Sitting of 31 December 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kirkcaldy District Water Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. Rowlands presented a petition, signed on behalf of a number of associations of fruit growers, market gardeners, etc., praying the House not to pass in its present form the Railways (No. 2) Bill.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Statement showing for the year ended March, 1912, the Amount of the Receipts, Expenditure, and Outstanding Loans of the Principal Classes of Local Authorities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Murder of Rev. A. J. Douglas (Lake Nyasa).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received a report of the trial of a corporal of the Portuguese Army for the murder of the Rev. A. J. Douglas on Lake Nyasa; if His Majesty's Government were represented at the trial; if there were any provocative or extenuating circumstances justifying the sentence; and whether the Portuguese Government have offered, or have been asked, to pay adequate compensation to the relatives of the victim?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): As I have not yet received the full information as to the trial, which I am expecting, I cannot at present add to the answers given on the 11th and 12th of December on this subject. I am informed that the
  186
  Report from the Governor of Nyasaland cannot reach this country before the third week in January.

  Mekometers.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of mekometers in possession of a Regular and Territorial Infantry battalion, respectively?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Regular Infantry battalions have five mekometers or range-finders per battalion. The Territorial Force Infantry battalions will eventually have four mekometers per battalion. At present issues have been made on the scale of about two per battalion, pending the release of others from the Regular battalions as one-man range-finders are provided for the latter.
  Captain MURRAY: Is there any particular reason why a Territorial battalion should have a less number of mekometers than a Regular battalion?
  Colonel SEELY: In accordance with the usual practice we propose to issue them to the Territorial Force as they are-released by the Regular Army.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Are the mekometers all of one pattern?
  Colonel SEELY: There are two patterns, but eventually both Armies will have the same.

  Machine Guns.
  Captain MURRAYasked whether experiments are taking place with a view to the adoption by the British Army of a new machine gun?
  Colonel SEELY: Experiments have been and are continually taking place with different patterns of machine guns, with a view to the adoption of that found most suitable to our requirements.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary for War whether he has any information regarding the adoption by any of the Great Powers of Europe of the new Vickers, rifle-calibre automatic gun?
  Colonel SEELY: It is understood that this pattern of gun has been or is being supplied to certain of the Great Powers.
  Captain MURRAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know which those Powers are?
  Colonel SEELY: I think I do, but I would rather not say without notice.

  Horse and Field Artillery (Cadres).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary of State for War whether any reduction in the existing cadres of Horse or Field Artillery is under consideration; and if he can state the nature of the contemplated change?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

  Army Officers (Allowances).
  Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of giving captains and subalterns of the British Army travelling allowances at least equal to those enjoyed by divisional inspectors under the National Insurance Act?
  Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my reply to a question put to the Prime Minister on this subject by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex on Tuesday, the 17th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in answer to the question referred to he said that the Member who asked the question was not referring like to like? This question has nothing to do with that.
  Colonel SEELY: In the answer that I gave I said that one could not make an accurate comparison between officers of the Army and these particular Civil servants, and I repeat that.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to recommend that their allowances should be as good?
  Colonel SEELY: No. I do not think we ought to regulate the pay or allowances of officers in the Army with reference to any particular class of Civil servants. I am fully aware of the importance of seeing that officers are properly paid, and I am now giving the matter my consideration.

  Household Troops.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary of State for War whether a change is contemplated in the constitution of the Household Troops; and, if so, whether he would state the nature of the suggested reform?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: In the event of any change being under consideration will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing it before it is made?
  Colonel SEELY: I have no intention whatever of making the change suggested—none whatever.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis and on what actuarial calculation he arrived at the amount of £200, stated by him in his speech at Aberdeen, which he said the blacksmith, then under treatment at the London Hospital, would receive in return for his contribution of 4s. 8d. under the National Insurance Act?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The amount referred to was calculated according to the average cost of sanatorium treatment paid up to that date by the Middlesex Insurance Committee and to the period of treatment estimated to be necessary in this particular case.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Middlesex Insurance Committee have not paid a single penny up to the present date, and that the only rate was 10s. a week? If that is so, what time would be required to work out the £200?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is asking me a question without notice, but my information, which I got from the Committee itself, was that they were contracting to pay 35s. a week.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the London Hospital?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never said it was paid to the London Hospital. What I said was that the patient could not be kept in the London Hospital much longer, and that other arrangements would have to be made. I reckoned that those arrangements would cost the same in that case as in other cases, and the cost in other cases was 35s. a week. As a matter of fact, we have secured accommodation at less.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Docs the right hon. Gentleman remember how long he expected this man to be under treatment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Speaking without notice, I think it was two years.

    Royal Commission on Civil Service (Sir J. Strutters' Evidence).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, as Vice-President of the Scottish Education Department, he read the evidence submitted by Sir John Struthers before it was submitted to the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. MoKinnon Wood): No, Sir.

    Teachers' Superannuation Fund (1911).
    Mr. HOGGEasked why, under the Superannuation Fund for Teachers, 1911, "those who were in receipt of superannuation from the Merchant Company, under the Edinburgh Merchant Company's Endowment Act of 1895, at 1st April, 1912, are not being paid allowances by the Scot tish Education Department?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reason is that they are still entitled to receive pensions from the Merchant Company. They will come under the national scheme if and when the agreement with the Merchant Company is approved by Parliament.

    Scottish Education Department (Staff).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state the number of Scotsmen on the staff of the Scottish Education Department?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir. The Civil Service Commissioners in their appointments make no distinction between British nationalities, and I think this has proved not to the disadvantage of Scotland.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes. The answer is no.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of Scotsmen?
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: No.

    Scottish Leaving Certificates (Examiners').
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many of the examiners for the Scottish leaving certificate in 1912 were
    190
    Oxford and Cambridge men; and whether he will consider the advisability of finding men in Scotland capable of doing this work?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, I am not prepared to limit the area of selection.

    Reckless Motor Driving (Blackpool).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he is now able to state the results of his inquiry into the case of a motorist who was fined £10 in October last by the Blackpool magistrates for reckless driving, whereby a woman was killed; and what further action, if any, it is proposed to take?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I have made inquiry, and find that Thomas Outwin was convicted by the Blackpool justices of driving a motor car in a manner dangerous to the public, and was fined £10 and disqualified for holding a licence for two years from the date of the conviction. The defendant had been five times previously convicted of driving motor cars and motor cycles to the danger of the public, and five times of other offences in connection with motor cars. In the case now in question, it appeared from the evidence that he drove down the promenade at Blackpool at a speed of from sixteen to twenty miles an hour at a time of night when the places of amusement were discharging their audiences and the roadway was crowded with people. Having regard to all the circumstances, the sentence appeared to me to be so inadequate to the offence that I felt it my duty to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the desirability of taking further proceedings against Outwin for the manslaughter of the woman who was killed by his car. But in view of the time that had elapsed since the offence was committed and of the fact that it had already been twice investigated by a Court of Law, I came somewhat reluctantly to the conclusion that further criminal proceedings would scarcely be justified. I do not think that there is any necessity for legislation to increase penalties. A person convicted for the second time of dangerous driving can be sentenced to three months' imprisonment without the option of a fine, and in the event of his causing the death of any person he is, of course, liable to prosecution for manslaughter. These powers, if administered

    191
    with firmness and discretion, should, in my opinion, be sufficient for the protection of the public; and I have recently issued a circular to justices calling their attention, among other things, to the importance of imposing an adequate punishment for serious offences, such as dangerous driving. The fine imposed on Outwin was, in my judgment, an altogether inadequate penalty.
    Captain MURRAY: Is it not very difficult to obtain convictions for reckless driving?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It depends entirely upon the facts of the case.

    Public Morality.
    Mr. BOOTHasked if the case of Albert J., of St. George's-in-the-East, has been taken up by the officers under the Children Act; whether his mother was convicted of keeping a brothel on 2nd August, 1907; at what time the police first received a report about the house in question; and why the Children Act officers were able to rescue the boy at a recent date while the police remained inactive?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Under Section 58 (8) of the Children Act, the police and the education authority have concurrent powers. The case referred to was reported to the police by an industrial schools officer, and joint action was taken on 2nd October last. The police first received information about the house in question in June, 1909. The mother had been convicted of keeping a brothel elsewhere in August, 1907, but since that date she had not come under the notice of the police until October last, when action was at once taken.
    Mr. BOOTHasked whether a suitable place has been found for Annie E., fifteen years old, who left a respectable home four times, and was taken from immoral surroundings by the officers of the Children Act; and whether any action has been taken dealing with the senders of the letters and postcards found in her possession?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The father of the girl referred to in my hon. Friend's question states explicitly that his daughter has never been in immoral surroundings and that he read the letters referred to and satisfied himself that there was nothing in them improper in tone. I would point
    192
    out to my hon. Friend that the use of the christian name and initial letter of the surname in these cases, which has enabled me to identify the young persons referred to, also enables other persons to do so, and this may have a prejudicial effect on their future.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have taken this from a printed document, and that I purposely avoided placing the address upon the Paper, although the Home Office requested me to give more particulars in the question?
    Mr. BOOTHasked if any arrangements exist whereby the education authorities immediately inform the police when a charge is brought against any teacher of a grave offence with the scholars under his influence; whether the case of M., of W. school, Kensington, was reported to the police; if so, by whom and when; and whether the whereabouts of the person complained against are known?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The education authorities, in common with other public authorities and private persons, will naturally inform the police when they become aware that a criminal offence has, been committed. I am informed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police that the case referred to in the question was thus reported. The whereabouts of the person implicated are not known to the police.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of C.B., of York Road, N., a boy under fifteen years of age, who is charged with an unmentionable offence; whether reports have reached the police as to the alleged tampering with the evidence of the other three boys; and what is the present stage in the proceedings?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This boy was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court, but as the evidence of the first—a material—witness differed substantially from the statement previously made by him, the judge directed the jury to find a formal verdict of "Not Guilty." The police have no knowledge that the evidence was tampered with, and they have received no reports to that effect.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that W. A. G., of Marylebone, was charged at Marlborough Street with importuning in Hyde Park with his face painted; that this boy of

    193
    fourteen has had two situations since leaving school; will he say whether he is now in Brixton prison; what action the police have taken against the men concerned in degrading this child; and where is he now?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am aware of the case referred to. The youth refuses to give any account of himself, and the police do not know the persons responsible for his corruption. He is now in safe keeping in a Reformatory school.
    Mr. BOOTHasked if a girl, C. A., of Old Ford Road, Bethnal Green, has been dealt with by the officers under the Children Act; whether her father, a widower, has been living on this child's immorality since she was fourteen; whether the police have had any information; and, if so, why they did not take early action?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The initiative in this case was taken by the police, who on receipt of certain information arrested the father forthwith, and took him before the Court. A remand was asked for in order that legal aid might be obtained, and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children then undertook the conduct of the case.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary whether the police have reported the case of B. D., of Tabard Street, charged with wandering, and the fact that twelve persons, including the father and mother and a daughter of the same, sister of the above, regularly sleep in one room; and will he say what action he proposes to take in this case?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The City Police found the boy referred to wandering in the City. He was brought before the Juvenile Court and handed over to his mother. The sanitary inspector visited the premises in question, and found that nine persons, including the parents, were occupying two rooms, and he thereupon took action under the Public Health Act.
    Mr. BOOTH: Has the hon. Gentleman investigated the definite report given by the officers under the Children Act of the London Education Authority?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No; but if the hon. Gentleman draws our attention to any particular matter we will look into it.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will supply you with documents.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the case of G. H., of Osnaburgh Street; whether the rent was reported to be £150 per annum; whether a man B. was fined £10 for keeping a disorderly house; whether the boy Ernest, aged eleven years, is now in a suitable institution; and whether he proposes to make any recommendation to the magistrates as to the treatment in such cases?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am aware of the ease referred to. The whole of the facts were before the magistrate, who dealt with the keeper of the house and handed over the boy to the care of his aunt. I see no reason for interfering with magistrates' discretion in such cases. I understand that the rent of the house was £80 a year.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the other authorities, in contradistinction to the police, say that the rent is £150? May I further ask him whether some recommendation has not been given from the Home Office that deals with such cases as this; whether the person is a foreigner, and could have been deported under the Aliens Act; and why was that treatment not suggested?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think the hon. Member had better give notice of his question.

    Sentences of Death (Women and Young Persons).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked how many sentences of death have been passed upon women in the last seven years, and how many have been carried out; and how many such sentences have been passed in the same period upon youths not out of their teens, and how many have been carried out?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In the last seven years twenty-one women have been sentenced to death. In one case the sentence was carried out. During the same period nine prisoners under twenty years of age have been sentenced to death, and in four cases the sentence was carried out.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is it not now the almost invariable practice not to execute the death sentence upon female criminals, and would it not be just to adopt some limit of age below which even male persons could not come under execution?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have given my hon. Friend the figures in both cases. Of course the law is as I have stated it.
    Sir W. BYLES: It is not the law I am thinking about. It is the practice of the Home Office; their extension of leniency and clemency.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think it is impossible to make leniency a matter of law, rule, or regulation—
    Sir W. BYLES: Certainly not!
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We must judge each case on its facts.
    Sir W. BYLES: It is a question of the practice.

    Hellingly (Sussex) Church of England School.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Grant payable in respect of the Hellingly (Sussex) Church of England school has been reduced; and, if so, by what amount and for what cause?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A deduction from the Grant of £15 has been made on account of failure to carry out the Board's requirements in regard to the premises of the school.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that children are being educated in the Church of England school at Hellingly, Sussex, in a shanty which does not belong to the managers, has not been approved by the local education authority, and is in contravention of the rules of the Board, and that application has been made for a Grant in respect of these children; whether he can state whether the managers applied for this Grant by signing Form IX. after they had been duly warned of the illegality; and what steps will be taken to ensure that children, who are being educated with the money provided by rates and taxes, are properly housed in non-provided schools?
    Mr. PEASE: The building referred to was used until December of last year, although it had never been approved by the Board, and warning had been given in the previous July that its use should be immediately discontiuned. All the attendances of the children accommodated in the building were included in the application for Grant on Form IX. for the year ended 31st January, 1912, in spite of instruc-
    196
    tions that attendances subsequent to 15th September should be deducted from the total on which the average attendance of the school was calculated. Careful watch is kept by the Board to secure the observance of their requirements with regard to the premises of public elementary schools, and Grant is not paid unless the Board are satisfied that proper accommodation is secured.
    Mr. KING: Was Form IX. in this case signed by the managers of the school?
    Mr. PEASE: I think it was; it was certainly submitted to the managers. I cannot say whether or not it was actually signed. I think it is necessary at any rate for the forms to pass through their hands.
    Mr. KING: Has the Board of Education power to deal with managers who try not only to evade the law, but to obtain money by false representations?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no reason to believe that the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman. It is quite possible that the managers may have overlooked this particular matter in connection with the calculation.

    Loudon Education Committee (Chelsea Secondary School).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London Education Committee is proposing to close the Hortensia Street, Chelsea, secondary school for girls and to open a new, smaller, and less conveniently placed school in its place; whether there has been any attempt made to find out and satisfy the wishes of parents and ratepayers; and whether, as required by Section 2 (2) of the Education Act of 1902, the Board of Education has been consulted in the matter?
    Mr. PEASE: The London County Council propose to remove the girls' school referred to from its existing premises. The-accommodation provided has been in excess of the number of pupils, and the-county council propose therefore to transfer the girls' school to a building to be erected on a contiguous site approved by-the Board, and to use the existing building for the boys' school, hitherto conducted under unfavourable conditions in the buildings of the South Western Polytechnic. The Board have been consulted in the matter. I am unable to say if steps have been taken by the county council to

    197
    find out the wishes of parents and ratepayers. No protests have been received by the Board.

    Telegraph Messenger Dismissed (Longford).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Post master-General the reason for disemploying and dismissing a telegraph messenger, named Feeny, at Longford; whether this boy has been hunted out of the Service because he incurred the enmity of some of his superior officials in this office; and whether he will grant an inquiry into the case of this and other boys who have been refused further employment in the Long ford office when entitled to the same?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Messenger Feeny's services were dispensed with in 1910 in the ordinary course at the age of sixteen, because no vacancy was likely to be available for him. His subsequent temporary employment gave him no claim to an established appointment. I have no reason to suppose that there was prejudice on the part of the superior officials of the Longford Post Office, or that any inquiry is called for.
    Mr. FARRELL: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with documentary evidence that this boy has been dismissed, and that others in the same position have been retained, will he cause inquiries to be made?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I shall be glad to take into consideration any evidence that the hon. Member may be good enough to supply me with.

    Temporary Postmen.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General the rules governing the continued employment as temporary postmen of telegraph messengers in Ireland who have passed the age for employment in that capacity; whether, seeing that boys who have served without complaint the office of boy messengers are turned out on the street unemployed in order to give employment to some discharged soldier from another district, he will arrange for an inquiry into the whole system with a view to a continuous service for these boys?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has for years been the rule, both in Ireland and in Great Britain, that half the vacancies for established postmen should be allotted to boy messengers, and the other half to ex-
    198
    soldiers and ex-sailors, and it has been the practice to discharge, at the age of sixteen, boy messengers for whom no vacancies appeared likely to be available. Changes of organisation have, however, recently been made which, it is hoped, will allow almost all suitable boys who so desire being permanently retained in the service of the Department.
    Mr. FARRELL: Will this change soon come into operation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes; it is now being gradually brought into operation, and great improvements have already been effected.

    Foreign Foodstuffs (Fraudulent Sales).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many inspectors of his Department are engaged in Great Britain in tracking down fraudulent sale of foreign foodstuffs for Irish; when the last prosecution was undertaken; and whether it is proposed to add to the number of inspectors engaged in this work?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The inspection staff of the Department in Great Britain for the prevention of frauds affecting Irish produce consists of one inspector and five assistants. Prosecutions are at present proceeding in five cases in connection with the sale of margarine as Irish butter. It is not at present intended to add to the inspection staff.

    Forestry (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the sum available for forestry purposes in Ireland; what progress is being made with the acquirement of bog and waste lands for planting purposes; whether a regular staff of foresters is employed at this work, and how many; and whether the department are kept informed of the destruction of trees by the police for their own inspectors?
    Mr. RUSSELL: A sum of £6,000 has been provided in the annual Estimates of the Department for each year from 1909–10 for the purchase, by means of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts, and development of suitable areas of woodland and of lands adapted for forestry purposes comprised in estates which are being sold through the Estates Commissioners. This provision has enabled the Department to

    199
    purchase and undertake forestry operations at nine centres, comprising about 7,000 acres. A qualified forester and necessary labourers, etc., are employed at each of these centres. The total staff so employed consists of nine foresters, three foremen, thirty-four permanent labourers, and twenty-five temporary labourers (engaged for about three months). The Treasury have approved of advances not exceeding £25,000 in all being made from the Development Fund for the purchase of areas of bare land suitable for afforestation. No lands have yet been actually secured by means of these advances, but negotiations are practically completed in the case of two such areas comprising about 4,900 acres. Negotiations for the purchase of other afforestable lands are proceeding. With a view to the enforcement of the provisions of Section 32 (1) (b) and (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, the Department have made an arrangement with the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, under which the police report to the Department all cases in which the felling of trees is observed on holdings purchased under the Land Acts.
    Mr. LOUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department full control over the money supplied by the Development Commissioners?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I should require to think what the right hon. Gentleman means by full control.
    Mr. LOUGH: Have you any control?
    Mr. FARRELLasked whether the provisions of the Act of Parliament regarding the destruction and replanting of trees are being enforced by his Department; whether his attention has lately been called to the destruction of some valuable plantations in county Longford; and what steps he is prepared to take to secure the replanting of suitable young trees to replace those cut down?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Steps have been taken for the enforcement of Section 32 (1) (b) and (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, to which it is presumed the hon. Member refers. The Department are not aware of the particular plantations in county Longford referred to, but if definite details are supplied steps will be taken to ascertain whether such plantations come within the provisions of the above quoted enactment.

    Admiralty Contract, Bristol (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Golden Valley Ochre and Oxide Company, Limited, of Wick, near Bristol, and the Forest of Dean, are contractors to the Admiralty and other Government Departments, as stated on the note-paper of the company; whether he is satisfied that this company pays trade union rates of wages to their employés; if so, whether he is aware that 75 per cent. of the company's workmen earn less than 19s. per week for sixty hours' labour; and will he see that the Fair-Wages Resolution is observed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the remaining parts of the question, the Fair-Wages Clause is included in contracts with this firm, and if any detailed complaint is received that the Clause is being infringed, I will cause full inquiry to be made.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state when the Congested Districts Board will be in a position to complete the purchase agreements with the tenants on the Jermyn estate, near Caherdaniel?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board hope that this estate will be resold to the tenants in the coming year.
    Mr. FARRELLasked when the Estates Commissioners propose to complete the sale of the J. W. Bond estate, at Farragh, and other townlands in North Longford; whether they have yet arranged for the acquirement of the Rhine ranch on this property; and when the tenants will get their vesting orders?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hope to deal with the tenanted land on this estate at an early date. The owner has accepted the Commissioners' estimated price for the untenanted land which he has offered to sell to them and which includes some 118 acres of the lands of Rhine, and it will be dealt with as soon as practicable in order of priority.
    Mr. FARRELL: How soon will that be? Will it be inside of the coming year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I hope so.
    Mr. FARRELLasked when the King-Harman estate, in the Ballinamuck, Newtown Cashel, and Lisnanagh districts will be vested in the tenants; and what steps are being taken to complete the division of the bogs already agreed on with the tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has accepted the Estates Commissioners' proposal for the purchase of this estate, and it will be dealt with as soon as practicable. The question of the turbary on this estate is under consideration.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the tenantry on the Perceval estate, situate near Ballymote, county Sligo, were, in January last, served with processes for the recovery of a year's rent and arrears due, and that a settlement was arrived at in open Court on the 29th January last, the terms of which were that the tenants should pay one year's rent and costs, the agent undertaking, on behalf of the landlord, to sell through the Congested Districts Board to the tenants, and lodge all maps, plans, etc., with the Board, the question of arrears due to be left to the discretion of the Congested Districts Board; whether the agent lodged maps in accordance with the terms of agreement, which were incorrect, as some of the farms which he had agreed to sell were left out of them; whether these maps, having been returned to the agent, Mr. Lestrange, were again lodged by him without alteration; and, if so, whether, seeing that the tenants performed their part of the contract whilst the agent neglected to perform his part and is now threatening legal proceedings for another year's rent, although the fault is his own, steps will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to prevent these tenants being victimised in this way?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings at Ballymote Quarter Sessions in January, 1912, when it was stated that a settlement had been come to in the matter, but I am not aware of the terms of the settlement. The maps lodged with the Congested Districts Board by the agent were returned to him for amendment, and the maps duly amended and other documents were subsequently lodged with the Board. A valuation of the estate will shortly be made, probably within the next month. The Board have no power to interfere with any steps which the landlord may take in the exercise of his legal rights.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether Luke Torsney, Cloonamanagh, county Sligo, Ballymote sub-pension committee, who owns only seven acres of bad land, was granted a pension of 5s. per week by the local committee, which sum was reduced to 2s. on the representation of the pension officer; and, if so, can he say on what grounds the officer acted, or whether this case will be reopened?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Luke Torsney was in receipt of a pension of 2s. a week and made application to have it increased to 5s, a week, which application the local pension committee granted. The pension officer appealed against this increase, and the Local Government Board on such appeal refused the application on the ground that they were not satisfied that Torsney's means were such as to entitle him to receive a pension of 5s. a week. Before deciding this case the Board sent one of their inspectors to investigate the pensioner's circumstances. The Board have no power to reopen consideration of the case.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the sub-committees in the West of Ireland contemplate resigning their functions owing to the manner in which they are treated by the Local Government Board on the word of the pension officers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, I think I will wait until the contemplation becomes a fact.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ardfert Sub-Committee have resigned two months ago in consequence of the action of the pension officers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot help that.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the basis or principle on which the pension officer acts in estimating the living of persons who apply for old age pensions, as there is a very strong feeling in many parts of Ireland about it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is an extremely difficult thing to estimate accurately whether a person is getting £31 10s. 0d., or £26 8s. 0d., or £24 2s. 0d. per year. All these things have to be investigated on the spot, and I doubt whether anyone could lay down beforehand a precise basis of valuation when dealing with such amounts.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether the Solicitor-General expressed the view of the Government when he said, in the London Opera House on 4th December, that the Franchise Bill, with a woman suffrage Amendment, was secure in enjoying the full advantage of the Parliament Act; and whether a Bill, altered in a sense contradictory of a previous decision of the present House of Commons, would be one to which the Government would be prepared, without any further appeal to the people, to apply the provisions of the Parliament Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My hon. and learned Friend, in the speech to which the hon. Member refers, was, I am informed, careful to point out that what he was saying did not constitute any new declaration made either on behalf of the Government or of myself. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my own public declarations on the subject, to which at present I have nothing to add.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a plain answer to the latter part of the question, as to whether the Parliament Act would apply to the case where this current Parliament had altered its decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think we had better discuss that question when we come to the Bill itself. In the meantime I refer the hon. Member to my declaration.
    Mr. CLYNES: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what chance such a Bill would have if the Parliament Act did not apply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter of opinion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House when the Franchise Bill will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I should like to have notice of that question.

    Standing Committees (Official Report).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister if, for the purpose of accurate reference, he will consider the advisability of an official note being taken of proceedings in Standing Committees, and
    204
    a summary Report issued, as was formerly done with the Debates in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on the 19th instant, I think the balance of argument and convenience is against a change in the present practice.
    Sir W. BYLES: I am not talking now of a verbatim report. I am merely suggesting a summarised report, such as we used to have in the old Debates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, Sir, I will consider that.

    Stafford House (Sir William Lever's Offer).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received the offer of Stafford House; if so, whether the offer has been accepted; and, if accepted, what is the destined use of the property?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have received from Sir William Lever the offer of the remainder of the lease of Stafford House as a gift to the nation, subject to certain conditions. His Majesty's Government much appreciate the generosity of the offer, and are now considering the matter. I can make no further statement at present.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much the Government are giving Sir William Lever by a concession in West Africa?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That surely is a most improper question.
    Mr. MOORE: I want to know will a balance be struck on this transaction?

