in which the Secretary of State assured me they acted as brokers, and not as dealers has not been circulated with the correspondence?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I shall inquire. If the hon. Member is right he will see when he gets the White Paper.

  India (Gold Coinage).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the hon. Gentleman is now in a position to give any further information regarding the recent consideration of the question of the establishment of a mint for the coinage of gold in India?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The Government of India proposed in a dispatch to the Secretary of State dated 16th May, 1912, to open the Bombay Mint to the coinage of sovereigns. Under the British and Indian Coinage Acts, any mint used for the coinage of sovereigns for circulation in the United Kingdom or in India must be constituted a branch of the Royal Mint. The Secretary of State proposed to the Treasury that this status should be given to the Bombay Mint; but the Treasury stipulated that, if this were done, the Bombay Mint should pass under Imperial management. As an alternative they were willing that a separate mint, with a separate staff, should be established. The first alternative would have been inconvenient and the second expensive. The Secretary of State therefore suggested to the Government of India, in a dispatch dated 18th October, that instead of sovereigns, of which large amounts reach India in the course of trade, Indian gold coins of the denomination of, say, ten rupees should be coined at Bombay. The Government of India desire time to consider the matter carefully.

  New Delhi (Architecture).
  Mr. KINGasked whether an eminent architect, other than Mr. Lutyens, has visited India in connection with plans for the new Delhi; whether this architect was consulted by the Viceroy and reported to him in favour of Indian craftsmen being employed in the new Delhi; whether the expenses of this architect's journey were paid by the India Office; and whether, seeing that there is a conflict of expert opinion as to the manner and style in which the new Dehli shall be built, further authorities will be consulted before a decision is taken?
  Mr. H. BAKER: Mr. H. V. Lanchester was engaged to pay a visit to India as a consulting expert to advise as to the site for the new city of Delhi, his expenses being paid by the India Office. The further question of the construction of the buildings has yet to be decided, and the Secretary of State is not prepared at present to make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. KING: What was the necessity for sending out Mr. Lanchester if full confidence was placed in the Advisory Committee, which is already out there reporting on this very same question?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I have no doubt there was an advantage in having still another expert.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Are we to understand from that reply that the designs of the buildings have not yet been settled?
  Mr. H. BAKER: Yes. The question of the construction of the buildings has not yet been settled.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will Mr. Lanchester's Report be published, so that we may compare it with the Report of the Advisory Committee?
  Mr. H. BAKER: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will answer it.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Government of India and the India Office are aware that there is a traditional school of architects and building craftsmen, in India; and whether their existence will be considered in commissioning architects and builders for the structures to be erected in the new Delhi?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The circumstance mentioned by the hon. Member will, together with all other relevant circumstances, be duly considered.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Viceroy, the Government of India, or the India Office is to decide the question of the architects and style of architecture to be employed in the buildings of the new Delhi?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The final decision rests with the Secretary of State in Council.
  Mr. KING: Will the pledge given by the Under-Secretary of State for India in the course of the Indian Budget that there would be open competition for these buildings be carried out?
  Mr. H. BAKER: If that pledge was given I am sure it will be carried out.

  Compulsory Military Service.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has taken note that certain Lords Lieutenant who have recognised duties and powers in connection with the Territorial Forces have expressed disapprobation of the Territorial system, and their belief that safety is alone to be found in compulsory military service; whether he has considered an expression of opinion made on behalf of the Duke of Bedford, Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex; and whether, having regard to the impossibility of working the Territorial system by county associations presided over by hostile persons, he can devise means whereby Lords Lieutenant may be relieved, if they wish, from these duties?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I believe that the Lords Lieutenant who are presidents of the county associations have carried out their duties as such conscientiously, and I do not think that any expression of opinion of the nature alluded to in the question would affect the manner in which they should discharge the duties of their office.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of authorities are stating at the present time that the Territorial Force is incapable of doing the service required, and will he therefore make inquiries to see what Lords Lieutenant are really whole-hearted in this matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not agree with the statements attributed to some authorities, but I cannot usefully add anything to the answers I have already given.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Is it not a fact that the majority of Lords Lieutenant belong to the party sitting on this side of the House, and that they ate conscientiously doing their duty?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not see that that has anything to do with the matter.
  Sir ALFRED MONDasked what is the percentage of men liable for compulsory military service who are called to the colours in Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, and Italy?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures are approximately as follows:—

  Germany

  …

  …

  50 per cent.

  Austria-Hungary

  …

  …

  51 per cent.

  France

  …

  …

  88 per cent.

  Italy

  …

  …

  29 per cent.

  Sir ALFRED MONDasked what percentage of the men voluntarily enlisting in the British Army and the Territorials form of those who would be available for military service on the basis of the German conscriptive system?
  Colonel SEELY: Seventeen per cent.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many of these men have actually joined the National Reserve?
  Colonel SEELY: The last question refers only to the British Army and the Territorials.

  Territorial Force.
  Major STANLEYasked whether, after the lesson that has been taught in

  231
  the Balkans as to the advantage that is gained by superior Artillery fire, he proposes to take immediate steps to provide an effective and modern gun for the Territorial Artillery in place of the one they are now armed with?
  Colonel SEELY: The present gun in possession of the Territorial Force is an efficient weapon. The cost of rearmament would be very large indeed, and it is not considered that this is the most urgent Service with which we have now to deal.
  Major STANLEY: Are we to understand that the gun supplied for the Territorial Artillery is one that would be effective against any Artillery brought against it?
  Colonel SEELY: I say that it is an efficient weapon as compared with the guns in possession of various other Powers. It is a good gun, but it is not the best one, and the cost of rearmament would be very large.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the rate of firing compares with any foreign gun?
  Colonel SEELY: I am afraid I cannot answer that question offhand.
  Captain MURRAY: Has there yet been time to fully appreciate what lessons have been taught by the Balkan War?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Territorial Artillerymen are not worthy of a better gun?
  Colonel SEELY: I must not be taken to mean that at all.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a copy of a resolution, passed on the 20th November, by the East Biding Territorial Association, referring to the Balkan war, and bringing to the notice of the Government the present deficiency in the number of officers and men of the Territorial Force and of their insufficient training, and declaring that, owing to the increase of mobility in transport in the last few years, they urge on the Government the absolute necessity for some kind of universal service to be introduced as soon as possible for the safety of the country; and whether the Government propose to take any action, and, if so, what, to give effect to the views contained in the resolution?
  Colonel SEELY: I have received a copy of the resolution in question, which I am informed was carried by a majority of one vote. The Government does not propose to give effect to the suggestion for universal service contained therein.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to take their advice on a matter of policy, will he accept the statement of fact and see what remedy he can suggest to meet the shortage in the number of officers and their insufficient training?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think the House would allow me to make a full statement at Question Time in answer to such a wide question as that. I have already made one statement, and I hope to give fuller information in due course.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the hon. Member opposite say whether compulsory military service is the policy of the party-opposite?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

  Army Mobilisation (Number of Horses Required).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked what number of horses, in addition to those now serving in the ranks, are required on mobilisation in the United Kingdom for Household Cavalry, Cavalry of the line, Military Mounted Police, Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Field Artillery, Royal Field Artillery (howitzer batteries). Royal Garrison Artillery (heavy batteries), Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, and Mounted Infantry, respectively?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not considered expedient to publish statistics regarding mobilization arrangements.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what number of horses of all kinds he and his advisers consider should be readily available for the requirements of the British Army, in the event of war with another European Power lasting for at least twelve months?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish the information required.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the police horse census has afforded any reliable guidance as to the number of horses available in the country suitable for various military requirements and available in the event of war; when the improved census now being conducted will

  233
  be completed; and whether the horses included in it are being classified according to the several purposes for which they are best fitted?
  Colonel SEELY: The police census of 1910 afforded a fairly reliable guide as to the number of horses generally in the country, but very little information as to the number of horses suitable for various military requirements and available in the event of war. The present census and classification will be completed by the spring. The horses are being classified according to the arms of the Service for which they are most suitable and for which they are required.

  Mineral Rights Duty.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether, on applications made, the Inland Revenue has refused to repay the proportion of Mineral Rights Duty applicable under Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1912, to rates paid in 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12 on coal lordships in Scotland; and whether he will state the reasons why the relief afforded by that Section should not be given on account of these three years?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am inquiring into this matter, and I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

  Assessable Site Value (Ireland).
  Mr. CASSELasked whether, apart from valuations which are being made under the Finance. (1909–10) Act, 1910, there are any, and, if so, what, official valuations in Ireland which show the assessable site value of land in Ireland; and if there are no such valuations, what ground is there for not pressing forward site valuations in Ireland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have repeatedly stated, valuations already exist in Ireland which will be of assistance to valuers in arriving at the assessable site value of land for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, even though valuations may not hitherto have existed showing the assessable site value itself.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether there are any valuations in Ireland which show the assessable site value, and, if not, does not the fact that there are materials which make up easier in Ireland rather indicate that there ought to be more valuations in Ireland than in
  234
  Great Britain; and how does he account for the fact that only 5,000 valuations were made in Ireland last year while in Great Britain there were 1,500,000?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is asking two or three questions of which he has not given notice. The first part of his question I have already answered.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does that mean there are no valuations?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, what else does it mean?

  Finance Act, 1912 (Owners' Losses).
  Mr. JOHN EDWARD GORDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the losses which are being complained of by owners of property under the operation of Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912; and whether he can see his way to remedy the cause of this complaint?
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which have arisen under Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what course in the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the operation of Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912, and I am making careful inquiry into the matter.

  Local and Imperial Taxation.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked when the House of Commons may expect the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by him to inquire into the relations between local and Imperial taxation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the answer given on the 21st November to the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will accept the reference handed to him on Thursday for the proposed Committee of Inquiry into the methods of valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will accept the hon. Member's reference in the following form:—
  "To inquire into the working of land valuation prescribed by Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and to report

  235
  whether the methods employed and the instructions given to the valuers are generally satisfactory so far as concerns administration, apart from any questions involving either policy or the legal interpretation of the provisions of the Act."
  I would propose also to give the following Instruction:—
  "The Committee will conduct their inquiry in such a way as to delay the progress of the valuation under the Act as little as possible, consistently with the object of the inquiry being attained."

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the undertaking of the Unionist Government that the bonus of £18,000,000, provided for landlords selling estates in Ireland should be an Imperial and not an Irish charge, whether he will consider the propriety of imposing in the next Budget a special charge upon that interest, seeing landlords are the only persons to derive financial benefit from the undertaking?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I can at present make no statement in regard to my Budget proposals for the coming year.
  Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to keep the matter in mind?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, I have got it in mind.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    WOMEN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SANATORIA
    Mr. SOAMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the travelling expenses incurred by members of health insurance committees; and whether he can see his way to make such travelling expenses a charge upon the moneys specially provided by Parliament?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have nothing to add at present to the previous answers which I have given to this question.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the expenses of the members of these committees exceed the amount allowed under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information to that effect at present, but the question is being considered.

    WOMEN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SANATORIA (IRELAND).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked how many patients have been recommended by the county insurance committees to the Women's National Health sanatoria in Ireland under the provisions of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that 138 patients have been recommended by local insurance committees in Ireland for treatment under the National Insurance Act in sanatoria managed by the Women's National Health Association. In addition twenty-six patients have been recommended for domiciliary and dispensary treatment under the Samaritan Committee of the association; of these 164 persons 145 have received, or are now receiving, treatment.

  Imperial Taxation (Forms IV., VIII., and V.).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an action in the High Court of Lord Mowbray v. the Attorney-General, in which Form V. was declared to be illegal and counsel representing the Attorney-General was not even in a position to argue that it was legal; and whether, in view of successive declarations in the High Court that Forms IV., VIII., and V., respectively, were illegal, he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps or give any instructions to prevent his Department from issuing any more illegal forms and threatening His Majesty's subjects with penalties to which they are not liable?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been drawn to the action in question, which was in respect of a form the use of which has been discontinued for some time. The Department concerned fully realises the importance of issuing only such forms as are in conformity with the law, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
  Mr. CASSEL: In view of the fact that three forms, one of which was issued to millions of His Majesty's subjects, have in succession been declared by the Courts to be illegal, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to take some precautions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely inaccurate. They have not been declared to be illegal;

  237
  on the contrary, it was purely a question in one case of the date of the issue of the form.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I know because I was engaged as counsel—Form IV. was declared to be unauthorised in every case where the person was both the occupier and the owner?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have been counsel in the case, but I was a party to the case. Therefore I know something about it, and I still say it was not declared to be illegal. It was mainly a question as to the date at which it was issued.
  Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that whether they are legal or not they have brought in A great deal of interesting information?

  Eshaness, Shetland.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if the Board of Agriculture received an application from the Shetland county for assistance for a road leading to the post office, Eshaness; and if he can state on what grounds the application was refused?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): I am informed that the road referred to by my hon. Friend was on the list submitted by the county council to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but was not considered so strong a case as others for which Grants were made. I do not think that the county of Shetland has any reason to complain of the way in which Grants have been made.

  Land Court, Scotland.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the detailed evidence now being taken by the Laud Court in Scotland will be made available to Members of this House; and, if so, when and in what form?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: The leading decisions of the Land Court, with notes, will be published in the Annual Report (as was done in the case of the Crofters Commission), and will probably also appear in some of the legal journals. It is not proposed to provide for any further detailed report of evidence, which I am advised would be very costly.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the conversational remarks of the judges at these inquiries always be published?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. I do not think conversational remarks will be published.
  Captain MURRAY: Is an official shorthand report being taken of these proceedings?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think there is a verbatim report.

  Land Values Committee.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a pledge that persons engaged in the unofficial Land Inquiry will not be appointed to salaried positions under the State unless they enter the public service through the ordinary channels by examination?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I think the contingency against which the hon. Member seeks to guard is highly improbable, but I do not see why I should give the pledge for which he asks.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to kindly make inquiry and use his influence so that these persons shall not be given any preference over other persons who have not been engaged in this inquiry?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They will not be given any preference on that ground.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Would it be sufficient if the right hon. Gentleman inquired into their former character?

  Franchise and Registration Bills.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked on what day it is proposed to take the Franchise Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill will not be taken till after Christmas.
  Lord R. CECIL: Will it be taken on the first day after the Christmas Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will it be taken before the completion of the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say that at this moment.
  Mr. KING: In view of the great success of the policy of time tables, will a time table also be available for this Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We will consider that.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IRISH HOUSE on COMMONS (BELFAST REPRESENTATION).
    Sir ALFRED MONDasked the Prime Minister whether, under the provisions of Clause 9, Sub-section (1), of the Government of Ireland Bill, and the Schedules of that Bill, each elector in the constituency of Belfast East can give one vote to each of five candidates in elections to the Irish House of Commons, thus enabling a coherent majority to obtain the whole representation of this constituency to the exclusion of any representation of minorities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The result would be as stated if a coherent majority were to support five candidates.
    Sir A. MOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in view of his answer, he will consider the advisability of introducing an Amendment on the Report stage so as to give the minority in these large constituencies returning five Members each some representation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the matter.

  Secondary and Higher Education (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is prepared to set up a committee of inquiry into the lack of facilities for higher education in Scottish rural schools?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware of the amount of dissatisfaction that exists, and is his Department going to make any inquiry?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware that the amount of dissatisfaction alleged to exist is grossly exaggerated.
  Captain MURRAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to receive a deputation on this subject?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No such deputation has yet been suggested.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the policy of the Scottish Education Department to foster
  240
  secondary education in Scotland at the expense of higher teaching in the ordinary schools; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the gap, winch is every year widening between the ordinary school and entrance to Scottish universities, shall not endanger the passing of pupils from the primary schools to the universities?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, my efforts have been and are consistently directed towards ensuring that the gap to which the hon. Member refers shall not constitute a barrier to the progress of any pupil from the primary school to the university.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a steady decline from year to year in the number of those students?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is the subject of another question of the hon. Member's.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he knows?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will answer it when I come to the question.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Scottish Education Department propose to abolish all grades of the inspectorate except full inspectors; if so, when is the proposed change to be made: and what are to be the conditions of appointment?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the other questions do not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware a public statement has been made on behalf of the Scottish Education Department that it is contemplated abolishing every branch of the inspectorate except the full inspectorate?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. the hon. Member is mistaken.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman believe it if I show it him?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. I should think it was a misreport.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be surprised———
  Mr. SPEAKER: The lion. Member is getting a long way from the question.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of students who now enter upon an arts course at the Scottish Universities direct from primary schools has shown a steady decline in recent years; and whether he will consider the advisability of making an early pronouncement of policy whereby higher education will be made reasonably accessible to every parish in Scotland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The steady decline of which the hon. Member speaks is the natural and inevitable consequence of the steady increase in the number of primary schools which have, on the application of managers, been accorded a higher grade status, the number of such schools having grown from 31 in 1900 to 196 in 1911, and the number of pupils from 3,271 to 26,349. The fact that this movement has been constantly in progress venders it impossible to compile any reliable figures, but the notable rise in the number of matriculated students, which the university statistics for the corresponding period disclose, certainly does not suggest that the path from the primary departments of these and other schools is any less smooth than it was before. As to the last parts of the question, I can only state my policy very briefly within the limits of time necessary in answering a question. While, on the one hand, I am not prepared to do anything to interfere with the system of providing higher education in secondary and higher grade schools, as appears to be desired by a small section of extremists, but which I am certain is not desired by the vast majority of Scottish educationalists, because I believe that that system has done and is doing great service in raising the standard of higher education in Scotland, on the other hand, there is no ground whatever for the suggestion that there is any desire to prevent higher instruction being given in primary schools. On the contrary, I have every desire to assist school boards who are prepared to give higher instruction in rural primary schools and who wish to dial with cases of difficulty or hardship such as may arise in certain rural districts. In districts where the school board finds it impossible to maintain a higher grade school and where such a school is not otherwise of easy access, I am glad to say a practice is growing up with the sanction of
  242
  the Department of giving selected pupils such instruction in secondary subjects on the lines of the centre school as will fit them to enter at a riper age the second and in some cases the third year of the centre school course and I hope that this practice will become more prevalent.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is a riper age?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A year older.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of bursaries awarded for secondary education in Scotland in the year 1909; how many of those who w-ere awarded such bursaries have this year passed into a third year's course preparatory to entering Scottish Universities; and whether he can state the proportion of those who have done so for industrial and rural areas?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In the year 1909 the secondary education committees awarded 4,650 bursaries for secondary education at a cost of £32,100. These figures give only the number of bursaries awarded this year for the first time, and not the total number current. In addition there were bursaries granted from endowment trusts of which I am unable to give particulars, but which amount in the aggregate to a very considerable sum. Undoubtedly by far the larger proportion of the former bursaries, i.e., those granted by the secondary education committees, went to pupils in rural districts, but I am unable to give the particulars asked for in the latter parts of the question.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is cognisant of the discontent existing in educational circles in Scotland on account of the policy of the Scottish Education Department in centralising higher education in a number of secondary and higher grade schools and taking it almost entirely from the primary schools; and whether he is prepared to make this the subject of inquiry by an independent Committee?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, the policy of the Scotch Education Department is not correctly described. I have stated what is the actual policy in reply to my hon. Friend's question, No. 53. For the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his previous question. No. 50.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the criticism which has been urged in Scotland by the education authorities on these grounds?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The statement that criticisms on this matter have been urged by all educational authorities is entirely inaccurate.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is proposed to make Any inquiry into the alleged grievances connected with the centralisation of higher education in secondary and higher grade schools and its practical withdrawal from primary schools, as was suggested in a letter addressed to him on the, 8th August by the Association for Securing Higher Education in Rural Schools; and whether he is aware that nothing but a mere acknowledgment has been sent to that letter and the statement that accompanied it from thirty-eight schoolmasters in Aberdeenshire?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I received no communication purporting to come from the association referred to, but I presume my hon. Friend refers to a letter which appeared in the newspapers of the 10th August, signed by Professor Harrower on behalf of an anonymous committee, of which I received a copy after I had already read it in the newspapers. As no opportunity was given me of making a reply before publication of the letter, I felt under no obligation to enter upon a newspaper controversy, especially as I had dealt with the subject in a letter to the Orkney School Board which was published on the 14th August. The statements that accompanied Professor Harrower's letter were anonymous, and no indications were given of the places referred to, so that it was impossible to make any inquiry into the facts or to discuss them with adequate knowledge. Besides, these anonymous statements revealed no grievanccs which could not be remedied by appropriate action on the part of the school boards and secondary education committees concerned, and they afforded no ground for a general inquiry.

  Case of Oscar Slater.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALLasked the Secretary for Scotland whether some further investigations can be made into the propriety of the conviction of Oscar Slater at Edinburgh in 1909, when he was sentenced to death for murder, and is
  244
  now serving a commuted sentence of penal servitude for life; whether he is aware that the verdict was a majority verdict of three in a jury of fifteen; whether he is aware of the nature of the evidence of identification against the prisoner; that certain witnesses as to his identity, whose precognitions had been taken by the Crown, were not called at the trial; and, seeing that the speech of the counsel for the prosecution contained inaccurate statements of fact, and in view of the uneasiness as to the justice of the verdict which has been expressed both in Scotland and England, will he state what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Recent expressions of opinion of a varied character which have appeared in the public Press and elsewhere have been brought to my notice. The case was considered with the greatest care, both at the time of the conviction and again recently. No new considerations have, in my opinion, emerged such as would justify me in reopening the case. I do not consider it to be my duty to enter into a public discussion of the case in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

  House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the number of rating authorities in Scotland which have made arrangements for exemption from payment of occupiers' assessments on the ground of poverty, under Section 9 of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the number of rating authorities which have decided that no such exemption can be made under the provisions of the said Act, specifying in each case the authorities concerned?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The information desired by my hon. Friend is not at present available.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in consequence of the passing of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, diversity of practice exists among the rating authorities in Scotland in regard to the granting of exemption from occupiers' assessments on the ground of poverty; whether a number of important rating authorities, including the county council of Lanarkshire and a number of parish councils in that county, have

  245
  adopted machinery for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act relating to this matter; and whether he agrees with the view that it is practicable by some such methods as those which have been adopted by various rating authorities in different parts of Scotland to give effect to the aforesaid provisions of the Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to each of the three parts of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the statement when the House Letting Bill was before the House of Commons that the Bill would not in the slightest degree affect the rights of an indigent occupier to secure exemption from rates, and of the fact that Glasgow, Aberdeen, Paisley, Greenock, and Lanarkshire have made provision under the Act for giving relief to an indigent occupier, he will explain why the city of Edinburgh has declined to give the relief formerly given, and upon what grounds?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to explain the views of the Corporation of Edinburgh on the subject, and, indeed, I am not aware whether they have as yet come to a final decision.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it not the fact that this difficulty was pointed out when the Act was passed in this House, and that there is really no Act of Parliament in existence which permits owners to be exempted from rates, but only occupiers?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That may be so, but ways have been found by a number of local authorities for exempting poor occupiers.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: But is it not an illegal thing to do?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it is illegal.

  Tobacco Growing (Scotland).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the Scottish Agricultural Department is yet doing anything to promote the growing of tobacco in Scotland; and whether the same facilities will be offered to Scottish agriculturists as are offered or to be offered to Ireland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matters referred to by my hon. Friend are being considered by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

  Workmen's Compensation Act (Scottish Trawl Fishermen).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate whether the advice he has given to the National Insurance Commissioners in Scotland with regard to trawl fishermen will cover the case of those sharemen who are really the employés of owners of boats, so far as receiving benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but who have hitherto been debarred from receiving its benefits?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The question, what workmen are entitled to participate in the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is one exclusively for the Courts of Law to determine.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is not the advice the right hon. Gentleman has given in regard to the question diametrically opposed to the custom under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware of that.

  Dutch Cheshire Cheese.
  Mr. BARNSTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that in the retail trade those acquainted with the cheese trade believe that a large business is being done by selling Dutch Cheshire cheese as Cheshire cheese; whether this is due, not to Dutch makers and exporters, who brand cheese of this type, but rather to the defective state of the law here; and whether, under these circumstances, he will bring for ward legislation, or assist measures brought forward, so that by some process of marking this injustice to the producer and consumer may be stopped?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board have received representations on the subject to which the hon. Member refers, and it is to be discussed this week at a conference between officers of the Board and representatives of the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture. In these circumstances it would be premature for me to make any statement in reply to the last part of the question.

  Traffic in Old Horses.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that cases have recently occurred of worn-out and decrepit

  247
  horses shipped from Hull arriving dead in Belgian ports; and whether he will take steps, under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, to prevent the repetition of the cruelty resulting from such shipments?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Returns of casualties during the past three months are not yet quite complete, but, so far as the information is available, they show that out of a total number of 4,074 horses shipped during that period from Hull to Belgian ports, eleven died or were slaughtered on the voyage. All the horses were examined by the Board's inspectors prior to shipment, and were certified to be capable of being conveyed to the ports to which they were consigned and disembarked there without cruelty. I have no reason to believe that there has been any failure on the part of the inspectors in the discharge of their duties in this respect, but I shall, of course, be glad to make inquiry into any specific cases which may be brought to my notice. Special inquiries are instituted in every case in which a horse is reported to have died or been slaughtered in the course of the voyage.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Member of this House, sitting on his own side, maintains he witnessed the arrival of a boat laden with these horses, and saw seven unfortunate animals lying dead on the deck? Has the right hon. Gentleman reason to believe that the inspectors are carrying out their duties efficiently?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I believe the case the right hon. Gentleman refers to is that of the "Truro," and I understand that in that case the unfortunate animals were killed as a result of the heavy weather in crossing the North Sea. I have not had any complaint brought to my notice of neglect on the part of inspectors, but I will have inquiry made.

  Swine Fever (Scotland).
  Mr. SOAMESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there have been any cases of swine fever in the counties of Ayrshire, Dumfriesshire. Wigtownshire, and Kirkcudbright within the last six months, and, if so, how many?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Seven outbreaks of swine fever occurred in Ayrshire and two in Wigtownshire during the six months ended the 6th December. No outbreaks
  248
  have been reported from either Dumfriesshire or Kirkcudbrightshire during that period.

  Westminster Hospital.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will say what power the Government has in respect of the site now occupied by the Westminster Hospital; and the in the event of the removal of the hospital, that power will be exercised in order to secure that the site shall be used in a manner suitable to the dignity of the situation and so as to provide for the highest public advantage in the future?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The site cannot be used for any other purpose than that of a hospital without the consent of the Crown; and there are various restrictions as to buildings. The Government has the subject under careful consideration from the points of view suggested by the hon. Member.

  University Fees (Scotland).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have imposed on the four Universities of Scotland the institution of an inclusive or composite fee of uniform amount throughout the four universities for all the classes included in a particular course of study as a condition precedent to receiving the ultimate increase recommended by Lord Elgin's committee of the existing grants; whether hitherto these universities have managed their internal affairs, subject only to the control of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council and of Imperial Parliament; and whether he is aware that the general council of the University of Edinburgh looks with disfavour and apprehendsion on this first precedent for subjecting the internal affairs of a Scottish university to the control of a State Department without the express sanction of Parliament for the same?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As regards the first parts of the question, perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answers already given on this subject. With regard to the last part, no official communication has been received by the Treasury from the general council of Edinburgh University, but I have had the pleasure of meeting certain members of it.
  Captain MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman finally made up his mind on the subject or is he still open to reason and argument?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am always open to that.

  Rates (Ireland).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the sum of £727,655 voted in 1911 towards paying rates in Ireland under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, how much was allocated to the payment of half the poor rate which before the passing of the said Act was paid by land and house owners in Ireland, distinguishing the amount allocated in respect of each of the latter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This question should be addressed to the Irish Office.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Office have refused me the information, although they have it?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member had better put the question again.

  Coast Erosion Committee (Appointment of Mr. D. R. Daniel).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked on whose recommendation Mr. D. R. Daniel, of Carnarvon, late secretary of the North Wales Quarrymen's Union, was given an appointment under the Coast Erosion Committee; was the position thrown open to competition; what salary is attached thereto; what was Dr. Daniel's age when appointed; and will he be entitled to a pension?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. D. E. Daniel received salary at the rate of £200 per annum unpensionable, during his employment from July, 1906, to May, 1911, as Assistant Secretary to the Royal Commission Coast Erosion whose labours ended at the latter date. I have no information as to the remainder of the question.

  Glasgow Post Office (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if Messrs. J. Hendersons, Limited, coach-builders, of Glasgow, are in dispute with their men in respect to wages; that the firm in question have contracts for the Post Office, and that the wages of painters who have been employed by the firm are less than those current in the district; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am aware that the firm to whom the hon. Member refers, and who are contractors for mail van services in Glasgow are in dispute with their men in respect to wages; but the facts before me indicate that the wages paid to the painters employed in connection with their mail vans are not lower than those paid by other coach-building firms in Glasgow. If the hon. Member has evidence to the contrary I shall be very glad to consider it.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. WHELERasked when the telephonic connection between the coastguard station at Leysdown, Isle of Sheppey, and Sheerness will be complete?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: About the 15th January.
  Mr. WHELER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say some time ago that the work was to be completed at once, yet during the last two months only one man has been to look at the work, and nothing has been done at all; and does he know that in the case of danger at sea on that coast the coastguard has to set out on a bicycle some three and a-half miles to get into communication with Sheerness?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My recollection is that there were wayleave difficulties in this case, and that we could not get the right to get through to the place we wanted to reach. Therefore it was impossible to get on with the work.
  Mr. WHELER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me that the work would be done at once?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know that I said the work would be done at once. My recollection is that I said the work would be taken in hand immediately. It was taken in hand, and if it is the case I have in my mind, I have lately received a report that the wayleave difficulties have all been overcome.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received representations from town councils and other public bodies in Scotland on the subject of the increased rates to be charged by his Department to them for the use of telephones; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the question with a view to renewing the privileges granted by the National Telephone Company to municipal and other public bodies in Scotland?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire on the 14th of May last.

  Railway Passenger Service (Inverness and Perth).
  Mr. MORTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can make arrangements for a midnight passenger service between Inverness and Perth, for the convenience of those persons travelling from places North of Inverness?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no power to require the Highland Railway Company to provide for the conveyance of passengers, and I have no funds at my disposal for the purpose. As regards the conveyance of mails I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Do not the Post Office invariably, in every contract that is made, provide that facilities should be given to passengers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, by no means.

  Prestwich (Sanitary Condition).
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether Dr. Manby, of his Department, visited the urban district of Prestwich on 16th June, 1911; whether he was sent there to investigate any complaint of the sanitary condition of the district, or whether it was simply in discharge of his duty under the system of sending officers to different districts all over the country; whether Dr. Manby reported favourably upon the sanitary condition of the district; whether the medical officer of health has reported favourably upon both the sanitary condition of the district and the administration of the sanitary law; and will he say what is the average death-rate for the last ten years in the urban district council of Prestwich?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Dr. Manby visited Prestwich in June, 1911, in the ordinary course of his duties. He made no report on the sanitary condition of the district. Recent reports of the medical officer of health have stated that the sanitary condition of the district is
  252
  satisfactory. The average net death-rate for the last ten years is 12.5.

  Jury System Committee.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Attorney-General what is the date of the appointment of the Royal Commission over which Lord Mersey presides for the purpose of inquiring into the jury system and its working and presenting a Report thereon; what are the dates of the first and the last sittings, respectively, of this Commission and how many times has the Commission sat; and whether, having regard to the importance of the subject, any information can be given of the progress in its work of the Commission, the probable date of the presentation of its Report, and, if there has been delay in its proceedings, the causes of such delay?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The inquiry into the jury system over which Lord Mersey presides is being made by a Departmental Committee and not a Royal Commission. It was appointed by me on the 6th December, 1911, and held its first meeting on the 22nd of that month. I am informed that nine subsequent meetings were held for the purpose of taking evidence, and that the Committee adjourned temporarily on the 29th February, 1912. During the next few months Lord Mersey was acting as Wreck Commissioner at the investigation into the disaster to the "Titanic"; and as this investigation necessarily claimed his whole time, and was not concluded until the 30th July last, the proceedings of the Committee had to be suspended. Sittings were resumed on the 15th October, and between that date and the 6th November five meetings were held. I understand that a draft Report is now receiving the Committee's consideration, and that they hope to present their final Report very shortly. There has been no delay in the proceedings other than that unavoidably occasioned by the chairman's engagement with the "Titanic" Inquiry.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    INCREASED PAY.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Prime Minister what opportunity he proposes to afford this House of discussing the financial expenditure and increased Grant to-seamen involved in the First Lord's. Memorandum?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Full opportunities for discussing these questions will arise upon the consideration of the Navy Votes in March next. The matter can also be raised, if desired, on the Motion for Adojurnment for the Christmas recess.
    Mr. BARNESasked if the money allowance in lieu of badges, mentioned at the bottom of page 4 of the White Paper issued last Wednesday, is to be paid to those men who have alreay got honorary badges?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Those men who have already got honorary badges will in future receive pay for them—1d. a day for each badge. The payment is not an allowance in lieu of badges.

    FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the firm of Messrs. Beardmore, of Dalmuir, engaged a number of firemen at Greenock to take His Majesty's ship "Dublin" round to Devon-port in violation of the Fair-Wage Clause in Government contracts, and in substitution for a crew who had refused to go except on the standard terms; that thirty men were engaged to take the "Conqueror" to Devouport on certain terms which the firm afterwards refused to carry out; and if he will see that the Fair-Wage Clause is complied with?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A complaint on each of these subjects has been received, and inquiry is being made.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked whether Germany has sixteen airships and money voted for an additional ten; and what the position of Great Britain is?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Germany possesses the following airships: 1 naval, 9 military, 14 private—but of these, 7 are under 3,500 cubic metres volume and are of little value, and one other, the "Suchard," is built for an attempt to cross the Atlantic; £97,847 was voted in the German naval estimates for 1912–13 for airships and experiments with airships; £144,325 is included in the German naval estimates for 1913–14, not yet voted, for aeronautics, aviation, experiments and special allowances.
    As to Great Britain, the Royal Flying Corps possesses the following airships:—
    254
    Military Wing: "Beta," "Gamma," "Delta," and a new "Gamma" under construction, to the cost of which naval funds will contribute half.
    Naval Wing: I Willows airship; I Astra Torres, and 1 Parseval, on order.

    CANADIAN OFFER or BATTLESHIPS.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked (1) whether the shipbuilding yards of this country are already full to overflowing, and whether this position will delay the construction of the three ships which it is suggested the Dominion of Canada will contribute as an emergency contribution; and (2) whether, immediately upon cable information from the Canadian Government that the Dominion Parliament has authorised the emergency contribution of seven millions sterling now under discussion, he will take immediate steps to have the "Dreadnoughts" laid, down?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I informed the hon. Member for Fareham yesterday, questions on this subject would appear to be premature until the assent of the Dominion Parliament has been given to the measure now before it.

