Sitting of 21 November 1912

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Forster, (petitions) containing 7,619 signatures and(4)containing 5,099 signatures.
Mr. Hayes Fisher, (50 petitions) containing 1,057 signatures from Fulham.
Mr. E. Jardine, (53 petitions) containing 7,689 signatures from East Somerset.
Mr. Bigland,(6petitions)containing 2.731 signatures.
Sir Joseph Larmor, (17 petitions) containing 3,211 signatures from the North or Wisbech Division of Cambridgeshire.
Major Stanley, (24 petitions) containing 2,348 signatures.
Captain Peel, (60 petitions) containing 6,609 signatures from Woodbridge and Eye Divisions.
Mr. Yerburgh, (28 petitions) containing 12,376 signatures from Chester and elsewhere.
Mr. Fitzroy, (76 petitions) containing 5,666 signatures, five containing 5,480— from Peterborough and petitions containing 6,046 signatures from the North-Eastern Division of Northamptonshire.
Mr. Macmaster, (25 petitions) containing 6,022 signatures.
Mr. Herbert Nield, (13 petitions) containing 3,933 signatures from the Ealing Division of Middlesex, including certain parochial districts.
Sir Francis Lowe, (6 petitions) containing 1,399 signatures from Birmingham; (12 petitions) containing 2,407 signatures from the Eastern Division of the County of Worcestershire.

FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL.
Sir Francis Lowe presented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of Birmingham Bill might be amended in such a way as to prevent married women being disqualified from sitting in borough councils in England and wales outside London.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN WALES (REVENUE, Etc.).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 6th November; Mr. Jonathan Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 368.]
COPYRIGHT.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 369.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations of the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland), dated 14th November 1912, as to the time within which a re-engaged seaman, marine, or soldier may elect to have deductions made from his pay, and within which a discharged seaman, marine, or soldier may become a member of an approved society or apply for re-admission to the Army and Navy Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 370.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what security the British taxpayer has for the repayment of loans already made, or about to be made, to the Persian Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The main security for loans already made is the Customs receipts of Southern Persia; that for prospective loans would be matter for arrangement.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether if the British taxpayer has no specific security for his loans, and no security for trade, he is not being bled all round?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the British Government is now pressing the Russian Government to reduce the Russian garrisons in Northern Persia; and, if so, what reason it has to believe that the Persian Government is, or will shortly be, in a position to prevent Northern Persia, in the absence of Russian troops, from relapsing into the anarchical chaos which prevails in the southern provinces?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

  Egypt.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether that feature of the organic law which gives the Government the right to ignore suggestions, amendments, or objections raised by the General Assembly and Legislative Council in Egypt will be preserved in any extensions which are made in the representative system?
  Sir E. GREY: As I informed the hon. Member for Burnley in my reply to his question of the 5th instant, no scheme of reform is before me at the present moment, and I am therefore not considering any points that may arise.

  Russo-Mongolian Agreement.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which he could give regarding the Russo-Mongolian agreement of 3rd November, and whether he can state the nature of the agreement and its most important terms; and whether the protocol of that agreement assures any special commercial rights to Russian trade and Russian subjects?
  Sir E. GREY: The semi-official statements issued in St. Petersburg and reported in the Press contain, so far as I am aware, the salient points of the agreement. The protocol attached to the agreement has not yet been communicated to me. It would seem primâ facie, that the agreement is intended to confirm rights and privileges for Russian subjects which existed under previous treaties of many years' standing, and generally to secure the status, practically amounting
  452
  to autonomy, which was the normal condition of Outer Mongolia; but I am awaiting further information on these points.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say with what Governments previous treaties were made?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.
  Mr. LLOYD: Will the right hon. Gentleman get what information he can as regards the last part of the question?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, I am expecting it in a few days.

  War in Balkans.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether, in the event of the European congress or conference being called to consider the settlement of Turkish affairs after the conclusion of hostilities, the discussion will be limited to matters immediately arising out of the war, or will also embrace the special relations of Turkey with other Powers; and, if so, in what respect British interests are likely to be affected?
  Sir E. GREY: The question of whether a conference should or should not be held has not yet been definitely considered by the Powers, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make any statement as to its possible scope and programme.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Great Powers are acting in union in making any demands on the allied Balkan States or on Servia with regard to annexing any part of the Adriatic coast, or whether Austria-Hungary, is pressing independently her demands upon Servia?
  Sir E. GREY: So far as I am aware, it would not convey an accurate impression to say that any of the Great Powers have yet formulated demands on the allied States, though exchanges of views have continued to pass between the Powers since the beginning of the war. The view of His Majesty's Government, which is shared by the other Powers, is that it would be undesirable that any part of the eventual settlement should be separated from the whole by premature discussion.

  Morocco.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent

  453
  publication by the French Government of a Yellow Book dealing with the Morocco crisis; and whether he now proposes to publish any Papers on the same subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I have now received copies of the Yellow Book, which is being examined, but there does not at first sight seem to be anything in the publication which renders it either desirable or necessary for His Majesty's Government to make further statements.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any precedent for not publishing Papers in regard to a crisis so acute?
  Sir E. GREY: I should think there probably are precedents, but I could not say without examination. In this case, however, a very full statement of the part taken by His Majesty's Government was made a year ago in this House.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Furlong estate, near Youghal, county Cork, has been also purchased by the Estates Commissioners and divided amongst a few labourers, while the best of the land with the residence has been allocated to a Mr. Brown, who holds an official position in the London County Council; and whether, in view of the objects and intention of the Land Purchase Acts, it is intended that the best portion of this estate should be vested in a non-resident purchaser?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners acquired 553 acres of untenanted land on this estate, and on resale allotted same, with the exception of the mansion house division, amongst twenty-four purchasers, three of whom were evicted tenants, and the others occupiers of small holdings in the neighbourhood. The mansion house division included extensive buildings, out-offices, and grounds, and was not suitable for sub-division, and in the exercise of their discretion the Commissioners sold it to Mr. Brown, whose family live in the mansion house. The Commissioners understand that Mr. Brown does not hold a position in the London County Council.
  Captain CRAIG: How many acres are attached to the mansion house?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid I do not know that.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which the estate known as the Mud Lands, at Youghal, county Cork, has been acquired by the Estates Commissioners and divided amongst evicted tenants; whether he is aware that this property consists of reclaimed land very low-lying and subject to frequent floods in winter; whether he is aware that the tenants complain of insufficient drainage and that proper sluices have not been provided to free the land from excessive moisture; whether the tenants are called upon to pay a rent of 19s. 6d. per acre, which is in excess of the value of the land in its present condition; and whether any steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners or others to improve the position of these evicted tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners acquired on the estate referred to some 300 acres of good deep soil suitable for tillage and dairying though wet in places, and they allotted nine holdings to evicted tenants and provided enlargements for six smallholders. The prices were fixed after inspection, and the average annuity payable on such prices is 13s. 6d. per acre and not 19s. 6d. as stated in the question. The vendor provided a sum of £475 for the upkeep of the embankments and sluices, of which £71 has since been expended, and the Commissioners sanctioned the expenditure of over £1,000 on erection of buildings, general improvements, and purchase of stock. The Estates Commissioners do not propose to sanction any further expenditure for the improvement of these lands, but it is open to the parties, if so advised, to apply to the Commissioners of Public Works for improvement loans under the Land Improvement (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. HORNERasked whether an application was made on the 29th day of March, 1911, on behalf of Mrs. Ann Kirk, of Altacamcosy, Gortin, county Tyrone, a tenant purchaser, to the Irish Land Commission, to make regulations for the exercise of her turbary rights on the estate, which was sold subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Irish Land Act of 1903; will he say what steps have been taken in reference thereto; and why no reply has been made to the several letters from her solicitors asking for a ruling on the application?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not yet made an offer for the purchase of this estate. The maps and documents necessary for a preliminary inspection to be made of the property have been lodged, and a decision will be arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
  Mr. JOYCEasked if any offer has been made for the sale of the Dickson Mansell estate at Gorhue, Killonan, county Limerick, of which Welsh and Ityan are the head landlords; and, if so, do the Estates Commissioners intend purchasing with the view of dividing the untenanted land amongst the uneconomic tenants of the Killonan property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate of Alicia M. Welsh and Mary Ryan, which includes the lands of Killonan, is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owners to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. There is no untenanted land included in the property which is the subject of proceedings for sale, and the vendors state they are not the owners of any other lands in the localily.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked whether Lord Stratheden and Campbell has yet offered to sell his estate in Moycullen, County Galway, to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, will he state whether the Board has agreed to purchase it on behalf of the tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The maps and documents necessary for a preliminary inspection to be made of this estate have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board, and a decision will be arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
  Mr. O'MALLEY: asked whether the Congested Districts Board has yet made an offer of purchase for the O'Flaherty estate, in Ballyconnelly and in the Oughterard district; and whether a year and a half ago this estate was valued with a view of purchase; and, if so, will he state why the purchase has not been completed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are in negotiation for the purchase of this estate.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been draw to the decrees asked for at County Courts in respect of the non-payment of purchase annuities due to the Irish Land
  456
  Commission; whether his attention has been drawn to the sums in respect of which many of the decrees were asked; whether at the Longford Quarter Sessions James Tiernan was sued for 9s., and at the Ballymahon Quarter Sessions Michael Linehan for 8s. 6d; and if he can state the cost to the Land Commission of recovering these two amounts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the question. The Land Commission are under no expense in the matter of the costs of legal proceedings for the recovery of arrears of annuities. The costs are included in the decrees for the debts, and are recovered from the defaulters.

  National Education, Ireland (Appointment of Teachers).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to an advertisement appearing in the "Irish School Weekly," on 21st September, 1912, offering a principal teacher-ship of a school to a lady on the conditions of conducting a choir, playing Benediction service, and residing at a certain place; is he aware that similar advertisements have appeared in this and other papers, offering appointments on the ground of ability and willingness to discharge specified extraneous duties; and will he say what steps the Commissioners of National Education propose to lake for the purpose of ensuring that State-paid teachers will in the future be appointed solely on the ground of their ability to discharge the duties for which they are paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have taken no action in regard to the advertisement referred to. They do not permit school managers to make it a condition of employment of national teachers that they are to perform extraneous duties, but, should a manager desire to have a teacher who can conduct a choir, the Commissioners can see no grounds for interfering unless the manager proposes to employ the teacher at the extraneous duty without the teacher's consent and without special remuneration.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    BALLOT ACT.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked whether, under Clause 9 (3) of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Irish Parliament will have power to repeal the Ballot Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, so far as regards election of members to serve in the Irish House of Commons.

    IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked under what election laws members would be elected to the Irish House of Commons in the event of the Irish Parliament not exercising its powers in Clause 9 (3) of the Government of Ireland Bill and of the United Kingdom Parliament repealing Clause 13 of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The mere repeal of Clause 13 of the Bill would not alter the manner in which members of the Irish House of Commons would be elected under Sub-section (1) of Clause 9 of the Bill.
    Colonel RAWSONasked whether the Irish Parliament, under the provisions of Clause 9 (3) of the Government of Ireland. Bill, will have power to make laws increasing facilities for voting by illiterate persons?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Irish Parliament will have power to make such a law under Clause 9 (3), if they think it advisable, so far as regards the election of Members of the Irish House of Commons.
    Mr. MOORE: If the Irish Parliament is to be conceded the power to repeal the Corrupt Practices Act and the provisions about illiterates, what safeguard is there for the ordinary elector?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The same safeguard as under the operations of any other Parliament.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that since the Liberal Government came into power the number of illiterates has rapidly diminished?

    CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
    Colonel RAWSONasked whether, under the provisions of Clause 9 (3) of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Irish Parliament can repeal the Corrupt Practices Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Corrupt Practices Acts, so far as they relate to the qualification or disqualification of Members, cannot be repealed by the Irish Parliament.

    RESERVE OF BILLS.
    Colonel RAWSONasked whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, by instructions, to direct the Lord Lieutenant to reserve certain classes of Bills?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It will be possible for His Majesty's Government to advise His Majesty to direct the Lord Lieutenant to reserve certain classes of Bills, but this will be a matter for consideration when the time comes.

    ROYAL ASSENT TO IRISH BILLS.
    Colonel RAWSONasked whether instructions to the Lord Lieutenant in respect of Clause 7 (1) and 7 (2) will be in general terms or have reference to a particular measure?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is no doubt that there may be instructions of His Majesty in general terms and also special instructions as to a particular measure.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERasked whether the Speaker or President of the Irish House of Commons will be required to certify on every Money Bill sent up to the Irish Senate, and presented to the Lord Lieutenant for the Royal Assent, that it is a Money Bill; and, if not, what procedure will be followed in the event of a disagreement between the two Houses in respect of any particular measure coming within the definition of a Money Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, the matter will rest with the two Houses, and it is not anticipated that difficulty will arise any more than under Colonial Constitutions.

    IRISH SENATE.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERasked whether the Government propose, now that the Irish Senate is to be elected and not nominated, to extend the powers of the Senate over Money Bills to include the powers of rejection, as is the case in respect of the Senates in the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No. Sir.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, in the re-arrangement of business now contemplated, the Government scheme in regard to Customs and Excise under the Government of Ireland Bill will be dropped; and, if not, whether, in view of the opposition thereto manifested in all quarters, further time will be given for the discussion of the subject in the new time-table?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer to both branches of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Considering the very grave importance of this question both to the Irish and the English taxpayer, may I appeal to the Prime Minister to give us more time to discuss it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to make an appeal to the Prime Minister.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (TRANSFER).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked if, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, and provided that the new Irish Government is willing to transfer members of the Civil Service who are, under the terms and conditions of their appointment, transferable, the Imperial Government will accept such officers for employment in similar capacities in the Imperial service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No general promise of the kind can be given. Each application for transfer will be dealt with on its merits.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman will have prepared for the information of Members a memorandum showing fully the method by which the contributions to Income Tax by Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, has been estimated, with a view to ascertaining the revenue of Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Bill; how especially the contribution is ascertained in cases where the deduction at the source is made in Great Britain and Ireland respectively; where Income Tax payers have residences both in England and Ireland; and where residents in Ireland keep their banking accounts in English or Scotch banks?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Under Clause 24 of the Bill the duty of adjusting the figures of the proceeds of the tax as collected with a view to attributing to Ireland any proceeds of taxes collected in Great Britain, but properly attributable to Ireland and vice very, is placed on the Joint Exchequer Board. The figures given in the White Papers, Cd. 6154 and Cd. 6486, are estimates, and have been calculated in accordance with the principles as to adjustments, which have been adopted for many years in connection with the annual Financial
    460
    Relations Returns and which are set forth in full in House of Commons Papers 329 of 1891 and 93 of 1893. A summary is given in an appendix to the Report of the Committee on, Irish Finance (Cd. 6153 of this year).

    IRISH DEFICIT.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the deficit of £1,500,000 upon Irish internal finance, which it is proposed under the Government of Ireland Bill to be a perpetual charge against Great Britain, will be borne by Scotland and England jointly pro rata; and whether, in the general scheme of Home Rule all round adumbrated by His Majesty's Government, Scotland will have to bear not only a share of the internal cost of Irish Home Rule but also a share of Irish Imperial administration, as well as all its own expenses under Home Rule, or is it intended for England to bear the whole of the Irish charge?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Bill does not propose to make the existing deficit a perpetual charge on the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. As regards the period while a deficit still exists, the effect of the Bill is that the deficit will continue, as at present, to be charged to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, into which all Imperial taxes levied in England, Scotland, and Ireland will continue, as at present, to be paid. A regards the latter part of the question, the matters referred to will fall to be determined by Parliament when the time comes.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Have the financial details of Irish Home Rule been arrived at without any consideration of future Home Rule for Scotland; and if that is not the case, is Home Rule for Scotland merely a political delusion?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to both of the Noble Lord's questions is in the negative.
    Mr. HEWINS: Will the Government lay-down any principles for the guidance of the Joint Exchequer Board in making this very abstruse calculation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is a matter rather for debate upon the Bill than for an answer across the floor of the House.
    Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us a proper

    461
    amount of time to debate it on the Bill? How can we debate it on the Bill when you have closured us?

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Postmaster-General whether officers, notably those transferred from the ex-National Telephone Company, who have been accepted as pensionable officers of the Crown since the passing of the 1909 Superannuation Act, but whose pensionable service counts from a period anterior to that date, will, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law and their Department transferred to the Irish Government, be entitled to claim the right of choice regarding terms of retirement, as is provided in paragraph 1, Sub-section (e), of the rules governing retirement of established officers of the Crown under the statutory terms of the Third Schedule to the Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Officers who have entered the Civil Service since the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1909, whether on transfer from the National Telephone Company's service or otherwise, and whether in Great Britain or in Ireland, come under the provisions of that Act, and have no option of choosing the terms of the earlier Acts. The Government of Ireland Bill effects no change in this respect.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if any person has been arrested in connection with the shooting outrage which occurred at Rahoon House, county Galway, on 2nd November?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the morning of the 2nd instant, between midnight and one o'clock, shots were fired into one of the windows of the house mentioned in the question, breaking several panes of glass. The police are making inquiries, but have been so far unable to obtain evidence to justify any arrests.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that in the year 1911, in Ireland, offences against property with violence reported to the police numbered 867, being 135 over the number for the preceding year, and sixty-two over the average for the five years 1906–10, and that cases of injury to property reported as malicious numbered 916 and were sixty-four more than the number recorded for
  462
  the preceding year, and 253 over the average of the five years ending 1910; if he will state in how many of the reported cases of malicious injuries to property were proceedings instituted against the perpetrators; and in how many cases were convictions obtained?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The figures, as regards offences of the two classes mentioned in the question are as stated, but I may point out that the total number of indictable offences in 1911 was thirty-nine below the number in the preceding year and twenty below the average for the preceding five years. Two hundred and three persons were proceeded against during the year for malicious injuries to property and two convictions were obtained at Petty Sessions and ninety-three at Assizes and Quarter Sessions.

  Union Jack (Ardagh, County Mayo).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting recently held by the United Irish League at Ardagh, county Mayo, as reported in the "Western People" of the 9th instant, at which the speaker assured his audience that the Irish Parliamentary party were winning their way through troubled waters, and were now sure of planting the green flag instead of the pirate and blood-stained flag of England; whether a Government note-taker was present at this and similar meetings of the United Irish League that have been recently held in the county of Mayo; and whether he intends to take attraction in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the meeting referred to, and I am informed by some members of the police force who were present, that the language quoted in the question although published in the newspaper was not used by any of the speakers at the meeting. No Government note-taker was present at the meeting.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Will the Irish Parliament have power when assembled in Dublin to fly any other flag but the Union Jack?

  Irish Agricultural Society (Development Fund).
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked whether a request has been received for a Grant to the Irish Agricultural Society from the Development Fund; if such a Grant has been delayed or refused; if any

  463
  previous Grants have been made to the same society; whether the objects of the society place it in antagonism with certain existing agencies and persons in Ireland who derive considerable profit from agricultural loans: and if he will lay upon the Table the Tapers relating to the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: An application has been received and is under the consideration of the Treasury. No previous Grants have been made to this society from the Development Fund, but it received subsidies from the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction amounting in all to £29,316. These subsidies were discontinued at the end of 1908 for the reasons indicated in the Minute of the Agricultural Board of 28th January, 1908. As pointed out in that Minute, which was published in the newspapers at the time, the society is certainly associated in many people's minds with hostility to certain trading interests. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Have strong representations been made by interested parties that the money should not be advanced, and, if so, whether they were made in the interests of moneylenders?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; the matter is one which, in its present stage, does not come before me. The matter is before the Treasury. They have had representations made, I believe, by different persons and different interests.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Why not grant the money agreed to?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The matter is under consideration.
  Mr. REDDY: Is it not the general belief in Ireland?—
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know about the general belief.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that the Mulliugar town area has been free from any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease for over three weeks, and that the only case that has occurred outside the town area was about one mile south-east of it; whether he is aware that the officers of his Department have made a careful
  464
  examination of all livestock within a wide radius of the town without finding any traces of the disease; and if, having regard to all those circumstances, he will consider the advisability of the contraction of the present fifteen miles radius in so far any way as it extends in the direction of that part of the country in which no affection or trace of the disease has at any time appeared?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Cases of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in the Mullingar district on the 5th and 7th instant, respectively. The case on the 5th instant was discovered at Catherinestown, about two miles from the town, by the Department inspectors in the course of their inspections in the surrounding district. The case on the 7th occurred at Lynn, near the town. The Department are advised that in the circumstances it would be too soon to curtail the limits of the scheduled area.

  Home and Colonial Civil Service.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the fact that there is no specific clause in the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1912, to prevent the transfer from the Colonial Civil Service to the Home Civil Service of a Civil servant who has passed the same competitive examination as the home Civil Servant, he will consider the question of balancing future transfers from the Home to the Colonial Civil Service by permitting transfers back from the Colonial Civil Service to the Colonial Office?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): As I have already indicated in previous replies to the hon. and gallant Member, no question of balancing arises as no transfer has been made to a Colonial cadet appointment.

  Stafford House.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has information that Stafford House has been purchased by a gentleman who intends to offer it to the nation; whether a definite offer has been made; and whether any information can be given on this matter?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner regrets that he cannot make any statement on this matter at present.
  Mr. KING: In order to allay difficulties and rumours, can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to make this an official residence for the Government Whips?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The answer given to the question was that the hon. Member could not make any statement.

  Veterinary Inspection.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any veterinary inspection for the local authorities enforcing the Public Health Act at Deptford, Birkenhead, and Bristol; and, if so, can he state, if such veterinary inspection under the Public Health Acts at the aforesaid places takes place, what numbers were condemned as unfit for the food of man and consequently confiscated?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I assume that the hon. Member's question, so far as regards Deptford, refers to the Foreign Cattle Market, which is actually within the Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich, but which is controlled by the Corporation of the City of London. I am informed that all animals landed at this market are examined by an inspector of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and that all carcases are inspected by a duly qualified meat inspector. During 1909, 1910, and 1911, eighteen, twenty-two, and fifteen entire carcases were condemned, and in addition a very small percentage of offal and organs was condemned. At Birkenhead a meat inspector with special training and long experience is engaged on this work. The number of carcases, parts of carcase and pieces of offal condemned in 1909, 1910, and 1911 were eighty-five, forty-four, and forty-seven, respectively, out of a total number of animals killed of 145,774, 90,330, and 79,215. At Bristol there are two meat inspectors, and the meat condemned in 1909, 1910, and 1911 consisted of 174, 152, and 219 whole carcases and odd pieces of meat. An inspector has also been appointed whose work consists exclusively in the examination of imported food-stuffs.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Were any Irish cattle included?
  Mr. LEWIS: I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with any information in my power.

  Adbaston Land (Messrs. Cadbury's Lease),
  Mr. LLOYDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the conditions under which Messrs. Cadbury lease land at Adbaston from the Haberdashers' Company; whether Messrs. Cadbury have erected on that land factories and buildings to the value of several thousands of pounds, that no rates or taxes are paid on that land by Messrs. Cadbury, that nothing is paid to the upkeep of the roads leading to the factories by Messrs. Cadbury; whether he received in June last a resolution from the Adbaston Parish Council on this matter; and whether he has so far replied to the resolution?
  Mr. H. LEWIS: I have received from the Adbaston Parish Council a copy of a resolution drawing attention to the erection of factories and cottages by the firm referred to on this estate, which I understand is vested in the Haberdashers' Company on a charitable trust, and suggesting that the exemption of the estate from rates and taxes should be abolished. I am advised that the only method of giving effect to this resolution would be by legislation to amend the local Act under which this exemption was granted.
  Mr. LLOYD: May I ask whether in view of the heavy burdens which are imposed upon local agriculture on account of the non-payment of rates for this important property the hon. Member will pass some legislation to that effect?
  Mr. LEWIS: The question of passing legislation does not rest with me.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it not be better to exempt from rates all the improvements in the parish of Adbaston and elsewhere in order to extend the principle—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for legislation.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Is the hon. Member aware that Messrs. Cadbury are able to pay rates to the local authority and taxes to the Imperial Exchequer, as a few years ago they made a fortune out of sweated slaves?
  Mr. STANIER: Can the hon. Member state what Charter or Act confers these privileges?
  Mr. LEWIS: It is an Act passed in the twelfth year of the reign of King Charles II.

  International Socialists (Meeting in Paris).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the hon. Member for Leicester attended a meeting of international Socialists at Paris last week, which was also attended by Austrian, German, and Russian representatives of revolutionary Socialism, who denounced war in general and the war in the Balkans in particular; and whether he considers the appointment of the said hon. Member to the Indian Public Services Commission desirable, in view of the effect his participation in its deliberations and decisions is likely to have upon Mahomedans and Hindus, as well as British, Mahomedan, and Hindu members of the public services?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing beyond what appears in the Press of the meeting referred to. The fact that it was attended by the hon. Member for Leicester does not seem to me to have any-bearing on his appointment to the Indian Commission.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect which the selection of a gentleman holding these views must have upon the peoples, ruling chiefs and the public service in India?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I can make out the view expressed by my hon. Friend was merely in favour of the general abolition of war.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentlemen who organise and attended this meeting were (he chosen representatives of revolutionary socialism?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing about the matter only what I have read in the Press. Perhaps the hon. Member will furnish me with the information.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman select some gentleman who at different periods of his life has represented all religions and all politics?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with personal questions and we cannot allow these personal matters to occupy be much time.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that the Territorial Force is still 40,000 men short of the number considered necessary by the Government, he can now see his way, as in the case of Woman Suffrage, to make universal compulsory military training a nonparty question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not disposed to apply the procedure adopted in the case of Woman Suffrage, upon which opinion in both the great political parties is strongly divided, to the case referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. HUNT: Is not opinion equally divided on this question, and will the right hon. Gentleman say why he insists upon making a matter on which the fate of the country depends a party question?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is this the official policy of the Opposition?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not make this a party question at all. I said the case of Woman Suffrage is peculiar, because opinion in the two great political parties is strongly divided.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he will not make this a party question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It does not rest with me to say what is or what is not a party question.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to make this a non-party question?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: With reference to the original question will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Secretary of State for War to tell us the exact number of men required?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord ought to put that question to the Secretary for War.

  Cholera.
  Sir H. CARLILEasked the President of the Local Government Board what special provisions are being made for guarding against the risk of cholera, now rampant in Turkey, being brought into this country; and whether, in view of the maritime traffic between Great Britain and the Black Sea, he is making any arrangements for detailed examination of crews and their

  469
  effects in all cases where the vessels have touched at the Golden Horn?
  Mr. LEWIS: The Regulations of the Local Government Board, dated 9th September, 1907, contain the provisions which are in force for protecting this country against cholera. These Regulations are based on the International Convention. Under the Regulations the Customs officer is required, on the arrival of a ship, to ascertain, so far as possible, whether the ship is an infected ship or has come from an infected port, and to question the captain. If he finds that the ship is an infected ship or suspected ship, he is required to detain the ship, and to inform the sanitary authority. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Regulations.
  Sir H. CARLILE: May I ask whether jus Department will consider the urgency of taking special precautions at the present time with reference to this matter?
  Mr. LEWIS: The Local Government Board are watching the situation very carefully, and the hon. Member may rely upon it the Department will take all necessary precautions.

  Poor Law Administration (Midland District).
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked if the lady inspector of boarded-out children in the midland district accepted an appointment under the National Insurance Act in August last; whether her successor has been appointed and when she took up her duties; and if no one has been appointed, or if her successor has not taken up her duties, what steps have been taken to prevent the children suffering in consequence?
  Mr. LEWIS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A lady has been offered and has accepted the vacant post, but she has not yet taken up her duties. Some alterations in the districts are in contemplation, and meanwhile temporary arrangements have been made for carrying on the work by means of the existing staff.
  Mr. BARLOW: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether the duties were in fact discharged from August up to this temporary appointment being made, and, if so, why?
  Mr. LEWIS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.

  Works Premises (Housing and Sanitary Requirements).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if it is in accordance with the regulations of the Board that strike breakers may be lodged on works premises; and, if not, what action it is proposed to take against the firm of Henry Livesey and Son, Green-bank Foundry, Blackburn, who have about fifty men living, feeding, and sleeping on the works premises?
  Mr. LEWIS: So far as I am aware, the matter is not one with which my Department is concerned. I have no authority to issue regulations such as are referred to in the question.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are there not regulations to be enforced by the Local Government Board, prescribing that a place must conform to certain by-laws before it can be inhabited?
  Mr. LEWIS: I do not know what are the regulations to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will be good enough to specify more clearly the regulations he has in mind, I shall be glad to go into the question.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are there not regulations under the Lodging Houses Act?
  Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware there are any regulations affecting the case which the hon. Member has raised.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Are there not the ordinary legislative requirements with regard to a dwelling, and is there not on record a case where the Local Government Board interfered under the same circumstances?
  Mr. LEWIS: The only way in which the matter could affect the local authority would be with regard to overcrowding. I am not aware of the circumstances in this case, and I do not know whether overcrowding takes place.
  Mr. CLYNES: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into the circumstances mentioned in the question?
  Mr. LEWIS: Yes.
  Mr. CROOKS: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Local Government Board did prohibit the use of a ship in the docks for the same purpose, as being insanitary and undesirable? This place must be insanitary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they have made no preparations for housing.

  Vaccination Officers (Remuneration).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of his decisions with regard to the loss of income sustained by the vaccination officers for the Bristol, Bedford, and Tewkesbury unions in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, it is still his wish that vaccination officers in other unions who have sustained a loss should complain direct to him with the view of his endeavouring to persuade boards of guardians to do what he considers right and proper; and whether he is aware that some boards of guardians have refused to act in accordance with his suggestions owing to his having refused to amend the Vaccination Order providing for the payment of a fee to these officers for recording certificates of exemption?
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend is always willing to consider representations from vaccination officers who have sustained losses due to the Vaccination Act, 1907, and who have applied unsuccessfully to their boards of guardians for compensation. A very small number of boards of guardians refused to grant compensation for the reason given in the question.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask whether the Local Government Board still thinks it is desirable to expect these vaccination officers to appeal to them to ask their employers, and whether that method is conducive to justice and fair play?
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the circumstances of this case and has decided it on its merits.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that the Local Government Board is now carrying out the policy of the President of that Department?
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend carefully considers every case that is brought before him and decides it on its merits.
  Mr. PETO: Does he think he is still treating these officers in a manner more than just and even generous?
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend considers in these measures he is meeting every reasonable requirement.

  Bromsgrove Workhouse.
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked, in view of the fact that last
  472
  April consideration was being given to the question of the removal of children of school age from Bromsgrove Workhouse, or proper accommodation being provided for infants within, and adequate fire exits being provided from the same workhouse, whether the school children have yet been removed, proper provision made for infants, and for staircases for use in case of fire; and the date when the Local Government Board first asked the Bromsgrove guardians to attend to these matters?
  Mr. LEWIS: The representations made by the Local Government Board to the Guardians in "this matter, either by correspondence or through the inspector for the district, extend over a period of some years. I addressed a letter to the guardians on the 24th September last, intimating that the matter could no longer be allowed to remain in abeyance. The subject has been under consideration by the guardians, but in the absence of a definite scheme to make provision for the children. I propose to take further steps at an early date.

  Postage Stamps.
  Mr. ALAN SYKESasked on what principle he makes a charge, over and above the actual face value of the stamps when he sells postage stamps in the roll in view of the fact that no such extra-charge is made for insurance stamps When sold in the roll?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is a distinction to be drawn between stamps bought for postal purposes, which is in the nature of a commercial transaction, and stamps bought for insurance purposes in fulfilment of a statutory obligation.

  Salford Branch Post Office.
  Mr. BARLOWasked whether, at the Salford branch post office, it is proposed to substitute for the supervisor at present in charge of that office an assistant supervisor, and to grant allowances to the sorting clerk and telegraphists who will take charge when the assistant supervisor is off duty, namely, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.; and, if so, why this course is to be adopted, seeing that the principle of allowances for the rank and file for supervision was condemned by the Tweedmouth Committee; and whether the work of Post Office officials has been largely increased by the Old Age Pensions Act, the National Insurance Act, and similar measures throwing additional burdens on the Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The appointment for supervisor at the Salford branch post office has been replaced by an assistant supervisorship, as the duties attaching to the post do not warrant the retention of the higher appointment. In view of the very small staff employed at the office it is not proposed to grant a supervising allowance as well. As regards the last part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my replies to somewhat similar questions on 6th June, 10th July, and 11th July, 1912. Suitable provision has, of course, been made on Post Office establishments for dealing with additional work arising in connection with Old Age Pension payments.
  Mr. BARLOW: In view of the general dissatisfaction which exists in many quarters, would the Postmaster-General be prepared to consider the question of an inquiry as to this increased duty and as to the discontent that exists?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member is referring to Salford particularly, I am not aware that any special discontent exists; and, with respect to the country generally, a Select Committee of the House of Commons is now inquiring into the conditions of postal servants.
  Mr. BARLOW: I said in view of the dissatisfaction general in many quarters.

