Sitting of 29 October 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Falkirk Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

SHOPS ACT,1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the city of Liverpool, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5014 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th October, 1912, making certain Regulations and Rules with reference to the Dockyard Port of Plymouth, in substitution for those made by Order in Council of 24th October, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of ten Orders in Council under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, dated 11th October. 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, dated 11th October, 1912, entitled the Northern Nigeria Order in Council, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT AND MERSEY CHANNELS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th October, 1912, amending the existing Rules for preventing collisions in the river Mersey [by Act]; to lie upon the; Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection—That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Clubs Bill): Mr. George Roberts; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Pointer.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee—That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Bee Disease Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Tennant; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. M'Kinnon Wood.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Chinese Loan.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention, in the event of the financial houses forming the body known as the six-Power group deciding to-renew their understanding or agreement at the end of the year, that the Foreign Office should continue to support that group in its action relative to the financing of China; or whether he will inform the English section of the six-Power group that they will not be supported by the Foreign Office to the detriment of other English financiers who may be willing to undertake Chinese business?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I am not aware that the agreement between the six-Power group is likely to lapse at the end of the year, but in any case the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter of Chinese loans has been clearly defined since the House met, and I have nothing to-add to the answers which I have already

  211
  given on this subject. With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Member will be aware from the correspondence which has just been published that a condition of the support given by His Majesty's Government to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank was that the British group should be expanded. The promise of support to the six-Power group applied to the period of negotiation and issue of the reorganisation loan.

  Slave Trade (West Africa).
  Mr. HOAREasked whether His Majesty's Government has official information from a Portuguese source to the effect that many of the slaves liberated from the Portuguese dependencies of San Thomé and Principe are frequently put ashore on the mainland, where they are left to starve; and that in the early part of this year fifty slaves died in the out skirts of Benguella from neglect and starvation?
  Sir E. GREY: My information with regard to labourers repatriated on the expiration of their contracts, is that the Governor-General of Angola is now doing all in his power to provide for them and find them work. He recently informed tho Acting British Consul at Loanda, who sees no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information, that of the hundreds of people repatriated to Benguella in the first six months of this year only seventeen died. They received medical attendance, and their death was in most cases due to the change of climate, although in a few cases it may have been due to general weakness as a result of lack of food.
  Mr. HOAREasked whether the eleven Portuguese who, according to the admission of the Portuguese Government, were found guilty of acts of slave traffic were expelled from the Portuguese Colonies of West Africa, or whether they were only expelled from the provinces in which they had been engaged in the slave trade?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the case of eleven Portuguese who were accused early last year of slave dealing and other crimes in the Portuguese Colony of Angola. The crime of slave dealing was not proved against them, but I understand that they were expelled from the Colony of Angola and not merely from a province of that Colony.

  Great Britain and Germany (Earl Roberts).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked if any representation on behalf of Germany has been made to the Foreign Office with reference to Lord Roberts's speech on the 22nd October?
  Sir E. GREY: No representation has been made to us on behalf of Germany, and I should very much deprecate any suggestion that either Government should make official representations to the other about unwise or provocative speeches made in either Germany or Great Britain by persons who are no; in a position to control the policy of their respective Governments.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Having regard to the fact that Earl Roberts was Ambassador Extraordinary to tho Court of Berlin to announce the death of the late King and tho accession of the present one, and that the very highest distinction of the German Empire, the Order of the Black Eagle was conferred on him, should not some representation be made to the German Empire that his speech is not in accordance with—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is undesirable.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for War if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Lord Roberts on 22nd October, in which he said that it is the present policy of Germany to attack this country as soon as her preparations are complete; and whether, in view of the friction such language creates between this country and Germany, he will take steps to prevent a representative of the British Army using such language concerning a friendly Power?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether ha is aware that on 16th May, 1889, attention was directed by means of a question in the House, to remarks of a political character made by Viscount Wolseley in a speech delivered at Oxford in his private and not in his official capacity, and that Mr. Edward Stanhope, who was then Secretary for War in the Unionist Administration, stated that he was unable to defend Lord Wolseley's language and had so informed him; and whether a similar course has been or will be taken on this

  213
  occasion in regard to the speech of Lord Roberts respecting a power on terms of amity with this country?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. Am I right in saying that questions of which private notice has been given are usually asked at the end of questions on the Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is supposed to arise out of the question on the Paper.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I have not received the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Swift MacNeill).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I sent a special messenger.
  Colonel SEELY: I spend a great deal of my time at the War Office—out of the House.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I sent it to the War Office.
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot verify the. accuracy or inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement. I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Roberts, who made these remarks, is still a high official of the British Army—a Field Marshal—and does he think those remarks are consistent, having regard to the Wolseley precedent?
  Mr. PIRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman acquiesce in acknowledging that such speeches are subversive of discipline, and set the worst example possible to the Army, and will he bring to the notice of the Field Marshal the stricture passed by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the answer he has just given.
  Colonel SEELY: As I have just said, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement of my right hon. Friend, and I have no doubt whatever that the answer he has given will receive the fullest publicity, and will be read by all concerned.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty as Minister to take
  214
  official notice of this gross breach of discipline, and will he, as Minister, bring it to the notice of Lord Roberts?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is only asking the same question, to which a reply has already been given.

  Persia.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Shuja-ud-Dowleh assumed the Governorship of Tabriz on 2nd January of this year after the Russians were in control of the town; whether Mr. Shipley, the British Consul in Tabriz, reported this appointment with approval; whether he is aware that the Persian Government were repeatedly urged by the Russian Government to formally appoint Shiga to the position, but refused to do so, and subsequently appointed Sipahadar; and whether, having regard to the fact that Shuja-ud-Dowleh has been responsible for atrocities perpetrated on Persians known to be Nationalists, representations will be made to the Russian Government for his removal from the Governorship of Naraga and as acting-deputy to Sipahadar in Tabriz?
  Sir E. GREY: The first three parts of hon. Member's question do not quite correctly convey the facts to which he refers. He will find the Russian attitude and the views of Mr. Shipley towards the entry of Shuja-ed-Dowleh clearly indicated in No. 32 on page 9 of Command Paper 6264, and the Russian attitude towards his appointment in Nos. 200 and 208 of the same Paper, to which it may be added that the Russian Government subsequently acquiesced in the appointment of Sipahadar. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I explained our attitude in this matter to the hon. Member in my answer on the 22nd and can really add nothing further to it.

  Gold Reserve (India).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount of the cash balances of the Government of India, irrespective of the sums belonging to the Gold Standard Reserve, held in England at the present time; and how they are employed?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The cash balances of the Government of India

  215
  (irrespective of sums belonging to the Gold Standard Reserve) held in England on the evening of the 22nd instant were as follows:—

  Cash at the Bank of England

  £632,372

  Loans at short notice to approved borrowers on security

  6,600,000

  On deposit with leading London banks

  2,350,000

  Total

  £9,582,372

  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say the names of the banks and firms who had the use of this money?
  Mr. BAKER: I have not got the information at the moment.I will get it.
  Mr. WATT: Why does the hon. Member say "held in England," instead of "held in Great Britain"?
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked what profit, if any, from the coinage of new rupees has been available for addition to the Gold Standard Reserve since 31st March, 1912; what is the present amount of the reserve; and to what extent it is held in England in sterling securities and gold, respectively?
  Mr. BAKER: The amount added to the Gold Standard Reserve since 31st March, 1912, is £520,000. The reserve is now made up as follows:—

  Rupees held in India

  £2,453,330

  Sterling securities (at market price, as valued on 14th October, 1912)

  15,852,132

  Cash in England, lent at short notice

  1,234,458

  Total

  £19,539,920

  In accordance with the new arrangements, of which the House was recently informed, about £200,000 will shortly be set aside in gold on account of interest received on investments.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Did not the Commission recommend that the whole of the security should be held in gold, and to what extent have they depreciated during the last few years?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot answer that without notice.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it in order in a question of this kind to say "England" when "Great Britain" is meant? England is a very offensive term.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that the word "England" should offend the hon. Member.

