Sitting of 7 November 1912

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

ROYAL MESSAGE.
High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division),—The Treasurer of the Household (Captain Guest) reported His Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 25th day of October last, as followeth:—
I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the First Section of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, an additional Judge may he appointed to the High Court of Justice in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Pier and Harbour Orders confirmation (No.3) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Great Central Railway (Grimsby Fish Dock) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of National Health Insurance (Payments to Insurance Committees) (Ireland) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) (Ireland) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of National Health Insurance (Payment by Approved Societies to Insurance Committees) (Ireland) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Copy presented of Further Memorandum on Financial Provisions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1911–12.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 6th November; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Copy presented of Regulation, dated 5th; November, 1912, made by the Treasury under Sections 96 (1) and 99 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Halifax, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the closing hours on the several days of the week for certain Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a Home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TBADE EEPOETS (ANNUAL SEEIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5020 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHINA (No. 3, 1912).
Copy presented of Further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of China (in continuation of China, No. 1, 1912, Cd. 6148) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
Report and Special Report in respect of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords], the Ancient Monuments Protection Bill [Lords], and Ancient Monuments Protection (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 360.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LOEDS.
That they have agreed to:—
London Institution (Transfer) Bill, without Amendment;
Amendments to—
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords], without Amendment;
Amendment to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870." [Foreign Enlistment Bill [Lords.]
Forgery Bill [Lords],
That they have come to the following Resolution, viz.: That it is desirable that the Forgery Bill [Lords] be referred to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Consolidation Bills.

ESTABLISHED CHUECH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into Law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by:—
Earl of Ronaldshay, from the Hornsey Division of Middlesex, bearing 2,692 signatures.
Sir John Spear (51 petitions), from the Western or Tavistock Division of Devon, bearing 6,001 signatures.
Mr. Gardner (28 petitions), from East Berks, bearing 4,943 signatures.
Sir R. Pole-Carew (63 petitions), from the Bodmin, Truro, and St. Ives Divisions of Cornwall, bearing 9,394 signatures.
Sir Hildred Carlile (18 petitions), from the Midland Division of Hertfordshire, bearing 5,697 signatures.
Mr. Barnston (41 petitions), from the Eddisbury Division of Cheshire, bearing 11,372 signatures.
Mr. Hoare, from Chelsea, bearing 1,805 signatures.
Mr. Douglas Hall, from the Isle of Wight, bearing 5,837 signatures
Mr. Wheler (34 petitions), from the North-East, Faversham, Division of Kent, bearing 4,699 signatures.
Mr. Alan Sykes (19 petitions), from the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, bearing 6,657 signatures; and also (J8 petitions) from the Northwich Division of Cheshire, bearing 12,390 signatures.
Mr. Shirley Benn (6 petitions), from Plymouth, bearing 1,504 signatures.
Sir F. Banbury (14 petitions), from the City of London, bearing 1,457 signatures.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any alleviation of the anarchy existing in Southern Persia under Parliamentary Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The condition of Southern Persia leaves much to be desired and is due to the absence of effective Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the contrast between the order in Northern Persia and the condition of Southern Persia does not reflect very much upon the respective influences of Great Britain and Russia?
  Sir E. GREY: Upon that the hon. Member must form his own opinion.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether there is any ground for the statement that Parliamentary government now exists in Persia, and whether Parliamentary government is in any way responsible for the present anarchical condition of Southern Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: I used the words "due to the absence of effective government," and as to the cause of that hon. Members must form their own opinions.

  China Loan.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, since Russia and Japan have no money to lend to China, in respect of what interests they were admitted to the financial group for providing China with money, now called the six-Power group; and, if the interests in question comprise designs upon Chinese territory or restriction upon China in any part of her territory will he state the extent of the design or restriction, whether Great Britain concurs in enforcing it, and how it is reconcilable with the integrity and independence of China?
  Sir E. GREY: It was clearly desirable that all the Powers interested in the stability of China should be in agreement in the matter of a loan, so as to avoid, as far as possible, individual lending in return for special concessions which might have been of a political or territorial nature; and Russia and Japan, who are close neighbours of China, could not possibly be excluded from considerations of this kind. There has been no question in any of the conditions proposed to China of any designs on Chinese territory or independence.

  Red Sea Lights.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, now that there is no longer war between Italy and Turkey and the lights in the Red Sea are again being re-lit, he will endeavour to make arrangements with the
  1410
  Governments of the countries concerned to see that in any future trouble such important lights may not again be extinguished?
  Sir E. GREY: It would be a very difficult matter to ensure that no lights should ever be extinguished in time of war, but we shall in the interests of commerce do what can be done to ensure that there is as little interference as possible.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the inconvenience caused commercially during the Turco-Italian war, consider whether there is any possibility of making representations before a war begins—or of calling a conference?
  Sir E. GREY: It is always possible to make representations, but the question is whether a request to belligerents to restrict their operations in case of war would have any effect. I doubt whether any conference could draw up binding resolutions which would prevent belligerents taking action they thought to be necessary in their own interests when war broke out.

  Italian Tariffs.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has completed his representations to the Government of Italy in regard to the tariffs to be imposed upon Manchester cottons and Yorkshire woollens sent from this country to Tripoli, in lieu of the practically Free Trade conditions which had effect in that country when under Turkish rule?
  Sir E. GREY: The matter was considered at the close of the Italian-Turkish war, but as no country made any special stipulations with regard to commerce, it would not have been desirable or practicable for us to do so; nor would it have been in accord with precedent.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can we not take the initiative in a matter of such great importance to our own commerce?
  Sir E. GREY: It is not possible to secure better terms in a case of this kind than any other country secures. If the hon. Member will refer to precedents— they are rare—he will find there is no precedent for making a special stipulation.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of the cession of any portion of Turkish territory to any of the Balkan States as the result of the present war, there will be a change detrimental to English interests in the fiscal duties imposed upon Manchester and Yorkshire goods; and whether he will bear in mind the importance of Turkey as an outlet for such goods in any negotiations which might involve a change of territory in those regions?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member will doubtless realise that I am, at this stage, unable to reply to the first portion of his question. His Majesty's Government are, of course, fully alive to the importance of British commercial interests in these regions.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May we take it that every effort will be made in this case —it was too late in the case of Tripoli— to preserve such rights as we now have with Turkey in regard to free admission of our goods?
  Sir E. GREY: It was not a question of being too late in Tripoli. When countries go to war, and as a result one country annexes by conquest the territory of the other, that territory passes absolutely to the other country and neutral countries cannot make stipulations unless they are prepared to dispute the terms of peace and to assert their rights by force of arms.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Might I suggest—[HON. MEMBEBS: "NO, no."] Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to give some quid pro quo if we were not a Free Trade country?
  Sir E. GREY: I have been pointing out that in the case of Italian-Tripoli, which may also apply to this country—I am not speaking in advance—Tariff Reform countries are those which have made these special stipulations and have got no special advantage.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to resolutions passed by national school teachers' associations at Belmullet, Mallow, and other places, protesting against the action of the Gaelic League and its interference with teachers
  1412
  of schools who do not submit to its dictation; and whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are aware of these resolutions and are taking any steps to protect teachers who are attacked by the Gaelic League?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My attention has been called to a newspaper report of a meeting of the Tip-perary National Teachers' Association at which a resolution of the nature indicated in the question was adopted. The Commissioners of National Education are aware that similar resolutions have appeared in the Press, but they do not consider that any action on their part is necessary.

  University Scholarships (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been directed to a report, dated 2lst October, presented by the Standing Committee on Legislation to the Executive Committee of the Irish General Council of County Councils, from which it would appear that twenty-four of the Irish county councils have pledged themselves to expend the ratepayers' money in providing scholarships in the National University alone, to the entire exclusion of Trinity College; whether an offer made by the Chief Secretary to provide a Grant of £10,000 per annum towards the cost of founding scholarships from primary to intermediate schools in Ireland has been rejected by this committee because it could not be similarly appropriated altogether to the National University or institutions in sympathy with its Irish policy, to the exclusion of Trinity College; and whether, under these circumstances, any steps will be taken to protect ratepayers in Ireland who may desire to send their sons to Trinity College, but are compelled to pay towards scholarships in which they have no interest?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been directed to the report referred to. I should be sorry if the twenty-four county councils referred to were to forfeit the Grant which I have conditionally obtained by refusing to agree to the conditions on which it has been offered, and I hope that wiser counsels may prevail; but I have no power under the Irish Universities Act of 1908 to prevent the county councils restricting their scholarships to the National University.
  Captain CRAIG: If the right hon. Gentleman has not the power to prevent cannot he warn people?
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to withhold the Grant unless the conditions are complied with?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The conditions of the Grant have been laid down and I certainly have no intention of withdrawing from them.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: How many county councils in the North of Ireland, where There is a considerable minority of Nationalists, have been given an opportunity of going to a National University if they so desire?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say.
  Mr. MOORE: They go to Belfast.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Provost of Trinity College is a signatory of the Solemn League Covenant? It is very interesting.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Captain, CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a Report in respect of an attack on the night of Tuesday, 21st October, on a house of a man named Cassidy, near Mullingar; whether a number of revolver shots were fired into the house, in which two people were sleeping at the time; whether he is aware that the motive for this outrage is that Cassidy holds a farm claimed by another person; and whether he will state what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of attacks of this character on Cassidy and his property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was reported to the police that on the night of 22nd October three revolver shots were fired into the house of William Cassidy, near Mullingar, in which two people were sleeping at the time, but that neither were injured. The motive of the outrage is a matter of opinion. All necessary protection is being given to Cassidy, and his house is closely watched at night by the police.
  Captain CRAIG: Have any arrests been made in this case.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is not in the question.
  Captain CRAIG: I did not think it worth while to ask it.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the boycotting of the male national school at Aughamore, county Leitrim; whether he is aware that no pupils are now attending this school as the result of the action of the local division of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, who have boycotted the school and its manager, the Rev. Father Geraghty, P.P., because he refused to appoint a teacher who was the nominee of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in the locality; whether he has been informed that the teacher appointed to this school by Father Geraghty has been intimidated by band-playing and hostile demonstrations made by drumming parties and bands of the Ancient Order of Hibernians; whether he is aware that under the influence of the Ancient Order of Hibernians dues have been refused to Father Geraghty, and at a funeral lately the people refused to pay the usual dues and the burial service was not read by the priest; and whether he will state what steps have been taken to protect the person referred to from further intimidation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that no pupils are now attending this school owing to the manager having refused to accede to the request of a number of parishioners to appoint their nominee as teacher. The father, brother, and other friends of the unsuccessful candidate are understood to be Hibernians, and at their instigation the local band of the order has made hostile demonstrations outside the school, and the pupils have consequently kept away. The police inform me that Father Geraghty is not boycotted, but they have reason to believe that some of the parishioners have refused to pay him their dues, and that at a funeral recently none of those present paid the usual offerings. The police were present at every demonstration made against the teacher, but on no occasion were any threats made, and although he has been annoyed he cannot be said to have been intimidated. The matter, however, is being carefully watched.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he had received a report in respect of an attempt made on 25th October to blow up the house of Mrs. Norah O'Shaughnessy, of Newcastle, County Limerick; whether a bomb was

  1415
  placed at the front door of Mrs. O'Shaugh-nessy's house and exploded, causing much alarm and some damage; whether he has been informed that, in the month of July, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy was summoned to attend a meeting of the United Irish League to answer a charge of having purchased this house; whether the outrage was the result of Mrs. O'Shaughnessy's refusal to attend the meeting of the United Irish League and submit to its dictation; and whether any arrests have been made or any person been made amenable for the offence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that the axle-box of a cart-wheel charged with blasting powder was exploded against the door of the house of Mrs. O'Shaughnessy on 25th October, slightly-damaging the woodwork. Mrs. O'Shaughnessy received a letter of the nature referred to, which she did not answer, but it is not possible to say whether this occurrence is connected with that letter. The police are pursuing their inquiries, but the information they have obtained would not, as yet, justify the institution of criminal proceedings against any person.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that at the last Monaghan Quarter Sessions, Mary Owens, of Cloughfin, was awarded compensation for malicious damage to a quantity of hay; that threatening notices signed by moonlighters had been posted in the district; and if any proceedings have been taken against the persons who committed the damage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mary Owens was awarded £3 compensation for malicious damage to a quantity of hay. Mrs. Owens stated that she found a threatening notice posted near her house which she took down herself, but she did not at the time report the matter to the police. The police have been unable to obtain any evidence to connect any person with the injury to the hay.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked if, at the Swinford Quarter Sessions, on 22nd October, Mrs. Margaret Brady, of Clonbeg, county Sligo, was awarded £14 as compensation for the malicious destruction of hay; that Michael Brady stated on oath that his mother was a feeble woman and had received trouble and annoyance from people who wanted to take the farm for division amongst the tenants; that fences
  1416
  had been knocked down and a friendly neighbour had his turf thrown into a bog hole; and if any proceedings have been instituted by the police against the persons responsible for this damage and annoyance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that Mrs. Brady was awarded £14 compensation for malicious injury to her hay. and that her family and some neighbours who have been friendly to her have been subject to petty annoyances. Mrs. Brady's son has taken proceedings against a number of neighbours for trespass and obtained damages against them. The police have not been able to obtain sufficient evidence to justify proceedings against anyone for the malicious injury to the hay.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been directed to the claims for compensation, recently lodged in respect to alleged malicious fires at Bolabeg, Templeshando, Gurteen Upper, near Coolgreany, county Wexford, Woodstock, county Wexford, Ballinglanna, county Cork, Loughrea and Dungary, county Galway, and Newton-cashel, Lanesboro', and Fermoyle, county Longford; and whether in any of these cases proceedings have been taken by the police against the persons implicated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen police reports in connection with the cases referred to, in which claims for compensation have been lodged. No proceedings have been taken in any of these cases. Offences of this kind are usually committed by stealth, under cover of night, and it is very difficult for the police to get sufficient evidence against the guilty parties.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to incendiary fires in Westmeath; if he is aware that at the meeting of the Ballymore (county Westmeath) District Council on 17th October one of the members stated that there is never a criminal prosecution in these cases; and if he will explain why no action is taken by the police against the persons who commit this damage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that two cases of malicious injury to hay by fire have occurred recently in Westmeath, and that claims for compensation have been lodged in both cases. I am not aware that the statement referred to was made. I have already, in answer to a

  1417
  previous question, explained the difficulty of obtaining evidence with a view to a prosecution in these cases.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the cause of the delay in making a grant to Mrs. Coffey, -evicted tenant on the Kenmare estate; and whether, seeing that she has been reinstated and, while responsible for the annuity, has neither house nor stock, immediate steps will be taken to give her a Grant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot from the particulars given trace the receipt of any application from Mrs. Coffey as an evicted tenant.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the reason why the Mitchell estate, near Moylough, county Galway, is not dealt with by the Congested Districts Board in the same way as the Digby, Trench, and other estates which surround it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have issued an offer for the purchase of this property, and negotiations are still pending with regard to it.
  Mr. MOORE: How many farms have the Congested Districts Board handed over to one of its own members?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. I should like to have notice of the question.
  Mr. MOORE: The Nationalists know it.
  Mr. J. ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware* that the Vesey-Fitzgerald estate, situate at Men-lough, county Galway, was taken over by the Estates Commissioners four years ago, who afterwards transferred it to the Congested Districts Board; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants are charged a high rent for the grass lands pending the completion of the sale, he will see that either the rents be reduced or the sale completed without further delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The negotiations for the purchase of the estate of M. G. Vesey-Fitzgerald and others were transferred to the Congested Districts Board by the Estates Commissioners. The Board have had the property inspected and valued, and an offer for its purchase is about to be issued.
  Mr. J. ROCHEasked why the injunction proceeding initiated by Lord Clanricarde on March last has not yet come to trial; and whether the Congested Districts Board is in any way responsible for the delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that in the usual course of proceedings in Chancery the case could hardly yet have come to a hearing. The Congested Districts Board are in no way responsible for the delay, but they have had Lord Clanricarde put under terms to expedite the hearing of the case.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Did not Lord Clanricarde, some time ago, ask the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners for three months' delay, and did not the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board comply with that request, and are they not so far responsible for the delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The delay may have been necessary in order to enable Lord Clanricarde to prepare his case.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether, after the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Cork in reference to the position of Mrs. Mary Richardson, a tenant on the J. S. Hunt estate, county Cork, appeared on the Order Paper, the Estates Commissioners wrote to this woman peremptorily informing her that they intended vesting her holding in her without further delay; is it the usual practice for administrative departments to anticipate the issues raised in a Parliamentary question; is he aware that some time ago the Estates Commissioners wrote to the hon. Member for Mid-Cork, in reference to this case, that they would not vest the holding in the tenant for two months to enable her to take action; has the two months so specified expired; and is it usual for the Commissioners to vest a holding in a tenant whilst a decree for interest on the purchase money has actually issued and upon which the sheriff has made no return?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the 30th August last the Estates Commissioners in reply to a communication from the hon. Member, informed him that to enable Mrs. Richardson to take such legal proceedings as she might be advised, to have her purchase agreement set aside, they had directed that no steps should be taken for two months to vest the holding in her. No such proceedings were instituted by her,

  1419
  and on the 31st ultimo, on the expiration of this period of two months, in the usual course and without any reference whatsoever to the horn Member's question, they wrote to Mrs. Richardson, informing her that the holding would be vested without further delay. The Land Commission have the same remedies for the recovery of interest in lieu of rent as they have for the recovery of unpaid instalments of a purchase annuity, and the Commissioners do not see that anything would be gained by delaying the vesting in this case.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Did not the Commissioners write to Mrs. Richardson the day after my question appeared on the Order Paper of the House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. It does not follow that it was necessarily written in consequence of the question.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether Mrs. Mary Richardson, Gortdonaghmore, St. Ann's Hill, a tenant on the estate of J. S. Hunt, county Cork, was processed recently before the Recorder at Cork. Sessions for interest due on foot of a purchase agreement; that Mrs. Richardson alleges that she was forced to sign this purchase agreement by threats of legal proceedings for arrears of rent and other duress; that she made representations to this effect some years ago to the Estates Commissioners and was then definitely promised by them a special inspection of her holding and an inquiry into all the facts of her case; that the Commissioner now refuse this inspection and inquiry; and that Mrs. Richardson has asked that her purchase agreement be dismissed; will he say that the solicitor for the vendor first agreed to the dismissal of the purchase agreement and afterwards insisted on going on with the matter; and is it the intention of the Estates Commissioners to throw the burden of the future annuities in this case as a charge upon the rates of county Cork when Mrs. Richardson is unable to pay them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Irish Land Act, 1903. Mrs. Richardson agreed to purchase her holding, which is subject to a judicial rent, at a price which comes within the zone limits prescribed by that Act, and the Estates Commis-
  1420
  sioners have, therefore, no power to fix the price. Mrs. Richardson made default in payment of the interest which she had contracted to pay in lieu of rent pending the advance of the purchase money, and the Land Commission had no option but to institute legal proceedings in the County Court for its collection. No special inspection was promised as alleged, but before she signed her agreement Mrs. Richardson was informed that her case would be inquired into when the estate was being dealt with. It is open to her. if so advised, to take legal proceedings to have her agreement set aside on the ground of alleged duress. Unless the agreement is so set aside the Commissioners are bound to sanction the sale.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: As this is a case affecting thousands of tenants in the country, have the Estates Commissioners no power, where it is alleged that an agreement was obtained by fraud, to inquire into the facts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. In this case the lady was given considerable time in which to take proceedings. She still can take proceedings, and unless she does so and gets the agreement set aside, the Estates Commissioners are bound to treat it as effective.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: If this lady is not able to pay her instalment of interest, am I to understand that the Estates Commissioners will insist on vesting the holding in her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, unless she takes proceedings to have the agreement set aside.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: If she is unable at the present moment to pay interest, what prospect is there that, she will be able to pay the annuity if the holding is vested in her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot help it.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: In that event, will not the ratepayers, through the county council, be obliged to meet the liability in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The lady must make up her mind one way or the other. If she wants to set aside the agreement, she must ask for it to be done. So long as the agreement is in force the Commissioners are bound by it.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether it has been the rule in successive Governments in Ireland for a considerable number of years that one third of the vacancies to the post of resident magistrates should be allocated to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether a vacancy now exists for a resident magistrate; whether, according to precedent, an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary should be appointed; and whether it is intended to allocate this vacancy in accordance with practice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It has been the practice of successive Governments, and my practice also, to assign one in every three vacancies among the resident magistrates to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The vacancy referred to in the question does not go to the police.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the province of Connaught has been free from foot-and-mouth disease for thirty years, he will allow store cattle and sheep from the whole province to be admitted into England and Scotland without further delay?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Ireland): This is a matter for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Under the Regulations of that Board store cattle can at present be shipped from the ports of Sligo and West-port, in the province of Connaught.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, in consequence of the embargo on the Irish cattle trade, farmers in county Longford have been wholly unable to realise the value of their cattle at the recent fairs; whether at the recent Sessions held in that county numerous decrees were taken out for annuity instalments and interest in lieu of rent unpaid because of the situation created by this cattle embargo; and whether he will request the Land Commission to suspend the execution of these decrees pending the reopening of English markets to Irish store stock, which is the principal source of revenue for these poor men?
  Mr. BIRRELL: At the recent Quarter Sessions in county Longford decrees were
  1422
  obtained for land purchase instalments and interest in lieu of rent which accrued due in the months of May and June last. The number of cases in which it was necessary to take proceedings was not appreciably greater than the number usual at this period in normal years. The Land Commission have no power to suspend the execution of the decrees.
  Mr. FARRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to request the Land Commission to suspend the execution of decrees?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that in July last a consignment of cattle sent by Mr. MacDermott, of Ballybofey, from Londonderry to Glasgow, and returned thence to Derry, were at Derry put in the same yard as cattle which had been returned from Heysham; that at the time no infected cattle had been landed in Glasgow, where as Heysham was within an infected area: that Mr. MacDermott's cattle were put with the cattle from the infected area by order of his officials, with the result that the quarantine period for these cattle was much longer than it should have been; and that Mr. MacDermott was obliged to pay for the keep of the cattle while they were so detained and incur the loss from their deterioration; and, seeing that this loss was avoidable and due to the action of his officials, will he compensate Mr. Mac Dermott for it?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department are not in a position to entertain a claim for compensation in the case referred to. The hon. Member was informed to this effect in July last.
  Mr. KELLY: Why, if the Department admit liability, do they not compensate Mr. MacDermott?
  Mr. RUSSELL: We have no legal power to make compensation in such a case.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the cordon drawn round Mullingar includes Crossakiel, in the Oldcastle Rural District; whether he is aware that he is aware that it is twenty miles from the centre of infection; and will he release it by limiting the cordon to a fifteen-mile radius?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Crossakiel is within the district scheduled by the Westmeath and District (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) Order of 1912. It is about seventeen and a half miles from an infected place. It is the practice of the Department on the occurrence of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to schedule, in the first instance, an area having a radius of not less than fifteen miles from the centre of infection. This distance is not necessarily a maximum. It is not practicable to follow the fifteen-mile limit with mathematical accuracy, as natural boundaries, such as main roads or the boundaries of electoral Divisions, must be taken, and these necessarily vary somewhat in distance from the infected place. In view of the fact that a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed near Mullingar on the 5th instant, and that only a short time has elapsed since previous outbreaks, the Department are not prepared to contract at present the limits of the scheduled district.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state how many veterinary surgeons have been employed by his Department in Ireland in connection with the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, distinguishing between members of the veterinary staff of the Department and private practitioners; will he give the names of all veterinary surgeons so employed and state the amounts paid or due. to these gentlemen whether in respect of fees or expenses; will he state by what official of the Department local veterinary inspectors were selected; and in how many cases the local veterinary officer, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, was called in?
  Mr. RUSSELL: In addition to their regular veterinary staff, the Department have at present twenty-four temporary veterinary inspectors employed in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. They have also engaged from time to time, as circumstances require, forty-two local veterinary surgeons, thirty of whom hold appointments as inspectors for the local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts. The rate of remuneration allowed in such cases is a guinea a day and travelling expenses. These gentlemen are employed on the recommendation to the Secretary of the Department of the chief veterinary officer or, in his absence, the superintending veterinary inspector, and the final decision rests with
  1424
  the Vice-President or Secretary of the Department. The remainder of the information asked for cannot be given within the limits of a reply to a question, and would serve no useful public purpose.
  Mr. LARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the fact that the greatest dissatisfaction is felt in the veterinary profession in Ireland owing to the fact that local veterinary surgeons have been taken out of their own districts and sent into other districts to the detriment of their own practice?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am afraid there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction among those who have not received appointments.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say that all these forty-two private practitioners have experience and knowledge of the symptoms of this disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel that these forty-two men are not employed diagnosing the disease. They are employed giving licences to enable cattle to be moved.
  Mr. LARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give a return showing the number of cases given to these inspectors.
  Mr. RUSSELL: If it will serve any useful purpose, I will be very glad to give a return.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is now in a position to say what caused the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Mullingar; whether he has any official information showing that the disease was planted for the purpose of continuing the embargo on Irish cattle, and thus helping foreign meat rings to operate more freely in English markets; and whether any vigilance is being exercised by the Department to prevent persons who may be in contact with this disease carrying the infection outside affected areas?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The origin of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease at Mullingar has not yet been ascertained. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The most rigid measures are adopted by the Department for preventing the spread of disease from infected places.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion stated in the first part of the question is held not only by the people in the district, but by the district inspectors?
  Mr. RUSSELL: So far as the evidence is concerned it is wholly unfounded.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), if he will state when he proposes to relax the standstill Order on cattle in county Longford imposed in respect of the Mullingar outbreak; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the restrictions imposed at Edgeworthstown, which is one mile outside the radius, the people who had cattle housed when the Order came into force have had to keep them housed ever since, at loss to themselves and to the cattle, whilst those who had cattle in the fields have been compelled to keep them there in the inclement weather, giving trouble to keepers of milch cows and injuring these animals; and will he, in view of the fact that there has been no further outbreak at Mullingar, now restrict the area to say a ten mile radius, thus freeing county Longford, in which there is no disease, from the disabilities imposed by this Order?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Westmeath and District (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) Order imposes restrictions upon the movement of stock in the scheduled district, which includes Edgeworthstown. In view of the fact that a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred at Mullingar on the 5th instant, and that only a short time has elapsed since the previous outbreaks, the Department are not prepared at present to consider the question of reducing the area of the scheduled district. Licences for necessary movements of animals within the district are granted by the Department's inspectors in those cases in which it is considered that movement can be safely allowed.
  Mr. FARRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these licences must be granted to persons who desire to move their cattle in any case where the inclemency of the weather requires that that should be done?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Every case must be treated according to the circumstances.
  Mr. FARRELL: If this outbreak is confined to Mullingar, is it necessary to maintain the restriction one mile outside the district?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not prepared to say whether it is merely local or not. It would be very foolish indeed to say whether the disease is confined to Mullingar or not.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the statement in the question that there has been no further outbreak in Mullingar, can the right hon. Gentleman give any further particulars of the outbreak which appears to have occurred yesterday?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of the question.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether Mr. James Wood, of Belfast, was recently appointed to hold an inquiry relating to foot-and-mouth disease; if so, who appointed Mr. Wood; what remuneration has Mr. Wood received; whether Mr. Wood was appointed as an agriculturist; and, if so, what are his qualifications?
  Mr. RUSSELL: In July last it was considered desirable that inquiry should be made on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction into the circumstances connected with the discovery at Liverpool of a bullock's head said to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease, and to have been shipped from Waterford. Mr. James Wood, solicitor, Belfast, was nominated by the Department to conduct this inquiry on their behalf in conjunction with another solicitor nominated by the British Board. Mr. Wood was not appointed as an agriculturist, but, like the representative of the British Board, as a lawyer trained in the testing of evidence.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: What is the amount of remuneration which Mr. Wood received for this particular office, and is this the Mr. Wood who formerly represented North Down in this House as the Russellite candidate?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Nothing has yet been settled as to remuneration, but Mr. Wood did sit in this House for East Down, and not for North Down.
  Mr. MOORE: Has he since twice contested East Down as a Russellite candidate?
  Mr. LARDNERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of recent out breaks in Ireland, his Department have

  1427
  taken any steps to enable the members of the veterinary staff to study the disease under the most favourable conditions; and, if so, will he now state what members of the veterinary staff it is proposed should make these inquiries, and where such inquiries and study will be made?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Departmental Veterinary Inspectors to whom the duty of corroborating the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in each reported case is entrusted are well acquainted -with the diagnostic of the disease, and there is therefore no necessity for such action as is suggested.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is there no foundation for the rumour that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to send three members of his veterinary staff to study this question?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There is not.
  Captain MURRAYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of instituting a belt of buffer counties round the infected areas in Ireland, and of suggesting to the President of the Board of Agriculture that in the case of store cattle imported into Scotland from areas outside the belt the fourteen days' quarantine at the port of debarkation should be dispensed with?
  Mr. RUSSELL: This question ought to be addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who alone has the responsibility of deciding the terms upon which cattle can be allowed into British ports. The Irish Department will be very willing to co-operate for the purpose in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. It is of importance, however, to bear in mind that the disease is now confined to one district—Mullingar, in Westmeath.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland a question which he has intimated to me he is quite willing to answer: Has he any further information or any details to give with regard to the further outbreak at Mullingar to which he referred this afternoon?
  Mr. RUSSELL: On the 5th, the day before yesterday, after a nine days' interval, there was one case, two miles from Mullingar. To-day I received the following telegram:—
  "Further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease confirmed to-day, at Lynn, Mullingar, adjoining the place
  1428
  already declared infected. Two cattle affected by-disease. Thirteen in contact. All have been slaughtered."

  Consumptive Hospital, Peamount, County Dublin.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to a memorial from the residents of the districts of Clondalkin, Lucan, Hazel-hatch, and Celbridge Rathcoole, Newcastle, Laggard, and Brittas, in the county of Dublin, protesting against the establishment of a hospital for consumptives at Peamount; and, seeing that the memorialists represent that the hospital will be a source of danger to the lives and certain immediate injury to the property of the residents in the neighbourhood, and in view of the difficulty which has arisen in reference to the water supply, whether he will recommend that the Grant to the Women's National Health Association should be withdrawn?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether it is not the fact that the Grant which it is now suggested should be withdrawn, was arranged and settled at a conference of representatives of the Treasury, the Irish Local Government Board, and the Insurance Commission, and has it not given satisfaction?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Grant was arranged in those circumstances, and has been mostly spent. I have received the memorial referred to. As I have already informed the hon. Member, Peamount has been certified by several experts as entirely suitable for a sanatorium, and the fears that it will be a source of danger to the residents in the neighbourhood are entirely at variance with the best medical opinion. I am happy to say that the difficulty about the water supply has been overcome, as water was struck this morning. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the water discovered this morning is wholesome?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will, most certainly.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Have you ascertained it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I only heard this morning that it had been discovered.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself personally visit Peamount and consider it an extremely good and healthy establishment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not an expert in these matters.
  Mr. MOORE: Is not this matter sub judice; is there not an injunction pending in the Chancery Division; and why should the right hon. Gentleman make statements when the matter is sub judice while he always gives us that answer when we ask questions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I was asked a question and I answered it.

  Boycotting Resolutions (Ireland).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked if the "Kilkenny People" newspaper, in its issue of 26th October, published a boycotting resolution passed by the Castlecomer branch of the United Irish League, in which a certain individual was mentioned by name, and the merchants and traders of Castlecomer were urged to have nothing to do with him until he gives up land in his possession; and whether he has taken or intends to take any action against the proprietors of the newspaper in question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the resolution referred to was published in the "Kilkenny People" newspaper, and the police inform me that so far it has practically had no effect. The Government are advised that in the circumstances no action appears to be necessary.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform me across the floor of the House during the course of last Session that he would take some action in regard to suppressing these boycotting notices and intimidatory notices which appear in the local Press?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, it depends. If I am assured they are treated with the contempt they deserve, I do not think it is necessary in all cases to take action.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked if the "Anglo-Celt" newspaper, in its issue of 19th October, published the report of a meeting of the Killcshandra branch of the United Irish League, in which it was stated that a certain individual who was named therein would be notified to give up possession of his land and house in a fortnight, and in the event of this not
  1430
  being complied with a public meeting would be held; and whether he has taken or intends to take any action to prevent the publication of notices of this kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that arrangements had been made long before the publication of the resolution for the reinstatement of the evicted tenant in this-holding which had been purchased by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose. This reinstatement was carried out by the Estates Commissioners on the 28th of October. In the circumstances the Attorney-General did not think it necessary to take any action with regard to the publication of the resolution.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked what steps the right hon. Gentleman took to ascertain whether the representation of Daniel Cooney for a cottage near Coachford in the last improvement scheme of the Mac-room Rural District Council was rejected by this council; is he aware that Cooney, and not Murray, had his representation considered at the local inquiry and passed by the Local Government Board inspector; can he explain the circumstances under which the statement was made that the cottage in question was included in the scheme on the representation of Daniel Murray, when this man never appeared at the inquiry in support of it; is he now aware that the cottage in question was passed on the evidence given in support of Daniel Cooney's claim; and will the Local Government Board accordingly represent to the district council that Cooney is the original applicant within the meaning of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, and therefore entitled to the tenancy of the cottage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board inform me that the clerk of the council and Mr. Hogan, a member of the council, both stated at the inquiry that the representation made on behalf of Cooney was rejected by the council. The statement that the cottage in question was included in the scheme by the council in pursuance of the representation lodged on behalf of Murray is quite correct. A scheme has always to be made, and advertisements and notices issued, before an inquiry can be ordered, and in this instance the scheme was made by the council in August, 1907, while the inspector's inquiry did not take place until February, 1908. There is no reason why

  1431
  the Local Government Board should intervene, as suggested, as the matter is one entirely for the district council.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether a labourer who applied for a cottage a few years ago and had his application granted, the cottage being since built, is now entitled to it, although in the meantime he was compelled to leave the district to get employment elsewhere?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The selection of tenants for labourers' cottages is vested in each case in the rural district council, subject to the provisions of the Labourers Acts, one of which requires that on the first letting of any cottages proposed in a scheme preference shall be given to the agricultural labourers on whose behalf the representations were made on which the scheme was founded.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the right hon. Gentleman how many cottages have been erected and are at the moment in the occupation of labourers on the twenty-four sites acquired by the Cootehill (No. 2) Rural District Council between December, 2909, and August, 1910, and on the two sites acquired in January and July, 1911, respectively; how many cottages are in course of erection on any of these sites; whether contracts have been entered into for the remainder or arrangements made for erection by direct labour; and whether he will give directions to the Local Government Board to take such steps forth with as may be deemed advisable to have the remaining cottages provided in a district where agricultural labourers are most miserably housed, and where the need for proper housing is most acutely felt?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on this subject on the 16th July last, to which I have nothing at present to add. The Local Government Board will again communicate with the District Council on the subject.
  Mr. LARDNER: How long do the Local Government Board intend to give this rural district council an opportunity of depriving people of the cottages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think it must not be given much longer time.

  Railways Bill.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in proceeding with the Railways Bill in its present form, he will consider the propriety of introducing a short Bill in order to redeem the pledge given in August, 1911, without the addition of other and not necessarily connected subjects?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In view of (he pressure on the time of the House, it seems clear that adequate time could not be found for the passing of the Railways Bill this Session. We should hope to reintroduce the Bill next Session in an amended form. In order, therefore, to carry out the undertaking given to the railway companies by the Government at the time of the railway strike and the appointment of the Royal Commission, we hope to introduce and pass this Session a one-Clause Bill. For this purpose Clause 2 of the present Bill has been redrafted in such a way as to meet criticisms which have been directed against it from various quarters while still giving full effect to the Government's undertaking.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the man yet born who could draft a Bill to redeem the broken promises of this discredited Government?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that railway stock has increased in value since the labour dispute, and that, therefore, the necessity for the Bill no longer exists?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the undertaking of the Government remains.

  Agricultural Industry.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a desire among landowners and agriculturists of all shades of political opinion that there shall be a public investigation of the most searching character by a competent and non-partisan tribunal into the present position of those engaged in the agricultural industry in Great Britain, the resources and activities of agricultural landowners, and the wages, housing, and conditions of labour of agricultural workers; and whether he will satisfy that desire by forthwith setting up such a tribunal?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think after full consideration there is any necessity at present for the appointment of such a Commission or Committee as that suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that agricultural landowners only desire the same public trial as he would himself concede to the most contemptible criminal in the land?
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a great many cases in this country men who have applied for small holdings have been victimised, and if such a tribunal is ultimately set up, will he take steps to protect witnesses?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put the question on the Paper.

  Magistracy (Perthshire).
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked whether there is an advisory committee to assist the Lord Lieutenant of Perthshire in recommending gentlemen as justices of the peace for the county of Perth; if so, what are the names; whether the advisory committee, if such there be, approved the names of the twenty-five gentlemen recently added to the roll of justices; and whether the predominance of one party on the county bench, which has been further aggravated by the recent appointments, was considered by the advisory committee or by the Lord Chancellor?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The appointments in question were made on the recommendation of an advisory committee, on which Liberals and Conservatives are evenly balanced. I am further informed that the twenty-five gentlemen appointed are as evenly divided as possible with regard to politics. It must not be assumed that any preponderance of one party, which may exist on any bench at the present time, is necessarily permanent.
  Mr. YOUNG: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the advisory committee to which he refers is a satisfactory and impartial Committee, and will he see that an impartial advisory committee is appointed at once so as to avoid scandals of the kind which have taken place and so as to remedy the glaringly partisan character of the bench throughout the county of Perth, more especially the Eastern part of the county?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but my information is that the advisory committee is one on which the two parties are equally balanced.
  Mr. YOUNG: That is not the case.
  Mr. WATT: Is it the case that no discussion is permitted; that the Lords Lieutenant bring in the list of their prospective Justices of the Peace and allow no discussion as to the merits or demerits?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should be surprised if that is so.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is any account taken of the nature of the bench before the new appointments are made?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I presume so.