    Finance Act, 1909–10 (Land Valuers).
    Mr. FELLasked what steps, if any, are taken by the Government to provide the inspectors, surveyors, and other in dividuals who claim to have the right to trespass on private land and premises with their evidence of authority to support the position they claim to hold; and if these individuals will be instructed to present such credentials for examination before they enter upon the premises.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member is referring to the right of inspection of land under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, I beg to refer him to Section 31 (2) of that Act, Every valuer appointed to carry out the valuations under Part I. of the Finance Act has a

    205
    written authority signed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to inspect land, and he is instructed to endorse this authority with his usual signature and to produce it on demand to any person entitled to require its production.
    Mr. FELL: My question extended to others besides land valuers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that one should find a couple of men prowling round one's garden, and that these men when challenged could show no evidence of their authority?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If they have not got the necessary authority, of course they have no right to be there, but if they have the necessary authority then they have a perfect right to be there.
    Mr. FELL: Should they not first go to the front door and produce their authority?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the general instruction followed by the valuers should be followed in all cases, namely, that before coming on a property they should write to inform the owner or occupier that they have to discharge this duty, and making an appointment convenient to all parties.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not always convenient for the valuer when visiting a particular neighbourhood to go to the same neighbourhood two or three times to inspect contiguous property. Subject to that, I will consider the suggestion which has been made to me.
    Mr. LEIFJONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the general practice of valuers to give notice when they are coming?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly was under that impression. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that there are cases in which that does not occur I should be pleased to hear of them, and I should be very much obliged if the Noble Lord opposite can give me any information in support of that statement.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As far as my experience is concerned, I have received nothing but courtesy from these gentlemen, and the officials with whom I have been brought into contact did give me notice beforehand, and inquired whether it would be convenient to me that
    206
    they should inspect the property on a given day. I suggest that what they do for a Member of this House they might do for the general public.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly; I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have received no complaints of uncivil treatment on the part of these officials, but quite the reverse. The testimony I have had on all hands from those opposed to the Act, as well as those who support it, is that they have discharged their functions with unvarying civility.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  REPORT.—[FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on New Clause proposed on consideration of Bill, as amended [30th December.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Suspension of Executive Power in Ireland during State of War.)
    "(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by Proclamation made at any time of Or during the existence of a state of war or of national emergency to suspend the exercise of executive power in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of the Executive Committee for such period as may be specified in the Proclamation, and during that period all executive power in Ireland shall be exercised without reference to the Executive Committee, and the Lord Lieutenant and the heads and officers of Irish Departments shall comply with any directions that may be given by His Majesty as regards Irish services.
    (2) If any head, or officer, or servant, of an Irish Department neglects or refuses to comply with any directions given by His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of this Section, he may be removed from his office by His Majesty in Council, and His Majesty in Council may appoint another person to fill the vacancy so caused.
    (3) All expenditure incurred in the administration of Irish services under the provision of this Section, and which are paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with Regulations made by the Treasury."—[Mr. James Hope.]
    Motion made, and Question again proposed, "that the Clause be read a second time." Debate resumed.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I think it is very generally felt on this side of the House that the extremely plausible case made out yesterday by my hon. Friend, who moved this Clause, deserved a fuller answer than it has yet received from the Front Bench opposite, and if the Government intend to insist upon the rejection of this Amendment a fuller justification for taking that course ought to be forthcoming. My hon. Friend who moved the Clause gave a number of
    210
    examples of ways in which it appeared likely that in time of national emergency during a war or when war might be apprehended danger might occur owing to conflict or friction, or at all events an absence of complete co-operation between the Imperial Government, who would be responsible for military measures, and the civil authority in Ireland which would be in the hands of the local Parliament and the local Executive. My hon. Friend referred, among other subjects, to the-Post Office. I do not want to go into that question again, but I should like to say that I for one entirely agree with the criticism which my hon. Friend passed upon the Government Amendment for dealing with the Post Office, which I think is entirely inadequate for the purpose intended. My hon. Friend spoke of such? matters as the control of the Press and the administration of the railways in time of war, and following him my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) speaking with a military-knowledge which I personally cannot claim, pointed out that in time of war, or when war is imminent, there might be a great number of matters connected with mobilisation and the necessary means for carrying them out, in which difficulties might arise with the local Executive authority. What was the reply to those criticisms given by the Postmaster-General? He practically contented himself by replying that all those matters were covered by the general words of the Bill, and he especially laid stress on this paragraph:—
    "That the Irish Executive would have no power to deal with matters which were not within the competence of the Irish Parliament, and that those matters-included the Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force for the defence of the-realm, or any other naval Or military matter."
    The words which the right hon. Gentleman specially laid stress upon in answer to a question were, "The defence of the realm, or any other naval or military matter." I do not know whether the view which the Postmaster-General put forward would be endorsed by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. I would like to ask them, supposing a difficulty arose over the administration of the railways, whether nationalised or remaining in the hands of private companies, could that possibly be held to be covered by the words, "defence of the realm, or any other military or naval matter." Would it be possible under those circumstances for the Imperial Government to take into their hands the

    211
    necessary administration of the railways? "What would be the result in a time of great national crisis if the interpretation of those words was disputed by the local authority in Ireland. The necessity would arise of referring the matter to the Privy Council for 'decision, and no actual step which ex hypothesi would require to be secretly and rapidly dealt with could be undertaken until it had been decided by a competent authority in Ireland, whether the very wide interpretation put upon those words by the Postmaster-General was or was not the true interpretation of the Statute. Then the right hon. Gentleman, on this particular point of the railways, later on in his speech relied upon the existence of Acts of Parliament at the present time giving power to the Imperial Parliament in time of war. He said there is the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, and the National Defence Act of 1888, which gives power to the Secretary of State in time of emergency to assume control of all the railroads of the United Kingdom. He says those Acts would still be applicable to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman does not contest the fact that it is open at any moment after the passing of this Bill to the Parliament in Ireland to repeal or alter these Acts in any way they think fit. Therefore, in time of emergency it would be necessary for the Imperial Parliament, which would still, I admit, have the power under this Bill of legislating for Ireland, in all the stress of a national emergency to repass the provisions of these Acts applicable to Ireland. It appears to me -that for the particular purpose we have in -view it would be idle to rely upon provisions of Acts of Parliament at present in existence and which it would always be open to the Irish Parliament to repeal. Passing from those particular examples given by my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General took much wider ground. He traversed the whole principle upon which this Amendment is recommended to the House. Of course, the principle upon -which my hon. Friend moved his Amendment and upon which we support it is that in time of war and of emergency it is a source of weakness to have the civil authority decentralised. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman denies, and the words he uses are very dogmatic. He says:—
    "It is a profound error to think that the more centralised the Government is the stronger it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th December, 1912, col. 168.]
    212
    Of course, that is, at all events, an arguable constitutional proposition in ordinary times of peace, and, whatever our opinions may be upon it individually, none of us are concerned at the present time to argue the point. But can it be said it is equally true in time of war and in time of emergency when war is imminent, to say a Government is equally strong whether it is centralised or decentralised? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in holding that view he certainly finds himself in conflict with a number of very eminent authorities, both ancient and modern. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the most democratic period of the Roman Republic they recognised the necessity in time of war of transferring the power of their democratic State temporarily into the hands of a dictator, and the same idea, the idea that in time of war a strong centralised Government is the strongest and best for the safety of the State has been supported in modern times by political philosophers of repute, men like Stein on the Continent, and Burke in this country. The general position which the right hon. Gentleman laid down has certainly not got the support of those, both in the ancient and modern world, who have devoted the greatest genius to the consideration of political constitutions. If I may quote the authority of more practical modern men who have had to deal with these matters, I suppose it is common ground there is no State in the modern world which so far as preparations for war and civil administration during the time of war is concerned has proved so successful as the German Empire, and it has been very clearly laid down both by Bismarck, as a civil administrator, and by Von Moltke, as a military authority, that centralised control is best for the safety of the State in time of war and of emergency. It is quite true that in the German Empire owing to the circumstances of its federation an extreme centralised form of government in time of war will hardly be realised, but Von Moltke laid it down that in his opinion one of the chief secrets of the extraordinary military success of Napoleon was that in time of war he held all the threads of civil administration. Then, to refer to another statesman whose authority will have some weight in these matters, the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of and will remember the very strong opinion expressed by Cavour upon two

    213
    occasions, once when he was contesting the Republican principles of Mazzini and on another occasion when he was insisting on the union of Naples with Piedmont. Cavour insisted upon centralised administration in Italy during the times which were looming ahead, and during which he foresaw the possibility of much war as a necessity of the continued existence of the country. Of course, it is no doubt a very happy circumstance for Cavour that he did not live long enough to know he had the misfortune to differ from the Postmaster-General.
    There have been others in our own country and amongst those speaking our? own language in modern times whose authority is not altogether to be neglected, although perhaps not so preeminent as those I have already quoted. I would merely mention the well-known opinions of Lord Wolseley. Upon this very subject of Home Rule for Ireland, speaking as a soldier, he declared that the granting of Home Rule would be full of military danger to the Empire, and it is obvious, if that danger exists at all, it must be intensified by any division of the control of the civil authority in time of war. And Admiral Mahan, in the same way, has pointed out that it would be a naval danger to this country, even assuming, as my hon. Friend assumed, that the authority exercising the civil power in Ireland would be whole-heartedly loyal to the good of the Empire. That was Mahan's assumption, and of course his contention would be a fortiori true if there could be any doubt about that loyalty. It is not very surprising the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General should venture to lay down as a general proposition something which is entirely at variance, as I maintain, with the greatest men of ancient and modern times upon this subject, because, as we all know, we are blessed at the present time with a Government so packed with genius that there is no Under-Secretary so insignificant that he is not prepared to instruct Lord Roberts upon questions of strategy. My hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, brought the matter very near home by quoting examples, within the memory of all of us in this House, of the difficulties which occurred in South Africa at the time of the war both in Natal and in Cape Colony, and he laid stress upon the fact that those difficulties, which undoubtedly
    214
    hampered the administration of the military authorities in that country, were difficulties which arose where the subordinate civil authorities were absolutely loyal to this country. Without any disloyalty, we all know, as a matter of history, that when the country is unfortunate enough to find itself about to go to war there is usually a minority who hold a different opinion as to the justice or expediency of that war. The right hon. Gentleman quoted, for another purpose, Charles James Fox. We all know that Fox, during the Napoleonic war, was hostile to the war policy of this country. But let us come to more modern times and take the case of the Boer war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others showed themselves hostile to the policy of this country on that occasion. It was the same in the case of Mr. Bright at the time of the Crimean war. These, however, are only examples of the fact that no matter how united a nation may be there is always likely to be a minority opposed to war. In a united and Imperial House such a minority may not do very much damage; it may be unpatriotic but it cannot do much harm. During the American War of Independence there was a strong body in the Irish Parliament of that day hostile to this country. Chatham took up the same attitude in this country, but that is only another example of these differences of opinion. But so long as the difference is only that of a minority in a united House, necessarily controlled by a representative majority in the country at large, no serious injury is done. But if the minority as a whole is a majority in an isolated area, in a subordinate Parliament the damage it may inflict on the country is very serious indeed.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the hon. Member proposing the suspension of the Constitution in our self-governing Colonies?
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I have no such idea in my mind. The same question was brought up by the Postmaster-General yesterday, and certainly, as far as my opinion goes, they would not be likely to express a hostile opinion to this country, as might be the case with Ireland. But they are not part and parcel of the United Kingdom: they have never till recently been reckoned among the fighting forces of the Empire. This appears to me to be a serious danger in the case of a separate Parliament. The minority in the case of Ireland would

    215
    represent only one-fifteenth of the United Kingdom, yet it would be in a position to direct a separate Executive Government and to give effect to its opinions. All that is even on the assumption that, in the ease of Ireland, a subordinate Parliament would have behind it those who would be as loyal as the Government of Natal was in 1899. But I am not prepared, merely in order to say pleasant things to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, to make that assumption. I know a great deal too much about feeling in Ireland to make the assumption that if this country were in any difficulty they would for the first time for a long period abandon the view that "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity." The right hon. Gentleman yesterday quoted the history of Grattan's Parliament. He said it supplied an example of the loyalty of the Irish Parliament to the Empire because one of its first acts after receiving extended powers was to vote Supplies for a war in which this country was at the time engaged. I quite admit that. But hon. Members must know that Grattan was distinguished for two political qualities above all others. He was distinguished for his loyalty to the English connection and for his detestation of democracy in all 'forms. Grattan's Parliament was not a democratic Parliament at all, and I entirely question, as a matter of fact, whether the mass of the people outside that Parliament were loyal at that time. My hon. Friend, the Member for Torquay quoted in his speech yesterday the opinion of Napoleon that the French Expedition of 1796 would have been successful with a little more luck and better weather. The same opinion was held in Ireland. There is a letter written at that time by a member of the Beresford family, in which the opinion is expressed that owing to the favourable reception by the native Irish in the South of Ireland at that time the French, with a little better seamanship and a little better weather, might have gained Ireland. But that would have been impossible if there had been that loyalty which the right hon. Gentleman thinks exists in Ireland at the present moment. We are told that we have only to pass the Home Rule Bill and the Irish people will immediately become loyal—we are, in fact, to have a union of hearts. That may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope it will not be
    216
    taken to be disrespectful if I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not so well qualified for indulging in prophecy as the most famous of his namesakes. We are told that the movement to-day is the same as the movement of O'Neill, Wolf Tone, and Robert Emmet. But the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the other day repeated that he was carrying out the movement of men like Wolf Tone and Robert Emmet. But we have on record Wolf Tone's interview with Napoleon Buonaparte, in which an invitation was extended by him to Buonaparte to invade Ireland, and we have, too, the fact that Emmet on the scaffold avowed that he had invited a French invasion of his native country. That is our example of what Irish disloyalty has done in the past. You may or may not condemn them, but surely it is idle, when hon. Members who are leading the majority of Irish opinion at the present day are telling us from time to time that these historical examples are the ones they still hold up to veneration, and which they are still proud to follow, to tell us that when this Bill passes all this disloyalty will disappear. The Secretary of State for War quoted Grattan's Parliament.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)indicated dissent.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Well, somebody on the other side quoted Grattan's Parliament in this connection. Grattan's Parliament was a concession in its day to Irish opinion quite comparable with the concession now being made by the Government. That concession of Grattan's Parliament had a very slight effect in conciliating Irish opinion, for it was within a very few years after the granting of it that the greatest rebellion in Irish history took place. I was about to misquote the Secretary of State for War. I hope my next shot will be a better one. He went on to state that he spoke for the Government. We all took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for the Government, but was he speaking for the whole of the Government, or only for the Cabinet when he said the passage of this Bill would really strengthen us in time of war? It would be reassuring if we could be informed that he had taken into consultation the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If he was only speaking for the Cabinet, we have to assume that that great authority was left uncon-sulted. I notice that although the right

    217
    hon. Gentleman was specifically asked whether he spoke for the Government and for the Committee of Imperial Defence, in his reply he was careful to say that he spoke for the Government, and said nothing about the Committee of Imperial Defence. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that that was merely an omission, and that he has behind him the authority of the Committee of Imperial Defence, we must conclude that those were the unaided reflections of the civilians who occupy the Front Bench opposite, which have not any high military authority behind them. A very strange argument the right hon. Gentleman used was this: He said, "You talk about Irish disloyalty in the time of the Boer war. You must not lay stress on the fact that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway cheered to the echo the news of British defeats. That is not the true test. The true test is: Were the Irish regiments disloyal? What about the Dublin Fusiliers?" Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that that is a sound argument? Of course, the Dublin Fusiliers is a most gallant regiment, whose loyalty is due to their military training. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. I think I can show that practically from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech. The right hon. Gentleman made use of a most extraordinary argument in answering a question put to him by my Noble Friend the Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine). He said:—
    "The right hon. Gentleman has filled up the gap I was about to endeavour to fill in my reply to the Noble Lord. Those who fought for us in that war, whether they came from the South or from the North, and notably from the South, were some of the bravest regiments who have fought for us and were the most loyal of all. The gap is that those who thought that they had been wrongly deprived of the Parliament they once possessed were not friendly to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th December, 1912, col. 175.]
    Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Dublin Fusiliers do not miss the Parliament? Have they not got as much right to be Irishmen in civil life as anybody else? If their loyalty is not to be attributed to military training, why do they care less than civilians for Home Rule? The right hon. Gentleman is not successful in showing that there is any gap. I entirely disbelieve in the prophecy of loyalty and goodwill to this country as soon as this Bill is passed. I am quite willing to admit, because I have it on the high authority of the greatest of Irish historians, the late Mr. Lecky, that in some of the periods in the eighteenth century the sentiment
    218
    of disloyalty in Ireland was much exaggerated and that is was sometimes very superficial, but I should like, while making that admission, to read a few words which have been written by the same historian on the subject of the sentiment of disloyalty. He said:—
    "There is perhaps only one condition in which its unassisted action—"
    —that is, the sentiment of disloyalty—
    "can be a serious danger to the State. It is when legislation breaks down the influence of the educated classes of the community, and then, by a democratic suffrage, under the shelter of the ballot, throws the preponderating voting power of the country into the hands of the most ignorant and most disaffected. It has been reserved for the sagacity of modern English statesmanship to create this danger in Ireland."
    It is because the Government are proceeding on the same course, and are wishing to give a further demonstration of the same sort of sagacity, that we on this side of the House support this Amendment and wish to save them from the folly of their own action.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Debate on the Clause at present under consideration has covered a very wide field. The primary question at issue between the two sides of the House is a perfctly simple one. There can be no two opinions as to the fact that inconveniences might arise under a Home Rule system as the result of the division of Executive power. If at any time under a centralised Government one portion of the community is disaffected and disloyal, under those conditions that disaffected portion is a source of weakness to the community in a time of stress, difficulty, and danger. It is only a change in degree. It might be admitted, for the purposes of argument, that when you divide the Executive authority the source of weakness is to that extent increased. But even if we on this side of the House do make that admission, it does not go to the root of the matter we are now discussing. You have to accept an assumption which underlies every speech which has come from the other side of the House—an assumption that when a Parliament is set up under this Bill, Ireland will continue to be disloyal to Great Britain and to British interests.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: No, no.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is so. Apart from that assumption, this new Clause is useless. If it be assumed that the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament, supported by the Irish people, are going to be loyal to the British Government,

    219
    then there is no ground for any fear, and there is no need for this Clause. If one examines the speeches which have been made, he finds that the main part of them has been devoted to proving that there is a serious danger of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government being disloyal. A large part of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down has been devoted to proving that. He referred to the powers of the Postmaster-General as a prophet, and suggested that they were not quite equal to those of another member of the same race who bore the same name. But, after all, the hon. Gentleman opposite also sets up as a prophet, and we may be pardoned for thinking that the Postmaster-General is at least as good an authority in the region of prophecy as the hon. Member (Mr. K. M'Neill). I am not prepared to say that one is better than the other as a prophet. On grounds of pedigree, of course, the Postmaster-General is better than the hon. Member, and as he is to some extent a supporter of the hereditary principle I have no doubt he will on that ground yield the palm to the Postmaster-General. When we are dealing with these prophecies we are in the region of probabilities, and there are two grounds on which hon. Gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to justify their assumption. First of all, they refer to the form of language of hon. Members of the Nationalist party. That is a large part of their case. I think it was a large part of the case of the hon. Member and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) last night. He said, "They have said these things in the past, and surely when you have on record that language you are justified in believing that the same sentiments will govern their action in the future." I think we on this side are prepared to make certain allowances for the language which was used by Members of the Irish party in the past just as we are prepared to make allowances for language which is used by hon. Members representing Ulster in the present. I believe in the former case hon. Gentlemen representing the majority in Ireland were speaking under deep feelings of resentment against this country, and I believe that hon. Members representing the North-East corner of Ireland are speaking with equally deep feelings of apprehension in relation to the
    220
    possible effects of Home Rule. But I think you will both forgive me if I say I decline to believe either the one or the other. If I were to believe them I should feel myself in a very strange position. I have heard some language of hon. Gentlemen on the other side in which they say for example that the passing of this Bill will be the end of the British Empire, and if Home Rule is granted it will not matter whether we are separated from Great Britain or not. Another hon. Gentleman said:
    "We will disregard the decrees of an Irish Parliament; we will not pay any tax it may impose and if it is put upon us, we will be prepared to take even stronger measures."
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) said:
    "We will not be loyal if it comes to any tampering with our ancient rights."
    Captain CRAIG: Will the hon. Member kindly say when I said that. I have no recollection?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have the reference here, I am glad to say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking at Lisburn on 24th December, 1910. Apparently the situation is this: If the Home Rule Bill is passed the majority in Ireland will continue to be disloyal, and the minority in the North-East corner will become disloyal, and now for once we are going to have a united Ireland. For the first time on record we shall have the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) marching together under the banner of disloyalty to the British Empire. Needless to say, I think we shall see exactly the reverse, and I base my reasoning on experience. I should like to deal with some of the history which has been placed before the House by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has covered a wide field. He has gone to ancient Rome and modern Germany as well as to the British Empire. I am not quite sure that the parallel which he raised in connection with ancient Rome has any application to the position of the British Empire; but he was dealing with the argument of the Postmaster-General that a centralised Government was the weakest form of Government. He examined the statement in relation to a different state of facts from those which the Postmaster-General had in mind when he made the statement. He was dealing with the general conditions and sources of national strength. I think it can be proved by history that in

    221
    the case of all widespread Empires, those which are highly centralised are weaker than those which give a large measure of local autonomy to the various parts.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I was assuming, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the conditions mentioned in the Amendment—that is to say, the conditions in time of war or national emergency. I used no argument with regard to general considerations.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I distinctly stated that of course everyone agreed in time of war the control of the armed forces of the State must necessarily be centralised.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentle-man has brought me to the point at which I was endeavouring to arrive. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. M'Neill) will admit that when I began to deal with this argument I stated clearly that I thought they were dealing with propositions in two different senses, and that that accounted for the disagreement between them, that the Postmaster-General had made this proposition in reference to general conditions and sources of national and Imperial strength, whereas the hon. Member opposite analysed his proposition in relation to conditions of war. I think they are both right, and that when you have a condition of war you must have a high degree of centralisation. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that in a widespread Empire the more play you give to the free action of different parts the stronger will your Empire be, and that, I think, as a general proposition cannot be disputed. It will not, I think, be disputed by any man who understands the spirit and principle of the British Empire.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: If the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in that sense and in that sense alone, it was entirely irrelevant to the argument. The difference between us was not quite that. I understand the right hon. Gentleman admits that centralised control of the military forces is necessary. What we say is not merely of the military forces, but of the civil authority—not generally, but in time of war.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Of course, at the time when the Postmaster-General used that argument, he was dealing with the assumption upon which this new Clause is based, namely, that under
    222
    a Home Rule system in Ireland you will have a disloyal condition in Ireland, and he was answering that proposition, which, after all, is the fundamental proposition. If we disprove that fundamental proposition, then there is no argument for the Clause. If they can make out a case for that proposition, then they not only establish a case for the Clause, but they establish a complete case against the Bill, and the Bill must go. If they can make out a case that after the passing of this Bill we are still to have a disloyal Ireland, then we have no right to give Home Rule-to Ireland. It is not an argument simply for this Clause. It cuts at the root of the whole measure. I think I am correct in? saying that the argument of my right hon. Friend was dealing with the general conditions of national strength, and as a statement of the general conditions of national strength it is accurate and it is in accordance, not only with the experience of the British Empire, but of every other great empire. It is even true of the Roman Empire, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In the days when the Roman Empire embraced the whole of the Mediterranean countries, and while it still continued in a position of strength, it was-largely because there was a large degree of autonomy given to the different parts of the Empire. There was autonomy in Greece and in various parts of Asia, and in many other parts of the Empire, and it was largely owing to that autonomy that in the earlier and better days of the Roman Empire that Empire was able to depend on the willing and ready support of such large numbers of trained and disciplined soldiers from those provinces of the Empire.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a new version of history.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It may be new to the Leader of the Opposition, but it may interest him to know that I have spent my Christmas holiday in reading Gibbon and Finlay.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Then you only studied the decline.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is a very important thing. The decline began from the time they did away with local autonomy, and it may interest the Leader of the Opposition if I continue this line. I refer him to Finlay because Finlay came from Glasgow, like himself, and Finlay knew the sources of national greatness, and if the right hon. Gentleman reads his works on Greece and

    223
    on the Roman and Byzantine Empires he will find very accurately set forth the causes which led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and it was mainly, in the words of Finlay, that they suppressed all local autonomy. By suppressing it there was no local patriotism to support the Empire. I come back to the British Empire. The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite would have applied equally to Canada in 1837. If Lord Durham had taken up the attitude which hon. Gentlemen take in regard to Ireland he would never have written his famous report, the report which more than anything else has founded the British Empire, because it is on the principle of that report that the British Empire has been built up. If he had said, "These men are rebels, you cannot trust them with self-government; we must hold them down with a firm hand," where would Canada have been now? She would certainly not "have been a contented member of the Empire, and she would certainly not have been offering "Dreadnoughts" at present. Then, again, what about South Africa? We remember that there was a minority which was opposed to the granting of self-government to the Transvaal—a minority in the Transvaal and a minority in Great Britain—and we remember that the then Leader of the Opposition, when the measure was going forward, said it would "be a disaster to the Empire and that he washed his hands of all responsibility. Does anyone doubt that if self-government had not been given to the Transvaal and to the Orange River Colony in 1906, we should never have had a united and contented South Africa? I do not think anyone doubts that. I think we are justified in arguing that the application of the same principles to Ireland will have exactly the same results as "have followed in every other part of the British Empire. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. Hope), in moving this Clause last night, referred to the unfortunate conditions that arose in Cape Colony at the time of the war in the later months of 1899 owing to the attitude taken up by the Schreiner Ministry. He said you might have the same thing in Ireland.
    Mr. JAMESHOPE: I referred to Natal too.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I will deal with Cape 'Colony. It is quite true, of course, that at that time there was a very difficult
    224
    situation in Cape Colony. You had responsible government there, but everybody must remember the very difficult position at that time of our Colonists who were of Dutch extraction. But the question which hon. Gentlemen should put to themselves is this, not what were the inconveniences at that time, but what would have been the situation if, instead of having self-government in South Africa then, we had simply had Crown Colony government. I think there is no doubt that if there had been the Crown Colony system instead of self-government in South Africa, you would have had more widespread disaffection and rebellion in our own Colonies, but as a matter of fact the self-government which did exist in Cape Colony made many of those of Dutch extraction loyal to the Empire who otherwise would have been disloyal. We believe that self-government, which has been the means of creating loyalty in other parts of the Empire, will be the means of creating loyalty in Ireland. It is upon that general principle that we found- ourselves. We believe that it is a principle of general application, that it is proved by the experience of other Empires as well as our own, and, basing ourselves upon that experience, we say that there is no foundation whatever for the assumptions which hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward in support of this new Clause. As they have failed by the teaching of experience to make good their assumptions the House is justified in negativing this Clause.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: When the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. M'Neill) was challenged by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leif Jones) to state whether he would extend the principle of the Amendment to the self-governing Colonies, he declared that he saw no analogy between the two cases, and as his speech proceeded it became perfectly evident why that was so. It was proved when the hon. Member, replying to an interruption, said that there was no analogy—or so I understood him—because none of the Colonies formed, as Ireland does, part of a single and united Kingdom, such as the United Kingdom, but lay at a great distance from these shores, pursuing their own affairs in an orbit wholly different from that of the United Kingdom. No doubt that is perfectly true, but it must be clear to the House that that was not the real reason which, in the mind of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and