  Silver Coinage (India).
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked if there has been any coinage of new rupees from purchased silver since 31st March, 1912; what, if any, purchases of silver have been made by or on behalf of the Government of India since that date and at what prices, and at what dates, and through what agencies or firms they have been made?
  Mr. BAKER: Thirty-one million, four hundred thousand new rupees have been coined from purchased silver since 31st March, 1912. The silver has been purchased through Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Co. It would not be in the public interest to state the amount at the present time; but the Secretary of State will be glad to-supply the information later if it is asked for.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Has silver ever before been purchased by the Government of India from the firm mentioned?
  Mr. BAKER: No, it has not. The Secretary of State had reason to believe that there was likely to be a speculative rise, and therefore decided that it would be in the public interest to employ a firm which had not been employed before.
  Colonel YATE: Was not this bullion always purchased before by the Bank of England?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot answer that without notice.
  Mr. KING: Has this coinage been minted in London or in India?
  Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I will inform him.

  Public Works Department (India).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the fact has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for India that, while the pay of the engineers of the Public Works Department and of the police has been augmented in recent years, the pay of the East Indian Railway engineers, despite increased responsibility, remains what it was in the early days of the Indian

  217
  railway system, while the pay of the subordinate staff of the Indian railways has been increased; and whether, having regard to the claims of the East Indian Railway engineers to a higher scale of pay in accordance with the arrangements made in this respect for the raising of the pay of officials in other departments, the Secretary of State will take steps to secure this concession and thus remove a grievance?
  Mr. BAKER: The salaries of these officers are fixed by the East India Railway Company, subject to the final sanction of the Railway Board. Questions relating to them have been recently considered by the Railway Board, who are of opinion that no increase is called for. The Secretary of State does not propose to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was this increase refused because it might cause discontent in connection with private companies?
  Mr. BAKER: I have no knowledge that that is the case. The Secretary of State carefully considered the matter.

  Census of Horses.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the allowance for motors made to Yeomanry adjutants in the Western Command who are required to make a census of horses in their district; and how this allowance compares with the amount granted for the same purpose last year?
  Colonel SEELY: The allowance made is that laid down in paragraph 364A, 364B, and 364E, Allowance Regulations, according to the circumstances of the case. The allowance is the same as was granted under similar conditions last year.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether In fantry officers who are adjutants of Territorial regiments and cyclist corps are employed in the duty of classification of horses for Army purposes; and whether there is any test of fitness to carry out this work?
  Colonel SEELY: The adjutants in question are employed on the classification of horses when the general officer commanding-in-chief considers that they have the necessary qualifications.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether officers engaged in the work of classification of
  218
  horses for Army purposes are periodically informed of any removals of horses from their districts; and, if not, what arrangements are made to prevent horses being classified in two or more districts; and whether owners of horses are compelled to part with their animals, if required, on mobilization?
  Colonel SEELY: Horses are classified once a year, and, as far as possible, in all counties at the same period of the year. Of the quotas allotted for mobilisation 25 per cent, extra numbers are included to cover such comparatively rare cases as those mentioned in the question. As regards the last part of the question the reply is in the affirmative.
  Colonel YATEasked whether considering the fact that twelve years has hitherto been the longest period fixed for promotion by length of service of lieutenants to the rank of captain, the Secretary for War will now take into consideration the question of fixing twelve years instead of thirteen as the period in which lieutenants in the Royal Garrison Artillery should be promoted, if otherwise qualified?
  Colonel SEELY: As I have already explained to the House, this is merely a temporary expedient to relieve the congestion amongst the subalterns in the Royal Garrison Artillery. It is not considered necessary to reduce this period of qualification in the direction suggested.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the period is likely to last?
  Colonel SEELY: I should not like to say that off-hand. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question.
  Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why this temporary expedient should not follow the previous precedent in the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know to what previous precedent the hon. and gallant Member refers, but it must have been a temporary expedient for relieving congestion in exceptional circumstances, namely, the South African war.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the Secretary for War also take into consideration the case of the Mounted Artillery, whose promotion is equally congested?
  Colonel SEELY: It is an unfortunate circumstance that there is this congestion. It is nobody's fault, and we are endeavouring to remedy it as best we can.

  Army Officers' Quarters (Furniture).
  Colonel BAGOTasked what total sum has been expended upon the purchase and renewal of furniture for officers' messes and officers' quarters, and what sum per annum has been received from officers as rent for such furniture since the system was commenced; what percentage of interest do the latter amounts show on the total outlay; and whether officers have to make good damage to such furniture by fair wear and tear?
  Colonel SEELY: There are no statistics readily available to show the total expenditure on purchase and renewal. The annual rent is, approximately, £22,000, and this is estimated to be, approximately, 2 percent, on the total capital outlay. Fair wear and tear is included in the rent, and for this officers are not charged.

  Territorial Force (Income Tax).
  Mr. ALAN SYKESasked if the Secretary for War will consider the advisability of allowing an employer of Territorial soldiers exemption from Income Tax on a certain amount of income for each employe he allows to go to camp for fifteen days, for instance, to exempt £10 of income for each employé who so attends?
  Colonel SEELY: The suggestion will receive consideration with other schemes which have been brought to my notice, but I would point out that the proposed bonus would operate unfairly as between employers who are liable to Income Tax and employers who are exempt.

  War in Balkans.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked how many representatives of the British Army have been officially appointed as military attaches to the combatants in Tureo-Balkan States, and to what arm of the Service do they belong?
  Colonel SEELY: Only those attaches who were already on the spot have been permitted by the various belligerent Powers to accompany the forces in the field.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it not possible to have present any officers who know something of Infantry and Cavalry?
  Colonel SEELY: It so happens that those who are there belong to the Artillery and other arms. It was a mere coincidence, but the facts are as I have explained.

  Southern Command (Administrative Department).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether it is proposed to proceed with the scheme for transferring the administrative department of the Southern Command from Salisbury to the village of Harnham, just outside the city; if so, what is the object of the proposed transfer; and what is the estimated cost both of the necessary buildings and of constructing a new road for direct access to the city from the proposed site across the intervening marshy' land and rivers?
  Colonel SEELY: It is proposed to proceed with the erection of a building for the offices of the Southern Command headquarters on a site near Harnham, purchased for the purpose. The present offices are in several separate buildings, held on lease, which are inconvenient and in many respects unsuitable. The cost of the buildings is estimated provisionally at £25,000. A new road for direct access to the city is not considered necessary.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the reason for the reduction, as from the 1st inst., of the pay of from ninety to a hundred men employed at the headquarters of the Southern Command?
  Mr. BAKER: There has been no reduction of pay. It has been decided, however, that the circumstances existing at Salisbury are no longer sufficiently exceptional to justify the continuance of a special rate of 1s. per diem ration allowance approved in 1901, and (his has been reduced to the usual rate of 6d. per diem.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Member realise that this reduction of ration allowance involves a loss to each private of 3s. 6d. per week out of a total of 11s. 8d., after paying for his lodging accommodation, and whether Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien himself has not protested against such reduction?
  Mr. BAKER: No; it was only a temporary increase under the special circumstances, but now the circumstances are ordinary again, the old rate has been brought into force.

  Army Promotion from Ranks.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether anything has been done by his Department to give greater facilities for promotion from the ranks to commissioned positions in the Army; and, if so, what is the nature of his proposals?
  Colonel SEELY: The matter is engaging I the serious attention of myself and my advisers.
  Mr. J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any more hope than is to be gathered from his saying that he is considering a subject on which there have been debates during four or five years?
  Colonel SEELY: I realise that the matter demands urgent consideration, and I hope before very long to make some statement on the subject. I fully admit its importance.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Admiralty in order to see if he cannot act with the tame celerity as they have acted?
  Colonel SEELY: T cannot admit that the Admiralty always act with great celerity.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. GUINEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many appointments were made in connection with the Commissioners of Valuation Office in Ireland since the passing of the Finance Act; how many of these appointments were rendered necessary by the Finance Act; how many additional valuers are now engaged making valuations in Ireland under the provisions of this Act; and what is the amount expended on salaries in this Department at present as compared with the year 1909?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is 115, to the second 110, and to the third 25. With regard to the last part of the question the amount expended in salaries, wages and allowances of officers in 1911–12 was £38,837 as compared with £22,985 in 1909–10.
  Mr.LANE-FOXasked how the 292 valuers appointed for land valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, who do not hold certificates of the Surveyors' Institution or of the Auctioneers' Institute, were. selected; and how the distinction between
  222
  those who had been appointed and were found unqualified from those who were found to be qualified was arrived at?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The 292 valuers referred to were in every case selected by the superintending valuer concerned, on, evidence of capacity obtained by interviews and written references from previous employers. No valuer so appointed has been found unqualified for the work which has been allotted to him.