  Members of Parliament (Government Contracts).
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company; whether he is aware that His Majesty's Government have been purchasing large amounts of silver through, or of, that firm; whether he is aware that, when the Government purchased two ships through Messrs. Antony Gibbs and Sons in 1904, Lord Aldenham and Mr. Vicary Gibbs, then Members of this House and partners in the firm, resigned their seats under the Statute 22 George III., c. 45; and when it is proposed to move the writ for the Tower Hamlets Division?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have referred this question to the Law Officers of the Crown, who are inquiring into the matter.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will repeat the question next Monday.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Is it a fact that the first time this commission was enjoyed by the hon. Baronet was in March last, and if that be so why was not the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown taken then?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a matter for the Government at all. It has nothing whatever to do with them. An hon. Member who sits here after being disqualified incurs very serious penalties.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that an hon. Member incurs a fine of £500 every time he votes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord can read the Statute.
  Mr. MOORE: Is not the purity of the position of Members in this House in charge of the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government obviously cannot tell what contracts particular Members may have, if they have. any, with various Government Departments. A Member who sits here who has entered into such a contract subjects himself to very serious statutory liability.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Was not the right hon. Gentleman informed at the time by the Secretary of State?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, certainly not.

  Public Meeting Proclaimed, County Meath.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked whether a public meeting announced to be held at Spandaw, near Kells, county Meath, on Sunday last, was proclaimed; if so, at whose request; and for what reasons?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A public meeting was announced to be held on 3rd November at McConnell's Cross to protest against the taking of Spandaw Farm. As the meeting was obviously for the purpose of intimidation, it was prohibited by order of the Government, and a force of police was present to carry out the order.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether the parish priest of Kilbeg, Kells, county Meath, was refused the right of free speech on Sunday last, by District Inspector King, who, when asked to produce his authority, stated his uniform was sufficient; whether such conduct on the part of a police officer towards a respected clergyman, advocating the just claims of his own parishioners in their own district, is in accordance with the regulations of the service or the policy of His Majesty's Government; whether he gave instructions to the police officer to so act, and for what reason; and, if the wearing of uniform is a sufficient and necessary insignia of authority, what evidence of authority should be produced by ah officer not in uniform?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The meeting referred to was prohibited by order of Government, and the district inspector who was present in uniform was only doing his duty in preventing any person from addressing the meeting.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter portion of the question? What evidence of authority should be produced by an officer not in uniform?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was common knowledge that the meeting had been proclaimed. The police were there to see that it was not held. District Inspector King was there in uniform, and in the discharge of his duty he was bound to see that the meeting was not held.
  Mr. P. WHITE: If he had not been in uniform, what authority would have been necessary?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know about that, but he was in uniform.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was prevented from attending a meeting last year by an officer not in uniform?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That question does not arise in this case.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked what is the length of service in the Royal Irish Constabulary of District Inspector King, who was in command of the forces at Spandaw, near Kells, on Sunday last; what counties he served in; how long he was stationed in county Meath; and whether he ever before acted in chief command on the occasion of a proclaimed meeting?
  Mr. BIRRELL: District Inspector King has five and a half years' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary. He has served in the counties of Cork. East Riding. Kerry, Galway, East Riding, and Meath. He has been stationed at Kells for the past three years. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  Mr. MOORE: Having regard to the terms of this question, what safeguard will there be for this man if he is handed over to a Nationalist majority in the Dublin Parliament for having done his duty?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman need be under no apprehension.

  NATIONAL INSUEANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether he will afford, at an early date, an opportunity to the House for the discussion of the question of the increased Treasury Grant to be set aside for medical benefit, and of the terms suggested for the employment and the remuneration of doctors taking service under the National Insurance Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for the discussion of the question prior to the representative meeting of the doctors to be held this month?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will see if that is possible.

  Royal Courts of Justice (Royal Commission).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission on the question of the sittings, etc., of the Royal Courts of Justice?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference are: "To inquire into the complaints of delay in the hearing of actions and appeals and Crown cases in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and whether any reforms should be adopted, and to report thereupon."
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference cover the question of the age for the retiral of the judges?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is clearly covered.

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received the further memorial asking him to publish the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance, as a majority of Members of this House have signed the memorials; and, if so, will he, therefore, act on their request?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The evidence seems to me to fall short of indicating a general desire.
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask whether it is not the case that in dealing with the important question of Irish Finance the Prime Minister condemns this House to discuss it, not only gagged, but blindfold? May I further ask if he considers such a procedure either fair or treating the House of Commons with due respect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member uses some very strong phrases. This was evidence given confidentially, which the Government are not in the least degree obliged to publish, and which they could not publish without the consent of the witnesses. I said that if a general desire on the part of the House was expressed I would see whether that seal could not be removed. Such a general desire has not been expressed.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand that a majority of the Members of this House have not signed the memorial?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that 344 out of 670 signed the memorial. That does not indicate to me a general desire on the part of the House.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what he has said, whether he considers that when the Government was saved by a majority of only four, there was any general opinion in this House in favour of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the answer. When I say that I want an indication of a general desire, I do not mean the desire of a bare majority.
  Mr. PIRIE: Could not the Government publish the evidence in cases where no pledge of secrecy was asked for?

  British Policy in Mediterranean.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement lately made to his constituents by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that, under existing circumstances of territory and responsibility, our position in the Mediterranean must remain one of national and international importance, we shall maintain it there, both on land and sea, to as full an extent as we have ever done in the past, and in doing so we depend on no alliance or understanding, actual or implied, but upon

  1439
  our own forces; and whether such statement is to be taken as expressing the settled policy of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member has omitted from his quotation my right hon. Friend's concluding words, "Subject to our own—and only our own— needs and to the tactical exigencies of our own unfettered policy and discretion." With this addition, the definition given by my right hon. Friend appears to me to represent accurately the policy of the Government.

  Coast Erosion (Legislation).
  Mr. NEWTONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that upwards of twelve months ago he stated that the Board of Trade were then considering and hoped to be able to introduce before long a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion; that in June last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade stated that a Bill dealing with this subject was then being prepared, and further that schemes of sea defence works involving the expenditure of many thousands of pounds in wages to labour are being held up pending the introduction of this Bill, and in addition that the inroads of the sea are still continuing; whether, under these circumstances, he will now state when the Bill in question will be introduced; and, as a guide to the local authorities affected, whether the Bill will be such as to assist local authorities to carry out schemes of sea defence?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The Prime Minister has requested the Board of Trade to reply to this question. The Board have a draft Bill under consideration, but it is not yet in a form in which it can be introduced. There is, I fear, no prospect of making any progress in the matter during the present Session.
  Mr. NEWTON: Will the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that this Bill was promised thirteen months ago, now see that an effort will be made by the Government to introduce the Bill at the very earliest possible moment?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Under the qualification of what I have said that there is no prospect of its being done in the present Session.
  Mr. NEWTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether local authorities, which are necessarily holding up work, may consult him and be given advice as to whether it is worth while waiting or not?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Any communication addressed to the Board of Trade will receive careful consideration.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Board of Trade will refer the matter to the Development Commissioners, and whether they have been asked to consider any proposals as to schemes for protecting the coast?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I would ask the hon. Member to give notice of the question.

  Sugar Beet (Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the Regulations governing the growing of sugar beet in Ireland; what acreage is allowed for experimental purposes; whether any Grant-in-Aid is available to encourage the growing of sugar beet; whether any experiments or inquiries have been made by his Department with a view to deciding the suitability of sugar beet growing in Ireland as a remunerative crop; and whether his Department are in a position to provide any skilled instruction to persons who are prepared to make experiments?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There are no restrictions on the growing of sugar beet in Ireland. Any person is at liberty to grow the crop. No Grant has been made for the purpose of encouraging the growing of sugar beet, nor have any special funds been set apart for the purpose. The Department are at present conducting experiments with a view to testing the suitability of this crop for growing in Ireland. The experiments were conducted in 1911 in eight different counties and have been continued during the present year in twelve counties. A Report on the results of last year's work has been published in a leaflet. The results of the 1912 experiments are not yet available for publication. The itinerent instructors in agriculture, who are employed in the several counties under the Department's scheme of instruction in agriculture, can afford instruction regarding the cultivation of this crop to persons who wish to experiment with it. It is, however, a matter I for private enterprise to provide capital

  1441
  for the erection of factories for the manufacture of sugar from the beet.

  Colonial Civil Service.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the rules governing admission to the Homo Civil Service prevents a transfer from the Colonial Civil Service to fill a vacancy in the Colonial Office; whether there is any simliar rule governing admission to the Colonial Civil Service preventing a transfer from the Home Civil Service to the Colonial Civil Service; and, if not, will he have this discrepancy rectified?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): In answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I would refer him to the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1910, relating to the Home Civil Service, and particularly to Clauses 5 and 6. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, except as regards the cadet service of the Eastern Colonies, which is recruited by open competition— appointments in these Colonies other than what are termed "Staff Appointments" being reserved for the members of that service. I do not propose to interfere with the existing system.
  Colonel YATE: Is it fair that members of the Home Civil Service should be transferred to the Colonies and that members of the Colonial Civil Service should not be able to come back?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not responsible for the existing arrangements.

  Nigeria (Public Whipping).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the offence for which the two Government officials, Taylor and Hall, were recently whipped publicly at Zaria, Northern Nigeria, was committed when the British Resident, Mr. Laing, was passing on horseback; whether their offence was actually committed while Taylor and Hall were in the recreation ground adjoining the market place; whether Mr. Laing summoned Taylor and Hall to come and salute him, and then struck them with his cane because they were slow in their salute; and whether there can be given any reasons why Taylor and Hall were tried by a Native Court, where no evidence is recorded, and not in the Resident's Court, where depositions are taken?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have already informed my hon. Friend, on the 16th of
  1442
  October, that the offence for which these native African clerks were tried and punished took place in a public road and in the market square of the town, and that they were tried in the Court which has jurisdiction in such eases. I am informed that the Resident did not order the clerks to salute him by prostrating themselves, or strike them with his cane.

  S.S, "Ethiope" (Charge of Manslaughter).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he has yet received any Report from the Governor with regard to the case of William Jackson, who was convicted for manslaughter of a Kroo boy on board the s.s. "Ethiope," under circumstances of great provocation; and, if so, whether he can inform the House as to the nature of the Report and what steps he proposes to take upon it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. I do not expect that information as to the Governor's decision will reach me for some weeks yet. As I informed the hon. Member on 30th October, as soon as I learn what the Governor has decided I will communicate it to the House or give the hon. Member an opportunity of asking ms a question on the subject.

  Shops Act.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has refused to assent to the proposal made by the London County Council to delegate its powers of making closing orders under the Shops Act to London borough councils; and, if so, whether his reason for so refusing is the fact that, under the Act of 1904, such borough councils, in the proper exercise of their discretion, abstained in most cases from making closing orders to which the public were opposed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): Yes, Sir, the Home Secretary has felt unable to give his approval to the proposal of the county council, as it would have wholly reversed the decision of Parliament last year to transfer the administration of the Acts from the borough councils to the county council. The ground for the decision was that the difficulty caused by adjacent and competing areas being under the jurisdiction of different councils made it almost impossible to obtain closing orders, and the

  1443
  change was pressed on the Government by associations of the shopkeepers themselves.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Has any alternative scheme been presented to the Home Office? If not, do they propose one themselves?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am not aware of that. Any schemes that are brought before us, will, of course, be considered.

  SUFFRAGIST OUTRAGE, DUBLIN (REARREST OF MISS EVANS).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given private notice— whether the re-arrest of Miss Gladys Evans in Dublin was due to the fact that she, being a convict released on ticket-of-leave, failed to report herself to the prison authorities; whether it is not a fact that she was arrested for precisely the same reason a fortnight ago, and owing to her refusal of food was discharged by the magistrate before whom she came for trial seven days later; and what object the authorities have in view in persisting in these futile arrests?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Miss Evans is a convict released before the completion of her sentence on a ticket-of-leave, which imposed on her certain conditions, some expressed in the licence itself and some of statutory obligation. Amongst these conditions was a duty to report her place of abode and any proposed change. Miss Evans not only has never notified her address, but has on two occasions attempted to leave it without acquainting the authorities with either her intention or her place of destination. On both the occasions of her re-arrest she was actually on the point of departure. The authorities obviously cannot allow a convict to pay no attention to her terms of release, and the only course is either to revoke Miss Evans's ticket-of-leave altogether or to bring her before the magistrate.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the obligation to report a change of address a statutory one or one imposed by regulation; and if the latter, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances, see that it should be abrogated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. Whichever way it is, I could not recommend its abrogation.
  1444
  The most essential matter in these things is that we should know where the convict is about to go. If she would give us that information her re-arrest would not be necessary.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the business next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we propose to consider the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill.
  On Friday, we shall resume consideration of the Resolution for the allocation of time for the Established Church (Wales) Bill. We do not propose to take any business after 10.30 on Monday night next.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  [MONEY].—[Fifteenth Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FINANCIAL RESOLUTION.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel) rose to move,
  "That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland (a) to authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sums for the payment of which into the Irish Exchequer, or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer, provision may be made under that Act; and (b) to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into Great Britain from Ireland or into Ireland from Great Britain, and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles, as may be provided for by that Act, in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied in Great Britain; and (c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or existing Irish officers, or officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary or of the Dublin Metro-
  1482
  politan Police force, provision may be made in pursuance of that Act."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to your call, Sir, I wish to ask you for a ruling on two points of Order. I have to apologise to you for having made no previous communication to you on the subject, owing to pressure of work under present circumstances; but I believe that the first point is already familiar to you, and therefore you will be prepared to deal with it at once. The second point is one which I think it is desirable should be raised at this stage, but if you desire to look up the authorities, the subject could be raised upon a later stage of our proceedings. The first point directly relates to the proceedings of to-day. The Resolution of which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has given notice relates to three perfectly distinct subjects. He proposes, in the first place, to authorise any provisions of an Act of Parliament for paying out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, according to the Government of Ireland Bill, what is known as the Transferred Sum. He proposes in the third section of the Resolution to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of certain charges which may be placed thereon for existing officers. There is a certain connection between these two sums, as they are both payments out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. But between them is another Clause which authorises the levying of Customs and Excise Duties in Ireland.
  The first point on which I wish for your ruling, Sir, is whether there is any precedent for combining in a single Resolution, and putting it to the House as a single proposition, subject matter so different as that embodied in this Resolution; whether, in fact, there is any precedent that a question can be put from the Chair which combines in a single proposition the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund and the levying of new Customs and Excise Duties. I think I have said enough to make that point clear. The second point refers to the bearing of the Resolution upon the Bill. I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether the Resolution covers the provisions of the Bill. I have already stated what is contained in the Resolution, but in the Bill, in addition to the powers to levy Customs and Excise, the power is purported to be conferred

  1483
  upon the Irish Parliament to levy other taxes not mentioned in this Resolution; as, for instance, the new direct taxes, or certain additions to existing direct taxes.
  I submit to you, Sir, that this House is precluded from levying such taxes until it is authorised to do so by the Committee in Ways and Means, and assented to by the House on Report. That is our universal procedure clearly laid down in Standing Orders, and in works like Sir Erskine May's historic book on Parliamentary Procedure and the powers of the House of Commons. If that be so, I submit that it follows that if we have the power to impose those taxes ourselves without preliminary Resolution m Ways and Means, we cannot have any power to authorise somebody else to impose them; in other words, that the power which this House can transfer to any delegated authority is only the power which this House itself possesses, and that until there has been a Resolution authorising the levying of these additional direct taxes in the year—new or additional direct taxes—this House having no power itself to levy them—it can have no power to devolve authority on another Parliament. These are the two points on which, with renewed apology to you. Sir, for not having given you notice of them properly beforehand, and with an expression of my regret that my attention was so much occupied by other matters that I had not had it brought carefully to myself until this morning, I now ask your ruling, only repeating that, while I think it is necessary to have at this stage your ruling on the first point, if it be any convenience to you, the further point could be raised when we come to the questions in the Bill instead of raising it now.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On the same point of Order, Sir. May I ask, before you give your ruling, whether, on the Redistribution Resolution in 1905, Mr. Speaker ruled that it was a subject which could be separated into as many, I think, as seventeen different Resolutions; and whether it is not the fact that, as you have this in Committee of the Whole House, there is not a difference in the circumstances in which that Resolution was moved and the circumstances under which this is moved?
  4.0 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN: I will deal with the second point of the right hon. Gentleman first. The point he submitted, I understand, is this: that certain provisions in?
  1484
  the Bill, which have not been reached yet, are not covered by the Resolution which is on the Paper, and is about to be proposed. The proper time to raise that point will be when we reach any such proposal as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. If the point is taken then, I shall, of course, be prepared to deal with it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having mentioned this at this stage. With regard to the first point of the Resolution dealing with three separate items, and the suggestion that that ought to be put before the Committee, not in one but in three separate Resolutions, I had anticipated that it was probable that question would be raised. I have, therefore, searched the precedents for the last twenty years, I think, and I find that the precedents are in favour of a Money Resolution drawn as one Resolution and covering the whole of the financial proposals of a particular Bill. It is true that in certain cases there have been two or more Financial Resolutions affecting a single Bill, but in those cases it was because of Amendments which could not be received without a further Resolution passed on a subsequent date. But, with regard to the point as it arises now, the precedents are wholly in favour of a single Resolution being put from the Chair. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that very point was raised in 1909 on a Resolution which came before my predecessor in Committee, and the answer he then gave was exactly the one I shall give now, namely, that the precedent to which it refers was not analogous to the present proceedings. That was the proposal of a series of questions included in one Resolution in the Whole House, and not in Committee. In Committee, Amendments are reserved—that is to say, the question is put, if possible, in such a way as to allow any subsequent Amendments to be moved, and in that way separate decisions on separate points can be taken. Further, I would just point out this point, that a Resolution of this kind is not of any enacting effect. It is to empower the Committee to consider the proposals in the Clauses of the Bill. I notice that there is an Amendment on the Paper which proposes to omit the middle paragraph of this Resolution, and, of course, if it is desired, I shall take that Amendment in order that the Committee may give a separate decision upon that part of the Money Resolution.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have to thank you, Sir, for the ruling which you have given. I have to ask you with regard to the point which you have reserved to bear in mind a possibility. The question may arise on a Clause at a moment when the guillotine has fallen, and when, as I conceive, it would not be possible to put the point of Order to you. May I ask, having that possibility in view, that the opportunity to rule on those different Clauses concerned does not occur beforehand, if you should take the view that the view which I have submitted to you is the correct one, would you yourself refuse from the Chair to put a Clause for which a Resolution in Committee was necessary and which Resolution had not been passed?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think I would consider it to be my duty to do so. It is the duty of the Chairman, if he comes across a Clause for which no preliminary Resolution has been passed by the House, to inform the Committee that the Clause cannot be proceeded with.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move the Resolution on which the financial Clauses of this Bill are based. I do so without going into any matters of detail, which will more properly arise on the Clauses themselves. I would venture to take, and I believe it is the general desire of the Committee that I should do so, a general survey of the financial policy which is embodied in those Clauses. The Committee will now be asked during a period of seven Parliamentary days to address itself to the finances of the Home Rule Bill, and I will not deny that during those days we will have to deal with a number of technical points, and with several somewhat complicated provisions. I have already fully admitted, and, indeed, it is obvious to everyone who reads the Bill, that the Financial Clauses are of an elaborate character, but I am to some extent consoled for the complexity of those Clauses by the opinion of one who is perhaps the greatest, or certainly among the greatest, of living authorities on public finance—I mean Lord Welby, whose opinions I am sure will be received with respect in all quarters of this House. Writing upon the financial provisions of this Bill he said:—
  "They appear complicated, but they will be found less so in practice. The machinery of financial administration in a great State is necessarily complicated, and a radical change in that machinery involves a multitude of changes in detail for which the reforming Act must provide. The Customs and Excise Clauses appear
  1486
  complicated, but they are for the most part machinery Clauses common to Revenue Acts. Much as I should like greater simplicity, a study of their measure leads me to the conclusion that its provisions are in the main wise."
  The Bill could be very simple on its financial side if we were not faced by the existence of the present deficit on the Irish Account. I would especially impress on the minds of the Committee in approaching this problem of Irish finance that that must be taken as the dominant fact, and it is this fact that there is now in existence a deficit in the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, a deficit in the Irish account, which causes many of the complexities of the Bill and which presents a problem which is unprecedented among those which have confronted the framers of Constitutions in previous times. The Irish revenue at the present time is £11,000,000, rather under £11,000,000, and the expenditure is nearly £12,500,000, and it is the problem which arises from that fact to which the Government has had specially to address itself. I am well aware that the hon. Member for Cork City and some of his Friends present the argument that the deficit only exists owing to the fact that we take as Irish revenue, not the revenue which is collected in Ireland, but what is termed by the Treasury, the true revenue of Ireland—that is to say, after adjustments are made in respect of revenue which is collected in Ireland, but which really belongs to Great Britain and vice versa. The hon. Member in his very interesting speech on, I think, the First Reading of the Bill, based himself on the high authority of Mr. Gladstone, who in 1886 took as Irish revenue Irish collected revenue, and the hon. Member for Cork said that the authority of Mr. Gladstone was good enough for him, and that if we had followed that precedent we should have found there was no deficit on the Irish account at all, but, on the contrary, that there is at the present time an appreciable surplus. May I point out to him, and to his Friends who take the same view, that while Mr. Gladstone in 1886 did as a matter of fact take Irish collected revenue as the basis of his finance, at the same time he required from Ireland a contribution to Imperial purposes of somewhere about £4,000,000—from the Irish revenue to Imperial purposes, purposes common to the whole of the United Kingdom. That far more than counterbalanced the difference of £2,000,000 which then existed between Irish collected and true revenue. May I point out further—
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: At that time the local government charges of Ireland were nearly half what they are now.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That does not alter the fact. Irish revenue also was very much less then than it is now. There was a surplus of Irish revenue at that time. Mr. Gladstone required Ireland to pay a contribution of £4,000,000, when he allowed to the credit of Ireland the collected revenue. It would not have made any difference if he took the true revenue, which would have been £2,000,000 less, and required a contribution from Ireland of £2,000,000 instead of £4,000,000. Let me point out, further, that after the lapse of some years, and when time had been given for closer consideration of this problem, Mr. Gladstone when he introduced his second Home Rule Bill did not then take the collected revenue, but proceeded on the basis of true revenue after the necessary adjustments had been made. The hon. Member surely would not say when one of his constituents in Cork buys a pound of tea on which there is a duty of 5d., that the citizen of Cork was paying no tax because the Tea Duty had been collected, for example, in London, Southampton, or at Liverpool, when the tea had arrived in this country. The revenue on tea consumed in Ireland, although it is collected in England, must be regarded as Irish revenue. There can be no doubt of that.
  No one would dispute that in such a case as that the consumer really does pay the tax, and that the revenue was derived and is revenue of the country in which the consumer lives; and rice versâ, if a tax is collected in Dublin on Irish spirits or Irish beer and those spirits and beer are consumed in England, Scotland, or Wales, that revenue, according to every sound financial principle, must be held to belong to Great Britain and not Ireland. The revenue belongs to the country where a commodity is consumed and where the real burden of the duty actually falls. Further, if we had taken the collected revenue and not the adjusted revenue as the basis of our finance, the distillers of Ireland could at any time have completely upset the adjustment of accounts between the two countries by transferring their spirits in bond from Ireland to England, and paying the duty here, as they could not be refused to be allowed to do so. The duty having been paid here, would become duty collected in Great Britain, would become British revenue not Irish revenue,
  1488
  and the whole system of finance would be thereby upset. Indeed, you would place it in the hand of Irish distillers and brewers to withdraw from the Irish Parliament no less than £2,000,000 of revenue by changing the place where the revenue is collected and so bankrupt the Irish State. Therefore, we cannot accept his doctrine that there is in fact no Irish deficit. We must proceed on the fact that the true revenue of Ireland is now rather under £11,000,000, while the expenditure upon Irish local purposes is nearly £12,500,000, and this state of things of course is new since 1893.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Are those figures for this year or last year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For 1912–13. The figures are those in the White Paper that has been circulated to the House in connection with this Bill. No comparison therefore can profitably be drawn between the finance scheme of this Bill and the finance schemes of the previous Home Rule Bills, because the promoters of those Bills were never faced by the problem how to deal with an Irish deficit, although, indeed, in the Debates of 1893 it was clearly foreseen that the inevitable result of refusing Home Rule for Ireland at that time must be a constant growth in expenditure in Ireland which would in course of time eat up the then existing surplus of £2,000,000. Sir William Harcourt, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on this subject, said that the system on which England and Great Britain had previously proceeded, the system of what he termed a
  "eleemosynary coercion, which was the most expensivd system of government in the world, a rod in one han and the British purse in the other,"
  would inevitably result in the continuous growth of our expenditure in Ireland. Looking through the Debates of previous years one finds them strewn with false prophecies, but in this matter, reading the Debates of 1893, one finds that the present state of things was very clearly foreseen as the result of the rejection of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. For example, the hon. Member opposite who represented then, as he represents now, North County Dublin (Mr. Clancy), and who took then, as he takes now, the closest interest in these matters, said, and the words are interesting:
  "He would invite the attention of hon. Members to this—he ventured to prophesy that in ten years from the present day (14th July, 1893), if Home Rule were not granted, there would not be a penny of surplus for Ireland."

  1489
  Strangely enough, it was just ten years from that time when the increase of Irish expenditure had eaten up the surplus, though there had been a growth of revenue which postponed the present state of things for five years, and in fifteen years from the time the hon. Member was speaking the whole of the Irish surplus of £2,000,000 had disappeared, and we now find ourselves with a deficit of a million and a half. We can say now, in 1912, with equal, if not greater certainty, that if this Bill fails to become law, and if the present system of unified finance continues, in ton or twenty years' time our deficit, which is a million and a half, borne by the British taxpayer, will be enormously increased. We know that, not merely from the trend of events, but from the explicit declarations of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who in one breath ask for the rejection of this Bill in order, as they say, to save the British taxpayer's pocket, and in the next declare that if the Bill is rejected they will themselves spend much larger sums of the British taxpayers' money upon Irish local purposes. Hitherto no attempt has been made to make the credit and debit sides of the Irish account balance. Irish expenditure has had no relation whatever to Irish revenue. The two have run on completely independent lines. In our view, it is high time that this should be altered. Sound principles of finance surely require that in the government of Ireland some regard should be had to the resources and taxable capacity of Ireland.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why not apply the same principle to poor districts in England?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The view of the Government is that Ireland does not stand in the same position as any particular district in England. Has any poor district in England a Lord Lieutenant or a Chief Secretary, or a series of Government Departments of its own? Has any poor district in England a complete code of legislation dealing with the land question, education, local government, the Church, find a score of other questions, such as Ireland has? The two are not comparable. It is in our view, and I venture to say in the view of the Irish people also, right that Ireland herself, in her own interest, should be allowed to depend for her own internal government on her own resources, not supported by subsidies from outside. In our opinion it is inconsistent
  1490
  with the very idea of Home Rule that this burden of £1,500,000 a year for Irish local purposes should continue to rest for all time on the British taxpayers after Ireland herself has been given a measure of self-government. The financial scheme of the Bill therefore proceeds with the object in view of liquidating this deficit, but it is surely quite obvious that the burden of finding that £1,500,000 cannot possibly be thrown immediately upon the Irish people themselves. It would involve that in the first year they would have to add 15 per cent. to their taxes, while we on this, side would get a relief of I per cent. on ours. Such a course would be not only ungenerous, but. obviously unjust. Nor can the deficit be liquidated by requiring the Irish Exchequer to bear year by year a gradually increasing charge in order ultimately to reach the sum of £1,500,000. Such a proposal has been made within the last few days by Lord MacDonnell, whose views on any matter of this kind naturally carry weight. Lord MacDonnells plan is that Ireland should receive whatever revenue is raised from taxes in Ireland; that Great Britain should continue to bear the burden of the deficit of £1,500,000, and that Ireland should pay a contribution towards the Army and Navy and other common purposes, beginning at a low sum and gradually increasing year by year.
  A plan such as that might possibly have attractions for some persons, but I venture to say it would not be found practicable in operation. In the first place, if Ireland were given simply whatever revenue happened to arise from the Imperial and other taxes which were being levied in Ireland, what would be the position of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, supposing this Parliament in some year decided to reduce throughout the United Kingdom one of the taxes, say the Tea Duty or the Sugar Duty? At once the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer's revenue would be diminished by a large amount. He might have borrowed money, knowing that he had an adequate surplus to provide the interest and Sinking Fund of the loan. He might have looked forward to his accounts balancing by means of the revenue at his disposal. Suddenly the Parliament here at Westminster repeals or reduces some tax throughout the United Kingdom, without the Irish Chancellor or the Irish Government having power to intervene, and away goes his surplus. Therefore, it appears to me that

  1491
  a scheme based upon a principle such as that is not one which ought to commend itself to this Committee. Secondly, I do not think it is right, for reasons I have already given, that Great Britain should bear in perpetuity the burden of this deficit after Ireland has Home Rule. Thirdly, it seems to me, on the other hand, unjust to Ireland that she should be required, as Lord MacDonnell proposes, to pay year by year an increasing sum for Imperial purposes regardless of whether her revenue is increasing or not. Supposing in some particular year her revenue was diminishing; nevertheless she would be called upon automatically to pay year by year an increasing sum, ultimately rising perhaps to a considerable amount, whether there were resources in the hands of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer or not. I think, therefore, it is necessary to provide some means for liquidating the present deficit. If it cannot be thown immediately on the shoulders of the Irish taxpayer, and if it cannot be met by fixing in the Bill an automatic contribution from Ireland, there is only one other source from which the money can come, and that is the normal increments of revenue which come from taxation in Ireland, owing to the growth of prosperity or of population. It is from that source the Bill proposes that the means shall be found to balance the Irish account.
  Therefore, as the Committee is aware, it is proposed in the Bill that all future normal increments of revenue which arise on the taxation imposed by the Imperial Parliament—the present taxes, roughly speaking—shall come into the Imperial Exchequer, instead of going, as they would normally, to the Irish Exchequer, until the day comes when these increments amount to £1,500,000, or whatever the deficit may be, and the accounts of the two countries are made to balance. At the same time, the Bill does not propose to denude the Irish Exchequer of resources. There are, of course, increasing expenditures in Ireland for education and other purposes, which must be met. We propose, as the Committee is aware, to pay into the Irish Exchequer, year by year, a sum over and above the present cost of the administration of the Irish services transferred to the Irish Parliament. That sum is subject to reduction during the first few years, but it will average, over a period of eight years, £400,000 a year, and afterwards it
  1492
  will be a fixed sum of £200,000 a year. Lord MacDonnell again criticises this provision. He says that any Government must necessarily have a cash balance at its disposal, and that in his view a sum of £200,000 a year is not too much to provide the cash balance needed. No doubt the Irish Government will need to have a cash balance at its disposal, but the sum of £200,000 a year is surely a very excessive amount to be devoted to such a purpose. It could not conceivably be needed. If the cash balance at the end of the first year was £200,000, at the end of the second year £400,000, at the end of the fifth year it would be £1,000,000, and so forth. I think that Lord MacDonnell, in making this suggestion in his letter to the "Times," has not sufficiently distinguished between an annual amount of £200,000 and a sum of £200,000 once and for all for use as a cash balance at the beginning. This annual sum of £200,000, which would be at the disposal of the Irish Parliament, is not a large amount in itself compared with our revenues here. It is about a farthing in the £ of the Imperial revenue. But, in proportion to the sums with which the Irish Parliament will be dealing, it is a considerable amount. On the Imperial basis it would be equivalent to a sum here of about £3,500,000—that is, if we multiply it by the necesary multiplier to bring the figure up to the Imperial scale. Therefore the permanent surplus which we are placing at the disposal of the Irish Parliament is equivalent to this Parliament having a surplus year by year of £3,500,000, which is by no means an inconsiderable sum.
  Further, we look forward to the time when Ireland will be able to effect considerable economies in her administration. We have undoubtedly led her to live beyond her means. When she has control over her own internal administration there is little doubt that her government will be conducted on a less extravagant scale. But in this regard no sudden change is possible. All existing interests have been most carefully protected. It is only in the years to come that the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government will be able to effect any considerable economies, particularly in view of the fact that the police, which is the most costly of the Irish internal services, and the one in regard to which there is most hope of effecting economies, will not pass to the control of the Irish Government for six years. Thereforeitisnecessary—and

  1493
  this is the point I would press strongly upon the attention of the Committee—that the Irish Parliament should have placed in its hands financial powers adequate to enable it to make the system work. We are taking from Ireland all her normal increments of revenue; we are leaving her with her normal increments of expenditure. We are giving her, it is true, a certain surplus; we also hope that in time to come she will be able to effect economies. But undoubtedly Ireland ought not to be asked to assume the obligations of self-government unless she also has power, if her people approve, to raise additional revenues by means of taxation. What is likely to occur in respect, of its finances when an Irish Parliament is created? You will have there, no doubt, many members reflecting the opinion of the agricultural population of Ireland; and if the characteristics which prevail in the peasant populations throughout the world are to be found also in Ireland, as undoubtedly they will be, we shall find that the influence of the agricultural members there will always be on the side of frugality, almost of rigid economy. There is no one who so carefully considers the shillings and the pence as the peasant, and so far as the Irish agricultural population has influence in the Irish Parliament we shall find a rigid spirit of economy.
  Also, if experience throughout the world can be taken as a guide, we shall find in Ireland, when once a Parliament is set up and is in being, after all these long generations of struggle, a great wave of national enthusiasm for Ireland and for the development of Ireland. The Irish Renaissance, as it has been called, which is now, and has for some years, been proceeding, and which has already evidenced itself very remarkably in the drama, in poetry, in scholarship, as well as in industry, will continue, and with increased force, once the Irish people find themselves in possession of their own Government and in control of their own destinies. It is more than likely that when this state of things exists the Irish people will be willing, will be very ready, to make financial sacrifices in order to place their Parliament and Government in the possession of adequate resources to develop the neglected districts and industries of the country, and to promote in all ways the improvement of its resources. Therefore I think it is quite essential that the Irish people and Parliament should not find themselves blocked at the outset by too
  1494
  close a restriction upon their financial powers inserted in the Bill which is the foundation of their Constitution.
  That brings me to what is perhaps the most controversial part of this Resolution, the powers it is proposed to give to the Irish Parliament in respect of the Customs and Excise. This matter, I know, has aroused considerable interest not only on the part of hon. Members on the opposite side, but on this side of the House too. First, it is necessary to remind the Committee of what the proposals are not; for there is reason to think that there has been considerable misapprehension on this ground. There are some who speak of the proposals of the Bill in regard to Customs and Excise as though we were providing for complete fiscal autonomy for Ireland, for placing the Irish Parliament and Government in the same position with regard to the Customs and Excise as is, for example, Canada, or Australia, or any other of the Dominions or Colonies. Powerful arguments, indeed, may be advanced in support of such a scheme. So powerful are they that Sir Henry Primrose's Committee of financial experts, consisting of men belonging not only to one party, recommended that complete fiscal autonomy should be granted, and that Ireland should have complete control over her own Customs, subject to the qualification that no taxes were to be imposed upon British goods. These arguments are very cogently stated in an able book by Mr. Erskine Childers, which no doubt many Members of the Committee have read. For reasons which have been stated on the First and Second Readings, and which it is not necessary to repeat, that is not the plan adopted by the Government. Our proposals are not in the least in the nature of a measure of complete fiscal autonomy.
  In the first place, the Irish Parliament will not have power to vary the Customs Duties in any way for the purpose of protecting Irish industries. That may be right or it may be wrong; but the fact is that the Bill does not allow the Irish Parliament to raise any protective duty of any kind or description. That is provided for in Clause 15, Sub-section (1), paragraph (d) and in Clause 16, Sub-sections (2) and (3). In these the matter is perfectly clearly provided. If any hon. Member thinks it is not provided with sufficient clearness, we shall be very ready to consider any drafting Amendment which he may think necessary in order to fulfil what is the clear purpose of the Bill. Secondly,

  1495
  the Bill does not allow the Irish Parliament to impose any duty upon any article which is not already in the Customs tariff of the United Kingdom. They cannot go outside our Customs tariff and impose duties upon corn, linen goods or any article of any kind which is not at the time subject to a Customs Duty under an Act of the Imperial Parliament. That is provided for in Clause 15, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a). Thirdly, the Irish Parliament is not allowed to effect any differentiation in the duties. They may not, for example, take the Tea Duty and say, "We will impose an addition to Chinese tea and not an addition to Ceylon tea," and so embark on questions of so-called Tariff Reform, and establish for themselves any measure of Imperial preference. [An HON. MEMBER: "What Section prevents that?"] The purpose and principle of the Bill certainly is that the Irish Parliament is not to be allowed to effect any differentiation of any kind.
  Mr. CASSEL: Which Section?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am giving the Sections one by one. This is intended to be effected by Clause 15, Sub-section (1), which provides that
  "the Irish Parliament may vary an Imperial tax,"
  which was considered to mean that it could not take part of a tax, and vary that without varying the whole tax. But since some doubt has been raised as to whether the wording of the Bill adequately fulfils its purpose, in order to make any further doubt impossible, I have on the Paper an Amendment which is to follow Clause 15, Sub-section (1) paragraph (b), and make the matter clear beyond any possibility of doubt. Again, in order to protect some sources of Imperial revenue which may be needed by the Imperial Chancellor, of the Exchequer, the Irish Parliament is not to be allowed to raise duties, except on beer and spirits, to the extent of more than 10 per cent. on the proceeds of the tax. I have dealt with this matter before, and I shall again do so when TJC come to the Clause. They may reduce Customs Duties, but they will do so at their own cost. Every shilling less of revenue by any reduction of duties by the Irish Parliament, will mean that the Transferred Sum will be reduced by a corresponding amount. It will be the Irish Exchequer in every case and never the Imperial Exchequer which will be
  1496
  affected by the reduction of the duty. Lastly, these duties are to be collected by Imperial officers, and not by Irish officers. Limited as these powers are, I know that in many quarters they give rise to some objection. It is said in the first place—and quite truly—that in no other federation of the world is there power in one portion of the federation to alter or reduce Customs. Customs Duties are uniform throughout the area of each federation. That is so. But in no federation in the world, so far as I am aware, have we had this position that one province, after taking account of its revenue from Customs and Excise and direct taxation, involves the central Exchequer in a large annual loss. This differentiates the case which we are now dealing with from all precedents, and it is because this fact does exist that it is found necessary to make this exceptional provision with regard to Customs and Excise which is embodied in the Bill. Such a state of things, of course, happily does not exist in Scotland. If and when we come to deal with the establishment of local self-government in Scotland—
  Mr. BONAR LAW: "If and when?"
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will say "when." When we deal with the question for Scotland we shall not be faced by the existence of a deficit of this character, and the financial relations between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole need not be based upon the principles contained in the present Bill. This, I think. is clearly recognised by the Scottish Members themselves. I hold in my hands a copy of a report by a committee of Scottish Liberal Members of Parliament on the Irish Home Rule Bill. The committee was appointed by the whole body of Scottish Liberal Members. The report, I I think, has been distributed. This report includes the following sentences—and I may add that the report was drawn up a few weeks ago, and since our Bill was introduced; any hon. Member can get a copy of it by applying to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falkirk Burghs—the report, too, I think has been published.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Shall we have to pay for it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The report says:—
  "If the example of other countries in which general legislative and administrative powers are distributed between a central and local Legislature could have