    FLEETS OF GREAT POWERS.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked what will be. the combined strength in 1915 of the fleets of Germany, Austria, and Italy on the one hand and of Great Britain, France, and Russia on the other if the present shipbuilding programmes of the respective countries are adhered to?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total strength of Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary in battleships, battle cruisers, and large armoured cruisers, not over twenty years old from date of launch, will be ninety ships. That of Great Britain, France, and Russia will be 162 ships.
    Mr. FRED HALL: In calculating the number of ships of Great Britain, France, and Russia has the right hon. Gentleman included any of the ships which have been offered by the Dominions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think that these figures include the four vessels which are outside the programme.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate figures showing how the different classes of these ships are totalled up as between modern and ancient ships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer given is with regard to ships which are under twenty years old. If a more precise discrimination is required, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question showing the form in which he would like the return.

  Street Roller-Skating.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether roller-skating by children in the asphalted streets is now forbidden in any, and, if so, which of the London boroughs; and which borough councils have passed by-laws to repress roller-skating and been refused sanction by the Home Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: By-laws regulating, in the interests of public safety, the practice of roller-skating in the streets are in force in Camberwell, Hammersmith, Lambeth, Southwark, Stoke Newington, and Woolwich. By-laws adopted by the Islington and Stoke Newington Borough Councils, which went further, and would have prohibited the practice absolutely, have been disallowed. The Stoke Newington Council submitted a second by-law, part of which was allowed.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: In the boroughs first named is the practice of roller skating still allowed on the asphalted streets, though not on the payement?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that to be so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly give me notice, because I must make further inquiry.

  Dangerous Street Crossings.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force to enable a larger staff of men to be available for regulation of the vehicular traffic, especially at points which are dangerous to pedestrians?
  Mr. McKENNA: The regulation of vehicular traffic is a matter that is always receiving careful attention, and additions are made from time to time, as the necessity arises, to the number of men employed on traffic duty.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Have not complaints been made with regard to the crossings outside this House that there are hardly sufficient men to control the traffic?
  Mr. McKENNA: The complaints have not reached me, nor have I observed any difficulty in crossing. I shall be happy to attend to any complaints that may be made.

  Assault Charge Dismissed (Old Street Police Court).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a case, tried on 2nd December at the Old Street Police Court, in which a man named Chapman was charged with assaulting two police constables, Weatherell and Smith; whether he is aware that the prisoner stated that one of the policemen pushed against his wife and called her an offensive name, and that she struck him with her umbrella and the policeman knocked her down; and whether, seeing that the magistrate dismissed the case, saying that he was satisfied that the prisoner's version was the correct one, he will say what steps he is taking as to the retention of police constables Weatherell and Smith in the police force?
  Mr. McKENNA: An inquiry into the conduct, of the two officers is being made by the Disciplinary Board, and while this inquiry is proceeding, I can say nothing with regard to the case.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Chapman is a most respectable citizen working at one of our daily newspapers; that he and his wife and child were waiting on Sunday night for a tramcar when the assault was committed, and will he make inquiries with a view to some reparation being made?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be premature for me to say anything on the case until an inquiry has been held.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of the Police Court magistrate?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I cannot without notice.

  Police Court Ushers (Ex-Seamen).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of giving the appointments of Police Court usher and assistant usher to ex-seamen of the Royal Navy; and if he will, so far as he is able, make all the appointments now open to ex-soldiers also open to ex-sailors?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, it has been the practice of the Home Office to treat applicants from both services alike.

  Invergarry Railway Company.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that it is intended by the Invergarry Railway Company to tear up the line and realise the rails and other available assets; whether the Board of Trade is prepared to intervene, in the interest of the ratepayers and other residents in the Highlands to whom this railway has been of great advantage; and whether any petitions have been received from the county council of Inverness; and, if so, whether the Board of Trade has decided to take any action upon them?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): As I think the hon. Baronet is aware, the Board of Trade have for the past two years been in communication, both by letters and interviews, with the Invergarry Company, the North British Company, and various individuals and bodies (including the County Council of Inverness) who are interested in the matter with the view of arriving at some arrangement for the continuance of the working of the railway. I regret that these efforts have not been successful, and I should be glad to do anything in my power to secure the reopening of the line, but I greatly fear that the Board of Trade have exhausted their good offices in the matter.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: If that be so, is it not possible in some sort of way to work it as a light railway, as it is most important for the neighbourhood that this railway should not be closed up?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That suggestion is now made for the first time. It will be very carefully considered.

  Accident (Port of London Authority).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Port of London Authority have reported to his Department an accident which occurred on 27th November, by which a dam and other works collapsed on a part of their new dock works on the River Thames; and, if not, will he ask for a full report upon the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, as he is advised that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. No report of the accident has been made to the Factory Department, and if, as I understand, the accident arose in connection with a work of construction, it would not be reportable under the Factory Act. As my hon. Friend is aware, this class of case would be provided for by the Buildings and Public Works Bill which the Home Office has prepared.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: When is it likely to be proposed in the House that we may see who are the real opponents to giving decent accommodation to this class of labourer?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will bring the Bill forward on the first opportunity.

  Cattle Trade (England and Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that complaints have been made that preferential treatment with regard to available quarantine space in Great Britain has been received by large consigners of cattle from Ireland; whether, having regard to the fact that his Department is the only authority that can secure fair play to small shippers by withholding licences for shipment and regulating their issue in such a way that every applicant will have his case considered, and, if at any time refused, his next application will have priority over those previously granted; and whether, in all cases, the. tenant farmers who feed cattle will receive special consideration?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries,: It would not be practicable for the Department to take the action as suggested in this question.

  Sheep Scab.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state where sheep scab exists in Ireland; whether the 135 sheep which came to England with the disease had been examined by his Department; and, if so, had they been passed as diseased animals?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Sheep scab exists in nineteen counties in Ireland. Between 1st July last and 30th ultimo the large number of 348,367 sheep were exported from,

  259
  Ireland to Great Britain for slaughter within ten days in the foreign animals wharves in that country. These animals were inspected by the Department's portal veterinary inspectors prior to shipment. In the present year thirty-nine sheep were detained by the portal veterinary inspectors as affected with sheep scab. The examination of the exported sheep while under observation after arrival in the foreign animals wharves in Great Britain (where fuller opportunity exists for a much more detailed and minute examination of each separate animal than is possible when the animals are brought to the Irish ports for shipment) resulted, according to the information supplied to the Department by the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in the discovery of the cases referred to in the question.
  Mr. STANIER: Could they not give better facilities in Ireland?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member will bear in mind that in five months 348,000 sheep were exported, and he knows the pressure has been tremendous during that-period. I do not think the result has been very bad.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are not these outbreaks due in many instances to the use of defective sheep dip manufactured in this country?

  Epidemics (Schools).
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that many schools are closed during epidemics, largely with a view of obtaining the full Grant, and that this practice frequently aggravates rather than curtails the spread of disease; and if, in consequence, he will consider the advisability of revising the existing regulations which reduce Grants owing to non-attendance through epidemics?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am aware that in some cases schools have been closed to avoid the reduction of Grant which might follow from reduced attendance due to epidemic sickness. Such a measure does not always conduce to the effective control of epidemics and should not be adopted except on competent medical advice. I am considering the reconstruction of the system of Grants, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter.

  Engine-Driver Knox (North-Eastern Railway Company).
  Mr. THOMASasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a communication from Engine-driver Knox, employed by the North-Eastern Railway Company, asking for a reconsideration of the decision of the magistrates in the case in which he was fined 5s. and costs for drunkenness on 5th November; and having regard to the fact that Knox firmly asserts his innocence, and the conflict of evidence given at the hearing, and also that Knox was not aware that his employers would take any action in consequence of the fine until after the period for appeal had elapsed, and in view of the serious effect of the punishment to Knox, he will consider whether he can make inquiry with a view to determining whether the circumstances justify an exercise of the prerogative of mercy?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I have received an application from Knox, and in view of the representations referred to in the question I am making inquiries into the matter without delay.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will that inquiry extend to the conduct of the police, against whom serious allegations are brought?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; that is not part of my functions. In this, as in every other case, when a prisoner alleges that he has been wrongly punished, it is my duty to inquire whether there is any ground for the allegation. I shall have to examine to see whether the charge was properly brought and the prisoner properly convicted.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. FIELD: Has the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Ireland) any further information to give with respect to the regulations which have been made regarding the transit of cattle, and will the Dublin port and market be open on Thursday.
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have no further information from Ireland in regard to the disease itself. So far as Dublin Port and Market are concerned, they will both be opened on Thursday.
  Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us as the result of the negotiations what decision has been arrived at in reference to the scheduling; of certain districts in Ulster?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am able to say that an Irish Order will be issued to-night. If the hon. Member will consult me later on as to the boundaries, I shall be able to give him definite information. I cannot at this moment, and it would be very unwise to attempt to state the boundary line.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Will fat stock be received on Thursday next at British ports from the county of Meath through the ports of Drogheda and Dublin, and having regard to the mild form of the disease which manifested itself in the two suspected cases in Dublin which came from the neighbourhood of Dunshaughlin and Kels respectively, which in the opinion of eminent experts was not infectious, will any part of the county of Meath be dealt with as an infected area?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept the hypothesis outlined in the last part of this question. I must, in administering the Animals Diseases Act in this country, regard all foot-and-mouth disease as an infectious disease. With regard to the first part of the question, if the hon. Member will wait until the boundaries have been made public of the scheduled areas in Ireland, he will get full information from the Irish authorities.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: If they refuse to schedule any part of Meath, will he accept stock from it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I stated last night, on the Adjournment, that stock coming from a non-scheduled area would be imported over here for slaughter purposes, as we have been importing them in the last few weeks.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to interfere with the Irish Department in scheduling the areas they think fit?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Irish Department and the English Department are acting together in complete harmony in this matter in the interests of both countries. The trade will be resumed on a larger scale and under as safe conditions as possible.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no area will be scheduled unless it is perfectly clear that, a case of disease has occurred within that area?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That question ought obviously to be addressed to the Irish Department.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I put the question to the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No area will be scheduled in Ireland unless an area has been affected by the disease.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

  NAVAL GIFT BY CANADA.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: When the Government will afford the House a suitable opportunity of expressing its deep appreciation of the public spirit and patriotism displayed by His Majesty's Dominions Overseas in contributing towards the efficiency of Imperial defence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government fully recognise that it is both the desire and the duty of the House of Commons to give formal and authoritative expression to the universal feeling of warm appreciation and heartfelt gratitude which has been aroused in the Mother Country by the splendid patriotism and liberality displayed in this matter by their fellow subjects in the Overseas Dominions and Possessions. The Government, however, think, and the House will probably agree, that it would be appropriate, and, indeed, only respectful to the Canadian people, to defer taking such action until the proposals introduced by Mr. Borden have come under consideration and discussion in the Canadian Parliament.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If I may say so, I fully recognise the force of the reason for delay which the right hon. Gentleman has given. I am sure the expression of gratitude and appreciation which he has made in this House will be highly appreciated in the Colonies.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Prime Minister intends to take any steps to ascertain how far the labour organisations of Canada are in agreement with this offer on the part of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is entirely a matter for the Canadian Parliament.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken on Friday, and also whether he can say now when he intends to take the Home Rule Bill on Report?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Friday we propose to proceed with the Committee stage of the Welsh Church Bill. It would be for the convenience of the House if I were to state now that to-morrow night or Thursday night, after the ordinary business, we shall hope to take the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. There are not many of them, and I believe there are not many contentious. It is most desirable in the public interest that this Bill should come into operation at the earliest possible moment. In regard to the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the question to-morrow, because I would rather not commit myself now.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Home Secretary, in the first day's Debate on the Closure Resolution, definitely stated that the Welsh Bill would not be sandwiched in on Friday while discussion was going on on other matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer me to that statement, I will carefully consider it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will be glad to do so.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: My memory in this matter is the same as that of my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote."]
  The PRIME MINISTER: What was it exactly?
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I think it was this, though I am recalling the circumstances from memory. I pointed out that if the Bill was taken in Committee in isolation on Friday, it would be impossible for the Press properly to report it in such a, way as to bring the proposals before the attention of the public. I am speaking from recollection, but I understood the Home Secretary to acquiesce in that, and to give an assurance that Friday should not be given in isolation. May I ask,
  282
  having regard to that, if he is now taking Friday in isolation? We did not protest against the Bill being taken on Thursday and Friday, although Friday was an extremely inconvenient day. But this is a proposal to take one of the most important parts of the whole Bill, if not the most important part, on an isolated Friday.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is not so, Sir. I certainly propose that the Bill should be taken on Monday, and probably on Tuesday also, so that it will not be taken in isolation.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that next Friday Clause 4 will be taken, which is the important Discndowment Clause of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I venture to say that it is. It is the Clause that takes away the Endowments from the Church. May I recall to the Prime Minister that in a conversation which ho very courteously had with me regarding the business for last Friday, it was suggested that Clause 4 might be taken in place of Clause 3, and that he admitted it would not be fair to take such an important Clause as Clause 4 on a Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should refer to a private conversation. I am not sure that I said that. At any rate, what I said was said quite privately. The hon. Member objected to Clause 3 being taken last Friday because lawyers could not conveniently attend, and I did my very best, as I think he will agree, to arrange that some other Clause should be taken. I shall be very glad to do the same with regard to Clause 4, subject to agreement on both sides of the House. It can only be done by agreement. I do not agree with him that Clause 4 is more important as regards Endowments than a Clause which comes later. Clause 4 is a vesting Clause, and I agree that it raises questions germane to Endowments, but Clause 8, to which two days will be given, is really the Clause on which the main question will arise.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I was unwilling to refer to the private conversation, but I certainly did so understand the Prime Minister, and I told my Friends accordingly. May I point out that Clause 4 is the Clause that takes away money from the Church and vests it in other bodies? In these circumstances, is it not possible to take the discussion on some day other than a Friday?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask if the Prime Minister has considered whether the decision on Clause 4 will not bind the decision on Clause 8?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that. I have told the House what my present impression is. Clause 4 is a vesting Clause, and the question what is to be vested in the representative body of the Church depends upon the decision of the House on Clause 8. It is really without prejudice to Clause 8. That is my present impression.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look carefully into that? I think Clause 4 decides definitely what is to go to the Welsh Commissioners and the representative body. It is true that Clause 8 deals with the distribution of property that has already been given to the Welsh Commissioners.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider very respectfully what the Noble Lord says. I am anxious in the last degree that the House should have the fullest opportunity of expressing its views upon the question.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is definitely fixed that the Welsh Church Bill will be taken on Monday and Tuesday next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Well, certainly on Monday.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is is not the fact that under the arrangement when this business is taken on Friday the time given to it is only half an hoar less than it would be on an ordinary day?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In arranging Government business, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the Bankruptcy Bill which has come down from the House of Lords; and in making his announcement as to the general Government arrangements, will he state to the House what facilities he can give to the Bill, having regard to the fact that it is desired by a large body of traders?
  The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: When can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the allocation of time on the Report stage of the Home Rule Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We must get to the end of the Committee stage first. Very full notice will be given. It will be as soon as we can.

BILL PRESENTED.
  MILK AKD DAIRIES BILL.
  "To make better provision with respect to the sale of milk and the regulation of Dairies." Presented by Mr. BURNS; supported by Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 338.]
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Considered in Committee.
TWENTY-FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 9th December.]
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 37.—(Continuation of Service of, and Compensation to, Members of Police Forces.)
(1) All officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are serving on the day of transfer shall after that day continue to serve on the same terms and conditions as theretofore, and shall be liable to perform the same duties as theretofore, and while performing those duties shall not receive less pay than they would have received if this Act had not passed.
(2) Any existing enactments relating to the pay or pensions of officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal Irish Constabulary shall continue to apply after the transfer to any officer and constable serving on the day of transfer with the substitution of the Lord Lieutenant for the Treasury and for the Chief Commissioner or Inspector-General as the case requires.
(3) The provisions as to compensation contained in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to the officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are serving on the day of transfer.
(4) Any pensions and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable to officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police after the passing of this Act or to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary after the date of trasfer (being in either case officers and

285
constables who are serving on the day of transfer) under the existing enactments applicable to them, and any compensation payable to any of those persons under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom but any sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
(5) The Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, shall apply to any member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or Royal Irish Constabulary to whom an allowance is granted in pursuance of the provisions of this Section in like manner as if he had retired from the permanent Civil Service of the Crown on the abolition of his office, and any terminable annuity payable in respect of the commutation of an allowance shall be payable out of the same funds as the allowance.
(6) In this Section and in the Fourth Schedule to this Act the expression "day of transfer" in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Police means the appointed day, and in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary means the day on which the control and management of that force are transferred to the Irish Government.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to propose, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "performing those duties," and to insert instead thereof the words "so serving."
This Amendment is being made in consequence of representations made to me by committees representative of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. It and the other Amendments which I have put down, are concessions which I have been very glad to be able to make to the members of these forces. With regard to this Amendment it has been represented to me that the words "performing those duties" might be confined, and would not take into consideration possible small alterations that may be made in the duties, and that the members of the forces would prefer the words "so serving" to be substituted. It is only a drafting Amendment, but it makes it perfectly clear that their rights should be secured to them while they are so serving, whatever that service may be, and not merely performing duties which they are at present performing. I commend the Amendment to the Committee as it meets their views, and they think it secures their interests.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not in the least object to either of these Amendments, which, I understand, have been arrived at after consultation between the right hon. Gentleman and the representatives of the two bodies of police affected; but I wish to point out that there have been considerable negotiations since the Bill was introduced with these two bodies outside of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons, as a whole, has no cognisance of these negotiations, which are, quite properly, confined to the Government and the parties interested; and, in view of that fact, it is only proper that the right hon. Gentleman should take an opportunity, which will arise when we come to the question that the Clause stand part, of making a statement as to how the matter stands.
Mr. BIRRELL: I shall be very glad to-meet that request.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to propose to leave out the word "pay," and to insert instead thereof the word "salaries."
This Amendment follows the corresponding Amendment made yesterday in dealing with the Civil servants. The word "salaries" is a better word than the word "pay," because it is defined in such a way as to include, not merely the actual salary, but also increments and additions which they are very anxious to secure for themselves.
Mr. REMNANT: Is it in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the general statement now on this Clause, because it is a matter in which the whole House is deeply interested?
The CHAIRMAN: I propose to allow it on the Question that the Clause stand part. I cannot allow it on a detailed Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the definition of salaries is wide enough to cover allowances which are made in addition to ordinary pay?
Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move to insert the following new Sub-section:—
"(3) Where any such officer or constable, being qualified under the enactments aforesaid to retire on pension for length of service on or before the day of

287
transfer, continues to serve after that day he shall, on retiring at any subsequent time, be entitled to receive a pension not less in amount than that to which he would have been entitled if he had retired on that day, and his right to receive such pension shall not, while he continues to serve be liable to forfeiture, except in cases in which a pension when granted is liable to forfeiture under those enactments."
We are dealing now with officers who have already acquired certain rights to a pension but continue, as we hope many of them will continue, to serve under the new régime. The Committee will remember that six years is the period before transfers in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but still the question will arise at the end of that period. An officer who has earned his pension will continue to serve under the new Parliament, and it was thought that under the new masters some new conditions might arise. The Force looked at the matter from a most reasonable point of view, and they did not like to think that by remaining on they might sacrifice, by incurring the censure of their new masters, rights which they had already acquired. They put that before me with great earnestness, and I thought that they ought to have that pension secured to them, except, of course, in cases of gross mis-behaviour which are specified, when they are guilty of a criminal offence; and the object of this Amendment is to secure that nobody who has already acquired a right to a pension and remains on can have the amount of that pension interfered with or his position made worse with regard to it by the fact that he has continued to serve unless he has been guilty of the offences specified.
Sir E. CARSON: In the event of an officer remaining on and taking duty under the new régime, with whom is the decision of the forfeiture of his rights for committing certain offences to rest? This is a matter which makes a very great difference.
Mr. BIRRELL: The cases specified in the enactment are of such a very clear character that there could not be any doubt as to whether or not a person had incurred those penalties. They are three in number, and all of them are matters about which there could not be any possibility of dispute as to whether a constable had or had not incurred a forfeiture of his
288
pension under existing enactments. I do not think indeed there is any case to adjudicate upon, because the enactments already are so specific in their terms. As the Clause stands, no provision is made on the point mentioned, and undoubtedly the decision will rest with the Irish Government.
Mr. REMNANT: It has been stated that negotiations were going on in reference to the rights claimed by the men serving at the present time, and——
The CHAIRMAN: That will arise on the Clause, in the Schedule.
Mr. C. CRAIG: Can the Chief Secretary tell us what are the three offences for which he says men may be dismissed?
Mr. BIRRELL: When a pensioner commits an indictable offence or associates with criminals—it is part of his business to associate with criminals, but what is meant is associating with them for criminal purposes—or is guilty of illegal or disgraceful conduct. It is unreasonable to suppose that there can be any doubt as to a cause of forfeiture of this kind should it arise. Forfeiture is for an indictable offence, or association with criminals for criminal purposes, or illegal or disgraceful conduct, and I really do not think that there is any possibility of a difference of opinion as to these conditions.
Sir E. CARSON: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will tell him why. As I understand the pension would have been earned under the Imperial Government by the officers or constables serving all the time under the Imperial Government. Therefore, what would have accrued to them is the right to receive that-pension under the Imperial Government, and subject to their jurisdiction. If you are preserving to them that right, as an encouragement to their going into the new force, they ought not to forfeit it without, having adjudication on the matter made by those who grant the pension, from whom they earn the pension, and by loyalty to whom their pension has accrued. I should have thought it was perfectly clear that the Irish Executive ought to have nothing whatsoever to say in regard to it. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no difficulty. There may be a great deal of doubt and difficulty as to what may be illegal and disgraceful conduct. We all know very well that that is a very moot subject. I should have thought that if a man had earned his pension under the Imperial

289
Government the decision as to forfeiture ought to be the decision of the Imperial Government.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The police force apparently have been very careful in this matter, and I am very glad indeed that the Government have seen their way to put this Amendment on the Paper. For my part I entirely welcome the official protection which they give to a very admirable force, to which so many of us are so much indebted. They are probably the most respectable body of men in the country; they are always civil, obliging, and good natured, and certainly anything the Government does, within reason, to reasside them, will, I think, be cordially supported in every part of the House, I only rise for the purpose of asking whether these Amendments, as now drawn, embody the reasonable, I do not say the full, requirements which have been put forward on behalf of this force. I do not think anyone would object to reasonable provision being made. Most of these men are in sympathy with us; they are nearly all Catholics, and nearly all Nationalists, and certainly it would lie very badly in our mouths to do anything in any way to distress or alarm a force of this nature. I do not think for a moment there is any ground for the apprehension which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has just expressed—none whatever. The committee which was formed by the police themselves, I understand, has been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, and apparently that committee are reasonably satisfied with the Amendments now proposed.
Mr. BIRRELL: I have not been asked by the committee the question put to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). The committee who were constituted put forward their arguments and claims, and I think in almost every particular their requests have been gratified, and all their points, in substance, have been completely met. This is a new point which has been made, and it was not suggested to me at all on behalf of the police. I cannot help thinking that the statutory provisions which are to be found in the Royal Irish Constabulary Act of 1874 makes quite clear the position in regard to the forfeiture of pension. Subsection (4) of 37 and 38 Victoria, Cap 80,says:—
"(4) Such pension shall be granted only upon the condition that it becomes forfeited, and may be withdrawn by the
290
Lord Lieutenant, in any of the following cases:—

1. On conviction of the grantee for any indictable offence;

2. On his knowingly associating with suspected persons, thieves, or other offenders;

3. On his refusing to give information and assistance to the police whenever in his power for the detection and apprehension of criminals, and for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace;

4. If it shall be discovered that the pension or retiring allowance of such person was granted upon statements or pretences which were to his knowledge false, or if he enter into or continue to carry on any business, occupation, or employment which shall be in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant disgraceful or injurious to the public, or in which he shall make use of the fact of his former employment in the constabulary force in a manner which the Lord Lieutenant considers to be discreditable and improper."

I cannot help thinking that if any member of the force does really entertain a conviction of the impossibility of his receiving fair and rational treatment under these provisions of the Act of Parliament, he had much better avail himself of the ample provision made in this Bill, and retire on the payment of compensation to which those provisions would entitle him. I do not think the Irish Government or any Irish Government would like to have in their service those who did not wish to serve them as new masters; that is really why we are providing that they may voluntarily retire with compensation. Of course, in ordinary circumstances, compensation is not given in the case of voluntary retirement. I cannot help thinking that if a member of the constabulary force has the suspicion that the pension might be taken away from him improperly, he had much better avail himself of the provisions of this Bill.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to move to leave out the words at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, "except in cases in which exemption when granted is liable to forfeiture under those enactments."
I am sorry to say that I cannot see eye to eye with the Chief Secretary in the view he takes of the comments on this Clause

291
made my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson). It was a perfectly reasonable question which he asked. At a certain moment the Irish constabulary are to be handed over to the Irish Government by the Imperial Government, and they are to have, so to speak, a clean slate from that moment. Anything they have earned as members of the Royal Irish Constabulary should go to them absolutely. Anything may happen when you have got a new set of circumstances, when the masters are new, and the whole situation is different from what it is now; and as to anything that may happen after the time of the transfer of the force let the Irish Government deal with it, if it can. All sorts of difficulties may arise; there may be friction or differences of opinion between the new Government and the Royal Irish Constabulary when a Home Rule Parliament is set up. I do not think that it is at all probable, in many cases, that this Amendment would ever come into operation, still cases might arise, and it is only fair to the members of the force that any pension, wages, or emoluments they have earned under their present masters should be assured to them absolutely, without any possibility of their being taken away under the provisions of the Rill. I think the Committee will agree, after what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College, that it is really a very reasonable thing that these men, having earned fairly and squarely their pension under the Imperial Government, should be absolutely certain that they are going to get that pension, and that there shall not be constantly hanging over their heads some new conditions which they could not possibly foresee, even after two or three years tinder their new masters, and which would deprive them of the pension which they had fairly earned while serving for a long number of years under their present masters.
Captain CRAIG: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I think the Chief Secretary will see how reasonable it is that if the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have served the Imperial Government faithfully for many, long years, and have earned their pension without any flaw on their character, and without having contravened any rules or regulations laid down by the authorities, at all events up to the appointed day of transfer after six years, from Imperial control to
292
the control of the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin, they ought to be protected, as far as their prospects of pension are concerned, and should not be deprived of what they have earned under the Imperial Government. This would leave a free hand to the new rulers to consider any increase or decrease of pensions whilst serving under the Nationalist Parliament. It is just possible that advantages might be taken by those who would have the control of the constabulary in the future of the rather loose wording of the rules which have been read to the Committee by the Chief Secretary. I do not think any Member of the Committee would like to define what is meant by "illegal or disgraceful conduct" as applied to anybody in the public service. What might appear disgraceful to some persons possibly might be overlooked by others, and loosely framed rules of this sort contain a real danger which it is impossible for this Committee to overlook. I cannot possibly conceive the Chief Secretary taking up the attitude and saying, first of all, that this new authority would never dream of using a technicality to penalise the police force in any way, and, secondly, saying that if any members of the Royal Irish Constabulary had fears in regard to their pension under their new masters, all they had to do was to retire with the compensation provided under the Bill. I think that is dangerous advice to give. I do not think it is at all fair. The Royal Irish Constabulary have a most delicate and difficult task to perform, and that delicate and difficult task, it is admitted by all parties in the House, they have carried out with unflinching and full loyalty all through their long record. Now, says the right hon. Gentleman, if you have any fears, you good men and you best men, then you had better retire in spite of your long service. The very men whom the Chief Secretary has addressed his remarks are the very men whom it is most desirable to retain as long as possible in the force. Surely, in starting this new class of government proposed by the Chief Secretary, those men who will have had all the experience necessary are the very men whom the Chief Secretary and everybody else should wish to retain as long as possible, rather than run any risks of putting them away. If those men take the Chief Secretary's advice, nothing will be more dangerous than to have a force deprived of its best and most experienced men at such a critical period in the history of Ireland.

293
I would hardly be in order in picturing the duties those men would have to perform, but everybody who knows Ireland knows that you would require men of long standing who have faced critical periods in Ireland before, and who did their duty in the counties and districts in a way which hitherto on many occasions has reflected nothing but the highest credit upon that magnificent force. I think it would be a very grievous mistake indeed if, acting on the rather loosely worded threat, if I may call it so, of the Chief Secretary, those men were to clear out rather than run any risks, if that is really to be taken as the message to those long trusted officers and men of the force, to go about their business. I think that would be very damaging to the force, and very alarming to those who have the peace and quietude of Ireland really at heart. On those grounds, and for many more which I need not enlarge upon, I think the Amendment to the Amendment is one that ought to appeal to the sense of justice of every Member of the Committee. After all, it means very little so far as £ s. d. is concerned, unless it is intended to work this Clause unfairly in the future. If it is intended to do so, the Committee have the opportunity by accepting the Amendment of stopping immediately any unfair action on the part of the authorities. On the other hand, if the Clause works in the ordinary way, as the Chief Secretary has expressed the hope that it will, then, of course, it will not cost this country or Ireland one penny-piece more. It simply means that it will be still possible to hope that the same treatment will be accorded to the constabulary in the future as in the past. Again, and this is an important point, many men in the force have the right to retire on pensions when they are really in the very prime of life. Those of us who know these men recognise at once that the whole value of the district inspector or county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary is the experience that he has actually gained in the districts to which he has been allotted. Therefore, looking at the matter from that point of view, I think that the Amendment of my hon. Friend should commend itself to every quarter of the House, and at all events I shall certainly support it.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: This proposal, as I understand it, is that the new Irish Executive shall be deprived of the power which the present authority have. In other words, it is a proposal that if a policeman
294
turns out to be a known consorter of thieves, a common reprobate and ruffian, and a man who has been guilty of infamous conduct, that the Irish authority is not to have the same power as is now vested in the English authorities. Thereby you not only deprive them of power which it is necessary and reasonable they should have, but you convey the most ingenious form of insult against the new authority you set up, because, if this Amendment were accepted, you could say this: "Oh, what did the British Government and the Liberal party themselves think of the new Home Rule Government? Why, they would not entrust them with the question of withholding a pension from a known blackguard!" In other words, they would not give them the ordinary jurisdiction that is exercised in every Government Department in every country in the wide world. And that is the class of Amendment which hon. Gentlemen, in the supposed interests of the police, desire that this House should pass. The very existence of such a power in the hands of the Government is the very best safeguard for the police themselves, for its esprit de corps, for its good conduct, and for the knowledge that every man who conducts himself will be fairly and honourably treated.
Mr. BRADY: I think I shall be giving expression to the feelings of most persons in this House, save hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and certainly of those who sit on these benches when I express regret that this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has been opposed. We certainly thought from the remarks——
Captain CRAIG: It is not opposed.
Mr. BRADY: Or rather I should say that an Amendment should have been moved to the Amendment by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. We are the more surprised because, when the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) spoke earlier in the Debate, he gave us to understand that he and his friends were going to accept all these Amendments which were introduced at the instance, as I am credibly informed, of both the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary. It happens to be within my personal knowledge that a committee of both of those forces was set up to consider the position of the men under this Bill, and that that committee had the great advantage of being advised throughout by one of the

295
most eminent members of the Irish Bar, and who is indeed also an eminent member of the English Parliamentary Bar and a Unionist. I certainly learnt with a great deal of surprise, if indeed it be the fact, that the men either of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or of the Royal Irish Constabulary are anxious that the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman should be moved at all. Be that as it may, I desire very briefly to indicate the attitude which the party with which I sit and vote regard these Amendments. We are anxious that every possible safeguard should be given to every officer, whether he be policeman or High Court judge under the new Irish Parliament—(An HON. MEMBER: "Or sub-sheriff"]—or sub-sheriff, certainly. What was said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) yesterday, speaking in reference to the large and important class of Civil servants in Ireland, is quite as true regarding the class with which we are dealing under these proposed Amendments to-day. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford said yesterday:
"The success of the working of the new Irish Government and the new Irish Parliament will depend almost entirely on those who are responsible for the government of the country, having at their back an efficient, contented, loyal Civil Service."
I venture to suggest that the Government of the country will, to almost as great an extent, if not indeed to a greater extent, depend on the loyal co-operation of the forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. A Government will be set up, as we all hope and believe at an early date in Dublin, and there in the Metropolis of Ireland will be the Executive Government carrying out, of course, the functions and duties of the Government. What more natural and more necessary than that they should have the support and goodwill of the police of all classes. Therefore I think that to move an Amendment such as that we are now considering is not alone to insult those of us who sit on these benches, but to insult the police themselves, because, after all, if those forces are quite satisfied with the Amendments which have been drafted, as the result, I am informed, of long and patient and courteous consideration on both sides, then I say hon. Gentlemen have no right to come in here and move Amendments without the authority of those who are concerned. Of course I should not say they have not got the right, but I take leave to say that it would be desirable before they move such Amend-
296
ments that they would ascertain the wishes of those who will be principally affected by them. If I may, I would like to say one word from the standpoint of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The relations, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has pointed out, which have always existed between the citizens of Dublin and the Dublin Metropolitan Police have been of the most cordial character——
The CHAIRMAN: I think that would be more appropriate on the Clause.
Sir E. CARSON: I cannot at all accept the proposition put forward by the hon. Gentleman, that we have no right here, because the Government settle something outside the house with certain classes of people, to investigate the matter If I were to do that I might begin by making a speech to show what gross distrust the constabulary have in the new Irish Government. Of course, questions will arise that may not have been considered, and when these parties were engaged with the Chief Secretary I think it is very unlikely that this point did occur.
Mr. BIRRELL: I may say they did ask that their pensions should be absolutely immune altogether.
Sir E. CARSON: I think that is very likely, but I was just going to say that I consider the Amendment of my hon. Friend is open to the objection that we always grant pensions, as I understand the matter, on the condition that a man should behave himself in the future, and if he is convicted of some disgraceful matter, some indictable offence, then the law does not, as far as I remember the pension Sections here or even in Indian pensions, provide that the pensions should be continued when he has turned out badly. Therefore, I myself would ask my hon. Friend not to go on with this Amendment, because I think there, ought to be power in some body to regulate the pension in the future if a man misbehaves himself, or, at any rate, to adjudicate upon the matter. I suggest, however, that as the pension is granted by the Imperial Government, it ought to be the Imperial Government that regulates it.
Mr. C. CRAIG: In deference to my right hon. Friend I will withdraw the Amendment. But I still think it is unsatisfactory that this right should be left to the Irish Government. If it is left at all, it