  Improvement Fund (Agricultural Rates).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the figures upon which it is estimated that the distribution of the Improvement Fund has resulted in a saving of fourpence in the pound on agricultural rates?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is clear that the growing requirements of motor traffic would in any case have necessitated a large increase of expenditure on roads, and so far as Grants from the Road Improvement Fund will relieve the rural road authorities of this expenditure they will be a relief to agricultural rates. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave to Lord Morpeth on 15th June, 1909, he will see that my estimate that the benefit to agricultural landowners would be equivalent to a relief of fourpence in the pound on the rates included also the saving to be derived from the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act. On that basis the fourpence is an under estimate.
  Mr.BRIDGEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman referred to his own speech, in' which he said the fourpence referred exclusively to the £600,000 for road improvements, on 9th June?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On 15th June, six days after the date the hon. Member has given, I made it perfectly clear. I included old age pensions.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give figures to substantiate that?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There would be no difficulty in showing that there was a good deal more than fourpence.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I take the answer to mean that he considers the local authorities are bound to maintain roads in suitable condition for motor traffic without any such Grant?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not express an opinion as to whether they are bound or not, but all I know is that before the Grant made by the Government an enormous sum of money was being expended in order to keep the roads fit for motor traffic.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the Commissioners have invariably demanded local expenditure before giving a Grant?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. I think they demand something like half. But for this the whole of it would be borne by the local authorities.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not the fact that they demand the expenditure of an equivalent amount?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I say, and they are contributing half.

  Land Values Committee.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to appoint any further secret committees of inquiry into other sources of wealth besides that from land, seeing that land is not now the chief source of wealth in this country?
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Before the question is answered, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a Committee of the nature described in the question is actually being formed now, and whether it will meet with his approval?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. T will refer the hon. Member (Mr. Lane-Fox) to the answer that I gave on 15th October to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the reason for that answer that from his point of view the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the appointment of such a secret Committee is a gross blunder?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not know what is the premiss on which the hon. Member draws that inference.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Land Union is prosecuting secret inquiries from directors of friendly societies?
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information in his possession showing that the Land Union is carrying out a land inquiry on similar lines to that of his unofficial Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was referring, on the occasion that the hon. Member has in mind, to the secret investigation that the Land Union carries on into the methods of land valuation.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by secret inquiries into the methods of land valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I mean investigation which is carried on privately, and I may remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman when I asked for the names in a certain case he refused to give them, and I followed the precedent since.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask you, Sir, whether there is not some protection for hon. Members when a question is put, as a question was put the other day, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the reply is that it was a falsehood—that is the expression which was used?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The use of that word when applied to the statement of an hon. Member is out of order. When an hon. Member accuses a Minister of stating falsehoods he cannot claim the protection of the Chair.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask you whether that was not the exact expression used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in reference to the statement made by my hon. Friend behind me, the absolute statement that the statement was an utter falsehood.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was here or not on that occasion, but the matter was dealt with at once by me, and it was shown clearly that the statement did not apply to the statement of the hon. Member for Warrington, but to a report in a newspaper from which he had quoted.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If I may add a word, I stated that I was not charging the hon. Gentleman with falsehood in the matter, but only the Press reports.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The matter was dealt with on the spot.

  Road Board.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what has been the total amount received by the Road Board since its formation; how much of that amount has been promised in loans and grants; how much has been actually disbursed and how much remains in hand; and how much local authorities have had to spend as a condition of receiving assistance from the Board?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total amount received by the Road Board since its formation up to the 30th September last (including interest on investments and loans) was £2,580,778, and the balance in hand in cash and investments was £2,081,779. The amount granted was £804,172 of which £408,053 has been paid in respect of work done, and the amount advanced on loan was £71,460. The additional amount which the Board have indicated their willingness to advance towards works, the details of which are still under discussion with highway authorities, was £1,514,700. The expenditure of local authorities on works towards which grants have been paid is estimated at £136,000. This expenditure was not incurred under the terms of conditions contained in grants, but represents the difference between the total expenditure of the highway authorities on road improvements and the grants made by the Road Board on the applications of these authorities.

  Land Taxation (Statistics).
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that it has been his own practice and that of his predecessors to furnish the latest available figures of the yield of different branches of the revenue at any time during an Autumn Session, and that the yield of Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty up to 7th November, 1911, were stated by the Secretary to the Treasury on 14th November last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division; and whether he will now state the yield of Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty, respectively, for the first six months of the present financial year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must ask the hon, Member to refer to my answers to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Bark-
  226
  ston Ash on the 27th February and 5th March last, respectively, in which the matter is fully explained.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask whether it has not been the invariable practice to refuse any figures of revenue in the spring before the Budget lest they might anticipate the Budget statement, but when there is an Autumn Session, that it has been the invariable practice to give any figures that have been asked for as to the yield of the revenue?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not what I am informed by those who are in a better position to form an opinion on the subject.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question which he has not yet answered in any answer he has given, namely, was not an answer given on this point on 7th November, 1911, as mentioned in my question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, if he had taken the trouble to refer to the question which had been put by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, he would have found that was the exact point there, and on inquiry I reverted to the precedent which up to that had been invariably followed.

  Increment Duty.
  Mr. STEWARTasked if Increment Duty on transfer of property by demise, or sale of properties purchased under the Land Purchase Act, in Ireland has been collected; and, if so, to what amount?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  Members' Salaries (Income Tax Deductions).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the deduction of £100 from the Parliamentary salary for 1912–13 in respect of expenses is a concession from himself or has been made in pursuance of Section 51 of the Act 16 and 17 Vict., c. 34, as stated on the official memorandum?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have repeatedly stated in answer to previous questions, the deduction was made by my instructions under Section 51 of the Act 16 and 17 Vict, cap. 34.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is a uniform deduction of £100 considered in all the circumstances a fair compliance with the Statute?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think so.
  Mr. GINNELL: Then will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority the Income Tax Commissioners refuse to allow the same deduction in other cases?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question the hon. Gentleman has put once before, and I can only repeat the answer I then gave.
  Mr. GlNNELL: May I ask whether what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks is better or the Statute is to prevail?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have done what I consider my duty under the Statute. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with it, he has his remedy.

  Ministers' Statements.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Lord Althorp, as leader of the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer, entered in September, 1831, a protest, in which he was supported by the House, against attempts in the House of Commons to make the Government responsible for statements made by Gentlemen who were not Members of the Cabinet, as contrary to the customs and usages of the House of Commons; and whether the Cabinet, in accordance with this position will decline to hold themselves responsible for the language of subordinate Members of the Government or to reply to Parliamentary interrogation or criticism in respect thereof?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): On the occasion to which, I presume, the hon. and learned Member refers, Lord Althorp was disclaiming Cabinet responsibility for an expression of opinion (on a difficult point of constitutional law) which had been volunteered by a subordinate Member of the Government in the course of Debate. I think that each case must be judged by its own circumstances.
  Captain CRAIG: Would it be possible for Members of the present Government to arrange roughly among themselves the broad lines of their policy before they allow juniors to go chattering about the country?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit the full responsibility of the Government for the utterances of Members of his own Cabinet?
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has always exercised the greatest liberty of whatever Government he has been a Member?
  Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask for an answer to my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer a question put in an abstract form. If the hon. Gentleman will give a concrete case I will consider it.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was not Mr. Gladstone's attention directed to a speech of the Member for West Birmingham, and did he not say that it was none of his business to lecture his colleagues?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    SEPARATE PARLIAMENTS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, at the date of his speech on the introduction of the Government of Ireland Bill on 11th April, 1912, in which he presented the case for Irish Home Rule as the first step in a larger and more comprehensive policy, he was aware of the views of the First Lord of the Admiralty, recently enunciated in public, as to setting up ten or twelve separate Parliaments in the United Kingdom; and whether, in view of his statement that what the Government are now doing in regard to Ireland they do with the distinct and direct purpose of further and fuller applications of the principles, he will, before the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, inform the House more clearly of the nature of those further and fuller applications, and will state whether they include the setting up of ten or twelve separate Parliaments for the United Kingdom?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second that in the Committee stage of the present Bill it would probably be out of order and certainly premature to go into this matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that we should be forced to legislate on the important questions arising out of this Bill in total

    229
    ignorance of the intentions of the Government as regards federalism?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter of opinion.