  1497
  been followed in the case of Ireland, that country would have been given powers to impose and collect direct taxes, while powers to' impose and collect Customs Duties and such Excise Duties as correspond to them would have been reserved exclusively to the Imperial Parliament. That is, on grounds of general policy, the natural distribution of taxing powers between a central and local Legislature—"
  I quite agree. The report continues:—
  "But as the present expenditure of Ireland cannot be met out of her revenues derived from all sources such a distribution of taxing powers is in her case clearly impossible. But the case of Scotland is different."
  It is then pointed out that in Scotland, according to the figures given, which I have not checked, but which I am quite ready to accept as correct, that £7,500,000 is derived from direct taxation alone, whilst the whole cost of local administration in Scotland, including what are now reserved as well as what are transferred services under this Bill, is £5,750,000. So that Scotland is in the fortunate position of having a surplus if she takes her direct taxes on the one side and if she takes her local expenditure on the other.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: In the case of England, will the direct taxes raised in England be reserved to England?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am merely pointing that in Scotland as in England, but not as in Ireland, there is a surplus on the local taxes, even of direct taxes, if you put on the debit side the whole of the local expenditure. Therefore a measure is necessitated in the case of Ireland alone by the fact that this deficit does exist, and that in order to meet it we take into the Imperial Exchequer the normal increase of the Irish reveue. It is that fact which differentiates the case of Ireland from any other cases which may be put. I would ask hon. Members who have some doubts as to the wisdom of conferring upon the Irish Government powers to vary the Customs and Excise—the Customs especially—to consider what sources of taxation would be left if they were to be excluded altogether from any power of varying the Customs. In the first place, the Customs revenue itself amounts to over £3,000,000 out of a total revenue of nearly £11,000,000. In the second place, if they are prohibited from increasing any Customs Duties it is quite clear they will not be able to increase any Excise Duties except such duties as liquor licences and other very small duties yielding an inconsiderable revenue—liquor licences bring in only £300,000 a year in Ireland, and with recent changes it is unlikely that they can be very largely increased. But it will be obvious that the
  1498
  Irish Parliament could not raise their Beer or Spirit Duties in Ireland if they were not allowed to levy a Customs Duty on beer and spirits coming into Ireland from outside.
  Would it be possible, for example, for an Irish Parliament, to put an additional duty on whisky distilled in Ireland, if they were not empowered to impose an equivalent Customs Duty on whisky admitted from Scotland. If they were not, enormous quantities would come in from Scotland to undersell the Irish whisky. That might be very advisable from the point of view of the Scottish producers, but the whole Irish whisky trade would be destroyed by the act of their own Parliament, and such a thing obviously, therefore, is not possible. Therefore, if there is no power to vary Customs, there would be no power to vary the chief duties under the head of Excise. Customs bring in £3,300,000, and Excise £3,200,000. There is left the Income Tax. With reference to Income Tax, the Bill proposes to empower the Irish Parliament to add to the rate of Income Tax not more than 10 per cent. in order that the sources of Imperial revenue should not be eaten into by the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. But this is a power which, in effect, is not likely to be put into operation so far as the main rate of Income Tax is concerned, and I would venture to quote what I said upon this point when I first spoke of the financial proposals of the Bill on the First Heading. I then said:—
  "I do not think it probable that the Irish Parliamen is likely to exercise its powers of making a 10 per cent addition to such portion of the Income Tax as is collected at the source. That would involve very great difficulties of collection, which I need not enter into."
  I think it must be obvious to hon. Members that if the Irish Parliament levied 1s. 3d. while 1s. 2d. was the ordinary rate, it would involve the greatest possible difficulty of collection. You cannot expect the banks and the railway companies to collect a rate of 1s. 3d. in the pound from Irishmen and 1s. 2d. from Englishmen. And I went on to say:—
  "The difficulties and annoyance to the taxpayer would be so great that I cannot conceive an Irish Parliament will propose such a tax. But it might add to the Income Tax, and possibly will so far as it is levied by virtue of individual declaration—that is to say, to such portion of the Income Tax as is affected by abatements on the one band or by Super-tax additions on the other."—[OFFICIAL RBPORT, 10th April, 1912, col. 71, Vol. XXXVII.]
  Therefore, it is in any case in the highest degree improbable that the Irish Parliament would vary the main rate of

  1499
  Income Tax. We did not put any restriction into the Bill because the Bill was already sufficiently complicated, and we did not wish to add to its complexity; but on further consideration we thought it advisable to make it clear, because even the latitude theoretically allowed to the Irish Parliament might give rise to difficulties and a number of Amendments might be moved while the Clauses were passing through this House, and it was thought desirable to include in the Bill a specific provision that the Irish Parliament should not vary the main rate of Income Tax and that has been done by the Amendment which stands in my name. The revenue from alterations in Super-tax or what might be got by altering abatements would be exceedingly small. There remains the Post Office from which, of course, the Irish Parliament will not be likely to get any increase of revenue. Stamps bring in £347,000 only, and about one-third of the Stamp Duties are unalterable by the Irish Parliament; they must be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. They are empowered to add 10 per cent. to the Death Duties and that would bring in about £90,000; but it is very undesirable to throw the Irish Parliament back upon that as their chief reserve. The only other source of revenue is "Miscellaneous," the total of which only brings in £100,000; so that hon. Members who consider this matter in a sympathetic spirit and wish to give the Irish Parliament adequate financial powers, will see that if they cannot raise anything from the Post Office and very little from Stamp Duties, or miscellaneous duties, and practically nothing from Income Tax, if you deprive them of Customs and Excise you deprive them of all power.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Why not the Land Taxes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It may be said that they would be at liberty to levy new taxes, and that is provided for in the Bill, provided that these taxes are not of the same nature as Imperial taxes; because all the time you have to be exceedingly careful since Imperial revenue would be derived from Ireland, not to give the Irish Parliament such powers as would unduly trench upon the sources of Imperial taxes. You give them leave to levy Inhabited House Duty, but I am told by the Treasury that if that tax was levied
  1500
  in Ireland at the present rate it would only bring in £40,000 a year. They would therefore be thrown back upon such small taxes as an ingenious Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer could devise, on bicycles, advertisements, or dog licences, or whatever small sources of revenue might be found. But these little taxes cause much irritation and bring in very little money, and would not be really adequate sources to place alone in the hands of the Irish Parliament. Ireland has not got any State lands like the provinces of Canada, from which considerable revenues might be derived. She has no mines like the Transvaal, which could be taxed for purposes of local revenue. She has no forests and mines like the States of Germany, and from which in Prussia alone £20,000,000 a year is derived. Ireland has none of these resources, and if you rigidly say that she shall not be empowered to vary to any extent Customs and Excise, and if it is clear that all other sources of expected revenue are not adequate to meet the demands that may be made upon Irish taxes, then it is the view of the Government that you should give to the Irish Parliament some power of securing for itself adequate revenue for Irish local purposes.
  Of course, the Opposition are fully entitled to limit themselves to destructive criticism. I do not complain in the least; that is their right. It is their right to attack each proposal in the Bill of which they disapprove without suggesting any alternative. Their business is to show the inconvenience and faulty character of the Bill, drawing the conclusion that it ought not to pass. But my hon. Friends behind me who are sympathetic to the Bill and who are Home Rulers and wish to see an Irish Parliament established, and wish to see it provided with adequate financial resources, should suggest if they object to our proposals some sufficient alternative. An obligation rests upon them to do that. Now with respect to the power to reduce taxes. The Leader of the Opposition has on more than one occasion suggested that this would lead to extraordinary competition between the Chancellor of the Exchequer here and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, who will be careful to watch one another's movements, and the one will wait to see what the other is going to do in the way of reducing taxation before deciding what his own policy should be. I have never been able to understand that position. It must, of course, be my own fault that I have not followed the right hon.

  1501
  Gentleman, but I have never been able to see how that case could arise. Supposing the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer has money in hand from some source—from an adjustment of taxation or making economies, and supposing he wishes to reduce the Tea Duty by 2d., and supposing the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer has also money in hand, and may be willing to reduce the Tea Duty by 2d. throughout the United Kingdom, why should not both do so? In that case the fortunate Irish taxpayer would get a reduction of 4d.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Pardon me for interrupting, but it is with a view of getting information. I must have misunderstood the terms of the Bill. As I understand it, if the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer takes off 2d. on tea the money received from Imperial resources by him will be reduced. If, on the other hand, the duty is taken off by the English Chancellor of the Exchequer to the same amount Ireland will lose nothing, but will receive the same amount from the British Imperial Exchequer, and if that is so, it must be obvious that it is in the interests of the Irish Exchequer to wait until the British Chancellor has taken it off.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not see in the least why it should be a question of waiting. If the Irish Chancellor has a surplus and wants to dispose of it, the fact whether the English Chancellor is taking 2d. off or not does not affect his Budget in any way, and if this exceedingly novel combination of circumstances, which are very improbable, were to occur, the fortunate Irish taxpayer would be able to get a reduction of 4d. on his Tea Duty, 2d. of which he would share with the taxpayer of the United Kingdom as due to the Imperial Parliament, and the other 2d. which he would get at the cost of his own revenue. I do not think that the thing is the least likely to occur, but if the Irish Chancellor wished to reduce the Tea Duty he can do so on his own account, no matter what the Imperial Chancellor wished to do.
  5.0 P.M.
  The purpose of the Bill is to secure to the Irish Parliament the right to the benefit of their own economies, and I think that is a sound principle. If Ireland is able to make economies which we have failed to make, and which could not be got under the present system of government, then the Irish people, I submit, are entitled to the benefit of these economies, either in the form of reduction of taxation upon the poorer classes or in the form of greater
  1502
  benefits in other directions, in the form of money spent upon education or for other purposes which they may wish. I think that should be allowed. An Amendment may be necessary also to enable the Irish Government to inform the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would accept a Transferred Sum reduced by the amount of their own economies in order to make earlier the date when the deficit will be ended and the readjustment of the financial relations between the two countries will take place. These are the reasons for those provisions of the Bill. When that date comes when the deficit is filled up, when the accounts on the debit and the credit side balance, then the whole matter is subject to the review of the Imperial Parliament. It is not possible to say in advance to what extent these financial relations will be reviewed and what scheme will be substituted for the present scheme, because we do not know what taxes may then be in existence, what loans may have been contracted, and what security may be necessary. We do not know what services may still be reserved" to the control of the Imperial Government; we do not know also what other financial arrangements may have been made as a consequence of the establishment of self-government for Scotland which might affect the revision of the Irish financial relations. It is with very much reluctance we have to leave these matters over for an interval of years, but I think the Committee will see it is not possible to legislate in matters of this kind at a distance of perhaps ten or twenty years, and to provide in detail for circumstances that have yet to come into existence. Then the position will be clearer; then measures which may now be necessary may be found to be no longer required. The situation then will be far easier. The financial relations of the two countries, which at the present time are governed by the existence of the deficit, will be profoundly altered, and we shall be able, in the words of the Bill, to secure a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. I beg to move the Resolution which stands, in my name. It is intended that the Clauses which rest upon it will secure the provision for the Irish Government of an adequate revenue, and what I suggest is equally essential, sufficient financial powers in the future, without unduly trenching on the sources of Imperial revenue. They are

  1503
  intended to liquidate in the course of time the present loss which falls upon the Imperial Exchequer, and they are intended to secure to the Irish people the benefit of those economies which they may succeed in making where we have failed. I submit that these are objects which should command the support both of the Irish people and the Imperial Parliament.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech which was none too long, but which has nevertheless taken one-eighth of the time we are allowed for discussion here said, and said truly, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if he took a general survey of the financial proposals of the Bill. I entirely agree with him, but as I shall have occasion to point out, oven in the hour which the right hon. Gentleman allotted to himself, he was unable to deal, or did not deal, with some of the most important provisions which are contained in the very extraordinary clauses which are founded upon the Resolution we are now considering. It is difficult in the case of the Home Rule Bill to pick out one Clause or set of Clauses rather than another, as being of greater or more vital interest to the country; but without saying that the financial Clauses are the most important, I do undertake to say that they contain within them, proposals which ought to occupy the serious attention of this House. I doubt very much whether the House really understands them at the present time, and I am convinced that the country would not sanction them if the people understood what it is the Government are proposing to do. The senior Member for the City of London observed last night that we were then debating what was to be the army of observation which was to be placed in a conquered country. To-day we are beginning to debate the indemnity which the conquered country is to pay to their conquerors.
  I think we have some reason at the outset to complain of the way in which the Government have treated us. They appointed a Committee whose report they have published, and to which they habitually refer as a non-party Committee, to develop a scheme of finance for Ireland on the assumption that Home Rule was to be granted. We know that Committee took a great deal of evidence, and have we not aright to
  1504
  complain that the Government have suppressed that evidence, and, in spite of applications made from this side of the House they have absolutely refused to publish it. I know no precedent for their action, and I would like the Government, if they have a precedent, to state what it is. This is not an ordinary Committee of the Cabinet which, like all the proceedings of the Cabinet, are secret. It is not like a few advisers collected privately to give them information on a particular point, but it is a Committee whose appointment is known to the House, and whose names are known; it is set to take evidence, and then that evidence is concealed. I know of no precedent for that except where it can be said that the interests of the country are at stake, and that it would be contrary to public welfare to make the evidence public. The only people to whom it would be inconvenient are Ministers opposite. It is inconvenient to them, but it is not for the convenience of the public that we are refused admission to this evidence. We have all the more reason to call for the evidence because the Government, having appointed the Committee and asked for its advice, have rejected every one of its recommendations.
  The Postmaster-General said that our business with this Bill is critical, and that it is not our business to frame an alternative scheme less absurd than that which the Government have proposed. I will make the right hon. Gentleman this admission: If you are to have Home Rule, which I do not desire at all, at least I think it is desirable to try some scheme which offers some hope that it may be a settlement of the controversy between us. I do not know that the Primrose Committee scheme would altogether satisfy that condition, but between the scheme proposed by the Primrose Committee and the scheme adopted by the Government there cannot be a moment's doubt. This scheme will multiply cases for friction, and it makes certain quarrels between the two Parliaments, the two nations, and the two Administrations. The only form of settlement it provides is one which, whilst infringing profoundly on the power and authority of this House, will not be considered satisfactory by either party when the verdict goes against them. This is not the first essay of the Government in federal finance. We have been discussing a federal Constitution, and now we come to federal finance. I think that here, as elsewhere, the Government is beginning at the wrong

  1505
  end. As the Debate proceeds the probability that any form of Home Rule remotely resembling that which is now preposed to confer on Ireland will ever be extended to any other part of the United Kingdom diminishes day by day. I notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Pirie) has come into the House. I regretted his absence when the Postmaster-General was explaining that when Home Rule was granted to Scotland they would not demand the privileges which are now afforded to Ireland. What was the proper course for a Government to take under these circumstances? They say that it is impossible to proceed with the federal Constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom at once; but I do not agree with them. If a federal Constitution for the United Kingdom is desirable, which I think it is not, I see no reason why you should not produce a federal Constitution for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. PIRIE: It has been done already by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott), who has produced a Bill for the better government of the United Kingdom in which a federal Constitution is worked out.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have never regretted more than I do now that the hon. Member does not sit on the bench opposite, because we should then be really discussing the federal system for the United Kingdom. If you must begin, surely it would have been the wiser course to have begun with what is called the predominant partner, and consider what powers you could entrust and what revenues you could leave to England, and then to extend those powers, or similar powers, to Scotland and Ireland. On the contrary, the Government, for reasons which are known to all of us, and which are not unconnected with Parliamentary and electoral exigencies, have chosen Ireland to begin with. They say that the position of Ireland is wholly unlike any other portion of the United Kingdom, and without having in their minds the ghost of an idea what a federal scheme for the United Kingdom ought to be, they proceed to invent a scheme to meet the special necessities of Ireland which they themselves admit, and admit in an ever-increasing degree as the discussion goes on, is wholly inapplicable and not capable of any further extension. I will take this case on the plea that this is the first step in a scheme of federal
  1506
  finance, which is always a difficult and complicated matter. No Government is the stronger for having its finance subject to the disability of a federal Constitution, and Governments only submit to that necessity because it is a necessity. Now, without any necessity, we are invited to take these difficulties upon ourselves. I really think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be here when we are discussing the finance of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been here" and "Bring him in."] I do not want the right hon. Gentleman brought in to hear me, but as the guardian of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and in a special degree, if there is to be a severance, of Great Britain, his presence in these Debates is desirable. The right hon. Gentleman is accustomed to make a very complacent boast of the financial and monetary position of this scheme as compared with Germany. I do not think all he has said on this subject has been very well founded, and I am not certain that it has always been in the best of taste when speaking of the arrangements of a friendly nation. But if there be difficulties, as there are, special for Germany which we have not been subject to, why is it? It is because they are under a federal system of finance, and the whole difference in the position of the right hon. Gentleman and his German opposite is that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with a unified system of finance with no federal restrictions, whilst the German Minister of Finance is hampered and controlled by a federal Constitution and by federal finance.
  Observe one thing further. Observe how profoundly it is separatist finance. Every speaker on that side of the House who attempts to justify the financial attitude of the Government—and there are very few of them unless they happen to be Members of the Government—is driven throughout to adopt an entirely separatist attitude and to consider Ireland and the United Kingdom as two rival bodies, having nothing in common, except a purse, as to out of which the question is who shall get the largest share. I differ and dissent altogether from the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman to-day and by the Prime Minister yesterday on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman to-day said the dominant fact of the present position is the existence of a deficit caused by the excess of expenditure on Irish purposes over Irish revenue. That is not the dominant fact so long as we remain a

  1507
  United Kingdom. It is no more the dominant fact in treating of Ireland than it is the dominant fact in treating of Caithness. We tax individuals, and as long as our taxes are equal as between individuals, whether those individuals be Irishmen, Englishmen, or Scotchmen, we have discharged our duty under the Act of Union, and have committed no injustice as between one part of the country and another part. Just as there is no injustice in levying equal taxes from individuals similarly situated in different geographical parts of the United Kingdom, so there is no injustice and nothing which Englishmen ought to resent—they ought to be ashamed to criticise it—in using the common resources of all those people, in a larger measure, for those who have most need than for those who have the least requirement.
  It is only when you try to set up Home Rule that these separatist questions arise at all. It is only then you set Ireland against the United Kingdom, and have to examine exactly what Ireland gives and what she takes, and see on which side the balance remains. Henceforth, if this Bill or anything like it passes, no expenditure will ever be incurred by the Imperial Parliament in Ireland without there will be nice calculations as to how much of it Ireland is going to contribute and what she gives in return for what she receives. I fancy future Chancellors of the Exchequer, whom the present Chancellor of the Exchequer can no more bind than the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) can bind the future Irish Parliament, will think twice before they make great additions to the burdens of English and Scotch taxpayers, already heavily taxed, for the common purposes of the defence of the three Kingdoms, without taking care there is some greater approximation than exists at present in the contributions received from Ireland for these common purposes. I am afraid I shall have to make some demand on the patience of the Committee. I will try to be as brief as I can whilst making some attempt to do justice to this question. What is the first result of this federal or separatist finance? I suppose the Postmaster-General wished the House of Commons to believe the first result would be that the Irish Parliament would manage Irish finance and co-relatively the British Parliament would manage British and Imperial finance. The result will be totally
  1508
  different. The Irish Parliament cannot manage Irish finance, the British Parliament cannot manage British finance, and neither the Irish Parliament nor the British Parliament can manage Imperial finance. The real power will lie with that new body, of which the Postmaster-General did not think it worth while to say one word, which is created under this Bill and called the Exchequer Board.
  The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be master in his own house and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be master in his own house. They will be both subject to the control of the Exchequer Board. I do not know what that Board is to be. There are to be two representatives appointed by the Irish Parliament and two representatives appointed by the British Parliament, and there is to be a chairman appointed by His Majesty, on the advice, of course, of the First Lord of the British Treasury. How satisfactory and how impartial that tribunal will appear to the successors of the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway when by a vote of three to two it gives a decision in favour of the Imperial Exchequer and against the Irish Exchequer! Do you think that in any proposal of that kind there are the seeds of future peace? Do you think that is a settlement of the Irish grievance against the British Treasury which is so constantly spoken of? I see the hon. and learned Member for one of the Divisions of county Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) sitting in his place. I have sat in this House for many years, and I have listened to his speeches, seldom with agreement, but, at any rate, with the feeling that I get a better insight into the Irish question from those speeches than perhaps one derives from any other source. I ask hon. Members to recall his denunciations of the British Treasury on every occasion, perfectly impartial, no matter what Government is in power.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has suffered under it and I have suffered under it. They are very bitter and very searching. Is he willing, if we get this Bill through, and would his successors be satisfied, to entrust to a majority provided by the British Treasury the settlement of all these important questions? And what are the questions? I called the attention of the House to this matter on the Second

  1509
  Reading of the Bill, and I make no apology for calling attention to the nature of these questions again. Let me ask one question in connection with the Board which is to decide these matters? Who is going to pay that Board? Who is going to provide and pay their staff? I think that is a question which we might fairly have answered by a Minister before this Debate closes. I do not know whether it is proposed that the whole of this expenditure is to fall upon the British Exchequer, as so much of the expenditure does under this Bill. I do not know whether it is proposed that the British representative appointed by His Majesty is to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, or whether the Government have in mind that they are going to take some outsider and make him Grand Minister of Finance for the United Kingdom of England and Scotland and for the separate Kingdom of Ireland, and put him in a position to decide wherever the casting vote is needed what shall be the financial arrangements and what shall be the contribution of either one party or the other. Now we come to the questions which are referred to this Exchequer Board. They must determine the cost of the services transferred at the time of the passing of this Act; that is to say, they will fix the amount which we are to pay annually as the Transferred Sum to the Irish Parliament.
  They must determine the proceeds of Irish taxes levied by the Irish Parliament, and they must decide whether any proposed Irish tax is substantially the same as any Imperial tax. Could you have a more difficult proposition: Are two taxes substantially the same? Is Super-tax substantially the same as Income Tax? You may argue either way with equally good reasons. Is a Mineral Rights Duty, collected as the present Mineral Rights Duty is on the revenue received by the owner of the land, substantially the same thing as a double Income Tax on his rents? It is not merely substantially, but my hon. Friends will say it is exactly the same. But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say so? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit he has, in fact, levied a double Income Tax on a particular class of the community? In future it is not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he shall or shall not; these questions are to be decided by a Joint Exchequer Board. They must estimate the losses to the Imperial revenue arising from the reduction or discotinuance of an Im-
  1510
  perial tax in Ireland and fix the amount by which in consequence the Transferred Sum is to be reduced. They must decide whether the 10 per cent. allowance on the yield from additional taxes has been exceeded and by how much, and for all the guidance they get from the Bill they might as well be without it altogether. I have read the Bill carefully, and I have drawn my own conclusions. I put them to the Postmaster-General on the Second Reading. He explained they were not his conclusions, but he has never made it clear that the Bill provides for anything except what I have stated. They must decide the increase of the Transferred Sum to accompany any transferred reserved service. They may manage any Irish debt if they like, and they must make an estimate of the true revenue, the very thing which the Primrose Committee says that to do correctly passes the wit of man.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELindicated dissent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Have you not at the present time Customs Returns as to the trade between Ireland and the United Kingdom? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Go and look in your own Department and find them. Go and ask the Board of Trade.
  Mr. LOUGH: We have asked them.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Finally, they must report when for three successive years the Irish revenue has exceeded the expenditure on Irish services, and they must then apparently summon a kind of National Convention or Parliament for the United Kingdom which will consider what Ireland under those circumstances ought to contribute to our common expenditure.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Exchequer Board docs not summon that Parliament for that purpose.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is only on the initiation of the Exchequer Board that it can be summoned.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They merely have to state the facts; how much money is received, and how much money is spent. They have not to summon Parliament at all.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is really rather quibbling over a form of words. It depends wholly upon the decision of the Exchequer Board whether that Parliament

  1511
  is summoned in that form to consider that question or not. It is their duty to say the word if certain events arise, and, unless they say it, Parliament cannot consider, according to the intentions of this Bill, any contributions from the Irish Parliament. I will only say, in passing, that the Post-master-General, in dealing with the other financial provisions of the Bill, has repeatedly laid stress on the fact that, unless you give the Irish a direct interest in economy, they will never effect it. I have heard Ministers describe this Bill as a treaty of peace with Ireland. I have heard them defend it as a compromise accepted by hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, and, therefore, binding on the Irish party. If that be so, if it is a treaty or bargain struck between the two parties, if it is binding not only on the men who assent to it but also upon their successors, how can you assist Ireland twenty years hence when the deficit is wiped out and when the circumstances which the Government foresee are likely to arise? They will tell you you have no right to vary the term of the original agreement unless you give representation to both parties.
  I do not think that this is a hopeful proposal. The functions entrusted to the Exchequer Board will produce a dislocation of our financial system. If the powers of this House and of the Irish House are going to be restricted by a body which is not properly a Parliamentary body at all, it is certain to cause the greatest friction and grave discontent in the working of this Act between the two Parliaments of the two countries. May I point to one or two questions which will arise. In the first place, suppose the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the position which the right hon. Gentleman fills, should a few years hence find that the requirements in connection with the Navy, the Insurance Act, and old age pensions need a very much larger revenue. I am not going to criticise these schemes, they have been decided on their merits. But if he should be called upon to find more money, he will take it from the wealthier classes by means of direct taxation, and his whole calculation could be upset by the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, who might remit one of the taxes proposed. Consequently he will have incurred some unpopularity by coupling direct taxation with heavy indirect taxation. I do not propose to discus, the Budget. My point is that the Chancellor
  1512
  of the Exchequer in order to meet the new burdens will have to impose fresh taxes, so that the Exchequer here will lose nothing. Yes, but my argument is that in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses everything, and that which he thinks is a fair scheme, as he proposes it, is rendered unfair by the action of another Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington say, "That is the beauty of it." Let me take another aspect. The Irish Parliament is to have the Customs Duties. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken devoted a large portion of his speech to defending the provision affecting the Customs and Excise. He evidently felt he had a critical audience on his own side. I believe the only Home Ruler and financial authority who can be quoted in favour of the Government's financial proposals is Lord Welby, who, however, fully approved of the financial proposals in the Bill of 1886, and also in the first and second forms of those proposals in the Bill of 1893. Is there a man to-day who will defend any of those three proposals? I think I heard that hon. Member say that circumstances have changed. If any one of these schemes had passed Ireland would have been bankrupt long ago. It is highly probable that ten years hence the present scheme will appear in exactly the same light as its predecessors. What was the argument addressed to his supporters by the Postmaster-General? He said it would break every precedent for any Constitution in the world, if you give a partial control of Customs and Excise to a subordinate Legislature. He went on to say that Ireland stood in a different position to any other country in which federation has been undertaken. That may be a reason for not undertaking any federation at all. The Postmaster-General stands in a difficult position. If Ireland had a deficit on its present revenue is it to have greater powers than any local Legislature or any federal State in the world. When the Irish Constitution is established as a model, is Scotland going to be content with anything less? If Ireland can raise a 10 per cent. duty on English goods, why may not England raise a 10 per cent. duty on Irish goods? Powers given to Ireland will have to be given to Scotland. If this control is to be given to Ireland because she is poor, why not give it to Scotland because she is rich? Surely the country which is rich and prosperous has the best experience in

  1513
  managing its own affairs, and if any distinction is to be drawn in these matters, that country ought to have the larger powers.
  Is this federal system of finance going to facilitate the achievement of the object of hon. Members opposite who desire the abolition of the Tea Duty? The Postmaster-General said he could not conceive any difficulty arising in connection with the Tea Duty. I suppose there is not an hon. Member opposite who has not repeatedly expressed on public platforms an earnest desire to see the speedy abolition of the Tea Duty—most of them are indeed, pledged to support it. These pledges are not always carried into effect. What will be the position if the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the Tea Duty off I Ireland will lose the whole of the produce of the Tea Duty in Ireland, and the Deferred Sum will be diminished by that amount. If the British Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the duty off, so much less money is collected in Ireland, but the Transferred Sum remains the same, and the whole loss has to be made good by the British taxpayer. Is a British Chancellor of the Exchequer likely, under those circumstances, to take off the duty. It will be said that we are to pay to keep the Irish Parliament in existence. Our contribution amounts to £2,000,000 a year, apart from the fact that she contributes nothing to any of our common expenses. If you reduce the taxation it will have the result of adding another half-million to the deficit which already exists on the Irish Budget. If I want to give relief to Ireland I will try and find some way in which that relief can be given, so that Ireland shall get the full benefit. But I would not transfer from Irish to British shoulders a portion of a very slight burden and leave Ireland to increase the very heavy burden already placed on her shoulders.
  We are obliged to speculate as to what the future has in store. The Postmaster-General indulges in rather confident predictions. I am not quite so confident as he, and I differ from him in his expectations in many cases. I take these illustrations not as things certain to happen, but as things that may happen. The Postmaster-General says, "The Irish must get increased revenue for their Irish purposes, and it is for that reason that we give them Customs; because, unless we give them Customs, they have not sufficient resources at their disposal." Suppose the Irish Government, wishing to embark on great
  1514
  schemes of improvement of the kind of which the Postmaster-General talks, finds itself thereby in need of additional revenue and puts an additional 10 per cent. on the Tea Duty. It will not be very popular. I am perfectly confident that the Irish Parliament will not in any circumstances be popular with its constituents. I put aside what I may describe without offence as the sentimental argument in favour of Home Rule—the invocation of the National spirit—not as a thing which is negligible, nor which does not command respect. What is the history of the Home Rule movement? The strength of the Home Rule movement was coincident with the linking of the National movement with proposals for material benefit, and what has made the Irish active Home Rulers, and what has kept them Home Rulers, is the idea that under an Irish Parliament material benefits will be showered upon them which they cannot obtain from the Imperial Parliament. These material benefits cost money. The people of Ireland will not get the development they expect, and will not see the measures of social reform that have been held out or promised to them, unless they raise new taxes. None of the taxes they will raise will be popular. No taxes ever are. They are no more popular in Ireland than elsewhere. I remember a distinguished gentleman who had to visit South Africa recently on a financial mission telling me he had been much impressed by one gentleman who said to him:—
  "You sir, are a stranger to this country. You must understand that the genius of our people is against taxes."
  I think it is just possible that the genius of the Irish people will be against taxes, but if they will not pay for these reforms they will not be able to have them. If they want them they must pay for them. Suppose that, in order to do so, they raised the Tea Duty. Take the opposite alternative to that I was discussing just now, say they raise a portion of the money they require by an addition to the Tea Duty and an addition to the Tobacco Duty. Then comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not going to scrutinise too closely the advantage Ireland gets by the remission of Irish taxation, and who, having regard to the surplus he possesses and to the needs of his own people, decides to abolish the Tea Duty and, we will say, to halve the Tobacco Duty. What becomes of the Irish taxes? The moment the British Tea Duty is withdrawn the Irish Tea Duty is illegal and cannot be levied.

  1515
  The moment the British Tobacco Taxis reduced the Irish additional tax exceeds the limits provided by this Bill.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is provided against.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is in the Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Where?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Page 13, line 28. [Clause 17, Sub-section (3) (b).]
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I admit I had overlooked that provision. It destroys my argument in so far as it related to the Tobacco Tax, and that portion of my argument may be considered as not delivered. But it does not touch my argument in relation to the Tea Duty. If you take off the British Tea Duty the Irish Tea Duty is illegal. Can you conceive any arrangement more calculated to embarrass both parties?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a very small amount.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster-General says it is a very small amount, but Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has said, is a very poor country, and you are dealing with the humble affairs of poor men. The Postmaster-General himself, when it suited his argument, also pointed that out. He said, in answering Lord MacDonnell, that £200,000 may seem a very small sum, but £200,000 in proportion to an Irish Budget is as £3,500,000 in proportion to one of our Budgets. Supposing they lose £40,000. What is that in proportion to an English Budget? It is as if we lost £750,000 on it. You must bear in mind, as the Postmaster-General rightly said, that sums which in a Budget of the United Kingdom, as it now exists, are very small sums, will be very important sums in a Budget in Ireland, and that a reduction of the Tea Duty, which we might well afford, will upset the Budget calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and transform what he intended to be a surplus into a deficit.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In that case it would have to be abolished altogether, and not reduced.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If it is reduced and the Irish have previously added a full 10 per cent. additional, they may continue to do so under the provision I had overlooked, and which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, but if the tax is abolished, then all my argument holds good, and the Irish tax levied for Irish purposes by the Irish Parliament automatically falls to the ground. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by interrupting and saying that it would have to be abolished altogether? I thought that was the policy of his party, and that they had all pledged themselves to it, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself has done that. Now, when we are getting to business, he speaks of it as a thing you cannot contemplate. I suppose the pledge was for platform consumption, and that the Government have not the slightest intention of carrying it out. Let me take another question which does arise under this very intricate system. The Postmaster-General says, "We have provided that the Irish are not to protect Irish industries." But if they are to have a. Home Rule Parliament, why they are not to protect Irish industries I do not know. That they will permanently accept a Parliament on these conditions I do not believe. I doubt whether hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who may hope to sit in an Irish Parliament, would pledge themselves never to reopen that question. If they were willing to do so, I must be permitted to say that their pledge would not be the slightest guarantee to this Government. Although they might personally be bound, it is certain as anything can be that that desire for protection which Mr. Parnell instilled into the Irish—a ground naturally receptive for it—will survive; this Bill, will grow with the exercise of Parliamentary powers under this Bill, and will become a formidable demand to be pressed perpetually on Ministers in this House by the Irish garrison which would be sent here for that purpose. Have the Government provided that they shall not give practical protection to Irish industries? I do not think so. It is quite true they say they have provided partly by a Clause and partly by an Amendment, which I understand has been put down to make the Clause clear, and which I hope does make it clear to anybody who has tried to read it—at any rate I understand the Government, contention is that the Irish Parliament cannot put on a protective Customs Duty. [HON. MEMBERS:

  1517
  "Hear, hear."] But can they not give a bounty to an Irish industry? As I read the Bill they have absolute power to grant a bounty as and when they please.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Where is that stated?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In Clause 2, which provides they shall not have power to make laws in respect of trade with any place out of Ireland.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did the House ever listen to such an explanation. I believe the Clause referred to was guillotined before it was discussed. Now, at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman bravely tells us, for the first time, that under Clause 2 the provision which would prevent the Irish Parliament from granting bounties, and the provision which prevents the Irish Parliament from continuing to grant to tobacco growers in Ireland the bounty which is now paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, is a provision which says that they shall not interfere with trade outside Ireland. I call the attention of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and particularly that of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond), to the fact that the Government's expressed intention is to prevent their granting any bounty to tobacco or anything else in Ireland; and I call the Government's attention to the fact that the provision in the Bill singularly fails to carry that out.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say that.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then will you tell us what you did say?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We are speaking of quite different things. A bounty is a Grant which is given for the purposes of export.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not necessarily.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly it is, in the ordinary use of the term. A bounty is a Grant which is given to persons who export goods to foreign countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is certainly the sense in which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to use it. The Irish Parliament will not be able to give that, because Clause 2 provides that they must not interfere with trade in any place out of Ireland. The Grant to an industry within
  1518
  Ireland, such as a Grant for the improvement of Irish cultivation, or the improvement of agriculture, or anything of that kind, has nothing whatever to do with either Customs or Excise. No matter what your system of finance was, if Customs and Excise were excluded absolutely from their purview, nothing could prevent the Government of any Colony or any subordinate Legislature under any federation giving from its finances Grants for technical education in any industry, or, if you like, Grants for the encouragement of that industry. That has been made clear again and again in answer to questions.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He misunderstood what I said, and gave me an answer which was not a reply to what I was saying. I was misled by that. Look at the situation. The hon. Member for East Clare may be perfectly happy about the tobacco bounty. That bounty may be continued. I suppose it will be continued at our expense. But if that bounty be continued, and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, they may give a bounty anywhere else in Ireland on the production or manufacture of anything, what the Bill forbids them to do is to give it on the export of the article. Assuming I am an Irish manufacturer wanting to sell my goods in competition with an English or Scotch manufacturer, what does it matter to me whether my bounty is paid to me on the whole produce of my factory in the place where the goods are made, or whether it is paid to me at a higher rate on that portion of it which is exported at the port from which it goes? What the right hon. Gentleman has now succeeded in showing is that the statement with which I started is true, that whilst you may not give, under this Bill, protection to Irish industries by Customs Duties, you may give it by bounty. He has taken us one step further, and has shown that the provision which he cited from Clause 2 about interference with foreign trade is not worth the paper on which it is written, for it would be perfectly easy for the Irish Government to get round it and defeat it. That brings me to another point. I listened to-day to the explanation the right hon. Gentleman gave of the Amendment which he had put down in regard to Customs and Excise. I am not quite certain that I entirely followed it. I tinder-stood him to say that the Irish Parliament might vary the Tea Duty, but they must