  Cannock Post Office.
  Mr. LLOYDasked whether any representation has been received from the local authority as to the need for new and adequate post office accommodation at Cannock?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received representations on this subject, and I am at present having inquiry made.
  Mr. LLOYD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the local authority with regard to the necessary alteration?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The usual course will be followed.
  Mr. LLOYDasked whether the staff at Cannock post office has been depleted since the 9th September, and, as a consequence, continuous overtime has had to be worked by the present staff; and whether the delay in filling up the staff is due to the fact that the conditions of employment and the remuneration are less favourable at Cannock than at similar offices in the country?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A place for a female assistant became vacant on the 6th October, and since that date the duty has been covered by overtime, as explained in my reply to the hon. Member on the 24th October. The delay in filling the vacancy is not due to any difference in pay and conditions of employment at Cannock as compared with other offices of the same class, but to the fact that the candidate who was first selected as having a special claim to the post subsequently declined to leave the place where she is now stationed. There are other suitable candidates, and I hope that the appointment will be filled very shortly.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what was the average number per 100 unestablished telephone employés of vacancies in the established service for the years 1910 and 1911, and how many promotions have been made from unestablished to established positions in the course of the current year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Progress from the unestablished to the established class of telephonists is not a matter of promotion, but takes place automatically after the completion of two years satisfactory service.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question and give me the average number of vacancies per 100?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All the telephonists are to be established after two years. If the hon. Member refers to any ether class of employés, perhaps he will put a question down.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the total number of supervisors, assistant supervisors Class 1, and assistant supervisors Class 2, employed in the General Post Office Telephone Department at the present date, and the number of ex National Telephone Company's officers appointed supervisors, assistant supervisors Class 1, and assistant-supervisors Class 2?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The total number of officers at present borne on these three classes is 868, of whom 567 are officers transferred from the National Telephone Company.
  Mr. BARLOW: Are all those transferred from the National Telephone Company in

  475
  these classes being employed at the present time on work of a similar character to that they did under the company?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; I think so.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that he has promised to the 1,174 officers transferred from the late National Telephone Company, who have been placed into grades where they already exceed the maxima, that they should retain the maxima paid by the National Telephone Company for the duties which they are now performing, if it is intended that officers subsequently promoted to those duties shall receive the same National Telephone Company's maxima as the 1,174 officers now performing those duties, or is it his intention to have these officers perform duties at a less rate of salary than that paid by the National Telephone Company?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The maxima announced by the National Telephone Company will be recognised by the Post Office only in the case of those officers who were at the time of transfer actually borne upon the classes concerned.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General, if he will state the approximate number of men, and their average years of service, who were taken over from the late National Telephone Company, and who have been, or will be, called upon to sign an application which contains a statement that the applicant, having been selected for employment as an unskilled labourer, is aware that his services may be discontinued without notice; and that his employment does not give him any claim to an appointment, or entitle him to promotion, to compensation under the Superannuation Acts for loss of office, or to pension?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The form to which reference is made is the one ordinarily signed by persons accepting positions as labourer in the Post Office Engineering Department. It was not intended that officers transferred from the National Telephone Company should sign such a form; and if they have been required to do so in any district, this has been the result of inadvertence. As, however, they are subject to the conditions of employment of the class in which they are placed the signing of the form will not affect their position in any way.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I can show the right hon. Gentleman that men have been asked to sign these papers, will he stop the practice?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly. It must have been done inadvertently.
  Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of withdrawing the offensive term "unskilled" in connection with this form?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know whether it is offensive, but I will consider the point.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Postmaster-General whether an application was made in August for the telephone to be fitted to Ripon Lodge Nursing Home, Dulwich; whether a promise was made that the same should be installed within ten days; whether, after repeated application, intimation has been given that the same cannot be fitted for at least six months; and if, in consequence of the necessity of such an institution being connected, he will take steps to have the installation fitted without further delay?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I find that the agreement was signed on 13th September last, but the completion of the work has been unavoidably delayed through the necessity for providing new underground plant in the district. The work will probably be completed in about three weeks time.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the number of officers transferred from the late National Telephone Company, and who were classified by the late National Telephone Company as either chief operator, monitor supervisor, or clerk-in-charge, and who have now been classified by the Department as telephonist with supervising allowance?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number is 129.

  Cable Rates (Australia).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Governor-General of Australia has been asked to inform the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Commonwealth Government do not consider that the concessions as regards cable rates, referred to in the speech delivered by the Postmaster-General on the 3rd April last, fulfil the expectations raised in the minds

  477
  of those who attended the Imperial Conference, with respect to the reductions mentioned in Resolution 15, and that the Commonwealth Government is in favour of a State-owned Atlantic cable, and is of opinion that a conference should be called to consider the matter in the terms of Resolution 15; whether he has been informed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that such a dispatch has been received; and, if so, what reply has been made to the request of the Commonwealth Government that a subsidiary conference should be called to consider the matter in (he terms of Resolution 15?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been called to the dispatch from the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia to which the hon. Member refers. Since that dispatch was sent considerable further reductions have been effected in the Transatlantic cable rates, and certain new arrangements are contemplated by the Pacific Cable Board. The Government are suspending their reply to the Australian Government pending the completion of those arrangements.

  Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General what further steps his Department has taken to compensate the widowed mother of the late James B. Williamson, a clerk in the sea-going post office, drowned in the "Titanic" disaster; whether the legal difficulties presented when last an inquiry was made have been surmounted; and what is the total compensation it is proposed to award this sorely stricken family for the great loss they sustained?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am advised that the case of Mr. Williamson does not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I am therefore precluded from making any compensation payment to the relatives of the deceased officer out of the public funds beyond the amount of £165 already paid. I understand, however, that the case will be considered by the committee which is administering the Mansion House "Titanic" Relief Fund.
  Mr. FARRELL: If this family takes the usual legal proceedings, will the right hon. Gentleman feel it his duty to resist them in the Courts?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid that the Department would have no other
  478
  course open to it in view of the legal opinions it has obtained.
  Mr. FARRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken legal advice since the question appeared on the Paper?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The matter has been most carefully considered by our legal advisers.

  Marconi Contract.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the Postmaster-General whether the first Marconi tender was signed in January last; whether none of the Dominions have entered into a contract with the Marconi Company; and whether he has himself given currency to either or both of these statements?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These statements which have appeared in the "National Review, "and have been reproduced textually in the "Spectator, "are totally false, like much else that has been written with reference to this contract. No agreement of any kind was made with the Marconi Company with respect to these stations until 7th March, 1912, when their tender, in general terms, was accepted, the contract itself being signed on the 19th July. I have made no reference to any tender having been signed in January. The South African Government is participating in the contract, and the statement which I am alleged to have made with respect to the Dominions is a mere invention.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General whether, on or about the 5th instant, a notice was issued by the Post Office forbidding Post Office servants throughout the United Kingdom from holding any office, paid or unpaid, in any friendly society which is, or a separate section of which is, an approved society under the National Insurance Act; if so, if many friendly societies will be injuriously affected by this order in respect that they will be deprived of the benefit of the business abilities of Post Office servants at present connected with them; and whether, in the circumstances, he is prepared to have the order withdrawn or modified?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The notice to which the hon. Member refers applies only to persons employed on Post Office

    479
    work who have dealings with the public across the counter. I do not think that an officer who may have, in the course of his official duty, to issue insurance cards to insured persons should have an interest in any particular approved society. But in cases where Post Office servants held office in friendly societies before the Insurance Act came into force, and those friendly societies have now become approved societies for the purposes of the Act, the persons concerned will not be required to relinquish their offices unless public complaint or difficulty should arise.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT (LINCOLNSHIRE).
    Mr. FRANCIS M'LARENasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for sanatorium treatment have been made from insured persons in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire; and how many are now in receipt of treatment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Two applications only have been received from insured persons in the district in question. Of these one was in so advanced a stage of consumption that he died before he could be removed, and the other is now receiving treatment.

    EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS (SCOTLAND).
    Major HOPEasked how many employed contributors in Scotland have been permitted to pay the reduced contributions under Clause 47 of the National Insurance Act, and how many of these are agricultural labourers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It will not be possible to give the number of employed contributors in Scotland to whom the provisions of Section 47 apply until the first quarter's cards have all been received and scrutinised, but 554 employers have adopted the provisions of the Section, 206 of these in respect of farm servants.
    Major HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many employés these figures represent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not until the cards have been examined—a few weeks hence.

    INSURANCE COMMISSION STAFF (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. HOGGEasked how many persons have been appointed to the staff of the National Insurance Commission (Scotland), distinguishing between the different
    480
    grades and stating the nature of the employment; whether he can state the names and salaries of such persons respectively, and the nature of their occupations previous to their appointment: whether they all, or which of them, passed a competitive examination, and when respectively; in the case of those who did not pass a competitive examination, what special qualifications they had for their appointment, how many civil servants were appointed, how many from outside, and how many applications were there for the positions filled?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I propose to issue a Memorandum with regard to appointments under the Scottish Commission, giving similar information to that promised in the case of appointments under the English Commission in answer to the hon. Members for Southport and St. Pancras (South) on 7th, 8th, and 19th November.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (SHEFFIELD AND BIRMINGHAM).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state on what grounds the National Insurance Commissioners have allowed the Sheffield Masters' Rating and Taxing Association and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce to establish a central office for the workshop approved societies in Sheffield and Birmingham; and whether he is aware that the consent of the members of those societies, who will have to bear the cost of these central offices, has not been obtained?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that such a central office has been established. Under their rules each of the Sheffield and Birmingham approved societies has its own offices, which could not be changed without an amendment of rules being duly submitted to the Commissioners and subsequently passed by the society. No such amendment has been submitted, and no proposal for a central office has reached the Commission.
    Mr. POINTER: Seeing that the secretaries of the societies are complaining that this has actually been done, will the right hon. Gentleman cause further inquiry to be made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have given the answer on the facts as supplied to me. I will certainly inquire further.

    NEEDLE TRADE.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked under what Section of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Unemployment Insurance), and under what regulations if any, issued pursuant thereto, workmen in the needle trade engaged in making hubs and dies are compelled to insure against unemployment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a decision of the Umpire that workmen described as needle tool makers and engaged wholly or mainly in the work of making dies to be used in the manufacture of needles are liable to contribute under Part II. of the National Insurance Act. In accordance with Sections 91 (1) and 101 (6) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the Unemployment Insurance (Umpire) Regulations, 1912, the Umpire appointed by the Crown, under Section 89 of the Act, is alone empowered to give an authoritative decision on the question whether contributions under Part II. of the Act are payable in respect of any class of workmen.
    Mr. G. LLOYD: Is there but one single authority to deal with these doubtful cases and that the Umpire? Is there any appeal from him?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Umpire is the authority appealed to. There is another question with regard to appeals which I will answer presently.

    APPEALS AGAINST UMPIRE'S DECISIONS.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether any appeal is possible under the National Insurance Act, 1911 (unemployment insurance), against a decision of the Umpire, including a particular class of workmen, when that decision is objected to by both the workmen and the employers concerned?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There is no appeal from a decision of the Umpire; but I may point out that provision is made in the Unemployment Insurance Regulations whereby application may at any time be made to the Umpire for the revision of any decision previously given by him.

    COUNTY INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Captain MURRAYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether a desire has been expressed that the travelling expenses of
    482
    members of county health insurance committees should be paid from moneys specially provided by Parliament; and whether he will favourably consider this request?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have nothing to add at present to the previous answers which I have given to this question.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT (HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked whether the Commission appointed to consider the position of the Highlands of Scotland, with reference to the medical benefits under the National Insurance Act, have finished their inquiry; whether their Report has now been presented; and, if not, when it is likely to be presented?
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if the reference was not with regard to medical services, and not to medical benefits under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the Insurance Act was the reason for appointing the Commission, but the Noble Lord is quite accurate in saying that the reference was rather larger than with regard to the Insurance Act. I understand that the inquiry referred to is finished, and that the Report is now being drafted, and will shortly be presented.

    HEALTH INSURANCE OFFICERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked whether health insurance officers on a salary of £80 a year have to do a considerable amount of travelling every day, and that they are unable, as a rule, to get to their homes for a mid-day meal; if any allowance is made for travelling and subsistence; and, if not, will consideration be given to the need of this, in view of the low salary and the fact that most of these officers are married men?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Health insurance officers are entitled to travelling expenses from their headquarters (which in the great majority of cases are at present their homes) and to a day allowance of 3s. 4d. for necessary absence exceeding ten hours more than five miles from headquarters. Subsistence allowance is given at the rate of 10s. in the case of absence not exceeding fourteen nights in any one place or 6s. 8d. in the ease of absence exceeding fourteen nights in any one place.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the matter be inquired into, with special reference to the case of these officers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am quite willing to make further inquiries.

    AUDITORS' EXAMINATION FEES.
    Mr. WARDLEasked whether the fee of £3 charged examinees for the position of senior assistant auditor under the National Insurance Act was charged to the whole of the men who sat for this examination; to what purpose was the money devoted; whether such fees will be returned to the unsuccessful candidates; and whether those who, not in the first eighty, gained sufficient marks to qualify have any chance of subsequent appointment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. These fees, like other fees for Civil Service examinations, are applied towards defraying the cost of the examination. The answer to the third question is in the negative, and the answer to the fourth in the affirmative—indeed, seventeen additional vacancies are now under offer to the unsuccessful candidates next in order of merit.

    DRUGS MEDICINES, AND APPLLIANCES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether any and which insurance committee has made provision for the supply of proper and sufficient drugs and medicines and prescribed appliances to insured persons under the National Insurance Act; whether any, and which, insurance committee has yet published a list of the persons and firms who have agreed to supply drugs, medicines, and appliances within its area; and whether any and which committee has fixed a scale of prices therefor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. The Commissioners are communicating with the insurance committees on the subject.

    PUBLICATIONS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will publish a list giving shortly in the titles the main objects of all explanatory leaflets, statutory rules and orders, model rules and rules, draft regulations, provisional regulations and regulations, orders, special orders, draft orders, draft special orders, and amended draft orders,
    484
    circulars and amended circulars, memoranda lists and supplements, forms, provisional forms, and amended forms, published or issued by the Joint Commissioners, the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish Commissioners, the Local Government Board, the Admiralty, and the War Office?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer to a similar question put by the hon. Member on the 23rd October last.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to issue a list, as otherwise how-can any hon. Member keep track of all these numerous documents?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps in a few weeks' time I may be able to do something of permanent value.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the meanwhile will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of the documents issued?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If there is a general wish for it I will do so.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How is it possible for Members of the House to know whether the documents are sent to them if they have no list to refer to?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that if there is any general wish among Members for such a list I will issue it.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: How is the general wish to be ascertained?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have ascertained a good many general wishes on these printing matters in the last few months.

    INSURED PERSONS (IRELAND).
    Colonel HICKMANasked whether all workers in Ireland who come under the provisions of the National Insurance Act are now insured under the Act; if not, how many are insured; and how many-prosecutions have taken place in consequence?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of employed contributors for whom contributions have been duly paid in Ireland cannot be stated until the first quarter's cards have been returned and scheduled. Proceedings have been instituted in seven cases.

    FARM LABOURERS.
    Mr. JAMES PARKERasked whether the National Insurance Commissioners have received any complaints from the Agricultural Labourers' and Rural Workers' Union with respect to the action of some farmers in deducting 4d. from the wages of labourers in their employment, the wages of such labourers being only 2s. 2d. per day, or 13s. for a six-day week; and, if so, what action is contemplated by the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Several complaints of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend have been received. In some cases the employers have now undertaken to proceed in conformity with the provisions of the National Insurance Act. As regards other cases, inquiries are still in progress.

  Scottish Universities.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what powers the Lords of the Treasury claim to have in the internal management of the Scottish universities; and, if they do not make any claim how they justify their recent correspondence about the establishment of an inclusive fee for medicine in these universities; (2) why the Lords of the Treasury did not consult the Secretary for Scotland before they wrote refusing additional Grants to Edinburgh University unless the university adopted an inclusive fee in medicine and the applied sciences, and (3) if any representations have been pressed upon the Lords of the Treasury by the Carnegie Trust favourable to the adoption of an inclusive fee in medicine at the Scottish universities; and whether the proposed inclusive fee has been suggested solely or partly with a view to the convenience of that trust?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Treasury make no claim to deal with the internal arrangements of the Scottish universities, but they are charged with the duty of laying down such principles as seem advisable as a condition of asking Parliament to vote Grants of public money. The inclusive fee was adopted as a condition of the additional Grant before the money-was voted by Parliament in 1911–12 and 1912–13, and was accepted in principle by the Scottish universities. No representations were received from the Carnegie Trust in the matter. If any objection to the principle is felt by any body of Scottish
  486
  opinion I shall be glad to hear any representations they may wish to make on the subject.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the Edinburgh and the Glasgow Universities have already sent in representations against this?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No representations have been made to me. Perhaps I may receive them after the publication of the answer to this question.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received any communication from the Council of Glasgow University?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has not reached me personally.
  Mr. WHYTE: Has there not been correspondence with the University of Edinburgh pointing out their extreme disapproval of this?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to have notice of these questions.
  Dr. ADDISON: Is not the payment of an inclusive fee the best way of avoiding difficulty?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I will enter into that controversy now.

  Unemployment in Needle Trade.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked what number of men are engaged in the needle trade in making hubs and dies, and what has been the average of unemployment among them for the last five years?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Information is not available with regard to the particular occupations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but from the monthly Reports published in the Board of Trade "Labour Gazette" it appears that employment in the needle trade at Redditch has fallen off slightly during the last six months, although it is still described as "fairly good. "In the rest of the last five years it has followed the course of trade generally, being quiet in 1908, fair in 1909, and good throughout 1910 and 1911 and up to April of this year. No statistics can be given as to the number of persons employed in making hubs and dies or as to the percentage unemployed among them.

  Civil Service (Superannuation Act, 1887).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the annual number of gratuities granted under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 during the past ten years; and the annual amount of money so paid?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The average annual number of gratuities is 1,607, and the average annual expenditure is £44,731.

  Customs and Excise (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the departmental committee, appointed in August, 1911, under paragraph 266 of the Hobhouse Report on the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise departments, has made its Report; what is the cause of the delay in issuing the general order; and from which date the new conditions will take effect?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Committee has reported on the subject of overtime pay, and the general order has already been issued. The new conditions will take effect from 1st December next.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OFFER OF "DREADNOUGHTS" (INDIA)
    Mr. FELLasked if the question of the offer of one or more "Dreadnoughts" by the Empire of India must first come before the India Office in London or before the Government in India; and if the question of such an offer is at present under consideration by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would be within the competence cither of the Government of India or of the India Office to raise the question, though a definite offer could not be made without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council. The question has not been raised, and I understand that the view of the Indian authorities is that the share of the defence expenditure of the Empire as a whole already borne by India is on a sufficiently high scale and should, if possible, not be increased.

    MEDITERRANEAN.
    Mr. LLOYDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether at any time since 28th September the total complement of British armoured ships in the Mediterranean was only three, and that, of these three, one was a cadets' training ship, the "Cumberland."
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): That was the state of affairs between the 17th October and the 3rd November, if no account is taken of armoured cruisers refitting at Gibraltar.
    Mr. LLOYD: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that is a sufficient naval force for the Mediterranean at that time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Most ample for all purposes.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked whether it was the policy of the Government at the beginning of this year, and before the presentation of the current Naval Estimates, practically to withdraw our battleships from the Mediterranean; whether the programme of new construction for the year was based upon this policy of withdrawal; and whether, that policy having been reversed since the visit of himself and the Prime Minister to the Mediterranean in June last, and it being the expressed intention of the Government to maintain our position in the Mediterranean to as full an extent as we have ever done in the past, the present programme of new construction is adequate for discharging this duty and at the same time for maintaining a sufficient margin of superiority in the North Sea?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is in no disrespect to the hon. Member that I must decline to attempt to deal with an argumentative question of this character otherwise than in Debate. Very full explanations of naval policy have been given to Parliament this year, and the time do not far distant when the Estimates of another year must be presented. It is then that the opportunity to review the whole situation will arise. Meanwhile it is sufficient to state that the withdrawal of the battleships from the Mediterranean had nothing to do with the new construction programme.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Are we to take it that no information is to be given across the floor in answer to questions in regard to naval matters?
    Earl WINTERTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, can he say whether he will not consider asking the Prime Minister for a day on which we can discuss these matters, having regard to the uncertainty when next Session will commence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All the necessary opportunities must arise when the Estimates are presented. That will be quite soon enough to discuss these matters. They were only discussed when we separated in July.
    Earl WINTERTON: Have not events greatly changed since July?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Any change there has been has only been in the direction of one of the strongest Fleets we have ever had in our history being placed there.
    Sir J. D. REES: Have there not been political changes?

    GERMAN NAVY ESTIMATES.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked whether the German Naval Estimates for the next financial year will amount to £23,800,000, showing an increase of about £1,750,000 over the current year; and whether any part of this amount is to be devoted to enlarging the German building programme for 1913?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The German Naval Estimates for 1913–14 have not yet been presented to the Reichstag, and it would therefore be premature to make any statements or draw any inferences in regard to them.

JAMAICA.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I wish to ask the Secretary for the Colonies a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely; Whether he can give the House any information as to the disasters which are reported to have occurred in Jamaica, and especially as to the state of things in Savanna la Mar?
Mr. HARCOURT: I regret to say there has been a disaster in Jamaica. I hope it will prove, when we get further news, to be less severe than was indicated in some Press reports. I have received the following telegram from the Governor of Jamaica:—
"Nine days' heavy rains and winds culminating in very severe storm near west end of island, Great destruction of cottages and plantations and some loss of life reported there. Means of communication not restored yet) fully. I am proceeding west end to-day. Damage to crops serious throughout island, but rains advantageous."
I will keep the House informed of any further news I receive.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what is to be the business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, we shall continue the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill.
  On Thursday, we shall resume consideration of the Motion allocating time to the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  As to Friday, I will answer later.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the Prime Minister make a statement about business on Monday after the Home Rule Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There will be nothing on Monday.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    SEVENTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 11th November.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    FINANCE.

      Clause 14.—(Irish Revenue and Expenditure.)
      (1) There shall be an Irish Exchequer and an Irish Consolidated Fund separate from those of the United Kingdom.
      (2) The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland, whether under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Irish Parliament, shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, but subject, as hereinafter provided, there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof in each year to the Irish Exchequer a sum (in this Act referred to as "the Transferred Sum") consisting of—

      (a) such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board) to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services; and

      (b) a sum of five hundred thousand pounds, diminishing in each year
      528
      after the third year of payment by the sum of fifty thousand pounds until it is reduced to the sum of two hundred thousand pounds; and

      (c) a sum equal to the proceeds as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board of any Irish taxes imposed in Ireland by the Irish Parliament under the powers given to them by this Act.

      (3) Provision shall be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost of Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any Grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament, of the United Kingdom so far as made for those services shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I point out that owing to the restricted form of the Resolution passed by the House a number of Amendments on the Paper would be outside the powers of this Committee. The Amendments I refer to are one in the name of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), one in the name of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien), one in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott), one in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor), and two in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell). The Amendments which I propose to take are, first, one in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) [Sub-section (2), after the word "taxes," to insert the words "and all other revenues"]; secondly, the one in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) [Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "consisting," and to insert the words "which, subject to the following deductions—

      (i.) the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services; and

      (ii.) a contribution of one-thirtieth to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland thereto—

      shall consist"]; and one in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Hewins).
      Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, that in Sub-section (2), after the word "taxes" ["The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland"], to insert the words "and all other revenues."
      There are two consequent Amendments, one adding the words "or raised" after the word "levied," in the same line, and the second adding an extra paragraph to this effect—
      (b) a sum equal to the proceeds of all revenue other than taxes raised in Ireland; and.
      I feel that the Government ought to welcome any possible safeguard which can be put into the Bill, and that they ought also to do their best to stop any possible gap or loophole in the financial provisions which possibly might add some unforeseen burden upon British taxpayers in the future. I submit that this is a very reasonable and a very moderate Amendment. The Government have actually drafted their Bill so as to allow for the proceeds of taxes only to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer, but in the White Paper which accompanied the publication of the Home Rule Bill the Treasury Estimate allows for items which really are not taxes at all. For instance, they estimate £112,000 for miscellaneous revenue, and this sum includes £81,000 for stamps collected by the Irish Post Office and £31,000 for other items of revenue, which certainly cannot be considered as taxes at all, and which therefore would remain in the Imperial Exchequer under the Bill, although they are due to the Irish Exchequer under the Government's own scheme. The latter sum of £31,000 includes £29,000 for the expenses of administration of local loans, £500 for old age pensions—I do not know exactly what it means—£500 for sundry small items, and another item of £1,000. Therefore, really this omission from the Bill makes some such Amendment as this really reasonable and necessary if the Government want to carry out their intentions under the scheme they put before Parliament. But there is really a more important point than this. If this Amendment is accepted by the Government, the effect would be that all future Irish revenues, of whatever kind, whether raised by taxation or otherwise, would be paid into the Imperial Exchequer. If this is done, the revenues from the Post Office would, therefore, pass into the Imperial Exchequer also, and the whole payment of the cost of the Post Office would be included in the Transferred Sum. As the Clause stands it is not at all clear how
      530
      much is going to pass over to the Irish Exchequer in the Transferred Sum in respect of Post Office expenditure. In fact, it seems to me that unless this Amendment is accepted, the Irish Exchequer might collect the whole of the Post Office revenue in Ireland and yet receive the whole cost of the Post Office expenditure in Ireland in the Transferred Sum as well. This cannot possibly be the intention of the Government. In fact, I am certain it is not. In the financial statement which accompanies the Bill it appears that the Post Office in Ireland costs about £1,600,000 a year and the revenue is only £1,354,000, thus leaving a deficit in the expenditure of £246,000. Presumably the Government will say that they intend to include in the Transferred Sum an amount equal only to this deficit, thus enabling the Irish Government to balance Post Office expenditure and Post Office revenue, but by a later provision in the Clause a sum equal to the net cost of Irish services is to be handed over to the Irish Exchequer. It is quite clear that if the net cost is interpreted as the total cost the Transferred Sum would include not merely the postal deficit of £246,000, but it would be increased by a sum equal to the whole cost of the Post Office in Ireland, amounting to an extra £1,600,000, thus raising the Transferred Sum by an enormous amount. The Government cannot possibly intend that that really should be the case under their Bill. Any way, I do not think any doubt ought to be left in the matter, especially when immense annual sums are concerned and especially seeing that in the future there will be forty-two representatives from Ireland in this House to interpret the various Clauses of the Government of Ireland Act.
      4.0 P.M.
      There is another point which I think is more important than either of the other two. Under the Bill the Irish Parliament may reduce Imperial taxes and, if the proceeds diminish in consequence, the Transferred Sum is to be reduced by a like amount. The Government apparently think that that provision will safeguard the interests of the Imperial Exchequer. I am not at all sure that it will. The more the Transferred Sum is reduced the less security will there be for all the various contingent charges upon it under the provisions of the Bill, and these charges after all are extremely important. In addition to any reduction which is to be made in the Transferred Sum, supposing the Irish Parliament choose to reduce the Imperial tax, you have the whole of the charges on

      531
      the Transferred Sum in respect of land purchase falling upon the Imperial Exchequer and the Guarantee Fund. You have all the expenses connected with the service and management of loans. You have all the expenses in connection with pensions and with existing Civil Servants, and you have all the expenses in connection with any possible loss on the Irish Church Fund and various other contingent charges to which the Transferred Sum may be liable. The Government may say that there is no chance of the Irish Parliament materially reducing Imperial taxation, because the Irish Exchequer would suffer by the diminished sum. But it is quite conceivable that the Irish Parliament might be able to find a quid pro quo for that reduction of the Transferred Sum if they choose, as they can quite well under the Bill reduce Imperial taxation to any extent, and if they did take this step Imperial revenues from Ireland might very largely disappear altogether. For instance, the Irish Parliament might raise money—in fact they could raise money—under the Bill which might never pass into the Imperial Exchequer at all, and if that was the case these sums of money would escape the burdens of having to act as a security for the contingent charges to which the Transferred Sum is now liable. For instance, all kinds of monopolies might be created by the Irish Parliament—a subject which the Government were very careful to guillotine and not allow the House to discuss when Clause 2 was under discussion, and which certainly in the last two days they absolutely failed to deal with satisfactorily. Other countries have set up monopolies. In France you have the tobacco monopoly, as well as the match monopoly. In Turkey you have the tobacco monopoly. In Germany you have the potato spirit monopoly, and, as the Postmaster-General pointed out the other day, you have also in that country the forests monopoly, which brings in about £20,000,000 sterling a year. In Germany they have also State railways which are another very important monopoly. In fact no less than 30 per cent. of the railways of the world are owned by the different Governments, as an expert pointed out the other day in a letter to the "Times." Last, but not least, the United States of America are going to have a great canal monopoly, and it seems to me that in Ireland it would be equally easy
      532
      to set up monopolies. Monopolies might be set up for the sale of spirits, matches, tobacco, and various other products. These products have been extremely productive of revenue in other countries, and I do not see why they should not be made equally productive in Ireland, if established. As in Turkey they could arrange one price for internal consumption and another for export, and if they did not do that, they could make other arrangements under which revenue would be derived. If still further revenue was required the railways might be nationalised and run for the purpose of providing a very large revenue to the Irish Exchequer. Waterways and harbours might be treated in the same way. Harbour dues might go into the Irish Exchequer in exactly the same way as canal dues will probably go into the Exchequer of the United States in future.
      It is quite clear that if such a course is taken in Ireland the Irish Government could starve the Imperial Exchequer by reducing Imperial taxation, and at the same time supply the loss on the Transferred Sum through these other sources. By doing so they could diminish the security for the various charges on the Transferred Sum to practically any extent they liked. Therefore, I do feel on these grounds that it is enormously important that all Irish revenues should flow into the Imperial Exchequer, whether tax revenues or non-tax revenues. After all there is nothing in the least revolutionary in the Amendment. At present the whole of the revenues go into the Imperial Exchequer, and this Amendment asks that the same procedure should be followed in future as has been followed in the past. Under the Bill new Irish taxes have to be paid into, the Imperial Exchequer, and so I really cannot see that Ireland would have any valid objection to the other revenues going into the same locker, especially as a consequential Amendment has been carefully put down in respect of the same Clause providing that these revenues after going to the Imperial Exchequer should be paid out again to the Irish Exchequer. It seems to me it would add very little work to the Imperial Exchequer, and that it would give very little administrative difficulty to the Irish Government. It would be merely a matter of bock-keeping from start to finish, and therefore I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member has moved the Amendment in terms so moderate and enticing that it is a matter of regret to me that I am unable to accept it. The Bill as it stands provides that the tax revenue of Ireland shall flow into the Imperial Exchequer, but that so much of the revenue of Ireland as is not derived from taxes—that is to say, in the main the Post Office revenue, and the revenue from such things as Court fees—should not first go into the Imperial Exchequer and be paid out again, but should be collected by the Irish Government itself and should remain in their hands. I do not think the hon. Member has in any degree succeeded in showing that there is any reason for the additional complication which would occur by requiring that all the revenues should be brought into the Imperial Exchequer and paid out again. Of course, if the hon. Member were to advance the argument that it is inadvisable that the Post Office should be in the hands of the Irish Government at all, that is an arguable matter which has been discussed on several occasions; but that point does not arise on this occasion, and the question is, assuming that the arrangements under the Bill will be as proposed by the Government, and, assuming that the Post Office for internal purposes will be in the hands of the Irish Government, whether it is advisable that the drawings of the Irish Post Office should be paid into the Imperial Exchequer and paid out again into the Irish Exchequer. The hon. Member suggests that there would be some danger of the Irish Government finding new sources of revenue other than from taxes, and that they might get a considerable independent income of their own which would make them independent of the Transferred Sum, and which would enable them to repeal Imperial taxes to such an extent as to greatly diminish the Transferred Sum. Is that really a conceivable hypothesis?
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I said it would diminish the security.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: You can only diminish the security by diminishing the sum itself. So long as the sum remains, the security remains. It is the sum that is the security. The hon. Member gave some illustrations as to the creation of monopolies. He mentioned the possibility of getting revenue from canals. The total revenue of the Irish Government is estimated at £7,500,000, and of that the Post Office revenue is £1,300,000,
      534
      which is already allowed for. Fee stamps amount to £300,000 and they are already allowed for. The Transferred Sum is over £6,000,000. Does the hon. Member really ask the Committee seriously to imagine that the Irish Government once in office would replace that £6,000,000 of revenue, or any appreciable proportion of it, by such devices as those he has mentioned, and diminish the amount to be paid over to them from the Imperial Exchequer to such an extent as to render the Transferred Sum no longer adequate security for the payment of the pensions of judges, and possible purchases under the Land Purchase Act? Surely the hypothesis is altogether inconceivable. The hon. Member has further suggested that the Bill as it stands might bear an interpretation which would enable the Irish Exchequer to receive in the Transferred Sum all the cost of running the Irish Post Office, and also as non-tax revenue the revenue of that Post Office—that it would be receiving from the Imperial Exchequer all the outgoings on the Post Office in Ireland, while at the same time it was receiving all the income of that Post Office, and therefore making a profit of about £1,500,000 a year. That is, of course, equally impossible, for the Bill clearly says that the amount to be embodied in the Transferred Sum is to depend upon the net cost, and not upon the gross cost, of the services transferred to the Irish Government. That is inserted specially to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding on this point. If we had said merely the cost, it might have been said that we were to pay over the whole of the Post Office expenditure, which is £1,600,000. Instead of that we are to pay £250,000, to enable their accounts to balance on that head of administration. I think those are the only arguments which the hon. Member has really advanced.
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with miscellaneous revenue which is not tax revenue?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the miscellaneous revenue consists of Appropriations in-Aid, which arises from such things as Court fees and any incidental small heads of income that come from the administration of any Irish service, they go automatically into the Irish Exchequer. That would be a very small amount. I do not remember any items at the moment, but there may possibly be some. Anything

      535
      else would automatically fall into the Imperial Exchequer, and it would not require special legislation. I do not think any modification of the Bill is required to meet any particular point. If the hon. Member has any particular head of revenue—
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I mentioned some.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was not able to detect in his speech any head of revenue which would not automatically and as a matter of course fall into the Imperial Exchequer. If it would fall into the Imperial Exchequer as a matter of course, it is unnecessary that the Bill should provide specifically for that.
      Earl WINTERTON: As I gathered the point of the right hon. Gentleman in referring to sources of revenue which might be created under the Irish Parliament, it was that these sources would be very small indeed compared with the sum of about £7,000,000 at issue. It is conceivable that the Irish Government might nationalise such things as railways and harbours. I have a case in point. There have been during the last ten years very considerable alterations in the ports of Ireland owing to the extension of the ocean services. If these harbours were nationalised, the revenue of the Irish Government might be considerable indeed. There are some ports in England where the revenue is £250,000. I do not see anything in the Bill to prevent the railways being nationalised in order to bring a considerable sum of money to the Irish Government. In France and other foreign countries there are sources of revenue from monopolies, and the right hon. Gentleman denied that that was the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was part of his case that there were not monopolies created in foreign countries and from which large revenues were received. There are such monopolies as the match monopoly in France. Everyone knows that you are unable to obtain decent matches in France because of the Government monopoly. They raise a large sum of money there from that monopoly. They have even forbidden the use of automatic lighters owing to this monopoly. We on this side of the House want to know what safeguard we have under the Bill as it stands that the creation of monopolies will not be encouraged by the Irish Government. This is a much more important point than
      536
      hon. Members seem to imagine. The mere fact that the total revenue is only £7,000,000, and that you can raise such a large sum of money from revenue producing things of this kind gives very considerable strength to the case of the Amendment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have answered more fully the point of my hon. Friend. What is the logical difference between revenue which is raised from Crown land, court fees and things of that kind and the revenue raised by taxation? From the point of revenue there is no logical difference. Unless this Amendment is adopted the Bill leaves open a very large hole for the Government of Ireland to get out of their obligations and raise a large sum of money under certain circumstances from things which the Committee would not sanction if the matter were fully before them. I hope that before we go to a Division we shall have the case of harbours and railways dealt with.
      Mr. KING: I think it rather early to go to a Division and therefore I venture to take up the challenge of the Noble Lord and say with regard to monopolies that many of us would like them Personally, I think they are an extremely good kind of taxation and I should not mind having even the matches a monopoly, just as they are in France, if I knew that I was paying less Income Tax. I think that that is the opinion of a good many people. With regard to the proposal as to canals is it at all likely that canals in Ireland would ever be a large and important industry, with harbours all round the coast and no inland mines or large manufactures. I think the prospect of a large income from Irish canals may be put out of court at once. Hon. Members opposite are always telling us that this Bill will never become law. If that is so, why do they trouble us with terrible, suspicions of what is going to happen immediately when it does come into law? I cannot see it. I should rather suggest to them that if they really do not believe that this Bill will ever become law they should take up other matters in which they profess themselves to be interested.
      Mr. LARDNER: The scope of this Amendment is entirely a question of non-tax revenue. Under that head the services dealt with are Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone services amounting to about £1,020,000 per annum, and added to that I think are Crown lands and miscellaneous