    NOMINATED MEMBERS.
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether, if the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law in its present form, the Members of the first Irish Senate will be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant before or after the Members of the Irish House of Commons have been elected by the people; and whether the intention of Parliament in this respect will be made clear on the Statute?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no express provision in the Bill with regard to this point; nor, in the opinion of our advisers, is any such provision necessary.
    Mr. MOORE: As a matter of fact, will these people be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant or by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond)?

    Royal Courts of Justice (Royal Commission).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission on the sittings, etc., of the Royal Courts of Justice?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I cannot yet make any statement on the subject.

    Herring Trawling (Scotland).
    Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the prevalence of the practice of trawling for herring, and to the consternation which it has caused in drift-net fishing circles; whether he is aware. that at a meeting, representative of the whole fishing industry, held at Yarmouth on 19th October, resolutions were passed condemning the practice referred to as inimical to the interests of the fishing industry and imperilling the national food supply, and calling for immediate intervention on the part of the Government; whether he recognises that inquiry into this matter cannot reasonably be delayed rtill the Interdepartmental Committee has reported on all the matters remitted to it; and whether, recognising the urgency of the question, he will take immediate action, and will also state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has received any Report from the Scottish Fishery Board on the destruction of immature fish by the increasing practice of trawling for herrings; and if it is within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Fishery Board to impose regulations increasing the mesh of trawl nets?
    Mr. LEICESTER HARMSWORTHasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the statements as to damage to spawning grounds and amongst immature herring, being caused by the trawl method of catching the herring; and whether, in the event of the assertions to this effect being substantiated, he will, in the in terests of the preservation of a source of a large supply of cheap food for the people, introduce legislation prescribing methods of capture which shall not damage the sources of origin and supply of this fish?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My attention has been called to the meeting at Yarmouth and to the resolutions passed at that meeting. A large deputation appointed by the convening committee of that meeting was received yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, and myself, when the important question raised by my hon. Friends as to the destruction of immature fish and other matters, were fully put before us. Inquiry into this matter has not been delayed. For some time the "Goldseeker," which is a trawler belonging to the Fishery Board for Scotland, has been trawling for herrings for the purpose ascertaining exactly the effects of this method of fishing. I am informed that a similar investigation is being conducted by the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Whatever power the Scottish Fishery Board may possess as to regulating the size of the mesh of trawl nets is insufficient to deal with this matter, because those powers are confined to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Board, and it would be useless to deal with this question except in a comprehensive way.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the trawl used by this particular boat

    231
    is of the same mesh as the trawl used by the companies which are now trawling for herrings?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am assured that it is.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question—whether he will introduce legislation before the Report of the Committee is received?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That has to be considered. As I have pointed out, it is not a matter of merely Scottish legislation; it is more comprehensive than that.

    Agricultural Statistics (Scotland).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether it is proposed to publish henceforward separate agricultural statistics for Scotland, or whether, to avoid duplication of labour and unnecessary officials, the Scottish Board of Agriculture will by arrangement with the English Board continue the system of a joint compilation for the whole island?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative. In making the necessary arrangements, the desirability of avoiding duplication of labour and staff has been fully kept in view.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of these statistics are of equal interest and importance to all British agriculturists, irrespective of their geographical distinctions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am quite aware of that.

    Forestry in Scotland (Advisory Committee).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state the names of the Advisory Committee on Forestry, and what question or questions he is referring to them for consideration?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The following Gentlemen have accepted the invitation to serve on the Advisory Committee on Forestry in Scotland:—

    John D. Sutherland, Esq. (Chairman).

    The Right Hon. Lord Lovat.

    The Right Hon. R, C. Munro-Fer-guson, M.P.

    232

    Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.

    Sir William S. Haldane.

    J. M. Henderson, Esq., M P.

    R. H. N. Sellar, Esq.

    The reference to the Committee is in general terms: "To advise the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in matters relating to Forestry."
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of putting on any university representatives?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no present intention of increasing the size of the-Committee.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is this Committee to decide which university is to be adopted?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr. PIRIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for a Report from the Advisory Committee? If so, when does he expect to get it?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not asked for a Report. I am waiting until the Advisory Committee are ready to issue one.They are the best judges.

    Royal Commission on Housing (Scotland).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, with a view to making the Royal Commission on Housing for Scotland more representative of the domestic side of the problem, he will consider the advisability of adding the name of another lady familiar with this phase of the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to recommend the enlargement of the Commission.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all the interests are represented on the present Commission?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes.

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of circulating among the Scottish Members a quarterly Return showing the progress of allocation of land under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will consider what is the best method of supplying the information which my hon. Friend desires.

    Town Planning (Scotland).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many town planning schemes have been drawn for Scotland since the Town Planning Act became law; and whether he can state the location of each?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No town planning schemes have yet been prepared and submitted for the approval of the Local Government Board, but the Board have authorised the preparation of five schemes: one in Dunfermline (including Rosyth), one in Inverkeithing, and three in Dundee. An application has been received from the Corporation of Edinburgh for the Board's authority to prepare a scheme for the Belle-vue district. The Board have held a local inquiry on this and are awaiting the report of their Commissioner.

    Scottish Meteorological Society.
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked whether an application was made to the Registrar-General for Scotland by the Scottish Meteorological Society for an additional Grant to carry on their work; and whether the matter has been considered and the Grant made?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am in communication with the Treasury, but am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

    Scottish Land Court.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Highland Land Values League, in the Liberal Rooms, Inverness, at which Mr. M'Tavish, recently chairman of the Inverness Radical Association and now custodian of the rolls to the Scottish Land Court, presented fourteen copies of the works of Henry George to the league, and at which a propagandist policy with a distribution of literature was settled upon; and whether this action on the part of an official of the Land Court is in accordance with the rules of the Civil Service?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed by Mr. M'Tavish that, before taking up the duties of his appointment tinder the Land Court, he resigned his membership of the league, stating that in future he could take no active part in politics, and that he was not present at the meeting referred to. His attitude appears to have been perfectly correct. The presentation
    234
    of books was not made at the time of the meeting but some two months before, at the time of his resignation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Seeing that there are fourteen copies of this book available, will the right hon. Gentleman secure a copy for the hon. Gentleman who asks the question?

    British Heraldry (Proposed Court).
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to a petition from the St. Andrew Society regarding the representation of the United Kingdom in matters of heraldry, forwarded to him on 23rd July, 1912, for presentation to His Majesty the King, and signed officially on behalf of the St. Andrew Society and the St. Andrew Society (Glasgow), and praying for the establishment of a Court of British heraldry for the United Kingdom and the British Dominions beyond the seas, if he can explain why, beyond an acknowledgment of receipt and an intimation that the petition would be forwarded, no further intimation has been sent to that society; and will he state the present position of the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The petition in question is receiving consideration in consultation with the authorities interested, and a reply will be sent in due course.