    225
    those who support him, lay at the root of the application of this principle to Ireland. The real reason is, of course, that which was so ably dealt with by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pringle), namely, the root conviction in the minds of hon. Members above the Gangway—a conviction which they have done their best, I think without much success, to impress upon the minds of the people of this country—that the Irish are an incurably disloyal people. For my part that is an imputation which I very deeply, very sincerely, and very hotly resent. Irish Members are often charged with saying one thing in this House, and another thing in Ireland. I shall say nothing here now which I am not willing to say in Ireland, and which, in fact, I have not said there. I have never understood, for my part, why the sentiment of "God save Ireland" should be supposed to be irreconcilable with the sentiment of "God save the King." I see no possible antagonism between the two things, and I have said so in Ireland before now. But, as we all know, certain historical causes have created in Ireland from time to time a state of things which has seemed to the mass of the people to make loyalty to the Crown, loyalty to the Empire, and loyalty to Ireland to be irreconcilable.
    The hon. Member spoke of Grattan's Parliament, and acknowledged, as I understood him, that that Parliament itself under Grattan's leadership was loyal to the British connection. Indeed, it would be hard to deny, because one of the very first acts of Grattan's Parliament was to vote some 20,000 men for the service of the Navy, and from first to last Grattan's Parliament was distinguished in the same manner. The hon. Gentleman said, "That may be true of Grattan's Parliament, for Grattan was an aristocrat, a Protestant, and an anti-democrat, but it was not true of the mass of the Irish people." I agree with him that it was not true of the mass of the people. In heaven's name, why should it be true of the mass of the people at that time? I think I know enough of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division to believe that if he had been an Irish Roman Catholic living about the year 1797 under the operation of the penal laws, on the sufferance of a landlord of another creed, and if ho and his people had been subjected to the iniquities, the atrocities, and the abominations, which no one will now deny were perpetrated in the name of the King
    226
    upon the mass of the people of Ireland—I know enough of the hon. Member to have a very shrewd idea where he would have been found. Let these things be remembered when it is made a subject of reproach that we have said from time to time—I have said it myself at the same time and to the same audience consisting of people who understood the connection between the two things—that our movement is the legitimate successor of the movement of Wolfe Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and Robert Emmet, What is the explanation? It is perfectly simple and plain to any man who will sincerely and honestly study the facts, that that was a time when there seemed to be no possibility of redress for the hideous grievances and the most abominable oppressions that ever weighed upon a people—no redress except that of armed rebellion. Everyone of these men, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Wolfe Tone, and Robert Emmet, tried first constitutional methods, and it was not until they found that every effort along these lines was utterly fruitless, until the iron had entered into their souls, and until they saw no chance whatever of freeing, I was going to say, their people, that they turned to other methods. As a matter of fact, they were men who might have enjoyed liberty under the favour of the Government if they had not cared about the liberties and the welfare of the mass of their fellow countrymen.
    Every one of these men had tried and failed in the path of constitutional reform before turning to the path of rebellion. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then. The stream of reform is sluggish at first, and even down to our own day there were many men who might justly despair, and who have justly despaired, of reform except it were extorted from the people of this country, if not by armed rebellion, for which the time has long since gone past and become impossible, at least by violent action of one sort or another. To many of the Irish people the Government of the King has seldom been presented except as the symbol of oppression, the sanction and protection of eviction, or the justification of coercion. I believe most sincerely, for one, that as soon as the people of this country have come to understand the real facts of the Irish situation that old, bad chapter has closed. But these old, unhappy, and evil lessons are not all at an end today. There are still people in Ireland

    227
    here and there no doubt who, trained in the old school, without thinking much about it, probably have still lingering in them the notion that it is very difficult for a man at once to be a good Irishman and a loyal subject. I think there are such men still left, but I venture to say that they are fast fading away. I do not ask the House to excuse these men. It is not a question of excusing. Their feeling was not only natural, but it was right in view of the training they had received. It has been given to us to live in better times. I do most sincerely believe that during the last twenty years since this House has honestly addressed itself, as I think it has to the best of its capacity, to redressing Ireland's grievances, feeling in Ireland has most profoundly changed; and just as, if I may carry my mind back again through history, the coming of Lord Fitzwilliam, presaging as it was hoped Parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation, was hailed with a great new outburst of Irish loyalty, which was only to die away in despair and revolt when the evil influences over here prevailed in his recall, so the mere introduction of this Bill, the promise and the presage of the coming of national government in Ireland has caused already a great change, and already it is becoming clear to men in Ireland that they can be good Irishmen, good Nationalists, and at the same time good loyal subjects of His Majesty, and frankly accept this Parliament as citizens of the British Empire. That is what the promise of Home Rule has done already. The accomplishment of Home Rule I believe will do the rest.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarkable speech made last night by the Secretary of State for War; but before I refer to his speech, I may refer to that of the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle), who persisted in comparing Ireland with our Dominions beyond the seas. It appears to be perfectly useless to attempt to persuade hon. Members opposite that there is no analogy between the two. He said one thing that was worthy of comment. He gave us to understand that the behaviour of our Colonies in South Africa was everything that could be desired during and before the war.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I did not say that. I expressly made a reservation about Cape
    228
    Colony of which I gave an explanation afterwards.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: It was mainly the action of Cape Colony in allowing the guns and ammunition for our opponents to pass through their territory that caused the war to be not only possible, but to be prolonged. Precisely the same thing might happen in Ireland, and that is worthy of consideration. The last speaker said that we, on these benches, have an idea that Ireland is incurably disloyal. I, for one, have no opinion of that sort, but I have formed the conviction that as long as hon. Members below the Gangway permit themselves to preach disloyalty and practise a form of tyranny in the shape of boycotting. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the doctors?"] That is a very irrelevant observation. If that is the best that hon. Members from Ireland can do I am sorry for them. As long as hon. Members below the Gangway are guilty of preaching rebellion. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Carson?"] As long as they advocate boycotting and instigate cattle driving you must have disloyalty in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Civil war in Ulster."] The hon. Member for Donegal tells us that there is still a certain amount of disloyalty in Ireland. As long as that exists, as long as the Union Jack is torn down at public meetings, and they refuse to sing "God Save the King," surely that is the best argument that can be adduced in favour of this Clause. We in the United Kingdom have got to look after ourselves and not to be at the mercy of these few disloyal people in Ireland. The; Secretary of State for War was distinctly asked by my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded this Clause (Colonel Burn) and my Noble Friend, the Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine), what was the opinion of his military advisers on this question, and what was the opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence and he carefully avoided that question altogether.
    Colonel SEELY: I can only reply to the specific question asked by the leave of the House, as I have already spoken. If I am asked if the Committee for Imperial Defence have discussed the Home Rule Bill, the answer is, certainly not. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware the Committee of Imperial Defence does not deal with matters of policy like this. It is an Advisory Department and not an executive body, and it is not possible to submit to

    229
    the Committee such a question as the giving of Home Rule to Ireland.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Then I am to understand that the Secretary of State for War comes to this House and gives an opinion on the military position of the country in case Home Rule is granted, without having taken into his confidence either his military advisers or the Committee of Imperial Defence. If that is the case I would like to know what is the good of the right hon. Gentleman having either military advisers or a Committee of Imperial Defence? It reduces the whole thing to a farce. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did gallant service in South Africa, but. does that make him a judge from a military or naval point of view of what is good for this country or of what is not? I suggest that the sooner he does consult these bodies the better. The fact is he does not do so because he is afraid to tell the truth with regard to this position. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are a liar!"] Is it right that I should be called a liar? [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you call Seely?"] The whole of the Front Bench are sitting there not daring to express an opinion because they are under the thumb of the hon. Member for Water-ford. When did the Secretary of State for War change his mind on this matter? I am not going to give quotations, but it is within the recollection of the House that not so many years ago the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested that to grant Home Rule to Ireland was not to increase the security of this country. Now he says that Ireland might be hostile or that any part of these Islands might be hostile. Has he any reason to suggest that any other portion of these Islands has been hostile during the last hundred years? Has he any reason to suggest that the teachings of history are not better than the prophecies of the Postmaster-General or even of himself?
    Colonel SEELY: We have not robbed any other part of the British Isles so far by fraud.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Now he is coming to the fraud. I am coming to that. Only last night he stated that the Parliament was taken away from Ireland by fraud. I should very much like to know where he found it.
    Colonel SEELY: In Professor Leeky.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot continue the Debate if the hon. and gallant Gentleman
    230
    is continually interrupted. The best thing is to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: He said they were afraid to tell the truth.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Thank you very much. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Parliament was taken from Ireland by fraud, and also that if you give Home Rule to Ireland now it will bring contentment to five-sixths of the country. I deny both one and the other. Although he seems to know a great deal of what happened in Ireland before he was born, I think he knows very little about it now. I have the honour of living in Ireland when I am not in this country, and I live in the South of Ireland. We have heard a great deal about the North of Ireland in these Debates, but very little about the South. My humble experience is, in the South of Ireland, that so far from Home Rule being likely to give contentment to five-sixths of the people even in the South of Ireland, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would live, as I do, among farmers and go about and talk to them, I grant you singly, because if you get two together they dare not give an opinion, but if you get them alone they tell you they are living now in fear of getting Home Rule.
    Mr. NANNETTI: What about the ballot?
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Do you suppose that those men who are now prosperous and prospering wish to be put, far more than they are now, under the thumb of hon. Members below the Gangway? Do you suppose that they wish their country handed over to men who are now ruling by the Hibernian League and by tyrannv? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now making really a Second Reading speech. This Clause deals with one particular object. I would advise the hon. and gallant Gentleman to address himself more particularly to this Clause.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I was endeavouring to answer the Secretary of State for War, and I will now come to the next statement which he made last night. He told us by way of showing how loyal Ireland might be under Home Rule, of the gallantry and magnificent performances of the Irish soldiers in South Africa. Not only in South Africa but, I am thankful

    231
    to say, all over the world where I have had the honour of serving with them, I have found Irish soldiers not only the most gallant but the most true and the best to be depended upon, and as good as any we have in these Islands. But I deduce a very different conclusion from that which the right hon. Gentleman draws. What does it show? It shows that the moment you get them away from the influences brought to bear upon them at home, the moment you get them away from the influence of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and their friends, you have in them the true spirit of Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that if you give Ireland a strong and benevolent form of government, which can only be given by this country, and certainly not by Home Rule. you will then have an Ireland which will loyally support you in every way. In order to try and get up a cheer on his own behalf the right hon. Gentleman told us that because Irish soldiers are loyal when serving in the ranks, therefore hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway must be so. Why, that is childish, and is treating this House with scant respect. This House has a right to know and is entitled to ask, and the country has a right to know and is entitled to ask—although the right hon. Gentleman has not consulted his military advisers or the Committee of Imperial Defence—on this most important point, whether he will give us their opinion about it, or, as he cannot speak again during this Debate, perhaps he will ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is interested in this matter, if he will give us his opinion and the opinion of his advisers as to whether the granting of Home Rule to Ireland will or will not be for the security of this Empire.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I only intervene in this Debate because of the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member above the Gangway, who said that if the people in Ireland were left to themselves they are in reality not Home Rulers at all. I wonder if he really expects the people of this country to believe that statement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as anybody in this House that there is no part of the United Kingdom where the people are keener politicians than they are in Ireland, where they have a more thorough grasp of the meaning of the Ballot Act and the power which that Ballot Act confers; and at election after election, ever since the
    232
    franchise was extended in 1885, the Irish people have by an overwhelming majority returned to this House hon. Members upon these benches, who are described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as the tyrants of the Irish people. There is only one way of testing a statement of that kind, and it may be tested when the next poll is made of the people at the General Election, be it of near date or of distant date. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will then have an opportunity of appealing to the Irish electors, and to those farmers when he meets them one by one. If he goes before them as an anti-Home Rule candidate, they will vote one by one in the secrecy of the polling booth, and they will be quite at liberty, if they think fit, to vote for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But we cannot forget, we who come from Ireland, that it is only a short time ago the hon. and gallant Gentleman used the language of such a disgraceful and defamatory character as to the people in certain parts of Ireland that the public board in the town of Carrick-on-Suir felt called upon to pass a resolution condemning him.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask if the hon. Member is justified in accusing me simply on a charge brought against me in a newspaper, and which is absolutely untrue?
    Mr. W. REDMOND: We recollect it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have not the faintest idea of what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, or what the resolution is, or what the body is who passed it. It really seems to me that this is utterly irrelevant to the Clause now before the House.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to characterise a statement made by another hon. Member of this House as disgraceful? I myself was reproved by a former Speaker for using the word in connection with some utterance made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for War.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It depends in each case upon the circumstances. To quote some local body in Ireland who passed some resolution, again I say, seems to me to be absolutely irrelevant and pure waste of time. The House has very little time. We are called upon to discuss an important Clause, and the whole time is being wasted in ridiculous talk which might have been

    233
    relevant upon the Second Reading of the Bill, but is utterly irrelevant now.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I certainly have no desire to waste the time of the House. But I submit to hon. Gentlemen opposite who heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member whether it was not a speech of a character highly calculated to provoke at least some retort from hon. Gentlemen on these benches accused of not representing the Irish people at all. As to the way in which, Sir, you have characterised some of the speeches as being ridiculous, I have only to say that, while I have the very greatest respect for you, as to the character of the remarks I feel called upon to deliver, I will take leave to be the judge myself, and if I in any way go outside the rules of Order, I will at once, Mr. Speaker, bow to your ruling; but I do say that to apply the adjective "ridiculous" to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen trying to discharge their duty is, I think, somewhat hard.
    Mr. SPEAKER: My reflection was not confined to the speech of the hon. Member. It ranges over some of the other speeches with which we have been favoured this afternoon, and again I must repeat that they were absolutely ridiculous, as not in any way relevant to the Clause now before the House.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I assure you, Sir, that as far as I am concerned I only desire to reply to the charges made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and which he was allowed to make by you, Sir. Those accusations do not in any way represent the true sense of the Irish people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman found fault with the speech delivered last night by the Secretary of State for War, remarking that it was simply made for the purpose of provoking a cheer from these benches. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said that Members on the Treasury Bench and on the benches opposite are supporting this Bill, not because of any true conviction, but simply because they feel themselves bound to follow the advice tendered in this matter by the Member for Waterford and Irish Nationalist Members. I have been over thirty years in this House, and I have taken a somewhat active part in discussing the cause of Home Rule under both Liberal and Conservative Administrations. I have never been sparing in my criticism of Members on either side of the House, when I thought their action
    234
    deserved criticism, as far as Ireland is concerned. But I certainly never have, nor do I believe any of the hon. Members here have, expressed any opinion so insulting to elected representatives of the British people as the opinion we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that hon. Members are supporting this measure, not because they really believe in the desirability of Home Rule, but simply because they are the bond slaves of Irish Members. I submit that this statement is of a character which will merit and receive the contempt of the vast majority of the people of this country. This Amendment which is contained in the new Clause is supported because it is said that in time of difficulty or war a self-governed Ireland would be dangerous to the welfare of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that because in the Boer war a certain section of the people in Cape Colony allowed guns and supplies to be passed through their territory it was an indication of what would happen in Ireland.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I did not say anything of the sort. I said it was an instance that might be followed, and that what happened in one country might happen in the other.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that nothing is further from my desire or intention than to misrepresent him in any way, but certainly I think what he has just said bears out my contention. His argument went to show that because there was disaffection in certain portions of Cape Colony during the war, there will be similar disaffection in Ireland in the event of the United Kingdom being at war with some foreign Power. I say here, as an Irish Member, and I believe it is the opinion of every single Member representing an Irish constituency, that we endorse in the most thorough and hearty way the view expressed in this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War last night. The hon. Gentleman said that any portion of the United Kingdom in time of war being disaffected would be injurious and disastrous to the State at large. That of course is true, but I invite any hon. Gentleman in this House to quote to me a single instance in the "whole history of the world where a people had the power of self-government conferred upon them and exhibited afterwards hostility against

    235
    the power that conferred those powers on them of self-govenment, and which was not, on the other hand, strongly disposed to show gratitude at the measure of liberty so extended. [HON MEMBERS: "Hertzog."] I do not deny, nobody can deny, that the Irish people have been disaffected in the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that that was because of the action of the Irish Members sitting upon these benches, and that if we only left the Irish people alone there would be no demand for Home Rule. Might I repeat what I once said in this House, that there is nothing more absurd in this controversy than to attempt to make out that the demand for Home Rule is the result of the action of the men of the present day or generation. Before a single Member who is now in this House sat upon these benches the demand for Home Rule was passionately made upon behalf of the Irish people. Before this century, before the last century, before the demand for liberty in Ireland was called Home Rule, as the hon. Member for Donegal showed in his excellent speech this afternoon, the demand of the Irish people for the power to control their own internal affairs was made persistently and insistently. And if by any unfortunate mischance the Irish people should be disappointed at the present time, and if the great hope which they feel of a future of unity and friendship and goodwill with the British people under this measure were destroyed, what would happen? I say that under the presidency of some other Speaker in the years to come, when every single Member of this House might have left it, this demand of the Irish people to restore to them the right to manage their own internal affairs would still be made.
    If you like, pass this Clause, and by so doing mar and destroy the gift which Home Rule will confer on the Irish people; if you like, deny Home Rule entirely to the Irish people, but do not let it be done on the ground that the Irish people do not want it. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I for one can appreciate to some extent some of the arguments, groundless though I believe them to be, which are advanced against Home Rule, but there is nothing more futile and useless in this controversy than to attempt to meet the Home Rule demand by trying to prove that the Irish people do not want it. There has never been a single day since the Irish people lost their own Parliament under
    236
    the circumstances mentioned by the Secretary of State for War when Ireland has not, as best she could, insisted upon her demand for the restoration of that Parliament. Sometimes it was, in moments of despair, by attempted rebellion; sometimes it was by persistent and strong agitation of a violent character, if you like; but, directly the masses of the Irish people got the constitutional right to have their views expressed in this House, directly the franchise was extended to them in 1885, and even before the franchise was extended, and when it was very limited in Ireland, the Irish people have always sent a large majority of their representatives here to ask for the restoration of the right of Ireland to manage her own affairs.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I fail to follow what relevance that has to the Clause now before the House. Perhaps the hon. Member will point it out.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I do assure you, Sir, nothing is further from my intention than to go outside the rule, but I submit, with great respect indeed, that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was allowed to enlarge upon the argument, which he insisted upon, namely, that the Irish people in reality did not want Home Rule at all, and that it was merely the work of hon. Members here, then that I may certainly be allowed in all fairness to reply to that argument by showing, as I think I can show, that before one of us was born this demand of the Irish people for Home Rule was made, and that I believe it will continue until it is satisfied.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Let us assume that the hon. Member has disposed of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and let us now approach the Clause under discussion.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Whatever else we may hold different opinions about in this House, there is one point upon which there is no difference of opinion amongst Members of any party, and that is your extraordinary impartiality, and after the statement of fact which you have just made with regard to the hon. and gallant Member, there is not a single word further which is necessary for me to say, or anyone else to say, as to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University in support of this Clause was that it was necessary to combat with the disloyalty

    237
    of the Irish people. I say here what I have said in Ireland, and what I have said on many platforms in this country, that the Irish people have been disloyal in a sense if you like, but that the Irish people have never been even in the bitterest times of agitation, as far as I know, disloyal to the Crown of this country. Hon. Gentlemen may say that this Clause is necessary, because on certain occasions the Crown has not been presented with addresses in Ireland, and approached in the manner in which it is approached in this country. That is true, but it has not been because of any disloyalty to the Throne; it has been because it was found that whenever loyalty was expressed to the Throne it was unscrupulously and unfairly used as an argument in this country that the Irish people were so contented that they really did not want Home Rule at all. Everyman who knows the true inwardness of Irish life understands that position.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman and others spoke of the action of the Irish soldiers in South Africa during the war. I say that the action of those soldiers alone ought to be sufficient to compel hon. Gentlemen to be careful of the charges they make of disloyalty against the Irish people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you approve of it?"] The hon. Gentleman asks me if I approved of it. I certainly say that I never myself have been able to understand the action of any Irishman who, denied legitimate liberty in his own country, goes and fights and sheds his blood for the Power that denied that liberty; but I say here that in considering this Clause, it should be remembered that the Irishmen of the Munster Fusiliers, of the Dublin Fusiliers, of the Connaught Rangers, the Inniskillens, and the rest, I say those regiments are composed of men like the men who are here, the vast majority of them Catholic in religion, Home Rulers in their political views. They undertook to do this work, and they did it loyally, even though every man of them felt that his country was not being fairly treated in the matter of government. Who is going to get up here and say that this Clause is necessary, because if Ireland gets Home Rule, the Irish soldiers will be less willing than they were to keep their pledge and to fight for this Empire as they did at the time of the Boer war. I myself, more than once, saw regiments of Irish soldiers leaving Ireland to go to South Africa, and they cheered for Home Rule. I myself at one period of my career held a commission
    238
    in an Irish regiment. Yes, and I say here one of the strongest political memories I have is, that at the time of training a General Election was on, and in the very town where the training was taking place, and where the election occurred, and when the poll resulted in the triumphant return of the Nationalist candidate, this regiment of 900 men strong burst into long and loud cheers for Home Rule, and raised their shakos on their guns and shook them in their triumphant joy. Those men are Home Rulers, make no mistake about it! And I say that no man ever stood at that box at the Treasury Bench and uttered a speech that was more true than did the Secretary of State for War when last night he declared that the effect of Home Rule would be so far from increasing disaffection to destroy disaffection, and to make the Irish people feel in Ireland that they are responsible for the government of their own country, and that it is incumbent on them to use with wisdom and discretion and power the authority which this Bill will confer upon them. I say that as the result of Home Rule that whatever lingering disaffection and disloyalty there may be in Ireland will entirely disappear.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin last night said that at the present time in Ireland the newspapers were discussing whether in the event of war between this country and Germany, Ireland would be best advised to take the side of Germany or of England. We on these benches are pretty familiar with the Press of Ireland, and, although I have inquired, I have not met a single one of my colleagues representing any portion of the country who is able to tell me of any responsible or reputable journal in Ireland which has ever published any such leading article as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that there is a sheet here and there which many of us have never seen, and is absolutely unrepresentative, which has been sent for very specific purposes to Members on this side of the House; but in reply to the Member for Trinity College I say that from North to South and from East to West in Ireland not a single newspaper of responsible position has published a leading article balancing whether Ireland would be upon the side of Germany or of England in case hostilities broke out. Let the truth be said upon this matter. The Irish people have never had any inherent hostility whatever to the people of

    239
    this country. Even in the times of darkest agitation, when every vestige of the Constitution was suspended, when scores of men freely elected by the Irish people were sent to prison without even the slightest mockery of a trial, when the Irish people were exasperated to the last degree, their enmity was always expressed to the form of government imposed upon them in their country, and they never expressed nor felt the slightest hostility against the masses of the population of Great Britain. It is against the form of government that the people have rebelled, and we believe that this Bill will have the effect of bringing contentment to Ireland, of putting an end once for all to the disaffection which has existed there.
    It is sometimes said that the Irish people in Ireland are misled and that their opinions are not truly voiced in this House. What, then, of the Irish national sentiment in every other part of the Empire? There is no coercion or pressure upon the Irish people in Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States, or anywhere else where the English language is spoken. There is freedom in those countries, and yet everywhere there is the most passionate and yearning desire upon the part of the Irish people to see this Bill passed. They do not hope through its passage to witness the commencement of new strife or the continuance of old strife. They believe that Home Rule will do for Ireland what it has done for every other portion of the British Empire, that it will make the people locally contented in exercising control over their own local affairs, and at the same time anxious to take part in the development. extension, and preservation of the Empire, which Irish Nationalist Catholics like myself have done quite as much to build up as citizens from any other portion of the realm. The Secretary of State for War need pay no attention whatever to gibes and sneers telling him that when he stands at that box he is afraid to speak the truth. He may be consoled by knowing that the speech he delivered last night has gone straight to the heart of the masses of the Irish people, and that in days to come when this Bill is in operation all men will wonder why it was not passed sooner. When the day arrives, when the Irish people and the British people are each independent in their own sphere, and yet bound together by the common unity of Empire, men will say, Why did it not come sooner? When
    240
    that day comes peace will reign from the centre to the utmost limits of the Empire, and the King will be able to go into-Dublin or to any other part of Ireland and receive from his Irish Parliament, his Irish Ministers, and his Irish people as strong, as warm, and as hearty a welcome as he would receive in any other part of the Empire.
    The Secretary of State for War may justly take credit to himself that speeches such as he delivered last night really do more to place the union of the Empire upon a firm and Liberal basis than all the taunts and sneers which are hurled at us at the present time, or all the references which are sometimes made in support of Clauses such as this to past moments of exasperation upon the part of the Irish people. After the Boer war the Dutch Minister came here and was heartily welcomed by the people. If hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway had had their way, instead of being presented with addresses of welcome, General Botha would have been presented, as we are to-day, with addresses containing long extracts from those bitter and violent speches which he made before and during the war when he was a stronger, more bitter, and more powerful enemy of England than the Irish people have been at any time. The speeches and declarations which are quoted against the Irish people to-day were made in moments of despair. Today, as the Member for Donegal truly said, there is born a new spirit in Ireland. The people there are watching the progress of this Bill, and noting the steady action of the mass of representatives of England, Scotland, and Wales in its support. They are keenly alive to what has been going on. They appreciate the action of Members who desire to give freedom to Ireland in a legitimate way. The time will come when the result of this great policy will be seen, not only in the contentment and the increasing prosperity of Ireland, but for the first time in its history in the absolute unity of the Empire. Hon. Members talk about the increase of armaments and the enlargement of our fleet. The greatest guarantee that England can have for her success and stability is the turning of the soldier-like Irish race, for the first time in their history, into the friends and not the disaffected subjects of the British Empire.
    Mr. GRETTON: I fail to understand the relevance of the arguments in favour of

    241
    Home Rule which have been addressed to the House at such great length by the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond). This new Clause presupposes that the Home Rule Bill will pass, and it deals with that situation alone. It proposes that the Government should keep in reserve certain powers to be used in case of war or national emergency. The Clause does not make it necessary that those powers should be used unless the conditions of war or emergency are such as to make that course essential for national safety. The Government have themselves recognised that powers must be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. All matters relating to the Army and Navy and to various subjects appertaining thereto are, under the Bill, retained to the Imperial Government; but the Government have not kept in their hands any means by which they can exercise those powers in case it is necessary to use them. Without some such machinery as the Clause proposes the reserved powers in the Bill will be a dead letter and of no avail. The Postmaster-General said last night that to exercise any powers such as these would be to throw the whole of the proposed Home Rule Government into chaos. It seems to me that that argument is effectively met by the fact that the Government themselves propose in case of war to reassume their control of the Post Office. If it can be done in one case it can be done in another, and it ought to be done in all cases where the national safety is involved. There is one thing that this Clause docs not do. It does not profess to get rid of the inherent difficulty and weakness of a divided Government. It is quite useless in this case to talk of a wide-flung Empire with a decentralisation of power. The British Isles can never be a wide-flung Empire, and this Bill deals with the British Isles alone. For war we must deal with them as an entity. All the greatest strategists and statesmen both of this country and of those countries which in times past have been our enemies agree that Ireland is vital to the safety of the United Kingdom.
    What this Clause proposes is that in time of national emergency the central Government should reassume the powers necessary to maintain the safety of the nation—nothing else. There is no question of loyalty or disloyalty. The more loyal the Irish people are, the more anxious they are to protect the Empire, the more willing they will be that the central Government should take the
    242
    powers which the emergency requires. All this talk about loyalty and disloyalty is not necessarily relevant to this question, but of course disloyalty will magnify the difficulties and render this Clause even more imperative. If I were going to argue the matter I should refer to the present position. It is not a matter of loyalty or disloyalty, but the lately discussed question of the possible neutrality of Ireland in the event of war. The essence of war is to be ready and to be ready quickly. With a divided Government time will be lost; there will be delay in negotiation and arrangement. The Government were asked whether they had consulted the Committee of Defence on this question, and the Secretary of State for War said that that was not necessary as this was a political question. It is not a political question. It is a naval and military question, and no other. I would prefer that inquiry should be undertaken by the National Defence Committee. Has the Bill been laid before the Army Council, and have they been asked if they are satisfied that in every respect in case of war or national emergency the powers necessary to be exercised by them are reserved to them in the Bill, and machinery given to them to exercise those powers?
    We can, of course, do it under martial law! We were told that last night. But martial law is a suspension of constitutional government and the last resource in national emergency. We do not want the suspension of constitutional government. We want a constitutional way of taking the measures necessary for national safety. Has the Board of Admiralty been consulted? Have the Clauses referring to the naval and military powers of the Crown been laid before them, and has their opinion been taken? These are questions which should be answered. If they are not answered it shows there has been gross neglect and gross carelessness on the part of the Government in reference to national safety. I fail to see, as I believe every man who has given any real thought to this question must fail to see, the relevance of the Debate to which we have listened this afternoon. The Secretary of State for War is the culprit who led the Debate down upon these lines by making a gushing sentimental speech which did not deal with one fact of the situation which was relevant. He has misled Members, for his observations had no relevance to the business of his department on the question put to him.