297
should be left to the people who are granting the pension at the present time.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As I read the Bill, the Government are taking different courses for what are practically the same kind of cases. There may be two officers each entitled to retire on pension on the day that the police force to which they belong is transferred to the new authority. One of them exercises the option and retires; the other continues to serve. It is the desire of the Government to guarantee to both the pensions that they have earned up to that time, subject to the condition that they shall be forfeited in the ease of gross misconduct on the part of the officer. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make the same authority the judge of the misconduct in both cases? In both cases the pension is earned while the force is under the Imperial Authority. In both cases the pension is granted by the direction of the Imperial Parliament. Yet, as I read Sub-section (2), if a man retires on the day the force is transferred, the judge of the misconduct will be the old Imperial Authority; while if he does not retire, it will be the new Dublin Executive. I can quite understand that if the pension is earned under the new authority, the new authority should be the judge; but if you think it right, as you do, to guarantee the pension earned up to the date of the transfer under the Imperial Authority, is not my right hon. Friend's contention absolutely indefeasible that the Imperial Authority should be the judge of whether or not the pension is forfeited? Is it not shown to he the right course by the action which the Government have taken in Sub-section (2), which makes the Imperial authority the judge in the case of a man who retires on the appointed day, though not in the case of a man, whose pension up to the appointed day is at stake, who serves after the appointed day.
Mr. BIRRELL: It might be better that the question should be decided by the Treasury, but the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the officer who goes on has to that extent altered his contract, and has gone on under a new service. I think the observations of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) are unanswerable on that point. If you have an officer continuing to serve under the new Irish Government, having earned a pension
298
under the old Government, and having had his right to that pension secured to him, so that he is not to lose the benefit of his past services under the old Government, except by reason of any misconduct which would have deprived him of it before, to say that his new employers are to have no voice in that matter would put him into a position outside the discipline of the force, which, I think, would be unreasonable. I think that the Amendment does go beyond the necessities of the case.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Your Amendment?
Mr. BIRRELL: I confess that I had some difficulty in regard to the matter, but I, personally, thought that I was meeting them quite fairly and fully on the point. They put the case that they had earned the pension, and whatever happened they ought to continue to enjoy it. That was a view they were quite entitled to put. They do not get their pensions very readily; they have to serve a long period, and twenty-five years of good conduct might be a justification for a little excess after the period was over. But I quite thought I was meeting them fairly and fully in the matter. To suggest that whilst remaining in the service, continuing to draw the full emoluments of that service, and hoping to rise to the highest ranks in it, they should be able to say, "You are only my masters to a certain extent, and if you choose to say anything about me I shall appeal to an outside authority," would be, I think, to interfere with the discipline of the force.
Sir E. CARSON: The question of forfeiture does not arise until they leave the force.
Mr. BIRRELL: As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) wishes to deprive the new Irish Government of the right of determining whether or not under the provisions of this Amendment an officer has committed such an offence as to destroy his right to a pension. I think that that would deprive these officers' employers, whose service they have freely entered, of a right of discipline of which I do not think they ought to be deprived. It is not a kind of case that is at all likely to arise. As the hon. Member for Cork has said, the cases contemplated by the Act are gross cases; and nobody who knows anything about Irish administration would assume, unless the character of Irishmen changes altogether under Home Rule, that they are

299
going harshly, tyrannically, and by excesses of interpretation, to say that a man has disgraced himself and lost his right to a pension which he had acquired by twenty-five or thirty years' service because of some mere peccadillo instead of a gross and serious offence such as the language of the Act clearly indicates. I am sorry that one hon. Member should have thought fit to say that I used a threat to the men who had earned their pensions by saying, "Oh, you had better clear out at once." I never contemplated any of them clearing out unless they had already had enough of the service in their twenty-five years, and saw an opportunity of doing better for themselves elsewhere. There is really no difficulty to be anticipated in that way. While I should be very glad, if I could see my way to do so, to give these excellent officers an appeal—I do not know to whom, whether to an Irish Court, or to the English Treasury—I really feel that to do that would be to inflict an injustice upon the Irish service, and to interfere with the discipline of the force.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that we need argue this matter—indeed, it has not been so argued—in any heated spirit. The whole object of the Government in moving the Amendment is to give full and complete confidence to the Irish Constabulary. The members of the force very naturally desire to have a complete and indefeasible title to their pensions. The right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to grant that; he considered that they were sufficiently protected by the Amendment in the form in which he has moved it. But he did not make it clear to us whether the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend was in the mind of the Committee or in the minds of the representatives of the Dublin Police or of the Royal Irish Constabulary when they came before him. I rather inferred from what he said that the point put by my right hon. Friend was a now one to him, and probably therefore a new one to the constabulary. If the Government desire, and it is most proper that they should, to give complete confidence to the Irish Constabulary, I think they ought to give a little more consideration to this admittedly new point. I, personally, do not in the least contemplate that there will be a regular general vendetta against the Irish Constabulary after they have been handed over. But while I do not think that under
300
any circumstances it will work out in that way, I think it is possible that individual members of the force here and there may say that for some reason or another they have incurred or think they have incurred—it may be a delusion—the ill-will of some very powerful gentleman holding high office in the new Irish Government. They may have lived through periods of stress and conflict, and have come into direct collision with very important persons in the new Irish Parliament. It may make all the difference to them as to whether they stay on or not if they think that, at all events, what they have earned under the British Government is absolutely secured to them unless the Imperial Government decides that they have forfeited it by disgraceful conduct. Why should you not give that security? It is no reflection on the new Irish Government or on the Irish Constabulary. It does not suggest that the new Irish Government are going to behave in any peculiarly treacherous or cruel manner towards the force. It is a means of giving confidence to gentlemen whose pensions the Chief Secretary desires should be on a secure basis, and I cannot see any difficulty in carrying that out.
5.0 P.M.
May I say why I do not see any difficulty? Apparently the person who is to decide whether or not a pension should be withdrawn is the Lord Lieutenant. It is the Lord Lieutenant during the first six years; it is probably the Lord Lieutenant after the six years unless there is some statutory change. During the first six years the Lord Lieutenant will act on the advice of British Ministers. After the six years he will act on the advice of the Irish Executive. All the right hon. Gentleman has to do is to put in some provision that when a pension earned under the old system comes under consideration the Lord Lieutenant shall act in that case, and in that case alone, on the advice of the British Ministers. That seems to me to be the whole question. I think it is an extraordinary thing to say, as the right hon. Gentleman did say, that the discipline of the force would be affected by the change desired by my right hon. Friend. Surely the Irish Government have complete power to dismiss the man. He cannot take the pension until he has loft the force! All that is suggested is the absolutely logical proposition that the power which grants the pension should be the power to decide whether it shall be forfeited. That is an

301
absolutely logical conclusion, which reflects, not upon the Irish Government, not upon the constabulary, not upon the British Government. All that is asked is that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to say that the Lord Lieutenant, after six years, being called upon to adjudicate as to whether or not a constable has forfeited, shall act on the advice of the Imperial authorities.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: In this country Irishmen are sitting on the watch committees of many boroughs. It is proposed to deny, not merely the Irish in Dublin, but the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, under the Home Rule Government, the power which a humble Irishman, as alderman or town councillor, enjoys in the cities and towns of England—namely, to decide whether a policeman has consorted with known thieves or not.
Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Gentleman is always very persuasive, and I certainly am anxious to do all I can for the police. I would very willingly accede to his view if I reasonably could, but I am very much obsessed by the nature of the question that may have to be adjudicated upon. It is not a nice question, not a question affecting the personal opinion of those adjudicating as to whether they like a particular officer or not, whether he consorts not with thieves, but Unionists, or anything of that sort. It is not the kind of question at all. It is exactly the kind of question which the hon. Gentleman suggested; it is really a question of villainous behaviour. To suggest that the Irish Government is not competent, that the Lord Lieutenant responsible to the Irish Government is not just as likely to do his duty in that matter as if he were a Lord Lieutenant responsible to this House, is a little outrageous. Therefore I do not think that it is a real grievance of the police at all. It is a question capable of being p\it with force and ingenuity by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it does not affect my mind as one likely to affect the position of the police at all. The constable lives on in the Irish service after twenty-five years of the British connection. I do not think for a moment that he, having elected to serve with the new Irish Government, is the sort of man at all who need be under any apprehension that the Lord Lieutenant or the Irish Government will unjustly, in the very rare cases that may possibly arise, find that he has been guilty of an indictable
302
offence if he has not been found guilty that he knowingly associated with villainous characters when that is not so, or, if it is not the case, that he has been guilty of a disgraceful and scandalous offence calculated to bring Ireland and the Irish police service into disrepute. In such an extreme case, if we were to deprive the Irish Government and the Lord Lieutenant of their responsibility, I really think it would be an imputation upon them. If I gave way in this case it would really be very difficult for me to resist similar appeals in the case of other members of both forces and other Civil servants who have to trust to the justice of the Government of the country. Therefore, although I am most anxious to meet a real case made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in this case I am bound to stick to the Amendment.
Mr. BARRIE: I exceedingly regret the decision of the Chief Secretary. We, I am sorry to say, who sit on these benches are not quite so hopeful as to the future of the Irish Parliament as the right hon. Gentleman so repeatedly tells the House he is. I presume he has put down this Amendment with a view to encouraging members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to remain under the Irish Parliament. I think we may lake it now that the resignations in the Royal Irish Constabulary will be very much more numerous than at present thought. We cannot share the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman, so often expressed by him from the opposite bench. As has already been said, where we lack confidence is in the administration of the future more than legislation. We have no faith whatever in those who have authority to deal with the record of the police in the unfortunate position mentioned. The constable who may have a clean record for twenty years under the Imperial Government when he enters the Irish service may forfeit his pension because some new tribunal set up by the Irish Parliament will be able to say that he has forfeited it by some sudden act, some sudden misfortune, some sudden lapse from what they conceive to be his duty. He is to forfeit the fruits of over twenty years' service; that is the net effect of the refusal to make this concession. I can only regret it, and say I believe sincerely that it will cause the number of resignations from this force to be much greater than even the figure that we have had suggested so repeatedly outside the House.
Mr. REMNANT: I cannot help feeling that if we had had the statement at the commencement of these proceedings which we understand we are to have from the Chief Secretary when the question of the Clause standing part is discussed, we should have been helped considerably in the decision which we are likely to come to on this Amendment. If these men had, been granted the right which they claim to retire during the six years, then if they had continued, they would have had their eyes opened to the new conditions of the future under which they were serving. No one wishes to be thought to offer insults to the representatives of Ireland. Some think, however, that any criticism of this Clause is necessarily an insult to them. But I know, as a fact, that there is a great feeling of uneasiness amongst the members of this force in Ireland as to the way in which they are likely to be treated at the end of the six years. One suspicion seems to be well founded, judging from what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has said. That suspicion is that any pretext will be seized upon to reduce the force and the cost of the force in Ireland.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we are getting rather away from the particular question of the Amendment.
Mr. REMNANT: With all respect, Mr. Whitley, I do not know how we are to discuss this Amendment unless we touch on the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has given expression to of his intention to reduce the force. This is a question of pensions. Surely that will come under the head of future economies, if future economies are sought for by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party. I was merely going to say as to what these men have to go on. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not thought fit to take part in this discussion, and tell us from his point of view what he intends to do in the future. All we have from him is the statement he made at the commencement of this year that any economies they can make they will make—for the benefit of Ireland—out of the fund which will be handed over to Ireland. The majority will have to administer the police force in Ireland. It is not a question of insulting either him or his party. What we are anxious to do is to attend to the simple matter that where these pensions have been paid by the Imperial Authority that
304
they in future shall be forfeited or not by the word of the same authority that pays them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this hour, will see his way to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London that this should be done. By this you will allay the great feeling of suspicion on the part of the deserving body of men who represent the Royal Irish Constabulary.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "passing of this Act" ["Dublin Metropolitan Police after the passing of this Act"], and insert instead thereof the words "appointed day."
Mr. CASSEL: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to this matter, for it seems to me that the Clause in the Bill which deals with existing Irish officers sometimes has the words "passing of this Act" and sometimes "appointed day," without any rhyme or reason. I do not think it matters very much which you put in, but you ought to be consistent. You are dealing in this Clause with three sets of officers. You are dealing with established officers and judges; you are dealing with unestablished officers; and you are dealing with the police. With reference to the words "passing of this Act" and "appointed day," the interval between these two periods must be eight months, and it may be fifteen months if the Order in Council extends the period. With reference to the pensions, all these people have the same period; not one period in the case of one set of officers and a different period in the case of another set of officers. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 32 he will see that this deals with established officers. I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT to see that nothing was done under the guillotine of which I am not aware, and have satisfied myself that the words "after the passing of this Act" were left in. What is the result of that?
The position is this. With regard to the established officers, their pensions become chargeable on the Transferred Sum as from the moment of the passing of the Act. For the eight months or fifteen months which may intervene between the passing of the Act and the "appointed day" the pensions and salaries of the

305
judges and of the established officers are chargeable on the Transferred Sum. That is intelligent. Now we come to the other sets of officers. An entirely different procedure obtains with regard to unestablished officers. Their pensions become chargeable to the Transferred Sum, not as from the passing of the Act, but as from the "appointed day." As between those periods, as I have said, there must be a difference of eight months, and there may be a difference of fifteen months. I do not know whether I make my point clear, but why should the pensions and salaries of judges and established officers be deductible from the Transferred Sum during the eight or fifteen months which intervene between the passing of the Act and the "appointed day," when the pensions both of unestablished officers and of the police of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin police are only deductible as from the appointed day? I merely raise the point because for the moment I see no reason for the distinction. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain the reason why in some instances the words are retained "after the passing of the Act" and in the case of others the words are "appointed day." I think I am right that there is no change in the case of Section 32. In the case of the other Section, I have not verified it, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has made this change. Under these circumstances, and as these Clauses are, I think they are entirely illogical and unintelligible.
Mr. BIRRELL: I have quite followed the lion, and learned Gentleman, and I will consider his point. My information is this, that when the status of officers is referred to the words "passing of the Act" are used, not when we are going to do something by way of payment. This Clause reads:—
"Any pensions and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable to officers and constables. … and any compensation payable to those persons under the provisions of this Act shall be paid," etc.
There it is "the appointed day," but where we refer to status we use the words "on the passing of the Act." When we come to the question of payment, we prefer, as I said yesterday, the expression "appointed day," which is obviously a later date than the passing of the Act. It is the day when something happens, which
306
is referred to as the "appointed day," that should be fixed as the day for the payment of pensions. I have taken a note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and if it be that we have such powers under Clause 32, and have done something that is inconsistent with the rule just laid down, I will consider it.
Mr. CASSEL: The point I wanted to put is this. With regard to the charge and the Transferred Sum, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 31, Sub-section (1), he will find in that case as from "the passing of the Act" salaries, pensions of all appointed officers become deductable from the Transferred Sum and if he will look at Clause 35 I think he will find he altered that under the guillotine to "appointed day." Now in that case the pensions and so on only become chargeable as from the appointed day which may be fifteen months later. I submit that these forms cannot both be right. It cannot be right to have in one case "from the appointed day" and in the other "from the passing of the Act." There must be a period of eight months, it may be fifteen months which would mean quite an appreciable sum. So far as that point is concerned, I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he sees my point, will find that the Bill as drawn is wrong. With reference to the further point, I cannot see any reason for altering the words as to the status of people at one time and then altering the way they are to receive their salaries at another. It seems to me hardly intelligible, and it seems to be without rhyme or reason. I think the right hon. Gentleman has given some reason in one case but not in the other. I venture to say, from a financial point of view, this may be a substantial matter as to what falls upon the Transferred Sum and upon what is borne by the revenue of the United Kingdom.
Mr. BIRRELL: I am not quite sure whether in Clause 32 we ought to have the words "passing of the Act" or "appointed day." I am advised there is some doubt about that, but I will look into it and I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for reminding me of it.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether transferring the payment of these pensions to the appointed day adds any further liability to the English taxpayers?
Mr. BIRRELL: No.
Question, "That the words 'passing of this Act' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words 'appointed day' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BIRRELL: I think I had now better make a statement corresponding very much to the one which I made yesterday with regard to the condition of Civil servants under the Bill as amended. I now assume that the Amendments, all of which are in the nature of concessions will receive the sanction of the Committee, and I will therefore in the observations which I am about to make proceed on the assumption that the Bill is amended in the manner which is proposed. The objects are exactly the same in regard to the police—the Royal Irish Constabulary who will not be transferred for six years and the Dublin Metropolitan Police who will be transferred at once—as with regard to the Civil servants. We want to offer every inducement to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police to remain where they are and to secure for those persons who do not wish to undergo the alteration the right to retire on pensions, and therefore we have in the Amendment we have made in the Fourth Schedule secured to the police force as we have already secured in the Third Schedule to Civil servants, the right to retire voluntarily on terms corresponding to the terms of pension. That is the first thing we have done, and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Remnant) will notice that concession with gratification, he being always interested in the police, whether in this country or in Ireland. We have also sought to secure a continuance of the existing terms of service to the people who elect to remain on. We deprecate any serious change, or, indeed, any serious addition to their duties, that would make their new work distasteful or of a nature that they did not bargain for, or perhaps they were not fit for. The scheme provides for voluntary retirement. Then the assessment of compensation in the case of the police is simpler than it is in the case of Civil servants, because the salaries and retiring pensions of police officers and men are already fixed by Act of Parliament.
The compensation which will now be found in the Fourth Schedule as amended
308
is this: On retirement the officer or constable adds ten years to his actual service if calculated one way, and twelve years if calculated another way. We provide that on voluntary retirement the officer or constable will add five years or six years, as the case may be, instead of ten or twelve. As pensions are at the present moment, a constable is entitled to retire on pension after twenty-five years' service. He enters comparatively young in life, so that after twenty-five years' service he will, owing to his habits of life, usually be a man of good build and good bodily health, and in a condition which will enable him to carry his pension with him into other active services of life. If he joined since 1908 that period is extended to thirty years' service, because it was really found he was retiring too early in life, or at least the Treasury found it so, and the twenty-five years was altered since 1908 to thirty years. That docs not prevent retirement at twenty-five years, but he does not earn what is called his maximum pension until in the case of officers after forty years, and in the case of constables after twenty-eight years. Now these are the points which have been conceded by the Government. First of all, there is the point we already discussed in the Amendment passed, whereby the rights to pension already earned are not to be interfered with except for statutory reasons in the case of grave misconduct. That is the law as it already stands, and anybody who has earned his pension cannot have that pension interfered with because of any trouble in getting on with his new masters unless he is guilty of conduct which exposes him to forfeiture of his pension under the law as it at present stands. We also give the power of voluntary retirement to all officers and constables serving at present. When I come to the Schedule, where the matter is stated at more length, I will read it out.
We have, in addition to the provision about pensions, secured the right of voluntary retirement; and we have also secured, and this is a considerable concession to agree to, a basis of inclement in the case of officers and constables for the period of the added years, just as if they had served for that period. In considering the increment a person is to receive we have assumed and imagine that the person has served the added years and behaved in such manner during those years as to secure to himself certain increments, and

309
therefore in considering his compensation we do not deprive him of the increments which in ordinary circumstances as a good officer he would have earned in these five years. We add the five years, and attribute to those five years all the benefits that would accrue had they actually been served in such a manner as to earn the increments which good officers and constables would earn in that period. These concessions have been pressed upon us, and we have considered what should be the just and reasonable provisions to be made in the case of these services. We cannot take this opportunity of remedying all the grievances which have been pressed upon the Treasury from time to time, and which the Treasury have not seen their way to assent to, nor were we able to give the same conditions for voluntary retirement as for compulsory retirement. It has been contended that they ought to get just as much retiring voluntarily as compulsorily, but that view did not recommend itself to my mind, because there seemed to be a real distinction between the two. I will now ask hon. Members to turn to the Fourth Schedule as it will be amended by me, and in reading it I will leave out unnecessary words. It will read:—
"Provision as to compensation of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Force.
Any officer or constable who, after the day of transfer, retires voluntarily under the conditions hereinafter defined, or is required to retire for any cause other than misconduct, and is not incapacitated for the performance of his duty by mental or bodily infirmity shall, unless he is qualified for the maximum pension that can be granted to him for length of service only under the enactments aforesaid, be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded to him by the Lord Lieutenant in accordance with the rules contained in this Schedule."
The conditions of voluntary retirement are: (1) Notice of the intention must be given within one year after the day of transfer. That is to say, we cannot allow this state of voluntary retirement to continue indefinitely, and we therefore think it is fair to say that the notice of the intention to retire ought to be given within a year after the day of transfer. Then they will have had six years as acute and intelligent observers of the conditions of social life in Ireland in which to see how things are going.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: But that does not apply to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, because they have to make up their minds at once.
Mr. BIRRELL: Of course, I am now speaking of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Both forces get these conditions, one of them after the appointed day and the other after the date of transfer. Notice must be given in the manner prescribed by the Lord Lieutenant. There are two conditions which are important. The retirement must not take place until at least six months after the notice of retirement has been given, and it may be postponed by the Lord Lieutenant if he thinks fit to any later date not being more than three years after the day of transfer. In matters of this sort so vitally affecting this large force and the conditions of order and good government in Ireland, we have to consider the possibility of a considerable disappearance of these men from the force, and that cannot be allowed to happen all at once. Therefore we have provided that the retirement should not take place for at least six months, and may be postponed by the Lord Lieutenant for two years. I do not think that involves a hardship upon these men, because they get their salary and other advantages during that time; but we make this provision in order to guard against the depletion of the force to a greater extent than would be desirable in the interests of the country. The retiring constable has to show, to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant, that he is not incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity, and he will not be entitled to retire on pension for length of service before the expiration of two years from the day of transfer. I think those conditions secure in a manner satisfactory to the police force the conditions of voluntary retirement. Notice, according to form, has not to take effect certainly for six months, and if the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit, it may be postponed for two years. The constable must not be incapacitated from the performance of his duty by any bodily or mental infirmity, and there is a provision as to retirement on pension and length of service. Now we come to the rules. The first is:—
"(1) The compensation which may be awarded to officers or constables shall be an annual allowance; and (2) where the officer or constable is required to retire, the allowance shall be calculated in like manner as the pension which the officer or constable would have been entitled to

311
receive under the enactments applicable to him if he had retired voluntarily."
There are certain conditions which give them ten to twelve years on the retirement which I first contemplated, and there are certain other subsidiary provisions. I am very glad that we were able to meet the police with regard to voluntary retirement, and I think the conditions are reasonable. With regard to compulsory retirement there never was any question of any kind. The general provisions of these Clauses will, I think, be clear to any hon. Member who chooses to read them. I can only say that the result of my communications with the police have been of the most satisfactory character as to the discipline and good temper of the force. I do not say that they are not interested, and deeply interested, as to what the effect of these proposed alterations may be upon them and their status in the future. They would be unlike any other body of men in receipt of salaries if they were not anxious, and they would have been disappointed if any disciplinary rules had prevented them from stating their case frankly and freely to those responsible. That privilege was granted to them by the Inspector-General, and in the most orderly manner they constituted a committee which made representations in writing, and they also presented their views in interviews.
Although I am not going to say that the Amendments we have put upon the Paper meet every point of view, I can say that they are perfectly satisfied, and if these proposals obtain the cordial support of the House, I think these various Amendments will meet their views to this extent: that if they are passed they will be satisfied members of the force. Each individual will consider his own case when the day of transfer arrives, and they will, I am sure to a very large extent indeed, place their services and their experience at the disposal of the Government to be set up in their native land, where they have gained a very peculiar and intimate acquaintance with the habits and customs of their own people. I approach this question with every feeling of confidence that there will not be, when these provisions become law, any of those angry feelings which unhappily, in other countries, have arisen when there has been a change of master and a change of employment, and necessarily a change to some extent of the habits of their lives. I believe we have avoided difficulties of that
312
kind, and although the financial obligations imposed by these concessions are not inconsiderable, I am very glad indeed that Ireland is only too anxious to secure the goodwill and good temper of a very remarkable body of men. It is not for me to predict the future. I do not know whether an Irish Government in time to come will localise its police in the manner we have done in this country, not always without difficulty, as we have recently had opportunities of witnessing in the case of strikes and the like, where we have an enormous number of police authorities, and where it is not always easy to have exclusive jurisdiction over their own domains. Whether the Irish people will ever fit in with the local police, or whether they will be prepared to retain in future this fine body of men—I do not know whether they are soldiers or policemen——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is going rather into a general discussion.
Mr. LOUGH: Was it not ruled by the Chairman that there was to be a general discussion allowed?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it was understood that the discussion was to be confined to certain questions such as compensation to the members of the police force and their conditions of service, and it is on those lines that I propose to keep the discussion.
Mr. BIRRELL: I am so accustomed to the exuberance of my own vocabulary being checked that I have no doubt whatever, Mr. Maclean, that you are more or less right. However, I have said all that I want to say, and I wish to plead on behalf of those who follow me that they will not be prevented from approaching the subjects which I have dealt with. The conclusion I was arriving at was that in all probability the genius of the Irish people will probably lead to their retaining for a very long period of time a centralised force. It is, therefore, all the more incumbent upon me, and upon the Government to which I belong, to secure that the terms offered to the existing force should be of such a character as to secure their goodwill. That is the only point I wish to emphasise. No doubt criticism will be directed to points of detail in this scheme, and I hope to be able to satisfy any hon. Member as to the provisions contained in this Schedule as amended by me.
Colonel BURN: I put down this Amendment to omit the Clause because, unfortunately, I am not in the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman and I did not know what negotiations had been going on between himself and the constabulary. Many constables look with considerable apprehension on their future under an Irish Home Rule Parliament. They joined the Imperial service knowing full well the conditions of their service, the pensions they were likely to earn, and the duties they would be called upon to perform. Now apparently all that is to be changed. When they entered the service each individual on signing his contract felt the other and high contracting party was the Government of the United Kingdom, and that whatever happened to him, whether his behaviour was as it should be or otherwise, his case would be laid before the fair and impartial court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He felt perfectly secure. It is now proposed to entirely change all this. On the respective days of transfer he is to be brought under an entirely new controlling authority with which he has entered into no contract, and with which in all probability he would never have elected voluntarily to serve. I have never heard that it has been contended, and I do not believe even the putative father of this bastard Bill, the right hon. Gentleman himself would contend, the new controlling authority is likely to be biassed or prejudiced in favour of the police. In my opinion, the inference to be drawn is all the other way. There is many a man in the constabulary and in the police who feels very grave apprehensions as to his future under an Irish Parliament, and I think he has very good reasons to fear the future. We have to remember that in the past he has been brought constantly into collision with representatives of the Hibernians, the Sinn Feiners, and the other societies in Ireland. He has had to prevent their meetings being held.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine himself, as I have already indicated, to the specific point which arises on this Clause and not to discuss the general policy in connection with the police.
Colonel BURN: I of course bow to your ruling, but we know and have every reason to anticipate—it has been adumbrated in Debate in this House—that a large number of compulsory retirements may be ordered by the Irish Government and that an
314
enormous number of men who have gone into the police force as a profession and who have no other occupation to fall back upon will be compulsorily retired, and I think, if anyone deserves fair and just treatment, they do. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made some concessions with regard to the voluntary retirement of constables who may elect to retire, but I think he has only followed the course of the Bill of 1893 and also the Irish Local Government Act under which the old grand jury officials, whose interests were recognised, were allowed to retire voluntarily. There are many reasons for fearing the future of these men may not be very secure. They have been brought into contact with those who will be their new controllers, and it is more than possible the man who has done his work best and who has given himself up entirely to his work may be a marked man and may lose his life vocation. If they are to be retired, then I say give them fair and even generous treatment. Surely the Government does not want to see men who have been loyal and faithful to the Crown thrown on to the scrap heap, there to make the best existence they can for themselves.
There are many anomalies regarding the pensions which want to be cleared up. Members of the Metropolitan Police and also of the Constabulary expected provision would have been made giving to all officers and men the right to voluntary retirement with five years added on similar conditions as officers and constables who may be compulsorily retired. I think that is not the case. I want to put a concrete case before the right hon. Gentleman. Retirement, I understand, is only given to men under twenty-three years' service. A man with twenty-two years and seven months' service on the day of transfer can retire with five years added after the lapse of six months—that is to say, he retires with twenty-eight years on a pension which is thirty-three-fiftieths of his annual salary—whereas a constable who has actually done twenty-three years' service has no option to retire on a pension until he has completed twenty-five years' service, and then he is only entitled to a pension of thirty-fiftieths, or three-fifths of his salary. That seems to me very unjust. The man with more service is not allowed to gain the same pension as the man with considerably less service. Again, a constable with nineteen years and seven months' service can retire after six months on the same

315
pension as a man with twenty-three years' service on the day of transfer would be entitled to receive after compulsorily completing twenty-five years' service. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman ought, to consider. I should like the right hon. Gentleman's attention.
Mr. BIRRELL: I follow the point. My attention has been called to it.
Colonel BURN: I think it is a point that needs attention. If the right hon. Gentleman considers it, he will see some Amendment must be made in order to secure equity and justice for the policeman and constable. The position of these constables is a delicate one. They have certainly come into contact with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on many occasions, and they cannot feel their position is safe or that they will receive equitable treatment under an Irish Parliament. Possibly some suggestion may be made from the opposite benches that will meet the case and help the constables to feel their position is being safeguarded and that they are not of necessity to be thrown out of the positions they hold without any future before them. I certainly hope something may be done so that these constables may not feel they are to be put on the shelf or left in the hands of men who might very well be opposed to them and their interests.
Mr. MALCOLM: The concessions or Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman have been put before us very fairly, but I have not knowledge enough to know whether they are received with that amount of gratitude he expects from the Royal Irish Constabulary, particularly after what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken perfectly candidly, though whether satisfactorily or not I do not know, about the salaries and pensions. I want to call his attention to that part of the Clause which deals with the duties constables have performed hitherto, and which they will still be liable to perform. We raised this matter on Clause 2, Subsection (11), and the right hon. Gentleman then said he would discuss with us when we came to Clause 27 the duties to be performed under what he calls the new regime by the Royal Irish Constabulary. The duties to be performed in return for these salaries and pensions are very multifarious, and are not such as generally fall within the category of police duties.
316
There are such duties as those of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, of Officers of Excise, and of inspectors under the Childrens Act; and they are being bound to do military duties. All these have hitherto fallen under the duties of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Under the new regime, if it ever comes into existence, such things as the Children Act, and for all I know twelve, thirteen, or fourteen other things would come within the category of internal affairs. Such matters as Excise, Weights and Measures, and military duties would certainly be reserved services, and payment for such duties would have to be in some proportion to the services performed. We should be glad to know whether those services are to be performed to the same degree in the future as they have been in the past, or whether they would be confined to officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary; the other duties regarding the administration of Acts governing the internal arrangements in Ireland being dealt with possibly by some other body than the Royal Irish Constabulary of that day. That is the only question which I rose to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust that, when he comes to reply, he will be able to say something about it.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. LOUGH: I am glad that there is a general agreement in the House that my right hon. Friend has treated these men, who have rendered such excellent service in Ireland, with considerable liberality, and I am sure he ought to be pleased with the measure of acceptance his suggestion has received. The point I rose to call attention to is not so much the effect of the Clause itself on the men—although I rejoice that the men are entirely satisfied—as the money obligation that will be placed on Ireland, and the great contrast presented by the provisions of this Clause to those contained in similar Clauses in the two former Home Rule Bills. The general tenor of the Clause may be described in a very few words. It provides for all the existing enactments which apply to this force shall continue to apply when the force is handed over after the passing of the Act, and that they shall continue to discharge all the duties and receive the same consideration as they have at the present time. But after the day of transfer, when the Royal Irish Constabulary are handed over, all these obligations are to be placed on the back of Ireland, and no assistance is given in meeting the

317
obligations from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. This presents the most extraordinary contrast to the provisions of the two former Home Rule Bills. In the Bill of 1886 £1,000,000 was conceded from the British Exchequer as a contribution towards the Royal Irish Constabulary, and in the Bill of 1893 there was also a liberal contribution made to the extent, I believe, of one-third of the cost of the force. It is an astounding thing that, under existing circumstances, there should be an entire omission from this Bill of any contribution of that kind. This is one of two Clauses. The other Clause refers to land purchase, and that Clause and this one place a burden upon Ireland which it will be totally impossible for Ireland to bear. The extent of this will be realised by the Committee if I recall the cost of another force. The total cost of the force amounts to £1,400,000 per annum, and this Clause makes it exceedingly difficult for any new Irish Government to bring about any economies in the administration. No doubt such economies will be made gradually, but it will be extremely difficult for expenses to be reduced. If we contrast that with the cost of the police either in this country or in Scotland, where the population is little more than that of Ireland, we find that the cost of the police force in Scoland in 1911 was nearly £5,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into that question again. The only question before the Committee has reference to the conditions on which these men shall continue in the service or retire.
Mr. LOUGH: What I want to draw particular attention to is the financial obligation which will be thrown on Ireland.
The CHAIRMAN: Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the transfer of the force at the end of a certain period. This is really a consequential Clause, saying on what terms the force shall be transferred.
Mr. LOUGH: I only want to raise a question as to the terms of the transfer. As the Clause is constructed the transfer terms are most extravagant; the force will cost three times as much as the police force costs in Scotland, a country where there is more crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Certainly not less crime. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no cattle driving there."] I wanted to point out that no contribution is given, as was proposed in previous Acts, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take the matter into
318
his consideration and deal with it at a later stage. I do not know why this point was not considered earlier in the Bill. What I would like to impress upon the Committee is that the cost of this force will represent one-seventh of the whole Irish revenue, and no one country can afford to pay that in order to maintain a police force. In Scotland the corresponding figure is 1.38. We have this extraordinary position. We all agree that these men are most worthy of consideration, and this fact was recognised in the two previous Home Rule Bills. I think it is a great pity that this point has not been considered. It involves an obligation on Ireland far greater than Members of this Committee generally have taken into account. It will make the whole finance of the new Irish Government extremely difficult. Remember the matter is not left in their hands. They are ordered to go on paying the same salaries and pensions and to do everything done by this House out of the plenitude of its wealth. A small Government like that of Ireland, struggling with a financial difficulty of this nature, will have a burden cast upon it which is greater than it can bear. Look at Sub-section (4). The Clause is printed in italics until it comes to the last two lines, and those two lines indicate that whatever burden is thrown on the Exchequer the money shall be deducted from the sum transferred to Ireland. I think there is a want of liberality in all this. My right hon. Friend dealt with this Clause from one point of view, but we ought to think of it from another point of view, and I appeal to the Government to consider the matter from the Irish standpoint, and to give to the Government they now propose to set up in Ireland some such consideration as it was proposed to give under the Bills of 1886 and 1893. That could surely be proposed with just as much force now as in those years. Some such assistance should surely be given by this great Parliament to the young Parliament to be set up in Ireland.
Mr. REMNANT: While as strongly opposed as ever to the handing over of this Imperial force to the new Parliament in Ireland, I am bound frankly to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has made in this case a real concession, and I have much pleasure in thanking him for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman has asked hon. Members not to press him further until the result of the negotiations