      537
      sums amounting in all to £135,000, so that when we come to examine the Amendment we find that the materiality of it is really a very small matter if we exclude the bogey which hon. Members have tried to raise, that the Post Office will be paid for by the Transferred Sum, and that then we in Ireland will collar the whole of the Post Office revenue, and that we will say, "Because you did not accept this Amendment we are entitled to keep it, and we will pay the expense out of the Transferred Sum." That is the meaning of that argument with regard to the Post Office, if I understand it aright, and if I do not understand it aright I should be very glad to be corrected at this stage, because I understand the suggestion is that we are going to get paid twice for the Post Office—first out of our Post Office, without coming through the Imperial Exchequer, and then we are going to ask the British people to pay for it in the Transferred Sum. Such a suggestion is so grotesque and ridiculous that it is absolutely unworthy of comment or answer at this stage. The only material aspect of this Amendment is in regard to two items: first, Crown land rents, a sum of £25,000, and a further sum of miscellaneous services, £110,000. The suggestion of the hon. Member above the Gangway is that the £110,000 of that revenue collected from purely Irish sources should be transferred to the Imperial Exchequer and then paid back by the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer. That in the first place would require us to have a staff at this side for dealing with purely Irish items of a most technical character, and amounting to very small sums, and I presume that the cost of that staff would, in the hon. Member's view, be a charge on the Irish taxpayer.
      The most remarkable thing in connection with this £110,000, which I do not think has occurred to the hon. Gentleman, is this: hon. Members above the Gangway say they think we will create monopolies in railways, matches, and canals with this money, which is raised from purely Irish sources; because, if anyone takes the trouble to look at the item Miscellaneous Revenue, 1911–12, he will find that the items covered by this £110,000 are entirely in respect of Irish objects and derived from purely Irish sources, and which have got no British counterpart whatever. The first item, Bankruptcy Courts, is a sum of £2,000, derived from purely Irish sources, which has no counterpart on the same
      538
      financial basis in Great Britain. The next item, County Courts, Ireland, £17,000 from the Fee Fund has no counterpart in British finance. Judicature, £34,000 has a counterpart in England, where there is a fund derived from similar sources amounting to £360,000. Land Commission is £2,000, derived entirely from Irish sources with purely Irish objects and no British counterpart. The next item, Land Registry, £6,000 has a counterpart in England amounting to £53,000. The Lunacy Fee Fund, £500, has no counterpart whatever in Great Britain. The next, £2,000 Public Record Office, has a counterpart with the amount of £500, and the last one £12,000 in respect of Registry of Deeds has no counterpart from similar sources in Great Britain. To show how ridiculous this proposal would be, I may point out that this income is derived from Irish sources in respect of purely Irish objects from fees, stamps, and taxes contributed by the services in respect of which the contributions are made, and the suggestion is that these stamps and taxes should be collected in Ireland and transferred to the British Exchequer and then transferred back again from England to the Irish Exchequer.
      To show how ridiculous that would be, the hon. Member, if he takes the trouble to look at the sub-heads will see that one of the items to be dealt with is a sum of £29 8s. 7d., being the amount of the remissions of the price of photographs and catalogues in the National Gallery of Ireland last year. This is the kind of thing to be checked by the Department which is to be set up here to deal with these subjects. There is not much danger of creating monopolies with this £110,000, because the misfortune always has been in respect of every service dealt with under these miscellaneous heads that they find it very hard to pay their way. You started them so well, and paid salaries so high, and gave such pensions that it has always been a straggle to keep the Departments, going. Canals have been mentioned, and I am sorry I have no opportunity of discussing the question at greater length. I have in mind a derelict canal in the North of Ireland where a boat has not gone for years, and it is above all other places in that prosperous place known as Ulster. That is the canal which we are told is going to make a monopoly. Why! a Government Department, when the party of the right hon. Gentleman was in power, had this very canal under control and could not make it pay, and handed it over, body and bones, to a private contractor

      539
      who cannot make it pay; and yet we are told that there is a danger in allowing us to collect this £110,000 directly in Ireland, which is paid by the services from which it is collected, and that we might make a monopoly in canals. It shows the sort of Amendment which is being proposed. I am always very nervous when I hear the hon. Member, who proposed this Amendment proposing one of his very attractive Amendments which be says are designed to make the Bill work more effectively and to give greater protection to the British taxpayer as well as I make it safer for the Irish taxpayer. I am always afraid that there is something behind it, as is the case with the present Amendment, designed to make the Bill more difficult to work, to make it oppressive to the Irish taxpayer, and to give no protection whatever to the British taxpayer.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has destroyed the necessity for my giving any lengthened answer, because he says that this is a very trifling affair altogether, and that the total amount of money is very small.
      Mr. LARDNER: I said that excluding the Post Office, telegraphs, and telephones, the sum involved is only £135,000.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not worth bothering about, but the Postmaster-General objects on the ground that to institute the system which my hon. Friend suggests would mean an immense amount of additional work to the Exchequer.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A great quantity of detailed work.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not agree that it would involve any large amount of additional work. I agree with the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that at the present moment there is a very small sum involved. The hon. Gentleman was not exactly right in his figures, which he gave, I imagine, from the Return presented at the request of the hon. Member for North Kildare. He was zealous to point out that the items in that Return of Miscellaneous Revenue were drawn from purely Irish sources for purely Irish objects, and had no counterpart, in England. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at page 6 he would have seen there are some miscellaneous revenues which have
      540
      counterparts in Great Britain. I might explain to the Postmaster-General in reference to the small branch of the hereditary revenue in Ireland, the expenses of administration and old age pensions, £500, that I do not know whether under the Bill they would be paid to the Imperial or to the Irish Exchequer.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: To the Imperial Exchequer.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In regard to those headings, Miscellaneous Revenue, my hon. Friend's contention is entirely justified, because those are going to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer. Why are those going to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer and the others are not? I cannot see the logical distinction which the hon. Gentleman seems apparently to be able to draw between, on the one hand, tax revenue and non-tax revenue. On the other hand, apparently, now there is a distinction between certain branches of non-taxed revenue and certain other branches of non-taxed revenue, and it really does appear to me that the additional amount of work involved to the Exchequer would be comparatively small. It is quite evident the Exchequer has to keep up a branch to check the payments of very small sums which are to go into the Imperial Exchequer under the Bill, and I do not think the extra work involved by my hon. Friend's Amendment on the present basis would be anything very large. The case does not stop there, and, as my hon. Friend said, we have not only to consider the present basis, but the future. He took the instance of the Irish Government, going in extensively for monopolies. A monopoly may be a very big thing. We know that the match monopoly in France produces over a million. That is not a small figure. The hon. Gentleman suggested that a monopoly might be a very small matter, but that is not a small figure, and the point with regard to the creation of a monopoly is that you thereby reduce automatically the taxed revenue, you diminish the Transferred Sum, and you diminish the security of those people who own prior charges. The existing prior charges are variously estimated under the Bill. I estimate them at over a million; the Government estimate them at £280,000.
      There are certain sets of charges which may be laid on the Transferred Sum, and which may be very heavy liabilities upon that sum. Under Clause 23 the Irish Government has full borrowing powers, and

      541
      there is a very extraordinary provision that the loans are to be trustee securities. The Irish Government will have full power to borrow on the security of the Transferred Sum, and the cost of the Sinking Fund and management can be charged agaist the Transferred Sum. If the case did arise and the Irish Government did create a monopoly, it might be a big monopoly or a series of monopolies, which would diminish the Transferred Sum and increase the non-taxed revenue. The non-taxed revenue, not being paid into the Imperial Exchequer, would not be at all adequate, the Transferred Sum would be diminished, and the security of the bondholders under the loans would have entirely vanished. That may be said to be a very far-fetched case. I agree. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his Bill is going to be a stable proposition which will endure for all time; but we have got to look a long way ahead, and consider these possibilities in order to avoid their occurrence, and I think there is ground for adopting the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: When it is said that there is little chance of a monopoly being established, I would point out that the Russian Government has established a monopoly in spirits, and I ask the Postmaster-General to say whether it would not be possible for that to be done under the powers of the Bill; if so you would get a very large monopoly.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it in order, Sir, to discuss the question of monopolies on this Amendment?
      The CHAIRMAN: I did not intervene when the Noble Lord first raised the question as part of his argument, but I think the discussion of the powers of the Irish Government to establish monopolies would not be in order on this Clause.
      Mr. J. HOPE: On the assumption that monopolies can be established, the non-taxed revenue would amount to a very large sum. I wish to ask the Postmaster-General what is actually going to be done with the receipts of the Post Office. Surely a great part of them will be Imperial receipts. It has been admitted in the earlier discussion that cable terminals will be in the hands of the Imperial Post Office, and therefore I presume that receipts from overseas telegrams will be Imperial receipts. Ireland will have some share in the mail contracts for the carriage of mails between
      542
      this country and Ireland, and that will be an Imperial charge. Presumably as against that will be the share of the Imperial Government for the transferred mails, and the Irish Government will have to make contribution. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what actually will happen in regard to these matters. It has been pointed out in earlier discussions that there will have to be two sets of postal services. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, no; we can easily make arrangements under Clause 40 whereby all the duties may be undertaken by the Irish Post Office." But there would have to be some adjustment of accounts, and who is to make that adjustment? In any case there will have to be a substantial contribution from the Post Office to the Imperial Exchequer. If that be so, would it not be a much simpler plan to pay all the receipts straight into the Imperial Exchequer, and then have an adjustment. I do not know who would perform that work, or whether it would be done by the Joint Exchequer Board, letting Ireland have the benefit of receipts purely Irish. Another reason which may be adduced in support of this Amendment is that unless it be adopted the accounts will be shown in a confused form. Some years ago the accounts of this country appeared in an unsatisfactory form because payments that went to the local taxation account did not appear in the national annual balance sheet. Great exception was taken to that by the celebrated Mr. Bowles and others, and after some argument on the subject, the present Government changed the mode in which the accounts were presented, so that these items now do come into the Imperial balance sheet. I submit that in this instance some form should be adopted, for surely there ought not to be items of Irish expenditure which are not shown in the balance sheet when it is annually made up.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 44, paragraph (c), which states that under an Order in Council Regulations may be made "with respect to the relations of the Irish and British Post Offices …. and for apportioning any receipts and expenses in respect of foreign mails or other foreign postal services (including telegrams and telephones), between the two Post Offices." That is the procedure provided under the Bill by which that can be carried out. The actual money would go into the till of the Irish Post Office on the foreign telegrams,

      543
      and then the whole would be allocated subsequently between the two Post Offices under the ordinary system of adjustment of accounts which prevails between them. I should like to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member opposite, who asked on what system do we distinguish in this Bill between taxed revenue and non-taxed revenue, and why do we distinguish between various kinds of non-taxed revenue. The distinction between the two is because it is a part of the general financial framework of the Bill that the collection of taxes is retained as an Imperial service. Therefore, naturally the taxed revenue, being collected by Imperial officials, will go in the first instance into the Imperial Exchequer. The natural course would be that in any country it would flow into the local Exchequer directly, but for reasons which arise on a later Clause, it is proposed by the Bill that the revenue from taxes should be collected by Imperial officers, and therefore it naturally goes into the Imperial Exchequer. With regard to non-taxed revenue, the distinction is that non-taxed revenue which arises in connection with an Imperial service would naturally and automatically go into the Imperial Exchequer. For instance, there are the hereditary revenues of the Crown which is a reserved matter that would come into the Imperial Exchequer. There is such a case as the cost of collection of local loans, and, since the cost of collection is an Imperial matter, this recoupment also goes into the Imperial Exchequer. On the other hand the National Gallery of Ireland will be an Irish service, and any sum received on the sale of catalogues for the National Gallery would naturally go to the Irish Exchequer, although under the hon. Member's Amendment it would necessarily have to come to Westminster, and come under the purview of the Treasury. Similarly, if an Irish Government Department in Ireland took a new building for its offices and let off a certain part of the building to private firms, the amount so derived would as a matter of course go into the Irish Exchequer, although under the hon. Member's Amendment it would have to come here. The non-taxed revenue follows the services, and that is the natural and proper course.
      Mr. LONG: I think the whole of this subject is mixed up and involved in inex-
      544
      tricable confusion. I think it means immense trouble to the Irish Exchequer if it ever comes into existence, and that it will lead to certain conflict between the Irish and Imperial Exchequers in future. In the early part of his remarks the Postmaster-General practically admitted that the ordinary course would be better, namely, that the revenues derived from a particular source and intended for a particular service should flow into the particular Exchequer, for which it is intended. But the Government, think it very much better to establish a system in future for Ireland for which there is no precedent, and which is extremely confused. The Postmaster-General has practically admitted that my hon. Friend's Amendment follows the more usual and simpler course, and that justifies me in voting for it. Further than that, the Postmaster-General has proposed in this Bill a system of finance which I think is without precedent, and is as confused a system as has ever been invented.
      Mr. FELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Joint Exchequer Board will not have the duty of doing the work twice over unless this Amendment is carried? In Clause 47 the definition of the expression "tax" includes "duties (other than duties of postage) and fees (other than fees which are charged in respect of any special Irish service, and the receipts from which are, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, of a character to be properly treated as Appropriations-in-Aid)." If these items are not to come over to England, and are to be retained in Ireland, in every case it would have to be decided by the Joint Exchequer Board as to whether they were Appropriations-in-Aid, such, for instance, as the sum realised on the sale of catalogues at the National Gallery. There may be very many other doubtful points as to whether revenue derived from a particular source is to be treated as an Appropriation-in-Aid. In that case the Joint Exchequer Board would have to decide in every instance which that was. Whether the money came over here, or did not come over here, as the case might be, they would have to decide how much would go back to Ireland; whereas if all the money came over here, they could decide that so much was Appropriation-in-Aid and so much was to be treated as actual revenue. Unless some such words as these are inserted, I believe the work will have to be done twice over.

      545
      If this Amendment were accepted, it would avoid a great source of trouble.
      Mr. HEWINS: I venture to make an appeal to the Postmaster-General to accept this Amendment. I confess when I first saw it on the Paper I thought it was merely in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Many of us on both sides have had some experience with regard to the financial position of different States, and it would never have occurred to anybody acquainted with this subject to omit the non-tax revenue. When we heard the Postmaster-General make such an admirable exposition of the position yesterday, we were under the impression that he meant, under the Financial Resolution, to have a scheme that was financially watertight. We find that there is a certain deliberateness in omitting non-tax revenue, and that lets in all sorts of opportunities to stray from the paths of strict financial rectitude. I do beg of the Postmaster-General to consider this question, especially in view of the great uncertainty in which this would leave the House in regard to the powers to be exercised by the Irish Government when it is set up. We have had no proper discussion, and we do not know where we are with regard to this question of monopolies, and with regard to a great many of the economic activities which may be undertaken by the Irish Government. We all have the highest possible opinion of the ability of Irish Nationalists, and, looking back at the history of Ireland, who would venture to put any limit upon what those Gentlemen may attempt in the future when they have full control of the destinies of Ireland? I, myself, feel certain that one of the first consequences of what we are about to do, if the Government succeeds in carrying this Bill, will be to give to Irish Nationalists a great opportunity, at any rate, of exercising their ingenuity in devising some kind of fiscal and economic system which they think particularly appropriate to their needs. In view of that, and in view of the uncertainty of the position in which we stand as to the powers to be exercised in Ireland in regard to monopolies and other sources of national profit, I do appeal to the Postmaster-General to make us feel more comfortable by accepting the Amendment.
      Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I do not feel enthusiastically in favour of this Amendment. I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. If there is anything in the omission of these words that would enable the Irish Government to make profits I, for one, would be the last to deprive them of the opportunity, because I think under the financial scheme of this Bill Ireland is extremely badly treated, and if this Clause as drawn enables Ireland to make any profits which my Friends here have been suggesting I, for one, think it a great advantage. Until I heard the Postmaster-General's speech on the finance of this Bill, I never really understood that there was one additional reason, and I think a very shabby one, for the policy of Home Rule. We hear of cutting the losses, but we never heard of cutting the profits as long as the revenue of Ireland exceeded the expenditure. As soon as within the last few years the expenditure of Ireland exceeded the revenue derived from Ireland, immediately we have a scheme to cut the losses without any proposals to make restitution of the profits which were made in earlier years. Therefore, I am unable to feel enthusiastic in support of this Amendment, so far as it attempts to limit the sources of income which the Irish Government might be able to obtain. I say this on the assumption, which to my mind is a very far-fetched assumption, that this Bill ever can become law. If it did I should naturally wish that the Irish revenue should be as large as possible, but as I do not believe that the Bill ever will become law I rather agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Somerset who said that the discussion of these Amendments was a good deal of waste of time, but I suppose the Parliamentary game has to be played according to Parliamentary rules. But if the Bill ever became law I would wish to see all those sources of revenue that have been foreshadowed secured for the benefit of an Irish Government.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 294.

      Division No. 317.]

      AYES.

      [4.55 p.m.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Barnston, Harry

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Barrie, H. T.

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

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Malcolm, Ian

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Moore, William

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Goulding, E. A.

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Bigland, Alfred

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

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Bird, A.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

      Bull, Sir William James

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

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Butcher, John George

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

      Hills, John Waller

      Rolleston, Sir John

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

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Stanier, Seville

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Stewart, Gershom

      Clyde, James Avon

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Swift, Rigby

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Croft, H. P.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Fell, Arthur

      Lee, Arthur H.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Lewisham, Viscount

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

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Winterton, Earl

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Gardner, Ernest

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Macmaster, Donald

      Gilmour, Captain John

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Chapple, Dr. William Alien

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Clancy, John J.

      Gill, Alfred Henry

      Adamson, William

      Clough, William

      Ginnell, L.

      Addison, Dr. C

      Clynes, John R.

      Glanville, Harold James

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

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon Sir J.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Armitage, Robert

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

      Arnold, Sydney

      Cotton, William Francis

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

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Crooks, William

      Hackett, J.

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Cullinan, John

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Barnes, G. N.

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

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

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Delany, Wiliam

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Barton, William

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hayden, John Patrick

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

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hayward, Evan

      Bentham, G. J.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Doris, William

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Black, Arthur W.

      Duffy, William J.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Boland, John Pius

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

      Brace, William

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Higham, John Sharp

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Hinds, John

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Hodge, John

      Burke, E. Haviland.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Hogge, James Myles

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Falconer, James

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Field, William

      John, Edward Thomas

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

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      548

      549

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Jones, William S. Glyn. (Stepney)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Jowett, Frederick William

      O'Connor, John (Kildare N.)

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

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Keating, Matthew

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Kelly, Edward

      O'Dowd, John

      Sheehy, David

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Ogden, Fred

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Kilbride, Denis

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

      Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

      King, J.

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

      O'Malley, William

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

      Snowden, Philip

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      O'Shee, James John

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Leach, Charles

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Sutton, John E.

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Lynch, A. A.

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Thomas, James Henry

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      McGhee, Richard

      Pointer, Joseph

      Toulmin, Sir George

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

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Verney, Sir Harry

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Wadsworth, John

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Pringle, Wm. M. R.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Radford, G. H.

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Wardle, G. J.

      Meagher, Michael

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wason, Rt. Hon E. (Clackmannan)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Reddy, Michael

      Watt, Henry A.

      Molloy, Michael

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Webb, H.

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

      Mooney, John J.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Richards, Thomas

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Morrell, Philip

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Morison, Hector

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Muldoon, John

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Munro, Robert

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Robinson, Sidney

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

      Nannettl, Joseph P.

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

      Neilson, Francis

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Nolan, Joseph

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Rowlands, James

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "consisting," and to insert instead thereof the words "which, subject to the deduction of a contribution of one-thirtieth to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland thereto, shall consist."
      I may explain the effect of the Amendment briefly in this way: The sum to be transferred to Ireland is to have deducted from it before transfer one-thirtieth of the expenditure on Imperial subjects as the contribution of Ireland towards that expenditure. Our present rate of expenditure is about £105,000,000; so that if the figure I have suggested were adopted, the contribution of Ireland would be £3,500,000.
      550
      In every previous Home Rule scheme the liability of Ireland to contribute to Imperial expenditure has been recognised and provided for. In the 1886 scheme the total contribution of Ireland towards Imperial expenditure was £4,400,000, against which Ireland was to get a somewhat precarious set-off of £2,000,000, the difference between the collected and the actual revenue. In the first financial scheme of 1893 Great Britain was to retain the Customs Duties as an Imperial contribution, and the amount of those duties was about £2,400,000. In the reconstructed financial scheme of that year Ireland was to contribute one-third of the true revenue of taxes levied in Ireland, the amount being estimated at £2,276,000. Those are the three precedents for asking that Ireland

      551
      should contribute towards Imperial expenditure. Under the present Bill the only indication of a recognition of responsibility on the part of Ireland for a portion of the Imperial expenditure is contained in Clause 26, the short effect of which is that, after the accounts of domestic income and expenditure have balanced for three years, a report to that effect is to be taken as a ground for the revision of the financial relations between England and Ireland with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. We have that recognition that Ireland ought to make a contribution towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom, but there is no provision in the Bill such as was contained in the three previous financial schemes for an actual contribution by Ireland.
      I will explain why I have taken one-thirtieth as the basis of contribution. It would, perhaps, be more logical to take a larger contribution; but one must feel that, although we may establish the principle of a contribution, it is another thing altogether to get the money. Therefore we have to fix the contribution on as low a basis as possible. If the Income Tax basis were taken, Ireland ought to contribute about one-twenty-eighth; on the Death Duties basis Ireland's contribution would be about one-twenty-sixth; while on the population basis she would pay about one-eleventh. The Committee will therefore realise that the suggested contribution of one-thirtieth is extremely moderate and fair. The Government will probably say, "It is all very well to say that Ireland ought to make a contribution towards Imperial expenditure. We admit that, and the Irish people themselves are anxious to do it." I have frequently heard it stated by the Front Bench opposite, but I have not heard it stated in a practical fashion by the Irish Members. They have said it, but they have not taken any steps towards giving it practical effect. It would be a great deal better to pay to Ireland a larger sum with one hand and take back with the other something in the nature of an Imperial contribution, thereby establishing the principle that Ireland is to contribute to Imperial expenditure. You would at least be honest with the country in this sense, that you would say at once the exact amount that you are contributing. As the Bill stands, we are to make up the deficit of about £2,000,000 a year, and post-
      552
      pone for an indefinite period any request for an Imperial contribution from Ireland. I would far rather see put into the Bill a provision that we should pay over to Ireland annually £5,500,000 and take back from Ireland, as a definite contribution towards Imperial expenditure, £3,500,000. It may be said that that is a long way round to get at exactly what is being done in the Bill. I regard it, however, not as a mere matter of form, but as a matter of substance. If Ireland contributes at once to the Imperial expenditure there will be less feeling of separation and a greater feeling of continuity in the government of the United Kingdom. It will be no answer to this Amendment for the Government to say that there is no fund, because, if they were honest with the country and desirous of establishing the principle of a contribution, they could meet the position by giving £5,500,000 and taking back £3,500,000 as an Imperial contribution.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman is serious in proposing this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain why. If the Amendment were adopted, Ireland would pay to this country £3,500,000, and we should, under the scheme of the Bill, pay Ireland £1,500,000 and £500,000 as a surplus, making up a total of £2,000,000. That would leave us in hand £1,500,000. I am dealing with the Amendment as it stands, and not with what the hon. Member said in regard to it. We should practically be receiving £1,500,000 without contributing anything, and, in consequence, Ireland would really have to double her taxes. The revenue of Ireland is about £7,500,000. If you deduct a contribution of £3,500,000, you will leave her with only £4,000,000. Nobody will suggest that that is a workable or just scheme. That is what the Amendment proposes, but the hon. Member says that that is not what he really intends. He says, "I do not really mean that; that would be too absurd." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He did not use those words, but I think that is what he meant; otherwise he would have left the Amendment as it is. He has explained that he does not really want Ireland to contribute £3,500,000; he wants her to pay £3,500,000 and receive in return £5,500,000. It is very difficult to follow what possible benefit you would derive from such a procedure; you would not really advance one step in the matter. As the hon. Member quite rightly said, you would be taking

      553
      back with one hand what you have given with the other, and in that way he thinks you will be making the tie between Ireland and Great Britain closer and more cordial than it would be under our scheme, by which it is proposed to make good the deficit and provide a surplus, without requiring any contribution at all from Ireland until she is in a fit position financially to contribute towards Imperial expenditure. We say, "We do not intend to call upon you to pay any contribution at present, because you cannot afford to do it in consequence of the scheme of taxation which we have imposed upon you during the last few years, and, of course, not only can you not afford it, but you would not be paying it at the present time, or in the next year if there is no Home Rule." Ireland would not be practically contributing this sum. What we are doing is handing Ireland this £2,000,000. I really do not understand on what ground it is suggested that you should alter, not the scheme of finance—because it seems to me what you are doing here is juggling with figures; for if you accept what the hon. Member says it is nothing else but a kind of conjuring trick. He says, instead of properly facing the problem, "We will do it in this way, and the effect will be the same, and it will be as if you are doing something which you are not really doing. Ireland will think she is contributing towards the Imperial Exchequer when she really is not, and knows she is not." We can hardly consider the Amendment as a serious one.
      Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that he cannot understand my hon. Friend's scheme. That inability in regard to this finance is shared by both sides of the House. The more often I listen to the arguments produced by every Minister in turn in connection with suggested Financial Amendments of this Bill the more impossible it is to understand the frame of mind of the Government. But I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has carried the matter even further than we have been carried hitherto in the disclosures which come by degrees from the Front Bench opposite. He tells us that he does not regard my hon. Friend's Amendment as a serious one. That, of course, is a mere matter of opinion. I submit that the arguments by which my hon. Friend supported his Amendment were most serious, whereas the observations of the right hon. and learned Geneltman were not serious, nor
      554
      he has advanced one argument in opposition to the Amendment. What my hon. Friend asks the Government to do is the very thing they say they want to do, but which, when they are given the opportunity to do, they always refuse to do. That is to say, he wants them to give some reality to their protestation that they want under this Home Rule Bill to, at all events, procure an appearance of union between Great Britain and Ireland. Under his Amendment my hon. Friend wants to have a system which will leave Ireland to pay a contribution towards any Imperial expenditure to which this country is liable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "No, it is merely a sham; Ireland cannot pay this money, and if the hon. Member's Amendment were taken as it stands it would mean depriving Ireland of £2,000,000 of money, leaving her £2,500,000 short." The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is the common practice in this House to move certain Amendments, and if they are carried to follow them up with others that are consequential. Therefore, the argument against this Amendment simply because it only fulfils a portion of the work it is intended to fulfil is not to the point. It occupied a great part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think I pointed out what the effect of the Amendment would be on the basis of what I understood the hon. Member to say. I did not shirk the point.
      Mr. LONG: The hon. Member need be under no feeling of alarm. I am not accusing him of shirking anything. All I say is that a great part of his speech was addressed to meeting a position which my hon. Friend does not intend to create. The Committee know perfectly well in dealing with an Amendment, that if you establish a principle and it is accepted, you follow by other Amendments to make the thing complete. As I have already said, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted at the latter part of his speech, all my hon. Friend's Amendment intends to do is to meet the immediate question of whether or not part of the Union is to make a contribution. When you have settled that in a reasonable, logical and businesslike way you can then go on to that which is a totally different question, which is to apportion the amount of her expenditure at the present time when she is going to start a Parliament of her own. These

      555
      are two totally different questions. Where the Government have failed in this, as in other proposals, is to give effect in this Bill, as they are now putting it to the House, to their suggestions that this Bill goes to cement the Union and not to create separation. We say that if you start as now by saying that Ireland cannot pay, and therefore because we are going to give her the right of self-government, because we want her to have certain money by which she can develop her own resources, that we are therefore going to exclude her as though she were not a part of the United Kingdom from any share in our common expenditure—that by doing that you are laying the foundation, not of union, but of separation.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I cannot understand why you want to do this, because it is really a sham." It comes back to really this argument—of which I am sick to death—that if we do as we are doing, that under Home Rule there will still be that sum which the Government calls a deficit. The argument is one which, outside of this House the Government's best supporters are constantly pouring contempt upon. There is a most interesting letter in to-day's "Times" from a Noble Lord from whom I entirely disagree in politics, whose views I do not share, so far as I know, on any question connected with Home Rule, except this one phase in which I find myself entirely in agreement with him and the direction that his argument takes. I do not share the particular views upon which his arguments are founded. He has proved himself a most efficient, a most powerful, and a most destructive critic of these financial proposals. In that I entirely and cordially agree with him. What view does he take of the line taken up by the Government in regard to the deficit? He does not find the term "deficit" which they are using, the right term. I agree with him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we ought not to do what we suggest because we are now paying more than Ireland towards the common expenditure. It is not a deficit. That is what it comes to. Under the modern system of taxation for which they are responsible—not we—Ireland is reduced to this position under the Union: she does not pay her share of common expenditure. I do not want to repeat the point, but in the name of heaven surely the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is all the difference in the world between accepting for
      556
      ourselves an additional share of the common burden of the Union when we have control, so long as it rests with this House to decide what shall be done, and so long as full power is deposited in this House, and relieving Ireland from her share of her contribution when you are relieving and absolving yourself from all part and control and all powers of direction?
      I cannot discuss that point now; we shall be discussing it in a moment, but it is a very difficult thing to discuss part of this section without dealing in some measure with the rest. But the very next Amendment, referring to the next words in the Bill, raises the question which is so closely connected with this and so germane to it that it is very difficult not to refer to it. The right hon. Gentleman asks us not-only to take this extra burden upon ourselves, not only to lose the control which we now have, but also in a subsequent part of the Bill to hand over the whole decisions of the future to the body over which neither the Government, nor the House, nor the Irish Parliament will have any control or any jurisdiction whatever. I submit to the Attorney-General that he has not answered my hon. Friend's Amendment, and that if my hon. Friend's plan were carried, and followed by a consequential provision, it would restore to Ireland money which Ireland requires in order to enable her to carry on self-government. This would be a businesslike and proper way to do it, and not only would it be a businesslike way of doing the thing, but if the Government are sincere in their constant declaration that this Bill is to cement the Union the thing ought to be done in this way. To adhere to your own plan is to make it clearer than ever that while talking about Union what you are really doing is to lay firm the foundation for separation.
      Captain CRAIG: It is a very strange thing, as has just been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Long), that the only place one ever hears the financial scheme of the Government commended to the House and the public is by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite. Every financial expert that ever criticises this Bill in Ireland, England or Scotland—I am glad to say Scotland, and very freely there in the Press—and every public body, so far has proved that the financial proposals of the Government are quite unworkable. Lord MacDonnell, to whom my right hon. Friend

      557
      has just referred, has been perhaps the strongest critic of the Government finance. But we must not neglect the fact that other bodies, the general council of the county councils of Ireland, have referred to this very subject—and they are all Nationalists. They have criticised most ably and most effectively this particular part of the Government's programme. Then I think I am right in saying that those who have gone into the financial part on behalf of the school teachers—
      The CHAIRMAN: This is a specific Amendment, and not the general question of the finance of the Bill. The proposal is that from the Transferred Sum there shall be deducted a contribution of one-thirtieth to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland. Let us keep ourselves to the question.
      Captain CRAIG: I only wanted to point out that it is necessary that the answer which we have received from the Government comes like a parrot cry. No matter what observations are made from these benches. What is said is that the financial proposals of the Government, which are most complicated, are the best possible arrangement for Ireland. That we absolutely deny. To come to this particular Amendment, I would like to point out, first of all, although I shall vote against the Government in all of these cases—out of habit and inclination—to the Member for Colchester, who moves this Amendment, that I am afraid the object, the very laudable object, at which he aims, that is that a contribution from Ireland should be made towards the upkeep of the Army and Navy, if carried, will possibly produce an awkward position in this House itself. When you ear-mark a certain sum of money towards the Army and Navy the logical conclusion will be that the forty odd Nationalists here will claim the right to criticise your conduct of your Army and Navy for all time. As the matter is left now, as a rule their contribution towards a Debate of that kind is certainly not towards the increased efficiency of either of the Services. The consequence of the carrying of the Amendment would be that the hon. and learned Member and his friends would find themselves in perpetuity faced with the adverse criticism of the Nationalist party on the benches behind when it came to making larger Grants for one or other of the Services. So I think it will be far better not to
      558
      advance that argument for a claim of one-thirtieth to be granted by Ireland towards Imperial services. I wish to criticise also the statements made over and over again by the Attorney-General. He says—and of course the Chief Secretary for Ireland takes his advice from the right hon. Gentleman—that there is no contribution made by Ireland towards those Services now, and therefore that the financial part of the Home Rule Bill is really not altering in any way the existing circumstances. I would point out that is not a correct statement of the case at all. The correct statement of the case is that Ireland, like other parts of the United Kingdom, is divided into what may be called revenue-producing areas and large areas which are non-revenue producing. No one denies that if you take an entity such as the prosperous part of the North of Ireland, you will find that it contributes just as much to the upkeep of the British Army and Navy as Yorkshire or any other county, and therefore it is only right when the right hon. Gentleman is arguing this matter, that he should look at it in this way, and then he would see that the South and West of Ireland is comparable more or less with the East Riding of Yorkshire, and that Ulster is comparable with the West Riding, and therefore that this particular entity of Ulster really contributes towards the national services. We, in Ulster, are delighted that we pay towards keeping up the Army and Navy, but if the Amendment of the hon. Member is carried, it simply means putting a further burden upon the taxable end of Ireland, that is to say Ulster.
      Nationalists know perfectly well that Ulster pays between two-thirds or three-fourths of the Customs revenue of the whole of Ireland, and that consequently we have vast areas south of the Boyne, where practically only between one-fourth and one-third of the revenue is paid. Out of that small proportion from that part of Ireland, naturally no contribution ever reaches one of the Services here. We, in Ulster, are not complaining, and never have complained. We say you must take these matters the same as we take our meals, you must take the fat with the lean, and the poor with the rich, and you must cast your net wide over the whole area of Ireland so long as it remains part of the United Kingdom. But when you begin to pick out entities and put your finger upon special spots and say that they are to be cut off from the United Kingdom, then you