    Government Offices, Edinburgh.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that the building of Government offices is to take place in Edinburgh, if he has made representations to the proper authorities of the desirability that the housing in that city of a Scottish Parliament should be contemplated in any decision that may be come to?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he does not answer my question: I put it to him on Tuesday as well as to-day?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did answer the question, and I have answered it again to-day.
    Mr. PIRIE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have the book here, and can contradict him most flatly.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland as the scheme for the erection of

    235
    permanent Government Offices in Edinburgh on the site of the Calton Prison has been submitted to him, "whether he will state what Government Offices it is proposed to erect on that site; whether provision is being made for the Scottish Insurance Commissioners; and can he state to where it is proposed to transfer the prison?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The question as to what Government Departments will be accommodated on the Calton Hill site is still under consideration. No statement can be made at present in regard to the prison.
    Mr. WATT: Will there be suitable accommodation for the Scottish Parliament in the building?
    Mr. BENN: It would be premature to make any statement on that subject.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether representations have been made to him by the Scottish Office on the subject, seeing that the Welsh party are sending a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to make representations for a Welsh Parliament in Cardiff?
    Mr. BENN: All such considerations are premature.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is the hon. Gentleman sure there is going to be a Scottish Parliament?

    Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, before suggesting that the licensed trade in Scotland should promote a private Bill to deal with the question of compulsory mutual insurance in connection with the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, he ascertained from the authorities in this House that such a Bill could be competently introduced?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the affirmative. I was advised that primâ facie the subject was one which might be dealt with by private Bill legislation.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what officials he consulted?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD:I answered the question.

    Foot-and-Month Disease.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a firm has notified his Department that they had in their hands an infallible remedy for foot-and-mouth disease guaranteed to cure in twenty-four hours the most hopeless case at a cost of under £l, and offering to furnish the Board with tests; and whether the reply given to their representation by his Department was practically that the Board of Agriculture did not desire to find a remedy to stamp out the disease, but preferred to have the animals slaughtered and compensation for them paid out of public funds?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. Any arrangement for enabling animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease to be immediately treated would be attended with considerable danger of the spread of infection, and I am confident that a more drastic policy is desirable in the interests of all concerned.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Vice-President whether he will now withdraw the restrictions imposed on portions, of the parishes of Killargue and Cloon-clare, having regard to the fact that they are four and five miles beyond the 15-mile radius from the seat of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in county Fermanagh, and that these restrictions will, if continued, have the effect of ruining the fairs in the towns of Manorhamilton, Dromahair, and Drumkeerin, and thus deprive farmers of their only available means of raising money to meet their liabilities?
    Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Of the parishes named the only portions which lie within the scheduled district are the electoral divisions of Kill-arga, Cloonclare, and Glenfarn, which constitute scarcely one-third of the area of those parishes. Except for a portion of Killarga these electoral divisions are within a radius of fifteen miles from the centres of infection in county Fermanagh, and as an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in that county so recently as the 5th instant it would at present be premature to exclude any of the divisions from the scheduled district. The towns of Manorhamilton, Dromahair, and

    237
    Drumkeerin, being all outside the scheduled district, are not subject to any restrictions.
    Mr. F. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the farmers who want to drive their cattle through these districts, scheduled, to the fairs of Manor-hamilton, Drumkeerin, and Dromahair, are prevented from doing so; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the restrictions, seeing that the district council passed a resolution condemning the action of the Department in having this district scheduled in the area?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I cannot undertake to answer supplementary questions in regard to these areas. It is a very difficult matter.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Seeing that the whole of Connaught is free from disease, will he see this area is freed from restrictions?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I must ask for notice of these questions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked why animals found infected with foot-and-mouth disease at Mullingar were not promptly isolated, but were left for several days among other cattle or driven along the roads without restriction; why inspectors from the Department go straight from infected animals into close proximity to healthy cattle without using any visible precaution; and whether he has taken effective action to have those practices discontinued?
    Mr. RUSSELL: All animals found affected were promptly isolated pending slaughter in sheds or houses where such moans of isolation existed on the premises, or, where no such means existed, were restricted together with those in contact with them in the field in which they were found infected. No affected cattle were driven along the roads. Inspectors on all occasions disinfect themselves when leaving infected premises. Inspectors working on infected places do not visit non-infected places.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department not received from the county council a resolution identical with this question, and does the Vice-President accept the statement from his own subordinates whose conduct is impugned against that of men on the spot who are vitally concerned?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I know from my own knowledge that the reply I have given is perfectly accurate. I have not seen-any resolution from the county council.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the conduct of the officials of the Department be comprised in the inquiry which is promised?
    Mr. RUSSELL: If the county council makes any charge against the inspectors of the Department in connection with this matter of course it will be investigated.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTHow long has the period of isolation of these diseased animals to last before they are slaughtered?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The slaughtering at Mullingar has been carried out under great difficulties. As I stated before, the disease is confined to the town park and the difficulty of burial has been very great, but within a week more than 500 animals have been slaughtered. I hardly think they could have done better.
    Mr. STANIER: Do they not cremate any of the animals?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the practice of the British Board is to slaughter all diseased animals immediately they are discovered?
    Mr. RUSSELL: We have carried that out as far as possible in Mullingar.

    Inclosure Acts.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (56) the number of Acts of Inclosure enclosing common pasture and waste land in England passed by Parliament from 1761 to 1845; and will he give the acreage sanctioned to be inclosed under such Acts; (57) the number of Acts of Inclosure inclosing common pasture and waste land in Lincolnshire passed by Parliament from 1761 to 1845; and will he give the acreage sanctioned to be inclosed under such Acts; and (58) the acreage of common fields inclosed under private Acts of Parliament, from 1761 to 1845, in the East Lindsey (or Louth) Parliamentary Division, of Lincolnshire, and will he give the date of the passing of each Act, the acreage, and the parish in which the land is situated?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no complete list of Inclosure Acts passed prior to 1845, although approximate numbers have been

    239
    given by various writers on the subject. A Return of all Acts passed for the inclosure of commons or waste lands in England and Wales from 1800 to 1842 was prepared in the Private Bill Office and presented to Parliament in 1843 (H.C. 325), the numbers of such Acts therein given being 1,997. In a very large proportion of the Acts the acreage authorised to be inclosed is not stated.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that the persons who are now in possession of this inclosed land are those who made the most fuss about the robbery and spoliation of the Budget?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No Minister can possibly be expected to know that.

    House of Commons (Ventilation).
    Captain MURRAYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will take the necessary steps for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the ventilation of the House?
    Mr. W. BENN: If there be evidence of a general desire for the appointment of such a Committee, the First Commissioner will be glad to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Australian Cablegrams.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the number of people who have friends in Australia and who cannot afford expensive messages, he will consider the advisability of extending the deferred delivery cable rate so that it may be possible to send a message to Australia of ten words for 5s., with a condition that the message may, if necessary, be delayed in its delivery for forty-eight or seventy-two hours, or even longer?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My negotiations with the Pacific Cable Board and the Cable Companies concerned are nearly completed. On account of the great difference in the time of this country and of Australia, the night cable system would not be applicable; but the cheaper system of week-end cables will, I hope, be introduced. It will not be possible, however, to fix so low a charge as the hon. Member suggests.

    Radio-Telegrams (Weather Reports).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Post master-General whether a charge of 5s. is now made for radio-telegrams furnishing local weather reports to vessels at sea; whether these reports were supplied without charge when the wireless stations were in private hands; and, if so, whether he can see his way to again furnish this necessary information free of charge?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The charge of 5s. referred to by the hon. Member is made to cover the cost of the radio-telegram conveying a weather report to a ship as well as the radio-telegram asking for the information, and is below the ordinary rates. The Marconi Company when they owned the shore stations supplied reports of this kind free of charge. On the other hand, the International Conference on Wireless Telegraphy which recently sat in London resolved that this service ought not to be gratuitous. Radio-telegrams relating to the position of derelicts and other objects dangerous to navigation are transmitted to ships gratuitously from the Post Office stations, and the statement recently published to the contrary is incorrect. As at present advised, I see no reason why the same privilege should be granted in the case of weather reports at the cost of the taxpayer.