319
now going on is known. The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards meeting the question raised—questions backed up by a very strong force in Ireland. There is one matter as to which I should like to ask for further information. Officers and men as he knows claim the right to retire on full pension on the abolition of office and they ask that they should be allowed to retire on those terms during the six years. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the intention is that the retirement must take place within the six years. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot make a further concession to these men. I do not think it would seriously affect the Amendment, but it certainly would remove a grievance which the men feel very strongly. Could he not allow these men to exercise the option of retiring at any time within six years without naming a particular year? Can they not be allowed to hand in notices so that they may not have to serve under a Government with which they do not happen to agree. The right hon. Gentleman says we need not worry ourselves about a large number of these men not being anxious to serve under the new rulers. I have strong views on that matter, and I believe there are a large number of men who would much sooner retire at once and so save themselves the disagreeable task of performing duty under a Home Rule Government. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is considerable reason in my request and I hope he will be able to meet it. There is only one further matter to which I wish to refer. We heard with considerable satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the men, or their committee, were perfectly satisfied with the terms at which he and the committee had arrived, and personally I am very glad to learn that from him.
Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) told us that he thought the Chief Secretary ought to have provided for some contribution from the funds of the United Kingdom towards the payment of the Irish Constabulary because a sum of £1,000,000 was provided as a contribution under the Bill of 1886, and a certain contribution was made under the Bill of 1893. He went on to establish, to his own satisfaction, that because that sum or some sums were contributed in those years they ought to be contributed now.
320
The right hon. Gentleman entirely forgot that under the Bill of 1886 there was a contribution from Ireland to England of a sum amounting to £1,750,000, and a somewhat similar contribution from Ireland to England under the Bill of 1893, whereas now there is to be a contribution from England to Ireland of a sum of about £2,000,000. I see the Postmaster-General is looking at me, but I think my facts are correct.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I was protesting against the use of the word "England."
The CHAIRMAN: I called the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) to order on that point. We are not discussing the finance of the Bill, but the retiring allowances.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think you called the right hon. Gentleman to order upon the point that under the Bill of 1893 and the Bill of 1886 certain contributions were made. It is that point that I am endeavouring to meet. I do not want to go into the question as to whether or not the sums which are being paid to the Irish Constabulary are right, except in regard to pensions which are mentioned in the Clause. I merely wish to answer the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, which seemed to be received with considerable satisfaction by the hon. Members who are sitting around him. I want to point out to him that he omitted to state that very relevant factor in his argument, namely, that this country has to contribute a sum of £2,000,000 to Ireland which she did not have to contribute before. The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend (Mr. Remnant) said that the Irish Constabulary were entirely satisfied by the concessions made by the Chief Secretary under this Clause. The Chief Secretary very carefully guarded himself. My recollection of what he said is that he fully recognised all the good qualities of the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and that while doing so, and while being fully aware of the necessity of coming to terms with such a body of men so that they should be contented and willing to carry on their duty, he said he had not got illimitable funds, and, although he had met them to a very great degree, he had not met them altogether.
Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL indicated assent.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then that is the position we are dealing with. It is not quite the position taken up by the right

321
hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough), who said the men were entirely satisfied, or the position taken up by my hon. Friend (Mr. Remnant), who was apparently misled by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole Committee are thoroughly agreed that the Royal Irish Constabulary is one of the finest forces that ever existed in this or in any other country. I am not quite certain whether I am at liberty to speak for hon. Members below the Gangway, but everyone except those hon. Members—and I am not sure that I am right even in excepting them—is desirous of doing not only what is right and just, but what is generous to this fine body of men. No one will deny that I have always taken up the role of economist in this House, or that I am the last man who is desirous of spending money unnecessarily, or that I am also desirous of obtaining a sovereign for a sovereign.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmade an observation inaudible.
Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend seems to think that I wish to obtain a little more than the sovereign. That is not so. I wish to be just in all my dealings. All I wish to obtain is full value for my money, and nothing more. That being my character, I rise this evening to plead with the Chief Secretary for a little more generosity.
Mr. BIRRELL: Ireland pays for it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, but we contribute £2,000,000 to Ireland; they could take it out of that, and it would be a very good object to which to devote the money. Whether Ireland pays it or not does not touch the point. It is this Parliament which is giving to Ireland Home Rule, and this Parliament which is creating the situation which arises at the present moment. If Ireland desires that this situation should arise, it is only fair that Ireland should treat these people, who may be injured under that situation, with great generosity, especially as she is to get £2,000,000 from us. It is evident that the officers and constables and the force generally are not absolutely contented with the arrangements which have been made for them by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I have been able to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which I admit was extremely clear, the difference is this: They think that if in their own interest it should be desirable to retire from the force—I will not go into the rea-
322
sons, or whether they dislike hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway or not—owing to a change in the position and owing to the people who will ultimately have control of them, if they think it advisable or necessary in their own interests to retire from the force, they should be entitled to the same pension to which they would have been entitled had they retired at the end of their full service. I think that is a reasonable proposition. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—he is conversant with banking—that when in the interests of the shareholders two banks amalgamate, the officers of those banks are treated in a more generous way than they would be if they had remained in the service of the original banks. In these circumstances, why should we not apply the same rule to the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are being put in the same position as the officers of the two banks which amalgamate? It is done for the advantage of the shareholders, and this is done for the advantage—although I do not think it is an advantage—of the inhabitants of Ireland. In these circumstances it is only fair and right that the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are to suffer, should receive no worse pensions when they retire than they would have received if they had remained on and served under the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me some faint hope that between now and the Report stage he will consider what I have suggested, with a view of meeting me in some degree. The only other question which I wish to ask him arising out of this Clause—I do not know whether it has been asked before; if it has I apologise for putting it again—is in regard to Sub-section (2), which says—
"with the substitution of the Lord Lieutenant for the Treasury and for the Chief Commissioner or Inspector-General, as the case requires."
Why the Lord Lieutenant?
The CHAIRMAN: There was a long discussion upon that, and I think we had better not have it again.
Sir F. BANBURY: Was the point discussed?
The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Sir F. BANBURY: And answered?
The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Sir F. BANBURY: Then I will not say anything further, except that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is most important, first, that these people should

323
be treated in a generous manner, and, secondly, that they should have no feeling of injustice in their minds which might rankle during the six years they are still to remain servants of the United Kingdom. I think the right hon. Gentleman to a certain extent recognises the great importance of this matter, and I hope he will consider before the Report stage whether he cannot go a little further and meet the representations which have been made to him by the officers of the force, which I think are very reasonable. I asked the right hon. Gentleman across the Table a short time ago whether the alteration of the date from "the passing of the Act" to "the appointed day" would not throw an additional burden upon the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and he said, "No." I rather think it will. The appointed day being eight months later, during those eight months it will not be possible to obtain anything from the Transferred Sum. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that point.
Mr. BIRRELL: I am rather obliged to the hon. Baronet for making the point he did about the general satisfaction of the police, because, of course, he will readily understand that I have been in constant communication with those gentlemen, who, I have no doubt, will read the report of our Debates to-night with more attention than they usually bestow upon them. I should not like them to think that I had misrepresented the point of view they have presented to me. I do not say for one moment that these Amendments represent the Amendments which they themselves would have put upon the Paper, had the Constitution allowed them to do so. Therefore, the hon. Baronet is quite right. Although I have not been able to give them all that they wanted, still I did meet them in such a spirit that they left me, I will not say full of gratitude, for that is not a word I ever care to use, but after I had listened and entered into their joint of view and done the best I could for them, they were satisfied to that extent. I think I was perfectly right when I said that if the Bill becomes law in its present state, so far as these police are concerned, they will view the matter with satisfaction and feel that their interests have been fairly met. I do not go further than that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) raised a particular point, and I think he made it good. It is a little difficult, but it is no doubt the case that under
324
the Government Amendment as it stands a man has not the power of voluntarily retiring if he is qualified under the existing law to retire on a pension within two years after the date of transfer. That in itself seems a reasonable proposition, but it nevertheless has the effect which the hon. and gallant Gentleman anticipated, that a man with twenty-three years' service who waits on and retires at the end of two years gets twenty-five years, whereas if at the date of transfer he had twenty-two years' service and then retired he would add five years. Then he gets his pension calculated on a service of twenty-seven years, although at the date of the transfer itself he was junior in service to the other man. It is purely an accident that it should work out in this way, but I have considered the point, and I think it is an anomaly and that it would be better to exclude from the voluntary power only those men who are able to claim their maximum pension, and the simple insertion in the Fourth Schedule of the word "maximum" will get rid of that particular though not necessarily isolated grievance, and it will prevent the rule working arithmetically with any degree of unfairness. Therefore, I am able to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm) reminds me of a point which I am conscious was raised before. He wants to know about the duties of the police force. On a former occasion we had a Debate in which the very varied nature of the services rendered by the police was gone into. They were a very considerable list, but not an unusual list. I think in England itself the police force is utilised under Statute for the discharge of duties which are certainly extraneous to those of keeping the peace, and in Ireland they have had cast upon them at different times duties of that character. The hon. Member mentioned a good many of them and he might have mentioned others. He wants to know what will happen with regard to these. So far as the duties are imposed upon the police by Statute, until such time as those Statutes are altered, if they are alterable, by the Irish Parliament, the police will be bound to discharge them. So far as they have been cast upon them by arrangement, as has sometimes been the case, the course to be taken also will be a matter of arrangement. They might be relieved of some of those duties, but I am not in a, position to say that they will not be required to discharge such duties as are at present imposed upon them by Statute-

325
The language is that they perform "the same duties as heretofore." They cannot be required to discharge entirely new duties. I include in these words "same duties," such duties as at present are imposed upon them by Statute.
Mr. MALCOLM: I only meant that they would have to be separated and that some duties would in future fall as reserved services and others as duties falling within the Irish Parliament.
Mr. BIRRELL: I follow the point and I am afraid I must give the hon. Member the answer that under Clause 40 these matters are matters of arrangement between the different departments and the duties will have to be divided and separated. Then the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) took the opportunity of reminding us—and I think he did well to remind us—that we are generous with money which is to be expended by the Irish Parliament, and that the funds at their disposal not being excessive, one does require to look at this matter with some degree of caution. I do not think those observations were strictly relevant to the present Amendment, and therefore, particularly as he is not here, I will pass them over. Then the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) put some questions to me. I think the concession which I have already made to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) shows that I recognise that it is eminently desirable to secure for the members of this force voluntarily retiring from the service the best terms I can make for them, but I am afraid I cannot promise to extend the terms which I have arrived at. I should like to if I could, but the hon. Baronet himself is so eminent an economist that he will understand that I have had some difficulty. Nor can I quite appreciate the simile about the amalgamation of banks. I have retired from the banking business now. I have known a good many cases of amalgamated undertakings where persons have only served a very short time as directors, and perhaps have not had their fees for more than a couple of years, and the amalgamated concern, not wanting their services any longer, proceeded to endow these fortunate gentlemen with £400 a year for the rest of their lives. That is done because they are all making a rattling good business out of it. I do not think that, financially, it can possibly be said that the new Irish Government is making such a marvellously good thing out of it, and we cannot, therefore, deal
326
with national funds in the same lavish spirit as is often displayed when two commercial concerns amalgamate and desire to get rid of certain directors or other supernumeraries from the amalgamated concern. I do not think we could genuinely and honestly apply to such a case as this the system which prevails in the City of London. With regard to the last question he put to me, about whether the alteration of the date from the passing of the Act to the appointed day imposes any obligation upon the British taxpayer, I have already stated I do not think that is so, but I am always somewhat shy of expressing absolutely an opinion of that sort. I do not see why it should, but I will inquire into the matter and communicate the result of my inquiry to the hon. Baronet, so that he may make such use of the information in the course of the Debate as may recommend itself to him. I am very much obliged to the Committee for the spirit in which they have received the concession, and I gladly recognise that in every quarter of the House, whatever happens and whatever views there may be upon Home Rule, there is every desire that this great service should receive, at, the hands of this House, the fair consideration to which their claims entitle them.
Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: Whether he can extend the right of these men to retire during the six years?
Mr. BIRRELL: No. That is a matter which I have carefully considered. It is a matter regarding the difference of standing between the police force and the Civil Service. I am afraid I really cannot.
Mr. BARRIE: I think this may prove to be a bad financial bargain for Ireland, and it is therefore most desirable that we should deal very carefully with these concessions, now that we are practically for the last time dealing with what is, after all, perhaps the most important great change which Home Rule will bring to Ireland. This great Imperial force, which is now passing into the hands of a subordinate Parliament, is entitled, if ever any British force was entitled, to receive extremely generous terms from the master who is about to part with it. A reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) to the fact that this was simply a change of masters. We regard it as something far greater than that. We regard it not only as a change of masters, but as degrading a great Imperial force.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go back to Clause 5. We had all this on Clause 5.
Mr. BARRIE: I heartily endorse all the good things which have been said with regard to this force from all sections of the House. While I wish these proposals had been more generous, I am bound to say that, occupying the difficult position which he does, the Chief Secretary has gone a very great way towards meeting the objections which have been presented to him on behalf of that important force. We are bound to remember, although we are told that a committee representing this force has interviewed the Chief Secretary on several occasions, that it would have been against discipline for the members of the force to have communicated their grievances to any Members of this House except those occupying an official position, as the Chief Secretary does. Reference has been made to these Amendments. The Chief Secretary has pleaded that he has gone as far as he can actually see his way to do. May I recall to him a question I put some few weeks ago dealing with the fund over which the British Treasury has still control? I refer to the Constabulary Benefit Fund. In the course of that question and answer it transpired that the total accumulated fund in 1902 stood at £374,000, and in the succeeding nine years, with a steadily diminishing demand upon it, it has grown to £394,000. This fund, having no fresh demand made upon it, will in a very few years exhaust all possible claims, and if it is allowed to remain where it is, the residue will flow back into the British Treasury. I suggest that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman might consider the wisdom—nay, the need—for considering an Amendment which would enable him to add to the terms he has outlined to-day, and which we shall deal with in detail on the Fourth Schedule. I venture again to impress upon him that although these services in his judgment are generous, they are not adequate to the full injury which is being inflicted under the Bill on men who have joined this force. The average constable has joined the force meaning it to be his life profession under the Imperial guarantee. Now he loses that guarantee, and he loses the security that flows from it. If he elects under these provisions to retire rather than take the great risks he would run under the Irish Parliament, surely he
328
is entitled, so far as the residue of this fund would enable the Treasury to meet his desires, to have the sacrifices he will be called upon to suffer made somewhat less than they will be under the proposals of the Chief Secretary. I will take an early opportunity of handing in the exact wording of the Amendment I propose to move when we reach the Report stage, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter very full and special consideration. I hope, when he has done so, he will be able to make an additional concession to those he has announced, and for which I beg to thank him. I think the Chief Secretary has gone a long way to meet the reasonable claims of this force in the unfortunate circumstances in which they find themselves.
Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I understand an Amendment has been made which postpones payment until the "appointed day" instead of the date of the "passing of this Act." I believe that puts a charge on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, because it is perfectly clear that as the Clause originally stood the payment which would arise after the passing of the Act would be taken out of the Transferred Sum. By postponing the payment until the "appointed day" it will have to be met by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. I do not intend to go back on the terms of the Financial Resolution, which were amended, but I think it would be out of order to increase any charge under this Bill on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. I submit that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is out of order.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know which particular Amendment the hon. Baronet is referring to.
Sir F. BANBURY: It was the Amendment substituting the words "appointed day" for the words "passing of this Act."
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Baronet is correct as to the effect of that Amendment. I do not think it will put an additional charge on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.
Mr. CASSEL: It will increase the charge for this reason. As the Bill originally stood these pensions were payable out of the Consolidated Fund, but

329
they were to be deducted from the Transferred Sum. Now during the period between the passing of the Act and the "appointed day," they are no longer to come out of the Consolidated Fund, so that during that period they will fall on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom instead of falling on the Transferred Sum.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I submit that it will make no difference to the Exchequer whether the money is deducted from the Transferred Sum or whether it is included in the Transferred Sum paid to the Irish Government. The charge will come out of the British Exchequer in the one case and the other.
The CHAIRMAN: My impression was the same as that stated by the Postmaster-General, that it would not make any additional charge. As hon. Members have raised the point, I will give it further attention when I have an opportunity.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I point out, further, that in any case the Financial Resolution would be quite adequate to cover it?
The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so.
Mr. JOHN GORDON: I am very glad the Chief Secretary has made the concessions which he has announced with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary. We are all agreed, I think—at all events, those who represent Ireland in this part of the House—as to the desirability of protecting these persons. There is one thing I should have liked to hear, and that is, what concessions were asked by the Royal Irish Constabulary which the right hon. Gentleman has not granted. He obviously has only granted some of them, and I think it would be a very useful thing for the House to know at first hand what concessions were asked and not granted. I know that there are very good grounds for apprehension on the part of the police force in Ireland as to the treatment they would receive under the new Government about to be set up. Therefore I think we are all anxious—at all events, those who appreciate the services they have rendered to the country—to see that they should be thoroughly protected. I am not speaking in this matter the opinions formed by myself and those who think with me, but there was a statement made in a Court of Justice by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with reference to the course that will be adopted
330
in regard to the police force. When asked if it would be a duty to disorganise and break up the Royal Irish Constabulary, his answer was, "Yes, and I trust to do it." He was further asked if he would disorganise and break up the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to that he answered: "No, I have not the power yet, but when I have the power I trust to do it." Therefore I think the Royal Irish Constabulary has very good reason to very much distrust the gentlemen who will in future have charge of their destinies, as well as the destinies of other people in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would let us know what the police force wanted, I think we would be in a very much better position to form a true estimate of the concessions he has made. He has had before him this afternoon the question of eliminating the power to deprive men of their pensions in respect of offences against the Statutes. That has been disposed of, but it seems to me that the whole matter is left open for any body hostile to the police force to exercise power under the cover of these provisions in the Bill which might be very disastrous to the police. There is also the important question whether, if they were forced into the position of having to accept lower pay, they will be deprived of the status they occupy at the present moment or will that be regarded as a breach of the contract they have with the present authorities? The police force have naturally a distrust of the position they will have to occupy in the future. They have done their duty well in the past, and it would be a very poor recompense for their services if they were to be deprived of the benefits and advantages to which they were justly entitled to look forward.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

GENERAL.

  CLAUSE 38.—(Continuance of Existing Laws, Institutions, etc.)
  All existing laws, institutions, and authorities in Ireland, whether judicial, administrative, or Ministerial, and all existing taxes in Ireland, shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, continue as if this Act had not passed, but with the modifications necessary for adapting them to this Act, and subject, as respects matters within the powers of the Irish Parliament under this Act, to repeal, abolition, alteration, and adaptation in the manner and to the extent authorised by this Act.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out the word "institutions" ["All existing laws, institutions, and authorities"].
  7.0 P.M.
  I think this is merely a drafting Amendment. I should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is meant by the word "institutions" in the Clause. It seems to me that it is really an unparliamentary word—perhaps unparliamentary is not the right expression, but an unsuitable word for an Act of Parliament. The word "institutions" seems to me to be extremely wide. It might cover a home for lost cats, a Masonic institution, or even an annual dinner. It seems to me we should have the right word, because of the general words which follow. It seems to me that the word "authorities" is quite sufficient for the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, and that "institutions" is wholly unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman himself might be described as a Ministerial institution, but I should prefer to regard him as a Ministerial authority. I move the Amendment in order to elicit from the Government an explanation of the necessity of using this rather unusual word in an Act of Parliament and of what they have in their minds which is not already sufficiently covered by the word authority.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me what things there ought to be continued which are judicial, administrative, or Ministerial which are not governed by the word "authority," and he has given as particular instances of the things that might hi considered institutions for the purposes of the Bill which are covered by the word "authority," myself and my right hon. Friend. I should certainly say that the Pcstmaster-General was in authority. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has certainly raised himself in this House to the level of an institution. However that may be, the contrary instances I will give are such as these. Take, for example, the whole judicial system in Ireland. You might say that the whole system of Law Courts in Ireland is more than a mere authority. Another institution which has been quoted frequently in these Debates during the last few days, and is not covered by the word "authority," is the Marlborough Street Training College. That is not an administrative authority
  332
  nor an administrative law. Then there are the cases of the Registry of Deeds and the local registry of title, things which might be held not to be covered by the word "authority," and are certainly covered by the word "institution." For these reasons we have followed the precedent of the Bill 1893 and included this term "institution." The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the term may cover a great deal more—for instance, a cricket club dinner or something of that kind. But that will not matter in the least because the Bill does not continue them in existence. All the Bill says is that the institution shall continue as if this Act had not passed—in other words, that the Act shall not affect them. The disastrous consequences which the hon. Member foresees as affecting various institutions of a convivial kind cannot occur under this Clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to propose to leave out the words "but with the modifications necessary for adapting them to this Act."
  By this Clause all existing laws and institutions, including the Irish Secretary himself, all authorities in Ireland, judicial, administrative and Ministerial, and all existing taxes in Ireland, shall, except as otherwise provided, continue as if this Act had not passed, but with the modifications necessary for adapting them to this Act. It seems to me that those words if left in will simply mean that every existing law and institution is subject to alteration in any way whatever to make it adaptable to this Act. By whom is this modification to be made? Is the new Irish Government to adapt the existing Acts, taxes and institutions in Ireland to this Act? Is it to have full control over all existing laws and taxes in spite of all the efforts made under this Bill up to the present? Somebody must be the judge as to when the particular modification is necessary for adaptation to this Act. Who is to be that judge? Suppose the new Executive in Ireland desires to make a modification of an existing institution. Take the illustration which has been given by the Postmaster-General, the whole judicial system of Ireland. Under the provisions of this Clause the whole judicial system should be modified so far as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act. Who is to decide what modifications are necessary? The Amendment needs very careful consideration on the part of the Government. Unless the

  333
  Government is able to assure us that the words do not mean what they seem—which is an assurance that, they will have great difficulty in giving us—then these words should be omitted from this Clause.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These words are very often used in Acts of Parliament which effect large changes, and are quite essential, because it is impossible for any Bill to foresee all the minute changes of administrative methods or modifications of Acts of Parliament which will be the result of the passing of such an Act. So far as it is necessary to adapt Statutes for the purposes of this Act, that is provided for in Clause 44, Sub-section (1a), and in so far as the adaptations relate to purely administrative matters, of course, the administrative authority which will have control over the institution or authority will be the person empowered to make such adaptations as may be necessary to bring the Act into operation.
  Sir E. CARSON: Who are they?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It depends upon what the authority is. For instanse, if the institution is the Post Office, and the Post Office is to be transferred from the Imperial Government, then it would be the Postmaster-General who would adapt the institution according to the various provisions of the Bill in order to enable it to be transferred from the Imperial Government to the Irish Government.
  Sir E. CARSON: Take the judicial system, which was the illustration you gave of an institution.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If no adaptations are necessary it will remain as it is. I do not know that it will be necessary to have any adaptation in such a case, but suppose there were, then the Lord Lieutenant under whose control the judicial system would rest, subject to the provisions of this Act, might find it necessary to make some adaptation. For instance, the number of judges might have to be increased as a consequence of some new function which might have to be imposed on judges by Orders of Court or something of that kind to carry out any functions thrown upon them by this Bill. It is impossible to foresee all the minute changes in the working of a great Government system following on the setting up of a great system like this. It is quite usual to insert provisions of this kind in an Act of Parliament. There are three such provisions in
  334
  the Local Government Act of 1888, which was passed by hon. Members opposite, and set up a number of new institutions in England and Wales for local administration. Glancing through the Act, not at all carefully, for a few minutes, I came across two or three cases where similar provision is made. Take Clause 75 for example. It provides that certain existing Statutes which are cited shall, save so far as some are unrepealed and are consistent with this Act, apply with such modifications as may be necessary to make them applicable to the said councils, and their chairmen, members, and committees, and to the other provisions of this Act. Clause 78 provides that all enactments in any Act, whether general, local, or personal, relative to any business powers, duties, or liabilities, transferred in pursuance of this Act, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, and so far as circumstances admit, be construed as if any reference therein to the said authority or to any committee or member thereof—all the said enactments shall be construed with such modifications as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect. That is precisely a parallel case. Clause 125 in the same Act provides that, save so far as may be necessary to give effect to this Act, nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect the privileges of any municipal corporation and so on. So you see that again and again such provisions occur. There are three instances in a single Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Ministry which would naturally be very tender towards existing rights and privileges. If there is any doubt as to whether or not any modification is really necessary, in order to adapt this Act, then, I am advised, that that is a matter to be decided by the Courts of Law.
  Sir E. CARSON: This provision is, of course, a very wide one, and requires some examination at the hands of the Committee. We are not dealing now with local government. We are dealing with the setting up of an entirely new Constitution. We are dealing now, so far as this Section is concerned, with every single law that will exist when the Bill becomes law, and that will regulate the whole jurisprudence of Ireland. What the right hon. Gentleman says is the meaning of this Section—I should have taken a different meaning myself—is that every single one of those laws can be modified without Parliament, so as to make them adaptable under this Act.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Such adaptations as are necessary.
  Sir E. CARSON: That is an extraordinary provision. What then is the meaning of the subsequent portion of the Section:—
  "Subject as respects matters within the powers of the Irish Parliament, under this Act, to repeal, abolition, alteration, and adaptation in the manner and to the extent authorised by this Act."
  If the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter he will see that what the Clause does is this, that as regards all matters within the power of the Irish Parliament, they can only do it by Act of Parliament; but as regards the matters which apparently are outside the sanction of the Irish Parliament, they can do it, the right hon. Gentleman says, by Order in Council. Surely that is an extraordinary position. If the first part of the Section means what he says, what is the necessity for the second part at all? What is the necessity for giving the Irish Parliament any power to adapt matters within their jurisdiction if you agree that we can adapt any law at all by Order in Council?
  Mr. BIRRELL: You do not alter the provisions.
  Sir E. CARSON: Why talk of "adaptation," which is the word used in the second part of the Clause? What you are doing by the Section is that you are giving to the Irish Parliament power by legislative enactments to adapt the law, and you are giving the Irish Executive, which means an Order in Council, power not only to alter the laws in the purview of the Irish Parliament, and adapt them, but also such laws as are taken outside the jurisdiction of the Irish Government. That is an extraordinary method of procedure. The two parts of the Clause are absolutely inconsistent with each other. Who is to make the modification necessary for adapting these laws to this Act? The right hon. Gentleman falls back upon Clause 44, which, as we have argued over and over again, only applies to transitory provisions. Assume that Clause 44 is so amended as to provide power to make Orders in Council, if that has any application to Clause 38 at all then these words are quite unnecessary, because you have the words in Clause 44 that "His Majesty may make Orders in Council for the purpose of such adaptations of any enactments so far as they relate to Ireland, as may appear to him necessary." Why
  336
  should those words be put in at all? They set up another Order in Council, and apparently leave in the air that you can have any such modification as may seem to be proper for adapting the laws to this Act. It appears to me that there is a great deal of confusion in the way this has been done, and I submit to the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the provisions of Clause 44, if he relies upon them, that we should have some explanation from him now on the point.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Clause 44 refers to non-statutory bodies, and not to adaptations of Acts of Parliament. It refers to adaptations of institutions, and authorities, and also of laws.
  Sir E. CARSON: "All existing laws."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is quite true that Clause 44 might by itself be held to be adequate so far as laws are concerned. There is no reason why the Clause should not include all three subjects, if alone Clause 44 does re-embody the powers conferred by Clause 38. I do not think it is a point of the great importance which the right hon. Gentleman says. In any case, what we want to do can be done by the Bill, whether in Clause 44 alone or whether in Clause 38. On the whole we think it better to put it in one Clause, and under Clause 44 subsequently provide a procedure by which it can be done. It would not be in the nature of legislation; it is really setting the thing to work and making modifications to enable the procedure to run smoothly. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we should have the powers in the latter part of the Clause which enable the Irish Parliament as respects matters within the powers of the Irish Parliament under this Act to repeal, abolish, alter, and adapt, and he said that the two portions of the Clause are inconsistent with one another. I suggest that they are not inconsistent. If the Imperial Government with a view to setting the machinery in operation makes a certain adaptation of Acts of Parliament or institutions, it is necessary to make it clear that it has been done to enable the thing to come smoothly into working, and that does not affect the power conferred by this Bill on the Irish Parliament to legislate with respect to those same institutions at any subsequent time, or themselves to exercise their powers of legislation with regard to any Statute, even though that Statute may have been adapted in the first instance by

  337
  the Imperial Government. I hope I have made that clear. The two things are really not inconsistent with one another. At the outset the Imperial Government may think it necessary to make an adaptation for the purpose of this Act, and of course, if that were contemplated, it would be at the outset that things would have to be adapted, so far as might be necessary in connection with this Act, when it comes into operation. That is the obvious intention of the Clause. But later, five, ten, or twenty years hence, if the Irish Parliament wishes to legislate on this subject, this Clause makes it perfectly clear that any adaptation that may take place otherwise than by the Irish Parliament, is not to prejudice or preclude any subsequent alteration by the Irish Parliament which they may, under the powers conferred upon them by the Bill, desire to effect.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman a little under-estimates the importance of the subject when he suggests that it may properly be compared with the Local Government Act of 1898. The right hon. Gentleman has had some experience of setting up Colonial Government, and I ask him whether he can find in the Canada Act, the South Africa Act, or the Commonwealth of Australia Act, a single case where a Clause like this appears. I have not been able to discover it. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote analogies, I think he might at least quote, not those which suit his purpose, but the Colonial analogy. The right hon. Gentleman's first explanation of it was even more remarkable, because if I understood him aright, ho said in answer to an interruption of my right hon. Friend, that under certain circumstances the authority to make modifications and adaptations would be in the Lord Lieutenant. That is a most remarkable statement, and I do not so read the Clause. I do not so read Clause 44, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to that view.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It refers to institutions under the control of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the Lord Lieutenant has that power, is he to exercise it by proclamation: is he to alter existing laws and institutions by proclamation? If he looks at Clause 44, I think the right hon. Gentleman will discover that it does provide machinery, not
  338
  only for dealing with enactments, but for dealing with administrative Acts, and they have to be dealt with by Order in Council. Clause 44 was originally intended to be only transitory, but Amendments are being put down, the operation of which will make it a permanent Clause. In any event, I do protest against the policy of making all these changes of that character simply by Order in Council, which means by the power of the Government of the day. I think it a most extraordinary provision, and I suggest that before we arrive at the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider, in the light of the Bill and his own Amendments, if it is necessary, and I think it is necessary, to omit these words altogether.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very lame defence against the acceptance of this Amendment. It is quite true that by paragraph (a) of Clause 44, in all probability it will be required for the adaptation of anything that may arise to make anything clear under this Bill, if that can be done; and if the Bill becomes an Act, whoever will have to administer it, will pay attention to the Act and not to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else. It will be supposed that these words, which we propose to leave out, are put into the Clause for a particular purpose; and it seems to me that their insertion will raise considerable legal difficulties and trouble. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks they are not of very much importance I fail to see why he does not accept the Amendment. Surely it is always better in a complicated measure of this sort, especially a measure setting up a new Constitution in another country, to make it as clear and as simple as possible, and to confine what you desire to do in one Clause instead of putting a piece in Clause 38 and another piece in Clause 44. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that, these words are not of any great importance, perhaps he will consent to their deletion, and so save the Committee the trouble of going to a Division.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the Postmaster-General one question? Take the Land Purchase Act, and suppose the Irish Parliament passed a variation of that Act on the ground that it was necessary for adapting the law; who is to be the judge that such alterations are really needed for the purpose of adaptation of

  339
  the law, or will they not have the power, by merely declaring that they are statutory adaptations, to make the alterations?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Obviously the Irish Parliament would not have the power to do a thing which was ultra vires merely by representing that it was an
  adaptation. When they came to receive the Royal Assent that. Act would have to be interpreted by the Courts, and the Courts would at once say that it was ultra vires.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 327; Noes, 198.

  Division No. 406.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dawes, J. A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Adamson, William

  Delany, William

  Hinds, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Denman, Hon R. D.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hodge, John

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dillon, John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Alnsworth, John Stirling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Doris, William

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Armitage, Robert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Arnold, Sydney

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Barnes, George N.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barton, William

  Falconer, James

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fenwick, Rt Hon. Charles

  Keating, Matthew

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy. Vincent Paul

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Field, William

  Kilbride. Denis

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Fitzgibbon, John

  King, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Boland, John Plus

  Gilhooly, James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Leach, Charles

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brace, William

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brady, P. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lundon, T.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  McGhee, Richard

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Griffith, Fllis Jones

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

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

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

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Guiney, Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Hackett, J.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  M'Kean, John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hancock, John George

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Clynes, John R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Manfield, Harry

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Martin, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayward, Evan

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Crooks, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Millar, James Duncan

  Crumley, Patrick

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Molloy, Michael

  Cullinan, John

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mooney, John J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

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

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

  Morison, Hector

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Muldoon, John

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Munro, R.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough

  Thomas, James Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Reddy, M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Redmond, John (Waterford)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philip

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. Norwich)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  O'Dowd, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ogden, Fred

  Robertson, J. M. Tynesside)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Grady, James

  Robinson, Sidney

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Webb, H.

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  O'Shee, James John

  Rowlands, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

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

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

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

  Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Winfrey, Richard

  Pointer, Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Snowden, Philip

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Price, C, E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Gretton, John

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

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

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Chambers, James

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Baird, J. L.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Coates, Major Edward Feetham

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Barlng, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Barlow, Montague. (Salford, South)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Barnston, Harry

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Barrie, H. T.

  Croft, H. P.

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Bigland, Alfred A.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hills, John Waller

  Blair, Reginald

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

  Falle, B. G.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fell, Arthur

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Boy ton, James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Cassel, Felix

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goldman, C. S.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Cautley, H. S.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Cave, George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Greene, W. R.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  342

  343

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Swift, Rigby

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Terrell. George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Mac-master, Donald

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Malcolm, Ian

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Royds, Edmund

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nield, Herbert

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Younger, Sir George

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stewart, Gershom

  Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Goldsmith.

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, to put forthwith the Questions 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, 329; Noes, 200.