      559
      find not only the sentimental side and the religious side, but you find the commercial instincts of all classes in the richer parts of Ireland immediately pointing out that the whole burden eventually of the blunders of the Nationalist party must be borne by the revenue-producing parts of the North of Ireland. That is where right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends misrepresent the case. They take, for the purposes of revenue, the whole of Ireland, instead of ignoring the part south of the Boyne, and taking Ulster only as the part that produces the revenue with which we are dealing under this Bill. I make one exception, and that is with regard to the salaried class of officials. Of course, Dublin being the capital, whether a man is resident in the North of Ireland or not, his Income Tax is deducted at the source, and that does make a slight increase in the Dublin area. It is quite clear to anybody that this Amendment to add on taxation to the extent mentioned for the purpose of actually raising contribution towards Imperial services means that that amount of money, if it is to be found on the same basis, and from the same sources from which revenue is produced in Ireland at the present moment, will come from Ulster, and will be a very heavy burden upon the North of Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman only brings it forward in order to couple up the interests of the people in the National Parliament in Dublin with your great services here, I am perfectly certain that would react, as I said in the beginning, against this House in the long run, having, as it will have, forty or forty-two Irish Members coming over to take part in these Debates.
      The next point I want to make is this. Criticisms from these benches have been answered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and those behind by the statement that we are only advancing these arguments because we say there can be no Home Rule, and therefore it does not matter how we argue. I deny that absolutely. I think everybody who heard the Chief Secretary last night will agree that the sum total of his amusing and laughable contributions to the Debate was that he was satisfied that no more severe criticisms have been brought forward. One after another we on these benches have criticised the Bill, and that is the right hon. Gentleman's only answer. The truth of the matter is that the Government have really shirked
      560
      their duty in not putting the financial statement properly before the House, and they should be ashamed of themselves for bringing in a measure so large and intricate and leaving us entirely in the dark as to how they arrived at their figures. If we had had the White Paper properly elucidated, if we had been told how these figures were arrived at, it would be far easier to criticise more fully and accurately the intentions of the Government so far as this Bill is concerned. I, for one, recognise that criticism is not wanted by the Government either upon the financial or upon any other Clauses of this Bill. It was with deliberate intention of preventing us showing what the true relations are that they held back their Returns so long and refused to supply us with the evidence given before the Committee they set up to inquire into this matter, and refused to answer the questions put upon this Paper with a view to elucidating some of these matters. That is not treating the Committee respectfully or properly. And not only that, but we find everybody is put up to answer our criticisms except those who really have any knowledge of Ireland at all. I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), who has been through all these battles in the past, and who could elucidate many matters much better than right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has not done so. He might have risen, but those who are in control of the right hon. Gentleman say, "No, you must not open your mouth upon this Bill. You must keep quiet, because you know far too much." That is the reason the right hon. Gentleman does not get up and give us the criticisms he made in 1886 and in 1893, when he was able to tear these Home Rule Bills to pieces, and I have no doubt, so far as the financial scheme of this Bill is concerned, his ability would enable him also to tear it into shreds and tatters.
      Mr. LEES SMITH: I think it would be a mistake if no unofficial Member upon this side of the House rose to express the feeling of surprise existing amongst those of us who follow this Debate, at the contortions and contradictions in the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I heard only yesterday that one of the great effects of these financial Clauses was that they were unnecessarily complicated. The hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment would, for no genuine object, and no practical effect, introduce another

      561
      complication. I have heard in Debate after Debate accusations from hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill was full of pretences. I heard it contended that Clause after Clause and paragraph after paragraph had no real meaning, but was put into the Bill only for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the British electors. Now hon. Members opposite themselves come forward with an Amendment, the only effect of which would be to deceive the British electorate into thinking that something was the case which they themselves acknowledge would not be the case. Suppose this Bill had originally been framed on the lines suggested in this Amendment. What would hon. Members opposite have done? We know, and they know, they would have moved to strike this pretence out. Speeches of the character which we heard when we were discussing the question of the supremacy of this Parliament would have been delivered once again. They claim that the Clauses dealing with the Imperial supremacy are fraudulent deceptions. If this Bill had been framed upon the lines of this Amendment I can imagine their righteous indignation. All their speeches would be made over again, and they would simply have said, "Here is a deception more flagrant than ever. Here is a Government attempting to persuade the electorate that the Irish people are making contributions for Imperial purposes, but if you examine the complications of the Bill you will find that so far from that being the case the British people are making contributions to Ireland." Everybody must know that this is the line of argument that would have been adopted.
      Mr. MOORE: It is a great deal better than the Chinese slavery argument.
      Mr. LEES SMITH: I think it would have been a great deal better if the hon. Member for Colchester had argued this Amendment on the lines it naturally suggests, and had not gone outside the Amendment to support it by arguments which contradict most of the arguments which his own Friends have used in connection with other Amendments.
      Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I should like to address myself closely to the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Colchester as to whether Ireland ought to pay a contribution to the Imperial resources of the Empire. The hon. Member thinks the principle ought to
      562
      be established from the very beginning, and he attaches so much importance to it that he proposes an Amendment which would have the effect, if carried, of charging Ireland with £3,000,000 extra, I think under this Resolution it would be wholly impossible to effect the change he proposes, and we should have to pass another Resolution. I think the House has had enough of Financial Resolutions. I wish to put to the Committee something of the historical aspect of the case as to the reason we think it is not right that Ireland should be asked at the present time to make a contribution even in principle to the Army and Navy and general Imperial services of the country. I want to look back to the partnership between Great Britain and Ireland as set forth by the Treasury to-day. The Treasury has given us an estimate for the last fifteen years of the Imperial contribution and the deficit on the relations between England and Ireland, and they have also struck a balance sheet between the two countries. The general purport of that balance-sheet is for the first fifty-three years of the connection under the Union, during which the taxation of Ireland was arranged by this House and the expenditure of that taxation was also arranged by this Parliament. Everybody knows that in the first half of the nineteenth century Ireland was a country almost like a derelict farm, and no country needed money worse for its development. It was decided then that out of the total revenue two-thirds of the whole should be applied to the Imperial services, and Ireland should be left with one-third of her own taxation for Irish purposes.
      That seems to me to be a maladministration so gross that it has left us with a whole harvest of controversies and wrongs which Ireland has never recovered from. Take the Treasury Return given decade by decade for the first part of the period I have named. I find that between the years 1820 and 1870, in those fifty years the total amount raised from Ireland was £287,000,000, and out of that sum £195,000,000 were taken for Imperial purposes, and Ireland was left with £ 92,000,000 for Irish purposes at that period. That was at a time when you first had a great growth of population, which grew without, economic or industrial resources, and it was in that period that Ireland experienced the most serious disaster that has ever occurred in any European country—the terrible tragedy of the great

      563
      famine. Let us consider what happened in the famine years. In the year 1848 when 500,000 Irish people died of famine or famine fever, £2,750,000 were taken for the Army and Navy. In those days what did Irishmen know of the British Army and the British Navy? We knew the British Army as soldiers who guarded the grain from Ireland on its way to pay absentee landlords in this country. Four years after that this House, in its wisdom, decided to raise enormously the burden of Irish taxation. Whilst Ireland was still broken down under this terrible visitation, and although the revenue so raised from Ireland was enormously increased, there was no corresponding increase in the cost of Irish administration. Ten years after the famine in 1859 you had a total revenue raised in Ireland of £7,700,000, out of which £5,400,000 were taken as an Imperial contribution. Surely those figures leave a long leeway to be made up. From 1870 onwards when England really did begin to apply her mind to dealing with the question of the waterlogged state of Ireland, you find a change in the financial relations. If you take the thirty years between 1870 and 1900 you find that the total taxation raised from Ireland was £224,000,000, and it is only fair to say that actually something more than half that amount was spent in Ireland. The sum of £124,000,000 was so spent, but £100,000,000 during those years came from Ireland as a contribution to the Imperial purse. Therefore it is no extravagant statement to say that Ireland during those thirty years did not get value for the £100,000,000 she paid for the Imperial connection.
      Since 1900 the matter has changed. You raised, up to the publication of the last of these Returns, a total of £101,000,000 in this century, and out of that sum £86,000,000 have been spent in Ireland. Even in this century Ireland has contributed £15,000,000 towards your Imperial purse. At the present time it is perfectly true that for the last two years Ave have been a charge upon you, and that is admitted. We hear a great deal of that, but I can remember the time when we were told that Great Britain was treated by Ireland as her milch cow, and we were then contributing £3,000,000 a year. We have this taunt now with more justification, but we had it then when there was no justification whatever. As things stand now, I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester, apart from the technical objection I have alluded to, is unreason-
      564
      able. It is unreasonable to propose the establishment of a principle by a complicated book-keeping transaction of this sort. I think I may say for all Irish Nationalists that the principle put forward in this Clause is one which we fully accept, and it is necessary to our self-respect that we should put ourselves in a position to be able to take our fair share with our fellow subjects in the maintenance of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I say here what I have said on a hundred platforms both in Ireland and in England. We recognise the existing position, and we say that this House is responsible for it. For my own part, what I like in the financial proposals now before us is the fact that they fully recognise that that is a provisional state of things, and that a new and more permanent settlement is contemplated when Ireland has been given time to straighten out her own affairs. For the moment we say that Ireland has paid enough in blood and treasure towards the building up of your Empire, and I think we are entitled to say that, even in principle, there is no necessity at the present time to assert the idea which is associated with the hon. Member's Amendment.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into the history of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. That relationship has been a matter for many years of much dispute, but were I to do so I should certainly have to traverse many of the statements made by the hon. Member. It is sufficient for me now to say that Mr. Gladstone in both his Home Rule Bills recognised that a substantial contribution could be paid by Ireland, after Home Ride was given, towards Imperial expenditure.
      Mr. S. GWYNN: It was Mr. Gladstone who raised the taxation of Ireland four years after the famine.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not think that is a very relevant remark. The statement I was making was that, after all, not only Mr. Gladstone, but the present Prime Minister, whose name was on the back of one of those Bills, thought that Ireland ought to make a contribution—and that that contribution ought to be actually named in figures—towards the Imperial expenditure on the Army, Navy, the National Debt, and Imperial services. For my own part, if I were an Irishman, I do not think I should regret that I had been

      565
      making contributions towards the Imperial expenditure, or that Ireland is still going to make contributions in this respect. If I were an Irishman I should resent the reproach which has been levelled against Irishmen by the learned Attorney-General this afternoon, that they make no contribution under the present system towards Imperial services. You cannot, under our present system, with one Exchequer and under the system by which our taxes are levied, allocated, segregated, or earmarked, fairly say that the Irishmen do not contribute something to Imperial services when they pay taxes on income, Death Duties, or through the commodities which they consume. You cannot fairly and accurately say that they do not contribute substantially towards the Army, Navy, and Imperial services. If I were a landlord in Ireland, or one who paid Income Tax or the heavy taxes in the North of Ireland, upon industry, I should resent it being said that I did not pay quite as much towards Imperial services as any landlord in Caithness or Cork.
      6.0 P.M.
      If we are going to have this fine, geographical distribution, and say what every portion of the United Kingdom pays, let us make the division a little more marked. Let us divide it up into counties and boroughs and parishes, and then we can point to certain people who live in certain places and say, "You pay nothing; you do not pay even a 'bob' towards the Army or the Navy for Imperial expenditure." That is a most grossly unfair way of putting the question, and I think the Attorney-General now sees that it is unfair. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it does cause very great resentment amongst Irishmen when they are taunted with not paying their fair share towards Imperial services. You have a system under which you definitely allocate certain revenues to certain expenditure, and you so allocate those revenues that you leave no part of the revenues of Ireland to be appropriated towards Imperial services. I admit that those gentlemen in the North of Ireland and some in the South will be open to the reproach under your system that no portion of the taxation which is taken from them will go either to the Army, the Navy, or Imperial services. That is one reason why, if I were an Irishman, I should bitterly resent the particular financial proposals of this Bill. I should say it helps to point the finger of scorn, as it were, against me, because I, being a Belfast man, say, with a large ship-
      566
      building industry, pay nothing towards the upkeep of the Navy, whereas large sums of money are paid by my brother shipowners in Glasgow, though the Navy is just as necessary for Belfast as it is for Glasgow. Ireland will be in this peculiar position if these financial proposals are ever carried. Ireland will in all probability be the only part of the Empire which makes no contribution, during the next few years at all events, towards a common and Imperial need. Canada will be making her contribution—we are all expecting a large contribution from Canada—Australia will be making her contribution, South Africa will be making her contribution, and to our great rejoicing we heard in this House the other day that even the Malay States are now going to give us a ship and they will therefore be making their contribution. Yet everyone living in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and the Malay States will, if these financial provisions are carried out, very soon know that Ireland is the only portion of the British Empire which contributes nothing towards the upkeep of the Army and Navy and Imperial services, and, as my hon. Friends reminds me, Ireland will have her representatives here. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has been reproached this afternoon for not making this proposal with any seriousness and for taking the whole thing, much as the Chief Secretary treats the Bill, as a huge joke. That is not the spirit in which we approach this question at all. I do not say this is the very best method of carrying out our purpose, but I do say it raises the whole principle, and, when the Attorney-General accuses my hon. Friend of juggling with figures, I tell him he is in this Bill presenting a false and misleading balance-sheet of the whole situation for the consumption of the English electors.
      If you want to put the true case before the British electors, you will show in your Bill that we are not only asked to contribute £500,000 as a kind of housekeeping account towards the new Irish nation you are going to set up, but that there is a sum of money due from Ireland, it may be one-thirtieth or a little more or a little less, for the annual upkeep of the Army, the Navy, and the Imperial services. My hon. Friend would have gone on to propose that this sum of £500,000 which we are giving under paragraph (b) of this Clause should be enlarged. He himself says he wants to present the whole account,

      567
      showing on the one side what Ireland ought to contribute, £3,500,000, for this purpose, and on the other side what we give back to Ireland. I acknowledge we must give back to Ireland a very large proportion if not the whole of this sum. That would be a proper presentation of the case; that would be a true and not a false and misleading balance-sheet such as is presented by the Government. It would have the great advantage of preserving the principle we ought to lay down, and which has been accepted by the hon. Gentleman who has spoken for the Nationalist party (Mr. Stephen Gwynn). He himself says he accepts the view that Ireland ought to contribute something towards the general expenditure of the British Empire, and he is hoping the time will come when she is able to do so. He belongs, however, to' that school which teaches and preaches that the British taxpayer owes Ireland something like £300,000,000. What is the good, therefore, of his accepting the principle? It is perfectly obvious that neither in our lifetime nor in the lifetime of our children or grandchildren will Great Britain ever see a single sixpence contributed by Ireland towards any of these Imperial Expenses. If he is going to set off that remarkable figure I have so often seen quoted in Nationalist literature—
      Mr. S. GWYNN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not put into my mouth words I did not use. We cannot pay an Imperial contribution until we pay our own way.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will not put into the mouth of the hon. Gentleman the statement I have constantly seen in Nationalist literature, that Great Britain owes to Ireland something like £300,000,000. That, no doubt, will be the teaching of many hon. Members representing Irish constituencies, so I say the principle is not worth much unless it is acknowledged there ought, as a recognition of the principle, to be some contribution, however small, made at the start. I think this is one of the most vital principles, not on account of the money value but on account of the fact that it would be a symbol and a recognition of the unity of the Kingdom and the solidarity of the Empire of which Ireland is still to remain a part. For that and other reasons, I am very glad my hon. Friend has raised the whole of this case, and I hope before the Debate concludes we may have some
      568
      speech from the Front Bench opposite going further than the Attorney-General in the direction of recognising that principle and expressing the full hope and intention of the Government of taking from Ireland at the earlist possible moment that proportion which she ought to give towards Imperial expenditure.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) because he seemed to me to be genuinely desirous of meeting the arguments which were put forward by my hon. Friends. I cannot say that was the impression I received from listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lees Smith) or even to the speech of the Attorney-General. The hon. Member below the Gangway told us that in the year 1800 to 1870 Ireland was practically a waterlogged or derelict farm, and yet during all these years Ireland contributed a very large sum to the Imperial Exchequer. Afterwards, from 1870 down to 1900, Ireland still continued to contribute very largely to the Imperial Exchequer, and for the first twelve years of this century Ireland has contributed no less a sum than £15,000,000. I draw a totally different conclusion from that drawn by the hon. Member. What is the condition of Ireland? Is she a waterlogged and derelict farm? Is it not admitted on all hands that Ireland at the present time is in the most prosperous condition she has ever been in her history, and is it not a great tribute to English government that Ireland is able to contribute to the Imperial Exchequer? The Government therefore ought to have followed the precedent of the 1886 and 1893 Bills and have made Ireland contribute something to the Imperial charges of the United Kingdom, of which I hope she will Ions remain a part. I disagree entirely with the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member, and I venture to say his speech is distinctly against Home Rule, because he showed without doubt that Ireland under English rule has progressed in a most extraordinary way.
      Mr. S. GWYNN: I never said that.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Is it denied that Ireland is now in a state of exceptional prosperity?
      Mr. S. GWYNN: An argument used continually by representatives of Ulster is that in the provinces outside Ulster there

      569
      is no such thing as prosperity and solvency in Ireland.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I was not aware of that, and I do not think, if the hon. Member will look at the Savings Bank, he will be able to substantiate that statement. With regard to the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite who said the Amendment was not genuine, if he will forgive me I do not think his speech was in the least degree genuine. It was devoted to showing that if the Amendment had been brought forward by any one on that side of the House we should have said it was an improper Amendment calculated to deceive the British elector. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is not going to deceive the British elector in any way, and it is because hon. Gentlemen opposite want to deceive the British elector they will not support it. My hon. Friend says Ireland ought to contribute a certain sum of money to Imperial expenditure on the Army and Navy and to the National Debt, and he puts it at £3,500,000. At the same time there would be a deficit in Ireland, and he says therefore that for a certain time we ought to contribute something towards that debt. What is there not genuine about that? It would be a balance sheet which would show that amongst the charges Ireland had got to meet was a certain sum to Imperial Defence. On the other side it would show there was a deficit which had been met by an Imperial contribution.
      Why have not hon. Members opposite followed the precedent of both the former Bills? They have not done so because it would have appeared that the real contribution by the English taxpayer to Ireland for the sake of Home Rule was £5,500,000, and not £2,000,000. It is, therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite who are not genuine and who are endeavouring to cast dust into the eyes of the British electors. It is absolutely clear my hon. Friend meant his proposal to be followed by some qualifying Amendment. I am not at all sure the actual sum he mentioned is the right one. The sums have varied. My hon. Friend says the sum in 1886 was £2,400,000, and in 1893 £2,200,000, and he now makes it £3,500,000. I do not think we need go into the question of the actual figures because it is the principle my hon. Friend desires to emphasise, and it is that principle which I shall support when we go to a Division. We have heard from the hon. Member below the Gangway, and I think from the Attorney-General, that even-
      570
      tually no doubt Ireland will contribute something towards her share of the Imperial expenditure, and we know perfectly well the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) stated only a short time ago at York—I think last week—that it is the ambition of Ireland so to do. I have been twenty years in this House, and I am sorry to say I have lived a great many years in the world, and long before I had the honour of a seat in this House it was my pleasure, and it gave me great interest, to study the political history of Ireland and the political speeches of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I find that they have always been profuse, when any Bill is coming forward from which they hope to gain advantage, in their assurances that something is going to take place as soon as the Bill has been passed. When the Bill of 1893 was being debated we were told that every cause of dispute between Ireland and England would vanish. Have those assurances ever come off? Never once in the long history of the contentions between England and Ireland have the assurances of hon. Members below the Gangway been realised. They have always been forgotten or pushed aside. They have been used, indeed, as a stepping-stone to gain something more.
      If the principles of my hon. Friend's Amendment is rejected we must be careful not to be led into thinking that under Clause 26 we are going to get something in the same direction. Clause 26 provides that if the Joint Exchequer Board finds there is a surplus, then the whole financial arrangements shall be reviewed. Why, seeing that we are discussing these financial arrangements at the present moment, should they be not now settled definitely—while we have not yet departed from the control we possess over Ireland? Why should they be put off for an indefinite period? Let me point out what is going to happen at a particular period under Clause 26. There will be a fresh incursion of hon. Members below the Gangway. We shall not have to be content with forty-two; we shall have a very much larger number; and, looking back on past experience, I do not think that seventy or eighty Irish Members, or whatever the number may be who may come over here, will ever consent to fresh taxation being put on Ireland or to any surplus she possesses being taken away from her and handed over to England. I was not impressed by the concluding remarks of the Attorney-General,

      571
      because the right hon. Gentleman went back to the old argument that if we do not pass this Bill we shall still have to pay a certain amount of money to Ireland. What is the use of saying that something is going to happen if something else does not happen, which, as a matter of fact, is not going to happen? I might just as well say that if we had not this Bill before us, if we were not sitting here discussing impossible Clauses, we should be doing our business or enjoying ourselves in the country, and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite would be looking after the affairs of the nation, and doing much more good for the nation than they can possibly do by trying to pass impossible and bad Bills. I hope, therefore, we shall hear less of that argument in the future. We are not concerned with things which may happen. We are dealing with the Bill itself, and not with what will happen if the Bill is not passed. I have endeavoured to show good reasons why we should support the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I would like to hear the hon. Member for Coventry give us a real debating speech, not a speech full of jokes and jests, or dealing with something which does not arise, but a speech dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend, showing, if he can, where we are wrong. If the hon. Member will undertake that task, he may make a valuable contribution to the Debate and set a good example to the hon. Members who sit around him.
      Mr. DAVID MASON: After the invitation of the hon. Member for the City of London, I feel bound to offer a few observations on this Amendment. I have, as many hon. Members have, a very high regard for the financial ability and astuteness of the hon. Baronet, but I think that on this occasion he has rather got into a hole, and I hope I shall be able to show he has done something which will take away from that great financial reputation he has hitherto enjoyed. Surely any Amendment which may be proposed by hon. Members opposite should have regard to the Financial Resolution which this House has already passed. Whether hon. Members opposite agree with that Financial Resolution is another metter. Of course they do not agree with it; they opposed it. But the fact remains, it is now part and parcel of the Bill.
      Sir F. BANBURY: It can be rescinded.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Or withdrawn.
      Mr. D. MASON: It has not been rescinded, and it is not likely to be withdrawn. It has become part of this Bill, and, therefore, any Amendment suggesting that Ireland should contribute in the manner suggested in this Amendment cuts across that Financial Resolution, and its adoption would necessitate the carrying of another Financial Resolution. The hon. Member for the City of London is first and foremost a financier. Surely when supporting any Amendment, whether he is in favour of Home Rule or not, he should have some regard for his reputation as a sound financier. This Amendment in itself is absurd.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I said I supported the principle of it.
      Mr. D. MASON: I am glad to have that admission, because that saves the reputation of the hon. Baronet. I submit he should go further and not make himself ridiculous—I say that with all respect—by walking into the Lobby in support of an Amendment which would make this Bill financially ridiculous. Undoubtedly this Amendment cannot be made square with the finance of the Bill. Therefore we can only discuss the principle of it. Hon. Members opposite, when the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said Ireland will contribute nothing, seemed to forget that Ireland still is, and will remain, a part of the United Kingdom. She will be liable to taxes; she will still have to contribute to the upkeep of the Army and Navy, and it is absurd to imagine that this Bill will cut her off from all that. Let us look at this matter from a business point of view. We have great investments of British capital in Ireland. Is it not to our interest to treat Ireland very generously, so that we may be able to look after our investments? Is it not to our interest that she should be prosperous?
      Sir J. LONSDALE: Why do you not leave her alone?
      Mr. D. MASON: If we leave all our investments alone they will probably come to a bad end. We want to make them reproductive. We want to make Ireland prosperous, so that we may get back the capital we have invested in land purchase. We want to make Ireland a good customer of our own, and we believe that this Bill will help to do that. We want our methods

      573
      to be financially sound and business-like, and we are putting forward a scheme which we believe to be financially sound and which we believe also will lead to ever-increasing prosperity in Ireland. Have not hon. Members opposite some other scheme than a policy of despair. Can they not suggest something else than that we should leave Ireland alone? We on this side are first and foremost Home Rulers, but we also look on this matter as a business proposition put forward in the interests of the prosperity of Ireland. I submit that in carrying out the scheme of this Bill and in negativing this Amendment we are doing that which is in accordance with the Financial Resolution that has been made a part of the Bill, and we are carrying out the highest principles of statesmanship which will lead to greater prosperity, not only in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom.
      Mr. MOORE: Of course we have had the customary gibe that we are complaining both that too much is being done and too little—too much from the English point of view and too little from the Irish point of view. As a matter of fact my natural inclination would be to vote for as little as possible being given to Ireland. It does not hurt me to be told that I am voting for a reduction of the proposed Grant to Ireland. I would cheerfully vote to give nothing at all to Ireland, and I know my Constituents hold the same view, because they are aware that a Grant to Ireland would be coupled with a proposal to put the Government of that country into the hands of the new Tammany Hall, to be set up in Dublin, which would mean nothing but corruption, jobbery, and disaster for the whole country. Why should I advocate that? On the other hand, I could vote without feeling the least inconsistency for making a Grant of ten times the amount to Ireland, because if the sum suggested were multiplied by five or by ten its inequity and injustice would become so apparent to the British elector that he would turn like the proverbial worm. He only wants to be made aware of the mean shifts and illusory draftsmanship to which the Government have resorted in order to conceal the true nature of their proposal. When you put it to Englishmen who will have to pay the bulk of the taxation, that they are being bled under this Bill, in order that the Government may retain Nationalist support in the House of Commons, they do not like it, and that is why
      574
      the proposals of the Government are-wrapped up in this manner.
      I should like to come to the actual words of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Galway professed that nothing would delight him and his party so much as to be in a position to make this annual contribution. He said he had stated that on many platforms in Ireland and in England. It is quite possible he has said it in England, but I have never seen a speech of that character reported in Ireland. If he is in earnest I can only say that it is quite at variance with the general policy of his party. I am not aware that when there was a call on his countrymen for money for Imperial necessities, very much help in either men or money was forthcoming from his party. I know they had a meagre subscription to send out a nursing expedition front Dublin, to help not the British but the Boers. As I have said, we often have had these professions of a desire to contribute to Imperial services, but, personally, I have never seen any tangible proof in that direction. The hon. Member said he wants Ireland to contribute towards the Imperial expenditure, and trusts she will be able to do so at a later date. We, in Ulster, want to contribute also. We have paid cheerfully and ungrudgingly in the past, and we are willing to do so again. We would rather multiply our contributions to Imperial expenditure by ten fold than be handed over to a Nationalist Tammany Hall in Dublin. Let there be no mistake. The hon. Member says that he is willing that his party should contribute towards Imperial expenditure. We, on our part, are willing that Ulster should. If that is to be done, and I take it that hon. Members on the other side of the House are also willing it should be done, surely the only way you can secure it is by voting for this Amendment, because it gives you a statutory power of deduction in the Bill for ever, before one penny comes to Ireland. My hon. Friend, the Member for Colchester, was perfectly right in wanting to secure this deduction put in the Bill. It will meet the money justice of the case, and it is a business proposition, but if you leave the power of deduction out of the Bill now, when do you think you are ever going to get it back? One thing is quite certain; you will never get a Nationalist Parliament to eat all their words and go back on the past, and you will never get a contribution

      575
      from Ireland until you get the consent of the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin.
      It is all very well talking about the Exchequer Board you are setting up to control the Irish Executive, but after six years you part with executive control, as you hand over the police services to the new body. Suppose there is any balance, how, in the first place, would you get the consent of the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin to handing it over? It is unpopular to impose taxes, and it will be more unpopular to impose taxes for the British Army with Members of that Parliament composed of members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the United Irish League, and some of the Irish Boy Scouts, who are now growing up, all pledged never to take service in a British Army. Do you think you will ever get in a House of that sort a Resolution agreeing to extra taxation for Imperial purposes. Getting it is the first obstacle, and the second is that, after you have handed over the entire executive control of the country to that same body when a balance can be struck—I do not believe it ever can be—or when, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, there ought to be a contribution from Ireland, you will have to begin to bargain and haggle over it. I do not believe you will ever be able to get it if you ask for it. All these difficulties will be obviated—they are very real difficulties—if you put into your Bill now what my hon. Friend suggests, and make an annual deduction a statutory power which shall be exercised every year, leaving no room for future trouble and bargaining. You would be able to make up for the seven lean years which are to come by increasing the annual contribution. The reason why the Government do not do it is one of the reasons which guides the Government in everything, the fear that the electors' gorge might rise at the increased yearly contribution to Ireland. I do not pretend not to be a party man, but no party man who wants to get fair dealing between the parties can have any option, putting aside party interests, but to support the Amendment.
      Mr. BIGLAND: One of the few Members on the other side of the Committee who have spoken on this Amendment, said that we had no genuine object in bringing it forward. I wish to refute that. I wish to say that every honourable man who is handing over the Government in Ireland
      576
      to others must, in his own mind, stipulate, when they become prosperous and wealthy again, what percentage they should pay to us. I believe the time will come when Ireland will again be able to pay out of her prosperity a fair share towards the upkeep of the services of the United Kingdom. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moore) spoke about the poverty south of the Boyne. During the last fifty years there is no doubt whatever that wealth has come through industry, and I am not at all sure that still greater wealth will not come through the land during the next fifty years. We have only to look at the marvellous rise in prices since 1895 in all the commodities which Ireland produces. A man like myself, who is intensely interested in business and in following all the fluctuations of the markets of the world, when he comes to consider what the products of Ireland are worth compared with fifteen to twenty years ago, sees the possibility of this thirtieth part of our expenditure being paid by Ireland. I think it will only be honourable for this Committee to fix in principle the percentage that she should pay. I remember the days when lard was selling in Liverpool at 16s. 4d.; to-day it is 70s. Can you not imagine the difference in value of raising hogs in Ireland to-day compared with twenty years ago? Cannot we see the same thing in the price of butter to-day, and in the possibility of the rise in value of these rich lands of Ireland—and they are rich lands; there is enormous wealth in the South and West of Ireland, and that wealth under a sound fiscal policy will grow. I say without any hesitation that when the present Leader of the Opposition sits on the other side as Leader of the Government, and when we have had ten years of sound fiscal policy for Ireland, she will be able to meet this thirtieth part of the necessary cost of the upkeep of the United Kingdom very easily.
      I am a great believer in the possibility of the soil of Ireland, carefully cared for by a Government which understands business, becoming valuable. I believe we are doing a most insane thing. We are taxing food at the same rate that we are taxing the foreign food that comes in. If you grow sugar in Ireland to-day you have to pay an Excise Duty equal to the duty paid on foreign sugar. [Interruption.] I may be a little off the line, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown it in our teeth over and over again that when we propose something we never say how

      577
      the money is to be raised. I object to being talked to as the Front Bench opposite have talked to us in regard to fiscal matters. They first of all talk to us as if we were children, and then as if we were gods. They appeal to us and say, "Surely, out of the greatness of our hearts we should forgive Ireland all necessity of contributing towards the services of this country in the future!" Then we are talked to as children, as if the proposals we made were simply gibes and jeers. I am reminded of one line of Rudyard Kipling:—
      "We are neither children nor God, but men in a world of men."
      This fiscal proposition is just as a man should meet a man, and as men should speak to men. It is that when they come into their income, when again they are prosperous, they will be willing to accept 1he principle proposed in this Amendment. I believe that if any race is honourable, Irishmen are honourable, and when they are able to pay I believe they will pay. Then, surely, they should go into the Lobby with us, so that in their children's time, when this prosperity has come to them they will honourably take up again the position they know and feel is theirs in the United Kingdom, and so accept the principle of paying one-thirtieth part of the total cost of the necessary services of this country. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and sincerely trust that the principle involved in it, even if it is difficult to carry out under the fiscal arrangements that have already been passed by this House, will be adopted. Surely we have in the vast number of Clauses yet to follow, a possibility of so readjusting the account that, if the Committee accepts the Amendment as a principle, it will be possible to readjust matters in such a way that a principle which will not come into force for many years shall still be laid down in the Bill.
      Sir J. D. REES: With the indulgence of the Committee I should like to reinforce the arguments used in favour of this Amendment by an illustration from a question to-day. A question was put as to the procedure by which a "Dreadnought" from India would be accepted by the British Government, and the Prime Minister, if I may say so respectfully, very properly answered that India paid her full share towards the defence of the United Kingdom, as she does in regard to the Army. Nobody suggested then—it was taken as a matter of course—that
      578
      India should contribute towards Imperial defence. Why not Ireland? And why not now? Why wait? Clause 26 of this Bill provides that on a certain occasion there shall be a proper contribution secured from Irish revenues. Why not now? The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) said, "Has not Ireland given enough?" Ireland gives a great deal in giving men, and they are good men, the best of men. I am sure everyone feels that; but she should also give money. The hon. Member said, "Have we not shed enough Irish blood to build up your Empire?" Why "your Empire"? He forgets what an Imperialist his leader is when speaking in the United Kingdom. I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) on 27th May, 1911:—
      "Whose Empire is this? Yours? No, it is ours, as well as yours. We, as Irishmen, are not prepared to surrender our share in the heritage which our fathers created."
      Then why not at once shoulder a proportionate contribution towards the expenses of maintaining that Empire? It was argued by the Attorney-General that this was a mere matter of account. Matters of account are extremely important as between different portions of the same Empire. I was sorry he suggested that my hon. Friend's Amendment is not a serious one. He did it with perfect courtesy. He always does. His courtesy is only equalled by his capacity. I think it is one of the most serious Amendments we have ever had in the House of Commons, because the principle involved is also involved in the very foundations of our Empire. When he suggests it is only a matter of account and is therefore not important, let the Committee consider what has arisen out of the want of a proper system of accounts between Ireland and Great Britain in the past. Lord MacDonnell has been quoted to-day, and I should like to refer to one statement made in his letter to the "Times" this morning. I am glad to be able to quote from one whom I am proud to have served with as a brother officer, though I do not agree with his policy. He says:—
      "Great Britain got £325,000,000 over and above the money spent on the Irish Government."
      And the hon. Member (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) allots that out and says so much of that was for the Army and so much for the Navy. I cannot imagine how he arrives at those figures. So far as I know

      579
      there never was any allotment for these figures between the Army and the Navy, or any other Imperial purpose. The fact is that in the absence of a kind of book-keeping settlement such as the Amendment would introduce into this Clause, it is impossible to say what contributions were ever made, or if any were ever made by Ireland towards the defence of the United Kingdom. What is the objection to introducing it? The hon. Member (Mr. D. Mason), who undertook to deal with this matter in the light of dry financial reason, said the Amendment could not be brought within the four corners of the Financial Resolution. He laid that down with much confidence without explaining why, and it seems to me that when you have a Financial Resolution set up no mere figures can be at variance with the Financial Resolution. The Financial Resolution consists of blank columns, into which figures may be entered at will. At least, in such book-keeping as I have seen a sum may be objected to as being incorrect—you may object to the figures, and so on—but you cannot say that the introduction of figures into a Resolution which provides columns for figures is not within the four corners of the Resolution and cannot properly be moved, as in my hon. Friend's Amendment. He also tried to put the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) upon the horns of a dilemma—an extremely difficult thing to do. The hon. Baronet did not say that he admitted that this Amendment was not within the four corners of the Resolution. He says he is going to vote for it, anyhow, and that is the main point.
      Mr. D. MASON: The hon. Baronet said he admitted he was only supporting the Amendment because of the principle involved.
      Sir J. D. REES: I think myself the hon. Baronet was a little incautious in what he said, but I think he was by no means caught out by the hon. Member (Mr. D. Mason). When it comes to voting, you will find he will vote as he always did. Then the hon. Member, having speedily got off the high and dry financial line, began to argue that Ireland will still be a part of the United Kingdom. If it is a part of the United Kingdom, why cannot it remain there? The point is that under this Bill the United Kingdom is to be disunited, and Ireland is to be a separate financial entity. I submit that this Amendment is quite in order under the Financial
      580
      Resolution, that it postulates a principle of the utmost Imperial importance, that instead of deserving only the somewhat perfunctory treatment it received from the Attorney-General, I believe it is worthy of all the attention which the Government can give it, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in which case I shall vote with all my heart for it.
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The hon. Gentleman said of the Attorney-General that his capacity was only equalled by his courtesy. We might very well say of the hon. Member that his self-confidence is only equalled by the rapidity with which he changes his opinions.
      Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to assert that I have ever, in any way whatsoever, in my life given the slightest support to any Resolution, Bill, or any other statement, in favour of Home Rule? I quite admit that he may not be aware of the actions of so humble an individual, but he should abstain from making insinuations which he cannot substantiate.
      Mr. KELLAWAY: If the hon. Gentleman asks me to withdraw the statement that he has not changed his opinion on this or any other subject—
      Sir J. D. REES: Certainly, on this subject.
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The reservation is so important that I do not think it is necessary for me to withdraw anything I have said in regard to him. Many Members on this side of the House were glad to hear the speech that fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland). He certainly showed a better temper in regard to the character of Irishmen than has characterised many speeches on that side. It was pleasant to hear the testimony to the high honour of Irishmen, but how sharp a contrast that was to the speech made only a few minutes before by an Irishman, in which, speaking of his fellow-countrymen, he referred to them as a lot of men only worthy of belonging to a Tammany organisation. If we could only get more of that temper which was shown by the hon. Member (Mr. Bigland) we should find that we were much nearer agreement on this great question of Irish finance than the appearance would seem to show. But the value of this Amendment is not in the extent to which it is a contribution towards the finance of this Bill. The real interest is in the extent to which it reveals what is the Tory

      581
      financial policy. It has added one more complication to the variety of contradictions which have characterised the proposals from the other side in regard to the settlement of the Irish financial position. Speaker after speaker on that side has made suggestions with regard to the financial proposals which have been mutually destructive, and that was shown by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig), who said he did not agree with the Amendment, that it would put an unjust burden on those who had sent him to the House, but by force of habit he felt compelled to vote in support of it. I am afraid there is a good deal of support given to Amendments on the other side which is given, not on their merits, but by force of habit.
      An HON. MEMBER: What about yours?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I hear a cry of anguish. There is another hon. Member who feels that his conscience is not quite easy in that regard. So far as this has been argued on its merits by speakers from the other side, I think their case has come down to this, that in the previous Home Rule Bill a contribution was demanded towards Imperial expenses. Is it inconsistent now, in a new financial position, when for the first time a Bill is brought in dealing with Ireland, which is now a charge upon Imperial resources, which is not under the present system making a contribution, to bring in a new proposal for dealing with that situation? What we are doing is to take the facts as they are, honestly face them, and put
      down proposals which everyone can see and whose merits can be tested. But this Amendment is a sham from beginning to end. It was admitted by the hon. Member who moved it that if it were carried he would have to carry a consequential Amendment under which there would be an increase in the bounty which is given to Ireland of several millions. Let it be recognised outside that that is the Conservative proposal to-day, that instead of granting Ireland £1,500,000 for the present deficit and a bounty of £500,000 they propose to grant a bounty of £5,500,000, and in order to get over the difficulty they are going to have a little bit of jiggery-pokery in the book-keeping in order to pretend that something is not being done which is actually being done. Your proposal comes to exactly what the Government are proposing, except that the Government does it honestly and you do it by a system of book-keeping which disguises the fact. It is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When you ask us to believe that Ireland now ought to make a contribution because at last she is prosperous and that her prosperity is due to the application of Unionist ideas to the facts of Ireland, you are asking us to forget the whole, history of the Irish question. The prosperity of Ireland is not due to the application of Unionist ideas to Ireland, but to the fact that the Unionist party and the Liberal party alike have adopted Nationalist ideas and have applied them to Ireland.
      Question put, "That the word 'consisting' stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 135.