    Printing Trade (London).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether consideration has been given to the representations placed before him in July last by a deputation from the London printing trade; and, if so, can he state whether any decision has been arrived at?
    Mr. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask if he has had any opportunity of meeting a deputation of Government contractors to enable them to put their case before the Government?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): In reply to the hon. Member opposite I may say that the case of both sides has been very fully put before the Government from time to time. Since July the Board of Trade, at my request, have undertaken a very full investigation into the conditions of the printing trade in London, involving some 60,000 persons. They report that fifty hours may be now accepted as the predominant working week within the meaning of the Fair-Wages Clause. After consultation with the

    241
    Fair-Wages Advisory Committee I have instructed the Stationery Office in future to be guided accordingly in dealing with its contracts.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the Government have this morning refused to receive a deputation from the contractors, and that in his answers to questions the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration matters relating to newspaper offices as well as to contractors.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; the Board of Trade went very fully into the whole question. A report was presented to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, and we are acting on their advice.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Answer my first question!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants an answer he ought to put his question civilly. I call upon the hon. Member below the Gangway.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those very full inquiries to which he refers were private inquiries, or whether the result of those inquiries have been made public to both sides?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell whether the inquiries were private or not, but I see no reason why the answer should not be made public. I have seen neither of the sides since July.
    Mr. PETO: I desire to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. BARNES: Has anything been done to define the extent of the London area?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like notice of that question.

    Income Tax Collection (Ireland).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treuasry whether he is aware that non-official Income Tax collectors in Ireland were serving notices on tenant farmers indiscriminately for Income Tax; and whether he will state under what conditions tenants, judicial and otherwise, valuation, etc., are liable to pay?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that notices to pay Income Tax have been indiscriminately served on tenant farmers in Ireland. Tenant farmers whose incomes exceed £160 are liable to pay Income
    242
    Tax under Schedule B in respect of their occupation of lands on one-third of the Poor-rate valuation, and also in cases where the rent is less than the Poor-rate valuation they would be liable for Income Tax under Schedule A on the difference. In the case of purchasing occupiers who possess an income exceeding £160 Income Tax is chargeable under Schedule A on the difference between the Poor-rate valuation and the interest annually payable to the Irish Land Commission and under Schedule B on one-third of the Poor-rate valuation. If the hon. Member will give particulars of any case in which it is alleged that Income Tax has been improperly demanded, inquiry will be made.

    Government Offices, Ireland (Weekly Half-Holiday).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether in Government offices in Ireland a weekly half-holiday is given to all Civil servants of the State; and, if not, whether, in view of the modern practice of good employers in this respect, and of the recent Shops Act making a half-holiday every week for private employés compulsory, he will consider if the time has now arrived when a corresponding benefit should be secured to all Civil servants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Clause 14 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, all permanent Civil servants are allowed a half-holiday on alternate Saturdays if the progress of public business is not prejudiced thereby. Any change would necessarily apply to permanent Civil servants in all parts of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Member's suggestion shall receive sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the death of Mr. Alexander Bannerman, on the 9th August last, by being run into by a motor car at Brora, Sutherland; and whether he will order an inquiry to be held in accordance with the wishes of the deceased's relatives and for the protection of the public?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My attention has been called to the matter referred to in my hon. Friend's question. A full inquiry has been made by the Procurator Fiscal into the circumstances of the case; and I do not consider that any further inquiry would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. MORTON: Considering the importance of this case, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
    Mr. URE: No, Sir; I cannot undertake to reconsider the case. I have already very fully considered it.

    Potato Crop (Ireland).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President what Report his Department has received as to the potato crop in Ireland this year as to quality and quantity?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The reports received by the Department from a large number of correspondents all over Ireland as to the state of the crops at mid-October show that the potato crop taken as a whole is this year much below the average of recent years, both as regards yield and quality of sound tubers.

    Chinese Pork (Importation into Ireland).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President if he can give any information as to the importation of Chinese pork into Ireland during the last twelve months; whether he is aware that it has recently been landed at Irish ports under the designation of other merchandise; and does he propose to take any steps to prevent this practice in future?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Importations of Chinese pork or bacon into Ireland have taken place during the past twelve months, but not in large quantities. The Department are not aware that such pork has recently been imported under the designation of other merchandise.
    Mr. LARDNER: If the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is drawn to the statements published in the Press in Ireland that large quantities of Chinese pork are brought in, will he take steps through his inspectors to prevent this swindle?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have said no such practice has been brought to the notice of the Department.
    Mr. LARDNER: If the Department's attention is drawn to it, will he put on his inspectors to prevent that fraud?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Certainly.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

      INSUBANCE STAMPS (WELSH EMULEM).
      MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (24) by whose advice and on whose authority the daffodil was used at the recent Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon; what was the historical authority for so doing; and whether he was aware of the proposed change before the Investiture took place and was satisfied that the change was justified by history or tradition; and (31) whether, under an Order of Council sitting under the Act of Union, 1800, the badges of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales were settled as the rose, the thistle, the shamrock, and the red dragon on a green mount, respectively; whether, before placing the daffodil as the emblem of Wales upon the insurance stamp, he obtained the sanction of the Crown, as the sole fount of honour, through an Order in Council; and, if not, will steps be taken to remove this spurious emblem from the stamp?
      Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether, in view of the recent substitution of the daffodil for the leek as the national emblem of Wales, he will consider the advisability of substituting the bluebell for the thistle as the national emblem of Scotland on insurance stamps?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not responsible for the designs adopted for the Prince of Wales's insignia, and have no knowledge of the points raised by the Noble Lord in that connection. As I have already stated, the use of the daffodil on the insurance stamps follows that precedent. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative.
      MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Am I incorrect in assuming that in adopting the emblem on the insurance stamp the right hon. Gentleman has acted unconstitutionally, and really assumed the authority of the Crown in so doing?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I followed precedent, and presumably it must have been sanctioned by the Crown at the Investiture.
      MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it was not sanctioned by the Crown or Garter King-at-Arms?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot imagine that to be the case, as Garter King-at-Arms was a member of the Committee.
      MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know quite well that the Garter King-at-Arms denies that this question was put before him?

      EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.
      Mr. GOULDINGasked, in view of the recent concessions made in connection with the National Insurance Act, what will be the actual contribution of the Government a week in respect of every insured person?
      Mr. MASTERMAN: The extra contribution from the Exchequer in respect of medical benefit announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday last is equivalent to about ⅝d. a week for each insured person affected. The actual contributions paid out by the State in respect of any given week will, of course, vary from time to time. The question of the weekly equivalent of the State contributions was fully dealt with in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester on 28th March, read in conjunction with Sections 15 (8), 16 (1) (b), 17 (3), 57 (3), and the Second Schedule, Part I. of the Act.
      Mr. GOULDING: Can we not have a statement of the exact contribution of the Government to each person each week with all the expenses they have incurred, the recent concessions and cost of management expenses?
      Mr. MASTERMAN: The contribution depends on the amount of benefits drawn week by week by insured persons, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that it is something nearly equivalent to about threepence per week on a rough estimate.

      MEDICAL SERVICES (IRELAND).
      Sir WALTER NUGENTasked if Ireland will participate in the increased Grant for medical services under the National Insurance Act, in so far as that Grant relates to the issuing of medical certificates and the treatment of patients suffering from tuberculous diseases; and if not, whether, to meet the eventuality of the medical provisions of the Act being at some future time extended to Ireland, a similar additional and proportionate Grant will be allotted by the Treasury
      246
      and ear-marked for subsidising an Irish service?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on. Thursday last to the hon. Member for Waterford City.

      STONE BREAKERS.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners have decided that stone breakers employed by public authorities who take the stones by the yard are contractors, and are not compulsorily insurable under Part I. of the National Insurance Act; whether he is aware that many authorities have already been insuring such men; and whether, in view of the objects of the Act, and with a view to avoiding injury to this class of workmen, the Commissioners will reconsider their decision?
      Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners, held a formal sitting on the 21st instant, in accordance with the Regulations under Section 66 of the National Insurance Act, for the hearing of evidence relating to cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, and their decision will be announced without avoidable delay. In view, however, of the diversity of practice among local authorities which was disclosed at the hearing, it appears doubtful whether it will be possible for a general decision to be given which will be applicable to all cases.
      Mr. J. WARD: Is it a fact that merely contracting for work of this description is going to exclude men from the operations of the Act?
      Mr. MASTERMAN: As I said, the decision will be announced without unavoidable delay. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait till that decision is announced.