  Division No. 407.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Adamson, William

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Falconer, James

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Field, William

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Clynes, John R.

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Armitage, Robert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Arnold, Sydney

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ginnell, L.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Crean, Eugene

  Goldstone, Frank

  Barnes, George N.

  Crooks, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Barton, William

  Cullinan, John

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

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

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

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Dawes, J. A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  De Forest, Baron

  Hackett, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Delany, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Boland, John Plus

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hancock, John George

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Dillon, John

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Brace, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Brady, P. J.

  Doris, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C (Poplar)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hayward, Evan

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Molloy, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mooney, John J.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham}

  Morrell, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Morison, Hector

  Rowlands, James

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  Muldoon, John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, R.

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

  Hinds, John

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H

  Murray, Captain Hon Arthur C.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Snowden, Philip

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  Sutton, John E.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Grady, James

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  King, J.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  London, T.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  McGhee, Richard

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Webb, H.

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

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Radford, G. R.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Rattan. Peter Wilson

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  William, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Barrie, H. T.

  Boyton, James

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

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

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bull, Sir William James

  Baird, J. L.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Butcher, John George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bigland, Alfred A.

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

  Baring, Maj. H. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Blair, Reginald

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cassel, Felix

  346

  347

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cautley, H. S.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Chambers, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Fectham

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Edmund

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Falle, B. G.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Swift, Rigby

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Goldman, C. S.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Greene, W. R.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

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

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

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

  Gretton and Mr. J. Wood.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

CLAUSE 39.—(Use of Crown Lands by Irish Government.)
His Majesty the King in Council may place under the control of the Irish Government, for the purposes of that Government, such of the lands, buildings, and property in Ireland vested in or held in trust for His Majesty, and subject to
such conditions or restrictions (if any) as may seem expedient.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 202.

Division No. 408.]

AYES.

[7.52 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Armitage, Robert

Barton, William

Acland, Francis Dyke

Arnold, Sydney

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Adamson, William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Addison, Dr. C.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Bentham, George Jackson

Agnew, Sir George William

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Barnes, George N.

Black, Arthur W.

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

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Boland, John Plus

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Molloy, Michael

Bowerman, C. W.

Hancock, John George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mooney, John J.

Brady, P. J.

Hardie, J. Keir

Morrell, Philip

Brocklehurst, William B

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

Morison, Hector

Brunner, J. F. L.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Muldoon, John

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Munro, R.

Burke, E. Haviland-

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

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hayward, Evan

Nolan, Joseph

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Hazleton, Richard

Norman, Sir Henry

Chancellor, H. G.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Clancy, John Joseph

Helme, Sir Noryal Watson

Nuttall, Harry

Clough, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Clynes, John R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hen. Sir J.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, Thomas

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hinds, John

O'Dowd, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ogden, Fred

Cotton, William Francis

Hodge, John

O'Grady, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hogge, James Myles

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

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Malley, William

Crean, Eugene

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

Crooks, William

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Crumley, Patrick

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Shee, James John

Cullinan, John

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Outhwaite, R. L.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

John, Edward Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Dawes, J. A

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman, H. M.

De Forest, Baron

Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Delany, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Devlin, Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Pointer, Joseph

Dickinson, W. H.

Keating, Matthew

Pollard, Sir George H.

Dillon, John

Kellaway, Frederick George

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Power, Patrick Joseph

Doris, William

Kilbride, Denis

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Duffy, William J.

King, J.

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Pringle, William M. R.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Radford, G. H.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Leach, Charles

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Elverston, Sir Harold

Levy, Sir Maurice

Raphael. Sir Herbert H.

Esmende, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Reddy, M.

Falconer, James

Lundon, T.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lynch, A. A.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rendall, Athelstan

Ffrench, Peter

McGhee, Richard

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Field, William

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macpherson, James Ian

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Gilhooly, James

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Gill, A. H.

M'Curdy, C. A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ginnell, L.

M'Kean, John

Robinson, Sidney

Gladstone, W. G. C.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

Glanville, H. J.

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

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Goldstone, Frank

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Manfield, Harry

Rowlands, James

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Rowntree, Arnold

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Martin, J.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Scanlan, Thomas

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

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

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Guiney, Patrick

Meagher, Michael

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

Gulland, John William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sheehy, David

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Shortt, Edward

Hackett, J.

Millar, James Duncan

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

350

351

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Verney, Sir Harry

Wiles, Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Wads worth, J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Snowden, Philip

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Walton, Sir Joseph

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Sutton, John E.

Wardle, George J.

Winfrey, Richard

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Tennant, Harold John

Webb, H.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Thomas, James Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Toulmin, Sir George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

NOES.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Baird, J. L.

Fleming, Valentine

Macmaster, Donald

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

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

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Malcolm, Ian

Baldwin, Stanley

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Gibbs, G. A.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gilmour, Captain John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Barnston, Harry

Goldman, C. S.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Barrie, H. T.

Goldsmith, Frank

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

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

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Mount, William Arthur

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Newdegate, F. A.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Grant, J. A.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Greene, W. R.

Nield, Herbert

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Gretton, John

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Beresford, Lord C.

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

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bigland, Alfred A.

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Blair, Reginald

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Perkins, Walter F.

Boyton, James

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

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

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Harris, Henry Percy

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Burgoyne, A. H.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Randles, Sir Sir John S.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Butcher, John George

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

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rolleston, Sir John

Cassel, Felix

Hills, John Waller

Rothschild, Lionel de

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Royds, Edmund

Cautley, H. S.

Hoare, S. J. G.

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

Cave, George

Hohler, G. F.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Sanderson, Lancelot

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

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Chambers, James

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Ingleby, Holcombe

Spear, Sir John Ward

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stewart, Gershom

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kerry, Earl of

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Craik, Sir Henry

Kimber, Sir Henry

Swift, Rigby

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Croft, H. P.

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Talbot, Lord E.

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Larmor, Sir J.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Dixon, C. H.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Doughty, Sir George

Lewisham, Viscount

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Duke, Henry Edward

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Touche, George Alexander

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

Tuilibardine, Marquess of

Falle, B. G.

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Valentia, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

352

353

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

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

Younger, Sir George

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Orde-Powlett and Mr. Edward Wood.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

CLAUSE 40.—(Arrangements between Departments of United Kingdom and Irish Departments for Exercise of Powers and Duties.)
Arrangements may be made by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of an Irish Department, or by any Irish Department for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department
by officers of a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom on such terms and conditions as may be agreed:
Provided that no such arrangements shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 318; Noes, 193.

Division No. 409.]

AYES.

[8.4 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Crumley, Patrick

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cullinan, John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Adamson, William

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

Hardie, J. Keir

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Agnew, Sir George William

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Dawes, J. A.

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

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

De Forest, Baron

Haslani, James (Derbyshire)

Armitage, R.

Delany, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Arnold, Sydney

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Devlin, Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Dickinson, W. H.

Hayward, Evan

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Dillon, John

Hazleton, Richard

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Donelan, Captain A.

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Doris, William

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

Barnes, George N.

Duffy, William J.

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barton, William

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Henry, Sir Charles

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Higham, John Sharp

Bentham, George Jackson

Elverston, Sir Harold

Hinds, John

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Hodge, John

Black, Arthur W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hogge, James Myles

Boland, John Pius

Falconer, James

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Booth, Frederick Handel

Farrell, James Patrick

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Bowerman, C. W.

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Brace, William

Ffrench, Peter

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brady, P. J.

Field, William

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Brocklehurst, William B.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Fitzgibbon, John

John, Edward Thomas

Bryce, J. Annan

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gilhooly, James

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Ginnell, L.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Glanville, H. J.

Joyce, Michael

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Keating, Matthew

Chancellor, H. G.

Goldstone, Frank

Kellaway, Frederick George

Chapple, Dr. William Alien

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Clancy, John Joseph

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Kilbride, Denis

Clough, William

Greig, Colonel J. W.

King, J.

Clynes, John R.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Guiney, Patrick

Leach, Charles

Cotton, William Francis

Gulland, John William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lewis, John Herbert

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hackett, J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crean, Eugene

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Crooks, William

Hancock, John George

Lundon, T.

Lynch, A. A.

O'Grady, James

Sheehy, David

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

Shortt, Edward

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

O'Malley, William

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

McGhee, Richard

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

Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

O'Shee, James John

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Macpherson, James Ian

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Snowden, Philip

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

M'Kean, John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Sutton, John E.

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

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Phllipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Manfield, Harry

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Pointer, Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Pollard, Sir George H.

Thomas, J. H.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Martin, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Toulmin, Sir George

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Meagher, Michael

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

Verney, Sir Harry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Wadsworth, J

Menzies, Sir Walter

Pringle, William M. R.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Millar, James Duncan

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Molloy, Michael

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Roddy, M.

Wardle, George J.

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Morrell, Philip

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Morison, Hector

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Webb, H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rendall, Athelstan

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Muldoon, John

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Munro, R.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wilkie, Alexander

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Robinson, Sidney

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

Norman, Sir Henry

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Norton, Cant. Cecil W.

Roche, John (Calway, E.)

Winfrey, Richard

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Nuttall, Harry

Rowlands, James

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rowntree, Arnold

Young, William (Perth, East)

O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

O'Doherty, Philip

Scanlan, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

O'Donnell, Thomas

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Wedgwood Bonn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

O'Dowd, John

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

Ogden, Fred

NOES.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Duke, Henry Edward

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Butcher, John George

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

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

Faher, George Denison (Clapham)

Archer-Shee, Major

Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred

Falle, B. G.

Baird, J. L.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Fell, Arthur

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

Cassel, Felix

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Baldwin, Stanley

Cautley, H. S.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cave, George

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fleming, Valentine

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Fletcher, John Samuel

Barnston, H.

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Forster, Henry William

Barrie, H, T.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Gardner, Ernest

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

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

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Chambers, James

Gibbs, G. A.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Gilmour, Captain John

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Goldsmith, Frank

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Beresford, Lord C.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bigland, Alfred

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Grant, J. A.

Blair, Reginald

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Greene, W. R.

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Craik, Sir Henry

Gretton, John

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Boyton, James

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Denniss, E. R. B.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Bull, Sir William James

Dixon, C. H.

Hall. Fred (Dulwich)

Burgoyne, A. H.

Doughty, Sir George

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

356

357

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

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Harris, Henry Percy

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

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Malcolm, Ian

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Spear, Sir John Ward

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

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Stewart, Gershom

Hills, John Waller

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Swift, Rigby

Hoare, S. J. G.

Newdegate, F. A.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Hohler, G. F.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Talbot, Lord E.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Nield, Herbert

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Ingleby, Holcombe

Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

Touche, George Alexander

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Jessel, Capt. H. M.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Joynson-Hicks, William

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Valentia, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Kerry, Earl of

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Kimber, Sir Henry

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Randles, Sir John S.

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

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Larmor, Sir J.

Rawsbn, Col. R. H.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Rolleston, Sir John

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lewisham, Viscount

Rothschild, Lionel de

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Royds, Edmund

Younger, Sir George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Page Croft and Mr. Walrond.

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Sanders, Robert A.

CLAUSE 41.—(Concurrent Legislation.)
(1) The Irish Parliament, shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this Act (except as is specially provided by this Act), or of any Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this Act and extending to Treland, although that provision deals with a matter with respect to which the Irish Parliament have powers to make laws.
(2) Where any Act of the Irish Parliament deals with any matter with respect to which the Irish Parliament have power to make laws which is dealt with by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the passing of this Act and extending to Ireland, the Act of the Irish Parliament shall be read subject to
the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and so far as it is repugnant to that Act, but no further, shall be void:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax in accordance with this Act, or any variation so made.
(3) Any Order, Rule, or Regulation made in pursuance of, or having the force of, an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be a provision of an Act within the meaning of this Section.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The committee divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 190.

Division No. 410.]

AYES.

[8.15 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Barnes, George N.

Bryce, J. Annan

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barton, William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Adamson, William

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Burke, E. Haviland-

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Bentham, George Jackson

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

Agnew, Sir George William

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Bytes, Sir William Pollard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Black, Arthur W.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

Boland, John Pius

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Armitage, R.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Chancellor, H. G.

Arnold, Sydney

Bowerman, C. W.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Clancy, John Joseph

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Brace, William

Clough, William

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Brady, P. J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Brunner, J, F, L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ogden, Fred

Cotton, William Francis

Hodge, John

O'Grady, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hogge, James Myles

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

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Malley, William

Crean, Eugene

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

Crooks, William

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Crumley, Patrick

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Shee, James John

Cullinan, John

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

John, Edward Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

De Forest, Baron

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pointer, Joseph

Delany, William

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

Pollard, Sir George H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Joyce, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Devlin, Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dickinson, W. H.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Dillon, John

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Kilbride, Denis

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

Doris, William

King, J.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Duffy, William J.

Pringle, William M. R.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Radford, G H.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Reddy, M.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Leach, Charles

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rendall, Athelstan

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lundon, T.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Falconer, James

Lynch, A. A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Farrell, James Patrick

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

McGhee, Richard

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Robinson, Sidney

Field, William

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Macpherson, James Ian

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Fitzgibbon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

George, Rt. Hon. D, Lloyd

M'Curdy, C. A.

Rowlands, James

Gilhooly, James

M'Kean, John

Rowntree, Arnold

Gill, A. H.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Ginnell, L.

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

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

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Glanville, H. J.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Scan Ian, Thomas

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry

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

Goldstone, Frank

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Sheehy, David

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Shortt, Edward

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Martin, J.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Meagher, Michael

Snowden, Philip

Guiney, Patrick

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gulland, John William

Menzies, Sir Walter

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Millar, James Duncan

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

Hackett, J.

Molloy, Michael

Sutherland, J. E.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sutton, John E.

Hancock, John George

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Mooney, John J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Worrell, Philip

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Hardie, J. Keir

Morison, Hector

Tennant, Harold John

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, J. H.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Muldoon, John

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Munro, R.

Toulmin, Sir George

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

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Verney, Sir Harry

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Wadsworth, J.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Walton, Sir Joseph

Hayward, Evan

Norman, Sir Henry

Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

Hazleton, Richard

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wardle, George J

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

Nuttall, Harry

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

Webb, H.

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

O'Doherty, Philip

White, J, Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, Thomas

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hinds, John

O'Dowd, John

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

360

361

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Winfrey, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Young, William (Perth, East)

NOES.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Fleming, Valentine

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Archer-Shee, Major

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

Baird, J. L.

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Balcarres, Lord

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, G. A.

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gilmour, Captain John

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester

Goldman, C. S.

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

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Goldsmith, Frank

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Barnston, H.

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barrie, H. T.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Grant, J. A.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Greene, W. R.

Pole-Carew, Sir R

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gretton, John

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Benn, A. S. (Plymouth)

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

Bigland, Alfred

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Blair, Reginald

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Randles, Sir John S.

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Boyton, James

Harris, Henry Percy

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclcsall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rolleston, Sir John

Bull, Sir William James

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

Rothschild, Lionel de

Burgoyne, A. H.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Royds, Edmund

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

Butcher, John George

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Hills, John Waller

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert A.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hoare, S. J. G.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cassel, Felix

Hohler, G. F.

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Cave, George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Swift, Rigby

Chambers, James

Jessel, Capt. H. M.

Sykes, Alan J. (Knutsford)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord E.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Cooper, Richard Ashtnole

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Larmor, Sir J.

Touche, George Alexander

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Croft, Henry Page

Lewrsham, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Denniss, E. R. B.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Dixon, C. H.

Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

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

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Falle, B. G.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

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

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Malcolm, Ian

Younger, Sir George

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Mills and Sir Gilbert Wills.

TRANSITORY,

  CLAUSE 42.—(First Meeting of Irish Parliament and First Election of Reduced Number of Irish Members.)
  (1) The Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in
  362
  September, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and the first election of members of the Irish House of Commons shall be held at such time before that day as may be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council made for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act.
  (2) Upon the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and then sitting in that Parliament shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be, be issued by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies mentioned in the Second Part of the First Schedule to this Act.
  (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the members thereof shall, so far as applicable, extend to the Irish House of Commons and the members thereof; but those election laws may, except as provided by this Act, be altered by Irish Act.
  His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provisions as may appear to him necessary or proper for making any provisions of the election laws applicable to elections of members of the Irish House of Commons.
  (4) The Lord Lieutenant shall determine by lot which of the first Senators are to retire in the second, fourth, and sixth year, and the term of office of those Senators shall be reduced accordingly.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I beg to move to leave out Subsection (1).
  The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the date, September, 1913, and by an Amendment, which is down upon the Paper to Clause 46, to which I must refer for the purpose of making plain why this Sub-section is being deleted from the Bill, to provide for an interval of eight months after the first Tuesday of the month in which the Bill receives the Royal Assent. There is power under the Bill, in Clause 46, to fix the period either seven months earlier or seven months later, as the case may be; by Order in Council, and there is also power to bring into operation certain provisions of the Bill without bringing the whole Bill into operation in order that you may set to work to create both your Ministry and Parliament, and do a number of acts which are necessary to bring an Administration into existence. Hon. Members will have to go through the various Clauses of the Bill to see the different stages that have to be taken before you get your Ministry set up and your Par-
  364
  liament meeting. The effect of the Amendment we are now proposing is to substitute the period of time to elapse from the passing of the Bill into an Act of Parliament from the time it receives the Royal Assent instead of leaving it as at present provided in Clause 42, Sub-section (1), which fixes the date for summoning the Irish Parliament as the first Tuesday in September, 1913. That seems to us better than what the Bill proposes.
  The reason the Bill was introduced in this form was because it was the form adopted in 1893, and that passed muster once. We have now adopted a second plan, but having regard to the inconvenience that might be caused by fixing this particular date, we think it will be far better to allow a given period to elapse from the date of passing, subject to the power given under the Order in Council, either to make it seven months earlier or seven months later. The effect would be that supposing the Bill became law at the beginning of next year, and received the Royal Assent in March, 1913, under this Bill eight months after March the Bill would come into operation subject to the Order in Council, and your appointed day would be the first Tuesday in the eighth month—that is, March, 1913, when the Royal Assent would be received. That, of course, is subject to the Order in Council which is dealt with in Clause 46, to which I have just referred. The effect of Clause 46 with the Amendment would be that, assuming it is desired to fix the date as early as possible, it could be made one month after the month on which the Bill received the Royal Assent, because you could make it seven months earlier than the time appointed under Clause 42. You could also make it seven months later, which would give fifteen months after the date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Consequently you have considerable elasticity with regard to the period which necessarily you must have, and you do not part with this fixture of the time. The Order in Council does not operate with regard to the whole Bill, but it enables you to bring into operation certain necessary provisions without the others. Clause 46 would then read:—
  "or such other day, not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act."
  Suppose that this Bill becomes law and sets to work to create an Administration,

  365
  to have members elected, and do all the various acts that must be done before you have an Executive responsible to a Parliament and a Parliament elected by the constituencies with your senators nominated and working as we are working over here. Bearing that in mind, it will be apparent that we must have some provision of this character. That is the whole point of the alteration we are now proposing, and it will probably meet some of the criticisms w7hich might otherwise be directed to Sub-section (1) of Clause 42.
  Mr. CASSEL: We were told that at some point we should be entitled to discuss the appointed day. Unless we are entitled to discuss it on this Amendment, I do not know any point whatever at which we should be entitled to discuss it. The Attorney-General has given us no explanation of the alteration in Clause 46, which is so bound up with this Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that at some time the question of the appointed day should be discussed, and I thought I was giving effect to that desire by referring to the Amendment of Clause 46, which I understand can be done in discussing this particular Amendment. It was not my intention to cut down the discussion. I thought the Debate was to be a pretty general one, and that the point raised by the hon. and learned Member had been acceded to. At any rate, that is a course to which I would raise no objection. The hon. and learned Member said I gave no explanation of Clause 46. That is not quite accurate, although it did not seem necessary to me to give a more elaborate explanation than I did. The hon. and learned Member opposite cannot have been giving me the attention he generally does when he says that I gave no explanation of Clause 46.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the discussion can proceed without reference to the appointed day.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The Attorney-General has certainly not enlightened me by his explanation, and I cannot understand why the Government are moving this Amendment. The decision which the Government have come to is of a very hasty character, because the Amendment for deleting this Sub-section has not been on the Paper very long. In the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered he says that for a variety of
  366
  reasons, which he did not go into, this Amendment must be obvious. I am entirely at a loss to understand the plan which the Government are adopting at the present moment. At any rate, there is something definite in the Clause as it stands, which provides that on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, the Irish Parliament shall be summoned. That is understandable, because it provides that in the ordinary course of events, according to the view of the Government, this Bill will be passed early in the next year, and will receive the Royal Assent. Then there will be a certain amount of time in which various matters will have to be gone through, such as the appointment of a Ministry and the arrangement for the different elections which must naturally involve a certain amount of time. That is understandable, and I should have thought that by the first Tuesday in September, 1913, according to the view of the Government, all those formalities would have been gone through. For some reason or other, which we are not able at present to understand, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman has given us no enlightenment whatsoever, this Sub-section is to be struck out, and nothing is to be really substituted for it, although we are told to rely for the summoning of the Irish Parliament upon the appointed day which is to be put into Clause 46. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten the House as to what has compelled them at this very late hour to come to this decision. The right hon. Gentleman said this was a provision in the Bill of 1893, and, for all we know to the contrary, the Government until quite a recent date believed this provision in the Bill of 1893 was good enough for the Bill of 1912. Something has happened between the date of the introduction of this Bill and to-day, and we are now told the provision is to be struck out, and there is to be a certain amount 6f latitude with regard to the appointed day. There is to be a radius of seven months from the eighth month after the passing of the Act either one way or the other for the summoning of the Irish Parliament. I have no idea what has altered the plan of the Government. I do not know whether they anticipate the passing of the Bill may not be as rapid as their warmest supporters desire. There is to be a seven months' interval, and I should like to know why there should be any further date given. It naturally occurs to my mind they are anxious to have a certain amount of time so as to

  367
  obtain the support of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to the passing of further measures by this Parliament. I do not know whether they desire to keep those hon. Gentlemen here for a longer period than this Bill will allow; but whatever the explanation is I feel we are entitled to a little further information as to the reason why this Sub-section which is of a paramountly important character is to be omitted. It is naturally a date which should be fixed, and it can be fixed, and, in view of the exceptionally doubtful and ambiguous statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I sincerely hope we shall be favoured with a little more explicit information on the point. If not, I certainly hope a Division will be taken, and I shall most certainly support my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I can hardly think the grievance of which the Noble Lord complains is very keenly felt by the Opposition, because although the appointed day has always been held out as one of the most important features of the Bill it is impossible to abstain from observing that whilst the Noble Lord was speaking the Front Opposition Bench was entirely empty.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I was here when my Noble Friend got up.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really do not see what those remarks have to do with the Amendment. I stopped an hon. and learned Gentleman last night on the same ground.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I will certainly not pursue the matter. The object of my remark was to show the point under discussion was scarcely so important as the observations of the Noble Lord might have led those who were present to suppose. I do not think the Amendment under discussion is of such great importance as the Noble Lord said. The effect of it, as I understand, is to give to the date when the Act comes into operation a flexibility which it does not possess as the Bill stands. The Act, as the Bill stands in Clause 42, will come into operation on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, but as it is absolutely uncertain at what date in the year the Bill will receive the Royal Sanction and become the law of the land, it is obvious, if you put in a fixed date in September on which the Act is to come into operation, the period for its coming into operation may be a very limited one
  368
  indeed. There is no positive limit so far as I know to the length this Session may go, and it is possible under the Bill as drawn it might become law on the Monday and the Irish Parliament have to be set up on the Tuesday following. That is obviously an impossibility and might conceivably land us in a serious difficulty. Therefore, as I understand it, the Amendment of the Government gives a certain eight months in which the necessary preparation can be made for setting up the Irish Parliament.
  Mr. CASSEL: One month.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Yes. I beg pardon, At any rate, it gives a flexibility which there is not at present. I have not quite fathomed yet why the Government first say, in Clause 42, as drawn, the Home Rule Parliament is to meet on this date in September, and they now under the Amendment no longer say in Clause 42 when the Parliament is to meet. I want to know why the Government in Clause 42 as it stands, contemplate this meeting and when the Amendment is carried the date of meeting will be only set out in Clause 46. I do not know why the Government have gone from Clause 42 to Clause 46 to tell us what date the Homo Rule Parliament is to be set up. I am bound to say I sympathise so far with the Noble Lord that I was very considerably puzzled before working it all out to my own satisfaction. I still have not been able to make out why in the Bill as drawn Clause 42 should say distinctly the Irish Parliament would meet in September, and now we should have to wait till Clause 46.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: The hon. Member seems to have the same difficulty with regard to this Clause and the Amendments as we have on this side of the House. I gather he does not understand what is going to happen, much less does he understand the workings of the mind of the Government in proposing the Amendment. May I ask the Committee to look at the Clause and realise what the Amendment now proposes to do I They propose, in Clause 42, that Parliament shall be summoned for the first Tuesday in September, 1913. If this Bill ever becomes law that is a more or less straightforward and understandable proposition. I suppose the Government anticipate the Bill will go through this House, that it will be rejected in another place, that it will then go through this House again, and again be rejected before the end of next year, and that early in the

  369
  year 1914 it will pass through this House, and receive the Royal Assent possibly in the month of April or May. I imagine that some such idea as that was in the mind of the Government when Clause 42 was drafted, and I do not know that anything has happened up to the present time that would seriously interfere with that arrangement, except that a General Election might intervene between now and then. I therefore can understand why I hey propose to make this alteration—why they propose to obliterate the date altogether and to provide that Parliament shall meet on a given date two, three, or four months, it may be, after the passing of the Act, supposing the Act goes through this and the other House. But they have abandoned the plan which appears to me to be a most reasonable plan. They propose to do away with the suggestion that the House should meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, and they propose by an Amendment to Clause 46 that the first meeting of the Irish Parliament shall be on the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed. I think that that is a very ridiculous piece of drafting. By the same Clause they reserve to themselves the right, if they think fit, instead of waiting eight months, to knock off seven months and bring the Act into force and start the first Irish Parliament one month after the Act has passed.
  I should like to know what was in their minds when they gave that so-called elasticity to this provision. Either eight months is a reasonable period after the passing of the Act or it is not. It seems to me it is quite easy for the House of Commons to make up its mind what is a reasonable time to allow after the Act passes for the necessary changes to be made, the necessary elections to take place, and the necessary things to be done. I cannot conceive if eight months after the passing of the Act is a sensible and reasonable limit, how one month can be deemed to be a reasonable period; and if you are going to have eight months, you should delete that portion of Clause 46 which allows you instantly to turn that eight months into one month. One of my Noble Friends who has spoken on the subject asked for an explanation of the action of the Government in this matter. They have given us no explanation, and in the absence of such an explanation we are entitled to draw our own inferences. My own impression is that the Government
  370
  want, after the Act has finally passed into law, to have an opportunity to consider what will best suit their book from a purely party point of view. They want to consider whether it will be more convenient or more suitable to bring this Parliament into being in one month or in eight months; in fact, it is a party move on their part. There might be a General Election after the passing of the Act, at which they might be beaten—and I sincerely hope they would be—and then it would be possible, if the eight months' period had been decided upon, for the Unionist party to repeal the whole Act. That possibly is an explanation of this most extraordinary proposal on the part of the Government, and we are entitled to assume that that is the case, unless they are prepared to give us something more definite in the way of explanation of the motive which lies at the bottom of these various changes. I trust, if the Debate continues, we shall have some further information on this point.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said it was necessary there should be some elasticity, but I do not think he has demonstrated that necessity. It would be much more sensible to say that after the passing of the Act there should be a certain fixed period elapse before the meeting of the first Parliament, but there is no reasonableness at all in giving power to defer calling together the first Parliament for eight-months and simultaneously to take power to bring the Parliament together at once if it is thought proper. The explanation given by the Attorney-General, to my mind, was not at all satisfactory, and I hope some effort will be made to give fuller details. The hon. Member who last spoke said we evidently did not consider this a very important point, and he pointed to the empty benches on this side. I do not think the remarks he made as to the absence of hon. Members were called for. He must have known that at the finish of the several Divisions practically all the Members of the House required what, I suppose, he from time to time requires, namely, a little sustenance, and that is the reason why they are not listening to this Debate.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) tried to persuade the Committee that this was not a very important matter. Let me remind him, however, that the Prime Minister himself stated that this is one of the most important points in the Bill, and,

  371
  because of that, a full day has been allowed for the discussion of the Motion. The hon. Member consequently was not justified in belittling the importance of this point. He drew attention to the fact that not many Members on this side are present, but I think I would be equally justified in drawing attention to the fact that the Prime Minister himself has not thought it necessary to be present during the Debate on what he said was one of the most important points in the Bill. The Attorney-General said I did not follow him sufficiently when I said he had not given any explanation of the changes which are being made by the Government. I really think he has only partially done so. I agree that he has made it clear that there is now no fixed day for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. I should like to ask him whether there is any provision whatever fixing the first meeting of the Irish Parliament beyond this: that it must be within a year of the appointed day. The appointed day itself may be fifteen months after the passing of the Bill, and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament must be within a year of that date. Under the Bill, as it stands, the possibility is that the first meeting of the Irish Parliament may not be for over two years after the passing of the Bill.
  9.0 P.M.
  In a matter of this kind, which the Prime Minister says is a matter of such vital importance, we ought to have something a little more definite. The Attorney-General spoke of elasticity. We complain that this leaves far too much elasticity, and leaves it absolutely at the will of the Executive for fourteen months whether they choose to bring the Irish Parliament into existence. That is an absolutely monstrous proposition. The Amendment extends the period by about four or five months. I think it was too long under the Bill as it stood. I am not attacking merely the Amendment, but the Bill as amended. As the Bill stood, it was a, monstrous power to place in the hands of the Cabinet—that they should be able to determine according to their own exigencies and requirements, whether that Parliament should be brought into existence or not for the period which the Bill originally fixed. Now they have extended that period. Under the Bill as it originally stood it was a period of eleven months. Assuming it to have been passed in March, it would have left the power for twelve months in the hands of the Executive. Under the alteration now proposed it is left in the
  372
  hands of the Executive for fifteen months, and we have not had one word explaining it. This is a power in a Bill which for the first time sets up a new Constitution for the United Kingdom it is extremely difficult to explain or justify. In the absence of any explanation my hon. Friend was justified in saying that if we had no other reason given for it we can only presume that it is some party motive the Government have in mind, and that they want to be in a position, as it suits them, either to postpone or to defer the appointed day. When you try to work out the provisions of the Bill from the various Clauses, the Attorney-General will see how very unfair it is that this power should be put into the hands of the Government and how illogically it works out. Let me work it out from the various Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 brings the Irish Parliament into existence. That is not the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. It states the day after which there is to be an Irish Parliament in Ireland. That day necessarily has to precede the day on which it is summoned. The appointed day after which there is to be a Parliament in Ireland—a separate Parliament in a part of the United Kingdom—is to be, at the option of the Executive, either within one month or within fifteen months of the passing of the Act. That is an absolutely monstrous provision to insert in any Act of Parliament. [Interruption.] I believe hon. Members below the Gangway believe it is a monstrous provision.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: We are very glad to see you want the Parliament opened quickly.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member mistakes my intention and wishes. I should like to see the Bill rejected, but, for the purpose of this Committee I am bound to assume for the purposes of argument, according to the practice and traditions of this House, that the Bill will at some time or other become law. It is not fair for hon. Gentlemen, because I follow the practice and traditions of this House, to ascribe to me motives and intentions entirely different from those I hold. What I object to is that if the Bill is to become law, contrary to my wishes, and there is to be a Parliament in Ireland, that the Executive should for fourteen months have it in their power to say whether that Parliament is to come into existence or not. I thought the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. MacVeagh) was sharing my sentiments, and