      Division No. 318.]

      AYES.

      [7.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Boland, John Pius

      Cotton, William Francis

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Adamson, William

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Crooks, William

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Brace, William

      Crumley, Patrick

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Cullinan, John

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

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

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Armitage, Robert

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Burke, E. Haviland.

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

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Dawes, J. A.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

      De Forest, Baron

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Delany, William

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Dillon, John

      Barton, W.

      Clough, William

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Clynes, John R.

      Doris, W.

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

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Duffy, William J.

      Bentham, G. J.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

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

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Leach, Charles

      Pringle, Wm. M. R.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Radford, G. H.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lundon, T.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Falconer, J.

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Reddy, Michael

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Lynch, A. A.

      Redmond, John E (Waterford)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Ffrench, Peter

      McGhee, Richard

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Field, William

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

      Richards, Thomas

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      M'Curdy, C. A.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Gilt, A. H.

      M'Kean, John

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Ginhell, L.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Robinson, Sidney

      Glanville, H. J.

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

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Manfield, Harry

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

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

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

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

      Meagher, Michael

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Hackett, John

      Menzies, Sir Walter

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

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Sheehy, David

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Molloy, M.

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithnessshire)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

      Mooney, John J.

      Snowden, Philip

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

      Morgan, George Hay

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Worrell, Philip

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Morison, Hector

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Hayden, John Frederick

      Muldoon, John

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Hayward, Evan

      Munro, R.

      Sutton, John E.

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Neilson, Francis

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Nolan, Joseph

      Toulmin, Sir George

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

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Higham, John Sharp

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hinds, John

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Wadsworth, J.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hodge, John

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Dowd, John

      Wardle, George J.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Ogden, Fred

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

      O'Grady, James

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      John, Edward Thomas

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

      Webb, H.

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

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Malley, William

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

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Whitehouse, John Howard

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

      O'Shee, James John

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

      Jowett, F. W.

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Whyte, A. F.

      Joyce, Michael

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Wiles, Thomas

      Keating, Matthew

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Kelly, Edward

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      King, J.

      Pointer, Joseph

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

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

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Young, William (Perth, E.)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      NOES.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

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

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Archer-Shee, Major Martin

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Baird, J. L.

      Barnston, Harry

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth).

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

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

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Balcarres, Lord

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

      Bigland, Alfred

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      584

      585

      Boyton, J.

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

      Moore, William

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

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

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Bridgeman, W, Clive

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Nield, Herbert

      Burn, Col. C. R.

      Hamersley, A. St. George

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Butcher, John George

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Peel, Captain R. F.

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Campion, W. R.

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Cassel, Felix

      Hill, Sir Clement

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Cautley, H. S.

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

      Clyde, James Avon

      Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Stanier, Beville

      Croft, H. P.

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Stewart, Gershom

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Kerry, Earl of

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Swift, Rigby

      Fell, Arthur

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir element

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Larmor, Sir J.

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

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

      Touche, George Alexander

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Valentia, Viscount

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

      Gardner, Ernest

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

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

      Gilmour, Captain John

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

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Malcolm, Ian

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Mr. Worthington-Evans and Mr. Wheler.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      The CHAIRMAN: I should point out to the Hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins), whose Amendment is to be moved next, that he cannot raise here the question of the constitution or the general powers of the Joint Exchequer Board. That comes properly on Clause 22. I understand that the hon. Member desires to raise the question whether the Transferred Sum should be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will we not be entitled now, in view of the particular conditions under which debate is taking place, to raise the whole question whether there ought to be an Exchequer Board or not? Otherwise, if we do not raise the question now, we shall really have set up the Joint Exchequer Board, and it would be impossible to go back upon that decision.
      The CHAIRMAN: There have been similar cases before where there has been a reference to a body in a Clause, while later on the Clause constituting the body has to be discussed. I think I have ruled myself that the passing of words in an earlier Clause would not prejudice the discussion at a later stage. I think the dis-
      586
      cussion of the constitution and powers of the Joint Exchequer Board should come on Clause 22. It would be a pity to takeaway from the discussion of the question of finance, in which we are now engaged, the time necessary to discuss the constitution of the Joint Exchequer Board.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand from your decision that you yourself have ruled that it would be in order later on to discuss the proposal to set up a Joint Exchequer Board, in spite of our putting in these words at this stage.
      The CHAIRMAN: Certainly. The passing of these words hero will not in any way prejudice the discussion on Clause 22 whether there should be a Joint Exchequer Board or not.
      Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I would point out that Clauses 22 and 23 are to be taken on the same day before half-past Seven.
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes. The question that both these Clauses stand part of the Bill will, on the allotted day, be taken at half-past Seven, but Clause 22 comes at the beginning of the day.
      Mr. HEWINS: On the point of Order. I should like to know precisely where we stand before I move my Amendment. In Clause 14, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), these words occur:
      "the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board."
      It is really impossible to discuss what the Joint Exchequer Board may do with regard to the Irish services without at any rate referring to certain other parts of the Bill. I entirely bow to your ruling that it is not desirable at this stage to raise the question of the constitution of the Board or to discuss with any particularity the functions which are handed over to the Board, but certain references cannot possibly be left out.
      The CHAIRMAN: I have informed the hon. Member what can now be discussed. I am quite certain that I can rely upon him in dealing with the matter not to travel too wide.
      Captain CRAIG: As far as this particular Clause is concerned there depends upon the certificate given by the Joint Exchequer Board what the representation shall be by Irish Members in the House of Commons here. May I ask whether it would not be in order on this particular Amendment if the Joint Exchequer Board certify in one direction or another as to the revenue collected by Irish taxation, to raise the whole point as to Irish representation. Is not that question immediately raised?
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that has anything to do with this Clause. That refers to the power of the Joint Exchequer Board to decide when a revision of the financial arrangements is due. That comes on Clause 26, and it ought not to be referred to now.
      Mr. HEWINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board)," and to insert instead thereof the words "Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom."
      This is the first reference in the Bill to the Joint Exchequer Board, and if we try to find out what duties that Exchequer Board is to discharge we find that by referring to Clause 22. Without going into the question of the constitution of the
      588
      Board, we find that it has to make the inquiries and investigations entrusted to it, and that then its decision is final and conclusive. We find further that this Board is not directly or indirectly responsible either to the existing British House of Commons or to the Irish House of Commons which it is proposed to set up. My Amendment, therefore, raises the whole question of Parliamentary control of the finances of the country. I want to know how this extraordinary provision has got into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often show considerable restiveness when it is suggested that there is some doubt in our minds as to their Convictions. I would like to reason with hon. Gentlemen opposite and to investigate the question as to where precisely conviction is found on that particular subject in their minds. A considerable part of last year was devoted by them to passing the Parliament Act. The very object of that we all understood was to assert the absolute and complete control of this House. If it did not mean that what did it mean? Here we find in this particular Bill this same party, after all these provisions, after doing their best to destroy the Constitution in order to carry out their views, now proposing in this Bill to set up a body above and beyond this House of Commons. They do that by establishing this Joint Exchequer Board. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they are brought face to face with the difficulties of this Bill, remind us somewhat of the difficulties which faced the Congress of Vienna, and the establishment of the German Empire, and when in doubt, the people who took part in these Congresses thought they would refer the matter to a committee. You have these gentlemen brought face to face with the difficulty, and we are referred to some other Clause. Now we are referred to the Joint Exchequer Board.
      I realise fully the significance of your ruling about the subjects which we can bring into the present discussion. But the logical deduction of most of the functions of this Board are summed up in its first function which we are now discussing—the determination of the cost of services transferred at the passing of the Act. That is part and parcel of the whole fiscal system of the United Kingdom at present. You are taking out of that complete system one portion, and you are leaving it to this body of gentlemen to draw up rules and make investigations, and come

      589
      to a decision which binds this House, the Irish House, and the country with regard to that particular section of our national activity. If you take any one part of the function which we are at present discharging as a United Kingdom, and if you subject that part to an investigation of a body called the Joint Exchequer Board you are really giving the Joint Exchequer Board control, not only with regard to those particular services and subjects, but of all the related subjects, because you have got to consider the financial and fiscal arrangement of the country as a whole. How is this Joint Exchequer Board going to perform its duties? I have the highest opinion of the financial experts who may be at the service of the Government, I do not know who they will be, or how the Board is going to be named, or what sort of people will be on it. But everybody knows that a Government has the possibility, at any rate, of getting into its service the greatest financial experts of the world. But what are the problems? I will not say they are insoluble; but it is quite impossible to come to any conclusions which are not founded upon certain hypotheses which are highly controversial. We have had experience of various inquiries which have been held into Irish affairs. I take the great Financial Relations Inquiry of 1896. They carried on investigations into topics which the Chief Secretary would call topics of the same class, and yet there is not a line, not a conclusion in the report, and even in the investigations of the Financial Relations Commission which was not the subject of the greatest amount of controversy and contradiction. The Government did not accept it; the economic experts did not accept it; nobody accepted it as a final and conclusive decision.
      Take your own Committee of Inquiry. You have just had a Committee of Inquiry, yet you will not let us see the evidence, that is, you will not let us see the hypotheses which witnesses put forward in giving their evidence which we would very much like to know. You have rejected your own Committee. Take the subject which has been discussed on the financial Resolution. The Postmaster-General cannot tell what his own Bill means. The Attorney-General does not know; we do not know. Take the discussion this afternoon. We have had subject after subject started; there is the greatest fog on the Benches opposite as to what these provisions mean. Yet we are
      590
      going to select five gentlemen apparently without any of the equipment of a great public Department. There is no provision for that here, simply' five excellent experts selected by the Government. These gentlemen are going to cast a general view over the cost of Irish services, one of the most complicated things they could possibly inquire into. We do not know how they are to investigate, when they are to begin and when to end, who is to institute it and draw up its terms of reference. None of those things are in the Bill. I suppose that the five gentlemen will meet, comfortably discussing things and deciding questions. There is no definition of how, when, and where this particular thing is to take place, and they are to investigate it. They have got to come to conclusions about the cost of different Irish services which are binding on the country, on this House, and on the Irish House of Commons. Could anything be more absurd? Some of us have had comparatively minor problems to investigate. Take the simplest things, the simple collation and comparison of the statistics bearing upon the Irish services. You could not get a number of experts to agree how those statistics should be interpreted. It is a perfectly well-known thing in all these investigations that you cannot merely take a number of tables supplied to you by other Departments and jot down the figures and come to some definite, final conclusion. Very often, before you know what particular group of figures or facts should be taken, you have got to collect evidence on the widest scale. This Government never collected any evidence at all, so far as I can see, about this Bill. They have not got any information to enable us to judge about these very items. Yet they expect this body of men, without any equipment and inquiries into these delicate financial subjects, to come to final and complete decisions. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that if they set up a body whose conclusions bind the House of Commons in such a way as I have described, they are setting up a body which, if it is to carry out this work at all, is to cut across all existing Departments.
      They have got to get the assistance of the Board of Trade, of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland, and of a great many other bodies, and of figures drawn from different sources, and constructed from different points of view, and they will have to have a complete expert staff to see how

      591
      these various matters should be arranged, and what conclusions are to be drawn by these five excellent gentlemen. They cannot sit down before tabular figures of this kind and come to a decision which this House or any other House can adopt. We certainly shall not do so, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London pointed out yesterday, it is not merely a question of giving an expert decision upon the meaning of certain, let us say, carefully prepared and perfectly accurate statistics. At every stage they have got to take decisions which affect policy. By the decisions of this Board you may find this House and this country plunged into the throes of some violent controversy. Did anyone hear of such a body being set up in this country, a body extern to this House, not responsible to this House, whose reports are not laid on the Table of this House, acting in accordance with terms of reference which are not drafted by this House, but are drawn up by themselves, inventing hypotheses which happen to suit the atmosphere of the moment, coming along and arriving at conclusions and telling the British House of Commons it is to have a revolution? That is what it comes to. The idea is perfectly absurd, and if we were actuated in criticising this provision by merely party motives, we could not have a better case here. All over England during the last year and the year before, hon. Gentlemen opposite were stumping the country, speaking against the House of Lords, and crying up the power of the House of Commons over all these proceedings, and exaggerating the power of the House of Commons, and now these very gentlemen, just as they swallowed Free Trade yesterday in voting for the Financial Resolution, so now they are going to abandon the very life principle of all representative institutions. There is no period of our history, so far as I am acquainted with it, in which if you made a proposal like this to set up an extern body not responsible to this House, and yet to bind its decisions on points involving policy, such a proposal would not have been strongly resented, and in some periods would have led to revolutionary outbreaks.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps, in the first place, it would be as well to call the attention of the Committee to what is really the proper scope of this Amendment. The hon. Member has addressed the Committee as if he had been raising
      592
      some great question of constitutional importance. What is it that the Joint Exchequer Board is asked to do under this Clause? Later on, when we come to other Clauses in which the Joint Exchequer Board is asked to deal with questions of some complexity, I can understand that some discussion may be raised and reasoned arguments may be required if relevant in support of our proposals. Whenever the Joint Exchequer Board is mentioned in the Bill, hon. Members opposite are at liberty to raise the particular point which is dealt with by that Clause. Here we are dealing with the function which is thrown upon the Joint Exchequer Board by Clause 14, and I will ask the Committee to consider precisely what the task is which they will be called upon to perform. It is to determine what sum represents the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services. That is purely a question of fact. The hon. Member who has moved this said that the functions which they are asked to perform involve the decision by them of questions of policy which ought properly to be retained in the hands of the House itself.
      Mr. HEWINS: I do not confine it to that. I say that the purely financial proposals of this Bill are exceedingly objectionable and contrary to the British Constitution.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member said that the functions that they are called upon to perform, the decisions which they will be asked to make affect policy. If it were true that their decisions were to affect policy and the decision of policies was entrusted to them then I should agree with every word which the hon. Member has said. I think it would be in the highest degree improper to depute to any outside body of financial or other experts the consideration of questions of constitutional or financial policy. It is in the provisions relating to the Joint Exchequer Board that in every case they are asked to decide what are questions of fact. In no instance is that clearer than in relation to the question now under consideration. They are asked to decide. Nothing more than this. What, at the time of the passing of the Act, is the actual cost to the Exchequer of the services transferred to the Irish Government? It does not rest with them to determine what those services are. That is Clearly set out by Parliament in the Act itself,

      593
      which declares what the Irish services are, and the sole function of the Board is to say what is, at the time of the passing of the Act, the cost of those services to the Exchequer. The task raises no question of policy, raises, indeed, no question of difficulty, though it does involve the examination of a very considerable number of points of detail, and surely points of financial detail. It is a task which, as a matter of fact, is already performed year by year by the Treasury, and the results are laid before Parliament year by year from a White Paper.
      The Paper of this year is No. 190, and is beaded, "Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland)," and in this Paper there are seven pages of statistics showing the present cost of the various national services, in so far as they relate to expenditure in regard to England, Scotland, Ireland, and the general expenditure of the United Kingdom respectively. The sole function which the Board has to discharge under this Clause is to check the figures in going through this Paper, to on sure that the figures are accurate, that the division is properly made, with, of course, due regard to the provisions in the Bill which determine what are Irish services and what are services common to the United Kingdom. I have said that they are to ascertain the cost of the services at the time of the passing of the Act, and there are plenty of precedents in Acts of Parliament where a similar course has been adopted. We are dealing in this particular matter by way of giving additional security, and not leaving it merely to a Government Department, but setting up what is in the nature of a Commission of the most authoritative character to decide any disputed point. I have just had handed to me an Act of Parliament passed by hon. Members opposite. The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which provides that there is to be a Commissioner of Valuation who is to decide the amounts to be taken for the purpose of this Act as having been raised in the whole of Ireland by Poor rate and county cess on agricultural land and of any other hereditament, respectively; the portion of each of those amounts which is to be taken for the purpose of this Act in each administrative county, (i.) in respect of county at large charges; and in respect of union charges, urban and district charges." The Local Government Act of 1888 also contains a similar provision, and I could quote a score of Acts of Parliament
      594
      in which this House has very naturally and very properly devolved to some experts outside its own body the determination of matters of facts in circumstances of this kind.
      Sir E. CARSON: All those questions come before the Treasury or the Local Government Board, or whatever the Department may be, and the Departments are responsible to this House.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That may be so, and this House, as a matter of tact, always accepts the determination of this Department. I think it would be a very unusual course for this House to say that such and such things shall be dealt with: that the figures are to be determined by the Treasury, and, the Treasury hating determined them, that then the House should reverse their decision. That, I venture to say, has never been done. But what is the proposal in this Amendment? The hon. Member is not content, with taking this function, which is little more than an arithmetical function, out of the hands of the Joint Exchequer Board, but he proposes an alternative, and what is the alternative? That the House of Commons itself, a legislative assembly of 670 gentlemen should go through the seven pages of statistics, and shall determine whether or not the pensions for official services paid in Ireland really amount to £12,000 or £12,500 or £11,500; whether certain inspectors will receive £500,000—I am taking the items haphazard —and whether the surveys of the United Kingdom really cost £67,500 in relation to Ireland, while they cost £999,000 in relation to England.
      Mr. HEWINS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the House of Commons discusses the Estimates?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House of Commons discuss the Estimates because they involve policy and can be varied from year to year, but here you are not giving the Joint Exchequer Board any power of variation or any power of determining policies; they merely have to open the books and to see what are the figures contained in those books. That is the function devolved upon them. The hon. Member gave us the illustration of the Parliament Act, and he said that we spent weeks in defining what a Money Bill is under that Act. What did the House of Commons do under the Parliament Act? The hon. Member's illustration tells precisely against his contention. It did not reserve to itself the determination of whether or

      595
      not a particular Bill did or did not conform to its own definition; it laid down the definition, and deputed the decision to the expert authority of Mr. Speaker himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I remember that the Bill was modified in that direction by giving Mr. Speaker two assessors, whose advice he might accept. The Bill, as originally introduced, if my memory serves me aright, devolved that power on Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member's interruption was made in error, and his illustration tells against his view and not in favour of it. Supposing the suggestion of hon. Members opposite had been adopted by us in drafting the Bill, and supposing in drafting the Bill we had inserted a provision by which the House of Commons itself had to go through these seven pages of statistics, and to decide whether or not they are accurate, or in what particular they err, would not hon. Members opposite have said, "Have you ever seen such a ridiculous proposal as actually to expect this House of 670 Members to wade through all these figures and decide whether or not they are accurate?" The only result of the hon. Member's Amendment, if it were accepted, would be to devolve upon the House of Commons, instead of relieving it of business, an additional task, which, by its very constitution, I venture to say it is totally unfitted to perform.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously—and I am sure hon. Members opposite must realise it—there is great difficulty in discussing this question within the limitation which is imposed upon us. The whole point made by my hon. Friend is that in what we are doing we are depriving the House of Commons of a power which has always been regarded, and by nobody more than the party opposite, as the essence of constitutional government. We are to transfer to another and irresponsible body powers which have always been jealously guarded by the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman begins, first of all, with what I might venture to describe as a very trivial argument, that 670 Members cannot perform this work. The essence of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that this work ought to be done in some way over which this House can have control; and when the right hon. Gentleman puts to ns instances of other Acts of Parliament where the work is done by the Treasury, or some other Department, he knows perfectly well that these very instances are
      596
      in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because the Treasury or other Department is under the control of the House of Commons, not through 670 Members, but as a corporate body which would exercise and keep control over everything that is done. This really does raise a constitutional question which goes to the root of our whole procedure. The right hon. Gentleman made this admission, and when we come to the discussion of other functions of the Joint Board of Exchequer we shall take good care to remind him of it. He said that if this Joint Board of Exchequer had in any way to deal with policy, then it would be improper. I am going to pin the right hon. Gentleman to that admission, is it policy if the effect of the decision of the Board is to vary the Budget Is not that policy? If the action of this Board is to alter or control in any way the arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for meeting the financial needs of the country, is not that policy?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the Custom House tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the revenue has fallen off by a million, their function is not one of policy, but is one really of determining the facts.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Customs are entirely under the control of the House of Commons, they are strictly under our control; but since the right hon. Gentleman puts that illustration, suppose the Custom House were an entirely irresponsible body, and it could produce results which affected the Budget, would that be policy?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not if the functions they are asked to perform were purely a statement of the facts, and they were not concerned with what might result from those facts.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The right ton. Gentleman denies that the variation of the Budget is a question of policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It must be one way or the other. If an external body can cause the House to vary its Budget, is that, or is it not, policy?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not the body that causes the variation; it is the facts that cause it. If the Customs fall by a million they do not fall by any action of the Joint Board of Exchequer, and if the Statistical Board of Customs simply records the fact that the Customs have fallen by a million, and you have to vary

      597
      the Budget in consequence, it is ludicrous to say that the Board of Customs have varied the Budget.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman ignores the whole case I have put. In that case the actual falling off in revenue is a question of fact, but if it is a question of opinion and a decision is arrived at, when a different opinion was possible, it is a question of policy. That is the point I am going to prove, that it is not a question of fact even under this Clause, but that it is a question of the interpretation of facts, and the right hon. Gentleman, I think, cannot deny that if an external body by the way in which it interprets those facts does cause us to vary our financial procedure, that that is in a vital way affecting the policy of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman contends that under this Clause all that this body has to do is to certify facts. He knows perfectly well, nobody better, that that is not a clear statement or a true statement of the facts. He knows perfectly well that if it were merely to ascertain facts about which there was no doubt, that you do not need a body of this kind. He knows perfectly well that the only justification for such a body is that the matters are open to dispute, and that they are open to differences of opinion, and that they are not questions for account. What he is doing is setting up this irresponsible body which, by its opinion one way or the other, will determine financial considerations. It is a question merely of fact even under this Clause, and there are other clauses which make the point much stronger if it were possible to discuss them. The right hon. Gentleman read out:—
      "Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board……to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services."
      That really tells us a question of figures. I ask anyone who has a copy of the Bill to turn to Clause 4, Sub-section (6), which tells us the definition of Irish services—
      "For the purposes of this Act 'Irish services' are all public services in connection with the administration of the Civil Government of Ireland, except the administration of matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament have no power to make laws, including in the exception all public services in connection with the administration of the reserved matters (in this Act referred to as 'reserved services')."
      598
      What is it that this Board, which has only to deal with ascertained facts, has got to do? It has got to interpret your Act of Parliament, and on its interpretation the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country must inevitably depend. I will go further. Under Clause 11 the right hon. Gentleman referred only to its first duty, but it has got another duty—
      "A sum equal to the proceeds, as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, of any Irish taxes imposed in Ireland by the Irish Parliament under the powers given to them by this Act."
      They have got to determine what the proceeds of those taxes are. Is that a mere question of fact? Take the case which was given by my right hon. Friend. There is a duty now on tea of 5d., and suppose the Irish Government put on an additional penny, the Joint Exchequer Board has to determine how much of that goes to the Irish Exchequer. Very likely the fact of putting on that additional penny will be that the consumption will fall off, and that the proportion will not be the same as if the tax had been fivepence. How is that to be determined? The Solicitor-General told is what he would do. There is nothing in the Act to say what should be done. He would first of all make an estimate of what the proceeds would have been if the duty had remained at fivepence. Having made that estimate, he would then take the whole sum, and, as I understood him, give the Irish Government not the penny, or not the amount that would have been raised, but the proportion that would have been arrived at if there had been no falling off in consumption, and we are told that that is a question of fact. It is perfectly evident that what this Board has got to do is to decide not questions of fact, which could be settled by any accountant, not questions of figures, which could be settled without the need of such a Board, but it has got to decide questions the decision of which depends on opinion on which there is bound to be differences of opinion, and it is their opinion, and theirs alone, which will determine the financial policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman treats this Amendment as if it were of no consequence. It is going back on the vital function of the House of Commons. Why is it being done? It is being done for the simple reason that the Gentlemen below- the Gangway will not. trust the Treasury. They do not put in, as has been done in other Acts, "as may be determined by the Treasury" leaving the

      599
      power in this House. They put in an irresponsible body because the Members for Ireland, on whom they depend, are not willing to accept the decision of this House; that is the reason, and the sole reason. I venture to say that of all the provisions of this Bill there is none which shows more clearly what has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend, that from the first line of this Bill to the last the Government are not influenced in making arrangements which they think are best for England or for Ireland, but they are influenced solely by making arrangements which will secure them Parliamentary support.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very sorry indeed to occupy the attention of the House again, but I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech requires some reply. The replies are indeed very obvious. He mentioned that the Joint Exchequer Board would have the duty of interpreting our Act with respect to what are Irish services, and he quoted the definition of Irish services in an earlier Clause, and said, "Those are the problems which are to be left to the decision of this body." That is not so. The Joint Exchequer Board, it is true, will have to interpret what are Irish services, and will have to assess the expenditure upon those services according to their interpretation; but the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that it rests with them to decide what are and what are not Irish services without any control and within their absolute determination. That is a matter for interpretation, if there is any dispute, by the judicial authorities, provided for under the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There is a Clause undoubtedly which the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of and will not deny, that if there is any dispute as to whether or not particular functions are within the powers of the Irish Parliament—
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It has nothing whatever to do with the Irish Parliament. 'What control is there in the Bill over the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I venture respectfully to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. The question of what are and what are not Irish services is the same as the question of what is and what is not
      600
      within the function of the Irish Parliament, and that matter is not left in any degree to the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to propose it, and there is no Clause in the Bill which suggests any such thing.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will you tell us what Clause you refer to?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General wall find it. I was not aware that this question was going to be raised. Of course it does not in the least degree arise on this Clause. Whether or not a Court of Law is to determine what is and what is not within the function of the Irish Parliament I submit the Bill does not relegate that to the Joint Exchequer Board, and unquestionably it is decided by a Court of Law whether or not a particular service is a function with which the Irish Parliament, has power to deal. If any dispute arises it will not be the Joint Exchequer Board which will decide it, but it will be the Court of Law by a case taken before them, or by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The second point of the right hon. Gentleman was this. He referred to the latter part of this Clause to which I did not refer because this Amendment does not touch it. He said the Joint-Exchequer Board will have to decide what are the proceeds and the yield of Irish additions to Imperial taxes, and that if they put on an extra halfpenny on tea they would have to decide what is the yield of that halfpenny. Certainly that is not a question of policy; they have not got to act as statesmen or as a legislative assembly in determining what is the amount of yield belonging to one portion of the tax, and what is the amount which is the product of another portion of the tax. When we come to that Clause we have under consideration the question whether or not it is necessary in the wording of the Clause to give a particular indication to decide the point now raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I submit that is a matter which can only be decided by the Clause. In any case the right hon. Gentleman cannot for a moment contend that the decision of whether a particular five thousand pounds is the product of one part of a tax, or the yield of another part, or rate of tax, is in any degree a question of policy, or is at all a matter for the determination of a legislative assembly.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am rather surprised that the galaxy of learning on the Front Bench was not able to find a Clause so vital to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as that which he declares is to determine whether a service is an Irish service or not. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply to my right hon. Friend accepted the conclusion of my right hon. Friend supposing his premises were right. The right hon. Gentleman said if this body is indeed to determine what are Irish services, that, is a question for which they are completely unfit. He admitted that. Then, we ask, who is to determine it, and he said a Court of Law. We asked, "Under what Clause is a Court of Law to determine it," and up to the present moment the learning of the Attorney-General has not been able to find out. I suppose he does not refer to Clause 29, in which there is power given to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State to determine whether any Irish Act or any Irish Bill is outside the purview of this Act. Then there is, no doubt, an appeal to a Court of Law, but I am not aware, or at least we have not yet discovered, by what machinery and by what provision in this Bill the Joint Exchequer Board are to refer any doubtful point to a legal tribunal. I may incidentally remark that there is no provision in this Bill either for giving them a staff or for paying them. Presumably, therefore, the Government do not mean to give them a staff, and do not mean them to have a staff. Those five gentlemen meet with no clerical assistance, and they come to the conclusion that this or that or the other is an Irish service. That conclusion, says the right hon. Gentleman, of course they ought not to be allowed to make if it is a doubtful point. It ought to be referred, if it is a doubtful point, to a legal tribunal; and, says he, there is machinery for referring it to a legal tribunal. Who is going to compel them to go to a legal tribunal, even supposing there is a provision in the Bill, about which I must confess I am extremely sceptical. Can the Attorney-General even now tell us where it is to be found?
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is a provision in the Bill; it is the general law. If a Board goes beyond the powers which are given to it under an Act of Parliament, of course there is a power in the courts to interfere and restrain them. There is no doubt about that. It is a general power of law in the Courts of
      602
      Justice. I think my right hon. Friend said that he thought it was actually in the Bill. But that particular provision is not in the Bill; it depends on the general law which applies to every Board set up.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am not surprised that the industry of the whole Front Bench did not find the provision in the Bill, because it appears to be part of the common law, and not a part of the legal scheme of the Government. Now let us take it on the new basis of the common law. Under the common law, according to the Attorney-General, if any Board comes to a decision to which objection is taken—
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, if it goes beyond its powers.
      Mr. BALFOUR: If any Board goes beyond its powers, there is an appeal to the law. But the powers of this Joint Exchequer Board are to decide. It is what the Board is told to do under the Clause we are now discussing. It is to come to a decision upon a point upon which there may be differences of opinion. As far as. I can discover, there is no machinery in the Bill enabling anybody in this House or outside of it, in the Irish Parliament or in the British Parliament, in the Irish Treasury or in the English Treasury, to go before a legal tribunal and to say, not that the Board has exceeded its powers—that is not the point; that may be under common law, but it has nothing to do with this question. The question is, not whether the Board has exceeded its powers, but whether it has given a right decision on a doubtful point. That is the question. The Attorney-General has now admitted that these gentlemen will have to decide this very question without any appeal.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I did not say without appeal.
      Mr. BALFOUR: Without any appeal unless they exceed their powers. I admit that on the question of common law the right hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me. Perhaps he will instruct me now; if so, I shall be very grateful to him. May not the position fairly be stated thus? The Postmaster-General admits that if this body could give a decision without control upon the controverted question of what is or is not an Irish service, we should be giving it a power which it ought not to possess. He thought that these improper powers were limited in the Bill, but they are not. The Attorney-General