  1519
  vary it on all tea—they could not give a preference to the tea of one country over the tea of another. We have always had one rate of duty on tea, but we have always had different rates of duty on wine. They are not arranged according to the countries from which the wine has come, but according to the alcoholic strength of the wine. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that either the Bill as it stands or the provision which he has put down would prevent the Irish Parliament from varying one part of the alcoholic scale of the wine? I do not think he would.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmade an observation which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In that ease I doubt whether the Amendment affects its intentions, and it is only one more illustration of how certain it is that, under the system which you have adopted for the discussion of this Bill and under the suppression of debate, your Bill will go through unworkable and imperfect from curable defects, let alone the incurable defects which are inherent in the system which you are trying to establish. I want to put two other cases. Suppose in the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said, "We are looking to be recouped for the amount which we are now out of pocket from the growing produce of existing Imperial taxes in Ireland. But the Irish Parliament has power to remit any one of those taxes. If it finds that its taxes are growing faster than its own sources of revenue, or if it has need of more money, its obvious course is to remit the Imperial tax which shows a great power of expansion, and carefully avoid a smaller tax which might bring it under the censure of the Exchequer Board—to get at the same substance under another tax and to anticipate the increase of revenue which would otherwise have gone to the Imperial Treasury.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They cannot do it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They can. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) would have no difficulty in driving a coach and four through an Act of Parliament like this and defeating the intentions of a Government which is so credulously optimistic. Now take the other alternative. Suppose the genius of
  1520
  an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer finds a new and remunerative tax. May not that example be very tempting to the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer? He may say to himself, "My Irish colleague has had a brilliant idea; it is succeeding extraordinarily well in Ireland; it would succeed equally well throughout the three Kingdoms, and it just fits my necessity and will bring in the revenue I want. I will make it an Imperial tax." What becomes of the Irish Budget? They can then only have 10 per cent. on the sum which the English Chancellor levies, instead of having the whole of the tax which they have found and provided for their necessities. It is by an examination of the questions which may arise, and many of which will arise under the Bill, that the real impracticability of the Bill is shown -T just as it was by a similar process that the real impracticability of the Bill of 1893 was shown.
  Take another grievance which appertains to the English taxpayer only. The British Government is made the collector of all the taxes in Ireland, Imperial and Irish. How that will endear us to the Irish people! What an olive branch it will be when, in order to heal the strife of centuries, in order to allay the jealousies which unhappy historic feuds have caused, we retire from Ireland for every beneficent purpose, no longer seeking to promote their development by assisting their own efforts or by initiating efforts of our own, and when we appear to them solely in the guise of the tax collector. What a happy prospect for the future relations of the two people. But we are not only to collect all the taxes; we are to pay for them all. Let me suppose that instead of a British Chancellor of Exchequer following the brilliant example of some Irish Chancellor of Exchequer, some Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer were to follow the brilliant example of the right hon. Gentleman and contrive a scheme of Irish taxation which cost £1,000,000 and yielded £20,000. A little time ago the Committee would have had no patience if I had made a suggestion of that kind. They would have thought it an extravagant hypothesis. We now know that it has actually happened, and what has happened once may happen again. The Irish Chancellor gets his £20,000 net and the British taxpayer pays £1,000,000 for its collection. Let us hope and pray for our own sake that whatever may be the fortunes of Ireland in the future, if she has a Home Rule Parliament constructed on

  1521
  these lines she may never have a Lloyd George for a Chancellor of Exchequer.
  What has been the argument I have tried to enforce upon the House by the different examples I have given? It is that when you approach the finance of this Bill you find that there, as in the Constitutional Clauses, this is not a settlement. It is not a healing of old feuds, but an opening up of new ones, not the removing of old causes of friction, but the putting of fresh sand in the machine. It is making certain of constant friction between the Exchequers of the two countries, between the Parliaments of the two countries, and between the people of the two countries. It starts Ireland with a Budget that no Irishman will admit to be adequate. It takes from him all the normal increase of the existing taxes; it hampers, limits and confines him at every turn as to the new taxes which he may impose, and while it does work from the Irish point of view, it has, I think, almost every objection that any scheme could have. It is not the less objectionable from the British point of view; it hampers the British Exchequer equally; it makes it equally subservient to a third and irresponsible body; it may prevent the Chancellor of Exchequer, with a great majority in this House, carrying out schemes of taxation which they may desire, and in times of stress and strain, when unity of action is most important and when complete control of the financial resources of the country is most necessary, then is the moment when friction will become greatest, when ill-feeling will be most hotly developed and when it is certain instead of that hearty co-operation which the Government expect in future from the Irish Members who will attend this House, they will come here with a mission from their country to extort from our necessities greater freedom for their own development, and to check and thwart the Chancellor in any attempt he may make, under any conditions whatever, to extract from Ireland a single penny towards the cost of our common defence.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: It would have been very amusing if it were not so serious a matter for Ireland to listen to the right hon. Gentleman seriously affecting to see some terrific financial loss accruing to that conquered country, England, in the financial provisions of this Bill. To us Irishmen such an idea is simply grotesque, but to some extent I am afraid the Government are themselves at fault. It is with
  1522
  the utmost reluctance that we take up anything, even approaching be a combative attitude, towards any portion of this Bill, because we are sensible that whatever else may be said of this Bill it is a most remarkable vote of confidence in the Irish people on the part of the Prime Minister and the majority of the House, We certainly will do our utmost to be worthy of that confidence so far as the people of Ireland are concerned; but in common fairness to Ireland we cannot conceal from you our very great objection to almost every part of the financial scheme of this proposal. Even the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) this afternoon has not shaken my belief that unless we consent to turn that scheme into a mere transitory and experimental scheme it will land you and land us in inevitable friction, no matter how hard we may and will strive to avoid it. Some allowance should be made to private Irish Members dealing with this tremendously difficult problem, contending, as we are, almost alone in this House, not only against the whole expert ingenuity of the Treasury, who alone has access to the books upon all these matters, but, as we also have to do, against the Postmaster-General, of whose financial ability we have had striking examples this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has quite truly stated that the allegation on which he and the other authors of this Bill claim that they are extending generous treatment to-Ireland—and it is also the allegation which the Opposition have naturally fastened upon to make out some enormous financial yearly loss to England—is that there is a deficit of £1,500,000 in the government of Ireland, and that England, out of her bounty, is making us a present of that deficit under the proposals of this Bill. I regret to say that that is the fallacy which underlies the whole of this Bill.
  That deficit is, in our view, a fiction arising principally from the quite recently invented device of the Treasury bookkeepers who represent the revenue of Ireland, not as the money actually collected in Ireland, but as a sort of—what shall I say—artificial residuum after they have deducted from the collected revenue of Ireland a sum of £1,750,000. The Postmaster-General, no doubt, referred to the deductions, but he omitted to mention that more than 75 per cent. of these deductions are upon one article, namely, spirits— that is to say, practically speaking, a burden of £1,500,000,at the expense of

  1523
  one of the few manufactures we have in our country. If you discard that bookkeeping trick, the whole of this supposed loss in the government of Ireland immediately disappears, because the collected revenue of Ireland exceeds at this moment by £2,000,000 a year even your present extravagant Imperial expenditure in Ireland. I have the figures here. The total collected revenue of Ireland for the year 1910–11 is £13,519,000, and the total expenditure for the same year is £11,344,000. The case is even stronger, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) reminded you in his brave and eloquent plea for Ireland last night, this so-called deficit has only been in existence for two years after a whole century of vast Imperial contributions from Ireland to this country, and even all the ingenuity of the Treasury has only succeeded in totting up a deficit of about £850,000 for the present year. But from our Irish standpoint the case is infinitely stronger even than that, because, when you draw up your Imperial balance sheet you retain to yourselves £3,000,000 of what you call the true revenue of Ireland, in other words, £5,000,000 of what we call the right revenue of Ireland.
  Then you take credit to yourselves as against Ireland for ever so many items. You take credit for at least three enormous sums which are in their nature as essentially Imperial as anything could possibly be. One of them is, as well as I can remember, £700,000 a year, which was the Imperial price, the Imperial ransom, to the landlords for the surrender of the old Grand Jury system under the Local Government Act. Another item is the charge under the Land Purchase Acts, amounting to £761,000 for the great Imperial service of putting an end to an agrarian revolution. Then there is a sum of £1,400,000 for the Royal Irish Constabulary, which we heard hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway all through the Debates last week describe, and truly describe, as your Imperial standing Army in Ireland—a force undoubtedly as purely a part of your Imperial service as are the Grenadier Guards. I say nothing for the moment about the Old Age Pensions Act except this: that although undoubtedly it is a wonderful windfall and a wonderful charity for our old people, I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny that that Act was passed with purely
  1524
  British designs, and wholly regardless of the consequences to Ireland. I can state with authority and knowledge that the representatives of Ireland were never in any way consulted as to the application of that Bill to Ireland, and that they never even heard of the terms of it until they were disclosed in this House, and yet for that Act you have already recovered £1,500,000 from Ireland on the Budget. Even if we admit, as a rough and ready compromise, that half of those huge sums I have mentioned might be thrown upon Ireland, what would the result be? The result would be that instead of the government of Ireland costing you anything, this bogus deficit would absolutely disappear, and would be replaced by a sum of over £3,000,000 a year, which we hold Ireland is paying at the present moment to you, and which we hold is really Ireland's Imperial contribution.
  In a matter of that kind we ought to deal with it on broad and honest principles as between nation and nation, and as between two independent financial units. Well, the broad fact is that the taxes and the other revenue collected in Ireland at the present moment exceed by more than £2,000,000 the whole of the huge sum of even your present Imperial expenditure, and if, as I have just argued should be done, you deducted another £1,000,000 for charges which are purely Imperial charges, the result would be that you would put Ireland on the right side of the account by at least £3,000,000, and instead of her being represented, as was done in this House last night by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), as a pauper and as a bankrupt petitioning for alms to the English nation—
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not think I used the word bankrupt. What I said was that under the scheme of the Bill Ireland would be receiving a subsidy of £2,000,000.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I did not for a moment mean to impute that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to misrepresent the case. I did share, I must say, the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, who showed a not unnatural indignation when he said how galling, how offensive almost beyond words, it is to Irish feeling to know, as we do know, that our own taxation, which was acknowledged by the Royal Commission in 1896 to be £2,750,000 a year too great, has now been increased by £3,000,000 since

  1525
  the present Government came into power seven years ago, and yet we are expected to prostrate ourselves in gratitude to our Treasury masters because under the fiction of cutting losses which do not exist you kindly hand us back £2,000,000 out of the £5,000,000 you take from us. Let me remind the Committee that if there is a mistake in finance in this Bill, Ireland will have no remedy if the mistake is against Ireland, whereas if the mistake in finance should be against England you have the remedy in your own hands—this is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire—in additional taxation, because when this Bill is passed your Chancellor of the Exchequer will still not only be master of the Joint Exchequer Board, but he will have complete power to clap £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of fresh taxation on Ireland any year he pleases, and we will have only an attenuated representation of thirty or forty Irishmen in this House even to make a protest. As to the argument which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) used in his speech last night in reference to these forty-two men, I should like to say that if the financial aspects of this Bill were in this Parliament and now settled in a fair and rational manner, I cannot even imagine any reason for which those forty-two men would come into this House otherwise than as loyal and as faithful friends and comrades to join you in the common interests of the Empire. For us, at all events, the past would remain the past.
  But the very first step you have to take in order to have—I hope no one will be off ended when I say it—honest dealings between the two countries would be to recognise the collected revenue of Ireland as the genuine revenue of Ireland, and then by all means to make the deductions, to which the Postmaster-General referred, in favour of England as regards tea and sugar and matters of that kind. The Postmaster-General reminded us that under the present bonding system the collected revenue of Ireland must be to a very considerable degree depleted by the payment in England of duties upon Irish manufactures. Yes, but we make no disguise that we claim that the concession to Ireland of all duties upon Irish manufactures is just one of those exemptions and abatements which are stipulated for and promised in the Act of Union, and, further than that, that it will be an exceedingly cheap price for our surrender of
  1526
  our fiscal independence. If that broad principle was once recognised, I do not think that the Postmaster-General will pretend that there will be any very great difficulty about making Customs regulations that would provide against what would in that event be a fraud to defeat the intentions of Parliament. Let us begin, at all events, by having a clean, honest balance-sheet between the two countries, a balance-sheet that can be checked and controlled by Ireland, and not a balance-sheet that can be doctored by the Treasury clerks in a manner that, practically speaking, every Commission, English or Irish, which has ever inquired into the matter has acknowledged to be largely rough guesswork, if nothing worse. Because we claim nothing here in my belief in which, practically speaking, every authority, English or Irish, that ever looked closely into the matter has not acknowledged that we are right, and that this Treasury huckstering is as unjust as it is shabby and unstatesmanlike. Therefore our first proposition is that, either as to the collection or as to our own control of our own taxation, the financial proposals of the Government are in direct-opposition to every authority that public opinion of the Irish people have any respect for.
  He did quote, indeed, as an authority upon this matter one very eminent friend of Ireland (Lord Welby), but he will not deny that his present proposals are in opposition to Mr. Gladstone, in opposition to the Royal Commission of 1896, in opposition to his own secret Cabinet Committee, and in opposition to some of the most eminent thinkers of the Liberal party, men like Mr. Erskine Childers, Mr. Roden Buxton, and others. I will not mention Irish authorities like the General Council of the Irish County Councils, but the fact stands that up to the present moment not a single representative body in all Ireland has approved of the finances of this Bill. I do not think that even one of the Gentlemen who sit behind me, and who, to put it mildly, will not be accused of merciless criticism of the Government, has up to the present said a good word for it. Yet it is those arrangements which are condemned by every authority on the Liberal side, except Lord Welby, and which are universally condemned by the people who are chiefly concerned, which we are asked to accept as the final irrevocable charter of the financial relations between the two countries. I should have

  1527
  thought the Postmaster-General would be a bit struck by the repudiations from all sides, including his own, of the basis on which the fate of the Parliament which you are setting up in Ireland will have to depend above every other consideration. If the Irish people are to be asked to submit, as they are asked under this Bill, and as I for one submit, to a painful and cruel surrender of our old Nationalist aspirations for legislative independence, and even for fiscal independence, it must be, at all events, with something approaching to certainty that the Irish Parliament, in addition to all its other ties, will not end ignominiously in bankruptcy.
  I do hope that even the Postmaster-General will so far bend his intellectual pride, as Mr. Gladstone did before, and pay some deference to the opinion of persons like myself, who have not the slightest pretension to soar with him into the realms of high finance, but, at all events, have had a long and practical life's experience of what the Irish people can or cannot stand in the way of financial strain. The Postmaster-General reminded me that though Mr. Gladstone, in his Bill of 1886, totally ignored this new-fangled distinction between true revenue and collected revenue, he was driven, in the Bill of 1893, to abandon that position and to accept the so-called true revenue. The Postmaster-General has forgotten to mention that the first thing that Mr. Gladstone discovered in reference to this so-called true revenue was that it was a false revenue to the extent of £360,000 a year. His reliance upon the Treasury clerks actually placed him in the humiliating position of being obliged in Committee to tear up his whole balance sheet. The Postmaster-General may tell me that these two things can now more accurately and with more certainty be discriminated, but I have, in answer, simply to refer him to the Report of his own secret Cabinet Committee, because although they did not include the collected revenue among their recommendations, it was for the exceedingly good reason that they recommended an infinitely vaster concession to Ireland, the concession of fiscal independence, and a power of imposing and levying all their own taxation in Ireland. But they did also report that those Treasury figures are still just as unreliable as ever. I do not want to bore the Committee with ex-tracts, but I do not think that the Postmaster-General will deny that the Com-
  1528
  mittee reported that the materials for anything like an exact classification of the Irish revenue are still admittedly imperfect; that with one or two exceptions there are no official records which make it possible to trace with anything like precision the final incidence of the sums collected; and that, in point of fact, many of those figures are simply rough guesses and inferences from inquiries made from private traders and from carrying companies.
  But the Committee examined Sir George Murray and a long list of the most eminent men of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, and it was upon the strength of the evidence that they gave that the Committee found that it was impossible to verify or control this bogus distinction between true and collected revenue in Ireland. It cannot be forgotten, as the Member for East Worcestershire reminded us, that you have not published the evidence that was given before that secret Committee, notwithstanding the fact that over 300 Members of this House desire it. At all events* yon have not only Mr. Gladstone twenty-five years ago, but you have your own Cabinet Committee to-day discarding and discrediting this bogus distinction between true and collected revenue, upon which unhappily the whole finance of this Bill has been founded. We do not pretend, even if the Postmaster-General agrees to strike out. the first paragraph in Clause 14, that that would dispose of our objections. The financial proposals. I am sorry to say, are bad from top to bottom. You have rejected the advice both of the Childers' Commission and of the Secret Cabinet Committee who-advised you to give fiscal independence boldly and squarely to the Irish Parliament, and you have stripped us of any real control over more than five-sixths of our own taxation, because as to those provisions on which both the Postmaster-General and the right hon. Gentleman has just spoken, those provisions for fiddling with the taxes of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer and playing with separate Customs, in my humble opinion those proposals will produce no practical result whatever except the practical result they have produced already of furnishing the right hon. Gentleman and others on the Front Opposition Bench with a cry as to the hybrid compromise of half-Colonial Home Rule and half-provincial devolution which has been already raised. The real

  1529
  power of control over taxation remains absolutely in this House and with your own Chancellor of the Exchequer, and under this Bill we shall be deprived of very nearly two-thirds of the representatives in this House which the Act of Union at all events would have given us to have some voice in the fixation of our own taxes.
  Very much the same thing has happened in regard to the Post Office. You have taken that service as a great national service, and you are simply putting on us a debt of £250,000 a year, and the only thing you give us is the payment of thousands of officers. That is substantially what the Post Office gives to Ireland, or rather to the group of gentlemen who will have the management of these things. I feel bound to confess in regard to all these financial economies which you are building upon in your financial proposals that I do not believe in them. Those economies were perfectly possible in Mr. Parnell's time, and under Mr. Parnell's strong hand. They are now impossible in Ireland. You have yourselves made them impossible, because you have not only doubled our taxation within the last five or six years, but you have doubled at the same time the number of officials in the Land Commission, in the Congested Districts Board, in the Department of Agriculture, and with reference to old age pensions, and, of course, the National Insurance Act. Instead of doing anything to relieve us from the horde of officials who are swallowing up the greater part of your expenditure in Ireland, you have, I am sorry to say, only fixed the yoke of the bureaucracy more firmly than ever upon Ireland.
  I have looked into this thing with every desire to find some happy way for Ireland out of this financial mess, and literally— I can only offer my own humble judgment —I cannot sec anything that is practically certain in the Finance Bill except ample supplies for the salaries of innumerable armies of officials and place hunters, present and prospective, who are at the present moment the plague of Ireland, a plague as grievous to Ireland as the old plague of the land grabber; and, I am sorry to say, this plague of place hunters leads to a good deal of the opposition to this Bill. I do not for a moment deny that the Irish Government, which had the moral courage to face unpopularity in the teeth of a band of place hunters who are now an organised and formidable body— and I am sure that they would become
  1530
  equally formidable if another Government came into power — would have a magnificent harvest of economies to reap if these almost useless Castle jobs were ruthlessly cut down. In fact, unpopularity with the army of place hunters would be one of the noblest distinctions of Irish statesmen who undertook such a task. I do not see much spirit of that kind in those who for some years, at all events, will be masters. Situated as we are here, we cannot attempt to deal with every detail of this financial question. It would take a month to do it adequately.
  As the Postmaster-General appeals to any critical friends behind him to suggest some constructive scheme on their part, I would humbly suggest to him that, in the first place, he should honestly recognise the collective revenue of Ireland as the genuine revenue of Ireland; that he should next consider how monstrously unfair it is to charge against Ireland these huge Imperial charges, very many of them merely for the corruption of Ireland; and then, if the Government will not give us the power of making a Budget for ourselves, that at least they will raise the million a year, their so-called vanishing Budget— the much-abused Irish Council Bill gave us over £600,000 in reference to a very few services—and leave some margin to the Irish Parliament to do some work that is a little more useful to the country than expenditures upon sinecures and places. Give to the Irish Parliament some means of doing what my hon. Friend who sits behind me rightly called a humble work, but none the less a noble work, to which this present Bill will apply—work such as the improvement of national education, which Dr. Starkie described as lagging behind the education of the Ottoman Empire—if there is still an Ottoman Empire— work such as the nationalisation of railways, or, at all events, subsidising of them, as they have done in Canada, in order to have cheap carriage of agricultural goods to your English markets; or such work for social reform as would do for the working classes in the Irish cities and towns what has already to some extent been done for the agricultural population in the country.
  I do not like to indulge in any personal criticism of Irishmen at a time like this if it can be avoided, but I hope I may be allowed, without offence, to say that I heard the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), the other night, to my alarm foreshadow some vast

  1531
  scheme of social reform to be paid for by equally vast schemes of extra taxation of the Irish people. I hardly think he would have taken so philosophic a view of the future if he had not made up his mind not to be one of the Irish taxpayers. However, I come back to the question, that if you are going to make a real bargain with Ireland, you must not go about examining with a microscope every bawbee you are proposing to concede. At all events, I do claim that there is a fairly strong body of opinion on the Opposition side of the House which agrees to some extent with us. One of the reasons why I am so passionately earnest for a settlement by consent is that this question of finance, the most terrible difficulty no doubt of this Bill, is, or ought to be, the least contentious of all questions between the great British parties in this country. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), and indeed I think to some extent he has been reechoed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), again and again say that hard as he would fight against the establishment of Home Rule, if an Irish Parliament there was to be, the Unionist party had every bit as strong an interest as the Liberals in seeing that at all events the Irish Parliament should not start under a terrible financial grievance, or in a state of financial penury.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) told you with perfect truth last night that if you want to put the Union upon a better footing, you cannot ignore the treatment that Ireland has received since the Act of Union. You cannot forget that instead of giving us the exemptions and the abatements for which the Act of Union stipulated, you have increased the taxation of Ireland ten times over since Grattan's Parliament. You cannot forget that in a single year Mr. Gladstone increased taxation in Ireland by more than 50 per cent., and he did that in a year when we had not any deficit to provide for. Above all, you cannot forget, in discussing this Bill, that Mr. Gladstone's successors, the present-Government, have within the last five years increased that over-taxation by at least £3,000,000 a year in reference to legislation as to which Ireland was not consulted. This question ought to be dealt with, not as a matter of huckstering, but as a great national and Imperial occasion for an act of justice, of magnanimity, and of honesty.
  1532
  Let me remind you of this very important point, that your business and commerce stand to win cent, per cent, by the prosperity of Ireland. I have an extract, with which I will not trouble the House, from the Childers Report of the Royal Commission of 1886, which in the most eloquent and forcible terms brings that fact forward, and reminds you that when you talk about Imperial preference with this or that Colony, it is a matter of comparative insignificance compared with your trade with a country whose volume of trade now exceeds £150,000,000 a year. Actually within the past ten years, since the passing of the Purchase Act of 1903, your English trade with Ireland has increased by £25,000,000 a year.
  7.0 P.M.
  If we had an Irish Parliament developing the resources of the country in unity and peace, your trade would grow by many a million more, and the time would come when you would actually be ashamed of ever having harassed and huckstered, instead of making a great and generous and just bargain with Ireland. I know of no Imperial preference which would be more salutary to you and the Empire than the form of preference which would be the basis of this measure. In my belief, as a mere matter of business, a very moderate percentage of commission on your increased trade with Ireland would not only repay yourselves, but would enable the Irish Parliament to begin life with buoyancy and confidence in its own future. Let me say once more, and I say it with very deep regret, that in my opinion the financial scheme of the Government will not stand. The acceptance of the basis we suggest would not be everything, but it would be a good beginning, and I really see no other way of escaping trouble for yourselves and for us unless you will at all events increase your so-called subsidy to a tolerable figure for a short term, say of five years, and then make it quite clear that the whole arrangement will have to be reconsidered and revised by the practical experience of those five years. We are quite open to any temporary arrangement for so great and so untried an experiment, but I should be only misleading the Committee if I pretended to believe that the financial arrangements of this Bill as they at present stand can be cither a permanent or a workable or a final arrangement.
  Sir PHILIP SASSOON: I should like to claim the indulgence of the House,

  1533
  although I can claim a privilege which is not shared by all the Members of the House, and that is that not one of my former speeches can be brought up against me. I am sure the House will excuse me if I do not follow the intensely interesting and absorbing speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Ever since the days of Mr. Burke, one of the first principles of our Constitution has been that there shall be no taxation without representation. It was that principle which led Mr. Gladstone to retain the Irish representation at Westminster in his Bill of 1893 although he had spoken against it in most unmeasured terms in his Bill of 1886. This Bill violates that principle in the spirit and in the letter. It provides for what is in effect a special grant of £2,000,000 per year out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, and it does not give the British taxpayer any opportunity of saying whether he will or no, nor does it give him any say in how it is to be spent after it had been granted. It might be used for objects directly antagonistic to British interests, and the British taxpayer would be helpless. So far as the Bill affects Great Britain financially it is a Bill to provide a tribute of £2,000,000 per year to the Government of Ireland and of £400 per year to forty-two Irish collectors of tribute. But I do not wish to imply that the financial proposals of this Bill are really satisfactory from the purely Irish point of view. It is the peculiarity of this extraordinary measure that it is equally unsatisfactory to all those who are affected by it. Ireland is to be given a Parliament with power to impose taxes, but its power is confined within narrow limits, which it will be its constant endeavour to break. What is given with the one hand is taken away with the other. The "Colonial analogy" has played a great part, and will continue to play a great part, in the campaign in favour of this Bill. It has played no part at all in the drafting of it. The grant of full fiscal autonomy to Ireland would be a proceeding fraught with serious danger to the fiscal policy of Great Britain, but it would possess the recommendation of logic, which is absent from this Bill. It is the only proceeding which would satisfy the demands of the active Nationalist minority. The "Kerry Weekly Reporter" of 13th January, 1912, is plain enough on that point. It declared that the Irish
  "want no restricted powers or interference by English Ministers in the management of Irish affairs in a Home Rule Parliament. The control of the Customs and Excise must be given us, and if this control is refused,
  1534
  then the Liberal Government should spare themselves the trouble of going through the farce of passing a Bill which-would satisfy no section in Ireland."
  An English Radical paper, the "Liverpool Daily Post," puts the matter equally clearly—
  "There is no concealment of the object with which many of the Nationalists are asking that the Irish Customs and Excise should be transferred to the Irish Parliament. The bulk of the party are Protectionists."
  The right hon. Gentleman may have been able to make his peace with the Nationalist leaders of the time. I am sure he cannot believe it is a peace that will last. Such powers with regard to Customs and Excise Duties as are found in these Clauses are purely trivial or nugatory. On the other hand, Irishmen recognise to the full value of Protection as a means of building up the prosperity of their country. The only way in which Ireland can be self-supporting is if it can have the power of levying Customs Duties, repudiating old age pensions, and levying special taxes in Ulster. She has no other means of adding appreciably to her revenue. Yet the financial clauses are specially drafted to prevent the independent imposition of Customs Duties by the Irish Parliament. Even where they are given the restricted power to increase the existing Imperial duty they are strictly limited as to the amount which they are graciously permitted to obtain. As some compensation, doubtless, for being deprived of the power to levy such duties as the Irish Government may consider that the needs of the country demand, they are given the whole machinery of levying Customs. A complete system of Customs barriers is to be erected between Great Britain and Ireland, with all the concomitant inconvenience and expense. Yet an intricate and scarcely intelligible arrangement of countervailing duties and drawbacks ensures that, apart from any small revenue obtained under the 10 per cent, provision, the result of all this useless complication shall be absolutely nil. These financial clauses are the most involved and contradictory part of an inconsequent and incoherent Bill. The explanation doubtless is that they are an attempt to satisfy the Irish demand for fiscal autonomy without alienating British opinion beyond recall by an open advocacy of separation. We have it on authority that fiscal autonomy would mean the disintegration of the Kingdom and that the Government could not hope to carry a Bill on fiscal autonomy grounds. The result of the compromise is that while in Great Britain taxation does.

  1535
  not carry representation, in Ireland representation is not allowed to carry taxation.
  In order to introduce some order into the financial confusion created by the Bill a Joint Exchequer Board is to be established as a sort of perpetual board of arbitration to settle disputes between the two Treasuries, and to endeavour, so far as it may, to reduce the friction inseparable from a system which permits two authorities to impose indiscriminately conflicting taxes over the same area of taxation while only one authority is charged with the duty of collection. This composite authority, for which I believe there is no precedent, is in itself for practical purposes a taxing body. It is given power to determine what are the proceeds of an Irish tax, and what fixed or varying sum represents the cost of a transferred service, and in this latter duty has the power to take into consideration the probable increase or decrease in the cost of that service. It has also the power to adjust the proceeds of Irish taxes collected in Great Britain, or of British taxes collected in Ireland. Each of those duties involves a decision upon the amount of taxation which the taxpayers of Ireland or Great Britain are TO be called upon to bear. Finally, it has the power to determine any matter in connection with Irish revenue or expenditure. The Joint-Exchequer Board is a constitutional innovation of a novel and startling kind. It encroaches seriously upon the jealously guarded privileges of this House in regard to matters of finance, and it acts as an additional restriction upon the authority of the Parliament which this Bill would establish in Dublin. Mr. Gladstone once said that he would rather bestow a new Constitution on Ireland than destroy the old Constitution of Great Britain. This Bill would fail utterly to establish a workable Constitution in Ireland, but as far as the destruction of the Constitution of Great Britain is concerned, its success will be complete.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I desire to give some reasons why I object to some of the provisions underlying the Resolution which is now before the Committee. Before I proceed to do so, may I be allowed to congratulate the hon. Member who has just addressed us so very lucidly on this most difficult problem. I object to some of the principles m this Resolution because they embody loss of control by this Parliament
  1536
  of the United Kingdom over Customs and Excise Duties. I believe those provisions, if carried out to the full, really uproot all ideas of a true federal system extended to different parts of the United Kingdom. As the Members of the Committee are all aware, in Canada, Australia and South Africa, and in the United States, the centralisation of Customs and Excise is universal. The principle has been fought for in our own Possessions. I would ask, What is the purpose of forty-two Members coming to sit in this House as representatives of Ireland when on fiscal policy, so far as Imperial taxes are concerned, their vote might be opposed entirely by the Irish Parliament and rendered nugatory? It is essential that the control, the sole control, over Imperial taxes, so far as Customs and Excise are concerned, should be retained in the hands of this Parliament. Another objection to the Irish Parliament having control over Customs and Excise Duties I can see very well is, that there will be great inducement on the part of Irish traders to agitate for a reduction of duties so as to help their trade interests. It will lead the way to tariffs, and to lobbying in the Irish House. Members know that we have sufficient trouble in that direction in our own constituencies and in this House. Why should Ave extend those troubles to Ireland? This differentiation will lead to infinite cost and complication as between the two Exchequers. I have put down an Amendment on Clause 15, and if I have an opportunity to move it I shall be able to go more fully into these particulars. There may be some reason for allowing the Irish Parliament to increase the duties by not more than 10 per cent., as proposed in the Bill, but I believe I am right in saying that a great majority of Members on this side of the House are not in favour of allowing the Irish Parliament to reduce Customs and Excise Duties. I know as a positive fact that seventy or eighty Liberal Members have already stated that they would prefer that that power should be omitted from the Bill. I cannot publish the names, as they have only told some of us that they would prefer that such an alteration should be made. I would call the attention of the Committee to an extract from the Australian Year-Book of last year, in regard to the relations between Commonwealth and State finance:—
  "The principal alteration in State finance brought about by federation has been that the State has transferred to the Commonwealth the large revenue received

  1537
  by the Customs and Postal Departments and has been relieved from the expenditure connected with those Departments."
  That is to say, in Australia they have been setting up the very system which we here are asked to abolish. It is urged as a reason for allowing the Irish Parliament to reduce Customs and Excise Duties that the incidence of those taxes on the people of Ireland is different from their incidence on the inhabitants of Great Britain. I submit, however, that the effect on poor people is the same in both countries; so that that objection is really not a very valid one. I think that when there are in this House Members from all parts of the United Kingdom, the Imperial taxes should represent the common sense of the House as a whole. The difference in taxation between England and Ireland is surely very much less than is the case between such States as, say, New York and Florida; yet there they have the same system of taxation. I object to the power to alter Customs and Excise Duties, because it would affect traders in England and Ireland differently. Supposing the Tobacco Duties were reduced by one-half in Ireland. The tobacco manufacturer in Ireland would be able to supply his goods to the Irish people at a very much lower rate than the tobacco manufacturer in England would be able to supply the same goods to the English people. That would cause great discontent on this side of the water. British traders would have a grievance, and they would urge us to reduce taxation when perhaps it was impracticable to do so. The Committee would be well advised to take out of the Bill altogether the power of decreasing or abolishing Customs and Excise Duties. The majority of Members on this side would be willing to agree if the varying power were limited to the 10 per cent, power of increase proposed in the Bill. I have made these remarks in the most friendly spirit towards Ireland and the Irish party. I long to see the Irish people managing their own local affairs, but I also desire that they shall manage those affairs untrammelled by considerations of Imperial finance, in regard to which they will in future, as to-day, have a voice in this House.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: We have had two or three very striking speeches to-day, but none more striking than that delivered by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. W. O'Brien), who told us what I think we all had reason to suspect, that this Bill, so
  1538
  far as its financial provisions are concerned, is absolutely impossible from the point of view of any successful Chancellor of the Exchequer in an Irish Home Rule Parliament. It is unsatisfactory to Ireland, it is unsatisfactory to England, it is unsatisfactory to Scotland. The Committee may depend upon it that the hon. Member for Cork City, although ho may have a very small following in this House, will be supported in his views as to the financial provisions of this Bill by the large majority of his fellow countrymen, Home Rulers though they be. For my part, if I were a Home Ruler, I would take much the same view as the hon. Member has done. I should say that under Home Rule on a financial basis such as that proposed in this Bill it would be impossible to carry out any of those reforms and social developments which I as a Home Ruler had so long promised throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The scheme means chronic dissatisfaction in Ireland if the Bill ever passes, and it is only for the sake of argument that I assume it will pass. It means chronic appeals to this House to alter the Bill entirely, and it means chronic appeals by the forty-two Members in this House, who will all join together for that purpose, to give to Ireland more than is given by this Bill. It means inevitable friction between the two Parliaments. It means a tragic disappointment to Ireland and a disappointing delusion to the electors of Great Britain.
  What hope did the Postmaster-General hold out? He said, "You will see this deficit gradually disappear. It is quite true that we have to shoulder a certain deficit in Ireland." I am inclined to agree with Lord MacDonnell that that is not a very correct description of the present state of things. There is really no deficit as long as there is one British Exchequer, and as long as our taxes are imposed by one hand, equally on all taxpayers, whether in England, in Scotland, or in Ireland. Under these circumstances it is not true to say that Irishmen do not, as taxpayers, contribute anything towards Imperial services, the National Debt, the Army, or the Navy. Our taxes are not earmarked for one purpose or another. Therefore, so long as there is one Exchequer, I think Lord MacDonnell is correct. But directly there are two Exchequers, directly the revenues of Ireland are divided, one portion going to pay for one set of services and another for another, there is not only the simple deficit of which

  1539
  the Postmaster-General spoke, amounting to £1,500,000 or £2,000,000, but there will be a compound deficit, always going on against Ireland—the interest on the deficit and the deficit increasing year by year, and the larger deficit, to which you will add some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 every year, in regard to Irishmen not contributing anything towards the Army, the Navy, or Imperial services, such as the National Debt. The Committee will observe that the Postmaster-General, when holding out the hope to the British taxpayers that the deficit of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 will be wiped out, gave no figures whatever. It is simply a statement made, I think, with great audacity. We have to look to a former speech of the right hon. Gentleman for any substantial argument or figure to show that this deficit will ever be wiped out. What was the supposition he made? He said in a former speech: "I see a growing revenue in Ireland of £200,000 a year." I do not know where he got that figure.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a purely hypothetical figure. But will the right hon. Gentleman quote what I actually said?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I thought I was quoting it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Then let the right hon. Gentleman quote what he did say. I was putting those words into his mouth.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: "Hear, hear."
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: But I will not put them into his mouth unless they are accurate. I think the right hon. Gentleman stated that in some ten years time, because there would be an increase in the growth of Imperial revenue in Ireland of £200,000 a year, the deficit of £2,000,000 would be wiped out.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I gave it as an illustration. I said that if there was an increase of £200,000 a year the deficit would be wiped out in ten years. If there was a smaller increase, it would take a longer time; if there was a larger increase, it would take a shorter time.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: At the very beginning of his speech he said:—
  "The whole of our object is that Ireland should liquidate this debt which she owes to Great Britain. Ireland mast be self-supporting. Ireland can only liquidate this debt by means of normal increments."
  1540
  The right hon. Gentleman now runs away from that, and says, "I conjecture," "I suppose," "I think it is just possible that there may be an increment of £200,000 a year." He tells the Committee that he has no method of calculating that amount, and that it is pure guess-work. That is the slipshod finance to which we are treated in Committee on this Bill. But there have been some figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a question, which certainly do not show the probability of £200,000 being the normal increment of Irish revenue. In answer to one of the Members for Cork the right hon. Gentleman stated that the increase in the yield of Irish revenue other than on account of new taxes was £364,500 between 1908–9 and 1911–12. That would show an increase of only £76,500 per annum. For my part I do not think there would be an increase at all. There is just as likely to be a decrease, and for many years after the establishment of Home Rule I think it is perfectly certain that there will be a decrease in the actual produce of the Irish revenue. I will deal with that point later on. Meanwhile, I wish to pursue the argument that this proposal will be a great disappointment both to the Irish taxpayer and to the British taxpayer; first, because the deficit is never likely to be wiped off, and secondly, because there is no hope whatever under this system of finance that there will be in our lifetime any contribution by the Irish taxpayer towards Imperial services, such as the Army, the Navy, and the National Debt.
  For my part I believe that Clause 26, which sets up some kind of complicated machinery by which the Irish taxpayer may, when an equilibrium is established, and the deficit is wiped off, contribute something towards the Army and the Navy and the Imperial services, is a colossal fraud, and nothing but a colossal fraud designed to hoodwink the democracy of this country. My estimate is that there will not be any increase in the normal growth of the revenues of Ireland, and I have just as much ground for making that estimate as the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has for speculating that there will be. Let us on the other side of the account look at this: Even supposing that there were sonic slight normal increase in the revenues of Ireland, is it not absolutely certain that the cost of the reserved services must continually increase? Take the White Paper which has been