    243
    The matter is one which vitally affects this country, and if it is not dealt with, we can only assume that the Government is grossly careless and neglectful; or that they are indifferent to the matter, because they believe that this Bill is a dead letter, and not meant to pass.
    Captain CRAIG: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate when it was concluded yesterday, nor until I took up the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and re-perused them this morning. I was very much struck with the concluding sentences of the Postmaster-General on this very important subject. May I, in passing, say that of course the technical point is one which has always and very largely been considered by the loyalist people of Ireland in any scheme of Home Rule. We have looked at it from the point of view of a state of war, and what attitude Ireland as a whole would adopt; what difficulties she might possibly place in the way of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore this particular point, that of placing every possible security in the hands of the central Government in the case of war or preparation for war has always been one of the most important points to which we have looked in this very wide question of Home Rule. I was astounded to hear the Secretary of State for War, this afternoon, say that where great men have written most important articles Admiral Mahan and many others have been mentioned on this particular point—the present Government do not think fit to consult their naval and military advisers as to what effect this Bill would have on the defence of the Kingdom and the Empire. I was astounded at the statement of the Secretary for War. It occurred to me that even in discussing the question as to where our troops are to be posted at the present time, all sorts of much less important questions are submitted to the Committee of Defence, even the change of a regiment from one place to another in Ireland at the present time is so considered. All these matters are most carefully considered by the naval and military advisers of the Crown.
    To say that this Bill is put forward from a political point of view and has never been submitted to the Board is an astounding statement, and one which I think really nobody in this House, and certainly nobody in the country, would have believed had it not been stated by the Secretary of State for War. To revert to the
    244
    concluding statement of the Postmaster-General, whom I am sorry to say is not in his place. On that statement hangs really the whole of the few remarks which I intend to address to the House. He said—
    "If you want security in time of war, in time of stress and danger, yon can only get it by giving liberty without which there can be no loyalty."
    He went on further to say:—
    "It is far better and safer in time of war and emergency to have by your side a friend that is free rather than an unwilling partner bound in chains."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 36th December, 1912, col. 169.]
    Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
    Captain CRAIG: Yes, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite will just listen for a moment. In what way are these people in Ireland, the Nationalist party in Ireland, bound in chains? The hon. Member cheered. It is exactly this sort of sentimental rubbish which is scattered in country places, and through our towns, where people have not got time really to follow the intricacies of questions of this sort. It is such ridiculous—I really cannot find a name to explain in the House what I think of this kind of speech. In this House the Members are supposed to have really studied this important question of Home Rule in all its bearings. I cannot see how they can get up and cheer to the echo sentiments of the sort, that without liberty there can be no loyalty. In other words the Postmaster-General, and I presume his colleagues, intend to convey the idea that in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, the Isle of Wight, and other parts, there is no liberty, and the people there are really in chains, until such times as a benevolent Government like the present comes along and severs these desperate bonds which are weighing down and cruelly ill-using hon. Members below the Gangway and their followers; until that time it is impossible really to look after the proper safety of the United Kingdom. Really it is too bad, that we should be treated to this class of argument by the Postmaster-General. It is on all fours with the class of argument used on the Front Bench, not alone in this House but in the country, on this Home Rule measure. False grounds were put forward and false promises were dished up in a manner to suit the palate, and they were sent forth as the grounds upon which this Bill was to be rushed through the House of Commons.
    Let us for a moment come back to the new Clause as it was started by my hon. Friend and supported on this side of the House. In the first instance there is not a single Member who does not remember

    245
    that all questions of disloyalty have been passed over as being outside the scope of this Amendment. The hon. Member who spoke last from the Nationalist benches and who evidently broke loose—I see that the Leader has now come in rather late—let us have that very interesting Second Reading speech. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not often get a chance of putting their case before the House. They are kept muzzled; but the hon. Gentleman advanced either intentionally or unintentionally arguments which are in my opinion overpowering for the acceptance by the Government of this new Clause. Anyone who has had knowledge of the difficulties of the preparations for and the carrying out of a campaign on a large scale necessary for the defence of the country knows that there must be immediately to hand the machinery for putting the whole organisation into its highest fighting form at the earliest possible moment, and without a hitch. Take the Amendment. It says that—
    "the heads and officers of the Irish Departments shall comply with any directions given by His Majesty as regards Irish services."
    In other words, instead of having a dual control from the beginning, you have one united control under the free and full control of this House. That is to say, this House would be able to discuss the suggestions thrown out as to the preparations necessary to be made in Ireland in the event of a sudden raid by a foreign Power, which after all would be just as disastrous to Ireland as to England or Scotland. Therefore I cannot conceive why in a case of this sort the Nationalist party do not come forward and say, "In the case of a great and sudden descent upon Ireland we have no objection to the course proposed." Their new born loyalty, their affection for the Empire which they are now rolling out with so ready a tongue, surely should be sufficient to make them say, "Here is a chance, a heaven-born chance, and certainly we shall accept this Amendment, because we are now swallowing all that is passed; everything we said during the past five of six years is entirely wrong; we are very sorry for it. We see a chance now of death-bed repentance; to come forward and to ask the Government to accept this Amendment." This Amendment is vital to Ireland as well as to this country. I cannot see why the Government on the one hand and the Nationalist party on the other should not welcome the
    246
    Amendment—for remember it would only be put into operation when there is great danger to the whole country—why they should not accept an Amendment which permits the general, or field-marshal, or whoever it may be that takes command of the organisation of the whole of the forces throughout England, to have the power to immediately seize upon the officers at the head of the Departments of Ireland, and say to them, "Our policy is so-and-so, please carry it out." And further, in case any of the officers, through fear of their taskmasters in the new Nationalist Parliament, should stand out and decline, saying, "I am not going to risk my career under this Parliament by doing anything of the kind," that the military authority should have the power of immediate removal of such persons, and of putting someone in their place to carry out their work.
    There is plenty of precedents for this sort of action. At the present time, if boards of guardians or any board in Ireland do not carry out their work properly, what happens? The board in Dublin send down an inspector, and, if necessary, replace the board by an officer of their own. That is a common thing. The power is vested in Dublin of superseding any officer or county council or rural district council or board of guardians—at least, I understand that there are these powers—I do not say quite accurately what they are, but there is a power of taking the matters into the hands of the Executive. Surely in the case of emergency in the country it should be necessary for some such power as this to be in the hands of the central organisation, who are responsible in this country for the defence of the country, so that they might take the moderate steps suggested by my hon. Friend. Hon. Members and the hon. Member for Clare, who has just spoken, have made very impassioned speeches on the loyalty of the soldiers in Ireland. This Amendment does not in any way attack the loyalty of the Irish soldier, because the Bill docs reserve the Army and Navy to the control of the Imperial Executive in time of war, and therefore that really does not arise at all. That was all window-dressing, for which I did not see any necessity at all. No one ever questioned the loyalty of the soldiers in Ireland; that is outside the scope of this Amendment, because the Amendment deals more with the Civil operations necessary in order to carry out the defences of

    247
    the country in times of national stress. It deals with the Civil side in dealing with food supplies, the removal of troops, questions of horses and remounts, and with the natural assistance that any locality can give in time of national emergency to secure the good working in time of war. It is to that that this Amendment is directed, and not in the slightest degree to the Army and Navy. Then, of course, we had a very interesting speech from an hon. Member, who I see is in his place. I do not quarrel with him at all, and, with the exception of a misquotation of something I said, I think his contribution to the Debate was very reasonable. What was his point? I want to deal with it, because he himself seemed to get rather astray in drawing an analogy between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. Over ant; over again we have this pet theory of appealing to the sentiment in New Zealand, in South Africa, and so on, but there is no possible analogy, not a shadow of analogy between the South African case and the case which this House is dealing with to-day. These Colonies are thousands of miles away; you cannot control them in time of war from the Central Executive here; you cannot dictate to people with whom you are not in daily contact; and not one of His Majesty's Ministers would dare to interfere if the Colonies desired to take up a certain course. They act on their own will and they make a suggestion, and if it is agreeable to them of course His Majesty's Government are prepared to incorporate it in the scheme of national defence necessary at the moment. How can you compare that position with that of Ireland, which is only twelve miles from this coast? It is easier to get from here to Ireland than it is to get to the North of Scotland. I can get home to my home in the North of Ireland sooner than some of the Scotch Members could get to their homes. It is a stupid idea to draw an analogy between Ireland and Natal or the Orange River Colony, or Australia or New Zealand. It is that false idea running through the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen unfortunately that gives rise to so much unnecessary discussion in this House because there is absolutely no analogy whatever, and I will tell the House why. If this Bill, which proposes to set up Home Rule in Ireland conferred upon Ireland all the powers that the Colonies enjoy, then
    248
    you would have to deal with Ireland as a Colony. The two things go hand in hand, but here you are reserving to yourselves under this Bill very large powers. You have the reserved services, showing by your own wording of the Bill that you consider it necessary, owing to the proximity of Ireland to run her land purchase scheme and so on, keeping a firm hand upon these particular matters, and also matters in relation to the Army and Navy, pointing clearly to the fact that you are treating her for this purpose as part of the United Kingdom. And if that is the case surely it is all the more necessary to take into consideration when you are reserving certain powers to yourselves, the very points which have been overlooked, but which are brought to your notice in this new Clause so that your whole machinery of defence in time of war may not break down. I ask the House to look at the matter from that sensible point of view, and not from the point of view of any Colonial analogy which does not exist, but rather from the point of view which must present itself to every hon. Member of this House.
    This Clause is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary, but it is an optional Clause—that is to say, it shall be lawful that these things shall be done. There is no necessity to put the Clause into force if everything desired by the authorities is properly done. In the second instance, in my opinion, in time of stress, it would be absolutely necessary to take into your hands at once the very powers embodied in this Claus\e; the only difference is that you have not got the powers under the Bill as it stands. This Clause gives you the power, and it would be useful perhaps in times of emergency to put it into force. Why the Nationalist party should object to this Clause I cannot understand, except perhaps, as I conscientiously believe, they are unrepentant so far as their former declarations and speeches are concerned, and that they do not for one moment intend this Bill to be a final settlement of the Irish question; but, on the contrary, to use a famous expression of theirs in the immediate past, it is only to be a stepping stone for further enlarging the powers of Ireland, a nation, or, as one of their recent publications said, a Republic free of Saxon rule. Hon. Members have challenged us and said we were only quoting in support of these charges of intentional and deliberate disloyalty from old speeches, that we are only raking up some ancient speeches made when it was

    249
    necessary to fill the hat when hon. Members were begging in Australia or when they were trying to cheer up the hearts of their followers in Ireland. That was not the case at all. I have in my hand here a speech delivered since this Government was returned to power, as they say with a mandate for this Home Rule Bill, and surely if peace and goodwill are to be established so far as the defences of the country are concerned, surely this Clause would not be resisted, but should be supported by the Nationalist party as a whole. I will read three short extracts to show what the feeling of the Nationalist party is and to show what the Government are bound to provide for and to guard against if they do not wish in the future to run the risks and the dangers which this country had to face in the past. Here is a speech delivered by Major McBride, a great Nationalist leader, who fought in the Boer war.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: He has nothing to do with the Nationalist party.
    Captain CRAIG: It is very handy to disown your friends now.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Major McBride was never a supporter of the Nationalist party or of the Home Rule movement. He has from the very commencement up to this day been an open opponent of it.
    Captain CRAIG: The strongest Nationalist body in Ireland is the Dublin Corporation, and they gave him a place because, I presume, they had not got a place in Parliament for him. At any rate, what I say is this, that this class of man has a large following in Ireland, and it is not fair for hon. Members to get up and say, "Oh, So-and-so is outside our pale." These men in the public life of Ireland represent a large section, and in their speeches and sentiments they voice the opinion of a large section in Ireland, and here is what this gentleman said, and I read these words in order to show the class of people you have to provide against. He said:—
    "England was not his country; the English King; was not his King. He owed no allegiance to England, and he indignantly repudiated the idea of an Englishman posing as censor of his words and acts in Ireland. The English King would undoubtedly receive a reception from his garrison and from the men who still believed they had a country to sell, but the manhood of Ireland would take no part in that reception."
    And continuing he said:—
    "Four distinguished statesmen would also visit their country during the coming summer, and he hoped the
    250
    Press of the world would take note and emphasise the machined reception that would be given to the King of England and the splendid reception that would be extended to the four elected rulers of the four youngest nations of the world. The sword had fallen from their hands at present, but they hoped to take it up again and fight for Ireland, and they would not. stop until they had swept away every vestige of that Empire of Hell. There were ways and means of striking against England, and they should strike how they might against the Throne, the cursed British Empire, and for the freedom of Ireland."
    I only quote that because it is dragged from me by speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway. It is no use whatever for them to come down to this House at the eleventh hour and profess their sentiments of loyalty. We know what they have said, all of them. They put up this afternoon one of the tamest cats in their ranks to pose as a loyalist and to give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of quoting in the country from the OFFICIAL REPORTS, which always carry great weight in the country with audiences, this loyal patriotic speech made by one of the leaders of the Nationalist party, but that speech of the hon. Member will not for a moment I think stamp the whole Nationalist party as recruits to the loyalist ranks, as he would have the House believe they are. I have here a choice extract from the hon. Member for East Clare from a speech made in 1902, which was only ten years ago. The hon. Member said:—
    "I take the Opportunity of admitting in this House that I am intensely disloyal, and the Chief Secretary knows that in making that admission I am giving the best and most adequate expression I ear, give to the sentiments of more than three-fourths of the Irish nation."
    6.0 P.M.
    So there we have the hon. Member stating that three-fourths of the Nationalists in Ireland are absolutely disloyal to the Empire and to this country, while hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite come down and in the suave tones of the Secretary of State for War make speeches of which he and his colleagues ought to be thoroughly ashamed. The right hon. Gentleman, fresh from his honours in the South African war, came and spoke for an hon. Friend of mine in my own Division, and now he turns round and made the speech he did last night. I have looked up his very words, which I intend to use when I go down to his Constituency, and he then said the very same things that I am saying here now. That sudden sort of onversion certainly is not from a military point of view, and I refuse to believe that the refusal of an important Clause like this, based on argument out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself, is not a proper spirit in which to approach this

    251
    question. Let me quote the leaders of the Nationalist party. Speaking in 1907 in Dublin—I am not quoting from one of those rags which the hon. Member for Clare said were sent specially for the consumption of hon. Members on this side, but from the pet journal of the hon. Member, the "Freeman's Journal "—he said:—
    "It was an admitted fact that the overwhelming majority of the Irish people are disaffected and disloyal to English rule."
    There is not one of the old stalwarts of the Home Rule Brigade who will deny these facts, and that shows that the spirit of opposition and hatred towards this country has not been appeased or ameliorated by the sort of Bills which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. If you go on with your measure, you should at all events put all these military and naval safeguards, and all that appertains to them, outside the scope of the political part of the Bill, so that, whether we are right or you are, at all events you will have the power at any time to use the machinery proposed in this Clause for the safety of this country as a whole. Surely that is not asking too much, considering the gravity of forcing this Bill through in such a hurry when there will be no time to amend the other parts of the Bill. Besides all these very serious statements made by the leaders of Nationalist opinion, both inside and outside the House of Commons, you can pick up any day in the streets in many towns in Ireland the most disloyal literature which is being scattered about to prevent people from joining the Army and the Navy. I will only read one out of a hundred I have in my possession, in order to show hon. Members that I am not picturing anything at all in the way of exaggeration, because this is the everyday life of the people, and what they are educated to by hon. Members below the Gangway. This is the kind of thing you are deliberately encouraging in your Bill. Here is the last of these famous circulars picked up in Wexford. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is responsible for it?"] I can only say that somebody is responsible for it, but do not let the House misunderstand me. I do not wish to accuse any Member of the Nationalist party in this respect, but month after month I have asked questions in this House upon this important matter, and I only refrained from asking more questions at the special request of the present Lord Chancellor when he was Secretary of State for War, because he said that such questions only
    252
    emphasised a matter which it is much better to allow to pass over, because it would eventually die down, and he said that I was just as keen as he was not to do anything which would interefere with recruiting in Ireland. Of course, I agreed with him, and over and over again these circulars which have been circulated in small towns and villages in Ireland have been sent to me, and I have sent them back to those who forwarded them, stating that I thought in the interests of the Service it would be better not to make much of them, and not ask questions about them. But that does not affect the fact that there they are, and they are being posted up by those who have the same horror of serving His Majesty either Imperially in the Army or Navy or locally in the police force, and they are doing all they can to stop recruiting for those services in Ireland. This circular which I will quote is typical of the rest:—
    "On the 27th of May. 1798. the men of Wexford arose to free their native land. The cause that called them will call you to-morrow. Another tight for the green again. The time is drawing near when we, their descendants, will be called upon to do the same. England is certain to be involved in a big war in the near future with Germany, and so it is necessary for each and every one of us to be ready for that time and to break away from England. Irishmen awake I Arm at once. Delays are dangerous. The dawn of invasion is at hand. rove yourselves worthy descendants of the men of '98."
    [Laughter.] I have only given that one typical case and hon. Members will observe that it is met with hilarity upon all sides. Let me point out the effect that laughter and that jeering and supercilious way of treating a serious matter will have in Ireland. The papers will record, "Loud ironical cheers from the House of Commons." When I read such a statement as that practically the whole of the House of Commons, or at any rate the Radical party and His Majesty's Ministers, all laugh at my statement. And so it goes from bad to worse, and that very spirit of disloyalty which we deprecate and try out best to counterbalance in Ireland is fostered. For years and years we have done our best to-check this spirit of disloyalty, and when we bring these matters before the House of Commons, instead of being met with condemnation, they are met with the jeering laughter of those who are careless as to what happens to Ireland. I do not wish to go any further into this matter beyond saying that it is only one instance" trating the false promises on which a great many hon. Members of this House build their bright hopes for the future of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill. I think all this

    253
    shows the importance of having a workable scheme when three-fourths of Ireland are intensely disloyal to the United Kingdom and the Empire, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for Clare have already stated in public.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: No.
    Captain CRAIG: Everything they say outside the House they are quite ready to deny here, and that is what I cannot understand. There are hon. Members below the Gangway who have represented the separatist views for many years. I have here the most sordid stories of the treatment of the Union Jack, which I shall not quote because they will only be met with jeers which show that hon. Members opposite are just as disloyal as the Nationalists, and I shall not trouble the House with any more of them. I have already given hon. Members a sample, and they can be repeated by the thousand if anyone cares to inquire into the matter. I say that there is not a single hon. Member below the Gangway who will dare to get up and make the speeches which hon. Members opposite make for them. The Secretary of State for War made a speech last night in which he said this Bill was going to bring fraternity and good feeling, and make all Nationalist the best of friends to this country in the future. Nevertheless, we find the Nationalist Members absolutely unrelenting, and they have no more intention of stopping here than the Government have of stopping here if they were still pressed further by the Nationalists. Not a bit of it, and not one of them will deny it. I dare any Nationalist Member to rise in his place and say that this Bill is a final settlement of the Irish question.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: We have said it.
    Captain CRAIG: Such statements as we have heard are mere bosh, intended for consumption in this country. The whole story is too sordid for words, and too desperate if it were not so serious. I suppose this Amendment will be dealt with on the same lines as any other proposal which has any real vitality in it, and means anything, and it will be thrown over by the Government. Consequently you will leave yourselves and the country in the unsatisfactory state of knowing that unless the sanguine views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite are realised in the future, you may have this country involved in real and grave perils.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I wish to raise my protest against the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. What right has he to talk about the disloyalty of hon. Members on this side of the House? Disloyalty can only mean disloyalty to the Throne. I remember the same kind of speech was made by hon. Members opposite when they were sitting on these benches, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), at the time of the Boer war. We were called traitors, because at that time a certain number of us took views which to-day, owing to the policy which has now been adopted, have made South Africa not only a prosperous but a contented country under the Crown. Hon. Members on this side of the House, or at all events I myself, feel very bitterly these charges of disloyalty and these imputations against our good faith. Coining into this House as an anti-Home Ruler, I became convinced after being here only five years that the only solution of the Irish difficulty was Home Rule, and I am still as convinced of that as ever after the speeches which have been made on the other side of the House I believe Home Rule will work peacefully in Ireland and that you will have these causes of discontent removed, making Ireland a loyal portion of the Empire. I utter my protest against the speeches of hon. Members on that side of the House who seem to think they have a monopoly of all honour and of all loyalty to the Crown. It has been the privilege of hon. Members to go about the country for years past declaiming against the disloyalty of hon. Members on this side of the House. I say the very tone of the speech of the hon. and learned Member—
    Captain CRAIG: If the hon. Member and his party associate and identify themselves with disloyal people, surely we are entitled to call them disloyal too.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should have thought if the hon. and gallant Member had any understanding he would have known if you remove the cause that creates the discontent you get rid of the discontent. Are we to understand that if two people in this world have a grievance, and a very great grievance, they are not entitled to use the strongest language they think fit to get that grievance removed?
    Captain CRAIG: What is the grievance?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is at all events a grievance which the overwhelming majority of the Irish elected representatives come here to voice. The whole tone of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was that this disloyalty is going to remain in Ireland. He ignores the fact that this Bill is accepted by the Irish people. When he talks about finality, is he aware there is no finality in this life? Anyone knows that in any Parliamentary system, or any other system of government, there can be no finality in this world. Therefore, when the Irish people say they accept this measure, I am going to trust them. I have recorded my votes for that reason, and I honestly believe this measure will bring peace and prosperity to Ireland. The very same kind of speech was made on these benches six or seven years ago. We were told South Africa must be governed with a firm hand or we should lose that country. What would have happened if South Africa had been governed from Downing Street, and what is the position to-day?
    Earl WINTERTON: Wait and see.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then the Noble Lord says they are disloyal?
    Earl WINTERTON: I did not say anything of the sort. I said, "Wait and see."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There is no more loyal subject in the British Empire to-day than General Botha. You have removed in South Africa the cause of the discontent, and you are going to remove the cause in Ireland.
    Mr. G. D FABER: On a point of Order. What has General Botha to do with the proposed new Clause?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have been trying to persuade hon. Members to discuss the Clause now before the House, but they seem determined to discuss anything rather than the Clause.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I apologise for rising without having prepared a speech, and for having occupied more time than I intended. All I got up to do was to protest against the tone of the hon. and gallant Member's speech and against his statement that we on this side of the House are disloyal because we ironically cheered the statements he made and which we treat with the utmost contempt.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the
    256
    House when at an earlier period of the afternoon you, Sir, called attention to the irrelevance of some of the speeches that were made and directed the House to devote its attention to the Clause which is actually before us. I hope in the few observations I have to make I shall not give any cause to be censured by you. They will be confined to the subject which we are supposed to be discussing. My hon. Friend, in a remarkable speech last evening, moved a Clause the object of which was to secure civil control in Ireland to the Government of the United Kingdom in case of war or emergency if the circumstances were such as in the opinion of the advisers of His Majesty as to call for special steps to be taken in that direction. What is the answer that is made from the other side of the House to that demand? So far as any answer has been attempted, I think it is twofold. The first is an answer of detail. The Postmaster-General said in regard to a particular illustration put by my hon. Friend, namely, the use of the railways, that the Imperial Government would be sufficiently protected by the use of the Railway Act of 1871 and the Defence Act of 1888. A question was raised by one of my hon. Friends which is of prime importance in regard to that, and no answer has yet been given to it. I am not sufficiently a lawyer to venture a confident opinion on the subject myself, and I therefore only repeat the question to the Government: Are those Acts beyond the competence of the Irish Parliament to vary, repeal, or amend? Unless they are beyond the competence of the Irish Parliament to attack or to alter at all, of course they are no security under this Bill. It is only if the Irish Parliament is unable, I will not say to alter any part of these Acts, but any part of those Acts which is material to this particular subject, that they would be of any use. I hope from the Attorney-General or from some Member of the Government we may have an explicit answer to the question put by my hon. Friend and which I have ventured to repeat.
    The other argument is one used by the Postmaster-General, repeated in shorter terms by the Secretary of State for War, and accepted and repeated, I think, by every other hon. Gentleman who has addressed the House from that side. It is that by the passage of this Home Rule Bill an entirely new state of feeling will be created in Ireland in which it will be the desire of whatever Irish Government