  373
  that from his point of view it was a monstrous thing that such a power should be left to the Executive. Let ns follow the matter a little more closely. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 4, which creates the Executive, he will see that the Executive is set up at once on the passing of this Bill. It is provided in Section 1—
  "The Executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in His Majesty the King, and nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power except as respects Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act."
  So far as Irish services are concerned you at once have an Irish Executive set up. Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 says:—
  "As respects those Irish services, the Lord Lieutenant or other chief executive officer or officers for the time being appointed in his place, on behalf of His Majesty, shall exercise any prerogative or other Executive power of His Majesty the exercise of which may be delegated to him by His Majesty."
  So that the Lord Lieutenant at once has to commence to exercise the Executive power in Ireland, because no one else except the Lord Lieutenant can exercise it with regard to Irish services, and he has to exercise it through Irish Departments. There is no choice whatever with regard to that. What are these Irish Departments? They must be manned with Ministers, who within six months must become members of the Irish Parliament, so that if the Irish Parliament is only to be brought into existence after eight months and the provision will work at all, it would be perfectly impossible for the Irish Ministers to comply with this condition unless you exercise your power of moving back the date when the Irish Parliament first commences. You are in a hopeless muddle. I think the Government have made these alterations in the Bill so suddenly that they have not considered their bearing upon the rest of the Bill, because they start the Irish Executive at once, and they may, according to this, subject to the point which I have mentioned, have gone on for fifteen months with an Irish Executive without any Irish Parliament. But there is this provision, that -an Irish Minister must become a member of the Irish Parliament within six months. How on earth is that reconcilable with the provision with regard to eight months?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Change of Ministers.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that they might be kept going on for fifteen months by having one Minister for five months, then another for five months, and so on, but that would really be a fraud upon Parliament. I am quite sure the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman will not be adopted by the Front Bench. He can hardly have intended that that suggestion should be taken seriously. Now, let me pass to Clause 13, which deals with the question of when the Irish representation in this House is to be reduced to forty-two Members. That is to happen at once on the appointed day. How is that reconcilable with the provision in Sub-section (2) of Clause 42, that the existing 103 Members are to cease to be Members of this Parliament, not on the appointed day, but on the first meeting of the Irish Parliament? We have agreed that there must be a period between the appointed day and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, so it is absolutely contradictory on the face of the Bill itself. "After the appointed day" means immediately after the appointed day, not 100 years after it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: When you have the members returned.
  Mr. CASSEL: I quite agree, you must have the members returned, but what that Clause says is that after the appointed day the number of Members returned by constituencies to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two. If 103 Members from Ireland still come here on the appointed day, what would be their position? Would they be entitled to sit or not? This is a vitally important question. Hon. Members opposite treat it with a levity which is not worthy of the occasion. In one part of the Bill you say one thing and in another part you say another, and you have not attempted to give us the slightest explanation why you have made these contradictory statements in the Bill or which of the two statements is right. Is it on the appointed day or on the first meeting of the Irish Parliament that the 103 Members may take their seats? Under Clause 42 it is at the meeting of the first Irish Parliament, but the other Clause provides that after the appointed day no more than forty-two Members representing constituencies in Ireland can sit in this House. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to see the inconsistency. What is the date on which they may take their seats?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Clause 42.
  Mr. CASSEL: Very well, are they still entitled to sit between the appointed day and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament or are they not? Let us try to apply this new provision of the Bill to Clause 14, which defines the Transferred Sum—the sum which is to be paid out of the British Exchequer into the Irish Exchequer—as the sum which represents the cost of the Trish services, not on the appointed day but at the time of the passing of the Act, which may be fifteen months before the appointed day. The payment of the annual sum is to commence as from the passing of the Act and not as from the appointed day. I suppose the Government consider it necessary to exercise these powers, because they have intentionally lengthened the period during which it is in their power to determine when this Parliament is to come into existence. If they have that period of fifteen months, is the Transferred Sum to be paid over in that period or not? Assuming that the Trish Parliament is not brought into existence until fifteen months after the passing of this Act, during those fifteen months do you or do you not pay over the Transferred Sum? It seems to me a point of first-class importance upon which we ought to have had some explanation, because it involves a question of £6,000,000 a year during a period of six months. During these fifteen months the position would be that there is an Irish Executive and no Irish Parliament. Docs the right hon. Gentleman say that there would be no Irish Executive? I should very much like to know what Clause in the Bill as it stands would prevent an Irish Executive from coming into existence. There may be some further modification to be made. I would point out that as the Bill stands you fix the Transferred Sum as payable, not on the appointed day, but at the passing of the Act, before there is any Irish Exchequer or Executive at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman's answer that there will be no Exchequer or Executive completes the absurdity. Then you have the position that without an Irish Executive and without an Irish Exchequer you would be obliged to pay the Transferred Sum into an Irish Exchequer which has no existence. That seems to be the result of Clause 14. Let us pass to the question of the Judiciary. Is there any Judiciary set up at the passing of the Act? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is
  376
  neither Judiciary nor Executive. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn to Clause 28, which at the beginning says:—
  "The appeal from courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease; …"
  Is that at the passing of the Act or on the appointed day? I venture to say that it is at the passing of the Act. There is nothing with regard to the appointed day there, so that for a period of fifteen months, although you have no Irish Parliament or Executive, you will have already transferred the right of appeal to the House of Lords to the right of appeal to the Privy Council.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have said that there must be an Executive at once. What the hon. Member seems to forget altogether is that provision is made for the purpose of making these arrangements. He is leaving out of consideration absolutely and entirely the provisions for bringing the Bill into effect by Orders in Council. The very object of having Orders in Council is to meet those difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.
  Mr. CASSEL: The provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have no application to the point with which I am dealing. If he will turn to Clause 4 he will see that there is no question of any Order in Council. That absolutely comes into operation at the passing of the Act. He will also see by referring to Clause 14, Sub-section (2), that paragraph (a) says:—
  "such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board) to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services."
  Who is going to defer that date? There is no provision in Clause 14 which enables any Order in Council to postpone the period when the Irish Exchequer powers arise. The provisions with regard to Orders in Council only apply where you have the appointed day referred to. I quite agree that when you have the appointed day referred to you may, by Order in Council, ante-date or post-date the time, but when you have not any mention of the appointed day, these provisions as to Orders in Council do not apply. I think the reply of the Attorney-General does not apply in the least, either to Clause 4 or

  377
  Clause 14. Under Clause 14 the payment of the Transferred Sum is to begin at once as from the passing of the Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the payment of the Transferred Sum will not have to commence at once on the passing of the Act? I submit that on the construction of the Clause the payment has to commence at once as from the passing of the Act. There is no power whatever by Order in Council to ante-date or to post-date that. Clause 28 takes away the right of appeal to the House of Lords and gives the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that does not take effect under the Bill as worded as from the passing of the Act. Is there any power whatever by Order in Council to postpone that date? I submit that at once on the passing of the Act the appeal from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords ceases, and that the appeal to the Privy Council is substituted for it. There are no words whatever in the Bill which entitle the Government to postpone or ante-date that period. If we had in the Bill the words, "As from the appointed day appeals from the Irish Courts to the House of Lords shall cease," then I agree that the right hon. Gentleman could have brought into use the words in Clause 46 to which he has referred; but as these words are not in the Bill, I cannot see what power 1he Government have to postpone the date. Clause 27 says:—
  "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,"
  Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he has any right to postpone that date? The Irish Judiciary is set up at once on the passing of the Act, and I submit that it is absurd to have these provisions under which the judiciary and the Executive are set up at once and under which the Transferred Sum commences to be payable at once, while the Government should have it in their power for a period of fifteen months either to set up the Irish Parliament or not. During that period really nobody will know where they are. The transition period will be fraught with embarrassment and difficulties of every description. Again, Clause 31 with regard to the Lord Lieutenant comes into operation at once. The Clause provides that the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to
  378
  revoke the appointment. To that the Prime Minister agreed to add a Clause that he should be in the position of a Colonial Governor. That comes into operation at once on the passing of the Bill. If all these provisions come into operation on the passing of the Bill, how can it be sensible to leave this option with regard to bringing into existence the Irish Parliament? I quite agree that where you have the words "appointed day" you have the power to postpone. Wherever you find the words "passing of the Act" there is no power to postpone, and where you find no words you must read in "passing of the Act." I know the inward meaning of all this sudden change which has been made without properly considering the other Clauses. It really arises from a desire on the part of the Government to keep in their own hands the power to bring this Bill into operation, either before or after an election. This is not treating this House or the country fairly. The fair way of dealing with the matter would be to make clear that there is to be an election before this Bill comes into operation. I think we had words from the First Lord of the Admiralty which rather indicated that that was the intention.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present——
  Mr. CASSEL: Our contention always has been that this Bill ought to be submitted to the country before it becomes law. Whatever may have been said in the most general and vague terms, the real character of this Bill was never known to the country. It was never known to the country that there was a proposal in this Bill that, while giving self-government to the Irish people, at the same time there were to be retained in this House forty-two Irish Members who would prevent the British people from having self-government.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is rather outside the scope of this Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am arguing now that the appointed day ought to be after the General Election, and if I discuss the general question of the appointed day there is no point in reference to it which is more important than——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that a wide discussion as to whether this Bill should or should not be submitted to the country before becoming law is more appropriate to the Second Reading.
  Mr. CASSEL: I obey your ruling, but it prevents me from raising one of the points to which I attach the greatest importance. My submission is that under the Government Amendments the Government have reserved to this House freedom of bringing the Parliament into existence as they like or do not like during the whole period of fourteen months, yet, notwithstanding that, they have in their haste in making this Amendment still left in the Bill all these provisions which say that the Executive and judiciary are to be brought into existence at once on the passing of the Act, and the provisions which say that the Transferred Sum is to be determined not from the appointed day, but as from the time of the passing of the Act, and must commence to be paid from that date. T submit that we are entitled to a little further explanation from the Government as to how they fit in these proposals with the other Clauses of the Bill, and why the Government reserve to themselves this power for a period of fourteen months, which is absolutely unprecedented and has never before been given to any Executive in any part of the world.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was going to deal with some other points, and I would ask the Attorney-General to reply to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend before the discussion goes on to other lines.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I was waiting until the hon. Member spoke first.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was going to speak on other points. I think we should have a very distinct grievance against the Government had it not been been for the statement which the Attorney-General made at the beginning of the discussion, because otherwise we should have had no real discussion on that point to-day and all that it involves had it not been for the statement of the Attorney-General, which was endorsed, Mr. Maclean, by you. The question of the appointed day really arises definitely on Clause 43, and it is quite certain that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing Clause 46, and, moreover, the course
  380
  which the Government has adopted in moving to leave out this first Sub-section makes it impossible to move to put in a day which will bring the Act into operation only after the time when this Parliament shall have run its statutory course. But, as I understand, the Attorney-General has agreed that the whole question of the appointed day and all that it involves should be argued now, and you have acquiesced in this decision. The appointed day is the day when the whole of this Bill comes into operation, and when there are to be both, a Legislature and an Executive in Ireland. That involves the most important of all questions which we have to discuss. I am not going to deal with the effect of the last election on which you restricted the freedom of my hon. and learned Friend, but I submit that this is the only opportunity on the Committee stage which we shall have of arguing that the appointed day should not be a fixed date irrespective of passing events and should not be a day dependent en the pleasure of the Government, but should be a day dependent on the verdict expressed in some way or other of the whole people of the United Kingdom. It is a matter of common knowledge, to put it at its very lowest, that there is grave risk when the appointed day conies there will be a very serious collision between the Executive in Ireland, whether Imperial or local, and a large section of the Irish people. Some of us on this side of the House have been taunted with looking forward to this with exhilaration, as if we revelled in the prospect of civil strife and bloodshed. I want to repudiate that notion absolutely.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I made no comment on the suggestion of the hon. Member that the whole question of the appointed day was open because I wanted to hear what he had to say on that, but he is not in order in the line of argument which he is now pursuing. The hon. Members suggests that the whole subject should now be raised, but such a course cannot be taken at this point.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Am I not entitled to argue that the appointed day set forth in the Bill will be a day after which, according to the provisions of the measure, there will be great risk of turmoil and bloodshed? Am I not to be allowed to argue that it would be better, so far as human foresight can provide, to obviate that risk?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Such an argument would be more properly in its place in the Debate on the Third Reading.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Had it not been for the action of the Government in moving to leave out the whole of this Sub-section, an Amendment would have been moved to fix the appointed day at a time beyond the statutory length of this Parliament, and would we not in that ease have been in order in arguing that by putting the day beyond the length of this Parliament, certain dangers would be avoided? If the Government had not moved to leave out the whole of this Sub-section, could there not have been legitimate discussion on that Amendment, and would it not be in order now?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I allowed the hon. Member to proceed on the line he has just indicated I should of course have to allow replies, and then we would at once get into a Second or Third Reading Debate.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I respectfully remind the Deputy-Chairman that the opening words of the Bill say—
  "On and after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament."
  We have postponed the Amendment to take out those words and to insert a later date, 1920, or whatever the date may be. When that Amendment came up, by the ruling of the Chairman, it was decided that the matter could not be properly raised at that point, and ought to be raised as an Amendment to Clause 42. It is now true that by the action of the Government the date on which we might have moved an Amendment, and which it was ruled might be taken at a later stage, is being removed from the Bill, and T submit that it is very hard on us that by the action of the Government we should now be precluded from doing something which the Chairman ruled we would be perfectly in order in doing on this Clause, and now that we are perfectly in order on this Clause we are prevented from submitting the Amendment that we sought to move on Clause 1.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must deal with the situation as I find it, and I cannot allow the line of argument which the hon. Member was pursuing.
  Mr. J. HOPE: We are precluded from moving the Amendment, and we cannot now have the Debate. I withdraw all I
  382
  have said about the liberality of the Government in having a discussion. On Clause 1 we were promised that this discussion could be raised on Clause 42, but now the Government by their own action in moving to leave out the Sub-section have gone back on the assurance which they then gave us, and, in consequence of that action of the Government, we are denied an opportunity to debate the question. I protest against the action of the Government, and I withdraw every word I have said in their favour.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The importance of this Sub-section of Clause 42 depends really on the final form which Clause 46 is to take, and I think we ought to be informed as to the reasons for later on proposing the changes which are going to be made in that Clause. We are placed in such a position that Clause 46 will not be subjected to the discussion which it deserves. Therefore, I submit, I have very good reasons for asking the Government to give us some explanation as to-why the word "six" is to be changed into the word "seven" in Clause 46. There seems to be some object, possibly very sinister object, in prolonging this-period of uncertainty from twelve months to fourteen months. The condition which is introduced into Clause 46 means that the appointed day is to be carried on to within a little over one month from the passing of the Act or deferred to something over fifteen months. I do not know what the object of that extraordinary elasticity may be, but I think I am entitled to some explanation in view of the fact that we cannot possibly receive this explanation when Clause 46 is actually reached. There is one point on which I think I may reasonably ask some explanation, and that is the effect of this period of prolonged uncertainty on the latter part of Clause 27. In the first part of Clause 27 it is provided that the judge shall be appointed after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant, and the Clause then goes on to say—
  "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."
  Are we to understand he shall hold that tenure during fifteen months subject to no condition of an Address from any House of Parliament whatever? It seems to me

  383
  that in the Clause as it stands the power of an Address from both Houses of the Imperial Parliament will be removed, and as there are no Irish Houses of Parliament in existence it seems that the whole tenure is subject to no conditions whatever. That is a point on which we can reasonably ask for some explanation before we go to a Division on this Clause. Undoubtedly the object of the course which the Government is pursuing is a very real one, and it is one on which we should have a frank avowal. It is too much to expect an explanation of what is the object of putting the power into the hands of the Government of bringing their Act into operation within fourteen months, or sooner or later, as the case may be, but I think we ought not to have this power left in the vague state in which it is proposed to be left without further explanation.
  Mr. HEWINS: I contend that the question of the appointed day seems to me so very important that it almost raises the whole principle of the Bill on which we are engaged. Let me for one moment explain the point of view from which I regard it. We all know the feelings of hon. Gentlemen on the other side; we all know how reluctantly they are driven into the Lobby, and it is very easy for us to understand that these hon. Gentlemen feeling as they do about the defects of this Bill, and about their own complete ignorance of the Clauses of this Bill, and balancing one consideration with another we can quite understand they may argue it is better to march into the Lobbies at this stage rather than bring about any division of our party but that there is always the question of when the Bill is coming into operation at a later stage of the discussion. The fact is that the question of the time at which you should bring this Bill into operation is the very essence and kernel of the whole of the Bill. I should say also with regard to general political questions it is exactly the same. After all, take the two parties and take so many of the public questions in which we are interested, and really the difference between us turns in a very large number of instances not so much upon the principles involved, not so much upon what we would do supposing a definite measure was to be brought into operation, but always on a question of time——
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I venture to put one matter right? I understood that you, Sir, ruled the question of time was
  384
  not out of order. There ought not to be any misunderstanding upon the subject, subject of course to your view. I explained to the hon. Member for Sheffield that the Government raised no objection to the point being discussed in the fullest sense as to what was the appointed day, and that although we were moving to omit this Sub-section, we quite assented to the view raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) that there should be very full discussion. I am only rising for this purpose. I did not understand, though I may not have quite appreciated the effect of your decision, that you ruled out the discussion in any way as to the time when the appointed day ought to be, and to which the lion. Member was just now referring. I notice that when the discussion took place at an earlier stage the Prime Minister did say that this question of the time of the appointed day no doubt would be brought on and that it could be discussed on Clause 42. It was with that in mind, although I had not the precise words before me, that I made the remarks at the initiation of this discussion. All I want to do is to call your attention to the matter, and to say that I understood from your decision that you have not ruled out discussion on the point of the time of the appointed day.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I should like to recall to your recollection what occurred. Almost on the first day of the Committee this point was raised by a manuscript Amendment put in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. The point that he specifically raised was whether or not there should be an election before this Bill came into operation. I have not the actual words, but my recollection is quite clear that the Prime Minister then stated that if that subject were dropped at the time there would be the opportunity for raising the point on Clause 42. I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members on this side, as well as hon. Members opposite, if the widest possible discussion were allowed.
  Sir E. CARSON: If it is the general view of the Committee that we should have this opportunity, which seems to be the only opportunity that will be open, may we not then have it with your assistance?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to what the Attorney-General said, I must say I in no sense ruled out the question of time. When I rose to rule the De-

  385
  bate was, I thought, proceeding, or beginning to proceed, on purely Second Reading lines. It was for that reason, and that reason only, I intervened. If it is the view of the Committee, and if it is in any sense carrying out a pledge, I have no desire to stand in the way of a full discussion on the point.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was discussing whether the appointed day ought to be before or after a General Election, and you absolutely stopped me.
  Mr. HEWINS: I am extremely grateful to the Government for their explanation as to the wider limits within which we can continue the discussion. I may say I have not the least intention of raising or initiating a Second Reading Debate, but I should hope to carry with me a certain section of hon. Members opposite, whether they vote with us or not, and to get their sympathy having regard to the very important questions which are raised by this question of an appointed day. As I have remarked, nearly all public questions turn on this element of time. Nearly all great decisions in the course of history, and especially constitutional history, have turned on the question of time. The Union itself turned on the question of time. I should like to put this question of the appointed time upon the broadest possible grounds. We in this House, in discussing such a question as the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, are necessarily not confined and not limited to the attitude of this House and the votes of this House, or to the question of Home Rule as an isolated question. We have had numerous illustrations in recent months of the way in which all these political questions are interwoven and how they react on each other. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, looking at this matter not from a party point of view, but as a great, big, broad constitutional question, do they consider it desirable that at this particular juncture in international and Imperial affairs this House should bind itself to do this thing definitely even within the period laid down by the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because I have so high a regard and admiration for Ireland that I certainly do not think you could sever the relations between Ireland and this country and set up a new constitutional Government there without reacting on and affecting the United Kingdom. You must expect that such a measure must affect almost all Imperial questions.
  386
  I do not want to go into details, but I could give many illustrations of the possible action of this grant of self-government to Ireland upon diplomatic and other relations. I would ask this simple question: Does any hon. Member on the Irish Benches mean to tell me it is a matter of indifference that we should divide this United Kingdom into a Protestant Government here and a Catholic Government in Ireland, and that that would have no effect upon Imperial affairs? Would that have no effect upon the policy of the Vatican, or would it have no effect whatever upon our relations with foreign Powers? Hon. Members may interrupt, but every Irishmen sitting on the benches below the Gangway knows that at the present, moment one of the great determining factors in the development of the world conies within such subjects as I have mentioned. It must most profoundly affect our international relations that we set up what is practically an independent Government in Ireland under different auspices, and with different environment and atmosphere from that at the present time. Let me take a few other questions. I think that the question of the appointed day is enormously influenced by the method upon which this discussion has been carried on. I am not complaining of or criticising at the present moment the setting up of the guillotine. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that with regard to the greater portion of this Bill we have had no explanation from the Government of what the Clauses mean. They cannot tell us; the Irish Members cannot tell us; nobody can tell us. On several of the Clauses which we have discussed time after time the criticisms from this side have completely bowled the Government out. I have only to refer to a very simple incident which occurred the other day. A discussion was raised upon the position of the Joint Exchequer Board. I am not going to discuss the merits of the question; I merely wish to allude to what took place. It was stated from this side that there was no provision of a certain kind in the Bill. The representative of the Government said that there was such a provision. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. A. J. Balfour) asked. "Where is it?" The Postmaster-General said, "The Attorney-General is finding it." He was asked whether it was found. No, it was not found; and it turned out, as a result of the discussion, that this very important provision for which the Attor-

  387
  ney-General was looking was not in the Bill. As a result of their complete failure to show any knowledge of their own Bill the Government have had to introduce Amendments, and those Amendments are now the subject of great criticism. That is a fundamental factor. We have convicted the Government of supreme ignorance of the measure which they have introduced.
  10.0 P.M.
  That is not the only instance. I am within the recollection of the Committee when I say that on practically every important and fundamental part of this Bill the Government do not know their own measure If the Government do not know it—I think we know it better than the Government do—where are we to look for guidance? You are asking that within limits of time set down by this Amendment this scheme of Irish Government shall be set going. Take the financial or fiscal part of the Bill. I say without the slightest hesitation that within the limits of time prescribed by the Government Amendment the particular drawback arrangements set down in the Bill could not be organised. I say that for this simple reason. In the first place, the Government have not obtained, and they have not in their possession, the information upon which they can approach the traders of the country, and which would enable them to organise their system. If they had that information, and nobody knows how long it will take to obtain it, on the evidence and according to the opinion of the greatest experts in this matter in the United Kingdom they could not possibly effect that organisation in less than three months. Before they begin to organise they have to get into communication with the traders. They have to understand the organisation of the trades before they can set going their system of drawbacks. The Government have had twenty-six years to do the job, but have not yet begun it. If they have been frightened during all those twenty-six years from inquiring into the matter, how long is it going to take after the passing of this Act? Take another case—the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board. They have to inquire into all these matters. Subject to an appeal to the Privy Council, they have to determine most important points of law. The evidence has to be obtained. I say without hesitation there is not time. Looking at their equipment, the Government Departments who will be called upon to supply the in-
  388
  formation cannot possibly do this work in the time allowed. My own opinion is—I put it forward with great humility—that if you pass this Bill, you should definitely and quickly get to work to organise; but you should not bring the Bill into operation until at least six months after you are perfectly certain that you have your organisation well in hand. The time allowed by the Government Amendment does not enable you to do that.
  If I ask the Government to take a course of that kind I am only suggesting to them that they should take a course which every great Government on the Continent does when bringing in very much less important measures than this. When the German Government brings in a system of commercial treaties it leaves it to what we call an Order in Council or an Imperial decree to bring those treaties into operation. It is a long time after the conclusion of the treaties before those treaties are brought into operation, because all kinds of arrangements similar to those that we have to make in connection with the Financial Clauses of this Bill have to be made in connection with those treaties. I do not want to multiply instances or to detain the Committee. I ask hon. Members to put aside all partisan considerations and to look at this Bill from the point of view of business men. After all is said and done, the working of this Bill does not depend upon Governments, Government officials, or politicians. The people who will really have to work it are the business people of Great Britain and Ireland, and unless you can carry them with you you will create far more friction than the most optimistic Member opposite can imagine you will remove by the passing of this measure. I take this final point. The Government want to fix a time approximately. Why in the world is this particular Tuesday selected? There is no explanation. Have they formed some kind of forecast of what is to be the developments of Imperial policy at that time? Do they know where we shall be? Would they undertake in the present situation in the international world to say what will be the particular class of problem with which we shall be confronted at that time? I put this forward simply as a hypothesis: Suppose complications occurred such as would force you to adopt other financial expedients for raising your revenue. That is not at all unlikely. We have seen it in other countries. It does not matter what the views of hon. Members opposite may be on the matter of principle; on the

  389
  matter of fact, if they were face to face with a great financial crisis, they would have to put their prejudices in their pocket and do what was best from a business point of view for the United Kingdom.
  Are you quite sure that six or twelve months ahead you will have financial and economic matters in the same situation as they are to-day? In regard to economic and financial forecasts the Government have been mistaken; they have not been right on a single point during all the years they have been in office. Will they undertake to say that this complicated—everybody will admit—and difficult Financial Clauses might not have to be undertaken just at the very moment when you are face to face with the important question of altering your financial arrangements? I say that this House ought to keep the control of this question in its own hands; that having gone carefully into the organisation, when they know exactly where they are, when they have found out what the different Clauses involve, when they have set the machinery going for solving the problems that arise, they will be in a position to say, "We will bring this Bill into operation six months hence." I should have thought that this Government of all Governments had had enough of appointed days; they have had an appointed day in connection with another Act of Parliament with consequences that we all have witnessed.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Debate undoubtedly has ranged over a very wide area during the last hour. I make no complaint of that, because certainly it was intended that there should be an opportunity of dealing in the fullest way possible with the question as to the time this Bill was to come into operation. But I cannot help thinking that a great deal of the criticism which was addressed to us in the early part of this discussion in the very ingenious speech delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras has been most effectively answered by the speeches delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was not allowed to make my point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sorry I lost the opportunity of having the hon. Gentleman's criticism. If he had been allowed to continue his speech probably I need not have replied.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Perhaps you will sit down now?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I offered just now to give way to the hon. Member if he still had some observations to make. I quite agree he was cut somewhat short in his observations in an earlier part. The whole point of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras was based, I cannot help thinking, on the fact that he misconstrues the effect of this Bill by taking out certain sentences in particular provisions and paying no attention to subsequent provisions which are in the Bill. As I ventured to point out to him during the course of his discussion nothing is easier, particularly to a man of legal training, than to read out particular sentences or passages, and to pay no attention to Clauses that come afterwards, and which are devised expressly for the purpose of getting over the difficulties he has pointed out. Having paid no attention to the provisions for getting over the difficulties, according to his own view, according to his own satisfaction, he places the Government in a dilemma from which, so far as he is concerned, he sees no escape. Let me point——
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman show me how that applies to what I said with regard to Clause 27?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, certainly. The observations I am about to make apply, it is perfectly true, to all the Clauses, and to each particular case.
  Mr. CASSEL: Clause 27?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me——
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not mind.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman says he does not mind. Well, the observations I am making apply-to the general Clauses, and to the selected Clause, Clause 27. I will show why the question of the Act coming into operation is determined by the appointed day. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras said his point was: You can find in all the Clauses throughout the Bill reference to the "appointed day," and therefore he says Clause 46 only applies to the appointed day, and therefore Clause 46 does not apply to these two other Clauses and the other observations I am making do not apply to the other Clauses.
  Sir E. CARSON: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say on this point whether the Act draws a distinction between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, or makes the appointed day the same as the passing of the Act?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought I was just pointing that out—that the passing of the Act is a question of date, and the appointed day is the date the Act comes into operation. I note the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. Those behind him who have spoken on the Opposition Benches are also agreed as to that. There is no doubt as to what is intended. If there was any doubt, I should think that reference to earlier Statutes and quotations from them—to take one instance alone, the Education Act of 1902, which contains very similar words—would have sufficed to settle that doubt. When you have a Bill which creates or sets up institutions which take time to come into actual existence, you must allow a certain amount of time between the passing of the Bill and the coming into operation. That is what we do, and I am glad that so far I have got hon. Members' assent. After the passing of the Act, after it has come into existence, you have to get the various provisions for Orders in Council to which reference has been made earlier in the Debate, and to which reference was made by the hon. Gentleman who has just j spoken, who said, with considerable know- I ledge apparently of 'what happens abroad, that the Orders in Council were used for J just the same purpose as we purport to; use them for here. I agree with a great deal of what he said with reference to this matter.
  He called attention, and so did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, to the fact, and said. "What you are doing is taking the maximum period, on the assumption that you use up the full maximum period of fifteen months from the passing of the Act until the Act comes into operation." It may be a period of less time than that, I think, because it may be only one month after the Bill has received the Royal Assent by virtue of Clause 46. The hon. Member said, "When you have done that you should have taken power to bring into operation certain provisions that give effect | to the whole Bill." He criticised us with reference to that, and seemed to think that that was an extravagant power we had taken in the Bill. During the course of his argument he went so far as to say
  392
  that he could not see any explanation for it, and therefore he came to the conclusion that we must have been actuated by some party motive. Again let me call attention to the fact of the Education Act, passed by a Unionist Government. In Section 27, Sub-section (2), exactly a. similar provision is to be found. There are to be found the very words almost that we use in this Bill:—
  "different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act."
  We are entitled to a little more credit than the hon. Member has given us when we have that excellent precedent for our caser in the provision of Section 27 of the Education Act of 1902. I might also instance the Local Government Act——
  Mr. CASSEL: My point was this: What I was objecting to is that the Cabinet should for fifteen months have it in their power, at their own will, as they like, to create the Parliament.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not contemplated that the Executive shall exist for fifteen months—the hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself about that apparently, but it was quite news to me. I do not think he can get it out of the Bill. What does happen is that, there are powers to create an Executive, and in the ordinary course the first thing that would happen would be that you would have to have a Lord Lieutenant.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The British Executive?
  Mr. CASSEL: I meant the British Executive. My point was this: What I was objecting to was that the British Executive, through an Order in Council, for fifteen months, should have it in their discretion either to create the Irish Parliament or not.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he meant that I will not quarrel about it, and certainly would not waste time about it. That was not the point I think he made with reference to Clause 4, and it was with his interruption I was dealing; he read the words of Clause 4 and satisfied himself, as it, seemed to me, that we were not taking any power to extend or curtail there, and his point was that the Executive should come into position at once. The Leader of the Opposition was not present at the time, and had he been he would have seen I was answering the point

  393
  made. I agree the hon. Gentleman later on went on to deal with another point, but I am now on the Clause to which he called attention and on which he expatiated. I say there is power for the express purpose of dealing with all these difficulties. What would happen in the ordinary course I do not profess to state, but suppose this Bill passes and receives the Royal Assent, then after that time Orders in Council can be made, and necessarily must be for the purpose of bringing into effect all the various provisions of this Bill, and it is not necessary that they are all to be brought into operation at the same time. What Clause 4 does is perfectly plain. Assuming you have a Lord Lieutenant appointed, who is not a Member of the Government in the sense hitherto understood, you have a situation created under which to get Members of Parliament elected, and from the Members of Parliament you select your Executive, and, having got your Executive, you can set up the various Departments which it is intended to have, at any rate, until Parliament is in active legislative operation, for the administration of Ireland. All that necessarily follows. I suppose one of the first steps will be to create a Department of the Treasury, and when you have created a Department of the Treasury, there is no difficulty in setting up the Joint Exchequer Board. You will have no difficulty in getting the two Members from the Irish Treasury, and equally there is no difficulty about nominating the two Members in this country and appointing the Chairman. And then at once yon are entitled under Clause 43 to use money for the various purposes. The Joint Exchequer Board has power to see that should be done, and that you may be able for the time being to use money which comes into the Exchequer so that you may give effect to these various provisions. Eventually you get your Parliament working. You have your Senate nominated; your Members of Parliament would have been returned, and, of course, when that happens, there comes the cessation of 103 Members in this House under Clauses 13 and 42.
  Mr. HEWINS: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the particular virtue of this first Tuesday of the eighth month?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not like to answer that question by asking another, but still perhaps I may ask the right hon.
  394
  Gentleman, was he present when I made my observation in moving this Amendment? If he had been, he would not have asked that question, because I gave the explanation then that in the 1893 Bill the words were very much the same as we have used here, and the time is the same.
  Mr. HEWINS: That is a very bad precedent.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We have come to the conclusion that the precedent was at any rate one that was so satisfactory that we ought to follow it, but we made a change that commends itself now to the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. HEWINS: What I want to get at is this. Whether the Government has made any careful examination of the amount of time that would be necessary. Have they done that?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Nobody professes to be able to estimate the time exactly, but there must be a certain limit. There is a long period, and then six months beyond it. Having come to the conclusion that we do not want to fix the month as September, but allow a certain period to elapse after the passing of the Bill, we alter it, and the only alteration we are making is that instead of saying the Bill shall come into operation on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, we say that the Bill shall come into operation on the first Tuesday of the eighth month after the Bill has passed.
  Mr. HEWINS: Have you made any preliminary calculation?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We have made the best calculation we can, and we find it is necessary that there should be eight months. Let me point out that it does not follow that eight months will be wanted. Having taken eight months, it might be that more time or less would be required, and so we have provided that we should be able to make it seven months earlier or later. In this way we have met the very objections raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. During the discussion a great number of points have been raised which I think I may describe without fear of contradiction as more appropriate to the Second Reading. I do not propose to travel into those points, because they have been dealt with in the Debates that have already taken place. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) asked, "Have you considered what you are doing, and have you considered the international

  395
  situation?" I cannot help observing that, when we introduced the Government of Ireland Bill there were no international complications, and nobody could have expected that by the time we got to these Clauses the events which have happened in the Balkan States would have been foreseen. All I desire to say is whenever yon introduce a Bill of this character you will always be met by the argument that the time is never opportune by hon. Members opposite, because they think the Bill ought never to have been introduced. That is an argument with which we have all become familiar during the course of these discussions, but it does not add to the argument or make it any fresher to say that you must now consider the state of international complications, and determine whether, in the light of events which have taken place so recently and which are so important, you ought really to introduce your Government of Ireland Bill. All I desire to say, in answer to the points put, is that we have taken, as far as we are concerned, the best means of determining how this Bill can be brought into operation with the least inconvenience to the Administration that has to be set up in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "It never will."] If it never will, then we really need not bother about discussing this Clause. If that is the case, of course hon. Members might have saved themselves the discussion and calling upon me for a reply. I am anxious to meet the arguments that have been put forward, at any rate to the best of my ability. My suggestion is that, having considered and looked into the matter, we came to the conclusion we should be doing wrong by fixing a particular month, and especially September, which might prove inconvenient, as it is a holiday month, and comes after a holiday month. It is far better, if you are going to fix a period, you should have regard, for example, to what is intended to be the beginning of the financial year in Ireland. These are matters of serious importance to those who, like myself, and hon. Members on this side of the House really are considering what is to happen, and how the Irish Administration is to be set up, when the Bill passes; but, of course, they are of no concern to those who do not approach the Bill from that point of view.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When is the financial year to begin?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is exactly one of those matters which has to be determined by the Irish Parliament. It is not for us to say when the Irish financial year should commence.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman said they had chosen September because it was a convenient month for the Irish financial year, and I asked him when it was suggested the Trish financial year should begin.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And I answered that it was the Irish Government which would determine when the Irish financial year should begin. I was pointing out that to take eight months from the passing of the Act, with the power under Clause 46 of either making it seven months earlier or later, would enable us much more easily to fix our time in accordance with the period at which the Irish financial year is to commence in the view of the Irish Government. It is much more elastic and flexible, and that is our object. It is for these considerations we have come to the conclusion we ought to make this alteration. Although I am not controverting the fact that under Clause 42 an important point is made, the alteration we have made is comparatively trivial. It is substituting a fixed period with this provision for elasticity instead of fixing a particular month, and I submit we have given good reasons why we should make the alteration.
  Sir E. CARSON: I listened with great care to the Attorney-General, and I am bound to say I have certainly been unable to fathom why the changes are made at all by the Government, or really how the Bill will work out: I do not think the Amendment to leave out this Sub-section is really done as innocently as the Attorney-General would try to lead us to believe. In the first place, I suppose the Sub-section was put in deliberately. I suppose they knew September was a holiday month, if the Attorney-General was really not joking when he mentioned that as being a reason for leaving the Sub-section out, and, I suppose, when we were discussing Clause 1, they knew this Sub-section was going to be left out and that it was unworkable. But that was not the way they treated it. They told us then we should be able to raise all our Amendments on this first Sub-section. When we got to the Sub-section, only two days ago, the Chief Secretary put down Amendments to this very Sub-section, and