  1541
  presented to the House containing a Report of the Committee which sat to investigate this question, and the evidence of which, most unfortunately, we are not able to obtain. What was the conclusion that that Committee came to as regards the reserved services I They came to the conclusion that there would be a very large increase in the cost of these reserved services, old age pensions, and so on. They seemed to estimate that they would cost another £600,000.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: No, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have the Report here. If hon. Members will turn to it they w ill find it very distinctly stated there that for many years to come there will be a very large increase in the amount of money that is required to be found for old age pensions in Ireland. [HON. MEMBKBS: "NO, no!"]
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Excuse me, you are quoting from the other White Paper.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Here is the Primrose Report. Was the Committee "wrong when they said that in giving the Irish Government, a working balance, and a margin for immediately accruing charges in respect of old age pensions, loan charges to the Imperial Exchequer, and the taking over of the liability for all the old age pensions the estimated amount was about £3,000,000? There is another passage in the Primrose Report in which it is stated that there will be a large increase for many years to come in the amount that is to be found for old age pensions. That is so. For land purchase, again, the additional sum put down is £450,000; for health insurance the additional sum is £400,000; collection of taxes, £100,000 additional; and for Labour Exchanges, £50,000. That is a sum of another million, quite apart from any charges for old age pensions. When we come to consider the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary and matters of that kind it is inevitable that there must be a very large increase in the cost of these reserved services. Therefore, whatever little increase there may be in the normal Irish revenue, there will be, on the other hand, growing up against that normal increase a very large additional sum of money, which is a set-off against that, and which undoubtedly will have this ultimate result, that it will take
  1542
  many years—in fact, I do not think it will be in the lifetime of anyone on the Front Benches opposite—before this additional sum is wiped out, or that we can hope to get any contribution of any sort under Clause 26.
  There are other matters which one might well criticise. They have been very ably criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester. About the worst thing in the finance of this Bill is giving control of the Customs and Excise to the Irish Parliament. For the life of me I cannot understand how the Prime Minister, who is always in this House telling us that this is only the beginning of a federal system, ever allowed his name to appear on the back of a Bill which gives one portion of these countries which are about to federate control of the Customs and Excise—a power which is not given, as the Postmaster-General himself admits, to any single federated State anywhere in the world. The Postmaster-General said, "Oh, well, we are not giving them full power; we are not giving them fiscal autonomy: they will not be able to impose Customs Duties on any article on which there is not a Customs Duty already." Does the Postmaster-General think that this country is satisfied with its present fiscal system? Does he feel quite certain that there is never going to be any change in the fiscal system of this country? Does he think it is quite impossible to contemplate a time when a great many articles may be subject to Customs Duties in this country—if only for revenue purposes? I have for many years of my life advocated Revenue Duties on many articles besides those which are subject to Customs Duties at the present time. I believe the trend of opinion in this country will swing us to the time when we shall see in the Schedule of Customs Duties as many articles almost as are now found in the Schedule of the Port of London Authority, an Authority which was authorised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In their Schedule are 2,200 articles. On these 2,000 odd articles Port Duties have to be paid. I have never been able to see where the great difference is between levying the charges on these 2,000 articls for municipal purposes and duties on the same articles for Imperial revenue.
  I look forward to the time, and I think that time is not very far distant, when we shall also have Customs Duties on manufactured goods. Then in what position shall we stand as regards Ireland? Ireland

  1543
  in that case will be able to impose an additional 10 per cent., not on a few articles such as are now subject to Customs Duties, but on something like 2,200 articles which enter the port of Belfast and other ports in Ireland. This is perhaps not the occasion to go deeply into the effect of Customs and Excise Duties, but I am confident that if ever we have the opportunity to discuss Customs and Excise Duties as they are allowed to be imposed in this Bill, we shall be able to show that in the Bill, even as now drawn, powers are given to the Irish Parliament which will enable them to differentiate as between Irish manufactured goods and Scottish and English manufactured goods; which will enable them to use these additional Customs Duties for the sake of protecting their own industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire was fallen foul of by the Postmaster-General because he said that under the Bill it was possible for the Irish Parliament to give bounties for Customs purposes to Irish manufactured goods going abroad. I am not at all sure that my right hon. Friend is not perfectly right. The Postmaster-General replied: "No, they cannot do anything of the kind. If you look at Clause 2, Sub-section (7), you will find that the Irish Parliament is not allowed to deal with any matters concerning trade in any place out of Ireland." Just go on and read these words:—
  "Except so far as trade may be affected by the exercise of the powers of taxation given to the Irish Parliament."
  We were not allowed to discuss this as the guillotine fell. We had no opportunity of discussing it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Oh, yes. I moved an Amendment myself modifying the Clause, and was promised an Amendment by the Government.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I had an Amendment down which raised the whole question, but I was not able to raise it.
  Mr. LOUGH: My Amendment came first.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Perhaps the Postmaster-General, or whoever replies on behalf of the Government will say whether I am right or not. In the Bill at present the wording is that the Government of Ireland will not be able to deal with any matters whatever outside Ireland. I thought there was an exception in that case so far as trade may be affected by
  1544
  the powers of taxation given to the Irish Parliament.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is not a power of taxation.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: If to give a bounty is not a power of taxation, I do not know what it is! I should have thought it came within the meaning of these words—and I still think so. I still think that this should be made very clear. Even if it were not so, they can use these Customs and Excise Duties and matters of that kind for the purposes of protection. I am quite certain when we come to discuss these Customs in detail it will be found that they can be used, and most certainly it will be found hereafter when our Customs in this country are very largely extended that it will be possible for these duties to be used to the detriment of British trade and for the promotion of Irish trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General gave rather a curious instance to the Committee. He said we must give to the Irish Parliament this power over the Customs. If we did not give them this power over the Customs and Excise, he said, how were they going to raise the money that will be necessary to carry out the various forms of industrial development in Ireland. He went on to give this instance: If we allow them to impose Excise Duties, we must allow them to impose Customs Duties, because they may wish to tax Irish whisky, and if they wish to tax Irish whisky they must be allowed to tax Scotch whisky. Thus the right hon. Gentleman himself contemplates that they will have power under these Customs Duties to put extra duties on Scotch whisky coming into the country. I do not see any words compelling them to put a similar Excise Duty on Irish whisky.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are in the Bill.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I shall be very glad to have them pointed out. Many of the words in the Bill appear to me to be very inconclusive as to what they do mean. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me he is quite certain in regard to the point, I will not pursue the argument any further. I will accept what he says. But we were certainly led to believe in Committee that one of the things the Irish Parliament certainly would do would be to add extra duties to Scottish or English whisky going into Ireland. I believe when we come to

  1545
  discuss these Clauses in detail we shall find that by innumerable clever methods these Customs and Excise Duties will be used for the purpose which I have indicated—that is, for encouraging Irish trade and giving a natural preference, as a country would desire to do, to its own trade in preference to the trade of other people. We are told that, after all, they must have the Customs and Excise Duties, because it is only in that way that they will be able to find the money which they need. For my part—and I say it boldly—if I were obliged to set up a measure of Home Rule in Ireland, I would far rather give a larger subsidy, I would far rather turn my £500,000 a year into a million, than I would give this power over to the Customs and Excise. And I would be all the more reluctant to give these powers if we were ever contemplating setting up a federal system. I do not believe if we set up this federal system and give to Ireland the power over her Excise, that we shall ever satisfy Scotland without similar powers, and speaking as a Member for an English constituency who has paid some little attention to finance, I am perfectly certain that from the trade point of view if Ireland has control over Customs and Excise, and if other tariffs are set up, if only for revenue purposes, England will demand control of her Customs and Excise. I believe the Government are opening up difficulties they little realise, and if they are sincere about setting up a federal system they are putting the greatest obstacle in the way of that federation by giving Ireland control over her Customs and Excise even to the limited extent under this Bill.
  There is one other matter to which I would allude. In addition to Ireland having this power over her Customs and Excise, given simply because by no other means can she raise sufficient money to carry out social and industrial development, she will have the power to raise money by loans. There, again, I think that part of the Bill will require the most critical examination, and when we have examined that portion of the Bill we shall come to the conclusion that this particular method of raising loans is most detrimental to the credit of Ireland and Great Britain, and will lead to endless friction between the two forces. Supposing Ireland does want a loan, that loan would have been raised on the little money that they have from the transferred services. Who would be the consenting parties to the raising of it? It could only be raised as I understand by the consent
  1546
  of the Joint Exchequer Board. How would that Board be composed? It would be composed of two Members representing Ireland, and three representing Great Britain. Supposing the loan is refused. Then at once there will arise a great outcry in Ireland that we are refusing her a loan by which she could accomplish some great and beneficent work for herself. At once the floor of this House will ring with denunciations of the British Exchequer and the British representatives on this Joint Board because we are preventing Ireland from doing what Canada can do, what Australia can do, and what South Africa can do, from raising money by means of loans by which she may develop her own resources and do some practical good amongst her own people. If, on the other hand, the representatives by three to two on this Board consent to the loan, they may issue the loan and make themselves responsible for the loan, and the British Exchequer must be involved in that case. There may be a deficit hereafter on that loan, there may be great difficulty in meeting the interest and instalments, and Great Britain will have to come forward and meet that deficit, because she could not possibly afford that the credit of Ireland should suffer by any deficit upon a loan of that kind. From beginning to end the whole of this Bill is fraught with matters of embittered controversy between the two Parliaments, and, so far from removing from the floor of this House Irish grievances, if we ever pass this Bill and set up this fantastic, complicated, financial scheme, we are simply inviting Irishmen to come to the floor of this House and occupy the time of this House with grievances accentuated by every single line in the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The analogy which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down drew with regard to river dues surprised me, coming from a man of such wide municipal experience. He drew a comparison between river dues and tariffs which may be set up in Ireland. Everyone knows that river dues are really put on for the purposes of the upkeep of the river. They are not applied to rates or taxes, and the money derived from these river dues is spent upon the upkeep and improvement of the river, otherwise the river could not be maintained. I desire to call attention to two items of expenditure which are charged against Ireland. I am sorry the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. W. O'Brien) did not develop the ideas he

  1547
  expressed and concentrate himself upon these two points. Some time ago I delivered a speech to my own Constituents, and I drew attention to the fact that in my opinion there are two items in this White Paper which has been issued which are charged against Ireland as expenditure, and which are causing the alleged deficit, but which really should not be charged to Ireland. They should, in my opinion, be Imperial charges, for the money is really spent for Imperial purposes. No man more than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I very well remember, fought more strongly against one of these charges. I refer to the charge in this list of expenses of no less than £730,000 a year on account of the passing of the Irish Local Government Act of 1898. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember quite well that under that Act there were certain conditions in that Act which relieved the Irish landlords with regard to the poor rate; and, in the second place, half of the rates of the tenants which cost this country since then something like £730,000 a year, amounting in fact to over £9,000,000.
  It is well known that it would have been quite impossible for the Local Government Act of 1898 to have passed through the two Houses of Parliament unless that condition was put in. While we hear from the other side a great deal about bargains between the present Government and the present Irish party, a speech was delivered in this House on 12th July, 1898, upon a Motion moved by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit Clause 42 which would destroy the power of paying three hundred and some odd thousand pounds a year to the Irish landlords for abolishing their right to half the poor rate, by the present Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) who was then Leader of the Irish party; and in that speech the hon. Member said the Irish party had come to an arrangement with the Government of the day twelve months before this period, and the price they had to pay for the passing of the Irish Local Government Act in 1898 was the price then set out in Clause 42; that is to say, it cost this nation or Ireland, £730,000 a year. I hold if that is so, if Ireland has this large expenditure imposed upon her, as a condition for the passing of the Irish Local Government Act, it should be an Imperial charge, and not a charge against Ireland. As a matter of fact, a speech was delivered
  1548
  at the same time by one of the most upright men that ever sat in this House, the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson, in which he said:—
  "This is the first occasion we have sent a Bill to the House of Lords, which we consider just and necessary, with a bribery clause tacked on to it."
  We all know the reason why this large sum of money was voted for Irish landlords. It was because the Government could not get their Bill through the House of Lords in any other way. I say, if that is so, this should be an Imperial charge and not a local charge against Ireland. How is this money being spent? I heard the Leader of the Opposition the other night speaking about this country assisting the poor people in Ireland, and how the poor people would suffer if this Bill became law. The fact is, under the Local Government Act of 1898, the Marquess of Downshire receives annually £2,288 in payment of this poor rate, which he and his forbears paid for hundreds of years before. The Earl of Fitzwilliam receives £1,192, the Marquess of Lansdowne £788 per annum, and Lord Londonderry £930; and this was a condition precedent to the passing of the Local Government Act. That Act was passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was a prominent Member of that Government. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Hayes Fisher) wras a Member of that Government. These hon. Gentlemen passed this Act which made this charge upon Ireland. It was repudiated by the Irish Nationalist Members, who said they could only get the Bill through by accepting this price, and I contend this is a charge that should be borne by the United Kingdom rather than a charge made against Ireland.
  8.0 P.M.
  The other point I should like to raise is one with regard to land purchase. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, I believe, stated when he introduced his land purchase scheme two years ago, that the loss on flotation for purchase was £616,000. The figure in this present Return is put at £761,000, and the Return goes on to say that it will increase during the next fifteen years to a charge upon Ireland of an additional £450,000. I contend this should be an Imperial charge. It is not a charge that should be levied against Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester said if the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been passed into law Ireland would have become a bankrupt

  1549
  nation. That was his contention a short time ago. Let us examine that. In the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1886 there was a surplus of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 per annum, and Mr. Gladstone also had a scheme of land purchase at the same time as he introduced his Home Rule Bill. That was based upon sound finance, and he proposed to raise £50,000,000. He limited the purchase price to twenty years, and charged 4 per cent, for forty-nine years. That scheme would have paid its way, but the Tory party at that time denounced the scheme. They said it would never pay; in fact the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had left his party, stated in this House that it was because of the introduction of that scheme that he resigned his position in the Government, and in a speech in Birmingham a short time afterwards the right hon. Gentleman said that in regard to the scheme of Mr. Gladstone's for Irish land purchase dealing with the vast sum of £250,000,000, there was not a single business man in this country who would lend £1 upon its security. If Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule scheme had been carried out as well as this land purchase scheme, Ireland would not have been charged to-day with this deficit of £1,500,000, because that measure would have given Ireland the power in 1886 to have a Parliament of her own, and she would have brought in a local government scheme for aiding her own county councils. She would not have been compelled, as we were compelled in 1898, when that Bill passed this House to buy out the Irish landlords at £700,000 a year. The loss on the land purchase scheme of 1903 is due to another fact. That scheme was never before the country, and no power was given to the Government to bring in such a scheme of land purchase. Anyone who reads the Debates of that period would see that there was an agreement with the Irishmen that the Irish landlords were to obtain whatever number of years' purchase the tenants paid, and I believe it has averaged something like twenty-seven years. They were also to obtain 12 per cent. bonus on the top of that purchase.
  Those are the circumstances which have led to the large deficit in that scheme. As the Chief Secretary pointed out some time ago in this House, in addition to the fact that we had to raise this bonus of 12 per cent., we had also to be responsible for the excess stock which represented £12 out of
  1550
  every£100 issued. The interest on these two items is causing the serious charge which is now being charged against the Irish people, and I contend that the Irish people are not responsible, because they have not obtained the benefits derived under these two schemes for buying out the Irish landlords and paying this large bonus of 12 per cent. I contend that this charge should be an Imperial one, and ought not to be charged against the Irish people. I think the Government would be wise to reconsider their position, and if they cannot debit Great Britain with the whole of this amount, they ought at least to charge Ireland one-half of the cost of these two schemes, and thereby mitigate the severity of this large deficit. It is upon these grounds that I should like to impress upon the Government that it is unfair, in my opinion, to charge Ireland with this large deficit, and when hon. Members on the other side talk as they do about the Irish poor people who are going to suffer because of this Irish Home Rule Bill, because these Grants are not going to be given them, all I can say is that anyone acquainted with the history of this matter for the last twenty-six years knows full well that it is not the poor people, apart from the old age pensions, that have obtained these Grants, but it is the landlord class in Ireland who have exacted these conditions. I am glad to know that we are coming to the end of these Grants to Ireland in this sense that when this measure is passed through both Houses of Parliament, or when it becomes law, then Ireland ought to be able to work out her own salvation without these doles to the landlords which have been given in the past, and which have been a serious and continuous drain upon Ireland, and one from which she is suffering now, and will suffer for many years to come.
  Mr. HORNER: I have listened to the special pleading of the Postmaster-General in defence of the wonderful Clauses in this wonderful Bill. So far as I can follow the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, they divide themselves into two parts—one is based upon sentiment and the other upon self-interest. Upon both points there is the utmost diversity of opinion in Ireland. I will dismiss the question of sentiment in one sentence. The Nationalist sentiment of "Ireland a nation" had its passionate counterpart in "Ireland and the Union." But the Bill was also based, as its authors prophetically alleged, upon the sure and certain prospect of increased prosperity

  1551
  that was to follow its introduction into Ireland. What grounds are there to justify such a view? It is admitted that Ireland, judged by any test of well-being, by exports or imports, by railway traffic, deposits in the bank, or any other test, is advancing upon the road to prosperity. This prosperity has been marvellously accelerated since the rejection of Home Rule in 1893, and this is due largely to two causes, namely, land purchase and better education, which has led to improved business methods, and these are due entirely to Imperial money and Imperial credit. This is a commonplace known to everyone connected with Ireland. If Home Rule had been granted in 1892, we know perfectly well that this revolution could never have occurred. Why interfere with this state of things? Would any sane statesman interfere with it if he were a free agent? Let any unbiassed person outside the House look at the position of affairs as they now are in Ireland and then examine the main outlines of the complicated financial machinery proposed by this Bill. Here I come to what I consider the fundamentl fallacy underlying the arguments of the Postmaster-General in regard to the incidence of taxation. On the consolidation of the Irish and British Exchequers in 1817 the Irish National Debt, amounting to well on for £130,000,000, was merged into the Debt of Great Britain, and all taxes were then and have since been levied indiscriminately upon the individuals of the three kingdoms and paid into a common fund. The necessities of all classes in any portion of the United Kingdom have been met out of that common fund.
  The idea of differentiating between one portion and another arose in 1888, when a fresh Estimate was made by the Treasury officials for the purposes of local loans, but this had no sanction by Parliament. It is the merest fallacy to speak of Ireland as a separate unit for the purposes of taxation. So far as Imperial taxation is concerned, it would be just as logical to strike a parallel between contributions and receipts from Middlesex to and from the Imperial Exchequer as from Ireland. The present arrangement has worked well. Those best entitled to speak for Ireland on this subject, financiers engaged in commerce, trade, and industry, beg you to let well alone. Nay, they go further and assure you that if you interfere in this way you will set back Irish prosperity and ruin
  1552
  many of her industries. Their view is a simple one. Irishmen now share the common rights of free citizens in having the advantages of Imperial credit and Grants for all public purposes. You now wish to change all this and establish Ireland as a separate financial unit. And why? Because she has not been paying her way. The Bill is founded upon the policy, "Cut your loss." I understand the Chief Secretary is the father of that phrase, as he is the father of so many other good phrases, but I suggest that it is a mean, contemptible way for a rich nation to deal with this question. The Financial Relations Commission found that Ireland had enormously overpaid to the extent of £300,000,000 during ninety years. I am not criticising the accuracy or the inaccuracy of that Report, but I will suppose that it is true. All Nationalists and Radicals, with the exception of the hon. Member for Cork, are now strangely silent on this matter, since it appears that Ireland is getting back a bit of her own, and because of that "Cut your loss" is accepted by them. If the Radical party are honest with regard to this Report, they would gladly welcome the chance of paying back the alleged stolen treasure. If the Nationalist party are honest in saying that Ireland has been robbed of £300,000,000, why do they not wring retribution from a reluctant but friendly Government?
  The Government appointed a Committee of experts to consider this question, but no single leading recommendation of that Committee has been adopted, and their recommendations run counter to all well-founded Nationalist opinion, and this seems to be nobody's child. The real burden of Ireland under Home Rule will be about £6,000,000 a year. This is made up in this way. The deficit of £1,500,000, the grant of £500,000 to which must be added a reasonable sum, which Ireland would not be asked to pay, as her fair contribution towards the Army, Navy, and Imperial expenses, together with her fair share of her own National Debt. That is not all. By this Bill you are establishing two things. First of all, you are establishing a Joint Exchequer Board, with extraordinary dangerous and unheard-of powers. Secondly, you are establishing a system of collection of taxes which must inevitably lead to trouble from the very beginning. You pretend to trust Ireland, but you do not trust her to collect your own taxes. Let me illustrate

  1553
  what is likely to happen by two examples which might be multiplied. Take the question of land purchase. You have invested in Ireland something like from £130,000,000 to £150,000,000. Supposing there is a strike against the rate of annuities for the repayment of this vast sum. I can assure hon. Members that would be a most popular strike in Ireland. The majority in the Irish Parliament would be representatives of Irish farmers, and, of course, they would back the farmers. The Irish Executive therefore would be unfriendly to the British Exchequer, and the Irish Executive could completely paralyse every attempt made to collect the annuities. How could judgments be enforced for the sale of the lands when nobody would dare to buy? What then would become of the free working of the financial Clauses of this Bill, or of the security for your £150,000,000? This is no visionary matter. The "no-rent" manifesto and the "Plan of Campaign" were not yet forgotten, and it would be very hard to collect these instalments under the present system, because this winter farmers will be very hard put to it owing to the cattle plague.
  Take the question of old age pensions. That is a reserved service which may be taken over by the Irish Parliament. Supposing it is taken over at £3,000,000 a year—that is the estimate of the Government Committee—and supposing they reduce or discontinue old age pensions, as has been suggested over and over again by Nationalist leaders, what happens? The Imperial Exchequer must continue to hand over this £3,000,000 a year to the Irish Parliament, but the British Parliament will have no control over it any more than over any other sum handed over to pay for a Transferred Service. The British Parliament must find these vast sums for Irishmen to spend as they choose. I can hardly understand any Radical or Labour Member justifying such a scheme, for, if it is unjust and dangerous from a British taxpayer's point of view, it is far more so from an Irish point of view. We Irishmen are to have a fixed sum doled out by a British Treasury to meet all the requirements of the Transferred Services, and out of this sum Ireland must pay her way. The Postmaster-General gave us figures to prove it will be impossible for Ireland to pay her way out of this sum. He says, "Retrench, reform, and be happy." That is the Radical doctrine now preached but not practised at Westminster. I do not
  1554
  want to advance any argument on the lines of that I am going to give from a Nationalist authority. The report, a very important report, of the Irish County Council's General Council on the financial proposals in this Bill was issued in April last, and from the Irish point of view it is the only Nationalist body in Ireland which speaks with any authority on this subject. I give the following passage from that report:—
  "In our view increased taxation is the key note of the financial provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for giving to Ireland a fixed sum in lieu of her collected revenue just sufficient to cover present expenditure, plus the cost of establishing the Irish Government, and mortgages the natural increases of revenue for the extinction of the assumed deficit, leaving Ireland to provide for an increased expenditure, first by economics to be effected, and secondly by increased taxation. Let us first examine the question of possible economies. The control and administration of Irish services is nearly evenly divided in their financial aspect as between the Irish Parliament and the Imperial Government, The expenditure falling within the control of the Irish Parliament amounts to £5,462,000 as set forth in detail in the 'Outline of the financial provisions' issued simultaneously with the Bill, the main items of which are as follows: Local taxation. Education, Department of Agriculture, Congested Districts Board, Local Government Board, Public Works including railways, Law and Justice, Prisons, Reformatories, Industrial Schools, Police, Consolidated Fund, etc.
  "Under which of the above heads are any beyond mere trifling economies possible? We are unable to suggest any effective economies in their regard. We are thus thrown back upon the possibilities of revenue from increased taxation."
  That is to say, Irishmen will be subject to a double set of taxes, namely, first, the taxes imposed by the Imperial Parliament; and, secondly, those taxes which the Irish Government must impose if, as the Postmaster-General says, they are to carry out the ever-growing requirements of social and local legislation. Every Irishman who has a stake in the country must contemplate such a future with the profoundest distrust. I will also read a sentence from the report of a body which, perhaps, has not much weight with hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, but still it is a body composed of every political party and creed. In their reply, dated 7th August, to the Prime Minister's request for particulars as to the effect which, from their point of view, the Home Rule measure would have on the industrial and commercial prosperity of Ireland, they say, and these are weighty words:—
  "Commercial confidence and business credit cannot co-exist with a distrusted public Exchequer. The transfer of public money collected in Ireland to improve the transferred services is admittedly barely sufficient for that purpose. Consequently, the Irish' Government will have no security to offer for its Consols; it will only be able to borrow, if at all, at disproportionately high rates of interest. The disastrous

  1555
  effects of such a state of things upon the commercial credit of Ireland is only too evident."
  Surely these men must be given credit for knowing something about their own business, especially if we turn to their records since 1892. In their last report I find this set out:—
  "The amount collected by the Customs Department and Inland Revenue in Belfast alone in 1892 together amount to about £3,250,000. The total receipts from the same sources in 1911, last year, was close upon £5,000,000."
  That is including duty on British spirits.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Where were those goods sold?
  Mr. MOORE: To people in Kerry, who will not pay for them.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I know more about Belfast industry than you do.
  Mr. HORNER: Seeing that the Government were deaf to their appeals and blind to the obvious dangers of their needless and wanton legislation, sober business men like these had warned them in the most solemn manner, and they meant it, that they would have nothing to do with the Government which this Bill sought to establish in Ireland.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said there was no man who would defend the finance of this Bill. I believe there are on this side of the House dozens of men who will defend the finance of this Bill. I, for one, believe that this measure has been conceived on the highest plane, and that its financial clauses are most ingenious and calculated to bring about the end which the framers have in view. In fact, the whole framework of this Bill might be likened to the launching of a ship. The props are gradually withdrawn, and the ship is eventually set free on the waters of the ocean, to start on a triumphant career with favouring winds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester spoke as if the federal system was more acceptable to a larger number. I do not see anything incompatible in the finances of this Bill with the federal system. Irishmen still live in Ireland and Scotchmen still live in Scotland. The idea of this Bill is to provide for Ireland a measure in accordance with Irish ideas. I hope later on we shall have a measure for Scotland in accordance with Scottish ideas. But surely a system of
  1556
  finance drawn up in accordance with Irish ideas is not incompatible with a federal system. The federal system, of which this measure is intended to form the first step, does not depend on a cast-iron system made applicable to all parts. Take the cases of America and Australia. You have mixed races living in those countries. There is no particular race living only in one section, as we find in Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales. Therefore the argument of a federal system which is applicable to Australia, and which is drawn up for a community more or less mixed and spread over a large continent does not apply to this problem. We have to draw up our measure, not as a cast-iron system applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, but to suit it to the needs of Ireland more particularly.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the great advantages of having a Parliament which would apply its laws to the whole United Kingdom. Let me give one example of the injustice of that particular form of legislation or system. Take, for example, the Post Office. The trade of this country has been going forward by leaps and bounds, and the expenses of the Post Office has naturally expanded, in order to meet the demands made by the country for increased facilities. The increased expenditure which we have incurred in providing increased facilities for the needs of England has been extended automatically to Ireland. But there we find a declining population, and, in spite of that, the expenditure on the Post Office has increased 75 per cent. during ten years so that with a decreased demand for facilities in Ireland you have an increasing expenditure. I think the right hon. Member will agree that that is unjust and financially unsound. The expenditure on the Irish Post Office should be consonant with the demand for facilities by the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Exchequer Board. He asked who was to pay for it, and he suggested that there was no Home Ruler who would defend the financial proposals of that Board. To my mind it is immaterial who pays for this Exchequer Board, because Ireland will still remain a part of the United Kingdom. It will still send forty-two Members to this House. This Bill is only a machinery therefore for decentralising certain services in Ireland. Irishmen will still be British subjects, and the good government of Ireland will be an advantage to the whole community. The

  1557
  right hon. Gentleman also made a great deal of what is termed the absurdity of the relations between the Irish Exchequer and the British Treasury. He maintained that while you have eliminated the power of decreasing your Customs duties, still Ireland is to be able to engage to a considerable extent in a system of bounties, which might affect the export trade to Ireland. But you cannot delegate certain powers to a people without giving them other powers which they may use or misuse. It seems extraordinary when the country has arrived at the decision that the time has come to delegate certain powers to Ireland we should assume that Irishmen are a lot of fools and are incapable of governing the country. Is it suggested they will vote for a large Development Fund to be handed round for various interests in Ireland. If they do that they will do it at the expense of the Irish taxpayers. Is it suggested that there are no people in Ireland who can intelligently criticise the proposals put by them.
  Mr. MOORE: They will not be returned to the Irish Parliament? You have provided against that. The whole thing is an electoral fraud, as the Government know.
  Mr. D. MASON: Such an interruption as that is too childish to take notice of. The hon. Member does an injustice to his own countrymen and himself. Surely if he is elected to the Irish Parliament, he will exercise the same intelligence as he does here. I submit there need be no fear of these powers being abused. You must trust the Irish people. It sounds very fine for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire to come down here and raise imaginary bogies. I congratulate him on the masterly way in which he pointed out the various possibilities in this Bill—possibilities which his lurid imagination conjures up. But we have to deal with things as they are. We have to trust Irishmen. Does the hon. Member who has interrupted me suggest that you can give this system of Home Rule without granting these powers? You cannot do it.
  Mr. MOORE: Why do it at all?
  Mr. D. MASON: That, I submit, is quite another way of discussing this problem. That was not, however, the criticism advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. He was seriously endeavouring to criticise this Bill, and he mentioned these various
  1558
  weaknesses and errors in trying to convey to this House and the country the idea that this legislative Assembly could be reduced to a farce. I believe, on the contrary, that unless you do make it a generous and liberal measure that it would certainly be of no use to bring forward the measure at all. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the creation of this system of dovetailing, in what has been called a hybrid Bill, containing neither federalism nor Home Rule, was to his mind most indefensible. I submit, on the contrary, that its principal advantage is the ingenuity of the financial proposals whereby you gradually hand over to Ireland, as she increases in strength and develops, the full powers which you do not grant to her to begin with. If you were to give a full system of self-government as was advocated, I think, by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien), who complained of not having full autonomy, and full this, that, and the other thing, then there would be some ground of complaint that you were suddenly granting a full measure of government to Ireland for which she might not be ready. The ingenuity of the proposals of this measure, and the fact that it is a gradual launching of the scheme, constitutes its principal recommendation. To my mind, it recommends itself to the people of this country because of the cautious character of the scheme, particularly as in regard to the financial proposals any economies effected by Ireland will go to benefit Ireland and will encourage her to emerge into a greater field of usefulness and freedom. The fact that there is to be a combination of both Irish and English officials upon this Exchequer Board is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Under the present system Great Britain has attempted to govern Ireland entirely in accordance with British ideas, and, as a result, Ireland has held herself separate and aloof, sullen and discontented, and withdrawn from participation in anything connected with the British Government.
  Mr. MOORE: Question.
  Mr. D. MASON: I think I am stating what is in accordance with the facts.
  Mr. MOORE: Ulster has not done it, and Ulster is Ireland.
  Mr. D. MASON: Ulster may not have done it, but I do not know of any distinguished Ulster man who has rendered any great service to the Crown.
  Mr. MOORE: What about Sir George White?
  Mr. D. MASON: I am very pleased to hear it, and I hope there will be more of it.
  Mr. HORNER: You had better come to Ulster and learn something about the country.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This is not quite relevant to the question.
  Mr. D. MASON: I am sorry to have been drawn into controversy with hon. Members opposite, but I think I am right in saying that four-fifths of the people of Ireland have kept themselves aloof from participation in anything connected with the British Government. Under this particular measure Ireland will join and cooperate with Great Britain. That I think is a great gain. I do not wish to offend Irishmen, or to say anything derogatory to Ulster, or any part of Ireland, for I know that Ireland has produced many brilliant men. I think that now we shall have the services of those brilliant men. We shall be able to join with them on this Exchequer Board, and in the various other services which will be jointly handled by English and Irish officials. That ought to lead not to friction or distrust, but to an increased acquaintance, and a consolidation of the two countries, rather than, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said that it will be the means of pouring sand into the machinery of government. On the contrary, I believe it will act as a lubricant and bring oil to the troubled waters, and will increase and consolidate the good government of both countries.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not propose to follow the last speaker, as he seemed to me to be confining his attention to generalities and not getting down to the actualities of the finance of this Bill. The only time he got near actuality was when he said that he conceived that Ireland was not ready to take over the whole of her financial obligations in regard to the government of Ireland and praised the scheme because it was a gradual shifting of the burden from the British taxpayer on to the Irish taxpayer. That statement, among others, I propose to attempt to controvert. The Postmaster-General said this afternoon, what is indeed the fact, that the dominant feature in the finance of the Home Rule
  1560
  Bill was that there was a deficit existing now in the amount of revenue from Ireland, and it was because of that deficit, among other things, that it was necessary to depart from all federal plans and to give to the Irish Parliament the management of Customs and Excise. I protest, as other speakers from these benches have protested, against considering Ireland separately from the United Kingdom. I do not admit that there is any deficit whatever in the Irish contribution to the taxation of the United Kingdom. Each person resident in Ireland, in the same way as each person resident in Scotland and England, bears his share of the taxation of the United Kingdom according to his ability to pay that taxation. So long as we are a United Kingdom I deny that it is right or just to consider the separate total contributions—even if we could ascertain them—of the two countries as countries. What we have to consider is the contribution of the individuals forming those parts of the nation as individuals. It is true that when that argument was advanced earlier in the day the Postmaster-General interrupted and said that Ireland was not to be considered as if she were a county of England, and that it was just in her case to inquire what her total contribution was, although it would be absurd to inquire what was the contribution of East Anglia to the taxation of the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Gentleman has some support, even among the thin number of hon. Members opposite who think it worth while to be present during this Debate.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: What about your side?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman said it was good because in Ireland there are a large number of boards, each charged with various services for Ireland. For some inscrutable reason he thought that if you have a multiplicity of boards you were entitled to consider what was the contribution of the country as a country. That, if anything, might be an argument in favour of some amalgamation of the boards, or even of county councils. At the best it is an argument in favour of the Irish Councils Bill, but it is certainly no argument in favour of the Home Rule Bill, which is what we have to consider. I therefore propose to confine myself to a consideration of the financial plan in the actual Bill. If Home

  1561
  Rule is to be granted I should like to discuss the question of deficiency.
  First, how does that deficiency arise? The Postmaster-General has told us. He gave it as a sort of excuse for Ireland that we in Great Britain, the richer partner, had led Ireland to live beyond her means—that was his expression—to the extent of about £1,500,000. It seems curious that we should be punished because we, as the United Kingdom, have contributed, if you like, to Ireland something more than Ireland was, according to the Postmaster-General, entitled to receive from us, and we regard this Home Rule Bill as a punishment to us in England, Scotland, and Wales, and the reason given for that punishment being inflicted is that we have led Ireland to live beyond her means. That amounts to this, that Ireland has not, on the showing of the Postmaster-General, contributed her full quota to the joint expenses of the partnership, and we, the richer partner, are now to be punished because we, out of our surplus, have given Ireland something which she not only never protested against, but has been glad to receive and which she voted for. Let us trace that for a moment. What is it that Ireland has had which has caused her to live beyond her means and has caused punishment to be meted out to us? It is put at £1,500,000. It is a curious thing that it balances one item of expenditure in Ireland to which some objection has been taken. It is recognised that on old age pensions in Ireland something like £2,600,000 is being spent. That is the sum which is being spent in Ireland in exactly the same proportion as similar amounts are being spent in England, Scotland, and Wales, and that is said by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) to be an extravagant expenditure and an expenditure which, if Ireland had her way, she would never have expended upon herself. Speaking, I think in 1909, he said:—
  "They got £2,500,000, and that, for Ireland, under the circumstances, was nothing short of extravagance. Did they imagine that if the Irish Parliament existed, and they had £2,500,000 to spend fur the benefit of the country, they would have spent the whole on old age pensions? Nothing of the kind. £2,500,000 a year could be far better spent. Some of it will have to go on old age pensions, but the greater part of £2,500,000 could be spent far better for the development of Ireland in other ways."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was not alone in that opinion, because the Chief Secretary agreed with him. He echoed the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Speaking on 18th November, 1911, the Chief Secretary said:—
  "Everybody in Ireland would bear witness that old age pensions had been an extraordinary blessing
  1562
  They were extravagant, perhaps, economically. Three shillings a week is the proper sum if the coat had been cut according to the cloth."
  Now we have both the lion, and learned Gentleman and the Chief Secretary agreeing that these pensions are extravagant, and, curiously enough, they agree almost as to the amount by which they exceed the amount which ought to have been given to Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the greater part of them could have been saved. The Chief Secretary said that two shillings out of five shillings—two-fifths—could have been saved. Curiously enough that corresponds very nearly with the deficit which at present is, according to the Postmaster-General, the dominant factor in the finance of this Bill. We have this from the Postmaster-General, that the dominant factor is the deficit, and because of the deficit these extraordinary inept financial Clauses have to be introduced into the Bill, and we have from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and supported by the Chief Secretary, the fact that that deficit could be wiped out, and, indeed, would be wiped out, if the Irish had their way, by a reduction of old age pensions. The whole of this scheme, according to the Postmaster-General, is based upon the dominant factor that a deficit exists. There is an alternative method of dealing with the deficit, but instead of that the Government propose a plan of dealing with finance in Ireland because of this deficit—a plan which is contrary to every precedent, and which is contrary to all the federal systems which exist throughout the Empire. I can, perhaps, hardly expect that the Government or the hon. and learned Gentleman or the Chief Secretary would really deal with this deficit by reducing old age pensions. They are not in the least likely to make the Homo Rule Bill more popular by doing that. Indeed, if the choice were given to the Irish people, whether they would save the reduction in pensions or would have a Home Rule Bill, I have not any doubt myself that they would prefer to have their old age pensions, and they would let Home Rule go.
  But as the deficit is the dominant feature it is well to examine what it consists of, and whether it is likely to be a deficit of the amount of £1,500,000 which the Postmaster-General has told us it now is. That is the more important because the plan of the finance has been stated in this House, and certainly in the country, as a plan which would enable the United Kingdom to out the loss and free itself from the

  1563
  expenditure which it now has to make on Ireland. It has been assumed, on very slight evidence as it seems to me, that this £1,500,000 of deficit will be gradually met by the natural increases of revenue arising from existing taxation. If it were merely a matter of £1,500,000 on his assumption of an increased productivity of taxes at the rate of £200,000 a year, you could possibly, if you were sufficiently sanguine, put a date at which the revenue and the expenditure so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, might balance, but the deficit of £1,500,000 is by no means likely to remain at that figure. For the reserved services alone, it is safe to say that the deficit will be increased by at least £1,000,000 a year, I believe more, so that when we are considering the case of deficit, we ought not to treat the deficit as £1,500,000, but as £2,500,000 at least. I do not know whether anyone denies that. If it is denied, I will give the heads on which it will increase. There seems to be some doubt as to whether the figure is accurate. I will give the Members of the Committee the figures which justify me, I think, in saying that the deficit will be increased from £1,500,000 to at least £2,500,000. The Committee—what I call the secret Committee—appointed by the Government reported that old age pensions alone would cost £3,000,000. The amount which is estimated in the White Paper Report on the financial provisions of the Rill is not £3,000,000, but £2,664,000. There is an increase, therefore, on old age pensions alone which we have got to face in the near future of £336,000, but it is fair to say that in the same White Paper it is also estimated that after that increase has taken place there, will be a gradual decrease to £200,000. For the purpose of my calculation I will take the balance figure, and nothing could be fairer than that. For a considerable number of years it will be higher than the balance. If I take the balance figure, it is £136,000 as the increase on old age pensions. Land purchase gives an increase of £450,000, and for health insurance and unemployed insurance we have the actuaries' figures which show that the increase will be at least £350,000. I think it will be more, but again I will take the lowest figure. The other item is tax collection. The Committee will remember that the collection of taxes is one of the reserved services, and that in future the United Kingdom has not only to pay the cost of the present collection of taxes, but has to
  1564
  pay the cost on any future taxes which may be imposed either by the Imperial Parliament or by the Irish Parliament. The natural increase in the cost of the collection of taxation is already considerable. In 1902–3 the cost was £224,000, and for the year 1912–13 the cost is £298,000 a year, showing an increase of £74,000 during that period of ten years with no special additional taxation having been imposed.
  Mr. D. MASON: Is that for the United Kingdom?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member would do me the justice to follow me, he would know that I was giving the cost in Ireland for the collection of taxes which has in future to be paid by the United Kingdom. I was pointing out that the natural increase in the last ten years has been £74,000, and I say that in future, seeing that we have got the collection not only of Imperial taxes, but also of taxes levied by the Irish Parliament— for the Irish Parliament gets the gross receipts—it is not in the least degree an exaggeration to expect that the cost will be increased by £100,000. That is only £26,000 more than the natural increase in the last ten years. If these figures are totalled the Committee will see that they amount to £1,036,000, so that what we have got to consider is not a deficit of £1,500,000, but a deficit of £2,500,000, and, in addition to that, we have to consider the free gift or alimony which the Imperial Parliament is granting to Ireland. That, starts at £500,000, and for eight years averages £400,000, being afterwards reduced to £200,000. We have to consider a total deficit of £2,500,000, plus the alimony of £400,000 for the next eight years. The Postmaster-General told us that it was inconsistent with Homo Rule that the deficit should rest on the United Kingdom. I think these were his exact words. He made a similar observation in his exceedingly interesting speech on the First Reading of the Bill. He told us that his scheme was that the United Kingdom should receive the normal increases of revenue towards the repayment of that deficit. He apparently, in order to justify the provisions of this Bill, examined other provisions which were suggested. He examined Lord Mac-Donnell's scheme, and said that the plan of a definite sum being charged to Ireland annually for the purpose of paying the deficit had been rejected by the Government.