    257
    is in existence at any time of national trouble or danger to co-operate wholeheartedly and strenuously with the Imperial authority. I am not going to elaborate the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, because I do not think that is material to the issue. Of course, if you cannot have perfect faith in the Irish Government, the case is very much stronger, and I admit that to assume this perfect confidence in a future Irish Government in view of past declarations which are familiar to any of us who have followed Irish history, and in view of almost the present declarations of those who are not acting under the immediate restraint which hon. Gentlemen for reasons of policy impose upon themselves in this House, and to trust to receiving at all times and under all circumstances that whole-hearted co-operation from the Nationalist Government in Ireland does seem to me to partake too largely of credulous optimism to be good statesmanship. To say that if you pass this Bill then by law the leopard will change his spots and the Ethiopian his skin, and to believe that every man who hitherto has denounced the British connection, every man who has said that England's difficulty would be Ireland's opportunity, and every man who has cheered, echoed and applauded the statement that no man has the right to set a limit to a nation, and that, therefore, no Bill is final, or their successors can be counted upon to give you this whole-hearted co-operation in your time of difficulty because a Bill of this kind is wrung from your necessity, appears to me, I say, an impossible basis for statesmanship to rest upon.
    I do not want to dwell upon that because you may say that is the argument with which you justify the Second Reading of the Bill, and that I should be doing (that which I expressly desire not to do, arguing the question of the Second Reading rather than the question of this new Clause. Let me put that argument altogether on one side, not because I do not think it is a sound one, but because I believe if you do put it on one side the case for this new Clause is not touched, and still remains an unanswered one, and, as I think, an unanswerable one. Assume all goodwill on the part of the Irish Parliament and assume all goodwill on the part of the Irish Ministers, are you weaker or stronger for purposes of war by having divided authority instead of united authority? That is the real question. My
    258
    hon. Friend who moved the Amendment called attention to what I think everyone will admit to be an obvious truth, that for the immediate purposes of war, for the purposes of preparation in anticipation of the possible outbreak of war, and for the purpose of taking those steps which are necessary for defence, rapid and successful a democratic country like ours where everything or almost everything has to be done in public, where we are extremely jealous of our liberties and of any infringement on them under any pretence whatever, is necessarily handicapped as compared with a more autocratic or more absolute power. That is not a reason for changing our system of government or for abandoning our democratic principles, but I say it is one of the difficulties with which democratic Governments have to contend in these matters, and it makes it the more important we should not multiply our difficulties. We are handicapped already; do not let us needlessly handicap ourselves further.
    I quite agree it is of the first importance to a Government which feels bound to call upon its countrymen for great sacrifices on behalf of national defence to carry the goodwill of all its people with it, but it is of little less importance that it should be able to act swiftly, effectively, and secretly, if secrecy is needed, and when you have authority vested in two bodies instead of one, and when you have two Executives to consult instead of one you are so much the weaker. You are so much slower; your powers of secrecy are very much more limited. Put aside altogether the question of loyalty or disloyalty, put aside the question of willingness to co-operate or otherwise, the case for the Amendment is that, with the best will in the world, the establishment of two independent authorities weakens you for the purpose of defence in case of war. One single authority in that event could, if it liked, stretch out its hand to any part of the United Kingdom, and could give its directions and see that they were carried out in whatever part of the United Kingdom might be necessary. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) in his speech earlier in the evening made references to Roman history, and quoted certain authorities. I venture to say there are even greater authorities than Gibbon or Finlay, which the hon. Member might consult if he wants to arrive at an accurate view of the later stages of the Roman Empire—as to whether indeed the Roman Empire in its

    259
    flourishing days did accord to the provinces the autonomy to which the hon. Member suggests the Roman Empire owed its strength. But the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the Colonial analogy. He said, do you propose to apply your Amendment to Canada, Australia, or South Africa? Of course we do not. We are not discussing that point now.
    Mr. PR1NGLE: I do not think I asked that question.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps it was an interruption by another hon. Member. But he undoubtedly used the Colonial analogy. He pointed to Canada and South Africa, and said you did not apply an Amendment of this kind in those cases, and he further asked why in such a case should it apply to the case of Ireland? Let me, in the first instance, suggest that the object of everybody interested in Imperial defence, whether in the case of the Dominions or at home, is to find some authority to co-ordinate the activities of our military and naval forces in all parts of the Empire. There our great difficulty in Imperial defence is that at present we have not the machinery which would enable us to co-ordinate those forces. The speeches and proposals of Canadian Ministers show how they feel this lack. A Canadian representative, and, indeed, we hope representatives of the other Dominions, is to be admitted to our Defence Committee as a first step towards the creation of a common authority for matters of defence. Let me examine the Colonial analogy a little further. Surely it does not exist as between the Dominions and Ireland, but as between the different provinces of the Dominions and Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are accustomed to say that what has brought South Africa together is the grant of self-government. But what did bring it together was the pressure of outside forces—the problem of defence, and that had a great effect on the Union of Australia also. In both cases the central authority could in war act directly and swiftly everywhere. It would be possible to frame a scheme of defence for Great Britain and Ireland which did not include Canada, South Africa, or Australia. We could not, however, frame a scheme of defence for Great Britain which did not include Ireland. Assuming therefore the best will in the world on the part of the Irish Parliament, it is necessary to make
    260
    it clear it is within the power of the Imperial Parliament to act in an emergency. If the defence is that under the Bill the Parliament at Westminster retains concurrent power of legislation, and can therefore in any emergency acquire the powers they do not now take under the Bill, the reply is that it would be better to put the powers in the Bill than to await until the emergency arises and time is precious.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think I should perhaps be more precise if I say that this greater part of the time occupied by the Debate has been devoted to subjects irrelevant to the precise nature of this Amendment. I certainly do not make this observation in any way as applicable to the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. What we have to look at is the Clause providing that the power of the Executive shall be suspended in the case of war. The right hon. Gentleman has said, and to a large extent I agree with him, that this Amendment depends upon the fact that in time of national emergency it will have to deal with naval and military matters and the giving of precedence for transport over the railways-I quite appreciate that there is importance to be attached to the point, and that it is-susceptible of a very definite and clear answer. Right is given in time of national emergency to secure the power of transport over railways. This right to take precedence over the railways in time of national emergency is given by the Regulation of Railways Act,. 1878, and by the Defence Act of 1888, which give power of precedence for naval and military traffic. There is no doubt whatever about it that this power, given as it is under these two Statutes to the United Kingdom, is not taken away or in any way affected by this Government of Ireland Bill which we are now discussing. These are matters which are expressly excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament under Clause 2, paragraph (3). It is perfectly plainly laid down that these questions of naval and military matters are excluded' from the operation of the Irish Parliament. Therefore you have your Imperial' Statute, which lays it down that in time of national emergency, in time of war, in matters relating to naval and military traffic, there shall be precedence for transport of naval and military stores,

    261
    that will operate just as much in Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does it not take over the control of the existing railway staffs as well?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have not the words before me but I have some recollection of having to deal with one of these Statutes during the time I have held office. Section 16 of the Act of 1871 says:
    "The directors, officers and servants of any such railroad shall obey the directions of the Secretary of State as to the user of such railroad or plant as aforesaid for His Majesty's service."
    That makes it perfectly plain; it is as complete as anybody could desire and should properly desire, in my opinion, that in the case of a national emergency there should be this power not only to take over the railway, but also to take over the servants. Practically what it comes to is that power is given to use the railway as if it were the property and completely under the control of the Imperial Government. That, I think, gives an answer to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that he will consider it a satisfactory answer.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Irish Parliament has no power to vary those provisions?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: None whatever. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with some other matters, most of which were, I think, dealt with by the Postmaster-General yesterday evening, but I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present then.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have read his speech.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My right hon. Friend pointed out how the Executive in Ireland would be limited by the Bill to dealing with such matters as were entirely outside the question we are now discussing, except with relation to railways. The Executive can only deal with the Irish services. Those services are regulated by the Act of Parliament, and they are limited very strictly. All naval and military matters are excluded from their direction or operations in any way, both as regards legislation and as regards the power of the Executive.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What about the police?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The police stand on a different footing. For six years they stand in a different category. After the six years it will be a question for the Irish Parliament to determine as to what shall be done with the police, and how that force shall be carried on. It is perfectly plain as regards the Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other Naval or Military force for the defence of the United Kingdom, or as regards any naval or military matter, that the Irish Executive have no power, and that the Irish Parliament have no power to legislate. I think I have answered all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Bill without in any way travelling outside what seemed to me to be the very narrow limits of this Amendment. There is only one other observation I desire to make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He has criticised some of the observations made in reference to our self-governing Dominions from this side of the House, and also, I think, from the Irish Nationalist party. With much that he said I am in agreement. I do not think anything has been said from the Front Bench on this side which would indicate that we view Ireland for this purpose as if it were a self-governing Dominion, or that we treated Ireland, which is twelve miles from here, as we treated Canada, which is some thousands of miles away. We have said—I know I have said it myself, and although I do not like referring to my own speeches I do so in order to make the matter clear—it is true that at times during the course of the Debates references have been made to the various Acts which confer Constitutions on our self-governing Dominions, but it has never been for the purpose of drawing an analogy. We do not suggest that there is any exact precedent for the particular powers we are giving to the Irish Parliament under this Bill. You have a totally different set of circumstances to deal with. It was only occasionally, when we were dealing with some specific Clause where a challenge has been made in the course of Debate, quite naturally, "Is there any precedent for such a Clause as this?" that we have referred at times to the various Constitutions that have been conferred by Act of Parliament, or, in some cases, by Letters Patent, and arguments were adduced on each side both for and against the particular provision under discussion.

    263
    It is a total error to conceive that we have founded this Bill in any way on any precise analogy to the self-governing Dominions. I desire to make that clear. I do not think there can be any doubt about it after the Debates which have taken place, although, perhaps, in the earlier stages, there was some misunderstanding in regard to it. In this connection, as reference has been made to it, it is worthy of observation that in this Bill with which we are dealing, and in reference to this particular Amendment dealing specifically with national defence or a time of national emergency, we have reserved far greater powers than under any Act of Parliament which has been passed conferring self-Government on any of our Dominions beyond the seas. Naturally that has to be done in view of the geographical proximity of Ireland to this country, and the relations in which we must naturally stand to Ireland in time of war. I submit to the House that we have taken every protection which can legitimately be asked for to safeguard this country, and, of course, also to safeguard Ireland, for if there is any great war in which this country should unhappily be involved Ireland will be in just as much peril as this country, and Ireland will just as much have to shoulder the rifle as we should. Bearing that in mind, it is to Ireland's interest just as much as it is to the interest of Great Britain that there should be proper protection. We think we have taken under this Bill every protection that is really needed. Bearing that in mind, and giving full effect to the particular provisions of this Bill, we think we must add the further consideration, which must never be lost sight of, that you will get a better co-operation for the purposes of your common defence from your friends in Ireland than you are likely to get from those who think, at any rate, that they have grievances, and that therefore they ought to be disloyal to the British rule.
    Mr. MOORE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken will pardon me if I do not follow him into a great many of the topics with which he has dealt. I want to put what occurs to me in this way: This is an enabling Clause, with powers in it. When you come to decide, as the House will have to decide, whether it is necessary or not, the most important element to consider will be the conditions of the place in which
    264
    it is to operate. If we are convinced that the majority of the population will be hostile to measures which are taken for the defence of the United Kingdom or of the Empire, that makes a very material difference indeed as to the necessity of adopting it or not. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Down (Captain Craig), when he read out literature circulated here and in Ireland proving that there would be a danger of that hostility from the population, was received with jeers and laughter from the other side. Hon. Members opposite want to live in a fool's paradise; they want to say that everything is going to be all right; that we are going to have a loyal population in Ireland who will entirely facilitate and assist us in time of emergency or of war. I wish to give one instance in my own knowledge. This is a topic on which Irish Members may be of use to the House, because they can state what is going on in their own country. I challenge contradiction of the facts I am going to put forward for the consideration of those Members who laughed when rebel literature was read out. There are the Victoria Barracks in Belfast. The cemetery is about a mile and a-half from the barracks. To this day, under an Order sanctioned by the War Office, which has been in operation since the year 1907, if an unfortunate soldier has to be brought for burial from the Victoria Barracks in Belfast to his nearest resting place in the cemetery, you cannot bring the corpse the direct route of a mile and a-half, because it would be covered by the Union Jack, and because it would be escorted by his comrades in the King's uniform. You have to trail it round three miles before you can lay that man under the sod. Why? Because there intervenes the Nationalist quarters, and Nationalists would consider it a disgrace if a soldier's funeral should pass through their midst. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] You need not say "Oh." There is the Secretary for War, who had to admit it in answer to a question on the floor of this House on the 7th August last, that it is done under an Order issued by the General commanding the district in 1907, which the right hon. Gentleman admitted in this House was in force to this day. That is the love of the population and their desire to assist the British Army. They are carrying on a vendetta against the dead. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is worthy of Moore."] It is worthy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, if the answer the War Secretary gave me is true. It is no

    265
    pleasure to me to bring these things up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think it is a disgrace to you. That is the dead! How about the living?
    That quarter is put out of bounds for every soldier who comes to Belfast. You get English or Scottish regiments coming in, who are strangers to the town, and a poor young Englishman or Scotchman, not knowing the city, perhaps, gets into this quarter. What happens to him? He is beaten and assaulted because he wears the King's uniform. Yet the Secretary for War will get up in this House and bleat of the
    assistance and support that the British Army will get in their defensive measures from the population composed of his Nationalist friends in Ireland. I say the facts give him the lie, and his own answer gives him the lie. While things like this are carried on under orders issued with the approval of his Office, he has no right to get up and mislead the House by statements as to the halcyon days that are to come.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes,288.

    Division No. 473.]

    AYES.

    [7.0 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Moore, William

    Astor, Waldorf

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nield, Herbert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gretton, John

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bird, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Blair, Reginald

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Butcher, John George

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cassel, Felix

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chambers, James

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Croft, H. P.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Winterton, Earl

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    M'Mordie, Robert James

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Burn and Mr. Wheler.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Malcolm, Ian

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Adamson, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Barnes, G. N.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Barton, William

    Alden, Percy

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bentham, G. J.

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

    O'Brien, William (Ccrk)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Boland, John Plus

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hazleton, Richard

    O Dowd, John

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O Grady, James

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

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

    Brace, William

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Chappie, Or. William Allen

    Hudson, Walter

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Power, Fatrick Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Radford, G. H.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Reddy, M.

    Crean, Eugene

    Jowett, F. W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crooks, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cullinan, John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richards, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) -

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dawes, J. A.

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dillon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Robinson, Sidney

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Doris, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Maclean, Donald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esslemont, George Birnle

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

    ScanIan, Thomas

    Falconer, James

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Firench, Peter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Field, William

    M'Kean, John

    Shortt, Edward

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrcok

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Furness, Stephen

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Snowden, Philip

    George, Rt. Hon, D. Lloyd

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gilhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sutton, John E.

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tennant, Harold John

    Glanville, H. J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Thomas, J. H.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mciteno, Percy Alport

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Morison, Hector

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Morton, Alphcus Cleophas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Guiney, Patrick

    Muldcon, John

    Wadsworth, J.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Hackett, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nannettl, Joseph P.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Neilson, Francis

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Waring, Walter

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    268

    269

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wintrey, Richard

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Webb, H.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Illingworth and Mr.Gulland

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of Bounties on. Production.)
    The Irish Parliament shall not directly or indirectly grant or authorise the grant of any bounty on the production of any article.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The purpose and effect of the Clause is to include bounties "within the prohibited legislative area. This is practically the first opportunity for discussing this very important question, and nothing could be more condemnatory of the whole operation of the guillotine than the fact that after forty-one days of Debate this practically should be the only opportunity for raising such a very important question. This Clause is essential and supplementary to what has been described as the leading principle of the financial provisions of the Bill. The Government have claimed that the Bill affords adequate safeguards to British industries by preventing the Irish Parliament from giving fiscal advantages to Irish interests. The very fact that the Government find it necessary to import these elaborate safeguards is an acknowledgment of the whole attitude and the position of those who favour Tariff Reform. It cannot be pretended for a moment that those safeguards are introduced for the purpose of assisting Ireland, because if that were the case it would be far more proper that they should be referred to the popularly elected Parliament that is to be sot up. These safeguards are introduced for the sole purpose of safeguarding English industries against any financial arrangement which may be introduced by the Irish Parliament. Indeed, the first principle of the Financial Clauses is that under no conceivable circumstances should the element of Protection be introduced by which English industries could be jeopardised. Again and again the Government have introduced Amendments to meet criticisms which have been made in regard to this question. It was pointed out that different opinions may exist at different times and by different authorities with regard to what constitutes a reasonable difference between Customs and corresponding Excise Duties. The Govern-
    270
    ment realised the difficulty and have met it by an Amendment which leaves it to the Exchequer Board to fix the basis. A further loophole was pointed out in the power to vary what has since become known as correlated duties, by varying these duties independently of each other. In other words, it would have been quite possible as the Bill originally stood to enable the duties to be varied in respect of cigarettes as against tobacco, and to vary the duties in regard to sugar as against sugar products. Again the Government saw the difficulty. They did not wish to see the element of Protection introduced, and they introduced an Amendment which made it impossible to vary any element of any particular related group of duties without varying the whole. Lastly, there was a third source of Protection left open under the original provisions of the Bill by which drawbacks might be granted in excess of the duty charged on the constituents of products. The Government moved an Amendment which left it to the Exchequer Board to prevent any excessive drawbacks being given. I admit that all the cases to which I have alluded, and all the Protection which the Government has done its very utmost to prevent, or to render impossible, arise from the manipulation of tariffs, and I think I will have the House in agreement with me when I say that the Government is less concerned in the methods than in the results—less concerned with the manipulation of tariffs per se than with the effect of the operation of the manipulation of tariffs in so far as they may introduce a system of Protection. In fact, the Government realise that the trade of the United Kingdom is on so considerable a scale that, however desirable it might be to give protection to Irish industries, and however much Ireland might desire it, the fact that the trade of England might be jeopardised and interfered with, is the reason for the Government making these particular safeguards.
    Indeed the whole object and intention of the elaborate safeguards which they have introduced is to prevent this method of Protection, and it therefore seems to me necessary that we should inquire whether there are any other methods possible by which

    271
    fiscal advantages might be given by the Irish Parliament other than those of tariffs? It seems to me that there are two very important means of satisfying that end, the one being bounties on production, and the other monopolies. During the Debates in the Committee stage reference was made to the question of bounties, and the Postmaster-General, I think, appeared to contemplate that the only kind of bounty was that of Export Duty, for he immediately referred to Clause 2 and said that bounties on exports are prohibited by that Clause which prevents legislation dealing with any trade with any country outside of Ireland. The Postmaster-General seems to have been persuaded that these words did not carry the exact meaning, because I see he has an Amendment on the Paper now to give more precise effect to the criticism. He states in exact terms in the Amendment that bounties on exports are excluded from the purview and the authority of the Irish Parliament. What I wish to point out is that Export Duties are only one of an innumerable number of methods of introducing bounties in any particular system. Let me give one or two illustrations. There is the bounty system, by which direct payments are made on production. It would be quite possible under the Bill, as I understand it, to give, for instance, a bounty on the production of any particular article, to give a bounty on every pound of tobacco, to give a bounty or premium on the ton of beetroot, or, in the alternative, to give a bounty on any area under cultivation. That system seems to be perfectly possible.
    I acknowledge that all the products so created are subject to Excise Duty, and it might be contended that in so far as any premium reduces the Excise Duty it might be considered ultra vires. At the same time the very fact that you can give bounties not dependent on the quantities, that you can give bounties on industries or manufactures, is, I believe, a big element of Protection open to the Irish Parliament. I should like to point out also that there are forms different even from that. Quite apart from the premiums that are paid there are other forms of bounties. There is the bounty system by exemptions, which give relief from direct charges. In fact the whole principle, as I understand it, of bounties is not so much a question of direct payment as a question of competitive advantage. Whether you can reduce
    272
    the primary cost by premiums or other-means makes no difference, and it is quite as easy and as feasible in encouraging an industry to say to the party that you will relieve him of direct charges, or, in the case of a new industry which carries with it an element of speculation, that you will render the speculation less risky by introducing forms of guarantees. I admit that such protection involves the superficial objection that the cost is to come from the Irish Exchequer, already not too full? My reply is, that, in the first place bounty systems have been universally adopted among the nations—by large as well as small nations, and by rich as well as poor-nations—and they have never been deterred by the question of how the money is to be found. The moment they realised that it was essential or good for the country to establish a particular industry funds have been available. In fact, it has always been approved and accepted as a reproductive investment by which not only the Exchequer will eventually be benefited, but the country as well.
    The second point is that the Irish Parliament is not going to start with a depleted Exchequer. There will be an unappropriated surplus of £380,000 a year for a period of nine years, and after that £200,000, available for this or any other purpose. But in addition to that, great powers are still left to the Irish Parliament for effecting considerable economies. Great economies may be effected, for instance, in regard to old age pensions by taking over old age pensions in connection with the transferred services, and even supposing that a sum of only £100,000 was applied for that purpose, that might figure in the Irish Budget, and would be equivalent to £2,000,000 in the Imperial Budget. The third fallacy is that bounties are not necessarily always direct payments, but may be matters of exemption. Parties might be exempted from direct taxation or direct charges. In the case of Argentina, the whole beet industry was created and built up by the Government coming forward and saying that any person who wished to engage in the industry would be protected by a guarantee on the part of the Government of 5 per cent. for ten years on that article. The same country decided that it was desirable to develop and stimulate the wine-grape industry. They told those who wished to engage in that culture that if they would take it up they would be relieved for a number of

    273
    years of all land taxes. In other provinces the Government provided relief by giving premiums. In both cases the alternative system was regarded as equivalent to exemption from land taxes on the one side and direct payments on the other. This seems to me a very interesting commentary on the attitude of those who contemplate adding taxes on land values with the hope and idea of reducing the cost of production. In the case of Roumania and Servia a different system was adopted. There the Governments thought it desirable to start and establish manufactures. They were anxious to develop the textile industries, paper manufacture, and sugar making, and again the Government came forward and suggested that they would stimulate the industry by offering free sites for the factories, and saying to all those engaged in the manufactures that they should be relieved of all local rates for a number of years.
    I only give these illustrations to show how many methods and systems exist by which effective measures of protection might be given by means of bounties. I have endeavoured to give illustrations of three distinct and separate types of bounties. The first is that by which advantages are given to productions by manipulation of tariffs. In fact, as the House knows, one of the classic instances where drawbacks have been given in excess of the duties paid is the sugar industry, which has led to an enormous development of that industry among the countries of Europe to the lasting advantage of those countries and the everlasting injury of our West Indian Colonies. Germany has spent enormous sums for that particular purpose. It is perfectly true that this system has come to an end through the Sugar Convention, but the fact remains that, although the system no longer prevails, the countries were able to build up and establish the sugar industry, and in spite of the cessation of bounties they have to-day that valuable and remunerative industry. The second system is that of direct payments. I might give one or two illustrations. One applies to Ireland at once. There you have a tobacco-growing industry built up on a bounty system for which the present Government is responsible.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The late Government.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I think all the better of it in that case. That is only one instance. Innumerable examples of this
    274
    class of bounty are to be found in the reports presented to this House by the Foreign Office and specially collected by British diplomatic representatives abroad. Almost every country you can think of, whether Canada, the United States, France, Germany or Bulgaria, has incorporated in its protective system the principle of bounties on production. They take the form of direct or indirect payments on the production of silk, manure, sugar, paper, forestry industry, silver industry, fruit canning, iron and steel. These all come within the category of bounties given by these countries. A third class demands a sacrifice by the-Exchequer by means of exemptions in respect of taxes. You have got exemption from land taxes, and with regard to local taxation, and money is advanced by the Government on the starting of industries at a low rate of interest, or without interest in some cases, or there is the reduction or the remitting entirely of duties on the introduction of plant and machinery required for particular industries; and, lastly, there is the using of railways as a large means of giving bounties by rebates in respect of rates. All these different forms of bounties need only to be stated to show how extensive are the resources which are left to the Irish Parliament under this Bill for the purpose of developing new industries or stimulating existing ones.
    I say, frankly, that I am a Tariff Reformer and believe in a well-regulated system of Protection for stimulating old industries and developing new industries. Protection may be applied in the form of tariffs or of bounties. The Government have taken every means to-prevent tariffs being used by the Irish Parliament in order to give protection to their industries, but they have left open the question of bounties. I would like to guard myself against the suggestion that I am in any way opposed to the fullest development of Irish industries. I base my whole argument on the claim put forward by the Government as well as by Irish-Members that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom. An essential consequence of this Clause must be that, however desirable it may be to help Irish industries you shall do so only providing you do not in any way prejudice or interfere with British industries, because once that contingency arises you come back tattle system existing before the Union. You once more revive the animosities and

    275
    bitterness that arose in those days, and may give life to these reprisals which would produce all the disturbing influences that we believed had disappeared for ever. The Government, I believe, have adopted the same view in the whole attitude on tariffs. Indeed, there is no other explanation for their persistent desire to exclude Protection by means of tariffs under this Bill. Yet here is authority given in this Clause, which though perhaps not quite so effective is scarcely less effective, to pay bounties on production. That being the case, and as the Government have shown this desire to eliminate every form of Protection, I hope that in asking for a Second Beading for this Clause, I shall have their hearty support.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: It seems to me that the Amendment put down by the Government in Clause 2 merely touches the fringe of the question of bounties, because, after all, the serious question of new bounties has not been dealt with at all by the Government. The Postmaster-General seems to be under a misapprehension as to what bounties really are. On the 7th November he said in this House:—
    "A bounty is a Grant which is given for the purpose of export."
    My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, who was present, interjected the remark—
    "Not necessarily,"
    and the Postmaster-General replied:—
    "Certainly it is in the ordinary use of the term. A bounty is a Grant which is given to persons exporting goods to foreign countries."
    I think, if I may respectfully say so, that the Postmaster-General was playing with words on that occasion. I have looked up the word "bounty" in the Oxford Dictionary. It says:—
    "A bounty is a sum of money paid to merchants or manufacturers for the encouragement of some particular branch of industry."
    There is absolutely nothing in that definition, the latest definition, about the export of goods. It is perfectly clear that there is nothing, therefore, in the Bill to prevent bounties on internal production or Irish manufactures. Therefore I submit that this Clause is one of the most important of the new Clauses put on the Paper. As the Bill originally stood, there were a good many loopholes in the Customs and Excise provisions which would have admitted protective principles. These loopholes have now been partially filled up through the criticisms on this side of
    276
    the House; but what really is the use of considering these Excise and Customs Clauses and trying to find out whether there is any protective danger left in them, when, supposing that the existing Government Amendments were carried later on, there is still this toleration of internal bounties in the Bill? On 8th May the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham, said:—
    "The Irish Government will be able to make a Grant to a particular industry for the encouragement of that industry."
    Since then the Government seem somewhat to have shifted their position, because on the 20th of last month the Postmaster-General said, in the Debate in this House:—
    "If the Irish Parliament had not any power whatever to touch any Customs or Excise, they would still unless they were specially prohibited by a particular Clause, be at liberty to give a Grant to persons who did the pioneer work in establishing the industry of the cultivation of tobacco, for instance."
    Now note they have shifted their position, which had been power to give bounties on internal manufactures as a whole, and not merely in respect of pioneer work or infant industries. Who is going to decide in future what is an infant industry in Ireland? Presumably it will have to be left to the Irish Parliament. Therefore any class of goods may be selected and so treated as to deserve the name of an infant industry. For instance, the tobacco manufacture in Ireland is certainly not an infant industry.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps something I have said may have led the hon. Member on the wrong track. I did not desire to limit the illustration I gave to infant industries. I mentioned the infant industry of tobacco, for an example. Certainly the Irish Parliament would not be limited in giving Grants, if they so wished, to infant industries.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman certainly meant to emphasise the fact that it probably would be pioneer work or infant industries. Nobody can pretend that the Irish tobacco manufacture is an infant industry. Supposing that the Irish people in future chose to make tobacco articles like cigars, cigarettes, roll or twist or cut tobacco—that is Irish manufactures—partly with Irish-grown tobacco, there is nothing to prevent the Irish Government calling it an infant industry and giving a substantial bounty. The same thing can be done with regard to sugar and confectionery. A