  397
  the next day he put on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the Sub-section altogether. I do not believe that that is the mere innocent operation of leaving out a holiday date, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have us suppose. We have not been told up till this why the Government have thought it necessary to abandon their own Section in their own Bill which they intended to amend up till two days ago. The position in which we are placed, therefore, is that by leaving out this Sub-section they take away from us altogether the power of having any say in the fixing of the appointed day for the meeting of the Irish Parliament, although we were promised it when we raised the question on the first Clause. You have framed your time-table, and now you are practically laying down that we are to have no right in. regard to the question when the Irish Parliament is to meet. Why you have made this change we do not know. The Attorney-General, if I may say so without meaning offence, talked a great deal round this matter. I think he could have told us in a very few words what really was the object, of the Government. But he did not, and one finds great difficulty in ascertaining why the Bill is framed in this way. In my opinion there could be nothing more absurd in the way of drafting. Why not say that the appointed day shall be within a month after the passing of this Act, with power to the Government to extend the time to fourteen or fifteen months?
  But that is not the way the Government do it. They say it shall be eight months, or, if the Government please, it shall be seven months earlier or seven months later. What an extraordinary way of dealing with months, putting them backwards or forwards, just as the Government pleases, and not putting any definite date into the Bill. I should like to know why they do it. We have not been told why we are not to have an opportunity of discussing it. The Attorney-General, in the course of his argument, pointed out that the appointed day would be a day some time after the day of the Act coming into operation. But he knows perfectly well that the appointed day has nothing whatever to do with the Act coming into operation. The words "appointed day" have a technical meaning in the Act, and it is only where reference is made to the appointed day that Clause 46 will operate at all. If, for instance, the first Clause says that "after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament," that refers to Clause
  398
  46, and if those words were not there, if it merely said "there shall be an Irish Parliament," it would come into force immediately the Act passed. Whenever it suits his purpose the Attorney-General dwells on the appointed day and says it means the passing of the Act and its coming into operation. But, as a matter of fact, that is not so. As a matter of construction, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well the Act comes into force the day it passes, and it is only by including a provision of this kind that you can postpone anything in the Act. You can say that the Act, although passed on a certain day, shall not come into force until a certain appointed day, but you do not say that. You only say it as regards certain provisions. The Attorney-General never answered the point, which is one of the plainest and easiest for the Committee to follow. It. was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras and it dealt with Section 27, which provides:—
  "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."
  Does the Attorney-General tell us that "after the passing of this Act" there means after the appointed day? Where does he get it from? It is not in the Clause. The Attorney-General knows that it is not in the Bill. Therefore you have this extraordinary position, that although you have taken provision as to setting up your Irish Parliament and your Irish Executive also, perhaps not for fifteen months after this Bill passes, there are certain Clauses in the Bill which come into force the very moment the Bill passes. Although you have no Executive in Ireland except the Imperial Executive, which will have to continue, until the Irish Parliament is set up on the appointed day, you are giving power to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland to take away from the Imperial Parliament and from the Government of the Imperial Parliament, although you have no other Government in Ireland, the power to appoint judges, if any vacancy occurs within the fifteen months. Was anything ever more absurd than that? There is no reference there to the "passing of the Act," nor is there any reference to the appointed day. It does not say "after the appointed day." If all that was necessary was to put in at the end "after

  399
  the appointed day," as the Attorney-General says, you ought never to have referred to "after the passing of the Act" at all; you ought always to have said "after the appointed day." The Bill comes into force the day it is passed, and as regards the provisions which are not affected by the appointed day, they become law the very day the Bill is passed. Let mo take the next Clause, Clause 28. The House of Lords as a Court of Appeal is abolished so far as Ireland is concerned. It is abolished on the passing of the Act, because there is no limitation. It merely says:—
  "The appeal from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease."
  It does not say "after the appointed day," nor is there anything in Clause 46 to make it after the appointed day. I merely take these two matters which were referred to by the lion, and learned Member for West St. Pancras. You find in the strange provisions of this Bill a number of provisions of important Executive power which are changed before you have brought into existence the Irish Parliament or the Irish Executive. We ought to have some explanation upon these matters. The Attorney-General referred, in a vague way, to the famous Orders in Council under Clause 44, but does he tell us that the Orders in Council are to be able to vary the expressed words of the Act? Can the Order in Council say that "after the passing of the Act" does not mean after the passing of the Act, but means something else? The Order in Council has nothing to say to these specific matters. The whole truth of the matter is that the Government have never thought out at all what is to happen in the interregnum between the passing of this Bill and the setting up of the Irish Parliament, I suppose for the reason that they do not know whether they are going to set it up in one month after the passing of the Bill, or in fifteen months after the passing of the Bill. One would have thought that they would have some definite time in their own minds. The whole thing is left in a state of chaos and carelessness, and we are debarred from discussing this very question by the knocking out of this Sub-section, and we are to have no opportunity of discussing it on Clause 4V, because of the operation of the guillotine.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words "recommitted to the former Committee."
I wish to impress upon the House the fact that the East Surrey Water Order has never yet been properly considered either by the Board of Trade or by the Committees of the House of Lords or of this House. I went up to the Committee perfectly independent and free. I had not even heard the Debate on the Second Reading, though I read it afterwards, and whatever conclusion I came to I came to after hearing the evidence given before the Committee. I was not at all interested in the Croydon Corporation or any other association, nor in the water company itself, but I was and am interested in the people of Croydon and the people on the River Wandle. One is especially interested in the people of Croydon because there are 175,000 people living there, and there will soon be 200,000, according to the estimates, and consequently it is the duty of Parliament, I should say, to see that they are properly protected. It would be only fair that this House should re-commit this Bill to-night, and the company should be told that they must come to Parliament with a Bill in the ordinary way. The matter is so serious for the Croydon people and the people on the River Wandle that a further opportunity should be given for the consideration of the Bill before it is too late to protect both of these interests. In the ordinary way the company should endeavour to settle with these interests so that there should be no chance of their being injured. As far as the proceedings upstairs were concerned, there is no doubt at all, in my mind, that the weight of evidence was all in favour of the statement that the Croydon water supply would be damaged. The water in the Wandle has already been lowered. The Wandle was supplied from springs and is likely to be further reduced if this company pump more water. The Board of Trade did not help us at all. I have always understood that the Board of Trade inquired into a case of this

401
kind, and came to some the matter, and so helped the Committee when the Bill came before the Committee upstairs. In this case the Board of Trade had an inquiry, but came to no conclusion in the matter. But they voted for this Order. It is, of course, very unfair to the opponents that a Provisional Order should be granted in this case at all. It gets a very unfair advantage in this House and elsewhere that the Bill confirming the Order should be supported by the Board of Trade, the Liberal Whips, and some Members of the Government, for no particular reason that I know of. I say that the Board of Trade ought to be in an independent position and ought to come to some decision to be submitted to the Committee upstairs. We had no report in this case from the Board of Trade.
There is another important reason why the Bill should be recommitted. The Bill went to the House of Lords before it came here. When it came before the Committee there it turned out that, the promoters had retained Mr. Baldwin Lathom but did not call him. I think it is always understood that whoever goes into a Court of Law or comes to Parliament and asks for anything that they should come with perfectly clean hands. In this case it can hardly be said that they did, because while they retained Mr. Baldwin Lathom as a most important expert witness they never called him. Their object in retaining him was to prevent him being retained by the other side, and so prevent the Committee from getting his evidence. I must say-that that was very unfair, and I am surprised that the House of Lords allowed the Bill to proceed. We had the evidence of expert gentlemen upstairs, and undoubtedly it was all in favour of the view expressed by the Croydon and Wandle people that they would be damaged if there was a further demand on their water supply. This is really a case of the people versus company. This company do not care what they do. They do liot offer or consent to give any recompense if they do any damage either to the people on the River Wandle or elsewhere. I have to ask the House to put this off for the time being. I do not say a word against the company. I understand that it is a most respectable company. All they are asking is to get more money to do more business. We have nothing to do with that. But when they are doing that we ought not to allow them to damage the water supply of the people of Croydon
402
or the people on the River Wandle, and if there is any doubt as to what mischief would be done, the people of Croydon should have the benefit of that doubt, and there should be some independent inquiry as to what damage is likely to accrue. The House of Lords put in a Clause that the company might take four million gallons a day on an annual average. That might mean ten million gallons one day and perhaps very little some time later, and the water might be taken just at the dry period of the year, when water is most wanted by Croydon. I hope that the House will insist on this company coming before the House in some other Session in the ordinary way, so as to give everybody's interests an opportunity of being properly considered.
Mr. DORIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
As a member of the Committee upstairs I voted against the confirmation of the Order because I thought that the powers sought by this company were unfair to the mill owners and others interested in the River Wandle. The evidence of the experts on both sides no doubt was very contradictory, but I think if the scale was turned at all it was turned against the East Surrey Company. The evidence of Mr. Baldwin Lathom who was originally engaged by the company as a competent, impartial person, and an engineer who had been living in the district for half a century, was emphatically against the confirmation of the Order. It was apparent that the taking of this extraordinary volume of extra water from very near the source of the Croydon supply would inevitably deplete the supply and so deprive the mill owners on the River Wandle of the water necessary for the working of the mills. Upon these grounds I thought it my duty to vote against the Order, though I should have been very willing to vote for it if there was any provision by which those who were damaged by its operation could seek compensation from the East Surrey Company. If the company's case were an honest one, and they believed in it they would have agreed that they could not be damaged by the Amendment proposed here the other evening. Unless the people of Croydon and the people on the River Wandle proved conclusively that they were damaged by the operations of the company, the company could not be called on to pay them anything. The company opposed that Amendment, and I think that that is a confirmation of my

403
suspicion that they do not believe in their own case. They said that this would expose them to litigation. No wrongdoer likes litigation. It was also urged that other companies had got water, and that this compensation Clause was not included in their Orders. Three or four wrongs do not make one right, and it is not at all right that these comparatively poor mill owners, who already suffer from other water owners, should have their means of living swept away entirely by this company. It was also urged by the East Surrey Water Company that as owners of the land they have absolute right to all underground water, quite regardless of any damage that would be done to their neighbours. If that be the Common Law, then the sooner this House puts an end to it the better. It would be quite ridiculous for a commercial company earning good dividends to acquire land from which the whole countryside derives water, if they are to have the power of appropriating all the water and then to sell it back to their victims. I do not think this House would sanction anything of the kind. If this Bill be recommitted I presume some arrangement might be come to by which the people of Croydon and on the Wandle would be protected from this great injury, and which I think they have good grounds for fearing. I quite agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I think, as a matter of simple justice, the House ought to pass this Amendment, and reject this Order.
Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: The hon. Member who submitted this Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, referred to the case of Croydon and to the case of the Wandle, and the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) also spoke of the company versus the corporation. On all these three grounds their case falls to the ground. I have been surprised how readily Members have spoken against the Order, because it is promoted by a company. This is not a case of company versus corporation. There is no public authority to supply this district, or likely to supply it; therefore the simple question is whether the whole district of East Surrey is or is not to be supplied with water. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There is no other question, because the Croydon Corporation supplies its own district, while the East Surrey Company supplies a district of 500 square miles. It is a very important company, doing very important
404
work. Croydon has its water supply, and it has a public authority carrying out the water undertaking. This House is not likely to do anything to injure Croydon. Croydon had an opportunity of stating its case; it put its evidence before the Board of Trade, before the House of Lords Committee, and before the Committee upstairs; and it has not been proved in evidence that the supply of water to Croydon will be in any way diminished by the East Surrey Company having the power to take a sufficient water supply for its own area. It is well known that Croydon has another source of supply if it is necessary. On the Second Heading an hon. Member below the Gangway opposed the Order in the interests of the working classes of Croydon. There is no danger of the working classes of Croydon, or the population of that place, being deprived of any water in consequence of this Order passing through Parliament, because the Croydon corporation can always fall back upon the Metropolitan Water Board.
Mr. MORTON: That was denied on oath upstairs.
11.0 P.M.
Sir E. CORNWALL: It is pretty well known that no part of Greater London, or no part of Croydon, or no district around London, is likely to be deprived of any water supply, for the Metropolitan Water Board can be required to supply water, and it is wholly a question of terms. No doubt the Croydon people would carry on a good deal of negotiation to obtain water. Croydon can obtain water, and, on the other hand, if the East Surrey Water Company is not allowed to take the water of its district, then the large population of the whole of East Surrey will be deprived of water, and the working-class districts in the country-side would not have the water they are entitled to. We must remember that this water is the water flowing from the very district which this company supplies, and to deprive the company of this Order is to deprive the people living in East Surrey of the water which flows from their district to Croydon. Surely this House is not going to take away from this rural district its natural and proper water supply. I am not interested in any way in this company, but I happen to have a house in the centre of the district which is supplied. [Mr. J. WARD: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Stoke says, "Hear, hear." I dare say he would know that anyone who lives in a good-sized house can take care

405
of his own water supply. He can sink for water. I am not thinking of my own supply. There would be no difficulty for me and other people living in the same size of house getting a water supply. What interests me with regard to this company is to see that throughout this whole rural district there is a good water supply, and it is my interest to see in large rural districts a good main water supply. That excites my interest on behalf of this company because you are never going to get good rural housing of the agricultural people unless there is a proper water supply, and it is also in the interests of public health. I say it is of the utmost importance to the working classes of East Surrey that this company should have this Order, which has been passed by the Board of Trade, passed by a Committee of the House of Lords, and passed by a Committee of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Sutherland said that there has not been sufficient inquiry. Would you believe that this Bill has been under consideration by the Board of Trade and the Committees of Parliament since last February right down to December? What does tins amount to when you look at it? The company has already spent £600,000 in this undertaking, and it conies to Parliament simply to ask for an additional £160,000, not to sink new pumps or new wells, not to introduce a new source of supply, but simply to extend its means of supplying this large area and to extend its machinery.
Mr. MORTON: And pump more water.
Sir E. CORNWALL: Yes, but there is a great difference in extending plant and water mains and coming to Parliament for a new source of supply. In this case they have spent £600,000, and they are merely asking for another £160,000. The whole matter has been inquired into from February to December, and after the whole Parliamentary machinery and Government machinery has been used we are asked after all those inquiries to send the Order back for further inquiry. It makes the whole business of supplying water to the people throughout the country impossible unless we allow this Order to go through. If it was a question of a public authority versus a company, then I, with my municipal experiences and prejudices in favour of municipalities, would go straight for the municipality, but the question here is nothing of the kind, but one of further water for this district, for the supply
406
which flows through it by this company. During the whole of these Debates not one word has been said against this company, and it is quite evident that if anything could be said as to the way the company has carried out its obligations it would have come out in the Debates or before the Committee upstairs. No one has anything but praise for this company as to the manner in which it has done its work. Why should we at this end of the Session interfere with the due progress of an Order of this kind? When the matter was considered by the Board of Trade a Clause was inserted reducing the rates of charge. That was satisfactory to me. I do not believe that any water company should have unlimited power of making charges upon the people whom they supply with water, and I satisfied myself that that point had been safeguarded by the Board of Trade. In the House of Lords a Clause was inserted limiting the amount of water the company could take. Everything seems to have been done in proper order and with due regard to the public interest. Therefore, in my opinion, we should be going against the public interest if we failed to pass this Bill. I hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Parlimentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will speak in support of the Order. It would be a great misfortune if we allowed ourselves to be influenced by prejudice, either on the question of company versus corporation—which does not apply in this case—or on the ground that Croydon will be injured, or in reference to the River Wandle. Nobody wants to deplete the River Wandle.
Mr. JOHN WARD: How do you know?
Sir E. CORNWALL: I know that the Croydon well is within half a mile of the Wandle, and that of the wells of the company one is over three miles and the other two miles distant. If you are going to deal with the watershed of the Wandle you will have to deal with the Metropolitan Water Board, the Croydon Corporation, and the Sutton Company, as well as this company. You cannot in any spirit of fairness pick out this company for special treatment on the Third Reading of the Bill. I trust that the machinery of Parliament will not be used to destroy this Order, and that the large rural population of East Surrey will not be deprived by this Motion of the opportunity of securing the water which flows through their district.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean): I do not desire to say anything on the merits or demerits of the question, whatever they may be; but I might remind the House that this is the third time this question has come before it, and that little short of three or four hours of the time of the House has been devoted to the matter. I suggest that there must be some sort of finality in this procedure. On the first occasion the point before the House was substantially the justice or injustice of the exclusion of certain evidence. After considerable discussion the House decided by a large majority that the Bill should go upstairs to a Committee, it being preeminently a question which could only be decided, not on the floor of the House, but before a Committee hearing and seeing witnesses. Members who are experienced in Committee work know that the advantage of hearing the witnesses themselves is inestimable. On the second occasion it was said that the Committee had sat five days and most carefully investigated the question. It is perfectly true that we have had the advantage here to-night of hearing the views of the two hon. Members who composed one portion of the Committee, and on the last occasion we had the advantage of hearing the views of the two hon. Members who composed the other part of it. The conclusion of the Committee, as I understand, was arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman. That was distinctly within the limits and the rights of the Committee. Therefore, without saying anything further, or going into the merits or demerits of the question, might I suggest, with some personal knowledge of the work of Committees, that hearing the speeches here it is impossible to form a conclusion. Directly contrary views are expressed. If this is remitted again to Committee the same result may occur again. Therefore I suggest, under the circumstances, that a very good rule for hon. Members to act upon when they go into the Division Lobby is that, when in doubt, support the decision of the Committee.
Mr. JOHN WARD: One or two minutes will be quite sufficient to reply to hon. Members above the Gangway. I am not surprised at the hon. Member above the Gangway supporting this Bill. I do not think there has been any private Bill for creating a monopoly during the six or seven years I have been in the House of Commons that the hon. Member has not supported.
408
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members say it is not Croydon only. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wandsworth represents people living along the Wandle, and has pointed out that the river had been practically turned into a sewer because of the drainage at the sources of the springs at the end of the Wandle. The hon. Member above the Gangway must understand that if Croydon were applying to be allowed to pump more water we who live in the lower reaches of the Wandle would be just as much opposed to that extraction of water as we are now. It is not a personal question, nor a question of a private monopoly. It is merely that already the river is a sewer, as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, in opposing this Bill, pointed out on the last occasion. The hon. Member suggested that there was quite an easy way out of the difficulty for Croydon if it wanted this water for its population: that it could always apply to the Metropolitan Water Board, and they would only be too delighted to supply them with as much as they required. But would not the same thing apply to the Surrey company? Anyone who has the slightest practical knowledge knows that it would be just as easy for the Metropolitan Water Board to supply the extra water to the company as it would be to carry out the suggestions of the hon. Member, and supply Croydon. The truth of the matter is that this river is being depleted to such an extent that the county council, the body of which the hon. Member is a member, have recently registered it as an open sewer and unhealthy for the workpeople along its banks. That is the real reason we are opposing the Bill.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Is the House really going to reopen a question of this kind? And is it going to be led away by speeches such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stoke? This matter was before a Committee of this House and before a Committee of the House of Lords, and safeguards of every kind were put in. It was discussed at great length on Second Reading, and passed by a big majority, and was then sent to a Committee upstairs. It passed that Committee, and then when it came down here again it was open to hon. Members to move to recommit it or to reject it altogether. They put down a Motion on the Paper, but they never moved it. Instead of that they moved an Amendment asking for compensation. They failed to get it, and now they come, after

409
all these matters have been gone into, and after the address of the Deputy-Chairman, and ask to have this Bill recommitted and to reopen this matter in a sort of haphazard manner. The hon. Member who has just sat down has said Croydon could get extra water from the Metropolitan Board. The hon. Member said the mains are there, but the fact is the mains are miles away; there is not a single main of the Metropolitan Board running in this district. They could not get the extra water from the Metropolitan Board except from mains which are miles away. I have no interest in the matter one way or another, but I venture to submit we should trust our Committees in their findings and not attempt to reopen this matter.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Reference has been made to the Board of Trade in connection with this matter, and I think it is fitting I should say a word. The hon. Member for Sunderland complained that the Board of Trade gave no lead in the matter, but the Board of Trade properly followed out its functions. It decided that the question was not one for its decision, but one for decision by some weighty authority, and it held that the Board of Trade, was not that authority. It followed out its functions by stipulating as a condition to giving the Order that the company should reduce its charges to those supplied with water, and that condition was agreed to. Beyond that the position of the Board of Trade was that the proper tribunal was a Parliamentary Committee, and that the question should
be threshed out before it. That has been done, and we are agreed that it should not now be threshed out again.
Mr. FELL: I have been asked by the borough of Wimbledon, through whose district the River Wandle runs for some miles, to support the proposal to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth supported it on the last occasion, and the borough of Wimbledon also supports it. This is a matter which interests three or four hundred thousand people who are to be sacrificed to the interests of about ninety thousand people. The people who inhabit that district wish to take one and a half million gallons more water from the Wandle than they do at the present time. If this additional 1,500,000 gallons a day is taken from the River Wandle, the condition of that river will be such that it will have to be covered over with arches and turned into a sewer. There are many mills upon that stream, but, beyond all things, there are several recreation grounds, and one of them has been laid out at great expense by the borough of Wimbledon. [HON. MF.MBEHS: "Divide, divide."] There is not the slightest——
Mr. CLOUGH Mr. CLOUGH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is now prepared to come to a decision.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the-Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 70.

Division No. 411.]

AYES.

[11.25 p.m.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Brunner, J. F. L.

Fiennes, Hon, Eustace Edward

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Agnew, Sir George William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Cassel, Felix

Fleming, Valentine

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Cautley, H. S.

Forster, Henry William

Baird, J. L.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Gardner, Ernest

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

Gibbs, G. A.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gilmour, Captain John

Baldwin, Stanley

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Barnston, H.

Clough, William

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Barrie, H. T.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Gretton, John

Barton, William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Gulland, John William

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cullinan, John

Gwynne,- R. S. (Sussex. Eastbourne)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Benn. Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Dawes, J. A.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Esslemont, George Birnie

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Blair, Reginald

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Falconer, James

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Booth, Frederick Handel

Falle, B. G.

Higham, John Sharp

Boyton, James

Farrell, James Patrick

Hills, John Waller

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Hogge, James Myles

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Muldoon, John

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Munro, R.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

Stanier, Beville

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Needham, Christopher, Thomas

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Stewart, Gershorn

Jessel, Capt. H. M.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sutherland, J. E.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Nuttall, Harry

Swift, Rigby

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ogden, Fred

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Keating, Matthew

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

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Sullivan. Timothy

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

King, J.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Touche, George Alexander

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Toulmin, Sir George

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pringle, William M. R.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

Watt, Henry A.

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

Radford, G. H.

Webb, H.

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Reddy, M.

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

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Robertson, John HI. (Tyneside)

Wiles, Thomas

McGhee, Richard

Robinson, Sidney

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Maclean, Donald

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Rowlands, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Royds, Edmund

Winfrey, Richard

Manfield, Harry

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Young, William (Perth, East)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Sanders, Robert A.

Younger, Sir George

Millar, James Duncan

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Shortt, Edward

Rawson and Mr. Rawlinson.

Mount, William Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Fitzgibbon, John

O'Malley, William

Adamson, William

Gill, A. H.

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

Barnes, George N.

Ginnell, L.

O'Shee, James John

Bigland, Alfred

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hackett, J.

Pointer, Joseph

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hardie, J. Keir

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brace, William

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Brady, P. J.

Hazleton, Richard

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hodge, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hohler, G. F.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Burke, E. Haviland-

John, Edward Thomas

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Joyce, Michael

Scanlan, Thomas

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lundon, T.

Sheehy, David

Clynes, John R.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

Crumley, Patrick

Malcolm, Ian

Spear, Sir John Ward

Delany, William

Martin, J.

Sutton, John E.

Devlin, Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Doris, William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duffy, William J.

Morison, Hector

Wilkie, Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Nolan, Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny]

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Fell, Arthur

O'Doherty, Philip

Morton and Mr. J. Ward.

Ffrench, Peter

Main Question put, and agreed to. Rill read the Third Time, and passed with Amendments.
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."

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Sir WALTER NUGENT: I rise to ask the Vice-President of the Depart-
412
ment of Agriculture For Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell), if he has any statement to make with regard to the restrictions imposed on the cattle trade in that country, and more particularly in reference to those imposed in county Westmeath. I want to point out that five weeks have now elapsed since disease was found in that county and then the early cases that occurred were in Mullingar and its immediate vicinity. During that period of five weeks no case has occurred in any part of the county. The people co-operated with the right hon. Gentleman to the utmost degree in the endeavour to stamp out the disease and we

413
have every reason to believe that it has been stamped out. A very much longer time has elapsed since the restrictions have been imposed round that town than is usually the case, either in Great Britain or in other parts of Ireland. The rule is I believe to continue them for twenty-eight days in the restricted area, but in the case of Mullingar they have been existent for five weeks. The people did not complain of their imposition because they realised that it was to their interest just as much as it is to the interest of hon. Members above the gangway that the disease should be stamped out, and notwitstanding all the hardships and suffering imposed on them they have loyally assisted the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman. I speak, not for the big cattle dealers or jobbers, but for the small tenant farmers who depend for their livelihood on a few cattle and pigs. They are the people who have suffered most, yet they have not complained of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I know perfectly well the time of worry and anxiety he has gone through. I know he has done his utmost to try and stamp out the disease in order that the trade of the country may be restored to its normal condition. I have risen in the hope that he may be able to make a statement, such as the people are impatiently awaiting, and such as I think we are entitled to expect from him. I have heard within the last half-hour that a statement has been issued in Dublin, which if true, will create bitter disappointment all over Ireland. I do not know if it be the case, but I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us it is not, and that he will tell us that Ireland is to be treated in the same way as any English county, and that county Westmeath is not to be treated more harshly than county Dublin. The people of Westmeath have rallied round the right hon. Gentleman. I know he will bear me out in that. I have done my best to make them trust him and to comply with the regulations he has imposed. I therefore hope I shall receive a sympathetic reply from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LARDNER: I think that everybody in this House, when aware of the facts, will agree that the Irish members will be failing in their duty if they do not take the earliest possible opportunity to raise this most serious question. The Vice-President at Question time courteously informed me that, as a result of the
414
negotiations which have taken place, his Department has now decided to schedule four whole counties in Ireland, and that, out of five others, in respect of three there is an absolutely stand-still Order. On behalf of county Monaghan I want to protest in the most vehement manner against what I believe to be a most unreasonable and stringent Order in regard to that county, having regard to the facts. The facts are that early last week a cargo left Newry for Birkenhead, which included 73 cattle, 113 sheep, and 525 swine. On arrival at Birkenhead it was discovered that one of the animals was diseased. Immediately the machinery of the Department was put into operation, and the seventy-three cattle were traced home to their place of origin in Ireland in every case. In every case it was discovered that every place of origin was absolutely free from disease. I am speaking only of the twenty-eight Monaghan cattle, every one of which was traced home. The Department received every facility from the men in the district, from the men who bought the cattle, the owners from whom they came, and the local officers. I am told, and I believe it is correct, that on Thursday in last week the inspectors of the English Department reported that none of the twenty-eight cattle which came from Monaghan were infected or involved in the outbreak at Birkenhead. The Irish Department then and there scheduled the rural district of Monaghan and Castleblayney. We did not complain. We were quite satisfied. But what do we find you have done tonight? You cannot find the disease in Monaghan; you cannot trace it to the Monaghan cattle, but now you have scheduled the whole county. In respect to those parts of Monaghan which have only been scheduled for three or four days, they occupy the anomalous position of being under stand-still Orders, while other parts are under movement-out Orders. That is unreasonable action on the part of the Department. I want to know why you have scheduled the whole of county Monaghan? The Vice-President said yesterday, "We will schedule a district where there is any disease." That is quite right. Last night, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the President of the English Department said:—
"I believe we now know the area which has been under suspicion, and therefore, by deduction, the area which has not been under suspicion The area has been defined, and communications are passing rapidly between the two Departments, which, I hope, will enable my right hon, friend to-morrow, I believe, to issue ail Order prohibiting movement out of the suspected area."

415
What is a suspected area? An area in which you have reasonable ground for believing that disease exists. I ask the Vice-President, here and now, has he any grounds whatever for suggesting that the disease exists in county Monaghan? You have had no disease in Monaghan in any of the recent outbreaks during the past twenty-five years. I ask the Vice-President does he support the Order scheduling county Monaghan, which has been issued by his Department? Does he justify the Order, or does he accept the Order because it has been put as a pistol to his head by the English Department? That is what I want to know, because whilst it is the duty of the Irish Department to do everything to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease, it is also their duty to protect Irish trading interests, and if English officialism has become frightened, and panic has spread through the English Department, that is no reason why we should allow Irish interests to suffer. I wish to urge this matter most strongly. We are perfectly patient in regard to any reasonable investigation. You have had the County Council of Monaghan meeting on Monday, and passing a resolution approving the steps you have taken to stamp out the disease, and to run down this outbreak. But here you have a county without a single case for twenty-five years. You have traced every animal that came from the county, and formed part of this cargo, and I ask what justification have you for suggesting that any suspicion attaches to county Monaghan? So far as we are concerned, and I am certain I am speaking on behalf of every Member on these benches, we are more anxious than the English Department to see the disease stamped out, and we will do everything in our power to assist in stamping it out, but I for one will not stand silently by and allow the trade of my county to be stamped out.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): In reply to the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Nugent), it is entirely due to what has taken place since this morning that I am unable to carry out what was my intention with regard to Westmeath. I promised the hon. Member (Mr. Lardner), to-day that I would be in a position to-night to state the terms of the Order which had been issued to-day in harmony with the wishes and desires of the English Board, and the terms were that on our issuing this
416
Order, the Order opening the ports in England would go out to-night. A telegram which I received from the Department in Dublin is to the following effect. "District scheduled by to-day's Order comprises whole of counties Meath, Louth, Monaghan and Armagh, part of county Westmeath, north and east of a line running from junction of Westmeath, Meath and King's County through Rochfortbridge, Castletown and Loughanavally to Ballynacarrigy. That is, roughly speaking, eastern half of county Westmeath, county Cavan, east of Midland Great Western Railway, that is eastern half of county Cavan, part of Tyrone, south and east of a line running from Trillick via Six Mile Cross and Pomeroy to county boundary near but excluding Cookstown, part of county Antrim, south of a line from town of Antrim to Belfast, but excluding Belfast, part of county Down excluding Belfast, east of Belfast and county Down railway line from Belfast to Ardglass, that is major portion of county Down. Order prohibited movement of animals out of this district, but does not prohibit movement into or within it, except as regards the portions of it which were scheduled by previous Orders. The portions are the Westmeath district and Armagh district which were scheduled as precautionary measure, and which comprise county Armagh and adjoining parts of counties, Monaghan, Tyrone, and Down. The Westmeath and Armagh districts are subject to stand-still restrictions, all movements of animals into, out or within them being prohibited."
Sir W. NUGENT: What happened today? The right hon. Gentleman says if it had not been for something that happened to-day he would have been able to redeem the promise he made.
Mr. RUSSELL: What happened was that the two Departments have had to consider the new position created by the incident at Birkenhead and the incident in Meath arising out of the two animals which were discovered at Dublin.
Sir W. NUGENT: Surely that has not happened since yesterday. That is three or four days old.
Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member forgets that the President of the Board of Agriculture stated last night that he and his advisers had to consider the matter. This is the result of the consideration. That is what I mean by what happened to-day.
Mr. FARRELL: May I ask if this Order rescinds the previous Order and exempts county Longford?
Mr. RUSSELL: What I desire to say as to that is that at the present moment the restriction is as in the old Westmeath Order. The hon. Member will know what I mean by that. The other side is covered now by this new Order. I think it is quite impossible, as I had intended, to restrict the Westmeath Order.
Mr. FARRELL: Does that mean that the fairs will be allowed to take place next week?
Mr. RUSSELL: I would rather answer that question to-morrow if the hon. Gentleman will repeat it.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I felt after the statement of the President of the Board of Agriculture last night that Irish agriculturists might reasonably look forward to considerable relief by the Order which was to be issued to-night, but I confess that I am absolutely taken aback by the suggestion that counties which have been absolutely free even of a suspicion of disease should now have very substantial portions of them scheduled. I take to begin with county Antrim. So far as I am aware there is not even a suspicion that any of the animals to which reference has been made have come from any portion of that county. As to county Down, it is surely a monstrous thing to say that at least one-third of it is now to be scheduled because some suspected animals have passed through a remote portion of it. I can only say that when this discussion is read in Ireland to-morrow the depression of agriculturists, which has been growing for some time, will be accentuated. The feeling that has been existing there is that the Irish Department has yielded to pressure to which it ought not to have submitted in regard to the issue of this Order. I join with hon. Members below the gangway in impressing on the Government that Ireland ought not to be treated worse than England has been treated in similar circumstances in the past. We in Ireland are as anxious as any English or Scottish agriculturists can possibly be to do all that can reasonably be done to stamp out the disease at the earliest possible moment, but to say, at this the most critical and important time of the whole season for the raisers of fat stock, that practically two-thirds of Ulster is to be held up
418
is very strange in view of the facts in regard to the counties in that province. Out of nine counties we find the prohibition extending to six of them. I thank the Vice-President of the Department for the small concession in respect of the county of Londonderry which I and my colleague have the honour to represent. It has as yet been free from this dread ordeal. We do not know how far the thing complained of is to be allowed to continue elsewhere, or how long the three remaining counties—Londonderry, Fermanagh, and Donegal—will enjoy exemption. We have had frequent telegrams as to ports where cattle not affected, have been detained, through the working of the Order, while the origin of suspected animals is being traced. The last case is bad almost beyond conception. I will only add that if we do not have some more reassuring statement from the President of the Board of Agriculture tomorrow I shall press the Prime Minister to give us, even though it would be very inconvenient to many Members, Saturday to discuss this matter.
Mr. MacVEAGH: I shall have the sympathy of Members in all parts of this House in expressing regret that in a Debate of this enormous importance the President of the Board of Agriculture is not here, especially as he received notice at Question time to-day that the matter would be raised on the Motion for Adjournment. Others of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to their own counties and the manner in which they will be affected by this new Order which the Vice-President of the Department has just communicated to the House. With reference to my own county, the county Down, he has told us that nearly the whole of it is to be scheduled, but he has not told us why it is to be scheduled. He has not given a shadow of reason or justification for the procedure adopted by his Department. I should like him to tell us on what basis or principle his Department proceeded in scheduling this county or the county Antrim. I understand that the Department has decided to omit the certain strip of land running through the county Down along the line of railway to Belfast. On what principle has that part been exempted from the Order which affects the whole of the rest of the county? The whole thing is totally illegal. It seems to me that a number of clerks have sat down round a table in some office in Whitehall, at the Board of Agriculture, with an ordnance map in front of them, and drawn

419
fantastic lines upon it, and said, "there are the areas that have got to be scheduled." These clerks know nothing about Ireland and care less. Not one of them has ever been in Ireland, and I do not believe that any one of them ever wants to be in Ireland. They have no knowledge of the country beyond what they get from ordnance maps. A more overwhelming proof of the necessity of Home Rule for Ireland has never been given. For all practical purposes the Department might as well schedule the whole province of Ulster, as do what they have done to-night. It is a case of bureaucracy run mad in Whitehall, because these gentlemen are playing ducks and drakes at present with a trade worth over £12,000,000 a year to the Irish people. I will ask the Vice-President also to tell me what becomes of the pledge which he gave me to-day at Question time that no restrictions will be applied in any area unless affected by foot-and-mouth disease? That pledge has been absolutely broken by the announcement read out to-night.
Mr. RUSSELL: I cannot allow that. There can be no doubt about it that the animal found at Birkenhead had been shipped at Newry and had gone through part of the county Down. I used the word "effected."
Mr. MacVEAGH: There is no suggestion that this animal came from the county Down at all, even though it was shipped from Newry. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that in no part of the whole county Down could the slightest trace of foot-and-mouth disease be found by him or his Inspectors. Therefore the pledge has not been kept. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for it. I am not sure that he deserves all responsibility, but there are some questions which I would like him to answer at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps they will be more fittingly answered by the President of the Board of Agriculture for England. The first is: on what principle and what grounds has the county Down been scheduled? The second is: which Department is responsible for scheduling it? Is it the Boad of Agriculture in England or the Department of Agriculture in Ireland? These two Departments have been playing battledore and shuttlecock long enough with Irish interests, and it is time to know on which of them we ought to fix responsibility for playing havoc with the whole trade and industry of
420
Ireland. I want to know how the Board of Agriculture in England intervened in this matter, and what representations have they made to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland? Has the Board of Agriculture said to the Department, "we will not allow cattle to be landed in England from certain areas which we now name," and by a wonderful coincidence are these the very areas that the Department of Agriculture has scheduled to-day. I think we are entitled to a straightforward answer on that point. If that is so the responsibility rests more with the Board of Agriculture in this country than with the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. I do not know whether we will get an answer, but certainly we shall force the matter again and again until it is elucidated.
Mr. GINNELL: I have only to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will allow his intention to stand, or whether it has been forgotten, to release certain districts in Ireland from the restrictions previously imposed upon them. Or are those districts to be tied up again, not on account of disease, but on account of the requirements of the English Department? Is that to stand as the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman and to go before the country?
Mr. HARRY HOPE: As a Scottish Member I desire to protest against the restrictive policy of the Government on this question. They seem to be acting in a state of panic. The agricultural interests of Ireland and the agricultural interests of Scotland are identical, and the interests of consumers in our cities are also identical. While it is desired that this disease should be stamped out as soon as possible, we think that cattle from healthy districts should be allowed to come over to this country just as cattle from healthy districts in this country can be removed to other districts. We should have cleared up all this scheduling of these large areas. Is it due to the attitude of the Vice-President or of the President of the Board of Agriculture? If that is the case, I think the Government are assuming a very grave responsibility, and doing much injury, both to the agriculture of Ireland and of Scotland.
Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I rise to protest against the action of the Vice-President in scheduling the whole county of Meath against the advice given him, against his own judgment, and under coercive

421
authority. The right hon. Gentleman said m the House last week that there was a suspected case in the county of Meath. He made the following statement:—
"First, there is the cape of an animal, one of a large cargo which it was proposed to ship to Dundee. One animal was found by the inspector of the Department to be suffering From some ailment, and was challenged and not allowed to go on board. It was examined, and three of our principal inspectors saw the animal. The lesion in the tongue was an old lesion, said by the chief veterinary inspector of the Board of Agriculture in England, to be a mouth or two old. Our three inspectors in Dublin were unable to pronounce it foot-and-mouth disease, and they were confirmed in their action by the fact that the animal had been for eight months in a field near Kells, in the county of Meath."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 5th December, 1912, col. 2470, Vol. XLIV.].
There is the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, and he now goes back upon that statement, and schedules the whole of the county of Meath in respect of a case which his own inspector said never existed. How are farmers in Ireland to believe that they will receive justice if the Department has not the courage of its own convictions? If the right hon. Gentleman is bound to repudiate the advice of his own inspector and act upon the advice of
422
others, what course is open to us? What is the case of Meath. It is a great fattening centre for sending stores to this country. The county Meath sends more fat cattle to this country than any other county in Ireland, especially at this time of year for the Christmas market, and here because of that solitary case the whole of the trade of that county is shut out from the markets. I say a more monstrous injustice was never committed on any county. Whatever our politics may be we should stand together and see who is responsible; whether it is the Department of the right hon. Gentleman in Merrion Street or the right hon. Gentlemen in Whitehall. There was another case reported from Dunshaughlin. His own Inspectors advised him and their opinion was confirmed by the head of the Veterinary College——
And, it being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at One Minute after Twelve o'clock.