  1565
  because the sum was under that scheme to be paid independent of the revenue to be derived from Ireland. I think I am stating that objection to the scheme correctly.
  Let the Committee examine that for a moment and see what it amounts to. If the Postmaster-General really thought that there was going to be an increase in revenue which would go towards the repayment of this deficit, why not have an annual sum fixed? The real reason why he rejected the scheme for an annual sum was that he did not believe in any increase of revenue. The statement is good enough for the people of England, but it is not good enough for the people of Ireland. Ireland is not convinced that there will be an increase in revenue, and therefore Ireland was not going to agree to pay an annual fixed sum. The result is that the people of the United Kingdom have to pay, with the possibility of increased revenue, but Ireland is not going to pledge herself to pay any annual sum rising in proportion to the increase in revenue, as proposed by Lord MacDonnell. This expression of the Postmaster-General is like a great many of his expressions, merely a pious expression, and is, I believe, intended to lull to false security the people of this country. If it had any basis in fact, why did not the Postmaster-General go on to point out a single item of taxation which he expected to increase automatically in the way he was describing? He did not give us one item out of all the taxes at present existing which he could put his finger on as an item which would certainly do something in future to contribute to the fund which is required for the reduction of this large deficit.
  Mr. D. MASON: There may be economies.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member says there may be economies. I propose to deal with economies, and, if I do not, I hope he will remind me. Besides increased revenue there is another way of meeting a deficiency, which is done by a man in his private capacity who wishes to balance his income and expenditure. If he cannot get a greater income ho must reduce his expenditure. The reduced expenditure, of course, is one of the economies which the hon. Member suggests might help. Will he tell me one economy in the reserved services which is going to reduce the deficit under which we are suffering now. I will give way to the hon. Member if he can think even of one.
  Mr. D. MASON: I gave one example, the excess of expenditure on the Post Office which, during the last ten years, has increased something like 75 per cent, in Ireland.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWho gets the benefit of the economy that may be made in the Post Office? Does a single penny come in reduction of the deficit which the United Kingdom is shouldering. Any economy made goes to Ireland. It does not go to the United Kingdom at all. That is an extraordinary part of the scheme of finance. Any economy goes to Ireland; all the additional expense goes to the United Kingdom, and any economy that can be made does not reduce by one farthing the deficit of something like £3,000,000 which is to be hung round our necks. Of course, there might be an economy, I follow the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the Chief Secretary in saying, if the amount of the old age pensions is reduced; but, again, that does not come in the reduction of the deficit. Does any hon. Member imagine, during the time when the United Kingdom are paying for the cost of the Post Office and the Local Government Board, which are transferred services, that the cost of old age pensions in Ireland is going to be reduced?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If would have been extremely interesting if the right hon. Gentleman had developed that argument during his speech, for he studiously avoided pointing out a single item of reduced expenditure which affected the reserved services and the liability which they imposed upon the United Kingdom.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is on the White Paper. The Treasury estimate that within the next few years old age pensions will decline by £200,000.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my remarks he would have noticed that I gave credit for that amount in dealing with old age pensions. But even now the right hon. Gentleman has not made a complete statement. He has not told the Committee that before the cost is reduced by £200,000 it would be increased by £336,000. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He has thrown over the Secret Committee's Report more than once. If he will refer to that Report he

  1567
  will find that it estimates that the cost of old age pensions will be up to £3,000,000 a year before it is reduced by the £200,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is wrong.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Secret Committee is wrong, because the Government does not like its report. The hon. Member opposite says that this deficiency of £3,000,000 can be reduced by economies. At present the only economies which are apparent are economies which will not come to the credit of the United Kingdom, but, if they are realised, will go to the credit of Ireland alone, and will not in any way affect the deficit, which is the fundamental consideration according to the Postmaster-General, in the finances of this scheme. As the Postmaster-General has said, the dominant factor in the finance of this scheme is the existence of this deficit, which is being hung round our necks permanently or almost permanently, for the day when the account is to balance seems to me so much postponed that, so far as we are concerned, we can almost, if not quite, disregard it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the only method of meeting local expenditure in future is out of Customs and Excise, and he defends this departure from all precedent by the fact that there were no other taxes available in Ireland which were likely to raise sufficient revenue to enable the Home Rule Parliament to continue its Government. He said that any advantage that might be got from the power to alter the Income Tax was exceedingly small; that, as regards the Post Office, there was to be no increased revenue, that there was no power to vary stamps, that as regards Death Duties even a 10 per cent, increase would raise only £90,000, and as regards miscellaneous income of about £100,000, there was very little increase. And then when he came to new taxes, which are to be limited in their nature and are not to be of the same nature as Imperial taxes, the only suggestions that he made for new taxation was a tax on bicycles and a tax on advertisements. After going through the whole list, the Customs and Excise appear to be the only chance of revenue for the Irish Government.
  That is a form of taxation which is a direct harm to us. That is the experience of every federal Government which has
  1568
  attempted to look after the units making up the federation. Such schemes of taxation have been rejected by every federal Government for the simple reason that it is known that where Customs and Excise barriers are set up there is likely to be a wider and wider separation between the units constituting the Federation and the Government. It is an obstacle which you are setting up by separate Customs and Excise in the way of a general revision of our tariff as a United Kingdom, and not only an obstacle to ourselves, and an obstacle in the way of Imperial preference and what I believe to be the line in our path of unity of the Empire. And it seems to me peculiarly hard that this generosity, if you call it so—I call it our sense of fairness in the past—to each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom should now be the excuse for making the United Kingdom suffer in the way I have outlined, and suffer, in addition, by having hung round our necks the food taxes which at present exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire pointed out how the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Imperial Parliament will be handicapped by the financial provisions of this Bill. Under this present scheme the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot take twopence in the pound off the Tea Duties without at the same time making a present to Ireland of £224,000 a year. Will hon. Members go on platforms and say that they arc in favour of taking twopence off the Tea Duties, knowing that by the financial provisions of this Bill they are putting a financial barrier to the extent of £221,000 a year against the reduction of the Tea Duties of the United Kingdom? That cannot be recovered by the United Kingdom in any way from Ireland, and therefore Ireland's deficit is increased to the extent of £224,000, which means that there is a barrier in the way of our reducing the tea tax even by 2d. in the £, which represents £224,000 per annum. The Government appointed a strong committee on the subject, and that committee reported that if Home Rule be granted the Home Rule Parliament must be given full liberty in finance, and must be given full and separate powers of taxation, and, from all the thought that I personally have been able to give to the question, I have come to the same conclusion. There is no halfway house in finance; it is either partnership or separation. The more one considers the financial Clauses of this Bill

  1569
  the more one is certain whatever these expedients are they are merely temporary expedients, and separation is bound to result before a logical financial position can be arrived at.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have listened to most of this Debate, and I must say that I am very gratified, after hearing the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and two or three other speeches on the finance of this Bill, to find that there has been no real effective criticism of that finance. There have been two contradictory attacks upon it, perfectly conflicting, mutually destructive. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork deplores our parsimony, and not merely our parsimony and our niggardliness, but what he conceives to be our gross unfairness to Ireland. Why? He thinks we were giving too little. I am not sure that I followed him correctly, but I think his idea was that we were giving too little by something like £3,000,000. At any rate, his general criticism was that we were robbing Ireland of something like £3,000,000 by very clever and ingenious methods. I think that is a very fair and accurate summary of the speech of the hon. Member for Cork. On the other hand, the speeches of those who attacked the finance of the Bill ran on other lines, and not on the ground of our niggardliness or parsimoniousness, or of our robbing Ireland to endow Great Britain, but that we are plundering the British taxpayer in order to pamper and feed up the Irish taxpayer, not with miserable bawbees, which the hon. Member for Cork referred to, but millions, at least two millions, a growing two millions, while the hon. Member has just shown infinite possibilities to the Irish taxpayer.
  I think we should have done better to allow these two conflicting schools of criticism to destroy each other like conflicting microbes in the body. [An HON. MEMBER: "They sometimes destroy the body."] But that is how the body is going to be saved; I think it is one of the fundamental discoveries of the last few years. The hon. Member for Cork and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire—I will not say that they are conflicting microbes—have really between them given a complete defence of the Bill. I come first of all to the point of the hon. Member for Cork, that we have
  1570
  been too niggardly. I tried to follow his figures which, if he will allow me to say so, were fearful and wonderful, as his figures always are; it is his gift of imagination which distinguishes his writings as well as his speeches, finding its climax when he gets into the realms of finance. What did the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork say? He said, "Here you are—as a matter of fact you have not given a true account of what Ireland is paying at the present moment. Ireland is really paying £1,700,000 more than your accounts show. Where is the deficiency?" Inasmuch as we are not claiming that deficiency there is no harm to Ireland. There we are actually finding the money. The Irish constabulary is to be considered Imperial; and he says, "You have no right to take credit for old age pensions, you have no right to take credit for money spent on land purchase, it is all Imperial." Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is to be no constabulary in Ireland under Home Rule? In this country the localities pay for their police. I have no doubt that the constabulary in Ireland can be very usefully reduced, and, at the end of the term, at any rate, when you come to adjust the items of expenditure, Ireland will benefit to that extent. Why is the Irish constabulary not be regarded in any sense as a local expense, as if no police would be needed at all in Ireland under Home Rule.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I did not say that. I quite admit that as a rough and ready compromise it might be a fair thing to charge Ireland with half the cost of this force, although you yourselves admit it is a purely Imperial matter.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate I have knocked off something like £500,000 or £600,000 from the £3,000,000. Then as to old age pensions, and land purchase, the hon. Member rather suggested that somehow or other this went to a horde of officials.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I did not suggest that. That is not correct.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman not merely said it, but he repeated it; he was so pleased with the usual compliment of cheers from his Friends above the Gangway.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I do not speak in this House to receive applause from either side of it. I think the right hon.

  1571
  Gentleman might have understood by this time that old-fashioned Irish Nationalists like myself are sent into this House not to be good English party men, either Liberal or Unionists, but to be Irish Nationalists first of all. I have spent now thirty years in this House, trying to teach that lesson, and I venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman until he and his Friends have learnt it, they will not get forwarder either for themselves or for Ireland.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have learned a great deal during the last three or four years of the attitude of the hon. Gentleman towards the efforts made by the Liberal Government to confer benefits upon Ireland. I am going to say one or two words about that now. The hon. Gentleman, knowing that two and a-half millions were given to old people in Ireland, instead of taking it with gratitude as they do—
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Who?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The old people, who receive it with deep gratitude, saving them from abject poverty and misery, thousands and scores of thousands of them. The present Government gave two and a-half millions to redeem them from wretchedness and despair, and he has nothing better than a taunt for us on hordes of officials. That is what I have learned from the attitude of the hon. Gentleman towards what this Government has been doing for Ireland, and I think it was very ungenerous of him. He talked of officials who have been created for increasing land purchase. He is the last man in this House who should do so. One of his complaints is that the process is not rapid enough. There is only one way of increasing it, and that is by increasing the hordes of officials. You cannot do it without having men. Does he mean to say it can be done without examining titles and without examining values? Are we just to fling the money without the slightest scrutiny? If you are, then I can understand. Does he suggest that?
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: No. What I suggest is that you should complete land purchase instead of killing it as you have done.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that; but you cannot increase the pace without doubling the horde of officials. He is the last man in this House who ought to get up and taunt the Government with increasing
  1572
  hordes of officials in connection with land purchase. These are the two he chose. It was not magnanimous, it was shabby. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, even if you accept the whole of his figures, and that is an extraordinary admission for anyone to make, must admit that there is no contribution towards the Army and the Navy, towards running the Empire at all, not a penny. He says take off old age pensions and other things and that there will be then £3,000,000, but there will not be a penny left for running the Empire. That is a great admission of the hon. Gentleman and yet he complains of the finances, which at the present moment do not give a penny towards running the Empire, although I hope that in the future Ireland will be in a position to take her share of responsibility for the Empire, and I feel confident it will be her pride one day to do so. I come again to the Unionist criticism, which is of a different character, and that is that you are giving £2,000,000 to Ireland out of British taxation, with the exception of the surplus which I am coming to. We are giving nothing which, we are not giving at present. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down talked as if we were finding £2,000,000, and as if, should this Bill be passed to-morrow, there would be an extra £2,000,000 which I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, should have to find by means of taxing the British, taxpayer in order to finance Home Rule. With the exception of the surplus to which I will refer there is not a single penny which is found. Suppose the Home Rule Bill were thrown out next week and that there were an end to it, will the Imperial Treasury be £2,000,000 better off? If not it is not fair, it is not honest, to go down to the British elector and say they are finding £2,000,000 in order to finance Home Rule. Quite the reverse.
  Everybody knows that if the Home Rule Bill were thrown out the expenditure would go on and the expenditure would increase at an accelerated pace, because that is the promise which has been made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin has said so. He said, "My alternative to Home Rule is increased favours from the Imperial Parliament." You are not going to get this for nothing, you are going to kill Home Rule by kindness, kindness to Ireland at the expense of the British taxpayer. That is the alternative, the inevitable alternative. It has been the alternative that has been marked out by every

  1573
  Unionist statesman in the past. It is the only way you can do it. Everybody knows it. Anybody who has been Chancellor of the Exchequer even for twenty-four hours knows perfectly well what it means. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am Chancellor of the Exchequer, and every Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that you are constantly getting new demands from Ireland, not merely the sort of demand which you get from other parts of the United Kingdom, but demands which are peculiar to Ireland, because of its peculiar poverty, especially in districts. Take education. The burden of education in this country is shared between the ratepayer and the taxpayer. That is not the case in Ireland. You get demands even for money towards fuel for the schools. That is an extraordinary thing, but you know perfectly well that you cannot rate those districts. The only way they have fires now is by children bringing peat in their turn in order to get some sort of warmth in their schools. That is a thing you cannot imagine happening with regard to any district in the United Kingdom. If Home Rule goes it is not a saving of £2,000,000 to the British taxpayer; it is increasing his burden. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I will accept correction if I am wrong, when he made a speech on the subject, did promise more generous terms. Ho was right. It is the only alternative to Home Rule. But if that is the case, what is the good of going down to British platforms and saying, "Here is £2,000,000 he is giving away to Ireland"? It is a good bargain for the British taxpayer. [HON. MKMBEHS: "No, no."]
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is too good a bargain.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is too good a bargain for the British taxpayer. I agree it is a good bargain, but, as a very famous diplomatist once said, the only good bargain is a bargain which is good for both parties, and that is equally true here. This is a good bargain for the British taxpayer, and it is an equally good bargain for the Irish taxpayer. Why? It is so for a reason which I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman describe in this House in very eloquent terms. He said, You are compelling Ireland to live up to the standard of Great Britain—why even in old age pensions; I quote that as an example—and you have got the
  1574
  British standard for everything. I hope that Ireland will so develop in the future that the Irish standard and the British standard will be level.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Never.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That strengthens my argument. You arc forcing upon Ireland at the present moment a standard of expenditure which she cannot afford; because if you have in Great Britain a system of officials, of pensions, of insurance, or whatever it is, you cannot have a lower standard for Ireland. Every Irishman, whatever his views might be, if a lower standard were proposed, would be forced to get up and criticise it, and say, "I cannot accept that." He would naturally want the same for Ireland that was given to other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a thoroughly bad system from the financial point of view. That is all I say. A Bill of this kind which allows Ireland to manage her own affairs, to have her own standard according to its own means and its own ideas, is a better system for Ireland and a cheaper one for the British taxpayer.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad to have the hon. and learned Member's assent to the proposition which he himself laid down.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I quite agree that this a better system than the existing system. I am very grateful to the Government for having brought it in, but I say that it is not fair to Ireland.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I pointed out—that there are two contradictory views, a fact which shows that on the whole the Government have taken the right and middle course. There are these constant demands coming from Ireland, and they will increase. When the Home Rule Bill of 1886 was brought in, there was a surplus of £2,000,000 of true revenue, or of £3,600,000 on the basis that the hon. Member for Cork would prefer. I do not care which he takes. Taking the present basis, there was a surplus of £2,000,000, which went towards Imperial expenditure. That has gone, and we are face to face with a deficiency. That shows that the present system is an extravagant and ruinous one for Ireland and a costly one for Great Britain. So much for that point of criticism. I now come to another kind of criticism, with regard to the method by

  1575
  which we propose to enable the Irish Parliament to finance itself. I agree that it is a very difficult problem. It is not a new problem by any means. Anybody who has taken the trouble to go into the question of local expenditure knows that, in a smaller way, that is the problem you are confronted with there. In every country throughout the world it is a problem that has to be faced. In very federal country you have, first of all, Imperial taxation, then you have State taxation, and finally you have the municipal expenditure. It is always very difficult to know how you are to allow those different authorities to finance their expenditure. Of course, it is difficult. I do not pretend that it is a simple matter which you can settle dogmatically. All I say is that we have discovered the best method of dealing with this particular case. Let me give my reasons for saying that.
  As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has already pointed out in the powerful statement with which he opened the Debate, under this arrangement there is no protective tariff possible against Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said that Ireland would not accept a scheme which did not protect Irish industry. Why not? In every federal country in the world the States do accept such a scheme. As a matter of fact, the tendency is all in favour of giving up the power of individual States to protect themselves against the other States. In Germany the States had the power to set up tariffs against the rest of the Empire. They have given it up, and I never heard of any complaint. Bavaria has given it up; Saxony has given it up; Prussia has surrendered the power. Take the United States of America. There is no power in one State to set up a tariff against the rest; but I never heard that it was a matter of complaint. The same thing applies now to Australia. The States there had the power to levy tariffs against each other, but they have abandoned it. Why on earth should it be assumed that Ireland would not accept what every other State in a federal community throughout the world has accepted? I would ask my hon. Friends who are doubtful as to the expediency of giving Ireland the power to raise any Customs Duty within the very strict limits of this Bill, what other method they would
  1576
  suggest by which they could raise revenue. [An HON. MEMBER: "Land."] That would be one expedient. I notice that the hon. Gentleman opposite is a single taxer. I am not. Therefore I want to find some alternative method while not ruling that out. I cannot imagine what possible injury that power can do to Great Britain. A good deal has been said about tea and tobacco. Take another commodity. Supposing it were beer. Supposing the Irish Parliament said, "We will increase our Beer Duties." I cannot imagine what possible injury that would inflict upon the industries of Great Britain except in regard to the quantity of beer that might be imported. I should have thought it was a perfectly fair method of raising revenue. I am not suggesting it, but I am sure it is a method which has been discovered by previous Governments. Why should that be an injustice to Great Britain?
  It is said, "If you do that, you are allowing Ireland something that you could not possibly allow Scotland and Wales." Do hon. Members imagine that uniformity is essential to a federal scheme? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is in regard to Customs."] I will come to that presently. Take the case of Germany. There is not the same power vested in one State as in another. There is a vast difference between the powers of Bavaria and the powers of Saxony and the powers of Würtemburg. There is a great difference even in the powers of taxation. After all, there is this difference between Scotland and Wales and Ireland. It is not necessary to set up a new Customs barrier in Ireland, because you have got your Customs watching your ports for goods which are imported from abroad, and if you set up a Customs in Scotland you have to set up a Customs barrier between Scotland and England. That is not necessary in Ireland. Therefore, for practical reasons, there is a vast difference between giving Customs power to Ireland and giving it to Scotland, or Wales, or England. For that very reason it is quite unnecessary to increase the pay of your Customs House officers at all. I come to other criticisms which have been levelled against us. My hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Monmouth Boroughs, said he was opposed to this because he objected to the power of decrease. I cannot imagine what possible harm it would do Great Britain if Ireland, by means of economies, can see her way to decrease the Customs duty

  1577
  upon, say, either tea, sugar, or tobacco, or any other commodity. If she does it she does it at her own expense entirely.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I was under the impression that Ireland—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If Ireland wastes money, then Ireland cannot afford to reduce. The tendency of expenditure, not merely in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom, and in every other country in the world, is going up. But let us assume that the Irish people have effected economies. We want to offer them some inducement to effect economies. This would be one. Suppose they were able to effect economies, that would put them in a position to reduce the Tea Duty in Ireland. If they do it they do it at their own expense. It would not be at the expense of Great Britain.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Yes, in the sense that it will not help the deficit.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord really must understand that it comes out of the Transferred Sum. Now that he understands that he will support us. The criticism of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), was of a different character. He said it would be an inducement for the Imperial Chancellor not to reduce taxation. What an extraordinary doctrine! He suggests that the Chancellor will not reduce the Tea Duty in Great Britain for Fear it will have the effect of reducing the burden on Ireland by £200,000. What an idea he has got of the relations of Great Britain and Ireland. Of course he is labouring under a delusion in common with the rest of his colleagues, that after this Ireland will be treated as a sort of foreign country. On the contrary, I think the relations between Great Britain and Ireland will be warmer and more cordial. That the Imperial Parliament will feel such animosity and such hatred to Ireland, that rather than reduce by a trifle its burdens, it prefers imposing a duty on the food of the people in its own country, is—
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. My point was this: that supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to reduce the Tea Duty here by 2d., it would cost him an additional £224,000 loss of revenue to this country.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What the right hon. Gentleman says now and what he said then are not exactly the same.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is a very real difference, that now at the present moment before Home Rule we get the whole savings—if there are savings—if there is an increase of revenue it comes to the United Kingdom. In the future part of it will not come.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has not read the Bill. On the contrary, we get the whole of the increment in the future. There will be absolutely no difference. If the hon. Member had applied his mind as thoroughly to this Bill as he did to another Bill I am perfectly certain he would have been incapable of making that obvious blunder. We will not lose a penny more except the normal increase then, and that we lose even though no Home Rule Bill at all is passed. There is no difference. Why on earth, merely in order to spite Ireland, we should say I would rather not benefit every house in the United Kingdom than allow these Irishmen to get a penny piece, I cannot see. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said that we would have muddle and discord—discord at a time when it is important that there should be co-operation and good feeling; in an hour, say, of national peril; in the case of war. You might imagine from the right hon. Gentleman that up to the present all has been harmony, and that whenever a tax is put on in Ireland, say, for the Army and Navy, Ireland said, "Eight 'Dreadnoughts,' pro on, v rite eighteen!" That is not my experience of the Irish Members. The Irish Members will criticise the Bill, but I think they will criticise it in a very different spirit from that suggested. Their attitude naturally up to the present has been one of hostility to any taxation imposed for these purposes. I am not going into the history of the reasons for it. There is the fact.
  In future, I believe, the whole of that attitude will change. I believe the whole of the Irish attitude towards Imperial enterprises and Imperial perils will have changed—that there will be as great a readiness in Ireland to have a share in the taxation that is necessary to make ready and equip ourselves in this country against the hour of peril as in any other part of Great Britain. In that confidence we propose this scheme. I agree that if the right

  1579
  hon. Gentleman is right, and these prophecies are falsified, it will be bad, but I do not think anything worse can happen than has happened in the past. We are trying to amend the very condition of things which the right hon. Gentleman refers to as if they were something in the future. I say that instead of this being in the future it is all in the past. Wherever you give powers of expenditure to any local power you, of course, get a certain amount of overlapping. You get a certain amount of friction and conflict with the Imperial Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we have got that conflict between the local authorities and the Imperial Parliament at this moment. Why! an hon. Gentleman from the North of Ireland asked me to receive a deputation about a conflict between the local authorities and the Imperial Parliament. They want more money. They think the Imperial Parliament is treating them shabbily. They are up in arms against it. Commission after Commission has sat and tried to adjust these differences. It is a constant source of conflict only there is no fear of civil war: there is no danger of the destruction of the Empire. It is simply a demand, I will not say by conflicting parties, but by different powers. The local authorities try to get as much as they can out of the Treasury; the Treasury does its level best to hold back and, of course, everybody attacks the Treasury.
  The hon. Member for Cork attacked the Treasury; that is one of his favourite diversities, but everybody does that. When demands come upon the Treasury, and the Treasury refuses, they are described as parsimonious, niggardly, and very unpatriotic. On the other hand, if the Treasury gives way it is described as extravagant, and even if the Treasury, having given way in some of these things, makes any effort to raise the money by taxation—well, the language we hear from Birmingham to Cork baffles description, and certainly baffles imitation. That is the only thing that happens. Of course, you will have adjustments to make, and no doubt the Joint Board will have its work cut out to adjust all these differences. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester said, "Yes, but you will have forty-two members in the Imperial Parliament whose business it will be to bring pressure from Ireland." But you have 103 Members now, and I never saw them reluctant, or if I may say so, disunited where
  1580
  there was any question of bringing pressure to bear upon the Imperial Exchequer. There is no change except that instead of having 103 Members present in the Imperial Parliament, a very formidable body, even if not united, you will have only forty-two. I know this is a complex problem, but I submit to the Committee I have heard no alternative. In this Debate from beginning to end there has been no suggestion of an alternative. There was much to prove that the problem was insoluble. It seems to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is the only country in the world that cannot give self-government to its provinces. Of course this country is not incapable of doing what most other great countries in the world have already accomplished. At any rate, I submit that we are placing before Parliament a simple solution of this problem, and I invite the Committee to support it.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech paid a compliment, and I think a not undeserved compliment, to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien). He praised his imagination, and he said that that imagination reached its climax when the hon. Member dealt with figures. I should like, if I may, to return the compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, and I would suggest that if Home Rule is adopted, following the excellent example set by the party opposite, the hon. Member for Cork City should be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Irish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to wax very indignant at the hon. Member for Cork City because he had mentioned the number of officials and because the mention of that subject had been received with cheers not unnaturally on this side of the House. Well, so far as England and Scotland and Wales are concerned we hope, when the Government are good enough to give us the Return they have promised, to deal adequately with that subject, but in the meantime I think the hon. Member for Cork City had some justification for his criticism from the point of view of Ireland. Take the very point about the Irish Land Commission. Since this Government came into office, I am informed, the figures have been given to me, the staff of that body have doubled, and the work is less than it was when the present Government came into office.

  1581
  The right hon. Gentleman began his speech—I think it was almost the first words he used—by saying that the financial criticism which has been made has been very ineffective. That is easily said, and I will venture, presenting an argument equally strong, to say that if the criticism was as weak as the defence, it was indeed very ineffective. Now what was the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman? He said that all our criticism of this Bill is mutually destructive because of one thing. Some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say that Ireland has been robbed, and, on the other hand, we say that under the conditions of this Bill England is treated unfairly by voting a tribute of money over which she has no control. He says these are mutually destructive criticisms, the one microbe destroying the other. The right hon. Gentleman has the advantage because he has the two microbes in his own person. He told us this Bill was very good for England, and he proved that we were giving too little to his own complete satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] He proved that we were giving far less than we would have to do under any other condition. Does it follow, and I shall endeavour to prove it does follow, that if that be true, then we are making a very bad bargain for Ireland. I consider that both statements may be true, that it may be a bad bargain for England and a bad bargain for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a statement made by myself, that the Unionist party, when the day of hon. Gentlemen opposite is over, will continue the work which we have carried on in Ireland, that we will freely and generously—I do not object to the word—regard Ireland as an estate which we are developing; that we will continue land purchase, and he turned round and said, "You are going to spend immense sums far out of proportion to anything involved in this Bill." I entirely deny that. What is the expenditure 1 We have spent money on land purchase—it was that he referred to, and it is chiefly that we refer to.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that that was the only expenditure he contemplated, of course I accept his statement, but that was not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University contemplated, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman himself to refer to other items of expenditure.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The only item, as far as I remember, that I specifically
  1582
  referred to was land purchase, but I did say, and I repeat it now, that we will in any other way that seems reasonable to Ireland, as it would be to a part of England or Wales, spend money provided we have the control of it, provided we believe it will be well spent and will turn out in the long run to be to the benefit of the country for which it is spent and of the United Kingdom as a whole. I deny absolutely that our policy is a bad bargain for England. Take land purchase. So long as there is good government in Ireland that is not a bad investment. Look what is the result of it. Look at the improvements which it has caused in the condition of Ireland. That is not a benefit to Ireland only, for it is a benefit to us as well. The hon. Member for Cork mentioned some figures to-day, and he spoke of an increase of our exports to Ireland in millions. I think he said it was ten millions or twelve millions, and something like half of that amount represents wages, which are paid to people in this country. It is not merely an advantage from that point of view, but it is a very great advantage even to the revenue, because a good part of these wages are spent on commodities on which duty is paid, and we get back the money of which we have control, and which has been spent under our direction. I admit that if under Home Rule she develops to the same extent as she would have developed under the Union—[HON. MEMBEIJS: "Oh, oh!" and interruptions.] I have not a great deal of time, and I would suggest that I should be allowed to proceed. I will take up the interruption from below the Gangway. I do not pay any attention to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do pay regard to the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Do they deny that Ireland has improved? [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course we do."] The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in his speech, made within two years, made this statement. He said:—
  "Ireland had developed more rapidly than any other country, and was now the happy and contented home of a prosperous people."
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that Ireland had improved enormously by comparison with her own miserable past, and not by comparison with any other nation in Europe, and the improvement, such as it was, had been in spite of the Union.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will accept the hon. and learned Member's recollection of what he said. At all events even that statement proves that since we established land purchase there has been an enormous improvement in Ireland, and in that improvement we as well as Ireland have benefited. I say that, from the British point of view, we are entirely gambling on a continuance of good government in Ireland. If it is as ideal as even right hon. Gentlemen opposite are compelled to prophesy it is going to be then, I do not say we shall suffer, but at any rate it is a gamble. Take the speech of the hon and learned Member for Cork as an illustration of how the gamble is likely to turn out. He told us, with regard to the Post Office this afternoon, that it had been accepted by the Nationalist Members because of the jobs which were contained in it for their followers. Is that what you call good government under Home Rule? I say, prophecy against prophecy, my belief inevitably is that if this Bill is carried out, the condition of Ireland will go back, and instead of improving our position financially, we shall suffer enormously by the proposals of this Bill. Whatever it may be to England, even if there is good government, it must be bad for Ireland. There really is no doubt about that. What is the position? Ireland is admittedly a comparatively poor country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, for instance, of education and the cost of the schools. I think it is common agreement on all sides of the House that a great many of the services which are now borne by the rates are national services, that they ought to be equalised, and that the poor districts should not pay for these services, which are imposed upon them by the House of Commons, to the extent they do now. Take, for example, the poor districts of West Ham. I think the burden upon a poor district like that is very heavy and ought to be removed. I am sure all parties in the House would like to do it. I think that is agreed. Mow Ireland is in the position of West Ham. When Ireland is in the Union she shares the advantage of being attached to a rich country, but if you pass this Bill she loses those advantages, and inevitably must fall to a lower level than would have been possible if she had continued her connection with this country. I want to say something more about that. One of the Nationalist Members sent me notice that he was going to put a question to
  1584
  me which Mr. Speaker would not allow. The question was to this effect:—
  "Would you, as representing the Unionist party; guarantee to fulfil the pledge given from that bench that land purchase would be continued after Home Rule?"
  Of course the question could not be put to me, but I may say at once that any pledge of that kind is no obligation on the Government that succeeds this Government. That applies, not only to land purchase, but to every provision of this Bill. You may talk, and people do talk, about the Treaty of Union to which Ireland became a partner with us, but no one can say that there is a treaty here, because the Union embraces a unit which contains three-fourths of the population and provides seven-eights of the revenue, and that unit is against the whole thing. There is not a single Clause, financial or otherwise, which would be considered binding upon me or anyone else in my place who succeeded this Government. I do not wish it to be supposed for a moment that that means we would treat Ireland with spite because we did not get our way. Nothing of the kind. If Home Rule were carried* and we decided that we would not reverse it, we would deal with the case on its merits. We would be willing to be as generous to Ireland as the needs of our own people permit us to be. But does anyone suppose that such financial arrangements as these would permanently continue if Ireland were in the same condition of independence, for all practical purposes, as Canada or South Africa? Does anyone suppose that we would be asked to pay old age pensions in Canada, and does anyone believe that permanently we will be willing to pay old age pensions in Ireland under the conditions of this Bill? I am looking at it, I assure the Committee, as far as I can from the point of view of what would happen after the Bill had been accepted. I do not believe that under those conditions we on these benches would be less generous to Ireland than the party which sits on those benches. I say that, in my belief, if that were to happen the result which I have indicated would inevitably arise, and it would be more likely to arise under a Government from those benches even than under a Government from these benches. I have confirmation of that view. I happened the other day to be reading a paper which has some connection with the Labour party, but the thing is so mixed that I do not know whether it is for them or against them. It is a thing called the "Labour

  1585
  Leader." The article which I read criticised my right hon. Friend beside me and myself for the pettishness with which we have made the suggestion I have made just now. Yes, but later on in the same article the writer of it said:—
  "Do these stupid Unionists really think that the suggestion that money which has hitherto been given to Ireland will henceforth be given to England, is likely to he unpopular with the working class in the United Kingdom?"
  We know the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) has clearly stated his position. He prefers Home Rule and the national spirit with poverty to prosperity without it. That is all right; but has he made it clear, as he ought to have done, to the people who sent him here that under Home Rule they may get the National spirit, but under it they will inevitably get poverty? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel) went on to say there was no possibility of protection in this arrangement about Customs, a really extraordinary statement to make. I have so little time that I will not develop the argument myself much, but I shall read the view on this subject of Sir Thomas Pittar, who was so long chairman of Customs in this country. The views of Lord Welby were read. In reading this I have at least this advantage, that I do not know to which party Sir Thomas Pittar belongs.
  Mr. CROOKS: The Tory party.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, I do not know, but, at all events, he has never given away his right to criticise by accepting every proposal which has ever been made by a Unionist Government. The message came to a friend of my own behind me, but he allows his name to be used in connection with it. This is what he says:—
  "Clause 16 is directly protective of Irish manufacturers at the expense of British manufacturers, it being so drafted that it secures the British market to Irish productions and manufactures, notwithstanding that the Irish Parliament might vary customs or excise duties or regulations so as to give an advantage to Irish manufacturers. Clause 16. sub-section 2, paragraph (a) at once secures the British market to Irish manufacturers of tobacco, although the Irish Government might give Irish manufacturers important advantages over British manufacturers by less burdensome excise regulations."
  If anybody doubts the truth of that, I can prove it in a moment. We all know that much protection has been given to different trades in this country by the difference allowed for the drawback of what is assumed to be the cost of manufacture. It became so glaring in the case of cocoa that this Government had to remove it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Was that after the Amendment appeared on the Paper.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, every one would accept the views of Sir Thomas Pittar.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: And the Board of Customs.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is the date of that?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The date is to-day. When the Government are willing to submit to the House evidence which the House has a right to get, then they can with some justice complain. But the evidence should have been given to us. The Prime Minister promised that if it were the general desire of the House, the evidence would be given. What do we find to-day? We find that a majority of the Members of this House actually signed a letter desiring-that it should be given, yet the right hon. Gentleman refused to give it. The right hon. Gentleman paid a compliment to my right hon. Friend behind me on his mental agility in debate. I must say that the Prime Minister himself shows mental agility in giving the English language a meaning which it never had before. I was endeavouring to show how Protection would work. The drawback on tobacco today in England is 1s. That is admittedly a protection. If the Irish Parliament decided that under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland to put it at 1s. 6d., they would at once establish a protective industry in Ireland; they would secure the whole of the Irish tobacco trade, and at the same time they would be able to dump their goods in England and beat the English manufacturers. It is not denied that the power of Protection does exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General to-day spoke of some wonderful provision in the Clause to prevent bounties, but he had to admit that bounties would be permissible on production, and surely such bounties are the worst form of Protection. What will be the effect suppose the Irish Government gives 1s. on every pair of boots manufactured in Ireland? Not only would they secure the whole of the Irish trade, but they would secure the best part of the English trade.
  Mr. D. MASON: Who is to pay the shilling?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Irish Government might think it worth while—and I do not know it would be unwise—to use our

  1587
  contribution as a means of beating us in our own markets. Protection may be a good or a bad thing for us. I am not going into that now. My views are known. But I think it is doubtful if, even under our present system, it would be good for Ireland. They may think so. But what is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? It is his usual plan. At one moment, he points to the Colonial analogy; at the next moment he points to the individual State analogy. He says that no State in the American Union wants special tariffs. Yes, but we are not setting up a body comparable to a State in the American Union; we are setting up a body as independent as the Canadian Parliament for all practical purposes, and if they desired Protection they could have it. The Irish people have desired it in the past; they desired it at the time of Gratton's Parliament to such an extent that, if I am not mistaken, they broke into the Assembly and turned out the members because they would not put on protective duties against England, and Mr. Parnell always said he would never accept Home Rule which did not give them that right. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have got the words. Let them say what they like, it is perfectly clear that this Free Trade Government is deliberately setting up a system which is protective, and must lead to Protection on every possible occasion.
  I have only time to refer to one other matter. Why is this extraordinary arrangement made? The whole experience of the world has shown that a single Custom House is not only a symbol of national unity, but is a necessity of national union. Take, not the latest example, for that is the example of South Africa, but the example of the Australian Commonwealth. When the different States were joined to form the Australian Commonwealth, New South Wales, one of the most important of them, was for Free Trade, and attached great importance to Free Trade, but they realised so completely that union without a common fiscal system was impossible, that they sacrificed their Free Trade principles in order to have the Union of Australia. This Government, which, if it had any convictions—it never has had any convictions—was believed to be in favour of Free Trade, adopts the very reverse process. It sacrifies its Free Trade principles, not to secure unity, but to disintegrate the Empire. What is the pretence? The pretence is that it is the only
  1588
  way of raising money. That is as insincere as every other argument of the right hon. Gentleman. How could they get this revenue from Customs or Excise? The right hon. Gentleman has found by experience that the Excise Duties have reached the limit at which they do not begin to give greater revenue.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is my opinion, and I think I could prove it with extracts from speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. As regards Customs, what does the right hon. Gentleman say. He said, "Why, naturally Ireland will wish to reduce the Tea Duty." If they reduce the Tea Duty to any extent, instead of getting additional revenue, they will get less revenue by this arrangement of the Customs. They cannot get their revenue from that. What is the meaning of it? They know that nobody in this country likes it, but they have had to do it. Why? Because on the one hand there is a great demand in Ireland for control of the Customs, and on the other hand, in Great Britain the idea is detested. The consequence is this: That it enables the people of Ireland to say, "We have got practically the control of the Customs," and it enables the Government to say, "We have control of the Customs."
  Mr. CROFT: I desire to take this opportunity to say that in my opinion that this Resolution should be gagged in this manner is absolutely unworthy of this House, and it is an insult to the constituencies and in absolute defiance of every principle of Liberalism.
  It being Half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.
  Question put, "That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland (a) to authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sums for the payment of which into the Irish Exchequer, or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer, provision may be made under that Act; and (b) to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into

  1589
  Great Britain from Ireland or into Ireland from Great Britain, and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles, as may be provided for by that Act, in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied in Great Britain; and (c) to authorise the
  payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or existing Irish officers, or officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary or of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force, provision may be made in pursuance of that Act."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 181.