    277
    small amount of Irish-grown wheat can be used in manufacturing confectionery. The same tiling can be done in respect of cotton or wool. The giving of bounties is the easiest thing in the world. My hon. Friend instanced Argentina, where they guarantee a minimum dividend on capital invested. In many countries they give bounties of different kinds. I believe I am right in saying that in Australia and many of the States of America, and in the Balkan States, they give different kinds of bounties—for instance, free sites for erecting factories, or they allow duty free importation of plant and machinery, or they give exemption from taxes over long periods of time. These methods have the very substantial advantage that there is no unnecessary disbursement of money. The only sacrifice is a sacrifice of revenue in the near future for the sake of a great deal bigger revenue later on, and I submit it is quite certain that Ireland could do this very easily indeed, and that the leather or woollen or earthenware manufacture could be bounty fed, or, for instance, the old Irish glass industries could be set up again and restored. The point is, if this is done, it simply means driving a coach and four through the Customs and Excise provisions of this Bill. What is the use of mending infinitesimal leakages in your saucepan if there is a hole big enough in it to put your foot through left unmended? If the Irish Government is to be allowed to protect its industries in far and away the easiest and the worst and the most corrupt way of all, what really is the object of the Government's Amendment to prevent forms of Protection when the old methods of Protection would become entirely unnecessary?
    Of course, I believe, to be perfectly honest, that the only object of the Government in putting this Amendment into the Customs and Excise Clause, and still retaining the power of bounty giving, is to throw dust in the eyes of the people; that is to say, to conceal from the public the injury which would very likely arise under this Bill to British manufacturers and to British trade. Ireland, without any doubt, under this bounty system will be able to undersell the British manufacturers in the Irish market. The fact is that hon. Members opposite, honest Free Traders, convinced that Free Trade is the best thing, are merely allowing themselves to be led by the nose to pass one of the most Protective measures ever introduced into this House, while led to believe that no Protection is possible under it. It is not a
    278
    question really of what amount of Protection is expressly forbidden by the Bill. It is merely window-dressing for the benefit of hoodwinking Free Traders who sit behind right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The real and important question is the methods of Protection which are unmentioned in the Bill, but which the Government can now say, after the speech made the other day of the right hon. Gentleman, "We always intended to be employed when the Bill passed into law." It seems to me that these powers of Protection are all the greater when we realise that nineteen-twentieths of Irish trade is done with Great Britain. Therefore, Protection by means of bounties, when brought into operation by the Irish Government, means Protection against Great Britain, and practically against Great Britain alone.
    Surely, if hon. Members opposite are honest Free Traders, as I believe they are, if they really are convinced that Free Trade is the best thing, I cannot possibly see how they can refuse to support the Clause introduced by my hon. Friend. As I said before, the safeguards in Clauses 15 and 16 are mere waste paper, dishonest as well as valueless. I have no doubt whatever that the Government were pressed very hard indeed by hon. Members below the Gangway to put rather greater Protective powers in black and white into the Bill, and I can imagine the Government saying, "We cannot possibly give you those powers openly." To satisfy the delicate conscience of the cocoa Members you must make an outward show of safeguarding Free Trade. But you have not got the slightest cause for anxiety. You can get all you want by means of bounties, only, in Heaven's name, say nothing more about it." The Government know perfectly well what they are about. They are acting with open eyes, although they may try to deceive some hon. Members who sit behind them. But I very much hope that in this case hon. Members will not be hoodwinked, but that they will act consissistently with their Free Trade principles, and vote for the Clause of my hon. Friend. Probably the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will say that it cannot possibly be done, and that, after all, you cannot stop Grants being given to Irish industries by the Irish Parliament.
    They may say that this is a Free Trade country, and yet, in spite of that fact, bounties or internal Grants are given under the existing regime. I do not think that is really a valid argument. The whole

    279
    of the Customs structure of the Home Rule Bill is, as the Government allege, to prevent British interests being prejudiced; therefore, the only way in which financial assistance can be given to Irish industries in future, in accordance with that principle, is that the methods chosen to support those industries should be directed and promoted by the Imperial Parliament itself. I am sure that nobody wants to stifle Irish progress. Everybody wants to see Irish industries developed in the future, but we have a right to see that the methods by which Irish industrise are going to be fostered in the future shall be approved by the authority which is responsible for the whole of the interests of the whole United Kingdom—that is to say, by the Imperial Parliament. I would like to point out that this Clause does not introduce a new principle. Everybody knows that the Development Commission is an institution for granting bounties. The Development Commission is under the authority of the Imperial Parliament. In that case, why should you differentiate between two or three authorities giving bounties. Surely it is better to throw over the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford in this respect than to leave open these possibilities of injuring British trade and British manufactures in the future. For these reasons I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this new Clause with a great deal of interest. He was candid enough to announce that he is a Tariff Reformer. I never understood that Tariff Reformers were violently opposed to bounties; but it seems to me now that Ireland is the only place where Tariff Reformers are against bounties. The real idea under this new Clause is, as the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion seemed to feel, that the Irish Parliament should have the power so to manipulate the bounty system that it would interfere with English commerce; that is really the bottom fact of this new Clause. I should like to refer to the prohibition of bounties on exports.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand the Government are going to put in an Amendment?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Government proposal is now in the Bill, but they intend to move an Amendment which will make
    280
    the matter perfectly clear. I am old enough to remember the Bill of 1886. I am one of the few Members in the House, probably, who remember the whole of that discussion in the country and here. One of the principal rocks upon which the Bill of 1886 struck was precisely the subject mentioned in the hon. Member's speech, namely, that the Irish Parliament representing the manufacturing community would be protective and would protect Irish industries, and so injure English trade. That view prevailed very widely, and I remember that the commercial men of Lancashire and Yorkshire adopted a Resolution which made a very grave impression upon Parliament, and was one of the rocks on which Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill suffered. Things have considerably changed since that day, and everybody, on either side of the-House, has come to look at Ireland in rather a different light. Perhaps the Unionist Government have been the greatest pioneers in the bounty system as it exists in Ireland to-day. Who was it that formed the Congested Districts Board? It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), and a very noble day's work it was when he did so. Who formed the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction? It was the same right hon. Gentleman and his party, and that Department really carries on its work on a very large system of bounties. Who formed the Development Commission? It was formed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; so that both sides of the House are committed to bounties in Ireland, and they are' committed to assist them because they have made up their minds that Ireland occupies a peculiar position. But that does not alter any opposition to the principle of Tariff Reform.
    Let us look at the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London formed a Congested Districts Board. He made the candid admission that he viewed the state of Ireland from the agricultural standpoint. He said that the land system of that country was one of the worst in Europe, and, because of the circumstances of Ireland, her position was regarded as peculiar. This Parliament had destroyed Irish industries by legislation. I do not refer to the-woollen industry, which it is admitted on all hands Parliament had destroyed, but I refer to the tobacco industry, which by

    281
    actual legislation in this House was destroyed and the growth of tobacco prohibited. I say that the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite, reviewing all the circumstances in Ireland, came to the? conclusion that Ireland was in such a? different position from the rest of the United Kingdom that steps of this kind became absolutely necessary. I will take the Department of Agriculture first—my own Department. I know the whole machinery there, and I know all the difficulties which are to be encountered. I will take the question of tobacco, and it is stated that the Government now in office are responsible for promoting that industry. It was not the present Government but the Conservative Government, and I think it was Mr. Ritchie who deliberately gave a bounty in the way of a rebate of duty of a shilling in the pound.
    When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office that was abolished, and he gave a sheer bounty of £6,000 per annum for instruction in the growth of tobacco, and for educational work in connection with it. That has gone on ever since. The bounty will expire next year, and the Development Commissioners have made an arrangement by which to continue the support. That bounty was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of carrying out an experiment. This House had previously forbidden the growth of tobacco in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in England."] I am dealing with Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And including England."] This Amendment applies to Ireland and not to England. This House had deliberately prohibited the growth of tobacco in Ireland; it was a destroyed industry, and this bounty was given because of that fact, and in order to set up the industry again. I candidly admit that I have no affection for bounties, I have no affection for building up industries in this way, I would rather they built themselves up; and I refused to join the Committee in Ireland because I did not like the spoon-feeding system. But it must not be forgotten that the circumstances under which the tobacco industry is receiving this bounty affords an illustration of what can be done by the Irish Parliament in the way of dealing with an industry that has been grievously injured. Let me take the whole question of agriculture in Ireland. The Agricultural Department of Ireland carries on its work very largely
    282
    with the aid of bounties. I see a member of the Council of Agriculture opposite. He knows what is done every year. A rate is struck to which every county contributes, and in addition to that rate the Department add a bounty larger than the rate.
    Mr. BARRIEmade an observation which was inaudible.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I could find many names that would get rid of the difficulty, but it does not get rid of the fact that the State contributes more than the rate for the purpose of developing agriculture in Ireland. I should just like to ask, are hon. Members opposite prepared to say that Irish agriculture is in that state of prosperity that they can afford even for the purpose of gratifying an extraordinary idea, because remember this is proposed by Tariff Reformers, to bring the whole work to a stop. Are Tariff Reformers, who certainly are not opposed to bounties, and are the Irish Members from Ulster prepared to do so in order to carry out what I will not call a trick, but in order to get Free Traders on this side of the House to adopt this Amendment, and so impose a condition on Ireland that would amount practically to the abolition of the Department of Agriculture and of the Congested Districts Board.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I wish to explain that this Clause is introduced because I firmly believe if you introduce bounties on industries in competition with England, that that will not redound to the peace of Ireland but will lead to animosity between the two countries.
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is a part of Parliamentary warfare, let us say. Take some of these matters, flax for instance. The flax industry is extremely prosperous in Ulster, but even there the Department supply bonuses and instructors. In the South of Ireland where the growth of flax has gone out the Department has stepped in, gone to the districts where the flax traditions still lives, and have sent instructors there. We got guarantees from the people to grow flax, and in the county of Cork, where five years ago probably there was not an acre of flax, there was probably five or six hundred acres grown last year simply because the Department stepped in and gave its aid with bonuses. Is anybody prepared to stop that? Is anybody prepared to say that in a country

    283
    which has been neglected, and where all these things have gone to ruin, and where the worst possible land system has crushed out these things, that this aid should be stopped. I say certainly we are not going, with the good that has been done, to accept a new Clause which would prevent the Irish Parliament from assisting that work still further. Let the House remember that this new Clause strikes a blow at the very poorest of the people. Take a new industry which has been started within the last few years, that of early potatoes. There are parts of Ireland, owing to climatic conditions, where the people are enabled to compete successfully with the potato growers of Jersey and elsewhere. Those people have realised the advantages they have and which they never dreamt of before. The Department stepped in and formed those people into societies and they have ever gone further, and in order that the experiments should have a fair trial they have given seed and they have left an instructor with them, and the industry is now rising. Those people get their potatoes to Glasgow a fortnight before the Ayrshire potatoes, and they get as much as £40 per acre for them. Is the House, under the idea that this might imperil English industries, prepared to stop that work in Ireland? I do not believe when this comes to a vote to-night, if it gets to a vote, or I shall be very much astonished to see the hon. Member for North Derry (Mr. Barrie) voting for it—
    Mr. BARRIE: Wait and see.
    Mr. RUSSELL: If he does, let him see what the result will be at the next council meeting. Then fruit growing to a large extent in North and South has been pushed on by help of every kind. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale) lives in a very famous fruit neighbourhood and he knows that the industry has grown within the last few years.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Not by aid of bonuses.
    Mr. RUSSELL: There is a good deal done in that way, too, there. We have given all the help at all events that could be given, and in the South of Ireland help has been given. I do not think it is a safe thing to interrupt work of that kind. If you declare that the Irish Parliament is not to permit bonuses on production, why then you tie the hands of the Parliament.
    284
    There are other fields which we can enter even where we are working now, and the work can be extended, but you ask by this Amendment that the Irish Parliament, no matter what has been done, no matter what the results so far, no matter how much good has been achieved, is not to be allowed to do a single thing. Take the Congested Districts Board, of which I am also a member. It does not operate to the same extent as it did in the past in this way. It has become to a large extent a land association for the purpose of buying and selling land and for the purpose of improving land. The Board still carries on two branches of work which would be directly touched by this new Clause. They have in the poorest and most wretched parts of Ireland lace and crochet classes which have supplied an income to those poor people. Suppose you stopped them from doing this wholesome work in the most wretched parts of Ireland, for that is really what this amounts to, what is to happen? if you say the present work can go on, you are admitting the principle of bounties, and if you say the Irish Parliament is not to be allowed to increase it and to carry it into other regions, then you are striking a deadly blow at those poor people. Take the other question with which the Congested Districts Board also deals, namely, that of fisheries. You will find aid given in this way all round the coast of Ireland and given to the very poorest of the people. I am not concerned—I say this candidly to the House—in Ireland to uphold the principle of bounties—I mean internal bounties. I wish trade could be prosecuted without these aids, but I do say, looking at the circumstances of Ireland, looking at the admissions that have been made by Conservative leaders on the other side of the House in regard to those circumstances and in regard to the necessity which they created, then I think it would be a very cruel thing either to interfere with the work I have described or with the power of the Irish Parliament to enlarge that work to a certain extent. I think it would be one of the worst things this Parliament ever did to Ireland.
    Mr. HEWINS: I should like to express my gratitude, speaking as a Tariff Reformer, for the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. I am sure he will be delighted to know that we shall take very good care that that speech is widely circulated in the various districts of England. I have often expressed the

    285
    belief that there was nothing particularly in the way of the adoption of Protection by the party opposite, and, in fact, in the brief Debate we had a few weeks ago on bounties, I said something of that kind. The Postmaster-General then spoke as a Free Trader, but I understand now that both parties have united on this important question of bounties and the principle of bounties. Many of us scarcely hoped that we should have such a rapid and easy conversion to this principle.
    Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member will allow me to say that I declared both parties in the past had committed themselves to legislation of this character owing to the conditions of Ireland.
    Mr. HEWINS: I very much appreciate the interruption, but I really do not mind what the right hon. Gentleman says but what Governments do. When I can find a party like the party opposite prepared to take this line and admit the principle, it is no further concern of mine what particular defence the right hon. Gentleman may please to give for his action. As a matter of fact, the whole fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was contained in the first two lines, in which he tried to scoff at the position of Tariff Reformers as to the absence of a provision in the Bill preventing the Irish Parliament from granting bounties. I should have thought, after all these years of discussion on the Tariff Reform question, that the attitude of Tariff Reformers was sufficiently well known. We have never suggested on our side, and I have often myself contended the opposite point, that there was anything whatever stood in the way of the Government opposite of the Free Trade party so called, in adopting methods of bounties and many other protective schemes. I have always anticipated they would do that. I go so far as to say that if they remain sufficiently long in office they will give very wide extension to the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman to-night. The difference, if I may say so, between Tariff Reformers and the party opposite is not a difference between Protection and Free Trade. Free Trade is as dead as dead can be. The difference between us is the difference between adopting a Protectionist system from an insular, narrow point of view, directed only against all foreigners, and the adoption of an Empire system of organisation. That is the whole thing. The essential difference is
    286
    not Protection versus Free Trade, but Preference under Empire organisation: versus Liberal chaos. We put that over and over again in various works that have-been published dealing with this question, and there is nothing in the world from our point of view in the way of the adoption of a policy of bounties by the Government opposite. I was naturally surprised to hear the Postmaster-General, when we had this subject up for discussion before, make a speech showing that they are under the impression they are-still clinging to Free Trade. They were told by organs on their own side that this-, very question of bounties was going to be a test and a key of the situation, and that the Government would show by their attitude on this question whether they were Free Traders or not. They have taken a line which shows, in the opinion of their own advisers on the question of bounties under the Home Rule Bill, that they are not a Free Trade party. So I trust they will dissolve the Free Trade Union. I cannot express the hope that they will join the Tariff Reform League. I trust we shall hear no more of the argument of Free-Trade. That is dead after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
    I want to take a particular case or two-in which, as I conceive, the Irish Parliament will be quite free under the Bill to-erect a system of bounties. This is certainly not dealt with by the Amendment or by anything which has been said by the other side up to the present. I suppose that the most common and the most efficient method of giving bounties at present practised by the different States of the world is by means of railways and railway rates. It is universally recognised that the arrangement of railway rates is an essential part of the tariff system of foreign-countries, and that it is a particularly efficient method of granting bounties both on production and on export. The Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not gather that there is any limitation at all in the Bill or in the Amendments proposed by the Government which would prevent the Irish Parliament from dealing in the freest possible way with the railways. If they were in a position to do so, I presume that they might nationalise the existing railways and reorganise the system of railway rates. Or they might make a Government arrangement with the railway companies, and give-payments, if payments were necessary, to the railway companies to rearrange their

    287
    classification and railway rates system so as to favour particular kinds of trade. Or, without making such arrangements, they might do it simply by legislation. This is such an important matter that I hope, if this absolute power of dealing with the railway companies and with railway rates is prevented by the Bill, the right hon. "Gentleman will point out the Clause and the precise words by which any arrangement of the kind that I have indicated is prevented.
    How important this question of giving encouragement or bounties to export and production by means of the regulation of railway rates and the system of classification can be seen if any reference is made to the great system of commercial treaties which bind together the central European countries. In every one of those treaties if I remember rightly, there are important Clauses dealing with this particular topic, and it is universally considered a matter for proper commercial negotiation to prevent undue or unfair advantage being given or to prevent the Government from taking away tariff concessions granted by the treaties by means of an arrangement of the railway rates. At the present time the exports and the production of Germany are greatly increased by her system of railway rates. The same is true with regard to France, where there are particular clauses in the Acts of the French Government dealing with this subject. It is true also of Denmark. In fact, it would be rather difficult to find any European country where this principle is not conceded and acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that, if you have a railway system such as we have in the United Kingdom, conducted roughly under a system of free competition, although competitive railway rates may and very often do merge in agreed rates between the different companies, the competitive system does not result in the establishment of a system of railway rates which is universally regarded as favourable to the home industries of the country. A great deal of the complaint sometimes made by traders, working men, and, in fact, all classes, of the working of the system in connection with industry is in no sense whatever due to the malice or the deliberate intention of the railway companies. It is simply due to the natural? operation of the competitive law in fixing railway rates.
    288
    What will be the position of the Irish Government? I take a case which is being agitated at the present time. This very question of bounties in connection with railway rates is being discussed at the present time, both in the industrial and in the agricultural districts of Great Britain and Ireland. It is a burning question. There is scarcely any topic that could be brought before an agricultural audience that would excite more interest than the question of bounties in connection with railway rates. It goes home to every small holder, every farmer, every great landowner, and every artisan. Everybody is concerned in the conditions upon which the transport of goods is effected. There is a universal opinion that, as things are at present, both in Great Britain and in Ireland, the case does not work out as it would, supposing there was more policy in the arrangement of railway rates. The Government have a Railway Bill before the House. I will assume that that Bill passes. This is exactly how pressure will be brought to bear on the Irish Government to carry out this system of bounties. It is not an academic question; it is urgent and insistent. It is one of the first matters with which the Irish Parliament will have to deal. We had a railway strike, and that Bill, in the interests of the workmen, authorises the railway companies to raise their rates so that a higher rate of wages may be paid to the railway operatives. That is the sum and substance of it. See how it at once alters this question of bounties from an academic into a real and practical question. No sooner was this Bill introduced than I was approached by a great many traders in this sense. If that Bill was going through, if the Government were going to fulfil the pledge which they had given to the railway companies, if they wanted to secure higher rates of wages for the railway operatives, they could do it at once, and have any alteration they liked, provided they would go one step further and introduce what is, roughly speaking, the bounty system in connection with railway rates, giving the trader the encourag-ment and protection he wants by means of railway rates. If that is done, they say you can do whatever you like. I venture to suggest that. taking the known labour situation and the actual situation of agriculture, one of the very first things an Irish Government will be forced to consider, and upon which it will be compelled to legislate, will be the introduction of a

    289
    bounty system in connection with the Irish railways by which they will be enabled to make such adjustments of the railway rates as will give the necessary encourag-ment and security to the traders of Ireland.
    Look at the appalling situation we should be in. While you could do that in Ireland, you could not meet exactly the same case in Great Britain. You would at once, by this system of bounties, have a wedge driven in between the two countries and you would accentuate the economic separation which the Home Rule Bill introduces, and which we Tariff Reformers are most anxious to avoid in all the arrangements which we propose. That is the situation. I do not argue this merely with regard to Ireland. It is far too important. The subject touches every trader in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. KEATING: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his proposal with regard to Ireland?
    Mr. HEWINS: I am not sketching out the policy of our party. I should be only too delighted, if it was in order, to give a very complete sketch. But these proposals have been sketched in scores of publications, and if the hon. Member will apply to me I shall be only too pleased to send him any amount of material. There is no sort of obscurity about it. I should not be in order discussing the matter at the present time, otherwise I should be too pleased to do so. But I do suggest to the House that this is far too important a question to dismiss lightly. Ireland has got to face the point; they cannot avoid it. They could not resist the pressure brought to bear upon them. You have only to look through a list of the industries of Ireland and you see that there are any number of industries which under proper treatment would flourish. The difference between us is that we object to economic separation between the two countries by the proposals of this Home Rule Bill, and we ask Irishmen to look forward to that scheme which we have in view by which Ireland would benefit by the joint union of Ireland with Great Britain and the Empire more than she possibly can benefit by isolation. That is the real difference between us. Therefore we are voting for this new Clause, not on the grounds which the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to attibute, not because we are inconsistent, but because it is the proper and only way by which we can give effect to our convictions.
    290
    We are dead against these economic arrangements which tend to separate Great Britain and Ireland. We wish that power to be reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We wish that power to be exercised more generously in the future than it has been in the past. We say that all these admirable methods of encouraging production which the right hon. Gentleman has sketched would go on not only unchecked, but with much greater effect, if the line of policy which we are in favour of were adopted. We are against taking that power out of the control of the United Kingdom and putting it into the hands of a local Irish Parliament to which—I would not for a moment attribute motives—but which in the nature of the case, because you have different authorities dealing with the same economic districts, must necessarily lead to the separation of Ireland. It could not possibly be helped. We say keep matters in the control of the one Parliament of the United Kingdom. We do not ask Irish Members to turn their backs upon what we think is sound economics. On the contrary, we ask them to do very much the reverse, if they have to choose between the severance which is the object of the policy of the party opposite and Imperial policy of the party we represent here. There is no question—I have said it before and I say it again—now that these proposals have been put into the Home Rule Bill—there cannot be any question whatever—as to the maintenance of Free Trade between the United Kingdom and Ireland. You have to take the Empire and the United Kingdom as they arc, and Ireland will do well to fall into line with the great movements going on throughout the Empire. Join with us and you will get your prosperity, your encouragement of trade, your bounties, and you will have in addition the sense of building up instead of destroying the Empire.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I desire to say just one or two words on the Amendment, as it affects directly a young industry in Ireland in which I have taken some interest. The hon. Member who has just spoken has made an exceedingly interesting speech, but I am sure he will excuse me if I say that it has somewhat bewildered us.
    Mr. HEWINS: Why?
    Mr. W. REDMOND: It is difficult to understand how anybody holding and professing strongly, as the hon. Gentleman does, the principles of Protection—I am

    291
    not in the slightest degree finding fault at the attempts being made in Ireland to resuscitate industries—
    Mr. HEWINS: I did not find fault with any of the methods sketched by the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I approved of them, and recommended rather a policy which would lead to their extension and development.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I did not quite understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman in that direction, but if it be as he says, then I fail to see how he can possibly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The Amendment is opposed by us, because it undoubtedly would have the effect of preventing all those developments of which the hon. Gentleman says he approves, and which have been described by the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that if it were in order he would sketch the exact policy of his party in reference to these matters. Most interesting as the hon. Member's speech really was, I can assure him that it would be of infinitely greater interest not only to the House, but to the whole country and to the world at large if he would only do that thing, and sketch what really is the policy of his party, because, I say it with all respect, there is on that point, to say the least of it, some little doubt at the present time in the minds of the whole world, not forgetting the journalists of his own party. All I desire to say on this point is this: What it is not, I am glad to say, proposed to do by the Amendment is to do what hon. Members above the Gang-way and their Friends did some years ago in Ireland. We all know that in Ireland a great many industries of the people were most ruthlessly and frankly destroyed in the interests of the trade of this country. Not only is this true of the woollen industry but of a great many of the industries which thrived in Ireland and for which Ireland was quite famous.
    These industries were deliberately destroyed by the Acts of this Legislature, frankly, in the interests of English trade. There is nobody, no party in the House at the present time, who can approve of that. I have heard many Unionist Members declare that it was a great pity, and that it was an entirely wrong policy, to interfere with trade which was thriving in Ireland in the interests of this country, or for any other reason whatever. It is only fair to
    292
    say of the party on this side, as well as of the party opposite, that from time to time some efforts—not very great efforts—have been made to undo the wrong, and to help some of these industries which once thrived in Ireland to thrive again. One of those industries which thrived eighty or ninety years ago, particularly in the portion of Ireland which I had most acquaintance with, the county of Wexford, was the tobacco industry. Many many hundreds of acres were under cultivation with tobacco. Much employment was given. There are records in the Library of this House which can show that in these particular districts there was very little want, and there was plenty of work for man, woman, and child. There was a great deal of prosperity. What happened? Some traders in this country interested in tobacco came to the conclusion that the tobacco-growing industry in Ireland which was going forward quite successfully might interfere with the tobacco trade here in this country. It was alleged that Irish tobacco might be smuggled here. It was alleged that if this industry grew it might interfere with those who are interested in the tobacco plantations in America and abroad. Really for no reason in the world, except those reasons, this thriving industry was deliberately strangled by Act of Parliament. There are records in the Library here which will show that in the year 1831 everyone of the Irish Members representing all classes and shades of opinion—Mr. O'Connell was one of them—many representatives of the Conservatives in Ireland—all bitterly opposed the Bill which was brought in to make tobacco planting illegal.
    Yet in face of the united protest from all parties in Ireland this House deliberately, in 1831, passed an Act of Parliament rendering it illegal and a punishable offence to grow even a single tobacco plant in Ireland. The whole industry was wiped out with the results that hundreds and thousands of men, women, and children were thrown out of employment, and it is an interesting thing to read that the chief tobacco grower in Wexford, a man who had over 500 acres under cultivation, was a Conservative Protestant gentleman who was very much attached to the Union and opposed altogether to any National spirit in Ireland. He came here to this House, and before a Committee of Parliament of that day he stated that the country was recovering from the effects of the rebellion of