  Civil Service (Assistant Clerks).
  Civil Service (Assistant Clerks).
  Pensions of Appeal Lords.
  Pensions of Appeal Lords.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Belfast Riots.
  Belfast Riots.
  Officers' Training Corps.
  Officers' Training Corps.
  Artillery Batteries.
  Artillery Batteries.
  Army Audit Office (Dublin).
  Army Audit Office (Dublin).
  Territorial Artillery.
  Territorial Artillery.
  Strength of Garrisons.
  Strength of Garrisons.
  Reserve of Officers.
  Reserve of Officers.
  School Statistics (Ireland).
  School Statistics (Ireland).
  Mendham School (Suffolk).
  Mendham School (Suffolk).
  Gambling Options.
  Gambling Options.
  Contract Notes (India).
  Contract Notes (India).
  Cooper's Hill College.
  Cooper's Hill College.
  Swansea Corporation Bill.
  Swansea Corporation Bill.
  Bankruptcies.
  Bankruptcies.
  Lowestoft Fishermen.
  Lowestoft Fishermen.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Wireless Telegraphy (Inspector).
  Wireless Telegraphy (Inspector).
  Secondary Instruction (Scotland).
  Secondary Instruction (Scotland).
  Nurse Probationer (Dumbarton).
  Nurse Probationer (Dumbarton).
  Advances to Fishermen.
  Advances to Fishermen.
LORD MURRAY OF ELIBANK.
The Right Honourable Alexander William Charles Oliphant Murray, commonly called the Master of Elibank, having been created Lord Murray of Elibank of Elibank in the County of Selkirk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WHITBURGH.
Sir Thomas Banks Borthwick, Baronet, having been created Baron Whitburgh of Whitburgh in the County of Midlothian—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations, dated 7th December, 1912, made by the Joint Committee acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, as to the Administration of Medical Benefit: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 184.)
NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX, considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order).
Commons Amendment.
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause A.:
Accommodation for Workmen Employed on Construction of Works.
.—(1) The Admiralty shall erect, fit up and maintain or provide:

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

138

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

as shall be reasonably necessary having regard to the accommodation available in the neighbourhood of or conveniently accessible from the said works, and shall provide and maintain proper and sufficient sanitary accommodation in connexion with every such building and hospital.
(2) The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workman employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them except in so far as such costs and expenses are payable under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or otherwise.
Moved, That this house do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl o1 Granard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The new clause which I move to insert after Clause 1 is of considerable importance to county councils generally. When this Bill came before the House of Commons there was in it as Clause 2 of the Bill a clause enabling a trackless trolley system along any road or street to be authorised by Order under the principal Act in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as a light railway. Into that clause were inserted certain Amendments, the purport of which was that the damage which these trackless trolleys did to the roads should be a liability upon the promoters of this system. The municipal corporations and county councils stood on a different footing in this matter,

139
because municipal corporations were constantly the promoters of tramway systems and may be in the future, and in some cases are at present, promoters of trackless trolley systems, from which they would naturally reap the benefit. The wear and tear upon the roads under a system of trackless trolleys would be very great, and where the system was privately owned the burden of repairing the roads would fall upon the county councils whilst the profits would be reaped by the promoters of the trackless trolley system and none would reach the counties whose roads would be considerably damaged. Therefore we thought it was only fair that in all these Orders provision should be made whereby any damage that was actually done should be made good to the authorities over whose roads the promoters took the trackless trolley system.
As I pointed out last night, there is considerable difference between a trackless trolley system and the tramway systems promoted by urban authorities which have been extended in many instances over the main roads of the counties, in that the promoters of tramways invariably are responsible for keeping in order that portion of the road over which their tramway runs, and we thought that there should be some analogous provision in the case of trackless trolleys, which do more damage to the roads than any vehicle would do, because, as we know, the tendency is to keep upon one track and to wear that track away. Where there is an overhead wire, however much give and take there might be, the tendency would be for these trackless trolleys to follow upon this course and to wear away that portion of the road to an extent which would involve a considerable additional cost for the upkeep of the road. As I say, when this Bill was originally introduced in another place this provision for dealing with trackless trolleys was inserted, and we made an attempt to get such Amendments put in as we thought fit and proper to meet our case. In this we were successful. But the promoters of trackless trolley systems, who had originally been anxious to get the clause into the Bill, were no longer so anxious for it after the safeguarding Amendments had been inserted. Consequently when the Third Reading stage was arrived at the clause was struck out altogether, and the present position is that the promoters of a trackless trolley
140
system have to come to Parliament for their powers, and each separate Bill has to be opposed by the particular county which objects to it. We consider that this is an especial hardship upon county councils.
We think that this matter is one which should be dealt, with upon a broad and general principle, and if we saw any prospect of this being done in the near future we should, of course, not be here moving the re-insertion of this clause into the Bill. This is an attempt to deal with the matter on broad principles which would be applicable to all cases of this particular kind of traffic. We think, in the absence of any other means of doing it, that our only way to remove what we regard as a great and distinct grievance on all county councils is to move the re-insertion of this clause. The clause is, with one exception, in the terms of the clause which the Government were originally prepared to accept. Therefore I feel I need not go at any length into the actual provisions of the clause. The question before the House is whether it should be inserted in this Bill, and my contention is that if there is no prospect of the matter being dealt, with by general legislation it is only proper that the clause should be re-inserted. The exception to which I alluded is not one of great importance. It is in the last subsection, where we provide that no trailers shall be used in connection with trolley vehicles without the consent of the Board of Trade and without the consent in writing of the road authority. On this particular addition to the clause I do not, of course, lay so much stress, because it was not part of the clause as it was originally intended to stand. Therefore if any objection is raised to the insertion of this additional subsection I shall not press it. I submit that a provision of this kind should be made to deal with railless trolleys, or else that we should have some kind of assurance that the matter is going to be dealt with by general legislation and that we are not to be left to the very expensive and unsatisfactory method of opposing every Bill that is brought into the Houses of Parliament. In the latter case, of course, the only locus standi that will be given will be, not to county councils generally, but to the unfortunate county council which is going to be injured in the particular case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
"Power of Light Railway Commissioners to authorise Trackless Trolley Systems.
"2.—(1) A trackless trolley system along any road or street may lat authorised by order under the principal Act in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as a light railway, and that Act and any Act amending the same shall accordingly be construed as if the expression "light railway" included a trackless trolley system
Provided that—

"(a) A trackless trolley system shall not be authorised along any road or street except with the consent of the road authority, but that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; and

"(b) A trackless trolley system shall not be deemed to be a railway for the purpose of any exemption from rating; and

"(c) Provision shall be made by any order authorising a trackless trolley system for the payment by the undertakers to the road authority, as part of the expenses of the undertaking, of the cost of any alterations or improvements in any road or street so far as they are made for the purposes of, or rendered necessary by, the trackless trolley system, and also of the whole or any part of any additional cost of maintaining or repairing any road or street which may be shown to be caused by the working of that system, and for the mode in which any such payments are to be accounted for in cases where the road authority are themselves the undertakers; and

"(d) The order authorising a trackless trolley system shall regulate the weight and construction of the vehicles to be used for the purpose of that system, and the dimensions and materials of the tyres of those vehicles, and the licensing of the vehicles and the drivers thereof.

"If any question a rises whether the consent of the road authority required under this section has been unreasonably withheld, that question shall be decided by the Light Railway Commissioners, but the promoters of the undertaking or the road authority may appeal from the decision of the Light Railway Commissioners to the Board of Trade. The decision of the Light Railway Commissioners or, in the event of an appeal, of the Board of Trade on the question whether the consent has been unreasonably withheld or not shall be final.
"(2) The expression "trackless trolley system" means a system of running on roads or streets, without any defined track or line of rails, mechanically propelled vehicles moved by electrical power transmitted thereto from some external source, and includes all apparatus necessary for working the system, and the expression "undertakers" means the company, body, or person authorised to work the system.
"(3) Mechanically propelled vehicles used for the purpose of any trackless trolley system authorised in pursuance of this section shall not be deemed to be light locomotives within the meaning of the Locomotives on High ways Act, 1896, or the byelaws and regulations made thereunder, nor shall they be deemed to be motor-cars within the meaning of any provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903 (except subsection (1) of section one of that Act and the
142
provisions necessary for enforcing that subsection), and subject to that exception neither that Act nor the regulations made under that Act, nor the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, nor the Locomotives Act, 1898, shall apply to any such mechanically propelled vehicles except in so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the system.
"Provided that nothing in this provision shall affect any duties of excise (including the duties charged by section eight of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896) for the time being payable in respect of any such vehicles.
"(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "road authority" means the authority liable to maintain or repair the road or street, and in the case of a main road that authority shall be taken to be the county council, except in the case of a road the duties of maintaining and repairing which have been retained by the urban authority under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888.
"(5) This section shall not apply to the administrative county of London.
"(6) No trailers shall be used in connection with the trolley vehicles without the consent of the Board of Trade and without the consent in writing of the road authority."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The noble Lord who has just spoken has put his case very fairly as regards this particular Amendment, and he has described to your Lordships the history of this clause in another place. As the noble Lord said, in the original Bill there was a clause carrying out more or less the objects which he has in view, but it was found that there was so much opposition to the clause in the House of Commons, especially from municipalities and others, that it was considered best in all the circumstances to drop it. As the noble Lord is aware, there was a great deal of negotiation between the county councils, which he represents, and the Board of Trade, and it was found impossible to come to an agreement without making the Bill highly contentious. The noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of penalising one particular form of locomotion—namely, the trackless trolley system. Motor-'buses and others which do quite as much harm to the road would virtually go free. I venture to place before the noble Lord this view, that it would be unfair for Parliament to handicap trackless trolley cars in competition with motor-'buses and others. Again, this Bill deals purely with light railways. Its object is to allow extra advances for the making of light railways in sparsely populated and poor localities, and I am assured that if the Amendment which the noble Lord has suggested were introduced

143
there would be no possibility whatever of getting this Bill through the other House. I have heard that every municipality in the kingdom would fight this Amendment line by line. As the noble Lord has justly stated, the whole question of traffic should be dealt with by one large Bill and not in a piecemeal fashion. That would be the effect if this Amendment were carried. The noble Lord has asked us whether the Government can give any undertaking with regard to legislation on traffic generally. As far as I am concerned I am unable to do so, for such legislation would not come within the scope of the Department Which I represent. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, for it would have the effect virtually of killing the Bill.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: I venture to hope that your Lordships will see your way to support my noble friend's Amendment. It seems to me to raise a very serious question in the case of main and other roads throughout the country, especially in rural districts. If this invention is allowed to be used over the roads without any safeguard whatever, it might cause grave and serious damage to roads belonging to county councils and other bodies. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill spoke about a new industry being penalised. I think that is rather a strong expression to use. Nothing is said about penalising county councils and the roads which they administer. The whole point of this, it seems to me, depends upon the nature of this invention. There are no rails to take off the weight of these very heavy cars, and inasmuch as the motive power is derived from an overhead wire the tendency is for these immensely heavy trolleys always to run in or close to the same groove. I am told that there is a possibility of their being able to deviate from one side of the road to the other; in crowded roads that would be necessarily the case. But in country roads the trackless trolley system would do grave damage to the roads apparently without the county council having any means of redress. This is one of those things which at first sight appears to be a mere mechanical detail, but there can be no question that these trolleys would work very serious and unfair damage unless some provision in the nature of my noble friend's Amendment is inserted.
LORD NEWTON: This discussion is an illustration of the difficulties with which Private Bill Committees have to deal when these kind of questions arise. I have on several occasions ventured to express the opinion that it is most desirable that Chairmen of Private Bill Committees should have definite instructions and rules with regard to questions of this nature. This particular case is one which has occasionally come before me in the course of my experience. The position is this, that in a particular case compensation may be allowed solely owing to the personal view of the Chairman of the Committee and those who are associated with him, but there is no regular rule laid down. Therefore it is purely a matter of haphazard, and it lays upon county councils the onus of opposing all these Bills on the chance that if they are lucky they may get the compensation to which they are morally entitled. I did not hear the whole of this discussion, but I did hear the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Granard, and it seems to me he has not made out his case at all. He did not deny that this is a case in which there is prima facie an admirable case for compensation, and the only argument that I could discover which he adduced against it was that if any provision of this kind were inserted the Bill would run the chance of being lost in another place. To my mind that is a very poor argument. The obvious reply to him is that this being the case it is all the more imperative on the Government that they should give an undertaking that questions of this kind should be dealt with in a general and definite way which should act as a guidance to Private Bill Committees in the future. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to press his Amendment to a Division. But on a question of this kind I think it would be desirable to obtain the opinion of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees before the vote is taken.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): The noble Lord has appealed to me. As he says, this is a matter that has come before several Committees this session. I have given considerable time to the consideration of the particular point, and if it is of any value to him I will tell him the conclusion to which I have come. It is this. First, that it is extremely desirable that a solution should be found; secondly,

145
that we have not yet enough experience of trolley vehicles to find a solution. I do not think there is enough evidence as to the kind of damage they do to the roads to enable an arbitrator to fix a price if a case came before him. Therefore the course which we have followed up to the present is this. Trolley vehicles are worked by a system of overhead wires. These overhead wires are liable to rates, and we think it is best that the road authority should be compensated through the rates on the overhead wires and in that way get the assistance they should receive towards the upkeep of the roads—in fact, that the workers of trolley vehicles should be put in the position of all other ratepayers, and because they pay rates be allowed to use the roads as much as they like. I do not pretend for a moment that I think there is enough evidence to say that this is a final solution; but I have come to the conclusion, after giving the matter all the consideration I can, that it is the best solution we can come to at present with the small amount of experience we have of the working of trolley vehicles. I think, from a very cursory reading of the Amendment now before the House, that if it were carried in the exact form in which it stands now these local authorities would be in the happy position of being paid twice, because they would get full compensation for damage, if they could prove any, and would also get paid rates on the wires. I repeat that I hope in the not very distant future we may be able to come to a more permanent solution of the difficulty, but I really do not think there is enough evidence at the present moment to reach that permanent solution.
LORD NEWTON: The sum derived in the matter of rates would be an extremely insignificant one, because I understand it is only possible to rate these undertakings upon the posts which support the wires, and that would bring in an absolutely infinitesimal sum.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lords who have brought this subject forward seem to me to have established a strong prima facie case in favour of the Amendment on the Paper, but we have to take note of the fact that they were met by the noble Earl who speaks for the Government, not by an attempt to dispute the merits of the proposal, but
146
by an intimation that in his view, speaking with all the authority of the representative of the Government, there is absolutely no chance of an Amendment of this kind being allowed to retain its place in the Bill when it goes back to the other House. Well, my Lords, that is a pretty formidable obstacle, because I take it that if the Bill were to come back to us without the Amendment we should scarcely be in a position to insist upon its reinsertion. But a still more material consideration arises from the speech of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. The Lord Chairman, unless I misunderstood him, said that in his view we had not yet a sufficient amount of experience to justify us in dealing with this subject. I must say that in face, on the one hand, of the Government reply, and, on the other, of the advice given by the Lord Chairman I do not see that my noble friend would be likely to gain any substantial advantage by persevering with his Amendment.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I wish to say a word or two in answer to the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He brought forward the argument that the Amendment would penalise one kind of locomotive traffic and leave untouched another kind—namely, motor-'buses and others. There is a very marked and substantial difference between a trackless trolley and the ordinary motor-omnibus. The latter is the property, or may be the property, of an individual. He has no other rights and no position different from that of the owner of a cart. But here you have a monopoly. No one is allowed to use this trackless trolley system unless he pays a certain amount for it to the promoters, and therefore it stands on a totally different footing. What is so unjust to county councils is that these trackless trolleys are started and the proceeds of them are taken by one set of people whilst the expenses of keeping up the roads are borne by another. What we say is that the profits should be shared in some kind of way between the different authorities over whose roads the system runs, or else that those who take all the profits ought to be bound to pay for the damage which they do to the roads, the upkeep of which will otherwise have to be paid for by persons who have no share in those profits. I do not see that the rates which the county council is likely to get in respect of a trackless

147
trolley system are likely to be at all of an appreciable amount, and therefore I think the argument used by the Lord Chairman as to double payment is not one which is worth considering. What would be received in rates would be very small in proportion to the amount of damage done; and the advantage we obtain by the system compared to tramways and the other systems hitherto known is very small indeed. I am afraid, in view of the
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 and remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
unsatisfactory answer I have received and the absence of any promise of assistance in any other way, I must ask the House to insert this clause, which I conceive only meets the justice of the case.
On Question, whether the proposed new clause shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Kilmaine, L.

Kinnaird, L

Camperdown, E.

Colchester, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Levan, L.

Forester, L.

Wynford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gwydir, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Blythswood, L.

Hatherton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Channing, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Halsbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Plymouth, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Allendale, V.

Emmott, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Glenconner, L.

Marlborough, D.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Haversham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Lamington, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Shaw, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Aberconway, L.

Southwark, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
MEDICAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RAILWAYS IN PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is the present position of the negotiations for the railway from Mohammeral to Khoramabad and other railways in Southern Persia giving access to the Gulf which the Persian Government are desirous of having built as expeditiously as possible, both on account of their remunerative possibilities and as a necessary step towards the better administration which the Government are endeavouring to establish.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to elaborate the Question that stands in my name. The matter was referred to in a debate initiated by Lord Curzon when the subject under discussion was the Trans-Persian Railway. It was then pointed out that this system of railways, as indicated in my Question, would be of real value to the development of Persia, and particularly would aid in bringing peace and order into that much perturbed country; and I should be glad to hear whether the Government can say that negotiations have advanced at all towards a concession being obtained for the construction of these or any such lines.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): I think my noble friend must be aware that His Majesty's Government regard with the greatest interest all movements for promoting railway construction in Persia, especially in the southern part, which concerns this country; but he will also understand that the only case in respect of which negotiations are actually pending is the case of the first railway mentioned in the Question, the railway from Mohammeral to Khoramabad. All I can say is that negotiations of an active kind are pending and the satisfactory solution of them depends on one or two considerations which are not yet ripe, and my noble friend will understand that it would not be at all to the public interest that we should enter further into the details of the question as it stands at the moment. As to the probabilities of a financial return, cost, and so forth, those are points that we cannot discuss now, and perhaps it will not be our business to discuss them. The Persian Government will certainly have the main business in weighing all these chances and possibilities. I can only repeat that the general promotion of railways, so far as that promotion can take place gradually and without damage to other interests, has the lively interest of His Majesty's Government and will continue to have it.

GUN-RUNNING IN MUSCAT.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the arrangement made with the Sultan of Muscat for the prevention of gun-running is working satisfactorily and whether the French Government are co-operating in the matter.
The noble Lord said: This Question deals with a matter which I think has been a considerable source of anxiety to His Majesty's Government here and to the Government of India—the vexed question of the running of arms into Persia as well as into Afghanistan. Considerable sums of money have been expended by the two Governments and lives have been sacrificed in trying to put clown this very harmful traffic, and I understand that in the spring of this year certain negotiations were successfully carried out with the Sultan of Muscat by which all arms imported into Muscat should be bonded and only allowed to be taken out when their destination was one to which they could properly be sent. It would be interesting to know how far these negotiations have been carried out, and whether any success has been attendant upon them. We are also aware that for many years past the French Government, by virtue of a very old Treaty with Muscat, have not perhaps given us all the assistance that might have been desirable in putting down this traffic, but I hope now that the Entente is so closely established they are giving assistance in this matter. I believe that from time to time proposals have been put before them by way of compensation for the abrogation of this Treaty, but they have always been fruitless. I do not know whether it has ever occurred to His Majesty's Government that this is a subject which might be very properly put to arbitration if the French Government are still unwilling to give their best assistance in putting down this traffic. I will not say more now, but I shall be glad to get some assurance from His Majesty's Government that success is attending their efforts by virtue of the understanding with the Sultan of Muscat to relieve our Navy from the arduous work of trying to suppress this traffic.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am quite sensible of the discretion used by the noble Lord in putting this Question, and here again I must repeat that the moment is not opportune for anything like a full or complete discussion of the matter. The arrangement made with the Sultan of Muscat by which arms were bonded, though by no means ideal, has worked as satisfactorily as a limited arrangement of that kind could work. My noble friend referred to the attitude of the French Government. The French Government have their own difficulties. We are perfectly

151
sensible of them. But we are glad to think and hope that the French Government, which cannot have two minds as to the demands of civilisation in this case, are doing the best they can to meet us in the matter. The adverse contention held by the French Government to the arrangement we made with the Sultan is that these arms are not merely bonded but sequestrated, if not really indeed confiscated. In our view that is not the case, and we shall continue to use every effort with the French Government to bring them actively and fully into line with us on this particular matter.
LORD LAMINGTON: Does the noble Viscount mean to say that the arms which are bonded are considered by the French Government to be confiscated?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The arms are undoubtedly bonded, and one contention of an important interest in France is that what we call "bonded" is in truth confiscation. That is, as we contend, an erroneous view. But be that as it may, I fall back upon my original remark that the relations between ourselves and the French Government upon the Muscat question are such that the present moment is particularly inopportune for a discussion of the case in Parliament.

INDIAN TROOPS IN PERSIA.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what number of Indian troops are now in Southern Persia and where they are stationed, and whether it is intended to retain or to withdraw them.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name is intended to refer specifically to a number of Indian Cavalry troops who left India some time ago and who are now, I believe, in Shiraz, and who, so far as I am able to gather, are likely to remain there for an indefinite period. Towards the end of 1911, in consequence of the disorder prevalent in that part of Persia, the interference with the trade routes and the general inconvenience which prevailed, His Majesty's Government determined upon sending an Indian force there. That force, which I believe consisted of three squadrons of native Cavalry, proceeded to Bushire, and went up country in different detach-
152
ments at different times. One squadron penetrated as far as Ispahan. It remained there for some time, and has now rejoined the others, I understand, at Shiraz. During these marches the troops were subjected to occasional attacks, and on one particular occasion the Consul of Shiraz, whom they were escorting, was wounded. The Indian force was worsted in the fight that took place, and, if I am not mistaken, the Consul himself was made a prisoner. Owing to the insufficiency of the numbers of these troops, so far from being able to keep any order in the district, for which purpose, I presume, they were originally despatched, they have been practically—I do not think I am exaggerating when I use the expression—prisoners in Shiraz ever since they got there. At all events, they have been unable to leave, and unless I am greatly mistaken—I hope I am mistaken—I am under the impression that they are waiting for a favourable opportunity to get back to the coast.
I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind as to how this humiliating state of things arose. When the Russian troops began to pour in by thousands into the north of Persia—those troops which, according to Sir Edward Grey, are only there temporarily but who will certainly remain in Persia just as long as, for instance, the French troops remain in Tunis or our troops in Egypt—and when in addition to that the state of things in the region of which I am speaking became almost intolerable, it is evident to me that some members of the Government thought it was necessary that something should be done, and it is equally evident to me that there were certain other members of the Government who were determined that nothing should be done, and that being the case the wretched compromise was arrived at that this particular force should be sent which was too large for an ordinary Consular guard and not large enough for any practical police purposes. I am well aware, as presume everybody is, that neither Bushire nor Shiraz, nor Ispahan is in what is called the British spheres. Ispahan, of course, is in the Russian sphere. One of the humours of the Anglo-Russian Agreement is that practically none of the particular districts in which our interests are supposed to predominate are in our sphere at all. But it is equally evident that His Majesty's Government consider that they have some responsibility attaching to them in that

153
part of the world, because otherwise these men never would have been sent at all.
I do not expect for a moment that the Government are going to make any comprehensive statement upon this or upon any other question in connection with Persia; but as the Persian Government are obviously quite unable, in view of what has taken place, to keep order in this part of the world, and as there does not appear the slightest possibility of their being in a position for some considerable time to exercise the ordinary acts of an independent Government, I think I am justified in asking what is going to happen to the particular force to which I have referred. Are we going to withdraw them altogether, and thus signify that we are, in so many words, going to clear out altogether from that part of the country? Or are we going to take steps to insure that some sort of order shall be re-established there by whatever means may be thought best? Or, finally, are we going to leave things just as they are now, and thus continue a course of action which may have more to be said in favour of it than I see at the present moment, but which, I confess, appears to me to be not only useless but humiliating as well.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am not sure to which set of opinion as to our duty to Persia the noble Lord belongs. There are those who say that if we were to leave Persia alone she would soon develop resources and capacity of her own quite enough to restore order, and that the obstacle to the restoration of order is the intervention of European Legations, and so forth. The other school insist that we do not interfere half enough. The noble Lord used the term "clearing out" as though that would be an operation not very much to our credit. On the other hand, does he mean that we are falling short in not saying we are there and are going to remain there? I wish the noble Lord had stated more clearly which view he charges the Government with neglecting to act upon. The noble Lord has laid far too much stress upon the despatch of this military force to Shiraz being due to the disturbed condition of Southern Persia. The point in the original despatch of the force was that it was necessary not generally to restore order, but to reinforce the ordinary Consular guard. The total number of officers and men, about which
154
he asks, then and now in Southern Persia is 1,286. They are distributed in the main at three stations—at Shiraz, where there are 12 British officers and 491 native ranks; at Bushire, where there are 5 British officers and 420 native ranks; and at Jask, where there are 5 British officers and 236 native ranks. I have only to say further and generally that His Majesty's Government have no desire to retain these additional troops a single moment longer than the situation requires, and the question of withdrawing them will be considered as soon as ever, in the view of the Government and their advisers and agents on the spot, the situation will permit their withdrawal.
LORD LAMINGTON: Will the noble Viscount say why a squadron was withdrawn from Ispahan, and if withdrawn from Ispahan why not from Shiraz?
LORD NEWTON: I intervene for a moment to ask the noble Viscount whether it is really the case that the Consulate at Shiraz requires nearly 500 men to protect it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, my noble friend behind me has, I think, fully answered the Questions on the Paper and has stated the policy of the Government with regard to them. As to the question last put by Lord Lamington—why it was that the, I think, 100 men who were at Ispahan were withdrawn to Shiraz—their time for returning to India 'was properly due. The state of affairs around Ispahan, as the noble Lord probably knows, has not been altogether satisfactory, and it was thought advisable on general grounds to move these men to Shiraz, with, as he rightly anticipated, the ultimate intention of their returning in due course to India; the Consular guard at Ispahan, the strength of which I cannot at this moment state, will remain on the spot.
As regards the last question put by Lord Newton, I do not happen to know what the ordinary strength of the Consular guard at Shiraz has been in the past. My impression is that it has been under 20 men, as a rule sepoys and not Cavalry. In this particular case we sent Cavalry for the relief and in larger quantity instead of the usual Infantry

155
guard. That was done for two reasons. In the first place, it was thought in the very disturbed condition of the southern roads in November, 1911, when the change was made, that it would be easier and safer for a Cavalry force to get to Shiraz than for half a battalion or whatever it might be of sepoys; and, in the second place, the increased number was due to the reports we received of possible serious danger to life and property of British subjects in Shiraz, which seemed to demand a much larger Consular guard than usual. But like my noble friend I must protest against the supposition which appeared to be in the mind of Lord Newton, that this force went there for the purpose of keeping order in Southern Persia. It did nothing of the kind. It went as a Consular guard. If we had sent a force with the intention of keeping order in Southern Persia we certainly should not have sent less than 5,000 or 6,000 men, quite a different thing from the one Cavalry regiment which went in November of last year.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think my noble friend who put this Question desired to do more than ask for information on a point on which we in your Lordships' House are entitled to have it. I am quite certain he had not in his mind to pin himself to either of those schools to which the noble Viscount opposite challenged him to say whether he belonged. I am in exactly the same position as regards information. I have never been quite able to understand what these troops are doing in Southern Persia, and I had no idea until the noble Viscount told us that as many as 1,200 or 1,300 were there. If I may speak of the time when I had a closer connection with Southern Persia, I do not think at any time did we have more than 300 or 400, or at most 500. There must, therefore, clearly have been something to justify this great increase of troops. One would judge from what the noble Marquess said that the sole object was to put our Consular represent hives in a position of greater security, and he used the argument that if the men had been wanted to restore order clearly a much larger force would have been required. I do not imagine for a moment that His Majesty's Government attempted or desired to undertake the task of policing the country, but if that was not their object, if their object was the more limited one of securing the safety of our Consuls, they
156
did not go the best way about it. They sent a force of 300 men to Ispahan, a place where it is very desirable that some evidence should be given of British influence, but where the British representative, so far as I am aware, has never been in any dancer. This force was shut up in Ispahan, and had eventually to take an opportunity of creeping back to the coast. Then there was a further force shut up at Shiraz unable to move out. The force at Jask on the coast may be removed from consideration—that is a different problem; but far from adding to the security of the Consuls, I believe the exact opposite has been the case. These troops have been unable to move; one of our Consuls was attacked; and I am told from Persia that the presence of this force, whose position is neither one thing nor the other, has been a source of great suspicion, if not of grave offence, to the Persian Government. We are quite justified in putting Questions about the matter, and, what is mo e, I think we shall be justified in raising the matter again at a later date, because this half-and-half state of affairs, in which there is a force in the country unable to move, which the Government want to get out, which is doing no good there, and which, so far as one can judge, is a source of offence to the people, is a situation which we must all deprecate. I hope the Secretary of State for India will not object if at an early date in the New Year we raise the question again with the view, let us hope, of obtaining a more satisfactory statement from him.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House to tell us whether, assuming that we are adjourning for the holidays on Thursday next, he intends to invite us to reassemble in the month of January, and, if so, at what time.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As your Lordships will have observed, there is no business on the Paper beyond Thursday next, and I therefore propose that on that day we should adjourn for the Christmas holiday. It will be necessary, of course, for us to meet fairly early in January in view of the business which is likely to come up to us at that time from the House of Commons. The first important measure

157
which we should expect to receive is the Government of Ireland Bill, and it would undoubtedly be your Lordships' wish that that Bill should be read a first time as soon as it reaches this House so that it may be placed at once in your Lordships' hands. It is impossible at this moment to state precisely the day on which that measure will reach us, but so far as other business is concerned and bearing in mind the probabilities in respect to that measure I think I can state for the information of the House that the first effective day for business, for which one or two Motions have been placed on the Paper, would
158
probably be Tuesday, January 14. Supposing it should be the case that the Government of Ireland Bill should reach us a day or two before that, it would be convenient, I have no doubt, to arrange for a formal sitting of the House so that the Bill could be read a first time and printed. But so far as effective business is concerned, I think we can venture to conclude that Tuesday, January 14, will be the first day.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.