  Division No. 305.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hudson, Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Adamson, William

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Dillon, John

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Doris, W.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Armitage, R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Joyce, Michael

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Keating, Matthew

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Kelly, Edward

  Barnes, G. N.

  Falconer, James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barton, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  King, J.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Field, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Leach, Charles

  Boland, John Pius

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Ginnell, L.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Brace, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lundon, Thomas

  Brady, P. J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Macdonald, J, M. (Filkirk Burghs)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  McGhee, Richard

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Hackett, J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  M'Kean, John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hancock, J. G.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Clynes, John R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Manfield, Harry

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Martin, J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayward, Evan

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Crooks, William

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

  Molloy, M.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cullinan, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hinds, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Hodge, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morrell, Philip

  De Forest, Baron

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Delany, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Muldoon, John

  Munro, R.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Needham, Christopher

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Neilson, Francis

  Reddy, Michael

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wardie, George J.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Grady, James

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Webb, H.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rowlands, James

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Shee, James John

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

  Williamson, Sir A.

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

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

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Winfrey, Richard

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Radford, George Heynes

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Sutherland, J. E.

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Heimsley, Viscount

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hills, John Wailer

  Astor, Waldorf

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Croft, H. P.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Dixon, C. H.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Barnston, H.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jackson, Sir John

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Falle, B. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Boyton, James

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goldman, C. S.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Butcher, John George

  Gretton, John

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

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

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Campion, W. R.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cave, George

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  1592

  1593

  Moore, William

  Royds, Edmund

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Touche, George Alexander

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Nield, Herbert

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stanier, Beville

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir B.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Rawlinson, Peel John Frederick

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Mr. Baird and Mr. Barrie.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next (11th November).
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendments of 61 & 62 Vict., c. 39, and 2 Edw. 7. c. 11.
(1) In Section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and in Section one of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, in Sub-section (3) (which deals with the evidence of living on the earnings of prostitution) there shall be substituted for the words "and has no visible means of subsistence" the words "or is proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution."
(2) The period of imprisonment with hard labour which may be awarded to a person deemed to be a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or to a person convicted summarily of a crime and offence under the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, shall be increased to six months.
(3) A person charged with an offence under the Vagrancy Act, 1898, or the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, may, instead of being proceeded against in England as a rogue and vagabond, or in Scotland summarily, be proceeded against on indictment, and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the Court may sentence the offender to be once
1594
privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified by the Court in the sentence.
(4) The wife of a person charged with an offence under either of the said Acts may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged, but nothing in this provision shall affect a case where the wife of a person charged with an offence may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of that person.
Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert,
(1) In Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, the word "male" shall be repealed so far as regards paragraph (a) of that Subsection, and in Sub-section (2) of the cited Section the word "male" shall be repealed in both places where it occurs, and in the corresponding enactments of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, similar Amendments shall be made.
Provided that for the purposes of this Section a female person shall not be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution by reason of her receiving from that prostitute money in good faith paid and received only as fair and reasonable rent.
For Sub-section (3) of the above cited Section of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and for the corresponding Sub-section of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, there shall be substituted the following provisions, namely:—
Where—

(a) a male person is proved to live with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute; or

1595

(b) a person of either sex is proved to have exercised control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show or give reasonable ground for supposing that that person is aiding, abetting, encouraging, or compelling her prostitution;

such person, unless able to satisfy the court to the contrary, shall be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution.
I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. Annan Bryce). As will be readily seen it is to ensure that women as well as men who live upon the proceeds of the prostitution of others should be amenable to the law. For my own part I think it is self-evident that a woman who descends to this degradation, cruelty, and immorality, ought to be as amenable to the law, and as subject to punishment as a man. I believe the whole sense of the House will be with me.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to second the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I was unfortunately detained outside the House, and was unable to be here in time to move it. I second it in rather a different form from that in which it has been moved by the hon. Member. I find that it is not necessary to put in the proviso with regard to rent, and I want to make a limitation whereby the unfortunate woman herself, whom the Bill is designed to protect, shall not be penalised. The second paragraph reads that every person "knowingly living in part or in whole upon the earnings of the prostitution of another person," etc. I also make this further Amendment to leave out the latter part, which provides the alternative Sub-section (3) of the Vagrancy Act of 1898. Although I think it would be a desirable thing, it might give rise to some debate, and therefore interfere with the progress of the Bill. I leave that out, and the corresponding Sub-section (3) of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902.
Question proposed,
(1) In Sub-section (1) of Section one of The Vagrancy Act, 1898, the word "male" shall be repealed so far as regards paragraph (a) of that Sub-section, and in Sub-section (2) of the cited section the word "male" shall be repealed in both places where it occurs, and in
1596
the corresponding enactments of The Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, similar Amendments shall be made.
In Sub-section (1) paragraph (a) of above cited Section one of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, and in the corresponding enactment of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, there shall be inserted after the word "prostitution" the words "of another person."
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The purpose of this Amendment is that the penalty which is now inflicted upon the male prisoner who knowingly lives upon the proceeds of prostitution, shall also apply to the female.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Not flogging?
Mr. McKENNA: I am dealing now with the penalties apart from flogging, which will be dealt with later. The substance of the Amendment is to make it an offence for the female procuress just as it is in the case of the male. It is, of course, common ground that the woman as a procurer is frequently used to decoy the innocent girl. I think it is desirable that it should be treated as an offence in the case of a female as well as a male. My hon. Friend has not moved the first part of his Amendment. In consequence, the first Sub-section of Clause 6 ought not to be struck out, and his Amendment would come as an addition to Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 of the Bill. I would suggest that the first Sub-section of my hon. Friend's Amendment with the verbal alteration which he has made should be accepted upon the sole ground that in a case of this kind when a woman is equally guilty with a man she ought to be subjected to a penalty.
Mr. BOOTH: The same penalty?
Mr. McKENNA: As to the question of flogging we will have something to say later on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]
Mr. RAWLINSON: Hon. Members say "Agreed," but I do not think one Member in ten knows what the hon. Member has moved, and still less what the effect is of what has been moved. Section 1 of the Vagrancy Act of 1898, as it is now, provides:— "Every male person who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution shall be deemed to be a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act of 1824."

1597
The Vagrancy Act of 1824, for the first offence, makes the man liable to certain penalties, and for a second offence makes the offender liable to be flogged as frequently and with whatever instrument the Court thinks fit, the Court being the chairman of Quarter Sessions, or the Recorder of a borough. The Amendment proposes after male person to insert "or female," and to insert "every male or female person." To give a concrete example, suppose the mother of the prostitute lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, she, of course, would commit an offence under this Act, and would be liable, on a first offence, to the punishment indicated, and on the second offence to be flogged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am only stating facts. I am not even arguing the case. When you are passing any alteration in the criminal law every Member of the House should understand what he is doing. I am merely stating that as it stands that is the effect of this Amendment. No one on this side of the House could understand what the hon. Member was moving.
Mr. LEE: I think there is some misunderstanding with regard to this Amendment. I think my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in what he says as to the effect of the Amendment as it stands. I understand a consequential Amendment has been handed in, which would exempt females from any punishment of flogging.
Mr. BRYCE: It is on the Paper.
Mr. LEE: I understand that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] But we must proceed with due caution on that point. I think the subsequent Amendment applies only to Sub-section (3). I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had handed in a consequential Amendment, excepting women from flogging under any circumstances. Assuming that to be so, the main point of the Amendment is desirable, because there is an undoubted risk that if by this Bill we drive this trade out of the hands of male souteneurs, or bullies, it might be taken up by persons of the opposite sex, and they should not be allowed to escape. But without a consequential Amendment excepting women from corporal punishment, the Amendment would be obviously objectionable. I do not think the Amendment later on the Paper applies to this particular point.
Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: I think there is some little mistake. Offenders can only be flogged under the Vagrancy Act of 1824. That Act, which gives power to flog incorrigible rogues, says "such offender not being a female." Therefore females are already exempted from flogging under the Act of 1824.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Not under Section 6.
Viscount HELMSLEY: There is another point on which I should like an explanation. If you refer to a male who lives on the earnings of prostitution it is quite clear whom you want to get at. It is a person who lives on the earnings of another's prostitution. But, if you include females, may it not be held to include a female who is living on the earnings of her own prostitution?
Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has moved the additional words "of another person," which are not on the Paper.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: We have had a good deal of legislation by reference lately, but I have never seen a case where the draftsman had not taken the trouble to name the enactment he was repealing. Here we have the phrase, "corresponding enactments." I think the hon. Member might alter that, and name the Section and Sub-sections which he proposes to repeal.
Sir FREDERICK LOW: Would the words "living wholly or in part upon the earnings of prostitution" include a female servant or charwoman living in such a house? A maidservant, for instance, might be employed, no doubt knowing what was going on. Could she be said to be living on the earnings of prostitution, and be amenable to these penalties? I hardly think that the House intends to include such a case in this enactment, but the words seem to me to cover it. Surely there ought to be something in this Section which prevents such an infliction upon a girl who is merely acting as a servant in the house of a prostitute.
Sir F. BANBURY: What is the Amendment? One hon. Member moves an Amendment, then the hon. Member in whose name it stands seconds it, saying he wants to alter something which is quite different to what he is seconding. It is a most extraordinary proceeding. What is the Amendment? Is it the first paragraph on the Paper ending at line 4?
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: With an addition.
Sir F. BANBURY: Where is the addition?
Mr. BRYCE: With the leave of the House I will give the addition: "Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), of the above cited Section 1 of the Vagrancy Act of 1898, and the corresponding enactments of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902." In Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1902, we desire that there shall be inserted after the word "prostitution," the words "of another person," in order to clear the case of the prostitute herself.
Sir F. BANBURY: It seems to be a hash culled from the words of the Amendment. So far as I can make out the hon. Member is dealing with a Section in the Vagrancy Act, 1898; that section by reference to the Vagrancy Act of 1824, imposes the penalty of flogging, not as the hon. Member is going to leave out, on the "male," and the natural sequence of leaving out the word "male" is that the "female" will be included. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So that we are imposing flogging on the female. Not, it is said, if the consequential Amendment is carried. Well, that Amendment says, "After the word 'offender,' insert (if a male)." If hon. Members will turn to the Bill they will see that the words that are to be inserted are a long way from Sub-section (1). The Amendment deals not with Sub-section (1) of the Vagrancy Act, 1898, but with the new provision which is to be inserted in paragraph 3. It is absolutely certain that the Amendment of the hon. Member, whatever he may have intended it to mean, will not have the effect that he says it will have. The least the hon. Member can do is to withdraw this confusing Amendment, and give us something which the ordinary Member of the House can understand.
Mr. McKENNA: I think the real point at issue now is as to whether a female shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence if she acts as a procuress or lives upon the earnings of a prostitute. That is the only point. I think the House is agreed that we do not want to flog a woman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] At any rate, that is as I present the case. Assuming that to be the case, the only question upon which the decision of the House ought to be taken is whether a woman should be guilty of an offence if she knowingly lives upon the earnings of a prostitute. The case that we have in mind is the case of a woman who is a party to the prostitution, and is living
1600
upon the profits of it. If we get a decision upon that point I will undertake in another place to have the matter from the point of view of the law made perfectly clear that a woman guilty of that offence shall not be liable to be flogged, and with that undertaking I hope the House will come to a decision on the point whether a female should be deemed guilty of an offence if she lives upon the earnings of prostitution.
Mr. RADFORD: We are in a position which has been described by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) as a fog. We have had an Amendment proposed to the House in terms which are not on the Paper and which not half-a-dozen men in the House know the meaning of. The Amendment has been expounded by the Mover and Seconder of it without giving the slightest glimpse of the object they have in view in introducing it. It has been further expounded by the Home Secretary in a speech which I venture to say has left the House more confused than ever. This is a matter of great gravity. If we are to have this matter settled at all to-day, which I very much doubt, we should have a statement from the Attorney-General, who should give us not-only the actual words of the Amendment, but should also expound to us the law upon the subject and should read to us the Sections it is proposed to amend as well as the Acts which are incorporated by reference. I think until we have had such an exposition from my right hon. and learned Friend it would be criminal levity upon the part of the House of Commons to proceed to vote on this matter.
Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: May I make a suggestion. Inasmuch as the Home Secretary thinks it necessary to carry part of this subject to another place, I think he ought to carry the whole there. It is a little unsatisfactory that a penalty-should be created in this House, and an exception to that penalty should be made in another place. Might I suggest that the whole subject should be remitted to another place. I entirely agree that the offence should be created, and I agree that women should not be flogged.
Mr. McKENNA: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment it shall be considered in another place, and the House will then have an opportunity of deciding hereafter upon the question whether this House agrees or disagrees with it.
Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now Adjourned." I think the course suggested is extremely inconvenient, and it is not one which this House ought to take. This is a question of great moment, and one in which hon. Members of this House feel considerable interest. It also excites a vast amount of interest outside. I cannot see on what reasonable grounds it can be urged that we should divest ourselves of the responsibility of coming to a decision on these matters by thrusting it upon another place. The difficulty we are in to-night is not so much one of principle, but it arises because we have not got this Amendment on the Paper. I think we ought to adjourn the Debate, and then the Government can produce to the House the exact form of words desired after they have been considered by the Law Officers of the Crown and other legal Members of this House can also consider them. The House will then be thoroughly well guided, and can arrive at a reasonable decision.
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Motion. I will indicate only one difficulty. We have decided that flogging for males should be in the Bill and we want to put in some substituted penalties for the females. We have no opportunity at this short notice of framing our Amendments. I think that probably the majority of the House if they find an extra penalty of flogging for men is imposed would not want the females to escape altogether, but would want some other penalty. I think we ought to have some opportunity of suggesting Amendments. I did it on the Grand Committee. If we give an additional flogging for men I think we should lengthen the imprisonment for women as an additional penalty.
Sir FREDERICK LOW: I suggest to the House that under these circumstances the Debate should be adjourned. I venture to say that the piecemeal way in which we are dealing with this important piece of legislation is most inconvenient. We are called together here at the last moment of the evening to discuss the most important Amendment in very drastic statutes relating to criminal offences, and I do press upon the Government that to take this important Bill piece by piece in this way at a late hour of the evening is most conducive to unsatisfactory legislation in every way. It is a most inconvenient course to suggest that whenever we get into a difficulty that difficulty should be
1602
referred to another place. Surely it is our duty in formulating legislation to make that legislation ourselves into a satisfactory shape, and simply because we came to an impasse to say that, well, let it be dealt with at the other end of the corridor, is neither consistent with the dignity of the House of Commons nor with our position as legislators.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I venture to think we ought to adjourn. It seems to me, without having the Amendment on the Paper, it is impossible to understand what we are about, but in addition to that there are only a limited number of books on Public General Acts in the House, and there has been an unseemly rush for these volumes during the last half-hour. I happen to have secured one, and I do not think anyone who has not secured the Act of 1898 is able to appreciate exactly what this Amendment means. Under this Act of 1898 you will find that every female person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution is liable—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the merits of the Amendment. The only question now before the House is whether the Debate should be adjourned or not.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will certainly bow to your ruling, Sir, but I rather wanted to point out it was important Members of this House should have an opportunity of studying the Act which we are now proposing to amend before we proceed to amend it, and it is almost impossible to do that unless we have the whole of the Amendment upon the Paper, and unless we have also Members on the Front Bench able to explain to us exactly what the Amendment effects. I therefore think it is advisable we should adjourn, and that we should bring this matter up at some time of day when it is not only possible to secure a complete and satisfactory debate upon this subject, but also that our Debates may be printed in the Press of the country, so that the people of the country may know exactly what it is their legislators are effecting in Parliament.
Mr. McKENNA: I recognise fully that the House is placed in a great difficulty by not having this Amendment of my hon. Friend placed upon the Paper in its full and precise form, but I trust the House will not desire to adjourn. I quite agree if the Debate on this Amendment were to be continued now it would be very incon-

1603
venient, and I would, therefore, press upon my hon. Friend that instead of the House adjourning he should withdraw his Amendment, and allow us to go on with the discussion of the Bill.
Mr. BRYCE: I am extremely reluctant to withdraw this Amendment, and the discussion has, I think, clearly established a general agreement, because hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, as well as on this, consider the principle of the Amendment ought to be accepted. I am very sorry that owing to my not being able to see the Home Secretary until just before the Debate began, the Clause does not appear upon the Paper in the form in which it is being actually moved. I can assure the House that there is really nothing in it. The effect of the Clause is merely to extend to women the provisions which at present apply to men. Still, in order to facilitate the conduct of debate, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether in the event of this Amendment being withdrawn it would be competent to raise it at a subsequent stage? Could we not proceed with Clause 6 and then resume consideration of this important matter?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendment is withdrawn by leave of the House it can be moved subsequently. But the question now before the House is the Adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. LYNCH: I rise to make a protest against the manner in which we are asked at this hour to pass sub silentio a Clause for the flogging of women. That certainly would have been the effect of passing this Amendment had it not been for the discovery of the hon. Member opposite. There are, perhaps, not half a dozen Members in this House who are aware that this Amendment dealt with a Clause for the flogging of women. A promise on the part of Ministers to deal with this in another place does not absolve them from responsibility. I wish also to protest against this practice of legislation by reference.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the Motion before the House.
Mr. LYNCH: I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that the general feeling of the House is in favour of an Adjournment. We desire time to make this as effective as possible, and we want to consider what is the proper solution.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I understood the hon. Member asked your ruling if, supposing the Amendment were now withdrawn, it could be subsequently introduced, and if we could go back to it. I am anxious there should be no misunderstanding.
Mr. SPEAKER: There was no question put to me about going back.
Mr. BARNES: I wish to make an appeal to those who are responsible for the Motion for Adjournment to withdraw it. I take the opposite view to the last speaker. It is perfectly true that the House appeared to be anxious for the Adjournment, tout that was due to a misunderstanding. So far, as I can understand the answer of Mr. Speaker to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), that misunderstanding is cleared away. If the Amendment is now withdrawn by the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce), we can proceed with the Clause, and all the Amendments now upon the Paper can be discussed, and at a later stage; Mr. Speaker having left it quite open, we can resume the discussion. [HON. MEMBEES: "No."] We can resume the discussion on an Amendment which is similar, if not in identical terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] At the end of the Clause. Let me also point out that it may be found unnecessary to move it at the end of the Clause, because it may be that the points which the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) has in his mind, will be covered by the Amendments on the Paper. I therefore appeal to those responsible for the Motion for Adjournment to give us an opportunity of discussing the Amendments in a straightforward way, in order that we may now get on with business.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I think the House has some reason to complain of the way in which the Bill has been placed before it to-night. The House is placed in an extremely awkward predicament. In the first place there was the question of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce), which, owing to various causes, nobody could understand. The Home Secretary appealed to the House in several different speeches, and the Law Officers of the Crown did not seem to have taken the smallest trouble at all to place the House in cognisance of what was actually before them. We have been asking information of the various legal gentlemen who

1605
seemed to be the only ones to keep their heads in the general proceedings. The House has every right to complain of the situation in which we are placed, and I shall therefore vote for the Adjournment.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I would be very reluctant to delay the Government's business or hinder the passing of a Bill like this, but I feel that the Motion for the Adjournment is one we ought seriously to consider, because I cannot believe that the House is in a mood, or that the hour is opportune, to pass legislation of this kind. The Amendment of the Criminal Law is a very serious matter. It ought to be done with deliberation and with a sense of the gravity of the work upon which we are engaged. I do not think the atmosphere of the House or the hour is appropriate for going on to construct an Act of Parliament which will affect directly the lives and liberties of large numbers of poor people, of whose lives and circumstances many of us are very ignorant. If the Motion goes to a division, I shall be obliged, very reluctantly, to support it.
Mr. KING: I should like to appeal to the House either at once to decide to go on with this or to adjourn. I have been unable to communicate with the Home Secretary who appealed to me, who by the way has nothing to do with Dundee, to withdraw the Amendment. I am unable to do so as there are several Members who are opposed to it on principle and they will not allow me to withdraw. I therefore desire that the House should decide one way or the other, and personally if it comes
1606
to a vote I shall support the Government in going on with the Bill.
Mr. LEE: I think that this is a very serious matter. Probably no one in this House cares more about the fate of the Bill than myself, but I must recognise that the House is obviously not in possession of information which is necessary to enable it to proceed with the discussion of the Amendment, and for that reason I support the Adjournment. I appeal to the hon. Member, who I know is desirous of helping the Bill, if his Amendment appears on the Paper at our next sitting it may be in another form, and that we may not again have the proceedings interrupted owing to the fact that the House is not in possession of information.
Mr. McKENNA: I recognise that the House is not in a mood to continue the discussion.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (11th November).
The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That the House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Prince of Wales (Investiture at Carnarvon).
  Prince of Wales (Investiture at Carnarvon).
  Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
  Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
  Totnes Liberal Club.
  Totnes Liberal Club.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
  NON-PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  NON-PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  STAMPING CASUAL WORKERS' CARDS.
  STAMPING CASUAL WORKERS' CARDS.
  STONEMASONS' SOCIETY.
  STONEMASONS' SOCIETY.
  QUARTERLY STAMPS;
  QUARTERLY STAMPS;
  COUNTRY DOCTORS (SCOTLAND).
  COUNTRY DOCTORS (SCOTLAND).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMIT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMIT).
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS (QUAUTEKLY WAGES).
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS (QUAUTEKLY WAGES).
  GLASGOW BURGH INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  GLASGOW BURGH INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  LABOURERS' WAGES (IRELAND).
  LABOURERS' WAGES (IRELAND).
  ESTIMATED COST OF STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.
  ESTIMATED COST OF STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.
  Surveyors of Taxes (Clerks).
  Surveyors of Taxes (Clerks).
  Estate Duty.
  Estate Duty.
  Talbot House (Dublin).
  Talbot House (Dublin).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  County Courts (Ireland).
  County Courts (Ireland).
  Board of National Education, Ireland (Mr. Mansfield's Case).
  Board of National Education, Ireland (Mr. Mansfield's Case).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SUPPLY OF OIL.
  SUPPLY OF OIL.
  SUPPLEMENTARY SHIPBUILDING VOTE.
  SUPPLEMENTARY SHIPBUILDING VOTE.
  BATTLESHIPS.
  BATTLESHIPS.
  BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS (MANNING).
  BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS (MANNING).
  H.M.S. "TORCH."
  H.M.S. "TORCH."
  GERMAN BATTLESHIPS.
  GERMAN BATTLESHIPS.
  Southern Army Command.
  Southern Army Command.
  Army Horse Reserve.
  Army Horse Reserve.
  Civil Service Commission.
  Civil Service Commission.
  Sale of Council Bills (India).
  Sale of Council Bills (India).
  Financial Secretary, India Office.
  Financial Secretary, India Office.
  W. C Arnold (India).
  W. C Arnold (India).
  Approved Borrowers (India).
  Approved Borrowers (India).
  Teacher's Registration Fee.
  Teacher's Registration Fee.
  Teachers' Superannuation.
  Teachers' Superannuation.
  Territorial Force (Pupil Teachers).
  Territorial Force (Pupil Teachers).
  University of London (Site).
  University of London (Site).
  University Work (Exchequer Grants).
  University Work (Exchequer Grants).
  Elementary School Teachers (Nature Study).
  Elementary School Teachers (Nature Study).
  Licensing Compensation Levies.
  Licensing Compensation Levies.
  Taxi-Cab Drivers.
  Taxi-Cab Drivers.
  Shop Window Displays.
  Shop Window Displays.
  Christmas (Early Closing).
  Christmas (Early Closing).
  Mine Rescue and Exploring Work (Lives Lost).
  Mine Rescue and Exploring Work (Lives Lost).
  Rogues and Vagabonds (Flogging).
  Rogues and Vagabonds (Flogging).
  Coal Mines Inspectors.
  Coal Mines Inspectors.
  Automatic Gas Meters (Thefts).
  Automatic Gas Meters (Thefts).
  Alleged Assaults at Llanystumdwy.
  Alleged Assaults at Llanystumdwy.
  Relief of Vagrants.
  Relief of Vagrants.
  Cost of Public Vaccinations.
  Cost of Public Vaccinations.
  Port of London (Death of Labourer).
  Port of London (Death of Labourer).
  Motor Traffic (Metropolis and Provinces).
  Motor Traffic (Metropolis and Provinces).
  Deck Cargoes.
  Deck Cargoes.
  Lightermen (Port of London).
  Lightermen (Port of London).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Savings Bank (Women Sorters).
  Savings Bank (Women Sorters).
  Post Office Guide.
  Post Office Guide.
  Money Order (Alleged Fraud).
  Money Order (Alleged Fraud).
  Small Holdings (Damage by Floods).
  Small Holdings (Damage by Floods).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Land Banks.
  Land Banks.
  House of Commons (Ventilation).
  House of Commons (Ventilation).
LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
GAS AUTHORITIES (RESIDUAL PRODUCTS).
Message from the Commons, That they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider whether any, and if any, what restrictions should be imposed on Gas Authorities with respect to the purchase and manufacture of the residual products resulting from the manufacture of gas by other Gas Authorities, or of other chemicals, do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next.
KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PROvISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be react 3a on Monday next.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered according to Order), and agreed to.

FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill of a very useful class with which your Lordships are already familiar. It proposes to take the mass of statutory provisions regarding the law of forgery and to consolidate them into something approaching to a Code. Should your Lordships think fit to read the Bill a second time I shall move that it he referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which was set up for the purposes of a Bill of the same character—the Perjury Bill—and which is still in existence; and that Committee will then be in a position to suggest any further useful amendments of the law that may be agreed to, and thus enable the Bill to assume a inure complete form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I now move that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, this is a Bill which has come up from the House of Commons, having passed through that House practically as an unopposed measure. The Bill consists of only one clause, and its object is to amend subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, by substituting the word "three" for the word "six." The reason for the proposed change is this. The promoters of the Act of 1911 had inserted in it the

879
penalty of six months' imprisonment instead of, under the old law, three months as the maximum penalty which a Court of Summary Jurisdiction could impose; but they did not discover until the Act was passed that the effect of this provision was to remove the case from the jurisdiction of the magistrates if the defendant claimed trial by jury, because, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, where the maximum penalty exceeds three months there is a right to claim trial by jury. All that this Bill does is to return to the old procedure and enable Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to deal with these offences of cruelty, which in the majority of cases, I am glad to say, are not serious, and can be well dealt with on the spot by the justices sitting in Petty Sessions without the necessity of their going before a jury. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The Lord De Mauley discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and the Lord Balfour added to the Committee in his place.

MERCANTILE MARINE GRIEVANCES.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to grievances affecting the commanders and officers of the mercantile marine in respect to insufficiency of pay, inferior accommodation, undue hours of labour, and other matters which are of serious moment to the mercantile marine as a whole; and to move for a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—Old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensa-
880
tion, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the grievances to which I am calling your attention are not new ones. They have for a long time furnished the subject of constant action and representation on the part of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, and from what I can gather even many shipowners in this country admit that in the way of pay and other conditions their captains and officers are not treated as they should be. As to the position assumed by the Board of Trade, their usual contention is that they have no power to intervene in this, that, or the other subject. Though I am not always disposed to accept such an argument, still if it is really the case that they have no powers of this kind then it is time that they applied to Parliament to obtain such powers. The Board of Trade and other Government Departments are ready enough to intervene in all such matters as those I am dealing with where they concern other industries; but where it is the interests of our mercantile marine and our merchant seafarers which are at stake they will not intervene, neither will they seek the powers that may be necessary to enable them to do so. In other occupations the Government and our Government Departments have gone to quite extraordinary lengths in regulating pay and improving the material conditions of those labouring in great industries ashore. Then why should those employed in our most important industry be excepted?
That captains and officers on our merchant ships suffer through the miserable nature of their pay is unquestionable. As a well-known shipowner stated publicly at Cardiff not long ago—
"It has been a great grievance that the officers in our mercantile marine service have been so inadequately paid considering the great responsibility that is attached to masters and the responsible officers and after the loyalty that they have displayed in troublous times. Their efficient service in all parts of the world in the past makes it, I think, only fitting that such loyalty and devotion should be recognised by a more adequate wage."

881
Sir Walter Runciman, a large shipowner, in a recent speech on the mercantile marine at the Autumn Conference of the Chambers of Commerce, made the following statement—
"He wanted to say to parents that he did not know a an occupation which gave such a splendid outlet to their boys as sea-service. The boys would be well accommodated, well fed, and well trained in proper kindly discipline, and they would have robust health. At the end of seven years they could rely upon occupying the position of captain."
It was a matter of no surprise to me that Mr. Moore, the Secretary of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, promptly denied the truth of such extraordinary assertions. That youngsters after seven years' experience at sea would find themselves in command of merchant vessels was characterised by Mr. Moore as quite too preposterous for the wildest imagination, and he truly stated that ally man getting a command after fifteen years service at sea might consider himself very fortunate. Mr. Moore went on to show how a miner could, if he chose, in a five-days or five-and-a-half-days week, comprising not much more than say forty hours work altogether, with ease earn as much as or more than the chief officer of a large steamer (such as those owned by Sir Walter Runciman) holding a master's certificate, who has spent long years at sea, who has to put in a seven-days week, who is on duty fifteen hours per day, whose sleep is obtained in short snatches of from three to four hours, and who, when in port on the Sabbath day is expected to and does work just as on any other day of the week. In an official statement issued by the shipowners it is stated that "the maritime wage is well understood to cover a seven-days week."
Personally, my Lords, I am not at all in favour of the State interfering in any sort of way between employer and employee as regards the fixing of wages, but, as the Government have thought otherwise and have intervened in the matter with regard to fixing a minimum wage for miners, then I do not see logically how you can avoid extending the principle to others, and especially to those who deserve it far more and whose responsibilities are far greater—namely, to the captains and officers of our merchant service. The Government have regulated hours of labour in nearly
882
all our great industries, except the most important one; they have been most zealous in this way in the interests of philanthropy. It is only very recently that they devoted an immense amount of trouble and time to the passing of the Shop Hours Act, but they have never stopped to think for a moment that the officers of our merchant ships have far more serious grievances in this way than shop assistants ever had. As to accommodation for officers and crew on board ship, it is about the last thing thought of in the construction of a ship. No regard whatever is paid to hygienic principles. All that is done is that the spaces provided should be such as can be certified as sufficient under the Act by the Board of Trade ship surveyor, who has no knowledge whatever of hygiene. The accommodation for officers is frequently placed in positions not only far from congenial but insanitary and unhealthy, whilst the space provided is, as my noble friend Lord Ellenborough said on a former occasion, just about sufficient to bury him in. We find that the cubic space allowed to an officer or seaman is 72 cubic feet; but if a mall seeks shelter in a common lodginghouse ashore he must have not less than 400 cubic feet.
The scandalous nature of this accommodation on board ship has been the subject of continual comment on the part of medical officers at certain of our large seaports. For instance, a few months ago the Port Sanitary Committee at Newport, Mon., adopted a resolution to the effect that—
"They were strongly of opinion that it was full time that something was done with a view to raising the standard of hygiene at sea, and that the conditions of living, storing of food, nuisance arising from foul contaminations, damp, dark, dirty and ill-ventilated living spaces, foul sanitary arrangements, lack of opportunities for personal ablutions, faulty designs and other matters, must render the merchant service most unattractive to self-respecting individuals who can earn a living ashore, and call for early Government inquiry."
Dr. Herbert Williams, Medical Officer of Health for the Port of London, says that until the Legislature takes some more practical interest in the welfare of seamen pulmonary tuberculosis will continue to be a cause of much mortality amongst this class of men.
Dealing with Sunday labour, it is a national disgrace that the officers of our

883
merchant ships should be compelled to work on their ships when lying in ports both at home and abroad on the Sabbath-day. We pride ourselves on our humanitarian instincts, but, in spite of this, still allow our officers to be treated in this way, when foreign maritime countries have long ago put a stop to it. I will read two short extracts from a letter just received from the officer of a vessel now abroad. He had evidently seen a letter in the papers from a shipowner in which he compared the holidays of ships officers at sea with the holidays of shore staffs. The officer writes—
"We were rather amused at a paragraph comparing ships officers' holidays with the holidays of the 'office' and 'shore stalls', and as a comparison we would like to quote our own ease… We have been in continuous service since … [nearly three years ago], not having had a Christmas Day free; and as for Sundays and other holidays, well we have got into the habit of working on Sundays for the slip and if we got a Sunday free we would not know what to do on that day."
Later on in his letter he says—
"I venture to say that there are not many members of an office or shore staff who could say that they have been at work for nearly three years without even a Sunday off."
I will not go into details, but you will find that France, Germany, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and, I think, others will under no circumstances allow their merchant officers to be worked when their ships are in port on Sunday. I exempt sudden stress of wind or where the safety of the ship is concerned. Here is a matter where I suppose the Board of Trade will tell us that they have no powers to act, but I insist that it is their duty to apply for such powers without any further delay.
That these and other grievances are of national moment in seriously affecting the position of our merchant service is quite clear from certain statistics which have been placed in my hands by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. We are always assured by those representing the Board of Trade that the official statistics are a clear indication that matters are improving in this respect. It is the old story of working statistics in order to show that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade are right in their position of inaction, just the same as was done in connection with the light, load line. In the course of the "Titanic" debate the President of
884
the Board of Trade stated that he found that the proportion of British sailors had very largely increased, and that all foreign sailors had lamely diminished in the mercantile marine. Mr. Leslie Scott, the spokesman for the shipowners, said in the course of the debate that—
"From 1893 to 1903 there had been an increase in the number of foreign sailors in our ships from 29,000 to 40,000. From 1903 to 1911 that balance had been largely diminished, and there were today 30,000 more British sailors than in 1909, and 10,000 foreigners had been replaced by 10,000 British sailors."
"That," Mr. Scott said, "was all very much to the good." Mr. Scott's figures would be very much to the good were it not for other figures which are obtainable from the Quinquennial Return which is issued he the Registrar-General of Seamen, and which is a much clearer, more comprehensive, and more reliable document than those comprised within the Tables relating to Merchant Shipping which are issued annually.
From the last Quinquennial Return, issued seven days ago, we find that, very properly, the manning of the mercantile marine is divided into different departments. In this matter we are not concerned so much with departments such as the stewards' department and others. We, I think, need only confine ourselves to what the Registrar-General terms the "sailors' department," and in this department between the years 1891 and 1911 there is a clear reduction of British seamen to the extent of no fewer than 16,221. This statement, I think your Lordships will agree, is very startling, and one which should completely destroy our confidence in the satisfaction expressed by the Board of Trade and the shipowners. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that under the Merchant Shipping Act every person who is on the ship's articles is termed a "seaman"—that is, with the exception of the captain and any apprentices who may be on board. Stewardesses, stewards, hairdressers, barbers, bar-tenders, and all such attendants on passengers are seamen by Act of Parliament. This is, of course, very nice and convenient for all those people who desire to throw dust in the eyes of the nation by making out that British sailors in the mercantile marine are on the increase instead of decreasing. With the building of the enormous passenger liners

885
of the present day there has been all enormous increase in all these, if I may so call them, domestic departments, but there has not been such increase as regards the seamen. Take, for instance, the "Titanic," the largest vessel then afloat. The seamen on board her numbered fifty-eight; the firemen numbered 300; and the other 494 were all composed of what I have termed "seamen by Act of Parliament."
Now, my Lords, we are continuing to build fresh ships for the Royal Navy, but, even taking the ships that we have at present, I venture to say that if all of them had to be put in commission it would be impossible to efficiently man them or half man them. Yet while we are providing new ships, a corresponding increase in the personnel of the Navy has not taken place. In the old days the Royal Navy had to depend for her reserves upon the merchant navy, and though times have greatly altered it is the same to-day. The only possible reserve for the Royal Navy is to be found in the seamen of the merchant service, and I venture to point out to your Lordships that should the Navy ever have to fall back on this reserve, as it is certain to do should war arise, then the seamen by Act of Parliament., such as stewards, hairdressers and cooks, are not those who would be required on the battleships. The men required would be the seamen and the stokers.
It has been an opinion generally expressed in this House that the Return which was issued four-and-a-half years ago showing the methods of other maritime countries was one of a very valuable and enlightening character, showing, as it did, that British shipowners had in reality much more latitude in dealing with their masters, officers, and men than is allowed to foreign shipowners by their respective Governments. I earnestly hope that such a Return will once again be agreed to, as, beyond a doubt, great developments and changes have taken place in the meantime. Preparation of the Return presents no real difficulties, as all the desired information can readily be obtained by our representatives in the different countries. If your Lordships agree to the Motion, I think I must in fairness ask that the Return should be issued with very much more expedition than the last one. That Return was agreed to by your Lordships on May 28, 1906, and was not ordered to be printed until February
886
17, 1908. There could be no possible excuse for such undue delay, and I hope that the new Return, if agreed to, will be issued with far greater promptitude. In conclusion, let me once again urge upon your Lordships how serious these grievances are as regards the welfare of the merchant service and how they imperatively need urgent and effective attention. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—Old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on boars their merchant ships.—(Lord Muskerry.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, His Majesty's Government will certainly place no difficulty m the way of the Return for which the noble Lord has moved, and I will certainly see that steps are taken to bring to the notice of the Department concerned the complaint of the noble Lord as to the delay which took place before the last Return was printed and presented to Parliament. I hope that, so far, he will be satisfied with the reply of His Majesty's Government. With regard to his general discussion of the conditions of the mercantile marine, I hope it is unnecessary for me to assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are in no way blind either to the services which are rendered by the officers and men of that service, or to the dangers which they undoubtedly run. Indeed, in this year no one can forget how great those dangers are. But I think the officers may be congratulated very warmly on having so consistent a champion as the noble Lord opposite, who has brought before us to-day, not for the first time, the various complaints which they have to make.