    293
    1798, that industry was beginning to thrive, that the people were being employed, and he said that the British Parliament were preventing this industry from giving employment to the people there, which was very wrong and would cause discontent, and he protested strongly against it. In spite of that protest this industry was crashed out, the tobacco crops were seized and destroyed in Ireland. From thenceforward any man who grew tobacco was liable to prosecution and was proceeded against and fined. Of course, the people considered it a gross injustice and bitterly have complained. About six or seven years ago, after a good deal of effort, I succeeded—and I give every credit to them for it—in getting every Unionist representative in Ireland to sign a petition, which was also signed by every Nationalist representative, and which had the unique distinction of having attached to it the names of every one of the 103 representatives from Ireland, presented to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman to give facilities for the passage of a Bill to repeal the prohibition against tobacco growing in Ireland.
    Mr. MOORE: Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman did not smoke.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Sometimes he did; and the hon. Gentleman himself smokes, and he looks better when he is smoking. As a result of that unique petition—I do not think there ever was such a one before, but I hope there will be again—the Bill passed through the House of Commons. It was a very difficult thing for a private Member to get that done. There was very little time, and I had to wait night after night, but eventually it did pass this House and the House of Lords and got the Royal Assent, and after seventy years the prohibition against tobacco growing in Ireland was removed. Then at once experiments began to be made. In different parts of the country gentlemen interested, farmers, and people of all classes began to cultivate tobacco with great success. Before that time the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), a member of the Unionist party, went with me to the late Mr. Ritchie, who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and pointed out to him how this industry was destroyed by Act of Parliament, which was a great injustice, and that efforts would be made to resuscitate it and we asked him to give us some help in the matter. He inquired into it, and he did the very thing which this Amendment now proposes to undo.
    294
    He gave us what if you like was a bounty. The duty on tobacco at that time was 3s. a pound, and he said, "I will return you 1s. so you will have a bounty to that extent to help you to reorganise this industry, and to prove if successful efforts can be made to cultivate tobacco in Ireland." Later on, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was Chancellor of the Exchequer he renewed it. That was what was done in the first instance by the Conservative party. When the present Prime Minister was. Chancellor of the Exchequer under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, we went to him when the limited numbers of years to which the bounty extended had expired for the remission of the duty, and he continued it for a few years more, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the industry was going to be successful, nearly doubled the amount.
    Mr. RUSSELL: No. He abolished the rebate of a shilling, which amounted to about £5,000, and he gave a sum amounting to £6,000 a year for educational purposes in connection with tobacco growing.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Yes. Perhaps it is not quite accurate to say that he doubled the remission of duty, but in another way he doubled the amount of money available for the encouragement of this industry, and then subsequently he said that when the number of years for which this sum for encouragement had expired, he could not do any more.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: What was the date of the Act to which the hon. Member referred?
    Mr. W. REDMOND: I am not absolutely certain, but I think it was 1906 or 1907. It is quite easy to find it. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer then said he could not continue the old system and referred us to the Development Commission. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland with the Irish tobacco growers went to the Development Commissioners and made their case. They showed that this industry gave great employment to men, women, and children at the time of the year between the planting of the crops and the reaping of the harvest when the country people were quite idle and when they might be employed in the cultivation of tobacco growing, and so impressed were the Development Commissioners, all of them British except one Irishman, with the possibility of this industry that they

    295
    granted to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland a sum of £7,000 to be expended for ten years for the purpose not in reality of giving a bounty at all, but for the purpose of giving full and ample and complete opportunities for experiment to see whether this industry could be proved to be successful. It was stated quite frankly by those interested that after a certain number of years they believed the industry would stand upon its own legs. I do not suppose that anyone ever thought that the tobacco industry in Ireland, if it was to become a continuous industry was to be always fed by bounties and it was felt that once the movement was set going and that the people had learned the business of tobacco growing, there was every prospect of a sound industry being built up as it was built up many years before. At the present time that money is available and as the Department of Agriculture knows it is administered with every hope of success.
    As I understand it, if this Amendment was carried, it would be impossible under Home Rule for that scheme to be carried forward. Surely there is no one in this House, however much opposed to Home Rule, who would like to support an Amendment which would have the effect of stopping this industry in which a great many of their own party are interested as well as Nationalists. If this Amendment means anything it means it would make this industry impossible, and therefore I hope nobody interested in this matter in Ireland will support this Amendment. Under the Congested Districts Board industries were encouraged by both parties in this House. This industry is now beginning to revive, and from the point of view of all partes in Ireland it would be an absurd thing, and a monstrous injustice to have an Amendment grafted on to the Home Rule Bill which would make this revival of industry in Ireland impossible. I hope hon. Gentlemen will not support this Amendment. I would remind the House that it is only a short time ago since they voted not merely for a limited bounty to enable experiments to be tried, but they themselves proposed a bounty in support of an Amendment to the Budget which would have had the effect of reducing the Tobacco Duty in Ireland by one-half. The hon. Member says that he does not want to make any distinction between Great Britain and Ireland, but in the Budget they propose that the Tobacco Duty in Great Britain should be what it is, while the duty
    296
    in Ireland should be one-half that amount. If they did that at the time of the Budget I cannot see with what consistency they can now support this Amendment. I hope nothing will be done by them to undo what is really rather a good record as far as Irish tobacco is concerned, on the part of their party. They joined with the Liberal party in helping this movement to be revived, and I hope that that friendly cooperation on the part of both parties will continue, and if it does the result will be that in years to come there will be many thousands of happy men and women in Ireland who will find employment in this trade, who otherwise would be obliged to emigrate and go to a foreign land.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIE: We always listen to the hon. Member for Clare with pleasure when he is dealing with the subject of the revival of the tobacco industry in Ireland, and we desire to give him every credit for what he has done in the past; but if our present support is to be used as a reason why we should openly and knowingly give the Irish Parliament free and unlimited powers to grant bounties to all forms of industries in Ireland, then the time has come when it is necessary for Unionist Members to say that we cannot further continue the support we have given in the past to hon. Members. With regard to the speech made by the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture I had not intended to intervene but for the personal references that he made to myself. I do not complain of them, but I am bound to say that when he challenges me I shall go into the Lobby in support of this new Clause without the slightest reluctance and with a full sense that I am only performing my duty in so doing. We welcome the return of the right hon. Gentleman into these Debates, in which he has been in the past only conspicuous by his consistent votes, and by a comparatively remarkable absence from intervention in the Debates. The right hon. Gentleman has been pleading for consistent action on our part, but I think it was rather unfortunate that he should have made such an appeal to me. He tried to make out that any vote given in favour of this new Clause would be a vote of censure on the Irish Department of Agriculture. I was glad that even the right hon. Gentleman at this late day in his political career should have felt it necessary to express a word of praise to the founder of that Department for the splendid work which he has done,

    297
    and which we hope the Department will long continue to do in Ireland.
    Mr. KEATING: It cannot do any work if this Amendment be passed.
    Mr. BARRIE: I disagree entirely with the hon. Member's statement. This new Clause is directed against giving the Irish Parliament power to subsidise industries by way of bounties, and the right hon. Gentleman was put forward to try and draw the red-herring across the trail, and to make out that the Grants-in-Aid given under the work of that Department are really bounties. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had personal knowledge of the effect which these Grants-in-Aid have, and the work which is being done by them in all the counties in Ireland, and he referred with pride to the fact that every county in Ireland is engaged in this work. As a member of the Agricultural Council, and as chairman of the board which conducts this work in my own county, I can claim some particular knowledge of this subject. What is the process? First of all, we are asked to strike a rate, and if we do so we get a Grant-in-Aid from the Department, which is spent, not by way of bounties or subsidies, but entirely upon educational work, which I am sure hon. Members below the Gangway will be the first to acknowledge as being of the highest value. Not one penny of that money has ever been spent to subsidise an industry since the right hon. Gentleman came into office. I can speak with some knowledge of my own county, and I say that there would be a unanimous refusal on the part of my committee to subsidise any industry. In the North of Ireland we should not think of doing anything of the kind. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Government within the last three years passed an Act that gives power in England to county councils to do somewhat similar work, and when they do it they are entitled to receive a Grant-in-Aid from the Government? Is he not aware that in Scotland there is a public demand for the same form of a Grant-in-Aid in order that the same valuable work may be carried forward there? It is a distortion of terms to suggest that these are bounties. I am glad that under a Radical Government the policy of these Grants-in-Aid has been continued. I am not sure that all forms of expenditure of the Irish Department are so valuable or useful or can show such immediately beneficial results as the Grant-in-Aid to which
    298
    I have referred. By these Grants you give the tenants instruction in all forms of agriculture, and another Grant is given because of the standard of proficiency obtained in the technical schools. It is absolute misrepresentation to describe these Grants as at all appertaining to anything of the character of bounties.
    With regard to the Grant-in-Aid of the fisheries, that is work which I agree was altogether neglected for too long, and the amount allocated to that work is still insufficient for present needs. It cannot, again, be described as in any form a bounty. I have never heard it so described before, and I do not think hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will so describe it. I am not aware that at the present moment any money of the Agricultural Department is being spent in a form that can fairly or legitimately be described as bounties except the Grant-in-Aid of the growth of tobacco. Why do we draw this sharp discrimination and why do we think it necessary to support this proposed new Clause? I give my reasons again with reluctance, but I give them with sincerity. We have many expressions on record showing hostility to and jealousy of flourishing industries in the province of Ulster. I have in my limited time heard in this House repeated references from the benches below the Gangway to the fact that one of Ulster's industries, the great flax industry, thrived because of former bounties received to help to establish it, and the cry has always been that similar bounties should be granted to other parts of Ireland for other purposes. I know there is that hostility. We have had it expressed in different parts of the country that immediately the new Parliament is set up the time will have come when that wrong will be capable of rectification, and we actually know the particular industries that are so intended to be spoon-fed and to receive the support of the bounties which the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned the Irish Parliament should not by any action of ours on these benches be debarred from granting. I presume the right hon. Gentleman has studied the Home Rule Bill and knows the financial position of that Parliament, if it ever comes into existence, will be highly precarious. We know the money to grant these bounties can only come from the province of Ulster, and that those industries, when established, must be detrimental to the industries of Ulster, utterly independent of

    299
    any form of bounty from any Government whatsoever.
    Finally, our real objection to this Parliament having this power is that we under any circumstances would have no countenance in its administration. I have said before I take only an academic interest in these Debates because I realise the farce of the whole proceedings connected with them, but I do realise that if there is one thing more certain than another it is that what we have understood as the methods of Tammany Hall would be mild as compared with the methods of any Parliament to be set up in Dublin. Our only objection to bounties is that under this Bill they would pass into the hands of men whom we cannot trust, and whom we have no right to be asked to trust. We entirely approve of a system of carefully selected bounties to foster in their initial stages different industries—and the need of Ireland is for more industries—so long as they are under Imperial control, and so long as there is a Member sitting on these Benches who can be called to account for the manner in which he has permitted the expenditure. That is the reason why we support this new Clause and why, as I have said, I shall give my vote in favour of it regardless of the threat which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to utter, that I shall be called to account at the next meeting of the Irish Council of Agriculture. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it was a mistake to use threats in these days of conciliation; they are out of place at this particular time. I am prepared to give my vote in support of the Amendment, and I shall only make one stipulation. When I rise to defend it, I hope I shall have somewhat more fair play from the Chairman of that Council than I have received in the past when I have ventured to differ from him on important public matters.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Some of us on this side of the House feel a little difficulty in saying we are prepared to vote for this new-Clause. I am in favour of bounties that are reasonably and rightly given to foster industries, and I trust the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond), who spoke so feelingly on the question of the tobacco industry, will not imagine that any Member on the Conservative Benches would for a moment deprecate what has been done or be so mean as not to go a great deal further than the present Chancellor of the
    300
    Exchequer is doing. I consider it is rather a mean and small matter to grant this subsidy to the tobacco industry and to limit it both in time and amount to the extent that has been made. I, for one, take the charge he has laid to us as being the son of a man who probably in his years voted for many measures which have been hurtful to Ireland in the past, and I am one of those who stood up and said it is now our duty, as Englishmen, to see if it is possible we can in some way give back with a full hand to the people of Ireland that prosperity and wealth which we know the country is capable of producing. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins), if he had been allowed and if he had been in order, would undoubtedly have been prepared to have outlined some of the things which we in our policy of the future are prepared to give to the agricultural interest in Ireland as well as to the agricultural interest in this country. I know it would be quite possible for us to do a great deal more than Ireland will ever be able to do by the subsidising of her own home industries from the Parliament in Dublin. I would like to give a reason why I shall support this new Clause. The Mover of it made one statement which seems to have been overlooked. He said if this new Clause is not put into the Bill the result will most positively be an increase of bitterness, and I would almost say of malice, between the people of Ireland and the people of England. One instance of a bounty came within my own cognisance in business. It was a bounty given by the Government in Australia, and it might have been said it was not a bounty but a prize. Dairies which produce butter that realised a certain price on the London markets were to receive £9 per ton from the Government of Australia in return for having produced a very high-class article. The effect of that is felt to this very day, and in one steamer alone, the "Ionic," Which is to reach London on the 6th February, there are coming 1,350 tons of butter as a direct outcome of this bounty given in Australia. That is an instance of what the bounty will do to develop an infant industry. We have had a wonderful review to-night from the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland as to what it is possible to do by giving very small bounties. I sincerely trust that in many ways the future of the United Kingdom will see many such assistances from the Government to industries that need help for a certain period of time. But it is not with any idea of that we are

    301
    going to support this Amendment. It must be evident to all hon. Members that the Development Committee will still be able to give Grants whether there is Home Rule or not. I understand that the powers they are to exercise are absolutely above and beyond the grant of Home Rule. They have still a large amount at their disposal to help forward any industry in Ireland, and the Grants they are enabled to make will not be withheld by reason of the fact that there is an Executive in Dublin.
    The difficulty will arise in this way. Suppose that the Executive of the Irish Parliament say it would be very desirable that the farmers should not export immature cattle, but they should bring them up to their full weight and then ship them over to England. They might offer them a sum, say, of £5 per head for animals over a certain weight when sent across to Great Britain. That would encourage the feeding of animals on Irish farms, and would be a great encouragement of the industry as well. But when they came over to England and had to compete with animals from English farms in the Manchester, Bradford, and other markets there would naturally be jealousy by reason of the fact that the Irish cattle were brought to market under more favourable conditions. I can quite understand jealousies between English and Irish agriculturists becoming very intense, and efforts might be made to prohibit fat cattle coming here under such conditions. May I point out that if there were a prohibition of Irish livestock and dairy produce for even only one month, the half of Ireland would be ruined, and that retaliation would be the certain result if this Clause is not inserted?
    If the Irish Parliament in the future sees right to give a sum to help the industry forward in such a way, the jealousies of the whole of the farmers of Great Britain would be aroused to such an extent that they would probably send their representatives to this House to ask for an Order prohibiting the importation of Irish animals and Irish stock into this country until a change had been made in the conditions. I think we have very good reason for saying if no such Clause as this is put into the Bill there will be malice, bitterness, and jealousy arising between the two countries. These matters should all be dealt with out of one pocket and by one authority. There is no intention to stop the industries of Ireland being helped. We will do all we can in every possible way to assist them. The records
    302
    mentioned to-night show how Conservative as well as Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past have done their best to help forward Irish industries. We are all prepared in this House to see that more than justice is done to Ireland, but we want her to still remain a part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MOORE: I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department for Ireland, and I am not going to express any regret for that, because I do not generally listen to his speeches if I can possibly help it. But I have heard that he threatened certain things against Ulster Members if they chose to vote for this Amendment. Has he forgotten his own experience in Lister? If he had not done so I do not think he would have ventured to utter those threats. Here we have a case where a Government, boasting of its adherence to Free Trade principles show that they do not believe sufficiently in their own doctrine to say that the Government they are setting up in Ireland shall also adhere to those doctrines. If Ireland is to be part of the United Kingdom after this Bill is passed it surely would be inconsistent for the Irish Government to grant bounties. It might be consistent if they were to be allowed to have a separate fiscal system, and if they were to be allowed to start a protective system so far as bounties are concerned. That is my first point.
    The second point is that if these bounties are to be given the Government are careful to provide that they shall not find the money for them. We have had laid before us by the Postmaster-General the annual income of the Irish Parliament, and I do not think I am mis-stating the case when I say that the provision does not allow for follies or vagaries or extravagances, seeing that the annual surplus will not exceed £500,000. The Chief Secretary has stated that it is going to be a tight fit, and I for one do not think there is going to be much out of which provision can be made for bounties. Therefore, if the Irish Government decide to grant any bounties they will have to do so out of their own taxation, and I do not think it is likely bounties will be given under such circumstances. I am not going into the technical distinction between bounties and Grants-in-Aid. To my mind they are exactly the same thing. The difference only arises when you come

    303
    to apply them. I am not dealing with that now.
    I am quite sure that there will be a great demand for bounties in Ireland. The old Irish Parliament created a great many industries by means of bounties, and it is a system which, so far as it has a history attached to it, will be quite popular. At the present day there is a great deal of feeling in Ireland as regards trade matters. I come from that part of the country where the staple agricultural industry is potato growing. The prices vary from £2 10s. to £4 a ton in various seasons, the price being largely affected by the demand in America. Our farmers at home have complained again and again that it is a very great hardship if a ton of potatoes is sent, to New York that a duty of 37s. 6d. or 38s. per ton has to be paid before the American consumer is allowed to enjoy them. There will be a demand for bounties because bounties are the only way in which the Irish Parliament can assist those who get their living by growing potatoes. The Irish Parliament cannot make trade treaties with other nations, and if they want to equalise these grievances the only power they will have is that of granting bounties. There will be a demand on the Irish Parliament to grant bounties for various home industries. Especially will that be the case when one comes to consider the proportion of urban to rural members in this ridiculous Schedule. There will be thirty-four urban Members out of the 100 who will determine what the financial policy is to be. There will be great pressure from the overwhelming agricultural voles in the Irish Parliament for something in the nature of bounties, which is the only commercial help they will be able to give, seeing there is no right to make trade treaties. If there are to be bounties, they can only be given through Irish taxation. There you come back to the crux of the whole business. The large agricultural majority in the Irish Parliament is derived from that part of the country which pays the least taxation. You will have the minority in the North of Ireland, who pay two-thirds of the taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Two-thirds and nearly three-fourths of the Customs revenue of Ireland is paid by the Port of Belfast—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and collected from Belfast industries.
    I take out Cork, Limerick, and Water-ford, and out of thirty-four Members, you
    304
    will perhaps have twenty representing the North-East industrial end of the country which will pay the greater bulk of the taxation, in a Parliament where the majority of the people who claim bounties will represent agriculturalists who pay very little taxtaion. Considering that we have an artisan population and capital sunk in industries giving employment, and that we make the main contribution to the revenue of the country, we are quite justified, in spite of the silly threats of the Vice-President, in voting for this Clause. We are to be the people who are to contribute the bulk of this taxation, and may have to contribute all of it, because the agricultural Members are not going to vote for paying it. It is not in human nature. Yet we are to have only twenty voices in an Assembly of 160 Members which grants these bounties. We shall have to trust to the administration of the class of Members who will be in sympathy with hon. Members below the Gangway as to what is wrung from us by taxation. Knowing the past financial history of Ireland—I say nothing about its political history—I think it would be a mischievous thing to give the Nationalist Parliament the power to administer Unionist money by giving bounties to certain trades. There is a great deal of lace made in convents. I think it is very creditable to the Nationalist Members from their point of view, and I take off my hat to them for it, that they have always been loyal to the convents. They have always prevented any inspection or trade regulations being applied to them, because they say they are outside the ordinary law. I suppose they will keep them outside the ordinary law under the Irish Parliament. I do not blame them for it, because they will be consistent. It will be very easy for them to grant a bounty. If somebody got up and said that there should be a farthing a yard bounty upon convent-made lace, how many of them would dare to get up in the Irish House of Commons and oppose it? They dare not do it. We have set up in the North industries making Swiss embroidery. You may get a proposal to give a bounty to convent-made lace, which will not be given to the lace made by hand in the North of Ireland. That is only an instance. I am fair enough to admit that it may be an extreme instance. There are industries which will be specially favoured by the Nationalist party, and which will be spoon-fed at the expense of Protestant industries, or industries in the Protestant part of the country

    305
    Tobacco is spoon-fed at present, because the Nationalists support it. They only support it because it will not grow in the North of Ireland. I have never seen the least enthusiasm on the part of the Nationalist party to get fair play for Irish potatoes in any market, or to lift a finger to get a bounty for Irish flax. If their part of the country were not interested in tobacco, they would not move in the matter.
    Mr. DILLON: Surely we are interested in potatoes?
    Mr. MOORE: I do not think you are. Anyone would tell the hon. Member that the export trade in potatoes is nearly all derived from the Northern counties. The Midlands are a great cattle country, the South-West is a dairy country, and Wexford perhaps is an agricultural county. I am not overstating the case when I say that the bulk of the export trade in potatoes is done in the north. I do a little myself. I am not talking of the early potatoes for the Dublin market. It is a question of export so far as this matter is concerned. Here we are under your scheme having no effective representation in the new House of Commons. If we have no effective representation it gives the sole administration into their hands. If we could trust them I should not have the least objection to the Amendment. We have never
    pretended we could trust them. I do not do it now. But if your belief is that they will spoon feed trades in which the South and West are interested, as they certainly would, and think nothing of penalising ours, which they certainly would not, it is perfectly plain why we should support this Amendment and come down to this, not that we object to bounties, but that if there are to be bounties, if there are to be trade regulations, let them be dealt with, under the impartial administration of the Imperial Parliament and not by a packed Nationlist majority in this bogus Chamber you are setting up in Dublin.
    Mr. KING: I am sure the House must feel very much indebted to the horn Gentleman. He has put life again into a flagging Debate and he has averted that catastrophe—another Division at an inconvenient time. I hope those in the House and those who are enjoying the after-dinner siesta or cigar outside the House equally feel grateful to him.
    Mr. MOORErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be-now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 252.

    Division No. 474.]

    AYES.

    [9.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Moore, William

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nield, Herbert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bathurst. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peet

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gretton, John

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyton, James

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Swift, Rigby

    Butcher, John George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carlile. Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Valentia, Viscount

    Collinos, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Croft, H. P.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Goldman and Mr. G. Locker-

    Fell, Arthur

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Lampson,

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Malley, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

    Adamson, William

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Suilivan, Timothy

    Alden, Percy

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hayward, Evan

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Armitage, Robert

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Barnes, G. N.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hinds, John

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hodgs, John

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Boland, John Plus

    Hogge, James Myles

    Radford, G. H.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Reddy, M.

    Brace, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Richards, Thomas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Joyce, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Chappie, Dr. William Allen

    Keating, Matthew

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robinson, Sidney

    Clough, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Clynes, John R.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, J. (Somerset North)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Rowlands, James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowntree. Arnold

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Leach, Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crean, Eugene

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    ScanIan, Thomas

    Crooks, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cullinan, John

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Davies. Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines, Louth)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Snowden, Philip

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Dawes, J. A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Delany, William

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tennant, Harold John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Doris, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Edwards, John High (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes.Ince)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Molloy. Michael

    Wardle, George J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Waring, Walter

    Field, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Fitzglbbon, John

    Morison, Hector

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Furness, Stephen

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    George, Rt Hon. D. Lloyd

    Munro, R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Gilhooly, James

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Gill, A. H.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Neilson, Francis

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Glanville. H. J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Goldstone, Frank

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Winfrey, Richard

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Gulney, Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Grady, James

    Hackett, John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Wall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Right to Protection of Executive Officers).
    Every person shall be entitled to the full and equal protection of the Irish Government, its officers, and servants so as to protect him in lawfully doing any act he has a legal right to do or in abstaining from doing any act he has a legal right to abstain from doing, and if any Irish Minister or any officer or servant of the Irish Government shall neglect or refuse to afford any protection which it is his duty to afford, the person injured by such neglect or refusal may sustain an action for damages in respect of such injury.
    Mr. MILDMAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause is almost identical with one which I moved to be added to the Home Rule Bill of 1893. It is identical in spirit with that Clause. It proposes to provide that right to protection and assistance from the authorities which every subject has a right to claim. The right hon. Gentleman may think this Clause is not necessary. Let us ask ourselves what would have happened in the past if police protection had been removed from men who had given evidence against those guilty of agrarian offences. If under similar circumstances a man is in future deprived of police protection he will have his remedy under this Clause. It is all very well to say that a reign of peace will be produced in Ireland in the future, but the minority in Ireland cannot afford to neglect the threats which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have uttered. Threats have been made with a special frequency by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He said:—
    "When the police will be our servants we shall then remember who were our enemies, and we shall deal out our punishment to them."
    Hon. Members are very indignant when we quote such words as these, and they seem to look upon it as an insult that they are taken at their word. They are inclined now, I think, to repudiate these sentiments, and, of course, I accept the repudiation; but how are we to know that they will always represent the Irish people in the Dublin Parliament? How are we to know that they will not be displaced by some of those whom they have been teaching for years to rely on unlawful and violent methods? Is not some protection in these circumstances necessary for men who, in spite of every temptation, have been true to the cause of law and order
    310
    in Ireland; trusting us to be true to them. Seeing that they have trusted us, we are responsible for their safety in the future, and I maintain that we cannot abandon them in view of the plain threats which have been made against them—the very plain declarations which have been made that in the future they will be remembered.
    It has been a matter of frequent dispute in these Debates whether or not the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament has been really safeguarded. I am not going into the question at length, for it has been frequently debated. I believe that many hon. Gentlemen opposite are really desirous of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, but they always seem to forget one thing, and that is that supremacy involves control, not only over the making of laws, but over their enforcement. All the safeguards in this Bill are, I think, very vague and shadowy. The safeguards have ail been inserted with the view of protecting the people against possible faults of commission. They forget that it is no less important to protect them against possible faults of omission—omission to maintain civil and religious liberty, omission to guarantee to everyone power to do what he has a legal right to do, and to refrain from doing what he has a legal right to refrain from doing. We all know what has been meant in Ireland by leaving a man severely alone. We all know what in many parts of Ireland the lives of men who had fulfilled their legal obligations would have been. Without police protection their lives would not have been worth a clay's purchase, and nobody can deny that sins of omission on the part of the Irish Parliament may be just as serious and have results far more terrible than sins of commission. I maintain that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is a sham, because this Parliament parts with all control over the Irish Executive. The Irish Members will be at liberty to enforce only those laws which seem to them desirable to enforce. When I moved the Clause in 1893 Lord Morley, then Mr. Morley, characterised it as a platitude. It was merely a platitude that all should be protected in action that is legal. Unfortunately in Ireland circumstances are apt to be peculiar, and it is only too certain that, so far as Ireland is concerned, it cannot be regarded as a platitude. In the Home Rule Debates of 1886 I was sitting near Sir George Trevelyan when he gave the reasons that

    311
    induced him to give up his seat in Mr. Gladstone's Government. The speech he made then, in point of earnestness, feeling, and strength of conviction, impressed me more than any speech I have ever heard in this House. He said at that time that he would rather give up his political career and become a private citizen than give over to the tender mercies of an Irish Executive the law abiding citizens of that country. It is quite true that he afterwards wavered and threw up the sponge, but I maintain that the words he used on that occasion are no less applicable to Ireland now than they were then. He declared that the poor, the helpless, the uninfluential, the farmers and labourers throughout the south and west of Ireland, who underwent terrible risk of life and limb in fulfilling their legal obligations, and the smaller and humbler officers of the law would be left to the pity of those who had not concealed their intention of paying them out when they got their chance of doing so. I firmly believe that, great as are the dangers involved to the minority in Ireland through unjust actions of the Irish Legislature, the risks that they will run through unjust actions of the Irish Executive are far greater. To my mind, in connection with this new Clause, it is the liberty of Irish men which is at stake, and on that account I would urgently appeal for support to the Clause.
    Mr. HEWINS: I desire to second the Motion. Very frequently during the Debates on the Bill it has been pointed out that the safeguards in the Bill are purely illusory. It is not the law that counts so much as the man behind the law—the man who administers it. The danger which my hon. Friends feel in regard to the Bill is not one that can be dealt with by paper safeguards put in the Bill. It is the danger traceable to their estimate of the human factor which has to work the Bill. The sole question to be considered is whether the apprehensions which may very well be felt are not justified, and whether the Bill in its present form contains any satisfactory means of removing those apprehensions. I think it has been sufficiently shown in the course of the Debate that the latter question has not been answered by the Bill or the Government. As to the first question whether these apprehensions are justified, I confess I take the English view of this question. To
    312
    me as an Englishman I am not at first hand concerned in the least with the quarrels in Ireland, and I have watched the development of this question with the greatest care. I have watched with interest the great fight made by my Friends from Ulster and I have watched the demeanour of the Irish Nationalists. I have tried as an Englishman to balance pros and cons and see where we stand. In regard to this important question, are the fears of hon. Members from Ulster justified? We have had disclaimers from the Irish benches and most loyal declarations of impartiality, and it all looks as fair as fair can be. I am not one of those who think that the question of religion comes in. I myself firmly believe that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the great sources of the stability and strength of society throughout Europe. Therefore that is not the question so far as I am concerned. But I look at what hon. Members have been doing, and I say that the apprehensions of hon. Members from Ulster are justified.
    I appeal to the proceedings in this House during the course of this Bill. The question is whether without an Amendment of this kind civil and religious liberty are safe. Is religious liberty safe? Whatever hon. Members below the Gangway have done in all these things, I have seen them march day after day into the Lobby and vote for the destruction of the Welsh Church. From the point of view of a great proportion of the inhabitants of Wales in England that is an act of persecution. Then the hon. and learned Member for Waterford went to Nottingham, I think, the other day and said that he was in agreement with all the items of the programme from that side. Take the question of the schools, and we find that the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, for the sake of carrying out his Nationalist aims, is prepared to assert that he is in complete harmony with all the items of the Liberal programme. One of those items is the destruction of religious education in schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say in view, not of what hon. Members say, but of what they have done and the manner in which they have voted on religious questions in this House, on questions of administration, questions of law, questions of criminal procedure, that my hon. Friends from Ulster are perfectly justified in having apprehensions. Therefore I hope sincerely that this Clause will be accepted.