      603
      thinks that they are limited by the common law or by the ordinary practice of the Courts. My terminology may be wrong, but that is what it comes to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when asked what the Courts can do, says that the Courts can interfere if this Commission exceeds its powers. Its powers are to make decisions on these very doubtful points of policy. It is not exceeding its powers, therefore, if it gives a decision to which somebody, say the Irish Government or the British Government, objects. Neither the Irish Government nor the British Government, as far as I can see, have the smallest claim to haul this body before a Court of Law unless they are prepared to argue, not that it has given a wrong decision, but that its decision is given in excess of its powers. Therefore you are driven directly back to the situation which, forgetting the contents of his own Bill, the Postmaster-General admitted was an intolerable position, namely, the position that this body is going to give decisions on doubtful points of policy entirely outside the control of this House, which has so persistently, so loudly, and so consistently arrogated to itself the whole control of the financial interests of the country. I really think that no politician was ever worse advised than was the Postmaster-General in making his second speech. He told us truly that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition required an immediate answer. So it did. But I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit not only that he convicted himself of ignorance of the contents of his own Bill, but that, either on the hypothesis that the Bill was as he thought it was, or on the hypothesis of the Bill as it is, he has not given the smallest reply to the arguments laid before the Committee by my right hon. Friend.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Gentleman has delivered as usual, if I may say so, a very interesting speech. He has referred to various points raised in the course of the discussion, and dealt with them in his own way, according to his own interpretation of what was said, in answer to them. When I did not interrupt in answer to his request to me that I should get up and, as he courteously put it, instruct him in the common law, the reason I did not respond was that I could not confine myself to the common law, in regard to which, no doubt, right hon. and
      604
      learned Gentlemen opposite would not differ from me.
      Sir E. CARSON: We might differ upon its application.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That interruption really illustrates admirably the point between us. There is no difference between us as to the principle of law. Therefore you do not require to go to a Court of Law on the question of how you are going to apply your law to a particular set of facts. There would be a difference; you must ascertain what is the true set of facts. That is exactly what we are doing here. We say that a Joint Exchequer Board should be set up for the purpose of ascertaining the facts as to the net cost of Irish services to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Then comes the difficulty introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, with which my right hon. Friend dealt, I think successfully, except that for a moment when he was asked a question he thought there was in the Bill a provision which was to be found in the common law. I see opposite to me right hon. Gentlemen who have been law officers longer than I have. I am certain that neither of them would attempt to make a point against my right hon. Friend because he thought something was in the Bill which in point of fact he had been told was to be found in the ordinary law. Nobody attaches any importance to that. It was a small debating point with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) dealt in his usual pleasant style. I want to take the point that the right hon. Gentleman did make. If I followed him correctly, what he said was this: "The Postmaster-General has said that this Board "would not have to deal with policy." He went on to elaborate what had been said by the Leader of the Opposition. It was indeed from the Leader of the Opposition that we had the statement which has given rise to this discussion about the control of the Joint Exchequer Board by the Courts of Law. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, "If you come to consider the questions of fact, do they not really mean questions of policy? The answer is, No, certainly not. It was shown by my right hon. Friend that questions of fact were not questions of policy, and that questions of policy could not be decided by a Board which had to deal only with facts and not with policy. An instance which occurred to me in the

      605
      course of the discussion is this. Suppose the Board were to find as a result of their calculations and on the facts that there is a deficit of £2,000,000. How that deficit is to be met would be a question of policy. Whether there is a deficit is a question of fact. That is the point.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That was not my argument.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, but I think it is an answer to one of the points of the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to say, if I followed him correctly, "Let us see what it is that this Board will have to deal with." He then read out that it would have to ascertain what was the net cost of Irish services to the Exchequer at the time of the passing of the Act. He referred to Clause 4 (6), which defines Irish services, and he said that from that he gathered that the Joint Exchequer Board would decide the net cost and decide for themselves what were Irish services. Then he went on to say—and here it was that my right hon. Friend joined issue with him, as I think rightly—that they again decided for themselves, without the Courts of Justice having any control over them, what are Irish services. If they go beyond what are Irish services as denned under Clause 4 (6) there is no doubt at all that the Courts of Justice could, and would, interfere. That is really the whole question which has given rise to this very charming dissertation, if I may so describe it, from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as to the difficulty in which he had placed my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on this question of law. It really only amounts to that. There is nothing inconsistent in anything that my right hon. Friend has said in regard to it. You have to keep perfectly clear what is fact and what is policy. An excellent illustration is afforded, again, by part of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this Board will have to interpret Statutes, and that if they have to interpret Statutes, how can it be said that that is not policy? But the judges have to interpret Statues every day. It is part of the work of the Law Courts to interpret Statutes. No one will suggest that that is policy. If the effect of the interpretation is to produce a different meaning from that intended by the Legislature, the Legislature says that that is not the policy it intended, and it proceeds to alter it by Act of Parliament.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That was not my argument.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is involved in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that because the Joint Exchequer Board had to interpret what are Irish services, in order to ascertain the net cost under Clause 14, paragraph (a), therefore it necessarily followed that they would be dealing with policy.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That was not my argument at all. My argument was that their interpretation, which would be a matter of opinion, would influence and determine the amount of money which the House of Commons had to spend, and that the determination of the amount of money was policy.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Really the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to have proved exactly what I was saying. He says that the determination of the amount of money is policy. I cannot see how you can say that the ascertaining of the sum of money is policy. The ascertaining of the sum of money, whatever way you put it, must be determined by the facts. You may have to apply the law in determining the facts, and it may be that in applying the law to the particular fact with which you are dealing you apply it wrongly and exceed the powers which are given. Then you have the restraining influence of the Courts of Law. But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that all that he has been saying is that the determination of the amount of money is a question of policy, he has absolutely decided the whole question, as it seems to me, against himself. The very fact that you are talking of the determination of the amount shows that you are ascertaining a fact, and the result of that fact may or may not be to cause a change of policy. If it does, it is not the Exchequer Board. The Exchequer Board has to decide what is really the fact, and when the fact had been ascertained it would be for one party or the other to determine whether or not that carried out its policy. I do submit that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has quite correctly answered the point at issue.
      Sir E. CARSON: Certainly the debate which has arisen over this Clause has given rise to a discussion of great interest. It has also given rise to a discussion which I venture to think, without in the least wishing to be offensive, the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared for; because he

      607
      told us in very clear language that really what we are setting up this Exchequer Board for is for the purpose of making mere arithmetical calculations; to check the various departments who will send in returns; that the Board would then tot them up.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under this Sub-section.
      Sir E. CARSON: Yes, under this Subsection. That, of course, is really ridiculous. My right hon. Friend asked if that was all the Exchequer Board had to do, why set it up at all? Why not have this done by some of the Treasury gentlemen. They could tot up the various sums without setting up this Exchequer Board, which is to be immune from the consideration of this House; is to be above both Houses of Parliament, and anything that either House can do. That was where the matter started—a pure question of fact. Now we come to this, that the Board has to consider under the Bill one of the most difficult problems—according to the Government themselves—because under the Sub-section which has been referred to, they have to determine what are matters in regard to which the Irish Parliament has no power to make laws. That is the very basis of the whole jurisdiction of these gentlemen of the Exchequer Board. That is the first thing they have to determine. What is the Government's view of the difficulty? Notice what the Government have done themselves. They set up a Parliament in Ireland, and, when that Parliament, with all their legal advisers, tell them that they have a right to legislate on some question, they put in a whole series of Sections and Sub-sections here for enabling the Lord Lieutenant, or to enable the country to determine whether a law passed is within the jurisdiction of the subordinate legislature at all. Could anything be more important than referring this matter to the Privy Council?
      In that case you have the power, without putting in that Section to appeal to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the common law. Because they have passed an Act of Parliament which was outside their jurisdiction you can, when it comes before the Court, say it is outside their jurisdiction, and therefore it has no effect. So difficult, so important, so necessary it is to ascertain what it is the Irish Parliament have the power to legislate upon that you yourselves put in this
      608
      Clause that the matter is to be referred to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council is to ascertain. All that jurisdiction (in Clause 29) you give to the Privy Council:—
      "Upon the hearing of the question such persons as seem to the Judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as, parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were the decision of an appeal; the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open Court."
      All that is set up. You provide for the apparatus of litigation; you provide for the method in which it is to be done, and yet you give to this Board of mere calculators, that same jurisdiction without setting up any method whatsoever in the Bill.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that the interpretation of the wording in Clause 4, Sub-section (6) defining the Irish services is left entirely to the Joint Exchequer Board and that there is no appeal to a Court of Law.
      Sir E. CARSON: That is not what I am arguing at all. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to follow me, what I am saying is that when it is a mere question with reference to the Irish House of Commons and the Irish Second Chamber—whatever it may be—and the Act passed by the King, after it has gone through all its stages, you set up a special part of the Privy Council to solve the difficulty of determining the question, whereas in the case of these gentlemen who have to determine exactly the same question you set up no appeal at all to the Privy Council.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is a Court of Law.
      Sir E. CARSON: There is no appeal to any Court.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
      Sir E. CARSON: Not by your Bill. The truth of the matter is you never thought of this question at all or you would not have done it in this way; you would not have thrown a burden of this kind upon a tribunal like this, which, you may say, you are going to set up for arithmetical calculating purposes. You could mot say to

      609
      them who have no officers, no staff, who are not like the House of Commons, which has its Attorney-General and Solicitor-General and all the powers and paraphernalia of the House of Commons—as I suppose the Irish House of Commons will have—yon give them that power, and the Lord Lieutenant the power to take a matter to the Privy Council, and you make provision here as to the business and who are entitled to be heard—but I say you leave out the whole of this as regards the Exchequer Board. No, Sir, it is an afterthought. I give the Attorney-General great credit for his ingenuity for saying that a matter can be raised before a Court. How is it to be raised? By whom? There is not a word in the Bill. There is not even a word in the Bill about the procedure before this Exchequer Board. Are the Boar going to hear parties? Are they going to hear subjects? Are they going to hear persons interested, and will there be any persons interested? Will they have two Prime Ministers and two Chancellors of the Exchequer? What will be their procedure?
      It is all very well to say that if they exceed their powers you can take them up before the Court. Without making any provision in the Bill how are you going to do it? Who is going to do it? Who is he party interested in it? Which Court is the matter to go to, the Irish Court or the English Court, or equally between the two? Is it members of the Board themselves that can take the matter up? Supposing this happens—and this will be an illustration of the absurdity of the Board itself—supposing that the two Irish representatives vote that it is a matter upon which the Irish Parliament has power to legislate and the two Englishmen vote that they have not the power. The Chairman decides it between them, one way or the other. Can the Irishman who has voted against the Englishman immediately proceed to take it up in an Irish Court, or can the Englishmen who has voted against the Irishmen immediately proceed to take it up in an English Court?
      No, Sir, there is no procedure set up. You know you cannot determine these constitutional questions in that way. You know perfectly well that the reasons you have set up the important tribunal you have set up with reference to laws passed by the Irish Parliament if they exceed their powers and are ultra vires to the powers conferred by the Bill, is because you know these are great constitutional questions,
      610
      and you know perfectly well that it would be quite absurd that you should give any chance Court, either by certiorari or mandamus or some of those processes in Ireland or England, power to have it solemnly determined as to whether certain things are within the power of the Irish Legislature or not as a mere side issue arising on a calculation of what are Irish services. Surely, to refer these questions by either kind of procedure, and then afterwards to have probably the same question referred in that way, not to the Court at all, but to the Privy Council, really makes the whole thing as to the determination of these questions absolutely ludicrous, and what we are driven to is this, and the reason we have got into this discussion is because the Postmaster-General said if there was any question of policy or anything different from the mere question of ascertaining the facts, he would have to admit that you were setting up in this Board and in the Act of the Board something which should not be, and could not be removed from the cognisance of the Houses of Parliament. Then when his attention is drawn to the Section which was overlooked, we have then set up a falling back upon the common law rights, something which is entirely different, as I have shown, as to what was meant to the method of determining these great questions between the two countries. I suggest that we might very well adjourn this Debate—we could go on with something else—and after some consideration of the subject, if we come to the view that this matter is to be determined by the Privy Council in the same way as other constitutional questions, we think it ought now to be stated and indications to that effect put into the Bill. Certainly we ought not to pass from the matter leaving it at large and in what I cannot but think is nothing but a muddle.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a suggestion not by any means in a controversial spirit, which is, of course, entitled to receive respect by the Government. He indicates that he thinks it would be advisable that a special appeal should be allowed to the Privy Council in cases where matters are to be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board in which there may be doubt on questions of law. He does not support the view previously expressed from the Front Bench opposite, and which I was trying to controvert that these, matters were left to the absolute determination of the Joint Exchequer Board, from

      611
      whose verdict as to what was, or what was not, an Irish service there could be no appeal. He does not support that view.
      Sir E. CARSON: What the right hon. Gentleman said was that they had only to determine a question of facts, and that so far as the question of fact is determinable there could be no appeal by certiorari or mandamus, or in any other way under the Act; but the original basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that there could be no appeal under this Section.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not perhaps make myself quite clear. I was saying they had to determine questions of fact with regard to the amount of the services. I never suggested they had to determine questions of fact as to what was, and what was not, an Irish service. I never suggested that, and I do not think the Bill ever for a moment contemplated that. That would fail to be determined if there was a doubt by a judicial authority under the common law.
      Mr. BALFOUR: In the absence of doubt who decides?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Joint Exchequer Board would not do anything in the air. They would be dealing with the Irish Government administering certain functions, and these functions would be those defined in the Act as Irish services. If they were exceeding their functions a Court of Law would be able to challenge them, and the matter is not one that falls primarily within the power of the Joint Exchequer Board to determine. When I said that there was a provision in the Bill dealing with this point—Clause 29, decision by the Privy Council—but, having looked at that Clause quite recently I had not in my mind that it was limited to legislation, and undoubtedly as the right hon. Gentleman said, there may be other matters besides Irish legislation which may perhaps probably be included, such as questions raised by this Clause, in Clause 29. I shall be happy to respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and after consultation with the draftsman—this is a matter that requires careful consideration—the Government will consider in a sympathetic spirit the suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to make that the Clause shall also cover these matters.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am afraid the response of the Postmaster-General will
      612
      not be quite satisfactory to my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand he suggested that the Debate should be adjourned, and there is precedent for adjourning such a Debate on an allotted day. If the Postmaster-General would move to report Progress undoubtedly that would meet the suggestion my right hon. and learned Friend has made; but as he has failed to do so I think we must consider the matter upon its merits. I do no profess as a layman to go into the legal question between the two right hon. Gentlemen. I think the House is naturally suspicious when leading luminaries of the law find themselves diametrically in opposition. I put that from the point of view of the ordinary layman. This body is to adjudicate on questions of law or fact, and the line is not always very clearly drawn, and you have here an independent body not responsible to this House or the Ministry in this House or questionable in this House or removable by this House, and they would be able to give a decision which will vitally affect the whole financial policy of the country. What precedent have you for this? Have you any British Constitution appointing a body of this description from whose decisions, which are not judicial, and will have behind them no body of previous decisions such as judges have and no rules or traditions to refer to and which is not bound by any prescribed rule, vitally affecting the financial policy of this country, but from which there is no appeal. Hitherto this House has been particularly jealous of anything that would intrude upon its system of finance. I need hardly refer to the events of the last two or three years. On every occasion, when the finance of this country is involved, the House of Commons has time after time, sometimes I think foolishly and irrelevantly, always asserted its supreme authority. Now the House of Commons is creating a body which will be above itself, as the monster Frankenstein created, over which it will have no control. I have gone through this Bill, and there are no less than eleven great points upon which this Joint Exchequer Board will have the absolute authority of determining under this Bill so long as they comply with the declared provisions of the Statute. Is there anything in British constitutional history which affords a precedent for such a thing as that? I know we have the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but what are his

      613
      functions? He is recognised as the servant of this House, and all he has to do is to see that the decisions of this House are faithfully carried out, and that money voted for a particular service is not devoted to some other service.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I know it is a difficult matter to decide how the discussion should proceed in view of the subsequent Clauses in this Bill, but I think the hon. Member is going rather beyond the discussion which is germane to this particular Clause. I must therefore ask him to confine himself not so much to the general policy of the Board as to the operations of that Board in connection with the words of this Clause.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I submit that the arguments applicable to a wider sphere are equally relevant to the narrower sphere, which is whether this House of Commons or the Joint Exchequer Board is to determine the various decisions under Clause 14. I understand it would be out of order to go into the other eleven decisions I have referred to, but under this Clause there are two decisions. One is:—
      "(a) Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services."
      The second decision is:—
      (c) A sum equal to the proceeds as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board of any Irish taxes imposed in Ireland by the Irish Parliament under the power given to them by this Act."
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: On a point of Order. I submit that the hon. Member is not entitled to confine his argument to these two points of the eleven to which he has referred. I submit that the hon. Member is only entitled to deal with one of those decisions. That was expressly laid down by the Chairman, who pointed out that the sole question is whether it is to be the Exchequer Board or the House of Commons which has to determine the net cost to the Exchequer of the Irish services. With reference to the last paragraph, I submit it would be out of order here, because it must be dealt with separately.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the Attorney-General presses this point, I am quite willing to confine myself to paragraph (a).
      614
      The question is whether it is to be this House of Commons or the Joint Exchequer Board which has to determine what is to represent the cost to the Exchequer at the time of the passing of this Act of the Irish services. I contend that that decision will commit this House to the whole policy, and I ask whether there is any precedent for it. If this particular arrow should not find its mark, I have ten others, each of which I am ready to discharge upon a later occasion. Is there any precedent for setting up a precedent of this sort in the British Constitution, which on the one hand is not judicial and has no support from judicial experience, tradition, or methods of interpretation, and yet is more independent than the judiciary itself. There is no precedent whatever for making this tribunal amenable to Parliament in any way. There is not even the provision that the Board may be removed upon an Address to the Crown; there is nothing of the kind whatever, and I challenge the Attorney-General to state any precedent for this Parliament setting up a tribunal which would be superior to itself in a matter of finance. I do not believe he can cite such a precedent.
      The nearest approach he can find is the ill-starred omen of Mr. Fox with regard to the India Bill. Mr. Fox proposed to set up a Commission composed of a limited number, and that tribunal was for a term of four years only to have complete control over the finances of India. That was to be independent of Parliament for four years, but at the end of that time their powers lapsed, and the Commission could be filled up by fresh appointments. So tenacious was the House of Commons of its powers, and so jealous of abdicating its functions for four years, and so great was the indignation of the public at the possibility of setting up in a Dependency of ours this kind of autocratic power not amenable to Parliament, that the proposal broke down hopelessly. There was nothing so far-reaching in that proposal as is to be found in this Bill. Mr. Fox's proposal concerned the finances of the Dependency alone, but here you are setting up a Board for life independent of this House, whose decisions may have a fatal and an irrevocable effect on our policy, and yet you do not make it amenable in any kind of way. Already there is a great suspicion of the Judiciary reflected in this House on the Labour Benches. You would not in any other sphere whatever allow the judges to

      615
      pronounce decisions which vitally affect the finances of the country. What warrant or reason have you for doing this in the present case? You have no warrant from the necessity of the case or from constitutional procedure. You have no warrant for it either in the exigencies of the moment or the traditions of the past; and if you pass this provision as it is, you will, even more than you attempted to do last week, inflict a fatal blow at all the past traditions which have governed the rights and the liberties of this House.
      Mr. MOORE: As the Attorney-General has pointed out, the question is one of comparison whether we would rather have the tribunal the Bill proposes—that is, the Joint Exchequer Board—or this House to decide these questions. We do not know who or what the Joint Exchequer Board is going to be, and before we can draw a proper comparison between the two bodies offered to us, surely we ought to know how the Joint Exchequer Board is going to be composed. The Joint Exchequer Board is really an Arbitration Court. You are to have Board with two members of it appointed by the Irish Treasury, two by the British Treasury, and there is to be a chairman. Is it not very hard to judge the relative capabilities of a Board whose composition you are not informed of in this House? Again and again in our legislation when Boards of this sort are being set up—I call them Arbitration Boards, because you have got two distinct sides on them, and a chairman—the names of the people who are to compose the Board are put into the Bill and it is not left at large.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed a general reference to this matter, but it would not be in order for the hon. Member on this Clause to develop that line of argument. It is dealt with by Clause 22, Sub-section (1).
      Mr. MOORE: On that point of Order. If I were satisfied that this was an impartial Board, then I might vote against the Amendment. I cannot tell whether it is an impartial Board or not unless the Government give up the names, and surely it is in order to say we cannot judge which is the best tribunal unless the Government do tell us who will be on this Board.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have, as I have said, allowed a general reference to it, but Clause 22 deals with the very
      616
      point to which the hon. Member is referring, and I must ask him to pass from it now.
      Mr. MOORE: I want a little latitude from the Chair because under the guillotine and gag we have not the least guarantee we shall ever be allowed to discuss this point on that Clause; and, if this is our only opportunity of discussing the comparative merits of the two Boards, is it not in order to press upon the Government the desirability of following precedents and giving us the names?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the latitude he wishes. A subsequent Clause deals with the very point he raises, and I must again ask him to pass from it now.
      Mr. MOORE: Then I will reserve myself for that occasion, but I take leave to say I shall consider I have a distinct grievance against the Chair if no opportunity is given to me to discuss this matter on Clause 22.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not the slightest personal feeling in the matter, but I must take exception to any criticism of the kind the hon. Gentleman has made.
      Sir J. D. REES: I will be very careful to try and observe the very stringent rule you have laid down, but I think I can supply the missing precedent. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) said there was no precedent, but I submit such a precedent can be found in the Star Chamber. That was an entirely irresponsible body. It had no responsibility to Parliament. I think, however, my hon. Friend rather guarded himself, because he said there had never been such a body which had performed its functions without running the risk of a revolution. The Star Chamber actually produced a revolution.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Star Chamber was responsible to the King. This body will be responsible neither to the King nor to the Commonwealth.
      Sir. J. D. REES: I accept my hon. Friend's correction, but I was not dealing so much with what he said as with what the hon. Member for Hereford said. I am in complete agreement with him, and when you, Sir, called him to order and asked him to get his eleven reasons within the compass of one section I was reminded of a precedent for that in another place. When an hon. Member once rose

      617
      and said he would divide his discourse into twelve heads, another hon. Member jumped up and said he wished to interpose that which at no other period could be properly said. He said when he was walking home one night he heard Big Ben strike once. A drunken man in front of him stood and counted one, two, three, and right up to twelve, and then he shook his fist at the clock, and said: "Why could you not give us that all at once." My hon. Friend, in that way, managed to keep himself within your ruling, and I shall endeavour to do the same. I should like to ask any Member who has had any experience of administration whether he can hold it is possible to separate, as the Postmaster-General argued, finance from policy. The course of administration is just this. Some proposal is made, perhaps in the Agricultural Department, and that Department makes a note upon it. It then goes to the Commercial Department for a corresponding note, and afterwards to the Revenue Department to see how it will affect the revenue. All these bodies note fully upon the proposal, and finally it goes to the Financial Department, which rules there is no money, and thereby makes all the previous notes waste paper. Can it therefore be suggested it is possible to separate finance from policy? The Postmaster-General admitted Sub-section (2) paragraph (a) would be bad if it could be found the Exchequer Board had any political functions as distinct from purely financial functions to perform. I submit you cannot make that distinction, and, if there is any Minister in whom it would be unbecoming to draw such a distinction, it is a colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose Budget of 1909 was pure politics and no finance.
      Mr. PRINGLE: You supported it.
      Sir J. D. REES: I am merely speaking by way of illustration, and am saying nothing offensive. I say the right hon. Gentleman, in the history of his own Government, will find a complete refutation of the principle he has laid down. The Postmaster-General also said they cannot determine anything; they merely have to accept the figures laid before them. But in the Clause the very word "determine" is used: "Such sum as may be determined." And again, "A sum equal to the proceeds as determined." The Postmaster-General actually said this body was not to determine that which by the phraseology of the Clause concerned they have to
      618
      determine. How can it be said this body has merely to accept the figures laid before it? If they merely have to accept columns of figures, presented to it by other authorities, then for what are they created? The Postmaster-General will not accept the explanation which might possibly be suggested by hon. Members on this side of the House, but we know bodies are sometimes created for the benefit of those bodies themselves rather than for the use of the functions which they are supposed to perform. The Postmaster-General practically said the Joint Exchequer Board has no functions to perform except to accept the figures laid before it. This body has no subordinates of its own to feed it with figures. Everybody knows that what a Minister says has all been provided by capable officials, and that it might be possible even for those not gifted with acknowledge of finance to scrape through the most exalted functions of this House by using the information placed before them. This body is to have no subordinates to feed it with figures, and yet it is to perform the most important functions. I do not think the Postmaster-General, unless he had been driven into a corner, would have argued it has no functions to perform. What is the use of creating a body if it has no functions to perform except to receive figures?
      Who are to be the members of this Exchequer Board? I suppose I should not be in order in discussing this point, but I will venture to hazard one conjecture, and that, is that Sir Henry Primrose will not be one of them. It has been stated that, since 1872, upwards of £325,000,000 has been exacted from the Irish people. The members of this Board, as I understand it, will have to decide upon figures of a corresponding character; they will have to allocate them and to decide under what heading they shall appear. If that is not to be their function I would like to know what function they will have to perform. We have been repeatedly told by the Postmaster-General that they have no powers of policy, but that they have merely to take figures from others, and that such figures are always accepted. In Parliament figures supplied may be accepted by the Secretary to the Treasury, but they are by no means always accepted by this House, and time after time they have been turned upside down and inside out, and most important changes of policy have been made by this House as a result. Is this Joint Exchequer Board to perform functions

      619
      analogous to those performed by the House of Commons? If so, then I suggest that those functions would be better performed by the House, which knows what it is doing, and which is responsible to the constituencies. If the Board is to perform such functions, I say it is not fit to do so, and, if it is not fit, then it is not fit to live at the expense of the Irish or the British taxpayer. What would be the good of Estimates coming before the House under such circumstances? That is the most, important function Parliament has to perform, and if Estimates were to be treated in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman says the Joint Exchequer Board are to treat the figures laid before it by somebody, we do not know who, what good can result? It is the function of the Board apparently not to reason why, yet the members are to receive some thousands of pounds a year by way of salary. That, I note in passing, is a provision which is never absent from a Bill of this kind.
      9.0 P.M.
      The Attorney-General stated that interpretation of the law was not policy—that the interpretation of the law by the Exchequer Board would not partake of anything of a political character. He had to put forward that argument because the Postmaster-General had sought to establish it in his speech. I am glad to see some Labour Members present. I do not think that is the view which they held in regard to the Taff Vale judgment, and I believe that is not the view they are strongly impressing upon the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the present moment. It was argued by both the Attorney-General and the Postmaster-General that there was no need to introduce a power of appeal, because there was an appeal at common law. I submit there is no kind of resemblance or analogy whatever to be established in regard to this appeal where an official body receives its powers in this way. It may be there is an appeal to a Court of Law, but that is not the kind of appeal we want. We want an appeal against a decision of the Board. It may be that there is power at common law to correct this body if it should exceed its exceedingly nebulous powers — powers which nobody so far has been able to define, and which the Postmaster-General says do not exist at all. It is clear that, unless they do exceed their powers, there is no redress; but it is not the exceeding of their powers that anybody fears. What
      620
      is feared is that the manner in which they exercise their powers will not be satisfactory to those who are affected by such exercise, and in respect of that matter, which, after all, is the whole point, there is no appeal provided. The Postmaster-General has not shown any indisposition to object to explain points, and although he may not have always done so with success, he has done it with complete complacency. I have no doubt he will again rise to explain this matter. But it is a perfectly amazing thing that a Minister should base his defence of a Clause in the Bill on the fact that the body created by it has really no functions to perform, and that, therefore, there is no need to provide for any appeal against its irresponsible decision because it has no decision of any importance to make. Absurd as that seems, I submit it is a précis of what the right hon. Gentleman said. During the long hours which hon. Members who regularly attend the House spend here many of us have acquired different methods of spending the time; but in the hope that I may learn the gift of concentration in expression and speech so valuable in the Member of Parliament and so much appreciated by the Chair, I have acquired the habit of making a précis of the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I submit to the Committee I have rightly interpreted the speech of the Postmaster-General, and I hope he will do me the honour of correcting me if my précis does not accurately represent the view he put forward.
      Mr. HUME WILLIAMS: In the early part of this Debate the Postmaster-General justified the creation of this Exchequer Board by the fact that its function would be practically confined to ascertaining the various amounts which would go forward to the Houses of Parliament—either the Irish or this House—and that really they would have no power of determination, but that all they would do would be to act as a board of accountants. If that be true, why have a Board of Exchequer at all. A mere accountant would be ample. We do not want five people to simply go through a list of amounts and determine what the totals are. That argument is obviously wrong, for if you turn to the Section under discussion you will see at once what this Joint Board has, in fact, to do. Let us for a moment imagine that a sitting of this Exchequer Board is taking place. The

      621
      first thing that the chairman will point out that what they have to do is to determine what is the amount represented by the cost of an Irish service. Obviously some member of the Board will say, "What are Irish services?" The chairman will direct them to turn to Clause 4, Sub-section (6), which says:—
      "For the purposes of this Act, 'Irish services' are all public services … except the administration of matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament have no power to make laws."
      Then someone will say, "This is one of the matters in respect of which the Irish Parliament has no power to make laws, and consequently the law which has created the service is inoperative and void." If he has read the Act carefully, he will then turn to Clause 4 and find that if the Irish Parliament has in fact passed a law which contravenes an English Act of Parliament relating to Ireland, in so far as it contravenes the English Act of Parliament it is void, and consequently he will say, "This so-called Irish service is authorised by an Irish Act of Parliament which contravenes an English Act of Parliament, and is consequently void." You can imagine the discussion which is likely to take place. We are told that that will be put right because there is going to be an appeal to a Court of Law. It was news to me to find that in any section of this House there were those who are glad to have appeals to the Courts of Law. I thought the tendency, with which I have every sympathy, on both sides of the House was that, so far as possible, matters should be left to the determination of this House, rather than to the determination of the Courts of Law either in Ireland or in England. Let us suppose that this discussion having taken place, somebody desires to avail himself of the right which the right hon. Gentleman is going to give of an appeal to a Court of Law. First of all, how are you to know what has been done by the Joint Board? Is their sitting to be in private or in public? All you are going to get as the report of the Joint Board is the amount they assess in respect of Irish services.
      In order to bring a matter in proper form before any Court of Law you must know what the argument was, why they determined it to be an Irish service, and under what Act of Parliament they determined it to be an Irish service. You cannot go to a Court of Law and simply take a schedule of amounts, saying, "This is what the Joint Board has determined, and it
      622
      appears in some instances to contravene an Act of Parliament." We know there is no staff provided for this unfortunate body—at any rate, it is not provided in the Bill—and unless the sitting takes place in public, and is open to be reported by the Press, and unless the public and the Irish Houses of Parliament can follow the discussion and know upon what basis the decisions are grounded, the appeal to a Court of Law will be absolutely useless. Is it not a better and a simpler plan to let these Irish Estimates come before the House of Commons exactly as the English Estimates do at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Consider the unfortunate position of this House. They will have to consider pages of estimates and determine whether or not they were justly assessed by the Joint Board." But that is what is done in this House every day when the Estimates come before it. We have pages upon pages of amounts to consider, and we are enabled to put our hand upon any particular figure with which we do not agree, and say, "This raises a question of policy, and we desire to have it discussed in the House of Commons," thus keeping its legitimate control over the finances of the country. Why should that not be done in this case? What possible difference is there between estimates drawn up by the Exchequer Board and those presented to us? Instead of sending somebody who objects to a Court of Law why not, in the name of commonsense, pursue the plan we are accustomed to in this House, which has been legitimised by the practice of this House for a century, and lay these estimates before this House and let us, after proper discussion, determine all questions of principle they may involve—not questions of amount—and whether or not the amounts they represent are properly apportioned to Irish services, or whether, in fact, they are apportioned to services which are not purely Irish, but which are partly Irish and partly English. Let the right hon. Gentleman, instead of burdening the Privy Council with further jurisdiction under Clauses 29 and 30, reserve those privileges we have preserved with so much jealousy, and adhere to the recognised practice of this House and retain its control over the finance of the country. Let him adopt the simpler plan of allowing the estimates to come before the House of Commons for discussion, instead of giving an irritating and often abortive appeal to the Courts of Law.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reply to a question I put to him before, namely, whether there is any precedent for setting up a body like this, which will be independent of Parliament and will yet exercise control over its finances?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware that there is any precedent for the circumstances of the case.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 108.

      Division No. 319.]

      AYES.

      [9.15 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Field, William

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

      Adamson, William

      France, G. A.

      Manfield, Harry

      Addison, Dr. C.

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Gill, A. H.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Allen, Arthur A, (Dumbarton)

      Ginnell, L.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

      Glanville, H. J.

      Martin, Joseph

      Armitage, Robert

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Goldstone, Frank

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

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Meagher, Michael

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Barnes, George N.

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

      Millar, James Duncan

      Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

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

      Molloy, M.

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Barton, W.

      Hackett, J.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Mooney, J. J.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Boland, John Pius

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

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Booth, Frederick Handel

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

      Muldoon, John

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Munro, R.

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

      Brace, William

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hayward, Evan

      Neilson, Francis

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nolan, Joseph

      Burns, Rt. Hon John

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Hinds, John

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Chapple, Dr. W. A.

      Hodge, John

      O'Dowd, John

      Clancy, J. Joseph

      Hogge, James Myles

      Ogden, Fred

      Clough, William

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Grady, James

      Clynes, John R.

      Holt, Richard Durning

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

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Malley, William

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      John, Edward Thomas

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

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Jones, H Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      O'Shee, James John

      Cotton, William Francis

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Crooks, William

      Jowett, F. W.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Joyce, Michael

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Cullinan, John

      Keating, M.

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Kelly, Edward

      Pirie, Duncan V.

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

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Pointer, Joseph

      Dawes, J. A.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Delany, William

      King, J.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

      Dillon, John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

      Donelan, Captain A.

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

      Primrose. Hon. Neil James

      Doris, W.

      Leach, Charles

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Duffy, William J.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Radford, G. H.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Reddy, Michael

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lundon, T.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Richards, Thomas

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      MacGhee, Richard

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Ffrench, Peter

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Wardle, George J.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Webb, H.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Sutton, J. E.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Whyte, A. F.

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

      Thomas, J. H.

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Sheehy, David

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Verney, Sir Harry

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

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Snowden, P.

      Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      NOES.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Gardner, Ernest

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

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

      Gilmour, Captain J.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Nield, Herbert

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Barnston, Harry

      Goulding, E. A.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Grffith.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Harrison-Broadley H. B.

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      Boyton, James

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Rothschild, Lionel de

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

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

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

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Cassel, Felix

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Stanier, Beville

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stanley, Hon, G. F. (Preston)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Stewart, Gershom

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, East)

      Swift, Rigby

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Kebty-Fietcher, J. R.

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

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

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Croft, H. P.

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Denniss E. R. B.

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

      Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lee, Arthur H.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

      Fell, Arthur

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

      Mr. H. Barrie and Mr. Moore.