887
The noble Lord specially referred to the question of the pay of the commanders and officers of the mercantile marine. I am not quite sure that when on previous occasions His Majesty's Government have introduced legislation dealing with pay in other occupations it has always met with the unanimous approval of this House. I am not inclined to rely upon the opposition which such a measure would certainly invoke in this House, but I think it would be quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to try to deal by legislation with the pay of the officers of the mercantile marine. If it was necessary I think it would be easy enough to draw a very clear distinction between those classes of labour to which the noble Lord referred and the mercantile marine. Those to which he referred were concerned with a trade which is of vital importance to the country, and without which the life of the country could hardly be carried on. It is not possible to say that in the same way of the service of which the noble Lord specially spoke this afternoon.
LORD AMPTHILL: Surely!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Lord will have an opportunity of enforcing his argument if he wishes to later in this discussion. As Lord Musketry knows, it has been until now the policy of Parliament to allow this question of the wages paid, not only to officers but to seamen generally, in the mercantile marine to be left to the shipowners to settle with the persons whom they themselves employ. The Board of Trade understand that quite lately the Imperial Merchant Service Guild has approached the shipowners with a view of securing increased rates of pay, and that their representations have met with a certain measure of success. There is, however, no official information on this matter within the knowledge of the Board of Trade, although I understand that what I have stated is the fact. Certainly representations have been made lately to the Board of Trade with regard to the accommodation provided for officers on certain vessels, and the Board are obtaining reports of these cases from their officers and they will do their best to consider them. But meanwhile the noble Lord must remember that, provided the minimum requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, are complied with,
888
the Board of Trade have no power to interfere.
The noble Lord specially referred to one other question—hours of labour. One of the sections—Section 92—of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, does deal with that question, not directly as to the number of hours of labour, but it deals with the number of officers who should be carried on a merchant vessel, and therefore that indirectly touches on the amount of labour which has to be performed by each of the officers on hoard the ship. As a matter of fact, the minimum requirements of that Act are almost invariably exceeded to a considerable extent by shipowners. It appears from some statistics compiled by the Board of Trade that in the year 1911, with one exception, every foreign-going ship of 4,000 tons or upwards carried three or more mates, as also did two-thirds of the vessels between 2,000 and 4,000 tons. The question of amending Section 92 of the Act of 1894 so as to increase the statutory minimum of certificated officers is at present under the consideration of the Board of Trade. I regret that I am unable to add more than that on the present occasion. If, however, the noble Lord will allow me to make a suggestion, it would be that when this Return has been secured and printed he should, if he desires to do so, raise once more the question in your Lordships' House.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, my only object in making the very mild, and, I hope, friendly interruption in the noble Earl's speech was to give him an opportunity of withdrawing or qualifying a remark which he made, I think, without sufficient thought. I mean when he said that the national life depended more on the coal-mining industry than on our shipping industry. Surely the noble Earl, if he had thought for a moment, would have recollected that a very large proportion not only of our daily bread, of our sustenance, is brought over-seas, but also the raw material with which we manufacture goods and pay for our food. Therefore it is not open to argument that any other industry is more important to the national life than the shipping industry. I did not think that a remark of that kind, as it has not been qualified, ought to pass unchallenged in this House, and that is why I have made these remarks.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Muskerry, but I cannot concur in his idea that the establishment of a minimum wage would improve matters. It has been rather a failure in dealing with the miners, and I think if you attempted to introduce it into the mercantile marine you would bring about endless trouble and endless strife. The question of Sunday labour has been referred to. Sunday labour is sometimes necessary. It should not be absolutely forbidden but discouraged. The best way to discourage it would be to make extra pay compulsory at a fixed sum per hour, varying in accordance with the rate of wages for each seaman. Contracting out of this should be illegal. There are at least two classes of Sunday labour, one connected with the ship and the other with loading and discharging cargo. There are a number of small repairs and adjustments to engines which cannot be carried out while they are moving. They very often only require three or four men to attend to them. If neglected, the ship would break down, and I think that it would be too hard in face of competition to expect an owner of a ship to delay her for twenty-four hours in order to give a Sunday holiday to three or four men only. All your Lordships who own motor-cars must be aware of the constant touching up and attention that all classes of engines require. I think that it would be sufficient if this Sunday work was discouraged by giving extra pay to the men who either do it themselves or who superintend work done by mechanics hired locally.
With reference to handling cargo, I am glad that Lord Muskerry has put this question as regards foreign countries as it is well to know what restrictions on Sunday labour our trade rivals have submitted to. Some lines of steamers would be seriously affected by restrictions, whereas others would scarcely feel them. very careful inquiries ought to be made before making any legal enactment that would have the effect of stopping Sunday labour altogether, whereas the grant of extra pay per hour would do much to check it without being a very serious annoyance to owners. As, however, the captain of a ship has much to do with the question of Sunday labour, I should except him from the grant of extra pay for fear of his being accused of being unduly influenced whenever he ordered
890
Sunday labour to be undertaken. I would, as I have said, save him from the chance of being wrongly accused in this way by making him the one exception to the people who should receive extra pay for Sunday work.
Complaints are constantly being made about the number of hours that railway signalmen have to work, but little notice is taken of the number of hours that a watch-keeping officer has to be on duty. When ships are run with two watchkeeping officers, one of whom has to be constantly on the bridge, it means a twelve-hours day to begin with. As lie is never below more than four hours at a time, he never gets a. real square sleep, but only snatches of three and a-half hours at a time. But on a long voyage he really has a very fair time of it in comparison with what he has to put up with on a coasting trip. In addition to keeping his watch at sea he has to be on deck both when entering and leaving harbour, and to superintend loading and unloading whether by day or by night. When the loading is completed he must remain on deck while the ship is leaving harbour, and then go on the bridge without the previous rest to which human nature is entitled. There is no limit to the number of hours that an officer may have been continuously at work. I do not complain of this when there is danger or stress of weather, hut I do think that the officers of the mercantile marine have a right to complain when kept at work in this manner as a matter of ordinary routine and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. I think that an Act of Parliament ought to be passed making it necessary to carry three watchkeeping officers in ships above a certain size, and that in the long run owners would find it beneficial, and that they would not he losers in consequence.
Then as to the question of the housing of seamen. Whenever experienced travellers make arrangements for sea voyages of some days they look at the carefully drawn plans, which show the sizes and situation of cabins, saloons, sanitary arrangements, &c., and then they have a pretty fair notion as to what degree of comfort they are likely to get for their money and select cabins according to the size of their purse. On a ship being designed, similar drawings of the housing and sanitation provided for crew and officers should be deposited at the Board

891
of Trade, and when approved of framed, glazed, and permanently hung in a public place just as is done to certain documents in passenger steamers. At present, as far as I am able to ascertain, the Board of Trade do not intervene until the vessel is built. When a ship has already been completed it would cost the owners a great deal of money to make alterations in accordance with the laws of hygiene which at an earlier period would not have been expensive. The situation, ventilation, and proximity to steam winches and other fittings have a great deal to do with the comfort of a living room on board ship. The amount of space of 72 cubic feet, which, as Lord Muskerry informed the House, is now allowed, is far too small for a man to do his sleeping and his eating for the greater part of his life. In 1906, when the last Merchant Shipping Act was before your Lordships' House, I tried to get the space increased, but failed. Another reason why I think the officers of the mercantile marine have a claim upon Parliament is this. They as a body are rightly averse to striking. The men can contrive to get what they want by striking. The mercantile marine officers, however, know that it would be injurious to the country if they did the same, and therefore I think they have a special claim to rely upon Parliament to improve their condition of life.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think my noble friend who has made this Motion will be satisfied at having obtained the promise of His Majesty's Government to give him this Return and to give it to him without the undue delay which characterised the publication of the Return on the last occasion. There was one observation in my noble friend's speech with which I was much struck, and which I was sorry the noble Earl opposite did not deal with. It has to do with the statistics of the progress of the merchant service. We were all gratified the other day to read in the newspapers, upon the authority of the President of the Board of Trade, that the numbers of British seamen in the merchant service had increased over the last ten years, and the newspapers wrote in their ordinary way to say how glad they were that the pessimism of some people had turned out to be wrong and that as a matter of fact we had improved our position very much
892
in this respect. My noble friend Lord Muskerry has made a very severe criticism of those figures, because he pointed out that a large number of the so-called "seamen" in those statistics are not seamen at all, but are other residents in the ship who have nothing to do with what may be called the maritime part of the vessel. I do not for a moment desire to say that their interests ought not to be studied in any discussion or determination as respects the accommodation, for example, in the marine service. They are entitled, of course, to consideration like anybody else.
But when the country is asked to be reassured as to the condition of the merchant service and as to its progress, what is meant, of course, is the maritime part of the merchant service. What we are interested in is to know whether the population of our islands engaged in the calling of the sea is diminishing or in-increasing, and the effect left by the observations of the President of the Board of Trade in another place was that it was increasing, whereas my noble friend shows that it was diminishing. That is a very important matter, and ought not to be lost sight of. I am quite sure that the President of the Board of Trade did not intend for a moment to deceive the country, but this misconception has got abroad. I am very sorry that it should be so. I should have been much happier if the President of the Board of Trade had turned out to be not merely literally but in spirit right. It is, however, much better that we should face the facts, and if it be true that the number of those engaged in the marine service is really diminishing that is a serious matter which, in my humble judgment, ought not to escape the attention of the Board of Trade and of His Majesty's Government.
How does that bear upon the present discussion? My noble friend behind me (Lord Muskerry) who understands this subject, I need not say, far better than I do, and my noble friend who has just sat down have both pointed out that the accommodation, for example, for the officers of the merchant service is not at all luxurious. Indeed, it is very shocking from the point of view of those who study housing on land to know what people have to put up with in the matter of housing at sea. We would he very glad to see that

893
state of things improved, because unless we can improve the conditions of the merchant service we cannot hope that the tendency to which I have called attention of diminishing numbers will be arrested. If we mean that there should be a change in this tendency and that instead of a diminishing service it should be an increasing service, we must hope to improve the conditions of the service. Now the question I should like to put to the noble Earl and through him to the Board of Trade is, Are they satisfied that those conditions ought not further to be improved? What, of course, they have to consider in arriving at a determination on that subject is this—whether if they put a greater burden upon shipowners they would do an injury to the trade; whether the trade can bear the increased expenses which better accommodation would involve. If it could not bear it, the thing falls to the ground.
I am not prepared, certainly at this moment, to advocate a change which would injure the shipping trade of this country. But if it be true, and it may be true, that improvements in the condition both of officers and men of the merchant service could be brought about without throwing an undue burden on shipowners And those engaged in the trade, then I say such changes should occupy the serious attention of His Majesty's Government. I do not want to give the impression to the Government that reckless changes ought to be made without reference to the conditions of the service or to the burden which it already has to bear. All I say is this, that I do not think we can be better employed than in improving, so far as they may be improved safely, the conditions under which the merchant service is carried on, because upon the welfare of the merchant service and upon its progress depends the supply of the maritime population of these islands, and upon the supply of that maritime population must to a large extent depend the trade of our country and the safety of it in time of war.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down has drawn attention to one or two points in the speech of the noble Lord who has made this Motion, in the first place with
894
reference to an observation made in. another place by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the increasing number of British seamen. On that point it seems to me that the subject rather divides itself into two parts. Lord Muskeriy stated that, as matters now were, those who were described in the Return as sailors were not sailors in the strict sense in which we understand the word, but included persons of all kinds, many of them employed in domestic capacities on board ship. The noble Lord instanced the case of a great passenger liner. It is, of course, quite true that there are on board ships of that kind a great number of persons on the strength of the ship who are in no sense sailors, and so far as they are included in any Return enumerating the number of sailors in the mercantile marine the Return is hound to that extent to mislead the public. That we all admit.
But there is also a further point in connection with this matter—namely, that the whole character of service at sea has as years have passed somewhat changed. That observation could be applied no less to the Royal Navy than to the mercantile marine. In former days a sailor was assumed to be a man on the strength of a ship whose life was spend in going aloft and in the ordinary routine of seamanship, in many cases in a sailing ship and in others in a steamer, which depended also to some extent upon masts and sails. But now, as we know—and this applies equally to the Royal Navy—a very large proportion of a ship's complement are artificers and skilled men in various branches, electricians, and others, rather than seamen as we understand the term, and the fact must apply also to the mercantile marine, that in that sense, too, a very large proportion of the men employed, who would properly be described as forming part of the ship's company, are not sailors in the old-fashioned sense. Therefore it is not quite fair to state, although the fact may have a serious bearing on the consideration which the noble Lord mentioned—namely, that our mercantile marine must be regarded as in some sense the reserve of our Royal Navy—it is not quite fair to regard every man who is not a sailor in the conventional sense of the word as not being available for that purpose, or as not being properly included in a Return such as that which my right

895
hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade made.
As regards the second point to which the noble Marquess alluded, that of accommodation, I am quite certain that the President of the Board of Trade, when he becomes acquainted with the observations which were made by the noble Lord opposite and by the noble Marquess, will desire to give his close attention to this question. It is quite true that to an outsider the figures of cubic space and similar matters mentioned by the noble Lord are somewhat startling in comparison with those with which we are used to deal on land. I think that my noble friend behind me (Earl Beauchamp) stated the fact that the Board of Trade are now engaged in obtaining reports with regard to the accommodation provided for officers of the mercantile marine, and that when they receive these reports they will give close attention to them. As a matter of fact, however, unless further legislation can be introduced the Board are bound, as I have no doubt the noble Lord knows perfectly well, by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906, which provide a certain minimum space, and if that minimum space is provided the Board of Trade have no further locus standi and no means of interfering. I do not know whether the noble Lord considers that the minima provided in that Act are too low, but he will remember that the Board of Trade are absolutely bound by that Act and cannot exceed its provisions.
LORD MUSKERRY: That is exactly my point. What I want the Board of Trade to do is to apply for additional powers to remedy these grievances. I thank the noble Earl who replied to me for the answer he gave, and I trust that we shall have the Return shortly in our hands.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I should like to say that I did not blame the Board of Trade at all. The Board of Trade are bound by Section 64 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and it is that section which requires alteration. What I ask is that the Government should amend the law.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

IMPORTATION OF IRISH CATTLE.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government in how many counties in England the importation of cattle from Ireland is prohibited, and from which counties the Minister for Agriculture has received approval of his relaxation of the restrictions in regard to the importation of Irish cattle into England; and whether considering the admitted increase of the foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland and the almost unanimous refusal of the local authorities to admit Irish cattle within their county areas the Minister of Agriculture will now consider the advisability of revoking the objectionable Order and thereby relieve England from the considerable risk involved in the transit of cattle from Ireland without any advantage and against the general wish of those responsible for local government in the different counties of England.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, thirty-three administrative counties out of fifty-one have prohibited the importation of cattle from Ireland; the remaining eighteen have made no regulations to that effect. The noble Lord asks from which counties my right hon. friend has received approval of his relaxation. If by that he means official approval from the local authorities concerned, I do not know that he has received any. On the other hand, I think you may take it that the eighteen administrative counties who have not applied these restrictions have at any rate expressed a tacit approval of the relaxation. As far as unofficial approval is concerned, I can assure the noble Lord that my right hon. friend is overwhelmed with masses of it, which come in by every post.
As to the latter part of the noble Lord's Question, I would like to point out that what he calls the almost unanimous refusal of these local authorities is, in view of the figures I have given, hardly an accurate statement of the case. I can only say, with regard to that, that we are not prepared to revoke the Order, because in our opinion nothing has occurred to alter materially the situation since the time when we first decided to put the Order into force. This whole question has, I think, been prejudiced to an undue degree by somewhat exaggerated assertions on both sides. This is essentially not a case where you can

897
marshal an overwhelming array of facts on one side or on the other. It is a case where you have to proceed with the greatest caution, where you have to weigh the risk with the utmost care, and on the balance of possibilities and of probabilities you have to decide your course. Therefore any action taken does require the sanest and coolest judgment, which is not always applied in this particular case.
When one is considering what measures can be taken one cannot leave out of sight the magnitude of the interests that are at stake. I do not want to refer especially to the case of Irish farmers, who are suffering very materially from this prohibition, because I am responsible primarily for the interests of British farmers, but I think that is an aspect of the case which this House at any rate cannot afford to disregard. When you consider the position from this side of the Channel, the figures of the export of store cattle are alone sufficient to show how big the interests are. Out of the 950,000 store cattle that were exposed for sale in Great Britain last year no fewer than 540,000 of those cattle were of Irish origin.
LORD HENEAGE: In Great Britain?
LORD LUCAS: Yes.
LORD HENEAGE: My Question had reference to England only.
LORD LUCAS: I have not the figures for England only, but the majority of these cattle come to England. Not only is that a very large importation, but this is the time of year when the importation is at its greatest. Yet during the months of September, October, and November, when in a normal year 200,000 store cattle would come into this country, it will probably be found this year that by the end of November the number will not be more than 4,000 or 5,000; at the present moment it is something like 2,000. That is a ridiculously small number, and that in a year, too, when in a great many parts of the country there is an exceptional amount of feed and therefore a great demand for store cattle. That shows sufficiently what the size of this trade is and the seriousness of the interests involved.
Then you conic to a question which is more important still—the question of the risk. Far be it from me to try and make out that there is no risk. You cannot say
898
there is no risk. The great problem is to try and ascertain what the degree of risk is, because this is essentially a question in which the degree of the risk is everything. There is one important fact with regard to that—namely, that from July 8 (the day on which we began to remove the restrictions against Irish cattle and allowed stock to come into this country) up to the date when the most recent figures are available 440,000 head of live stock have come to this country and there has not been one single case of foot-and-mouth disease among them, though they were all subjected to the most careful veterinary examination. Then you have to consider the nature of the safeguards which are applied. These animals have to be quarantined for fourteen days at the place of landing, and removed therefrom by licence of an inspector of the Board of Agriculture to premises in which they have to be isolated for twenty-one days. Further, all animals have to be examined in Ireland before shipment, store cattle have to be accompanied by a declaration of their place of origin, and there is a special examination of the mouth of each beast, so that you have what in our opinion are restrictions and safeguards sufficient to remove, I will not say the whole of the risk, but a very great amount of the risk.
In view of the facts I have quoted it is our opinion—and it is an opinion that we have arrived at after most carefully weighing all possible circumstances and all probabilities, and which I would like to say we have arrived at with no pressure put upon us by any outside body whatever—that the risk, such as it is, is not sufficient to justify the entire exclusion of Irish store stock. We have done what we always do in cases of outbreaks of disease. When the severity of the outbreak begins to decrease or when it becomes more strictly localised we begin to relax gradually the restrictions. That is what has happened in the present case, and we hope to be able to continue to relax them. There are some local authorities which disapprove of the course we have taken and have not availed themselves of the relaxation, but I do say most emphatically that it is our opinion that there is not sufficient risk to justify us in refusing to let those counties have Irish store stock which want to have them and testify to that by not putting in force these prohibitive restrictions.

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE rose to call attention to the National Insurance Act and the impossibility of workers understanding the unlimited amount of regulations and literature issued by the Insurance Commissioners from time to time to modify or explain the complicated provisions of the Act; and to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amending Bill during the present session of Parliament.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the summer we had several what the noble and learned viscount on the Woolsack called useful conversations with regard to this Act, and we were told that there were colossal difficulties in the way. I want to know what has been done to meet these great difficulties. First, with regard to medical benefits, your Lordships passed a resolution that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should come to an agreement with the medical profession in order that the Act might be carried out. A similar resolution was also adopted by the House of Commons. Three months elapsed and nothing was done. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said that he always knew that the terms offered in the Act were insufficient; also that it is absurd to ask labouring men in rural districts to send prescriptions to a chemist, and that the doctor ought to be allowed to dispense his own medicine. I made exactly the same suggestion last July, but I did not receive very much sympathy from the Government Bench with regard to it at that time.
We are also told in the Press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now after three months offered new terms. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply to me what are the exact advantages of the new proposals over those of the Act which have already been refused by the doctors and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now admits he did not think were quite fair to them. I am quite sure that no settlement will be satisfactory to those who have to contribute under this Act unless they have a free choice of doctors and unless the doctors are allowed to dispense their own medicines in the rural districts. One of the great faults of the Insurance Act is the failure to recognise the entirely different circumstances and requirements of workers in country districts and workers in the
900
towns, and the great distances which the doctors have to travel in country districts to see their patients, necessitating their keeping either horses or motor-cars. Had there been a greater distinction made between what is required by rural contributors and contributors in towns, and a recognition of the conditions of medical service in the country in comparison with that in towns, I think the Act would have worked much more smoothly. There is one thing which I am quite certain, having had some experience lately in forming a rural workers' association in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, will not satisfy the contributors. They will not consider that a staff medical service of doctors set up from among the medical students of Wales or Ireland, or perhaps of England will carry out the contract entered into with them in the Act by the Government. They desire to have the best medical advice at their disposal, and to have the free choice of the medical men whom they desire to employ.
There is another question to which I desire to call the noble Earl's attention, and that is the transfer question. He will recollect that in the summer I called attention to what would be certain to be the result of the misleading pamphlet which was circulated through the Post Office. My prognostications have proved to be absolutely true. An enormous number of labourers in the country districts were raked into the Prudential and other societies through fear that they would be under a penalty if they did not become contributors by July 15. The Insurance Commissioners have had to take cognisance of that, and for the last six weeks these people have been allowed to transfer to societies which were more beneficial to them without the societies of which they had already become members being allowed to prevent them. But the period fixed has already expired or expires in the course of a few days. What I want to know is, What are the conditions under which transfer is to be made in the future? I do not wish to press the noble Earl too far on that point, because I happen to know by accident that the matter is still under the consideration of the Commissioners, and that they have not perfected the circular which they are going to send out. At any rate I hope that these misguided people will be allowed every freedom possible to enable them to transfer to societies which

901
will be more beneficial to them. I have been led to put this Question on the Paper partly by a resolution which was passed by the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Rural Workers' Insurance Society, a copy of which resolution the noble Earl has in his hand. Therefore I will not trouble to read it to the House, as no doubt the noble Earl will, in the course of his remarks, reply to the points therein referred to.
The greatest difficulties have arisen in regard to sub-contractors, estate and casual labourers, and outworkers generally, and these difficulties have been pressed from time to time upon the attention of the Commissioners, not only by the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Rural Workers' Association, but by the friendly and other societies. I should like very much to know what has been done with regard to these different classes. There are also two other classes in connection with which great difficulties have arisen—charwomen and domestic servants. The conditions with regard to these persons all require to be made clear. It is not fair that it should be left to the Insurance Commissioners to decide from day to day who are and who are not legally compelled to be contributors. A great many hard cases have arisen. I know from my own knowledge that a large number of women who have been in the habit of earning a small pittance, and also casual labourers, have been thrown out of employment, in some eases through a misunderstanding of the Act and in other cases through the Act itself. One of the reasons why so much confusion has been caused is that with regard to two different classes the words "exceptions" and "exemptions" have been used. The two words are so similar that people who do not understand the Act—and I admit that I do not understand it myself—confuse those who come under the exemption clauses with those who come under the exception clauses. All that requires to be made clear. It is impossible to keep pace with the number of pamphlets and regulations which are issued to us day after day, and as far as I am concerned I have entirely given it up. I ask that when these questions have been considered—and I should think they ought to have been considered by now—an amending Bill should be brought in and passed through Parliament making absolutely clear what the clauses do mean, and where they require alteration they
902
should be altered in a fair and reasonable manner.
I wish to call attention to the char women's question. It has always been understood that women were not to be compelled to become contributors if what they earned was not their real means of livelihood. That is to say, if a wife or a daughter was adding to the breadwinner's earnings some two or three shillings a week apiece by going out chasing or washing, that should not compel them to come under the Act. But I can assure the noble Earl that in a great number of cases they have been told that they must come under the Act. Take the case of a woman who goes to assist at a public-house on the occasion of a cricket match or a football match. She gets 1s. for the day, and out of that 1s. she has to pay 3d., and her employer has to pay 3d., because she has been employed for the purposes of trade. I am informed that if she had gone to the noble Earl's house or to the house of any other noble Lord at the time of an entertainment she would not have been chargeable, because entertainments are not supposed to be a profitable part of the householder's business. There is even a worse case than that, to my mind, the case of the poor woman who comes in to clean schools for an hour, we will say, every day in the week. She only gets 6d. a day, and the most she could earn in the week is from 2s. 6d. to 3s.; but out of that she has to pay 3d., and another 3d. in respect of her has to come out of the rates; and I am told that in Parts of Lindsey the cost for these school-cleaners will amount to £1,000 in the year on the rates.
I would impress upon the noble Earl and upon those more responsible for the conduct of this Act that it is no good going on issuing these complicated leaflets when the Act must be amended and made clear. The Government have had nearly a year with advisory committees in existence, and they must know what they intend the Act to mean. At any rate, if they do not they ought to say so. The sanatoria arrangements are at the present moment most unsatisfactory, and from all I hear, unless some clear and satisfactory agreement is made with the medical profession before January 12 next there will be a tremendous revolt among all classes against this Act, and it will not be as successful as, now that it is the law, I should wish it to be.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to associate myself with everything that has fallen from my noble friend Lord Heneage in regard to the Insurance Act. Probably no Act that has ever been passed by Parliament was drawn up in such a slovenly fashion, or has caused so many difficulties to those who really wish to administer the law in the best possible manner. I can speak as one who has worked on a county council and also on a couple of approved societies, and I can assure your Lordships that the number of leaflets we receive on this subject every day would take one hour if not two hours to read through. Surely the time has arrived when these leaflets might come to an end. I suggest that His Majesty's Government should convene meetings of the advisory councils and consult with them, and finally make up their minds about a great many points concerning which questions are continually being sent up by county councils, insurance bodies, and approved societies, and which questions very often are either not attended to or ambiguous answers are returned which leave those bodies in the same state of doubt as before. The treatment meted out to those who are trying to carry out this slovenly Act and the difficulty in interpreting it really make it almost impossible for those concerned to see that the insured individuals get the best possible return for their contributions.
I should like to say a word on the question of transfer from one society to another. I do not think the majority of insured persons understand the transfer regulations, and I am sure that a great many would wish to transfer from some of those societies into which they were driven on July 15 by misleading statements on the part of His Majesty's Government. I am certain that those who have not paid close attention to the working of this Act are not aware how absolutely important it is for healthy individuals to join societies which deal with healthy individuals. I mean that people employed in the country should join approved societies which are mainly filled with men employed in country occupations. I will quote examples from Scotland. I am sure they are identical with what exists all over Great Britain. In connection with two or three farms in Scotland we got the farmers to make a return showing what would have happened had the Act been in force and their farm hands been employed over a five year period. We asked them to
904
show exactly what the farm hands would have received in respect of maternity benefit, what they would have saved themselves in the matter of doctors' attendance, and what they would have got during the five years in sickness and other benefits, and we found that the very large majority of the men would have received absolutely nothing during that period. In the case of one large estate on which there are 140 employed individuals the return showed that, with the employer's contributions added, something like £800 or £900 would have been paid in during the five year period, but, including maternity benefits, only £60 would have been received. It is obvious that these people are only benefited if they enter societies which comprise employees engaged in other healthy trades. These men were taken in by the statements made in July last and rushed into societies which deal with all individuals, some good lives and some bad. Therefore I wish to insist on the point brought out by Lord Heneage, that the minds of insured people should be disabused of the idea of any difficulty in transferring to more suitable societies. Then men occupied in healthy country pursuits will once again have the opportunity of getting into those societies which deal with healthy employees, so that they may get full advantage out of the Act.
No mention was made by Lord Heneage of the subject of unemployment. It is surely a gross anomaly that men like estate carpenters and men engaged on timber works who are not in the trade and who are paid by the year or by the month should have to pay that contribution. There have been several instances brought to my notice, but as yet, as far as I know, the cases of these men have not been attended to. The Act being passed both sides wish to make it a success, but I can assure the noble Earl that those concerned with its administration are growing tired of the obstacles that are put in their way, the little attention that has been given to their recommendations, and the difficulty of getting answers to questions, mainly on account; no doubt, of the very slovenly way in which the Act was drawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I know quite well that when on previous occasions Lord Heneage has brought up for discussion in this House subjects connected with the Insurance Act we have not always been able to agree, but I should be sorry if he thought we did not regard his

905
efforts with sympathy, because we know he has been good enough, in Lincolnshire especially, to take great interest in the working of the Act, as also has Lord Lovat in Scotland. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing our acknowledgments to Lord Heneage for all the trouble he has taken on behalf especially of the Rural Workers' Society in Lincolnshire. But I think, so far as the number of circulars is concerned, that both noble Lords have probably received a double number, for this raison—they probably received them as members of this House, and also in the case of the noble Lord below the Gangway, as the trustee of a society, and in the case of Lord Lovat probably as a member of an insurance committee. Therefore having received two copies of every document which has been issued by the Insurance Commissioners, they, perhaps, have an exaggerated view of the total number, which really is not so large as they think.
But I freely admit that a large number of circulars have been issued by the Insurance Commissioners, and I think it is quite right that they should have done all they could to explain the provisions of the Act. On a former occasion the noble Marquess opposite did me the honour of quoting from an imperfect report of a speech I made on the subject, in which I laid stress on the complications of the measure. It is quite true the Act is complicated, but any Act which deals with the organisation of society as a whole must necessarily be complicated. In the history of the world society was never so complicated in its organisation as it is to-day. Therefore in so far as it was determined—and rightly determined—that this Act should deal with something more than the main first principles it was bound to be complicated. Although it would have been possible to lay down one or two principles and he content with that, it was quite rightly thought that that was an improper way of conducting legislation of this importance and magnitude, and as an alternative it was thought right that we should deal in some detail with the conditions of the people of to-day. That being so, I quite admit that the Insurance Commissioners have had to issue a number of circulars dealing, with the different classes.
It is not necessary, however, for all the insured people to study all or even a large
906
part of the documents issued. In the ordinary course insured persons will apply to their approved societies for information as to the conduct of business under the Act, and the literature issued on this subject is intended more especially -for the officials of societies. Let me give an example. It is quite unnecessary for soldiers and sailors to study the circulars which are issued with regard to charwomen, nor is it necessary for charwomen to consider the circulars which deal with soldiers and sailors. The Commissioners have issued a subject-index, of which I shall be glad to send a copy to the noble Lord if he has not already received one, and this distinguishes seven circulars and memoranda as being of special importance. The Commissioner would be prepared, if desire was expressed for it, to extend that index into a handbook for society officials. But the general part of the literature dealing with sanatoria and medical benefits is addressed to the members and clerks of insurance committees and not to insured members. It will be for them to disseminate the information to insured persons in their area. In the same way documents explaining provisions of the Act with regard to particular classes of employment are intended, in the first place, for the employers concerned, with whom rests responsibility for seeing that the proper contributions are made. No society or person is required to read the whole of this literature. The total number of documents issued in connection with the insurance of 14,000,000 persons through more than 20,000 societies and branches must necessarily be considerable.
The noble Lord has asked whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to deal with this matter by legislation during the present session. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to do so, and for this reason. A great many of the matters referred to by the noble Lord—matters, I think, of real difficulty—must, in their Opinion, be settled by administration by the Insurance Commissioners. There is direct power given in the Act itself to the Commissioners to settle a good many of these points, and it is in the opinion of the Government right that they should exercise that power rather than that there should be introduced an amending Bill. We do not at present see the need for an amending Bill.
LORD HENEAGE: The Commissioners cannot go outside the four corners of the Act, can they?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: No.
LORD HENEAGE: Therefore it is only within the Act that they can act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it is quite easy to compose tremendously difficult puzzles about charwomen and the method of their employment, questions which I do not think any legislation can fairly settle. You must in these complicated and difficult questions settle the principle, and then give the Insurance Commissioners power to decide within the limits laid down in the Act. That is the line on which the Insurance Commissioners are proceeding at the present time. I can assure the noble Lord that if he would be good enough to communicate to us the points on which he thinks that amendment is desirable we should be very glad indeed to consider them, though, so far as we are at present advised, not with a view to any immediate amendment of the Act.
With regard to medical benefits, to which the noble Lord referred, I am sorry to say that I did not expect from the terms of his Question that he would lay so much stress upon them as he has done; but it is, I am sure, matter of common knowledge that fresh terms have been suggested and are now being considered by the medical associations throughout the country. It was only yesterday or the day before that there was an important meeting of the doctors in London, and if, as seems likely, their willingness to work the Act is followed very generally throughout the country, I think we have every reason to hope there will be an efficient medical service at the disposal of the insured people upon the day on which it is promised in the Act itself.
The noble Lord referred to a certain resolution which has been sent by the committee of a society in Lincolnshire. I hope the noble Lord will allow me, in referring to this, to say that from the documents which I have here I understand that a conference, which met on September 12, appointed representatives to a joint meeting which met on September 27, and that they sent to the Commissioners a certain letter. It was despatched, I
908
think, on September 27. It was acknowledged at once, and a further letter in answer to it was sent on October 16 to the secretary from whom the communication had been received. This resolution to which the noble Lord refers dealt, in the first place, with the question of transfer. That matter has already been referred to by the noble Lord on a previous occasion in this House. It was after that discussion that a conference took place between the representatives of a large number of societies and the Insurance Commissioners, and some 700 societies in all agreed for the time being to a system by which transfers should be possible from one society to another without any objection being made or without any discussion of any kind; and that was to last until September 30. A good many of these societies, by mutual arrangement, have agreed to extend the time or did agree to extend it so long as it concerned the first quarter card. That, of course, as the noble Lord knows, has now expired. All transfers after October 26 have to be dealt with under Section 31 of the Act. The noble Lord probably remembers that the Insurance Commissioners were required to issue instructions. Those are in an advanced state, and the Commissioners hope they will be immediately issued, perhaps even to-night, but certainly in a few days. This matter has already been dealt with in another place. No doubt the noble Lord remembers that no society may unreasonably withhold their permission from any individual to transfer from one society to another; and in another place Mr. Masterman said—
"The Commissioners in the early months of the Act would require very clear proof that the society from which a member was withdrawing would suffer material harm by his withdrawal before they decided not to pay his transfer value to the second society."
Therefore it is clear that for the next month or so it will be easy for any individual following the prescribed course to secure his transfer from one society to another. The appeal will lie to the Insurance Commissioners, and it will be for them to say whether in their opinion the consent is being unreasonably withheld. It is clear that the temporary arrangement which was in force during the months of August and September cannot be continued, because it was dependent upon the mutual consent of a number of these societies. The time for which they agreed has now elapsed, and unless they came together and agreed

909
among themselves that there should be a renewal of that arrangement it would not be possible for the Insurance Commissioners to force it upon them.
The noble Lord's reference to the Lincolnshire resolution reminds me that difficulties have arisen with regard to the administration and the interpretation of the Act in reference to sub-contractors, estate workers, casual labourers, charwomen, and outworkers generally, as well as regards domestic servants. We are quite ready to admit that there may be exceedingly difficult questions of interpretation and administration, but we do not yet feel that they are such as to require any amending legislation at the present time. I can assure the noble Lord that the Insurance Commissioners are doing their best to settle all these questions as they arise, and I do not suppose they will find any real difficulty to contend with at the expiration of a month or two from now.
910
If I understood rightly the reference which was made by Lord Lovat to estate workers, he allude rather to unemployment. As the unemployment section of the Act refers more to the Board of Trade than to the National Health Insurance Commissioners it would be more convenient that it should be dealt with on a separate occasion and in a separate way. That question is not intimately connected with the health side, at any rate, of national insurance, and is not administered by the same Commisioners. On the whole, therefore, I do not know that there is anything more I hace to say, except to express the hope that Lord Heneage will continue to take the same interest in the administration of the Act in the future, and to assure him that we shall always be glad to consider any suggestions he may have to make on the subject.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.