      EMPLOYMENT OF EX-SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
      Colonel YATEasked how many retired warrant and non-commissioned officers and men of the Army and Navy have been given appointments as assistant inspectors or health insurance officers on the outdoor staff of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish National Health Insurance Commissioners, respectively; and what percentage these bear to the total number of such appointments?
      Mr. MASTERMAN: No retired warrant and non-commissioned officers have been

      247
      appointed to the posts mentioned by the Scottish or Welsh Commissioners. Two (or 6 per cent, of the total number appointed) have been appointed by the Irish Commission, and twenty-one (or 12 per cent. of the total number appointed) by the English Commission.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to increase the number of such appointments?
      Mr. MASTERMAN: I will communicate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's wishes to the Commissioners.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Friday, we propose to take the Report stage of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  To-morrow (Wednesday) night, after 10.30, the Report stage of the Money Resolution of the Superannuation Bill, and the Second Reading of the Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  [Progress, 28th October.—Ninth. Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Royal Assent to Bills of Irish Parliament.)
    The Lord Lieutenant shall give or withhold the assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament, subject to the following limitations; namely—

    (1) He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill; and

    (2) He shall, if so directed by His Majesty, postpone giving the assent of His Majesty to any such Bill presented to him for assent for such period as His Majesty may direct.

    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendments on the Paper to this Clause, I have been asked to allow a rather general discussion on the Amendment which stands, in the name of the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith), third on the Paper. I had at first some doubt if it would be right to do that, but I understand the request is made with the assent of the other hon. Members who have Amendments down to this Clause dealing practically with the same point, and I think the one Amendment will cover all or almost all the other ones, and since that, is the case, I think I may agree to the request.
    Mr. MALCOLM: On a point of Order. May I ask, for the convenience of the Committee,
    268
    whether it would not be possible at the end of the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, each night, to indicate the Amendments you are likely to call upon on the following day? Many Members on both sides would be very glad to know at the end of the Committee stage each night what Amendments are coming on on the following day, rather than have to wait to learn it the next afternoon.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see where the opportunity arises under our procedure. We do not have a Debate on the Motion to report Progress, and therefore there is a difficulty, but I make it my business to communicate with hon. Members in different parts of the House during the evening as to what my provisional opinion is as regards the following day, and I hope I shall be able to continue to do so; and I shall also be glad, if hon. Members ask me any particular questions, to answer them if I am able.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I was not asking as to any specific question. Do I understand this is only a question of procedure, and if it can be arranged you see no objection to indicating approximately what will be taken the following day—
    Mr. LOUGH: Is it not possible that fresh Amendments might be put down which you, Mr. Whitley, would not have an opportunity of seeing until next day, and therefore to indicate over night what would be taken next day would be an inconvenient course?
    The CHAIRMAN: That does often occur, and that is why I used the word "provisional" and adopted the method of putting myself in communication with hon. Members interested, which seems to me to be the best course. I will, however, consider the suggestion which has been made.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall comply with any instructions"], to insert the words "in the case of every Bill apply to His Majesty for instructions in respect thereof and."
    We have been told that the Clause which the Committee is discussing this afternoon contains one of the most important, if not the most important, safeguard provided for in the Bill. The Clause gives the Lord Lieutenant power to give or withhold his consent to any Bill which has been passed by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament.

    269
    In the Bill of 1893 it was expressly laid down that the Lord Lieutenant was to act upon the advice of the Executive Committee, but those words have been omitted in this Bill. I think it is perfectly clear that where those words are in the Bill the Lord Lieutenant, as a constitutional officer, can only act on the advice of someone either of the Irish Executive or the Imperial Executive. It is equally clear that, subject to the two provisos contained in this Clause, in all cases the Lord Lieutenant will have to act, and can only act, on the advice of the Irish Executive. The Irish Executive Committee will advise the Lord Lieutenant whether he is to consent or withhold his consent to any Bill passed by the Irish Parliament. No one will contend that the advice given by the Irish Executive is going to be impartial, because that Executive is going to advise the Lord Lieutenant on their own measures which they have introduced and for which they are directly responsible, and which the Irish Parliament have passed on their advice and under their guidance. Does anyone believe that the Irish Executive is going to advise the Lord Lieutenant to Veto a Bill which has been carried through the Irish Houses of Parliament on their own responsibility? They are not likely to carry a Bill one day and next day to ask the Lord Lieutenant to refuse to give his assent to it.
    As far as the Veto is exercised and is dependent on the advice of an Irish Executive, to that extent the Veto will only exist on paper and will be practically nonexistent. If there is any effective Veto in this Clause we must look for it under the two provisos or the two limitations which deal with the instructions which are to be sent to the Lord Lieutenant by the Imperial Parliament. The first question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, Whether it is the intention of the Government that the Lord Lieutenant should refer all Bills which have been passed by the Irish Parliament to the Imperial Executive for their instructions? Is he to say in every case, when a Bill is presented for his consent, "I cannot give the Royal Assent until I have asked for and received my instructions from the Imperial Government," or is the Lord Lieutenant only to refer those Bills to the Imperial Government which, in his opinion, might come within the prohibited subjects of Clause 2 or the restrictions of Clause 3? I do not believe that that is the intention of the Government, because under Clause
    270
    29 the Lord Lieutenant is empowered, if he considers any Irish Bill or any provision thereof to be beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament, to refer the same to His Majesty's Government in Council to be heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Apparently it is the intention of the Government that any Clause of this kind which will come under Clause. 2 and Clause 3 should be referred to the Judicial Committee and should not come under this Clause which we are discussing this afternoon.
    4.0 P.M.
    Different meanings may be attached to the two provisos contained in this Clause. It is possible that it is the intention of the Government that general instructions should be issued by the Imperial Government to the Lord Lieutenant instructing him what category of Bills he has to refer to the Imperial Government for their consideration. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us a clear and definite answer to these questions, because until we have got that answer it is impossible to estimate the value of these so-called safeguards which are contained in this Bill. Unless the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, and lay down clearly in this Clause that all Bills should be referred to the Imperial Government, the whole question will be left in the hands and in the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, who will have to decide, I suppose, on the advice of the Irish Executive whether a certain Bill which comes up for his assent comes within the class of Bills which he can deal with and assent to on the advice of the Irish Executive, or whether it is one of those Bills which ought to be referred to the Imperial Executive. I am afraid the unfortunate Lord Lieutenant will find himself on many occasions in a very awkward predicament. In the first place, however definite your instructions may be, there are sure to be cases which come on the border line which it will be extremely difficult and impossible to settle under which Clause of the Bill they should come. The Committee is already aware that the unfortunate Lord Lieutenant has to serve two masters, and the Chief Secretary told us the other day that this could not be avoided. There is no doubt that this Section is going to lead to constant and inevitable friction between the Irish Executive and the Imperial Parliament. If the Lord Lieutenant decides to refer a Bill to the Imperial Executive, he will act