      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call upon is that in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury.
      Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) paragraph (a), after the word "the" ["to represent the net cost"] to insert the word "average."
      There is a consequential Amendment which will make the paragraph read, "Such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act to represent the average net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom for the three years immediately preceding the passing of this Act of Irish services." The first is that
      626
      we do not really know in the least how much the Transferred Sum is going to be. All we know is that it is going to include the cost of Irish services when the Bill comes into operation. Therefore the more expensive the Irish services are when the Bill becomes law the greater will be the sum handed over to the Irish Exchequer. In fact there will be every inducement to the Irish party and to the Government, if they want to please the Irish party, to keep up the expenses of the Irish services before the advent of the fateful day. I think everyone will agree that this Bill in all probability cannot really pass, or at least come into operation for about two years. I think the

      627
      Irish party, backed up by the Government, can do a great deal in two years' time, and I should really like to know whether hon. Members below the Gangway are going to dun the Government for more money during that time in respect of the expenditure upon what will be Irish services under the Bill. If hon. Members succeed by bringing pressure in getting money out of the Government in regard to what will be transferred services under the Act, the Transferred Sum two or three years hence will be an entirely different sum from that which is in mind at the present moment. For instance, Irish education stands in need of an addition of £300,000 annually at the least. Everybody knows that the Chief Secretary has been very hard pressed indeed for extra Grants during the last few months by everyone in Ireland who has the interests of Irish education at heart. What about harbours, public works, and the Congested Districts Board? It is quite conceivable that the expenses of the Congested Districts Board will be very largely increased during the next two years. Further Grants may be made to that Board for harbours, fisheries, and improvements in general. Again, it is quite likely that large additional sums of money may be given to the Department of Agriculture for research and experiment. The point is this, that the whole of this additional expense will have to be added to the Transferred Sum when the Act comes into operation. Another thing may happen. In the years just before the Act comes into operation there may be quite conceivably a very heavy exceptional additional expenditure which in ordinary circumstances would not be recurring expenditure. There may be expenditure like that we have seen this year in connection with the outbreak of cattle disease, although I hope such a thing will not occur.
      Nobody wants to rob Ireland of her fair share from the public Exchequer, but as the Bill stands it is quite possible that when the Act comes into operation the Transferred Sum will work out at an immensely greater amount than anybody in this House has in his mind at present. We are asked to vote on the Transferred Sum, but it is quite likely that the Transferred Sum actually handed over will be far greater than the amount would be when the vote is taken upon it in this House. I submit this is a fair Amendment, and if it is accepted, we shall, at any rate, know
      628
      more or less in rough figures what the Transferred Sum will eventually be. The Amendment provides that an average of three years' expenditure shall be taken as the basis of the amount on which the Transferred Sum shall be paid, the three years being those preceding the coming into operation of the Act. This seems to me very much fairer than the proposal contained in the Bill. After all, this House is asked to vote for a Transferred Sum of absolutely indefinite amount. I do not think the Government has any right to ask the House to vote a sum of absolutely indefinite amount. When the time comes for the Transferred Sum to be handed over, this House may find that the Transferred Sum has been increased by many hundreds of thousands of pounds beyond the expectation at present. I do not think it is at all a democratic proposal to come from the present Government, who look upon themselves as the special representatives of the proletariat. Therefore, I submit that the Government ought to accept the Amendment. If they do so, one effect will be that it will prevent the deliberate inflation of expenditure on the part of the Government at the instigation of hon. Members below the Gangway, and certainly if the Amendment is refused by the Government we shall have a pretty clear intimation of what their unconfessed intentions are.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has suggested to the Committee that an indefinite amount may be paid over to the Irish Exchequer as the Transferred Sum, but I would point out that the amount which will be paid over will be precisely the amount which the British Exchequer has been paying before the advent of Home Rule—precisely that amount and no more. It will be the amount which in the opinion of the Exchequer Board is the cost of the Irish services at that time. Therefore it is not likely that the hon. Member will be able to persuade the Committee that any great evil can be done to the British Exchequer if they are asked to pay over to the Irish Treasury precisely the same sum as the Irish services have been costing us. That, of course, is the principle of the Bill. We shall say to the Irish Parliament. "Here are certain services handed over to you. You are responsible for the administration, and you have to maintain them by your own charges. To enable you to meet the cost of these services we place in

      629
      your hands the amount which the same services are costing us." It seems to me a perfectly reasonable and natural proposition that we should take these matters as they are at the time the new Government is called into being, and that we should make the financial arrangements on the basis of the existing situation. The hon. Member suggests that the Irish Parliament shall receive in respect of these services, not the amount which they are costing, not the amount which is actually being spent upon them, but the amount that might be spent during the average of the three previous years. They are to take over, so to speak, a going concern, but they are not to have the money to keep that concern going on the footing existing at the time of the transfer, but on some quite different footing.
      I have not asked the Treasury to prepare the figures on the basis of the transferred services, but if you take the transferred and the reserved services, you find that for 1909–10, the cost was 10.7 millions; for 1910–11, 11.3 millions; and for 1911–12, 11.5 millions; an average of £11,160,000. If all these services had been transferred to the Irish Government—of course the Committee knows that many of them are reserved services—in its first year would have found it obliged to carry on services which cost the Imperial Exchequer £11,500,000 the previous year, while they were only to be provided with £11,160,000, because that is the average of the three previous years. Consequently in the very first year they would find themselves faced with the very serious deficit which they would be obliged to make good immediately in the very first year, either by cutting down the cost of the services transferred to them, which would usually be impossible in view of the vested interests protected under the Bill, or else at once imposing new taxation to make good the deficit. I can imagine hon. Members opposite saying, as they have said from the very beginning of these discussions, "You ought not to have Home Rule at all." That is a comprehensible and easily understood position. But I do suggest to hon. Members that it would be very unsound statesmanship if this country were to grant Home Rule in the hope of reconciling Irish opinion and of securing a higher degree of loyalty than hitherto have been obtained there, at the same time to transfer certain services to Ireland and set up the new
      630
      Government in such a way as to cause intense irritation and dissatisfaction, and in fact compel the Irish Parliament in its very first year, owing to the constitution under which it was acting, immediately to burden the taxpayers with fresh taxes. For those reasons I suggest to the Committee that the right course is that which is proposed by the Government.
      Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech in support of the Amendment. He has said that the amount would be the amount which the Irish services would be costing. That is what my hon. Friend desires to ensure. What the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten is the terms of his own Bill:
      "To represent the cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom—
      not "now," as the right hon. Gentleman says, but—
      "at the time of the passing of this Act."
      The Financial Resolution passed yesterday is worded in accordance with the terms of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not say when the passing of this Act was going to be, but the whole thing turns upon that. If we were certain that the Act were going to become law within the next four or five months, we should know exactly what the sum was going to be. But I may remind my right hon. Friend that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, with the knowledge and the power of which they possess, will during the next three years—because this Bill is not going to become law before 1914. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because the sense of the country will not allow it to become law. There is an easy way of its becoming law sooner, and that is by the right hon. Gentleman persuading the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament, and if that is done, I will undertake on the part of the Opposition that we will allow the Bill to pass next year, if the country returns hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to power again. But we know perfectly well that they are not going to do that unless we can compel them to do so, which we hope we shall. If the Bill cannot become law until 1914, what is my hon. Friend afraid of, and what is every business man afraid of who follows the history of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway? I do not blame them for it, but they are on the make, and they are very cute people on the make. They know exactly where to put the pressure, and they know what they want. What we are

      631
      afraid of is that between now and 1914 there will be very many reforms which are absolutely necessary for the welfare of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House beaming over with philanthropy and love of their fellow men and the desire to redress wrongs which the wicked Tories imposed upon Ireland will come forward and say, "We will give £500,000 or a million or two millions, or anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway may desire." If that be so, the Transferred Sum or the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the passing of this Act will not be the net cost to the United Kingdom at the present moment, but may be anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to make it.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will not the House of Commons have to vote the money?
      Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, the House of Commons will have to vote the money, but it will have to vote it in this way, that if by any chance the House of Commons does not vote the money, there will either be a rescinding Resolution when hon. Members from Ireland will have their fares paid and are over here to vote with the Government, or the vote will be withdrawn, and another vote will be produced, and everything will be arranged, so that the Divisions will occur at 7.30 or some fixed time when it is convenient for hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to attend. We know perfectly well that the control of the House of Commons over finance is gone, and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt it will be reported in the Radical papers that the right hon. Gentleman said that the control of the Hon Be of Commons over finance remains.
      But even the most Radical elector of the Kingdom knows that that is all nonsense, or it will not be our fault if they do not know. Therefore I pass by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is sincere he will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because his sole desire—he has told us so himself—is that the sum shall be the net cost at the present moment of Ireland to England. If so, I cannot understand why he does not accept the Amendment, unless there is a secret arrangement between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman looks as if he never heard of such a thing, and that he has no communication whatever with the Front Bench opposite. We on this side of the House are foolish people, but we are not quite so foolish as to believe that. We believe that there is some way, some underground means of communication by which the hon. and learned Gentleman is able to reach right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. I have endeavoured to put in a plain and simple way the facts as they are, and I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to deny them. I see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), who is, not only a great authority on this Bill, but has written a pamphlet about it, and, with his superior knowledge of Irish finance, perhaps he will show me where I am wrong. If he does not, then I am bound to come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer my argument, and I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
      Question put, "That the word 'average' be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 274.

      Division No. 320.]

      AYES.

      [9.45 p.m.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Boyton, James

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Croft, Henry Page

      Balcarres, Lord

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Butcher, John George

      Doughty, Sir George

      Banner, John S. Harmood.

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

      Duke, Henry Edward

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

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

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Campion, W. R.

      Fell, Arthur

      Barnston, H.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Barrie, H. T.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Gardner, Ernest

      Bigland, Alfred

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Bird, Alfred

      Clyde, James Avon

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Sanders, Robert A.

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

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

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Lee, Arthur Hamilton

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Stanier, Beville

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Stewart, Gershom

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Swift, Rigby

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Moore, William

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Valentia, Viscount

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Nield, Herbert

      Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

      Hunt, Rowland

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Dawes, J. A.

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

      Adamson, William

      De Forest, Baron

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Delany, William

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

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hinds, John

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

      Dillon, John

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Armitage, Robert

      Donelan, Capt. A.

      Hodge, John

      Arnold, Sydney

      Doris, William

      Hogge, James Myles

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Duffy, William J.

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Barnes, George N.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Barton, W.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Essex, Richard Walter

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

      Black, Arthur W.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Boland, John Pius

      Falconer, J.

      Joyce, Michael

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Keating, Matthew

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Kelly, Edward

      Brace, William

      Field, William

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Kilbride, Denis

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      King, Joseph

      Bryce, J. Annan

      France, Gerald Ashburner

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

      Burke, E. Haviland.

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Gill, A. H.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

      Glanville, H. J.

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

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Leach, Charles

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Griffith, Ellis James

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

      Lundon, Thomas

      Clancy, John Joseph

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

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Clough, William

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Clynes, John R.

      Hackett, J.

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      McGhee, Richard

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

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

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Cotton, William Francis

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmoth)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Crooks, William

      Hayden, John Patrick

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

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hayward, Evan

      Manfield, Harry

      Cullinan, J.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      634

      635

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Martin, Joseph

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Snowden, Philip

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

      Meagher, Michael

      Pirie, Duncan Vernon

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Sutherland, John E.

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Sutton, John E.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Molloy, Michael

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

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

      Tennant, Harold John

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

      Thomas, James Henry

      Mooney, John J.

      Primrose, Hon, Neil James

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Morison, Hector

      Radford, George Heynes

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Rattan, Peter Wilson

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Muldoon, John

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Munro, Robert

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wadsworth, John

      Murray, Captain Hon, Arthur C.

      Reddy, Michael

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Neilson, Francis

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Richards, Thomas

      Wardle, George J.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Norton, Captain Cecil William

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Webb, H.

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      O'Dowd, John

      Roche, John (Galway E.)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Ogden, Fred

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      O'Grady, James

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

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

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      O'Malley, William

      Scanlan, Thomas

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

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

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Sheehy, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      O'Shee, James John

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "services" ["of Irish services"], to insert the words "subject to the deduction in each year of the deficit as defined in this Act."
      I seek to deal with this magic word "deficit" which plays such a large part in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whenever we point out some great defect or deformity in the Bill we are always told it is the deficit. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that they have been all along Free Traders, and have never held any other opinion except those of the most complete Cobdenites, yet they are willing to set up separate Customs and Excise in Ireland, though with one accord they attempt to make the one excuse that it is the deficit which has driven them away from their Free Trade moorings. I propose to deal with this deficit which, although it plays so very large a part in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is not defined in the Bill. I propose to define it in a subsequent Amendment to Clause 41. I define deficit to mean the amount by which the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland falls short
      636
      of the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the services transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government at the time of such transfer and the net cost at the time being to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the reserved services. My Amendment provides that any increase in that deficit as so defined shall be deducted from the amount paid under Clause 14 as part of the Transferred Sum to the Irish Exchequer. After all we have to see who is really responsible for any increase on that deficit. The increase in the deficit will be much more under the control of the Irish Parliament than it will be of the British Parliament or of the British Exchequer.
      10.0 P.M.
      Let us look at the reserved services and see what they are. The first of the reserved services is old age pensions. The Primrose Committee found that there would be an increase of £600,000 on the amount for the year 1910–11, and that Committee found that the pensions must continue to grow for many years to come. Therefore, we may look for a large increase in the cost of that reserved service, and all the more so because, as I happen

      637
      to know, being chairman of the local pensions committee of the county of London, the cost of those pensions very largely depends on administration. It depends, in the first place, on the pension officers, and, in the next place, on the pension committee, and, in the third place, on the Local Government Board. The Post Office and the Local Government Board will not be under the control of the British Parliament and the British Exchequer, but under the control of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Exchequer. The pension officers will be appointed by the Irish Parliament, and not by the British Parliament, I imagine, and the pension committee most certainly will be appointed by the Irish nation, and not by the British nation. Therefore, we can have no safeguard whatever against the rise in the costs of those pensions. Every safeguard we have now will be removed. Every incentive to extravagance will lie with the Irish people, because it does not matter how much those pensions rise, it will be the British Exchequer that will have to find the money for every single increase. Therefore, I say we are only protecting ourselves when we seek to carry some Amendment of this kind, by which the increase in the deficit shall be carried to the account of the Irish Exchequer, and shall be deducted from any sum that shall be handed over to them under Clause 14. There are many other examples. National insurance, again, is a reserved service, and there cannot be any doubt that the cost of national insurance must to a very large extent depend on insurance committees and on insurance councils, and those again will be appointed, I imagine—and I hope the Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong—not by the British Parliament, but by some Department of Irish administration. Again, every one of those Gentlemen will, I think, want to make the National Insurance Account as big as possible for the people of Ireland. There will be no incentive to economy, but every possible incentive to extravagance. I should like to know this from the Postmaster-General. In the case of the Insurance Act, until we have Home Rule, the British Treasury will be called on to pay half the deficiency, the county councils paying the other half, on any amount. The deficiency may arise on account of the action of some insurance committee. Is that going to be the case with Ireland after the Bill has passed? As far as I can read the Bill
      638
      there is no safeguard whatever, and the British Treasury will have to find half of any deficiency which is caused, possibly, by the very extravagant action of some Irish county councils or some Irish insurance committees. I see nothing in the Bill to protect us from charges of that character, but I see every possible incentive to an Irish Government and Irish boards and Irish committees to run up the Bill against the British Exchequer. The Irish Parliament will pay nothing, the deficit will be swollen, and the British Exchequer will have to find the swollen deficit. My Amendment seeks to prevent that, and to put some kind of incentive before the Irish Parliament for economy as regards the cost of those reserved services.
      Another instance is unemployment insurance. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, thinks that if we were to pass this Home Rule Bill there would be no unemployment in Ireland. Our view is that there will be a great deal more than at present; but in any case there is no incentive under this Bill, as drawn, to the Department that administers unemployment insurance in Ireland, and which must be composed of Irishmen, to promote economy as regards unemployment, or to be careful in the administration of that portion of the Act. It will be known throughout Ireland that the British Exchequer will have to pay any deficit; but the money goes to Ireland, and will be spent in Ireland. There is every incentive to extravagance and no inducement to economy. Take a fourth instance, the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Postmaster-General imagines that there would be growing peace and prosperity in Ireland from the passing of this Bill. Many of us on this side think there is much more likely to be rioting and bloodshed as the result of the Bill, particularly in the North of Ireland. I do not think that the Postmaster-General is altogether free from anxiety on that score. The whole of the administration of the Irish Parliament may be of a most provocative nature towards the North of Ireland. It is very likely that on account of the provocative nature of the Irish administration more men will be wanted in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the cost will in consequence go up. What will that matter to the Irish administration? The British Exchequer will have to pay. Again I say there is no inducement to economy but every incentive to extravagance.

      639
      The more so is that the case because when the Irish Parliament take over these reserved services they will take them over at the actual cost to the British Exchequer at the time of the transfer. The more they can run up the cost of the services the more money they will get into their Exchequer; the more money they will be able to save by reducing the expenditure on these services when they get control of them, and the more money they will have for other purposes and other services. And then with regard to the extra taxes. A curious feature in such balance sheet as we are able to extract from the Government is that the cost of the collection of taxes is stereotyped by the year 1910–11; the amount put down as the cost of collection is £298,000. That takes no account of what has been happening in Ireland for many years past, namely, that the cost of collection of taxes has been gradually increasing and not going down. It will be far more expensive to collect taxes under the new fan-dangled system adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. It takes no account of the fact that the collection of taxes will not be only the collection of Imperial taxes but also the collection of such Irish taxes as may be imposed by the Irish Parliament. That will undoubtedly lead to a very large increase in this item. It will be almost the duty of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the cost of these services one by one, because in that case there will be more money coming to Ireland. He will be bound to look after the interests of the Irish Exchequer. He may be short of money. Undoubtedly there will be little or no money under this Bill for the development of various industrial undertakings in Ireland. Finding himself short of that money he will probably say, "We have not the money that we ought to have got from the British Exchequer. Let us run up the cost of these services. It is nothing to us. When we have run it up to a giddy height we will take the services over, as we are entitled to do under the Act." The method which I propose is the only one we can possibly devise by which the British Exchequer will be safeguarded against the undoubted temptation to the Irish Parliament to run up the expenditure on these various services. After all, this House is composed far more of Members representing English and Scottish constituencies than of Members for Irish
      640
      constituencies, and we are bound to look after the interests of British taxpayers quite as much as those of Irish taxpayers. If we do our duty we are bound to safeguard the British Exchequer against these extravagances on the part of the Irish Parliament and to insert some such provision as that which I suggest, namely, that any sum handed over to the Irish Exchequer shall be subject to a deduction for any increase in the deficit, which I have defined under an Amendment to Clause 47.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman proposes on a later Clause to define the Irish deficit, and with the form of his definition I have no quarrel. He defines the deficit as being the difference between the total yield of all Imperial taxes levied in Ireland on the one hand, and on the other hand the addition of two elements—one the net cost of the Irish services at the time of the passing of the Act, and, secondly, the cost of the reserved services retained in the hands of the Imperial Government.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I leave them the £500,000. I take no notice of that. I consent to making a present of that to the Irish Exchequer.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps that is one reason why I do not object to the definition as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman proceeds from that to assert that the Irish Government will have it within their power of their own action to increase the amount of the deficit which will remain on the Imperial Exchequer. Clearly they cannot increase the first head of expenditure—that is to say, the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the services transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government at the time of such transfer; in other words, the Transferred Sum. They cannot increase that, because it is fixed after the Act passes and remains the same, subject to some small variations which I need not go into in this connection. Any increase in the expenditure that the Irish Government may make on their own services—education, such land questions as they are empowered to deal with, Poor Law and other matters of that kind, which are transferred to the Irish Government—they have to bear themselves, and the deficit resting on the Imperial Exchequer is not increased by a single penny. That is clearly stated in the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the deficit. He agrees with me there.

      641
      The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say with regard to reserved services—old age pensions, insurance, constabulary, and two or three more—that it would be to the interest of the Irish Parliament, as soon as they are established, to increase the cost—"to run it up," to use his own words—that they would be in a position to do so, and that in consequence the British taxpayer would have to pay an additional sum. I think I have correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman. Again he acquiesces. Can that really be so? He mentioned, first of all, old age pensions. If his presentation of the case were accurate I would agree that Irish Departments might increase the charge respecting old age pensions, because he says that the conditions of the granting of old age pensions rest partly with the Post Office and partly with the Irish Local Government Board, both of which Departments will be transferred to the Irish Government, and that necessarily the Treasury will have no protection at all. What are the facts of the case? In the first place, the Post Office has nothing whatever to do with the amount of old age pensions paid. The Post Office is merely the conduit pipe through which the money flows, and no officer of the Post Office has any voice whatsoever in determining whether or not any particular individual shall receive a pension. The pensions committees in Ireland will be precisely in the same position after the Act has passed as now.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Under whom will they be?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under the Local Government Board, and they will be in precisely the same position as they are now. There will be no difference.
      Mr. DENNISS: Under the British Government?.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The pensions committees will have the same powers precisely as they have now, and I imagine that the Irish Pensions Committees representing the inhabitants are just as eager to secure pensions for the old people in Ireland now as they would be under an Irish Government. Further, the hon. Member has left out the fact that a very important person in the determination of the pensions is the excise officer, who is the pensions officer, and who really represents Imperial control. He will remain an Imperial officer on precisely the same footing as now, and appointed by the same
      642
      people. Lastly, there is an appeal now to the Irish Local Government Board. It is quite true that if that appeal remains with the Irish Local Government Board that the Treasury would be deprived of protection which it now has, because the Irish Local Government Board is now an Imperial Department under the control of the Imperial Government. But the hon. Member has credited the Government with less foresight or less honesty than I think we are entitled to claim, for he has omitted to observe that this particular point is specifically dealt with in the Bill, and that provision is made for continuing protection to the Treasury. In regard to appeals in connection with old age pensions which now exists, Clause 44, Sub-section 1, paragraph (b), says that an Order in Council may—
      "(b) Make such adaptation of any enactments as appear to him necessary or proper with respect to the execution of the reserved services, and in particular provides for the exercise or performance of any powers or duties in connection with 'services,'"
      old age pensions amongst others—
      "by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom or officer of that Government where any such powers or duties are under any existing Act—"
      such as increase of the rates—
      "to be exercised or performed by any Department in Ireland—"
      such as the Local Government Board—
      "which will cease to exist as a Department of the Government of the United Kingdom."
      So that the point is specifically met. If the Local Government Board is transferred to the Irish Government, then the powers exercised by it in respect to old age pensions will be transferred to the Department representing the Imperial Government.
      Sir E. CARSON: Where is that in the Bill?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is the intention by the Bill.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is really very important. If the right hon. Gentleman means we ought to leave it optional to the Privy Council, why not put in the Bill that the claims will be submitted by this Parliament or somebody appointed by this Parliament?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a general Clause, following in this case a number of similar cases which may, or may not, arise. The Clause is framed in the ordinary way in which all such Clauses are framed in Acts of Parliament dealing with Orders in Council, where the word "may" almost invariably appears. I am prepared to give a Parliamentary pledge, on behalf of the Government, that if these circumstances do arise that the appeal in regard to old age pensions shall be retained in the hands of some Department of the Imperial Government.
      Mr. NEWMAN: What is a Parliamentary pledge?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know how long the hon. Member has been in the House, but if he has been any length of time he will be well aware that whatever Government is in power, when a Minister, on behalf of the Government gives a pledge it is the custom of hon. Members to accept that pledge.
      Sir E. CARSON: It is better than a preamble.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot go into that. With regard to the position of insurance. The insurance officers who are now Imperial officers, will remain Imperial officers after the Act has passed—and they are an important part of the machinery. After the passing of the Bill the powers of the Irish county councils will be exercised as they are exercised to-day. I am not aware that any great change in the complexion of the Irish county councils is likely to follow upon the passing of this Bill. So with regard to the services generally. The position in regard to the reserved services, their control, and the determination of their expenditure, remains in the hands of the Imperial officers and the Imperial authority on precisely the same footing as they remain to-day, and is so treated, and no difference whatever is made. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly altogether mistaken when he suggests that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position, even if he wished to do so, to send up by a single sixpence the cost of the reserved services to the Imperial Exchequer. We are to retain control of these services precisely on the same footing as now, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is that if we, having that control,
      644
      determine by our action to raise that expenditure, we are not to pay the bill, but that the Irish Government, which will have no voice or part or lot in determining or controlling the Imperial services, are to pay whatever additional expenditure may be incurred by the Imperial Government. That is clearly a proposal it would not be fair to embody in the Bill.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My right hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, clearly wished the Committee to know that the class of increase in the deficit to which he was referring was of a double nature. First, there was the administrative increases, and, secondly, the automatic increases in the various Votes that make up this deficit. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, dealt only with the administrative increases—the increases that might occur in the maladministration of the Irish officials—and he did not in any way deal with the automatic increases. I propose to deal with the automatic increases in a moment. But, first, may I call the attention of the Committee to the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman stated exist to prevent, for example, any increase in old age pensions. He referred to Clause 44 of the Bill, but Clause 44 is distinctly a transitory provision. It says:—
      "His Majesty may make Orders in Council for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act, and may, by any such Order, make or direct to be made, such arrangements as seem necessary or proper for setting in motion the Irish Parliament and Government."
      This Clause 44 is the counterpart of Clause 78 of the Insurance Act—the power to remove difficulties in bringing the Act into force.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Read on.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will read the whole, if the right hon. Gentleman likes. When we objected to Clause 78 in the Insurance Act, giving powers to the Commissioners to alter the Act, we were told it was nothing of the sort, and that it was merely for bringing the Act into force and operation, and now when we say the safeguards are not in this Act which we think should be in it, the right hon. Gentleman points to this Clause and says it gives continuous protection right through, whereas, it is, as far as I have read it, only a transitory provision. The

      645
      right hon. Gentleman wishes me to read on, and I will do so:—
      "And also for any other matter for which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision for the purpose of bringing this Act into full operation or for giving full effect to the future transfer under or by virtue of this Act of a reserved service."
      That is for bringing the Act into operation for the future transfer of the reserve services. How does that protect the British taxpayer against slack administration by the Irish Local Government Board or the Irish Post Office, whose interest it may well be to give more or greater pensions to their Irish constituents at the expense of the British public?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When the Act is brought into full operation it will be brought into full operation by transferring certain functions to the Irish Local Government Board, but at the same time the function of acting as a Court of Appeal now possessed by the Irish Local Government Board will be withdrawn from them.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman says that, and, of course, one wishes to accept what he says, but I cannot find it in Clause 44. It seems to me to be a temporary Clause for bringing the Act into operation. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the other point, which, to my mind, is even more important, and that is what is going to constitute the deficit? One suggestion is that the deficit may be increased by maladministration and the other by foreseen increases in the actual cost, even under the best administration of the various services. Old age pensions cost £2,664,000, and, at any rate, according to the Primrose Committee, they are going to go up to £3,000,000—that is to say, there is going to be an increase of £366,000.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL dissented.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he will find that in the Report. He always shakes his head when he does not like the Report of the Government's own Committee, but that Committee has warned us that the increased cost of old age pensions is going to be £336,000 a year. I know it has also been stated that at some future date old age pensions may be reduced by £200,000. I will, however, take the balance of £136,000, and that is
      646
      a known increase in the deficit. Is it fair that the English taxpayer should be saddled with that sum, or should a limit be put upon our liability, especially in view of the argument that we are "cutting the loss?" In addition to that, there is land purchase, the cost of which the Primrose Committee say will increase by £450,000. That is another known increase which the right hon. Gentleman does not deny. Then there is to be an increase in National Insurance of £350,000, as well as a certain increase in the cost of collection.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman denies that. The increase during the last ten years was £74,000 in the cost of collection. There is not only the ordinary natural increase of the rising salaries of those employed to collect taxes, but there are other matters, because the Irish Parliament may put on for their own purposes as many taxes as they like, and we have to pay the piper. It is certain that there is not only the ordinary natural increase, but in addition a very special reason why the cost of tax collection should be increased. If the right hon. Gentleman will total up these sums he will find they amount to about £1,000,000. Therefore, we have a known deficit of £1,500,000, and a foreseen increase upon that of another £1,000,000. So that when the right hon. Gentleman talks of a deficit of £1,500,000 he is ignoring the facts which have been found by his own Committee. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend is right when he says that the only way in which this House can protect itself at all is to put in words to the effect of the Amendment now before the House. The known increases are to be £1,000,000. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I have given the figures in detail. There is a known increase of £1,000,000 and a possible increase from maladministration, whatever value may be given to Clause 44, which the taxpayers of the United Kingdom ought to be guarded against. The Postmaster-General does not deny the natural increases, but he does, apparently, deny the administrative increases, although he does not offer us any protection against them. Under these circumstances I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 304.

      Division No. 321.]

      AYES.

      [10.30 p.m.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Archer-Shee, Major M.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Moore, William

      Baird, J. L.

      Gastrell, Major W. H.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Newman, John R. P.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gilmour, Captain J.

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Nield, Herbert

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

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Banner, John S. Harmood.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Barnston, Harry

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

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

      Rawlinson, J. F. P.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Hamersley, A. St. George

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Bird, A.

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Boyton, J.

      Hills, John Waller

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

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Hohler, G. Fitzroy

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Butcher, John George

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

      Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Stanier, Beville

      Campion, W. R.

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Swift, Rigby

      Cave, George

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Thomson, W. Mitchell. (Down, North)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kerry, Earl of

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Lewisham, Viscount

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

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lloyd, G. A.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Winterton, Earl

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Croft, H. P.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

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

      Doughty, Sir George

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

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Duke, Henry Edward

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Fell, Arthur

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Malcolm, Ian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Hayes-Fisher and Mr. Cassel.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

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

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Bentham, G. J.

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Adamson, William

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Chapple, Dr. W. A.

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

      Boland, John Pius

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Clough, William

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Clynes, John R.

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

      Brace, William

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Armitage, R,

      Brady, P. J.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Cotton, William Francis

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Burke, E. Haviland.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Barnes, George N.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Crooks, William

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

      Crumley, Patrick

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Dullinan, J.

      Barton, W.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

      648

      649

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      King, Joseph

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

      Pringle, William M. R.

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

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Radford, G. H.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      De Forest, Baron

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Delany, William

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

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Leach, Charles

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Reddy, Michael

      Dillon, John

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Redmond, John E (Waterford)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Doris, W.

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Duffy, William J.

      Lundon, T.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Richards, Thomas

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      McGhee, Richard

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Robinson, Sidney

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Roch, Walter F.

      Falconer, J.

      M'Curdy, C. A.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      M'Kean, John

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Ffrench, Peter

      Manfield, Harry

      Rowlands, James

      Field, William

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

      Flavin, Michael

      Martin, J.

      Scanlan, Thomas

      France, G. A.

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Gill, A. H.

      Meagher, Michael

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

      Ginnell, L.

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Sheehy, David

      Glanville, H. J.

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Millar, James Duncan

      Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Molloy, M.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Snowden, P.

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Mooney, J. J.

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

      Morgan, George Hay

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

      Morrell, Philip

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Morison, Hector

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Hackett, J.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Sutton, John E.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Muldoon, John

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Munro, R.

      Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Tennant, Harold John

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

      Nannetti, Joseph

      Thomas, J. H.

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

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Neilson, Francis

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nolan, Joseph

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hayward, Evan

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Wadsworth, J.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Wardle, George J.

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

      O'Dowd, John

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Higham, John Sharp

      Ogden, Fred

      Watt, Henry A.

      Hinds, John

      O'Grady, James

      Webb, H.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Hodge, John

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Malley, William

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Shee, James John

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Wiles, Thomas

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

      Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Jowett, F. W.

      Pirie, Duncan V.

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

      Joyce, Michael

      Pointer, Joseph

      Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

      Keating, Matthew

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Kelly, Edward

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Kilbride, Denis

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

      It being after 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 the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 169.

      Division No. 322.]

      AYES.

      [10.40 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      King, J.

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Adamson, William

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Leach, Charles

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lewis, John Herbert

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

      Falconer, James

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Armitage, R.

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Lundon, Thomas

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Field, William

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Barnes, George N.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      McGhee, Richard

      Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Barton, William

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Gill, Alfred Henry

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

      Ginnell, Laurence

      M'Curdy, C. A.

      Bentham, G. J.

      Glanville, H. J.

      M'Kean, John

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Black, Arthur W.

      Goldstone, Frank

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

      Boland, John Pius

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Manfield, Harry

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Brace, William

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

      Martin, Joseph

      Brady, P. J.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hackett, J.

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. O.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Meagher, Michael

      Buckmaster, Stanley Owen

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Burke, E. Haviland.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

      Molloy, M.

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

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Mooney, John J.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Morgan, George Hay

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

      Hayward, Evan

      Morrell, Philip

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Morison, Hector

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Muldoon, John

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Munro, R.

      Clough, William

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

      Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

      Clynes, John R.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Neilson, Francis

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hinds, John

      Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hodge, John

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hogge, James Myles

      Norton, Captain Cecil William

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Crooks, William

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Cullinan, John

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Doherty, Philip

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

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Dowd, John

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Ogden, Fred

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

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      O'Grady, James

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney)

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

      De Forest, Baron

      Jowett, Frederick William

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Delany, William

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Malley, William

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Keating, Matthew

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

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Kelly, Edward

      O'Shee, James John

      Doris, William

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Duffy, William J.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Roch, Walter F.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Wadsworth, John

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Pointer, Joseph

      Rowlands, James

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Watt, Henry A.

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

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Webb, H.

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton

      White, James Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Pringle, William M. R.

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

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

      Radford, G. H.

      Sheehy, David

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.)

      Whyte, Alexander F.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Snowden, Philip

      Wiles, Thomas

      Reddy, Michael

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Redmond, William (Clare E.)

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

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Richards, Thomas

      Sutton, J. E.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Thomas, J. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      NOES.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Croft, H. P.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Archer-Shee, Major M.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Baird, J. L.

      Doughty, Sir George

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Knight, Capt. E. A.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Fell, Arthur

      Larmor, Sir J.

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

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Banner, John S. Harmood.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Lloyd, G. A.

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

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Foster, Philip Staveley

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

      Barnston, Harry

      Gardner, Ernest

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Barrie, H. T.

      Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

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

      Gibbs, George Abraham

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

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gilmour, Captain J.

      MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Goldman, C. S.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Malcolm, Ian

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Bird, A.

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

      Moore, William

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Boyton, James

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Newman, John R. P.

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Nield, Herbert

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Peel, Captain R. F.

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

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Peto, Basil Edward

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

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Campion, W. R.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hills, John Waller

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Cassel, Felix

      Hohler, G. F.

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Cave, George

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Horner, Andrew Lang

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Hunt, Rowland

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      654

      655

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

      Stewart, Gershom

      Valentia, Viscount

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Swift, Rigby

      Wilder, Granville C. H.

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Talbot, Lord E.

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

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Winterton, Earl

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      James Mason and Mr. Stanier.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (25th instant).