    313
    There is nothing very revolutionary in it at all. I should have thought that if hon. Members below the Gangway wanted to give a sense of ease and satisfaction to their colleagues from Ireland and the voters in England, who also have got to make up their minds, they could easily accept this particular Clause. If there is not discrimination in the way in which the Irish Parliament, if it is set up, provides for the administration of the laws, then this Clause will never come into effect at all. It can only come into effect if the action of the Irish Parliament proceeds on lines similar to those on which action has proceeded in the British House of Commons during the last few years.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment is to be congratulated upon this distinction, apart from others, that he is moving an Amendment which he moved in a discussion on the Bill of 1893. I congratulate him upon having survived so many political vicissitudes. As to the arguments put forward in support of this Amendment, I cannot help thinking that they are really the same as we have heard again and again applied to different matters as we proceeded under this Bill. The whole of his point was that there ought to be some special provision with regard to the Parliament in Ireland because you could not really trust the Members of the Irish Parliament. We have so often had to deal with that point that I am sure he will not think it want of courtesy if I refrain from answering at any length the observations which he has made. What he is really proposing is that there should be a Clause giving an action for damages against any officer who, in the discharge of his duties, neglects or refuses to carry out some function which it is thought incumbent on him to perform. To me this is an entirely novel principle, and so far as I know there is no precedent for it. It does not apply to any single Parliament, at any rate, which has been created by this House, and it does not apply to this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman fails to give any reason why we should in this particular instance with regard to this Parliament depart from the ordinary law. There is the prelection of course to all citizens in the exercise of their proper legal rights, that if any of these rights are infringed they can have recourse to the Irish Courts and through the Irish Courts by this Bill to the Judicial Committee of the
    314
    Privy Council, which no one will suggest, whatever may be said with reference to the Irish Courts, is not an absolutely independent and impartial tribunal. In fact, it is the one which I suppose would be selected by hon. Members opposite if they had their choice. So really we put the Irish citizens who will come under the officers created by this Parliament in exactly the same position as all persons hero. We have given exactly the same right by the Amendments which are down. We have put them exactly in the same position, and I fail to understand why it should be suggested that we are to approach the Irish Parliament as if it were going to set to work to do an injustice, instead of, as I should have thought, obtaining the confidence of the citizens by doing justice to all members of the community.
    Mr. MOORE: That shows how little you know about the country.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Member has said that of me and of my colleagues a good many times. He must not arrogate to himself all the omniscience.
    Mr. MOORE: I was born in Ireland, and you have never been in it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is one of the fundamental errors which the hon. Gentleman makes. He thinks that because he was born in Ireland those who have not been there are to take everything from him, and that because he was born and lived in Ireland he is in a better position to tell us here what takes place in Ireland than we are.
    Mr. MOORE: You have only hearsay evidence.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I apply what the hon. and learned Member says to representatives from Ireland, and I find that a very large majority of those hon. Members were also born in Ireland, and they tell us a very different story from that which the hon. and learned Member is fond of imparting to this House. After all, we cannot do better than take the views of both sides if we are to come to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) made a speech which is certainly worthy of being recorded, as it will be, and of being remembered by us. In one part of his speech he made a

    315
    very reasonable and very moderate statement with regard to the Irish Parliament. He told us that so far as he was concerned he did not himself think anything of the religious question, and he paid a very graceful and eloquent tribute to Roman Catholics.
    Mr. HEWINS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was that I thought the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world was a source of stability and strength, and I carefully distinguished between that and the religious question and the conduct of Nationalist Members.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I proceed to the instances which the hon. Member gave to prove his case. If the hon. Member is right, according to his argument—he has listened to these Debates, he has followed everything that has been said—although he has approached this question with a real desire to get at the facts and form an accurate and unbiassed judgment, he has come to the conclusion that by reason of the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway in this House they are not fit to be trusted, and that there ought to be some safeguards introduced which have not hitherto been introduced in a Parliament. That is an indictment which requires some investigation, and I listened for the instances upon which he supported it. They are really remarkable. You must bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has asked us to do is not to apply this Clause to the Imperial Parliament, but to the Irish Parliament which is to be constituted, because they are in the peculiar position of men who are not to be trusted to carry out the proper functions. One instance on which he framed this serious indictment was that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have actually voted for Disestablishment, and upon that we are to condemn the Nationalist Members for Ireland. If that be true, and if it follows that they are not to be trusted, all I can say is that the same observation will apply to the majority of this House. Certainly they apply to all those who sit on this side of the House who voted in favour of Welsh Disestablishment.
    Mr. HEWINS: What I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer is: What business have Irish Catholics to vote for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And the logical sequence is that Irish Members should go to Ireland to manage their affairs, and that hon. Gentlemen in this House ought not to vote on Irish affairs. The hon. Member proceeded to give another instance, and said that Irish Members were actually voting for the destruction of religious education in schools. I am not going to argue with him whether they have voted for that.
    Mr. HEWINS: What I said was that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has expressed his adherence to every item of the Liberal programme, and it is impossible to do that without voting for the destruction of religious education.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I must say that involves a very serious problem. He gave one instance in support of the Motion, and he follows that by stating that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford actually supports the various items of the Liberal programme. I can understand after all that that is a great sin in the eyes of the hon. Member, but surely he does not suggest that that justifies a Clause being made applicable to Ireland which would net be made applicable equally to-all of us on these benches, who also adhere to the various items of the Liberal programme. The truth is the hon. Gentleman was very hard put to it to find any reason for supporting the Amendment. The first part of his speech was a reason why he could not support it; and the second part consisted entirely of the contention that because Irish Members supported Liberal policy in this House, therefore they are not to be trusted to carry out the functions of a Parliament in Ireland. I do impress upon this House that the responsibility as regards Irish services for Executive action must rest and does rest with the Irish Executive. The responsibility for Executive action as regards services which are not Irish services-must rest upon the Imperial Executive, and in each case you have got a Parliament to which that Executive is responsible. It is really strange that there should be this fear that any Irish Parliament elected from the constituencies and which must desire to create confidence in the constituencies throughout Ireland, and to which an Executive is responsible, would in some way foster these sins of omission—and this Clause does not relate to any sin of commission—and that therefore we are to

    317
    have this proposal, for which I submit no justification has been shown by either the Mover or Seconder.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman resisted the Clause on two grounds-first, that it involves a certain amount of distrust of the Irish Parliament; and, secondly, that it is not necessary, as there are ample powers in the Bill to guarantee the safety of every law-abiding person already. With regard to the contention that the Irish Parliament would never act in any other than the fairest possible way to everybody in Ireland, I would only point ont that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends behind him have only become converted to that view within the last few months; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it is that it is only lately the Liberal party have seen their way to advocate a Home Rule measure in this House. As a matter of fact it is common knowledge that a great number of hon. Members opposite are not at this moment satisfied that it is safe to grant Home Rule-to Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is a statement which I defy hon. Members opposite to get up and deny. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is a well-known fact on the very few occasions at the last election on which hon. Members referred to Home Rule at all, which they did as seldom as possible, and said as little about it as they could, they simply said they were in favour of some measure of self-government for Ireland, but that when it was presented to this House they would criticise very severely the details of the scheme. I would like to know what severe criticism of the details which was promised has been found during the Debate on the Committee and Report stages. Many hon. Members opposite, I admit, have been more or less consistent Home Rulers for some time, but I say without any hesitation that it is only with the greatest reluctance and with the greatest difficulty that many Members of the Liberal party have been brought to swallow this Bill and the conditions contained in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members get up, as the Attorney-General has got up, with assumed indignation at the idea that we should ask for further safeguards for our liberties and rights. Do they really think we have no cause to ask for those further safeguards? Have they forgotten what has been said by hon. Gentlemen
    318
    below the Gangway any time within the last thirty years? They have not, but they have found that the only possible way in which they can support this Bill with any semblance of decency is to absolutely wipe off with a sponge everything that has been said by Gentlemen of the Nationalist party.
    Let me try and put back on the slate a few of those things that they wipe off so conveniently. I will give a quotation, which I admit is very old, from a speech by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I hear that "Oh!" as soon as anybody proposes to make a quotation from anything that has been said by hon. Members below the Gangway, because they know perfectly well that it is impossible to get over those statements, and that it is not possible to wipe them off the slate as they propose to do. I am glad the hon. Member for Mayo is here I see him smile. He has furnished us, I am sorry to say, with a great many quotations from time to time. The statement I am about to quote is one which his subsequent career has never given us any reason to suppose he has altered as to his ideas or ideals in the-slightest degree. The speech was made in 1880, and in it he said:—
    "I would not injure any man—"
    I am quite sure it is the very last thing that would enter the head or the mind of the hon. Member, but this is what he would do—
    "The way to deal with them is this. Do not have any communication with them at all Do not allow your children to mix with his children. Do not speak to him and have no dealings with them;neither buy nor sell with him, but show in every way that you can that you regard him as what he is as a traitor to his people and his country and a friend of the oppressors of the people. Believe me, if you keep up that system for a short time. It will he far more effectual than if you shoot him, because no man can he punished for such a deed, and he will give in long before to the force of public opinion, and will hand back the farm, as many men have already done."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Mr. C.CRAIG: I hope hon. Members will observe the cheers. There are two conclusions we may draw from those cheers. First of all, there is their idea of not hurting a man. It is like saying, if you pushed a man into the water, you would not do him the slightest harm, while at the same time you drown him. In the second place, I hope hon. Members will observe that hon. Members below the Gangway still think that is the class of treatment to be meted out to a man in Ireland who is only doing what he has a legal right to do. At

    319
    the present time, owing largely to the beneficent legislation of the Chief Secretary, the beneficent operation of the Land Act of 1903 has been arrested, and there is still a large proportion, though I am glad to say not half, of the land of Ireland still unsold to the tenants. Suppose Home Rule becomes law in the course of fifteen months or so, the first thing that will happen I am perfectly sure is that a campaign will be made to force the landlords to sell their farms on whatever terms may be at that time, whether under the present Act or under any new conditions that may be instituted. When that campaign is started, the same methods exactly will be used as were used in the time the hon. Member made that speech. Pressure and oppression such as that, and the horrible pressure that used to be brought to bear by hon. Members below the Gangway in the old days, and pressure similar to what they are bringing on at the present time will be again brought to bear on the landlords of Ireland, and on persons who are supposed to hold farms, which for some reason or other hon. Members consider ought to be handed over to somebody else. Are we to believe that the very men who have advocated that class of pressure, and who will under a new Parliament be the Executive body in Ireland, are going to step in and say, "oh, no, you must not do that," and that they are going to use all the powers of the Executive to stop boycotting and to protect those unfortunate landlords. We know perfectly well that they would be stultifying themselves and going back on everything they have said and done if they did anything of the sort.
    Therefore I say it is absolutely necessary we should have some further protection than is contained in the Bill. Whether it is necessary or not, I say it is most ridiculous nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General to rise with that pretended sense of indignation because we say we have fears that under an Irish Parliament things can happen which have happened in the past, and which we are perfectly certain, if you paid the slightest attention to the history and conditions of Ireland, will happen again. As my hon. Friend reminds me, at the present time in Ireland there are over 300 people under police protection. What is to happen to those people when an Irish Parliament comes to rule in Ireland? Even during the six years under which the
    320
    Royal Irish Constabulary are under the control of this Parliament those men's lives will not be safe, because, although the police are under the control of this House the Executive will not be, and if the Executive do not think it proper to lend the police for the purpose of protecting them these men will be absolutely without protection; they will either have to give in altogether to the demands of the United Irish League or the Ancient Order of Hibernians, or what other horrible society it may be, or probably lose their lives How are you going to meet a case like that? If hon. Members below the Gangway were sincere in their statements that they desire to see fair play for every man in Ireland would they not use their undoubted power to remove the hatred from which these men suffer at present? We know that they have the power. If a person is boycotted, nothing would be easier than for the Member for the constituency to go down and point out that the boycott is wicked and wrong, and in almost every case it would be removed and police protection rendered unnecessary. Can hon. Members point to a single case where they have exercised that power? Take the question of cattle-driving, which, until a short time ago, when it became the fashion to be good, was rife in the Midlands and West of Ireland. How often did Nationalist Members lift a finger to stop it?
    Mr. DEVLIN: What about man-driving in Belfast?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: Perhaps the hon. Member will give us his views on man-driving in Belfast afterwards. If he does I hope he will confine himself more strictly to facts than he did on the famous occasion when, almost with tears running down his cheeks, he described the case of a man who was supposed to have been driven into a furnace in Belfast.
    Mr. KEATING: Will you give the name of the boy who was injured?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am sorry to say that in different parts of Ireland there have been many boys injured; I do not know to which one the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. KEATING: The statement made in the House was not true.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Castledawson outrage?
    Mr. KEATING: There was no such outrage.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am happy to say that there are twenty-three members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians at present in prison in connection with that matter. If hon. Members below the Gangway were sincere in their desire to see fair play they would have put down every one of those cattle drives, whereas, as a matter of fact, although they kept silence in this House, they were instigating them at home. How can the right hon. Gentleman assume that tone of indignation at speeches such as my hon. Friend delivered when, if he knew the elements of what goes on in Ireland, he would be aware that we have cause to be certain that the things that have gone on in the past will go on in the future, except that under Home Rule they will continue in a vastly aggravated form. We are, I say, absolutely justified in asking for further protection. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal, to my satisfaction at any rate, with the question as to whether the power at present exists to
    protect these people. I do not believe it does. I am not a lawyer, but we have discussed the matter. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but there are a considerable number of Members below the Gangway who also are not lawyers. To be a lawyer is not a disgrace, neither is it anything to boast of. But even so, I come exactly half-way between; I happened to be a lawyer and I am not one now. We have not had explained to my satisfaction that this Clause is not necessary. More information on that point ought to be given to the House. So far as the necessity for some protection is concerned, I do not think there is any hon. Member opposite who in his heart of hearts does not believe that everything that we on this side have said is not absolutely true.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 283.

    Division No. 475.]

    AYES.

    [10.25 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Moore, William

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Newman, John R. P.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L (Dorset, N.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Nield, Herbert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    8arrie, H. T.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    8igland, Alfred

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bird, Alfred

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyton, James

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Snssoon, Sir Philip

    Butcher, John George

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Swift, Rigby

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Chambers, James

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Willouqhby, Major Hon. Claud

    Croft, Henry Page

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Winterton, Earl

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macmaster, Donald

    Yerburgh, Robert A

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    M'Mordie, Robert

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Mildmay and Mr. Hewins

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Malcolm, Ian

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molloy, Michael

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Adamson, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morrell, Philip

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morison, Hector

    Alden, Percy

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Muldoon, John

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

    Gulney, Patrick

    Munro, Robert

    Armitage, Robert

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hackett, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Neilson, Francis

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Barnes, George N.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare)

    Barton, William

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Birrcil, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Grady, James

    Boland, John Plus

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bowerman, C. W,

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Malley, William

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Brace, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Higham. John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hogge, James Myles

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

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pirie, Duncan V,

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Clough, William

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Radford, G. H.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones. William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Reddy, M.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.>

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cullinan, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richards, Thomas

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Delany, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dillon, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roche. Augustine (Louth)

    Doris, W.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    ScanIan, Thomas

    Falconer, J.

    Macpherson, James lan

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Ferens. Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Kean, John

    Shortt, Edward

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Snowden, Philip

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    George. Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Martin, Joseph

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gllhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sutton, John E.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Lcitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thomas, James Henry

    324

    325

    Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Waring, Walter

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Webb, H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Verney, sir Harry

    White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Wadsworth, John

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

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

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    White, Patrick (Month, North)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Wardle, G. J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned."
    Question put, and agreed to. Further consideration of Bill, as amended, adjourned till To-morrow (Wednesday).
    The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SI-BAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

  BLOCKING MOTIONS.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I desire to call the attention of you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to a Blocking Motion which has been put down by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), which I understand from your ruling prevents the House discussing a question which is an extremely urgent one with regard to the administration of the medical benefits under the National Insurance Act. I would have called attention if it had been possible, to the fact that the Insurance Commissioners have within the last day or two issued two circulars, one on the 27th and one on the 30th, which, in my view, are entirely contrary to the Act itself. I am aware that hon. Members opposite do not wish this discussed. I am also aware it would, in accordance with your ruling, be impossible for me to go into the details of that matter, but I would like, as the Chancellor is present and if it were possible, that a question should be answered by him on that subject, and I would refer to what happened at the adjournment of the House yesterday when, notwithstanding a Blocking Motion in almost exactly similar terms with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, a discussion took place upon new eases which, as I understand, had arisen since the Blocking Motion was put down. [HON.
  326
  MEMBERS: "No."] I understand that was the ground upon which the House was allowed to discuss the question of foot-and-mouth disease yesterday evening. I submit to you, Sir, the circulars of the Insurance Commissioners, or rather not circulars, but communications to the Press, which were not either laid upon the Table or communicated to the Members of this House, and which were issued on 27th December and 30th December are new facts since the Blocking Motion was put down by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and therefore I would ask you, Sir, whether it would be in order that I should now put before the House certain considerations which will, I admit, call into question the communications made by the Insurance Commissioners and challenge the fact whether they are or are not in accordance with the Act, with the Regulations, and instructions which they have already issued to their subordinates. I ask you, therefore, whether I may proceed without being out of order to raise that question?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I should certainly raise no objection on behalf of the Government on the ground that there is a Blocking Motion. I had nothing to do with the Blocking Motion; on the contrary, I was very anxious on the Friday before the House adjourned for the Christmas Recess to make a statement with regard to the position of the medical benefit, and I was under the impression that the Debate would go on until I was informed there was a Blocking Motion upon the Order Paper. It is just as much inconvenience to me as it is to the hon. Member at the present moment. If it is in order, I should be very happy to answer the question which has been sent to me by the hon. Member for the London University (Sir P. Magnus), and I do not think any of my Friends would raise any objection on any point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I could hold it would be in order to discuss it now

  327
  The Blocking Motion is of a very general character—
  "To call attention to the working of the National Insurance Act."
  Nothing could be wider than that; at the same time I would venture to make an appeal to the hon. Member to remove the Motion, at least for a day. Under the present arrangement there is half an hour available to hon. Members to discuss matters that are urgently pressing. We have rather got round the rule from time to time by discussing matters which have arisen with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. Hon. Members for Ireland have been free to discuss that, and I think it would only be fair to allow, at all events for one night, say to-morrow, those who wish to do so to raise a discussion on this particular matter. The hon. Member could, if he wishes, put back his Blocking Motion on Thursday.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I naturally desire to defer to any suggestion of that character coming from the Chair. I accept the entire responsibility for the initiation and the maintenance of this Motion upon the Order Paper. It is a matter of common knowledge in the House that I have not placed the Motion upon the Order Paper from any desire to suppress discussion of any aspect of the administration of the Insurance Act. I did it with the deliberate and designed object of forcing attention to an arrangement in the procedure of this House which urgently calls for earnest reconsideration at the hands of the House. I adopted that method because it seemed to me from the experience I have had as a Member of this House it was the only way to force the consideration of that anomaly in our procedure upon the attention of the House. I am most anxious to defer to your suggestion, and if it is desired I should temporarily withdraw my Motion in order to admit of an answer to the hon. Member, I shall be happy to do so.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can give notice to withdraw his Motion now and can put it down to-morrow night.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I desire to give notice that I withdraw my notice of Motion relating to the National Insurance Act.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will it be competent for the hon. Gentleman to ask a question without any discussion?
  The SPEAKER: As long as the notice is on the Paper I must adhere to my ruling.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to call the attention of the House to the extraordinarily ridiculous position in which we are now placed. As long ago as 1907 we had a Select Committee, which reported unanimously in favour of a change in the Rules. There is a great Parliamentary absurdity now existing, and efforts should be made to remove the scandal on the procedure of the House of Commons. I appeal to the Government to remove this blot on our procedure—a blot which deprives us of the opportunity of discussing matters of legislation with freedom. We can scarcely get any discussion on general matters, and I think it is an absolute scandal. I hope the Government will remove it.
  Mr. MORRELL: I wish to join in the appeal of the Noble Lord. I am sorry my hon. Friend expressed his willingness to withdraw his Motion on this occasion, because I would wish to emphasise the fact that the continuance of these Blocking Motions is a scandal in the eyes of the public, and it makes our procedure absolutely absurd. I would draw attention to a flagrant case in which an hon. Member was anxious to draw attention to the critical state of affairs in Persia, but there being a notice on the Paper he was unable to raise it. That is an absurd state of things, and I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he will not now give us some assurance that the Government will deal with this question.

LICENSING ADMINISTRATION (LONDON).
Earl WINTERTON: I desire to raise a different question, of which I have given the Home Secretary notice, namely, with regard to the administration of the licensing laws in London. I understand that his Department is not directly responsible, but that the responsibility rests with the licensing authority of the county council. His Department is very largely consulted, at any rate, privately in the matter. I desire to know what is the attitude of the police towards the growing tendency on the part of the licensing authority in London to grant on New Year's Eve and other feast days a considerable extension, sometimes for an hour, of the ordinary closing

329
time to fashionable places of entertainment, such as the Savoy, the Hotel Cecil, and other hotels, when such permission is refused to the humbler places of entertainment. That is the tendency which has grown up during the last few years, with the result that at the present time any large hotel can obtain an extension without the slightest difficulty of any kind, while the poor man desiring to remain for a few minutes in the "Fox and Grapes" at Limchouse, or some such place, is prevented from so doing. I ask the Home Secretary whether the police have been consulted in any way upon this question by the licensing authority and what is the attitude of the Home Office towards it? It seems to me that if you are going to grant an extension on New Year's Eve and other feast days to one class of place where liquor is sold, it is only right that the same privilege should be granted to everyone. I can see no justice in allowing persons to consume champagne after hours when you refuse permission to the working man to consume his beer after working hours in the ordinary public-house. I desire to ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to this growing tendency and what is the attitude of the Home Office towards it.
Mr. PIRIE: I would like the House to insist upon an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the two questions addressed to him by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil). It is a question we have very few opportunities of discussing, and a question of serious importance to the House, and we ought to get an answer from the Front Bench, especially when the attention of the House has been called to it. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take this opportunity and not evade it, of giving a direct answer as to whether the Government are going to deal with what has been properly described on both sides as a public scandal, namely, the thwarting of the freedom of discussion in this House. More and more the tendency is for the House to come under the thumb of the Cabinet, and private Members' rights are week by week and month by month being almost whittled down to disappearing point, not only in respect of private Members' rights, but of public Debate. We shall soon get to the state of affairs when there will be no more Committee stage of a Bill. We shall be told to accept a Bill simply by order of the Cabinet, signed "Cabinet Imperator." I would ask the
330
Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House, to answer this question.
Mr. HEMMERDE: I would ask the Home Secretary whether, in answering the Noble Lord's question, he will also inform the House as to why it is that Covent Garden Theatre again and again gets an extension of its licence for fancy dress balls?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I will endeavour to make such reply as I can to the question put by the Noble Lord, the excellence of whose sentiments we all admit. There is not a word spoken by him with which he will not find complete agreement on this side of the House. We are all grateful to him for having called public attention to this very important matter. I think perhaps that I alone in this House might be justified in having some slight complaint against the Noble Lord for the reason that though he gave me notice of the question he was going to ask, he gave it to me only at twenty-five minutes to eleven, almost before he rose to put his question to me. I have to confess that I am not aware of the limits of my responsibility in this matter. My impression is that I am not primarily responsible at all. I will, however, in deference to the question which the Noble Lord has put, endeavour to discover what the accurate limits of my responsibility are, and if I have the power I will endeavour to put into force those admirable principles which he has enunciated.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I am sure the House will accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, though it is regrettable that he did not take the opportunity of asking the Solicitor-General before he hurriedly left the House as to what his exact legal position is, because, although the Solicitor-General at times does not like to give an opinion on what may be a doubtful subject, I cannot help thinking in a matter like this he would have been able to tell the right hon. Gentleman straight away what his real position is. He left the House in a very marked way. Whether he went to don a kilt to join one of the said parties or whether he went to join the Prime Minister, we do not know. At any rate, subject to that, I am sure the House will accept the promise of the Heme Secretary.
Adjourned at Five minutes before Eleven of the clock.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906.
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906.
  Territorial Force (Recruiting).
  Territorial Force (Recruiting).
  Silver Depreciation.
  Silver Depreciation.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Farm Institutes.
  Farm Institutes.