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

      WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] —(By Order).
      Order for consideration read.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
      Mr. BOOTH: I wish formally to move "That the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee." I do not mean to advance any argument in support of the Motion at this stage. I rather propose it in order to ascertain your ruling. I have come with a perfectly open mind to hear the discussion, but if as the result of the discussion the House wishes the Bill to go back to the Select Committee, I understand that course would be impossible am informed that if we wish to recommit the Bill, that decision must be come to now. I understand that certain statements will be made with regard to the voting in the Select Committee. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this House would have power, if it so chose after hearing the discussion, to send the Bill back to the Select Committee unless I move it now?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can on the Third Beading move to recommit the Bill. If we consider the Bill now, and come to the conclusion of the Report stage, he could not move the recommittal of the Bill.
      Mr. BOOTH: As I do not wish to intervene and prevent discussion by those who know the facts, I shall, if I consider it necessary, avail myself of that opportunity on the Third Reading.
      Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move, after Clause 13, to insert the following Clause:—
      Undertakers to Pay Compensation for Damage.
      If at any time after the undertakers have enlarged their works or have provided additional or substituted works at their
      656
      Purley and Kenley pumping stations or either of them

      (a) the supply of water from any existing well, or

      (b) the flow of water in any river or stream,

      shall be diminished, and it shall be proved that such diminution is caused by abstraction of water by the undertakers in excess of the amount which they were able to abstract by means of their works or machinery as existing before the confirmation of this Order, the undertakers shall pay compensation to the owner of such existing well for such diminution or to the owner or occupier of any land, mill, or works abutting on such river or stream who may suffer damage by the diminution of the flow of water in such river or stream, and the amount of such compensation shall be ascertained in the manner provided by section three hundred and eight of the Public Health Act, 1875.
      The point raised by the new Clause is, I think, of the very greatest importance. The Borough of Croydon has spent close upon £500,000 with regard to its water supply. It receives it from four wells, and also under an arrangement with the Metropolitan Water Board. Of these wells there are two situate in Purley, from which Croydon draws a supply of 1,250,000 gallons a day. Outside Purley is the rural district of Surrey. The East Surrey Water Company have for some time supplied water in that district. Up to recently they had two wells not far from the wells of the Croydon Corporation. From the nearest of these wells they have been in the habit of drawing one and a quarter million gallons daily. They are a statutory company, and it was necessary for them to come to this House for an enlargement of their powers. Before doing so they made borings in the chalk, which undoubtedly showed their ability to draw extra water from the well near Purley. They had not sufficient capital to fit this well with the powerful pumps necessary to draw the water required for the district.
      The district supplied by the company extends over an area of fifteen square miles, so it is quite obvious that within that area they could have found an abundant supply of water further from Croydon. That being so, they have appealed to this House for an increase of their capital, and have obtained an Order which enables them to increase their daily average of pumping from this well close to Croydon from one and a quarter to four million gallons. It was admitted before the Committee that in times of drought on particular days they proposed to draw from this well five million gallons a day. Croydon views with great anxiety and alarm this proposed increase of draught of water from one well, and believes that to draw this large quantity from a well in such close proximity to their own will be to endanger the supply from Croydon. Evidence was given before the Committee by experts that this was a well founded fear that the Croydon wells would suffer. The population of Croydon is 175,000 and is rapidly increasing. Before the Lords Committee the Water Company was exceeding astute. They secured Mr. Baldwin Latham's services, but did not call him because he was an adverse witness to their case. When it came before this House Mr. Latham was released from his retainer and gave evidence before the Select Committee. The Committee was evenly divided, and by the exercise of the plural vote of the Chairman the company had their way.
      11.0 P.M.
      That being the position, what was asked before the Committee was that at least a Clause should be inserted to protect Croydon and the mill owners on the Wandle river for a distance of two or three miles whose supply of water might be interfered with owing to this cause. These mill owners on the Wandle protested against the permission to the East Surrey Water Company, and asked for protection of their rights. When the Croydon authorities obtained power to sink wells and draw water they were put under restrictions in regard to these millowners on the river Wandle. Why the same protection has not been granted as against the East Surrey Water Company and in favour of the millowners it is a little difficult to understand. The East Surrey Company contended that they could not do any damage to the water of Croydon or to the Wandle. Assume that is true, I ask this House whether in these circumstances the
      658
      Clause for which I ask would do any harm? It does not, and why on earth do they oppose it? If they will neither do Croydon nor the Wandle any harm, why should they not insert in the Bill a provision to make compensation if they should do damage, the amount of the damage to be ascertained by arbitration? The Clause is a most moderate one, and recognises the right of the East Surrey Water Company to draw the same amount of water from these wells as they have hitherto done, namely, one and a quarter millions of gallons, but if they draw in excess of that quantity and the millowners on the Wandle or the Corporation of Croydon can prove damage to their supply, then the East Surrey Water Company should make compensation.
      A more fair and proper Clause could not be inserted. It is said that this Clause is without precedent in these circumstances, and in a sense that possibly is true; but in the case of every water company's Bill with which I am familiar, if the company sinks wells for the purpose of obtaining water to sell at a profit, a Clause is invariably inserted to protect the millowners of the district and private owners in regard to their supply of water, and in case of damage to those supplies, the company has to supply to them water free of charge. In my own experience in this House in regard to water companies, if a water company goes into a rural district to obtain a supply for some distant town provision is made that those residing in the district may put the company under obligation to give them a supply of water. There is nothing more important than a good and adequate supply of water. There is an immense sum involved. Croydon has practically half a million of money invested, and if you had a drought, and with the water flowing from south to north there is a real well-founded fear that our supply might be diminished and might suffer. Under those circumstances I do ask the House to pass this reasonable Clause and to protect millowners on the streams, and the corporation and the ratepayers who supply their own water. In my judgment a more useful precedent cannot be established. Everybody will remember the Bradford case in which the corporation went to law and were beaten, and in which it was held that they had no right to complain of the landowner doing what he did. When a company in this case seeks to raise money to sell water for

      659
      profit then protection ought to be given to the Corporation of Croydon, and fair compensation for any injury done to them.
      Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to second the Amendment. Like many other hon. Members I sit for a borough which has a municipal water undertaking and the borough council of which are looking with grave concern on this precedent of a private company, existing primarily for profit, being allowed to compete, and to compete with disastrous effects, with a long established public undertaking. I wish to put before the House very briefly the case of the London County Council, which is very much interested in getting this Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend. The County Council of London is interested in the river Wandle, which becomes a covered sewer, and in which a water supply is necessary to wash away the effluent of four sewerage companies which discharge into it before it reaches the county borough. The river is fed entirely from streams. Under the common law if any water were abstracted from a river of course those interested would have redress, but if water is abstracted from the underground river, which eventually becomes the Wandle, before it reaches the surface, there is no redress. The London County Council are anxious to have the opportunity of claiming compensation in the event of the Wandle being dried up. There is a precedent, not an exact precedent perhaps, in the River Wandle Protection Act. That Act was obtained by the riparian owners on the river Wandle, and restrains the Croydon Corporation from taking more than 50,000,000 gallons in thirty days. That Act was passed because it was admitted by the Croydon Corporation that they had the power, by pumping out of the strata in which the river Wandle takes its rise, to dry up that stream. As a matter of fact, owing to the opening of new wells by the Surrey Company it is alleged that last summer the river Wandle was practically dried up.
      We ask on behalf of the London County Council that, as it was admitted that in the public interest a local authority should not be allowed to dry up the river Wandle, the same facts should be recognised in the case of this private company. The London County Council are also affected as landowners of the Cane Hill Lunatic Asylum, a large institution
      660
      with over 2,000 patients, which obtains its water from a well on the estate, Recently the East Surrey Company sunk a trial borehole within 283 yards of the Cane Hill well. The London County Council have been advised that if this well of the East Surrey Company is pumped persistently it will be possible to dry up or materially to decrease the supply of water available in the London County Council well. The Surrey Company sell their water at 1s 6d. per thousand gallons; the London County Council can raise water from their own well at 4½d. per thousand gallons, so that it would be a very serious matter to them, considering that they consume 100,000 gallons a day, if they had to pay more than 1s. additional for every 1,000 gallons they consume. It would obviously pay the East Surrey Company to dry up the London County Council well and make it necessary for that authority to draw its supply from them.
      The London County Council do not want money; they do not want compensation in any other way than in kind. They appeal to the House with the more confidence because there is an absolute precedent in a less dangerous case. This same well at Cane Hill Asylum was held to be threatened in 1903 by the sinking of a well by the Sutton Company about a mile away. In the Sutton District Waterworks Act, 1903, a Clause was inserted for the protection of the London County Council, under which Clause, if owing to the pumping of the Sutton Company the supply of water in the Cane Hill Asylum well is decreased, the London County Council can call upon the Sutton Company to supply them with water at the cost price at which it was formerly obtainable at the Cane Hill well. The London County Council feel that the well proposed to be sunk by the East Surrey Company, not a mile away, but at a distance of only 280 yards, is far more likely to deplete their well, that it will be great temptation to the private company to take advantage of the opportunity of drying up the London County Council well in order to get a large profit by selling the Council water at 1s. 6d. a thousand gallons, and they ask that they should have the protection in the form proposed by my hon. Friend. If compensation is payable to them they will be able to get it, by treating with the Surrey Company, not in money, but in kind. Owing to the very important interests, and the heavy financial danger to the London County Council

      661
      of having their well dried up and being obliged to go to the East Surrey Company, I ask the House to pass this Clause. It is fair to every other private owner in the district whose well is in danger.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is not properly a Clause; it is an Amendment to the Schedule.
      Mr. FRANCIS M'LAREN: I ask the indulgence of the House which it is always kind enough to grant to those Members who address it for the first time. The House, I submit, should oppose this Provisional Order as it stands, and it should support the Report of the Select Committee the House itself appointed, and it should reject the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Chatham. This Provisional Order has been submitted to three tribunals—the Board of Trade and the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and it was considered at even greater length by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It is the duty of the House to bear in mind the expert, contentious, and scientific evidence which is at stake, and they should support the Committees which considered the evidence with so great length and care. I claim that the House at the outset should brush aside the contention that has been made inside and outside this House that this is a case between a company paying a dividend of 10 per cent, and a great public corporation such as the Borough of Croydon. Nothing could be more unfair than to state the case in that way. The original shareholders who put their money into the Surrey Company received no dividend for many years, and all the money which is now put into the Surrey Company is subject to an Auction Clause. The return to the investor is only 4¼ per cent. The House should remember that Parliament has imposed upon the Surrey Company a statutory obligation to provide water for an area of 155 square miles, containing a population of 90,000 persons. I claim that the evidence abundantly shows that there is plenty of water for everybody, and that not only can the Corporation of Croydon be supplied, but also the lunatic asylum mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
      I submit that these Compensation Clauses are completely unnecessary. The condition by the Select Committee of the House, of Lords of the maximum amount of pumping which is allowed by the Surrey
      662
      Water Company completely safeguards Croydon Corporation from any appreciable damage to their works. I venture to submit that when hon. Members opposite like the hon. and learned Member for Chatham say, "Well, if we on our side do not think that the Corporation of Croydon will be affected or the river Wandle will be affected, why then do we object to the insertion of these Compensation Clauses. May not the Committee be wrongly urged, and if the Committee is right, the insertion of these Compensation Clauses alone do not prejudice the Surrey Water Company in any way." I dispute that line of argument completely. I venture to say this is a point to which the House should give its consideration. Four companies are now pumping water from this limited amount of chalk, and if Parliament were to assent to the Amendment which the hon. Member for Chatham has moved, Parliament would be saying that the Corporation of Croydon, that the Sutton Pumping Company, that the Metropolitan Water Board could pump such water as they liked, inflict as much harm as they liked, without being subject to any claim for compensation, whereas the unfortunate Surrey, which is in exactly the same position as the other three companies, would be subject to claims for compensation. I submit that is most unfair. If the House wishes to give compensation for underground water it should bring forward a comprehensive measure to make all companies pumping in this chalk area subject to compensation. It would be most invidious if the Amendment of the hon. Member is carried, that one company should be subjected to compensation claims and the others allowed to do any amount of pumping without reparation.
      If anybody ought to pay compensation it ought to be the Corporation of Croydon, for it has three wells that are tapping the springs of the river Wandle. These three wells are nearer the river Wandle than the proposed wells of the Surrey Company, and could anything be more unfair than to ask the House to give the Corporation of Croydon compensation against the Surrey Water Company when the Surrey Water Company is denied compensation by the Corporation of Croydon? The House should remember that the water falls upon the area of the Surrey Company, and that the water runs through Surrey on to the land of the Corporation of Croydon, and I claim that since the company I represent—the Surrey Company — own the

      663
      gathering ground for the water that Croydon uses, therefore the Surrey Company should enjoy the first drink of its water. I venture to oppose this Clause for a second reason, that I regard it as unworkable, and I believe were the House to include this Clause in this Provisional Order it would lead to endless friction and litigation. What would those who desire compensation have to prove? They would, in the first place, have to prove that they had been damaged; in the second place that they were damaged not by the three other companies but by the Surrey Company; and thirdly they would have to prove that the damage would not have been inflicted had the Surrey Company only used the pumping machinery they now have. It is within the knowledge of the House that this Provisional Order does not ask that the House should empower the Surrey Company to sink fresh wells. The wells are already sunk, and all the Surrey Company desire is that the House should empower them to raise additional money for additional machinery.
      Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Do they pump any water from the well near Cane Hill Asylum?
      Mr. FRANCIS M'LAREN: Yes, from the Wandle well and the Kenley well, and those are the only wells which the Surrey Company is anxious to ask for power to pump from. Moreover, I ask the House to reject this Clause because it introduces an entirely new principle into waterworks' practice. It sets up a very dangerous precedent and alters the whole common law relating to waterworks' practice. Any hon. Member of this House who owns land is at perfect liberty to sink a well on his property and pump as much water as he likes, and if anybody else suffers nobody is allowed to receive compensation for damage. Precedents have been quoted by hon. Members opposite, but there is no similarity between this case and the cases they have mentioned. The case of the river Lee has been mentioned, but that is not a parallel case, because it is admitted that where a stream flows in a definite channel and on the surface those on the lower part of the stream are entitled to damages. In cases of underground water under the common law no claim for compensation is allowable. I think it would be most unjust for the House to pass this Clause because in
      664
      recent years general provision is being considered as to giving compensation to those who suffer through water being pumped from underground. It is within the recollection of the House that in 1910 Lord Desborough introduced a Bill in the House of Lords which was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, before which authorities like the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Courthope), the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and experts like Mr. Balfour Browne gave evidence, and the Committee came to this conclusion, which appears most apposite:—
      "They could not give a right to compensation for loss of sub-soil water, unless there was an important alteration of the general law which, as it stands, recognises no property in water unless it is flowing in a known and definite channel."
      They reported that the Committee could come to no other conclusion without further detailed inquiry into the whole subject of underground water. I hope any Member of the Government who speaks on this question from the Front Bench will be able to tell the House that further inquiry is going to be made upon this most important question of the supply of water from chalk sub-soils. I would also ask every Member who thinks of voting for the Amendment to realise that if he does so he is giving to all landlords a right of property that they do not at present possess. It would be a right most serious from the public point of view, because Parliament must remember if it bestows a right of property upon anybody it must be at the expense of somebody else, and if this Clause is passed to give all landlords compensation for pumping subsoil water it means that compensation to landlords will be at the expense of the local authorities and of the public. I venture to say every landlord has now the absolute right to dig for water on his own land, and what I object to is that there should be one law for the landlord and another for public companies. In conclusion, I say the Corporation of Croydon is treating the House most unfairly in bringing forward this Clause at the very last moment. They did not have the courage to submit it to the Select Committee which sat upstairs. This is the first opportunity we have had of considering it. The Surrey Water Company, on whose behalf I speak, have, owing to the procedure of hon. Members opposite, had no chance of bringing forward expert evidence to show how unfair it is to penalise them and to spare the three other companies who are pumping in this area.
      Mr. MALCOLM: May I interrupt the hon. Member's most excellent maiden speech to ask why it is he has twice said he, being a member of the Select Committee, appears for the East Surrey Water Company?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very unfair interruption.
      Mr. M'LAREN: I would venture to submit to the House that, of course, I have not the slightest interest in the East Surrey Water Company.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Hear, hear.
      Mr. M'LAREN: No Member, remembering the traditions of this House, would presume to consent to sit upon a Committee if he were in any way interested in the Bill. Perhaps I was mistaken in saying I represented the Surrey Company. I, of course, only speak on their behalf, and, having listened to the evidence, I think their case is a just one, and I ask the House to support it. The explanation why the Surrey Company did not bring this Clause before the Select Committee is, I think, a simple one. Mr. Balfour Browne, their legal adviser, gave evidence before a Select Committee of the two Houses some years ago, and his evidence conclusively showed that he himself was against any such Clause of compensation as this. It would therefore have been impossible for him, representing the Croydon Corporation, to have appeared before the Select Committee and to have refuted the views which he had himself publicly expressed. I ask the House to support the decision of the Committee and to reject the Amendment.
      Mr. HODGE: I desire to point out that the protection of the water supply of the working class population is a question of the first importance. So far as Croydon is concerned the average number of persons in a dwelling-house is 4.9; the number of houses, 15,639, and the population thereby affected, 76,000. To my mind there should be no hesitation in granting this compensation Clause if the statements made by counsel before the Select Committee are believed in by them. Let me quote one or two which I think demonstrate that no damage would be done to the Surrey Water Company by the proposed Clause. Mr. H. Lloyd remarked:
      "The Corporation say, and no doubt truly so, that they have not at this moment, more water than they ought, to have in order to enable them to perform their public duty."
      666
      Of course it must be common ground that there is a maximum demand which every company must be prepared to meet. Counsel proceeded:
      "We have no desire to rob our neighbours. We should only be too glad to see Croydon amply supplied with water. But our case is that there is ample for both."
      If that be so then I think the necessity for this Compensation Clause is amply demonstated.
      Colonel BATHURST: As Chairman of the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill I should like to add a few words. There is one point I wish to emphasise. Reference has been made to the fact that the decision of the Committee, arrived at after a very long inquiry, was carried by my casting vote. I have to point out that if the House of Commons makes rules those rules are intended to be carried out, and I only exercised the power given to me by those rules when I gave my casting vote. Consequently, there can be no grievance as to the carrying of this Bill through the Committee. The second point I wish to touch upon is this. I do not think it is clearly understood that this Bill is merely one for raising capital—firstly, for the pipe to convoy the water after it has been pumped, and secondly, for increasing the machinery. There is no new bore-hole being made, and the money will be devoted to increasing the machinery and bringing it up to date. On that point I should like to refer to the Joint Select Committee of which mention has been made—the Committee which sat in 1910.
      The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) gave evidence before that Committee. He was asked by the Chairman as to the methods of limiting pumping in certain areas. He replied that he was in favour of specifications of the machinery being put before the Committee. The alternative plan was to limit the quantity to a certain number of gallons over a certain period, and that seemed to be, in the opinion of the Committee, the best way of limiting the distribution of water under present conditions. That is precisely what we did upstairs. We followed the precedent of the Committee of the House of Lords who limited the supply, and therefore, I suppose, we have left enough for everybody concerned. With regard to the special Clause relating to the Wandle, I should like to explain to the House that I asked that a Clause should be submitted to the Committee purposely to see whether or not it was practicable,

      667
      and, having considered it, and having heard counsel on both sides, the Committee—I will admit through my casting vote again—came to the conclusion that it was not possible to include such a Clause, because of the impossibility of proving the liability of the West Surrey Company. Under these circumstances I hope the House will endorse the findings of the Committee and pass this Bill.
      Sir H. KIMBER: I represent, and have for the past twenty-seven years represented in this House the interests of the River Wandle and its riparian occupiers and owners. The case is more simple than the House might suppose from the large number of interesting facts put before it. The Clause which the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) has moved is one which does not dispute or attack the Bill itself. It concedes to the Company all the right and the power that the Company asks for in order to take further water. All that the Clause provides is that if in the future—it must be borne in mind that whether there will be any damage to the riparian proprietors on the Wandle can only be a matter of opinion and conjecture at present—the result of these works is to damage these people, contrary to the expectation and assertion of the Company that they will do no damage to these riparian proprietors and millowners—it was admitted before the Committee by experts on both sides that there was the possibility that in the future the abstraction of water would damage these people—then a reference to arbitration should, if necessary, be made to ascertain and to award compensation to the parties interested. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Francis M'Laren) with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting on various Committees, I believe was on one Committee upstairs over which I presided that dealt with the question of the navigation of the river Don. In that case it was accepted as a recognised principle that water abstracted from existing navigation or an existing supply of water should be restored to the stream if possible, or, if not, and damage arose, compensation in money should be awarded. The principle has also been recognised by this House in many Bills. I believe many of these precedents were quoted by counsel for the petitioners against the Order. I was asked by the Committee of Selection to preside over the Committee, but when I found that my Constituency
      668
      was interested I was of course obliged to decline. The Chairman, in giving his casting vote, acted in accordance with Parliamentary rules, and there can be no grievance, but it is a fair matter of observation that the question did not obtain the full concurrence of all the Members. There are many precedents. There was the Wolverhampton Corporation Waterworks Act, the Gosport Water Act, and other recent Bills. I submit that the very terms as well as the substance of the matter which the Croydon Water Company have asked the House to grant to them are not in any way interfered with by the proposed Clause. It can do no harm, and it is consistent with the statement of their counsel that the River Wandle Protection Association represents important interests—local authorities, mill-owners, occupiers, riparian proprietors, and so on, and no one whom I represent has any desire to injure any one of them. Everyone can understand that where there are millowners on a stream the lowering of the water by abstraction above their point of access necessarily must cause very serious damage. We had the cases of a number of millowners on the river Don, and these were acceded, being reasonable cases. I think I have said enough to show that the Clause ought to be inserted.
      Mr. A. G. MORTON: As a Member of the Select Committee, I should like to be allowed to say a few words. Except technically the Committee has never passed the Bill at all because there were two on one side and two on the other. You have no opinion from the Committee, because it was divided. I have no doubt it is a most respectable company, I do not know any of the directors or shareholders connected with it, but I must say that this company is working for and paying dividends. Therefore, we have to consider the matter in that light as against the wants of the people of Croydon, and of the people on the river Wandle. There are 175,000 people in the area we are dealing with, and of these 130,000 get their water from the wells mentioned. The rest are supplied by the Metropolitan Water Board. I think the passing of the Clause which has been proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Hohler) is the least the House of Commons can do for the protection of these people. I heard it said just now that the Clause was not submitted. I was sorry to hear that, because it was actually submitted on behalf of the people on the

      669
      river Wandle. The Committee adjourned and took a separate day to consider it. Therefore, we had the Clause before us.
      Mr. FRANCIS M'LAREN: The Corporation of Croydon never submitted that any Compensation Clause should be given to them. It was only the people on the river Wandle who asked that.
      Mr. MORTON: It does not matter. The people of Croydon are really Londoners, and they deserve this protection in a case where it is proposed to interfere with them. We have been truly told to-night that if there is no damage done, there will be no compensation, and the company, to my mind, would be well advised in accepting this proposal rather than accepting worse by and by. The constant practice of Parliament has been to protect people who have interests, whether in water or anything else. What difference does it make whether the water is underground or not? I cannot see what difference it would make to me whether my watch was stolen above ground or 100 feet underground on one of the tube railways. In my opinion the weight of evidence submitted to the Committee was in favour of the case presented on behalf of the people on the river Wandle.
      We were told by the millowners that they had an insufficient supply of water already, and that some of them had to work in the daytime and others at night because of the shortage in the present supply. [An HON. MEMBER: "They work alternately."] They have already lost part of their water supply, and they are likely to lose more. Millowners are protected in all other cases of this kind. Protection was given in the case of the river Lee. There are many others with which I will not trouble the House, but if anybody wants particulars, I will be glad to give them. It has been argued by some people that water is not property. The evidence given by the millowner showed distinctly that they pay a rent for the use of the water, and undoubtedly it is thereby made property. Having paid that why should anybody take it away from them? I trust that this House will not give way to this socialistic doctrine, but will stick to the Eighth Commandment and say to all these speculators, "If you take anybody's property you must compensate."
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: My name has been mentioned as giving evidence before
      670
      Lord Desborough's Committee. The question before the Committee was entirely different from that before this House now. It had reference to a general alteration of the law, whether in a large number of cases you should reverse the old common law doctrine that there is no property in underground water. That is the matter on which I hold a very strong opinion, not as a landowner, but as a resident, and now a representative of Hertfordshire, which has taken a very great interest in this matter, because springs and wells are very much affected by the pumping of underground water. In the present instance a very excellent company, which supplies water and makes a profit out of it, desires to pump more than twice as much as it is pumping at present, and make larger profits. The question really is whether it is not for Parliament to put certain conditions which it is to carry out in order to give it a statutory right to make these larger profits. There is no question of creating a new right, of property in landowners. It is merely a question of whether where the company is going to carry on a profitable transaction with the assistance of Parliament, Parliament is not perfectly right and acting justly in the public interest in putting certain conditions upon that right.
      The question is whether it is fair to insist as a condition of making the profit that they should not injure other people who already use the water. If that condition is carefully guarded it seems tome as a principle essentially just. It is carefully guarded in this Clause, because the people who complain have to prove not only damage, but that the damage was actually caused by the pumping in excess of the existing pumping. It does not propose to take away rights which have been given, but when Parliament gives what in effect is a new right, and it says that that right shall not be exercised so as to injure other people, that seems a very reasonable proposition. The injury caused by the pumping of underground water is really a most serious thing. The House remembers the case of the late Colonel Kenyon Slaney. A water company or corporation was allowed to pump all his farm absolutely dry, and he made such a case upon the Second Reading of a Bill to enable pumping to take place that the water authority of their own accord paid him £10,000 for the damage already done. That shows what damage might be done. The House in all cases should look to see if there is a likelihood of damage. If

      671
      there is there ought to be on principle some kind of Compensation Clause inserted to prevent those who are making a profit out of the water doing so to the injury of other people.
      12.0 M.
      Mr. MOLTENO: In this matter we are without the help usually rendered by Members of the Committee, who, on this occasion, are not unanimous, and we must, therefore, exercise our own judgment in a matter of this kind. Reference has been made to common law rights, but what are we doing under this Bill but interfering with common law rights? If we were to allow the Company those rights they might cause serious damage, which would be most inequitable to the neighbourhood as a whole. If a company wants to take water they have to come to this House, and we have to lay down rules and regulations as to the amount of water which it takes. Already they do not take more than 1,500,000 gallons. If they are allowed to take more than that quantity the matter becomes much more serious. Where a company seeks to take water to send it to a great distance it is inevitable that the House ought not to permit it, save under certain conditions, and I think we are entitled to this provision which is now proposed. As the hon. Member admitted, the difficulty of proving damage is enormous, and therefore it is well to have proper safeguards.
      Colonel RAWSON: The hon. Member who seconded the Clause referred to the bore hole in the chalk about 200 yards from the asylum. It is an experimental bore hole, and is too small to pump from, nor can we pump from it until we get further powers from this House. The East Surrey Water Company are quite prepared to give
      an undertaking not to pump from the bore hole without the consent of the asylum authorities.
      Mr. PETO: With reference to the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), he, in common with others who have opposed the action of the Committee, and wishes to reverse their decision, has quoted a figure which is entirely inaccurate. He says it is proposed to pump more than twice the quantity (2,500,000 gallons) which is now being pumped, whereas leave is asked to pump 4,000,000 gallons. It was mentioned that the area of the East Surrey Water Company is fifteen square miles; it happens to be 155 square miles. I would also remind the Committee before it comes to a vote, that this point was discussed on the Second Reading, and the question was whether it should be referred to the Committee or not. The main argument brought forward was whether certain material evidence of Mr. Baldwin Leighton would not be given before the Committee in the other House. That gentleman has given his evidence, and he has given it to the extent of thirty pages. It has been considered by the Committee, who have arrived at their decision. One other fact. I think, on the Second Reading, we had the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) opposing this Bill. He has been conspicuous in this Debate by his absence. I am delighted to see that he has come into the House again. He has taken no part in this Debate. A fresh hare is started altogether, and at the eleventh hour. The London County Council, who did not go before the Committee at all, come before the House.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 88.

      Division No. 323.]

      AYES.

      [12.8 a.m.

      Adamson, William

      Doris, William

      Hogge, James Myles

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Duffy, William J.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Jowett, Frederick William

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

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Joyce, Michael

      Barnes, George N.

      Fell, Arthur

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Brace, William

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Brady, P. J.

      Gill, A. H.

      Malcolm, Ian

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Goldstone, Frank

      Martin, J.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

      Meagher, Michael

      Cassel, Felix

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hackett, J.

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Crumley, Patrick

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

      Morisen, Hector

      Dawes, J. A.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      De Forest, Baron

      Hodge, John

      Munro, R.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      O'Malley, William

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

      Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Sutton, John E.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Reddy, M.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Hohler and Mr. John Ward.

      NOES.

      Armitage, R,

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Morrell, Philip

      Baird, J. L.

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Nicholson, sir C. N. (Doncaster)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gulland, John William

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

      Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Boland, John Pius

      Higham, John Sharp

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

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Hills, John Waller

      O'Shee, James John

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Boyton, James

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Campion, W. R.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Keating, Matthew

      Robinson, Sidney

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kilbride, Denis

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

      Clough, William

      King, J.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Cullinan, John

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

      Touche, George Alexander

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

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

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

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lundon, T.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Maclean, Donald

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

      Farrell, James Patrick

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      McGhee, Richard

      Rawson and Mr. Francis M'Laren.

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Bill to be read the third time to-morrow (Friday).
      The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Twelve o'Clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (ESTABLISHMENT CHARGES)
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (ESTABLISHMENT CHARGES)
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  COURTS FO REFEREES (CONTESTED ELECTIONS).
  COURTS FO REFEREES (CONTESTED ELECTIONS).
  SANATORIUM TREATMENT.
  SANATORIUM TREATMENT.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS REMUNERATION.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS REMUNERATION.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Death Duties (Border Lands).
  Death Duties (Border Lands).
  Sales of Real Property (Increment Value Duty).
  Sales of Real Property (Increment Value Duty).
  Finance Act (Appeals).
  Finance Act (Appeals).
  Income Tax (Furnished Houses).
  Income Tax (Furnished Houses).
  Agricultural Co-operation (England and Wales).
  Agricultural Co-operation (England and Wales).
  Education (Finance).
  Education (Finance).
  Local Taxation (Departmental Committee).
  Local Taxation (Departmental Committee).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Education (Ireland).
  Education (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  University Act (Ulster Scholarships).
  University Act (Ulster Scholarships).
  Public Treasurers (Ireland).
  Public Treasurers (Ireland).
  Estates Commissioners on Defaulting Tenants (Report).
  Estates Commissioners on Defaulting Tenants (Report).
  Disturbances (Ireland).
  Disturbances (Ireland).
  School Attendance Orders (Ireland).
  School Attendance Orders (Ireland).
  County Court Reform (Ireland).
  County Court Reform (Ireland).
  Athenry Police Barracks.
  Athenry Police Barracks.
  Weeds Act (Ireland).
  Weeds Act (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  EXPENDITURY (1904 AND 1912).
  EXPENDITURY (1904 AND 1912).
  AEROPLANES.
  AEROPLANES.
  AUSTRALIA (NAVAL AGREEMENT).
  AUSTRALIA (NAVAL AGREEMENT).
  PAY.
  PAY.
  BATTLESHIP REPAIRS.
  BATTLESHIP REPAIRS.
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Reserve Battalions.
  Reserve Battalions.
  Officers' Training Corps.
  Officers' Training Corps.
  Hollow-Ware Trade (Staffordshire).
  Hollow-Ware Trade (Staffordshire).
  Woolwich Barracks Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Woolwich Barracks Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  North China (British Troops).
  North China (British Troops).
  Dengue Fever, Meerut.
  Dengue Fever, Meerut.
  New Schools (Petitions).
  New Schools (Petitions).
  Disabled Teachers' Superannuation.
  Disabled Teachers' Superannuation.
  Decline in Birth-Rate.
  Decline in Birth-Rate.
  School Places (London).
  School Places (London).
  Hayward's Heath School.
  Hayward's Heath School.
  White Slave Traffic (International Convention).
  White Slave Traffic (International Convention).
  Recruiting Parties (Expenses).
  Recruiting Parties (Expenses).
  London County Council (New Court House).
  London County Council (New Court House).
  Metropolitan Police (Administration).
  Metropolitan Police (Administration).
  Motor Omnibus Traffic (Metropolis).
  Motor Omnibus Traffic (Metropolis).
  Incorrigible Rogues.
  Incorrigible Rogues.
  National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies.
  National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies.
  Stealing Fowls (Conviction at Monmouth).
  Stealing Fowls (Conviction at Monmouth).
  Lodging Employés on Factory Premises.
  Lodging Employés on Factory Premises.
  Women Factory Inspectors.
  Women Factory Inspectors.
  Auckland Park Colliery (Explosion).
  Auckland Park Colliery (Explosion).
  Street Betting (Convictions).
  Street Betting (Convictions).
  Motor Car Lights.
  Motor Car Lights.
  Indian Students in England (Mr. Mallet's Appointment).
  Indian Students in England (Mr. Mallet's Appointment).
  High Courts Judges (India).
  High Courts Judges (India).
  Indian Cash Balances (London).
  Indian Cash Balances (London).
  Currency Reserve (India).
  Currency Reserve (India).
  Burma University.
  Burma University.
  Finance (India).
  Finance (India).
  Press Law (India).
  Press Law (India).
  North British Railway Company (Workmen's Trains).
  North British Railway Company (Workmen's Trains).
  Great Central Railway (Relief Guards).
  Great Central Railway (Relief Guards).
  Great Northern Railway (Superannuation Fund).
  Great Northern Railway (Superannuation Fund).
  Wreck of Steamship "Criccieth Castle."
  Wreck of Steamship "Criccieth Castle."
  Printing Trade (London District).
  Printing Trade (London District).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Post Office Mail Contractors (Discharged Drivers).
  Post Office Mail Contractors (Discharged Drivers).
  Stonehall Letter-Box.
  Stonehall Letter-Box.
  Postal Facilities (Edmonton).
  Postal Facilities (Edmonton).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Ireland).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Ireland).
  Crown Land, Festiniog (Afforestation).
  Crown Land, Festiniog (Afforestation).
  Crown Salmon Fishings, Loch Ridden.
  Crown Salmon Fishings, Loch Ridden.
  Beef Trade (Scotland and England).
  Beef Trade (Scotland and England).
  Development Fund (Carmarthenshire County Council).
  Development Fund (Carmarthenshire County Council).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Indian Barley.
  Indian Barley.
  Midlothian Procurator-Fiscal.
  Midlothian Procurator-Fiscal.
  Small Holdings (County of Roxburgh).
  Small Holdings (County of Roxburgh).
  State Loans to Fishermen (Royal Commission Report).
  State Loans to Fishermen (Royal Commission Report).