    271
    in opposition to the expressed wishes of his own constitutional advisers. On the other hand, if he gives his assent to a Bill which he ought to refer to the Imperial Parliament, he will get into trouble with his other masters, the masters who appointed him and to whom as an Imperial officer he is directly responsible. Once the Royal assent has been given, it cannot be revoked; it is final. I know perfectly well, if an Act is ultra vires, it will be disallowed by the Courts and will become null and void; but in all other cases, once the Lord Lieutenant has given the Royal assent, it cannot be revoked, because the Government have not inserted a Clause giving power to disallow an Act within a certain time, a power which, I believe is contained in every one of the Constitutions of the self-governing Colonies. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say Ireland is not in the same position as the self-governing Colonies. He will probably say the Lord Lieutenant can communicate at all times with the Imperial Executive over here and get his instructions by return of post, and, as I believe it is the Imperial post and not the Irish post, there will be no great delay; but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what happens when the Imperial Parliament is not sitting. It is quite possible in some future years we shall not be having an Autumn Session and that the Irish Parliament will be sitting and a Bill be presented to the Lord Lieutenant for his assent. What is going to happen in that case? Is the Lord Lieutenant to wait until the next meeting of the Imperial Parliament, or is the Cabinet going to be summoned on every single occasion the Lord Lieutenant requires to have instructions on some Bill passed by the Irish Parliament? The Government have further failed to follow the Colonial precedent in not giving the Lord Lieutenant power to reserve Bills for the consideration of the Crown I shall probably be told that power is given to the Lord Lieutenant in Clause 7, Sub-section (2), to postpone giving the assent of His Majesty to any Bill presented for his assent for such period as His Majesty may think advisable. That is not the same thing.
    There is absolutely nothing definite, And I cannot see that any machinery is provided which will enable the Lord Lieutenant to bring any Bill before the
    272
    Imperial Cabinet, nor do I see any clear statement at what stage the Imperial Cabinet is to intervene and at what period the Imperial Government is to ask the Lord Lieutenant to submit a Bill for their consideration. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with those questions when he replies. If he accepts the Amendment, it will, at any rate, be perfectly clear that every Bill which has been passed by the Irish Parliament will have to be referred to the Imperial Executive before the Lord Lieutenant can give his assent. The Lord Lieutenant will in every case have to get instructions from the Imperial Government before he gives his assent to any Bill which; has been passed by the Irish Parliament. I am quite aware some difficulties will still remain even if this Amendment is accepted. I do not think anyone can maintain that one or even fifty Amendments could possibly make this a sound or workable measure. Causes of friction between the Imperial Government and the Irish Executive are not going to be removed by this Amendment; that is perfectly clear. A certain amount of friction must exist in every Federal Constitution, and it certainly will exist in the Constitution which the Government are trying to set up by this Bill. I am not quite certain whether the adoption of this Amendment would please the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who on many occasions, I believe, has declared he is strongly opposed to this House acting as a Court of Appeal on Irish legislation. Apparently he is opposed to it, and I suppose, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is opposed to this Amendment, it is not going to be accepted by the Chief Secretary. We really ought to know what is meant by the expression:—
    "Any Bill shall he referred to the Imperial Government for their consideration."
    Another difficulty which is not going to be removed is one which has been dealt with on previous occasions and upon which we have never received an answer from any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. What is going to happen if the Lord Lieutenant exercises his Veto on the advice of the Imperial Government? How is that Veto going to be enforced? We have never been told what is going to happen in Ireland if and when the Lord Lieutenant exercises his Veto refusing a certain Bill passed by the Irish Parliament and if the Irish Government resign? That is one of the most important questions to which we have not yet received

    273
    an answer. I am afraid until we have an answer we shall have to repeat it from these benches. Let me ask the Chief Secretary another question, to which he has also not yet replied. I take it the British Cabinet in the case of some Bills—I do not know which—is going to give instructions to the Lord Lieutenant. Who is the Minister in the British Cabinet going to be responsible for this Irish legislation? Who is going to advise the Cabinet with regard to Ireland? Is it the Prime Minister, the Colonial Secretary, or the President of the Local Government Board? If the Cabinet is responsible for the instructions to be given to the Lord Lieutenant, then surely those instructions can be debated in this House, and surely there ought to be some Minister responsible for Irish affairs in the British House of Commons?
    We have heard a great deal about maintaining the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have told us over and over again that on no conditions would they consent to any scheme of Home Rule unless the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was maintained. I say without hesitation that if the veto of the Lord Lieutenant is only to be exercised on the advice of the Irish Executive, except in certain indefinite cases where he may get some sort of vague instructions from the Imperial Government, then that Imperial supremacy and that veto will only exist on paper and in the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It will be one of those safeguards which are not worth the paper on which they are written. We have for the last two or three weeks been discussing various Clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill, and I think it has been shown day by day from these benches how utterly absurd and how utterly unworkable is this Constitution which we are setting up in Ireland. I believe to-day in this Clause we have reached the acme of absurdity and the height of confusion, and I do hope the Chief Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment. It will, at any rate, make it clear the Imperial supremacy will be preserved to a certain extent and that this House of Commons will have some control over Irish affairs. I know perfectly well, if the Government should ever be dependent on the forty-two Irish Members who will remain in this House, the veto, whatever it may be, would be absolutely useless; but at any rate it will be worth something if there are definite instructions in
    274
    the Bill that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is to be preserved. If the Government refuse to accept this Amendment and simply leave the vague and indefinite statement contained in the Bill, I believe the veto about which we have heard so much will be a mere sham, and unworkable.
    Mr. GRANT: I beg to second the Amendment. I feel considerable satisfaction that we have at any rate an opportunity of debating this Clause. I do not say it deals with the most important part of the Bill, but I do think on this Clause an opportunity may be given to the country of recognising the difficulty, and we think the impossibility of carrying out the objects which the Government say they have in view in bringing the Bill before the House. We are told there is to be a Veto of the Imperial Parliament, and it has no doubt been inserted by the Government in order to give those safeguards about which we have heard so much. It is either a real Veto or it is an unreal Veto. These are the only two alternatives before us, and I venture to say whichever alternative we take the attainment of the objects of the Government will be precluded by this Clause. If the Veto is real, it cannot carry out the Government's pretence; neither, if it is unreal, can it do so. If the Government of this country is going to take absolute control of Irish legislation, where is Home Rule? Surely such a proposal cannot satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people. A Veto like this cannot carry out the object of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It can bring about no finality in this question if the Government of this country is to control the whole legislation of Ireland. Look at the attitude of hon. Members below the Gangway. They are led by a very able and distinguished Gentleman, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who up to-the present has distinguished himself by his silence in these Debates. I hope he will depart from that custom, and let us have his opinion on this matter. I may, perhaps, read to the House what he said on this question on 14th February, 1893:—
    "You must, not expect that any scheme will be successful for the government of Ireland which sets up, either directly fir indirectly, this Imperial Parliament as a Court of Appeal on the acts of the Trish Legislature. Such a position would be an intolerable one for this House, and would he still more intolerable for the Irish Legislature. I say our position would be much worse than it is at present if, after having constituted a local legislature in Ireland, this House should act as a sort of a Court of Appeal to revise, amend, or repeal any of the Acts of the Irish Parliament."

    275
    These are the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They apply to the case if the Veto is real. What becomes of the boasted safeguards, for they cannot exist if the Veto is merely a paper Veto? These are the alternatives we have before us. Which is the object of the Government? Which will this Bill carry through? Will it carry through the real or the unreal? We must come to the conclusion that these safeguards are more unreal than real, especially from the view of the Nationalist representatives from Ireland. If we look at the Clause itself, I agree with my hon. Friend that its phraseology does not tell us anything. I do not suggest that a Clause like this should schedule all the questions which the Imperial Government should be able to Veto. It could not do so, but I do think we ought to have some more concise phraseology in this Clause which would enable us to know what are the subjects for Veto and how these things will be carried out in the future.
    It must be remembered that under this Bill forty Irish Members are to remain in the House of Commons. It is not improbable that the fate of Governments may depend in the future on those forty Irish Members. Their action may depend entirely upon what those honourable representatives may desire; they will have, no doubt, a considerable influence on the Governments of the future, and we representatives of Scotch, English, and Welsh constituencies will have to bear that in mind. If the Irish Executive in the future were to embark upon social legislation which might cost more money than they could afford, would that be a subject which the British Government would be able to stop by Veto? I hope it would. Undoubtedly this country would have to foot the Bill in the long run. These are questions which we, as representatives of England and Scotland, would like to keep in mind. I am very anxious to hoar the attitude of the Government and their explanation of the bearing of this Clause, and I cannot but again express the hope that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford will also give us the benefit of his present view on this matter.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to ask at the earliest possible moment for the views of His Majesty's Government in regard to not only this
    276
    particular Amendment, but the general effect of the Clause—Clause 7—now under consideration, on the scheme of the Bill. I propose to answer his inquiry and that of the hon. Member who preceded him as clearly, and at the same time as precisely, as I can. The actual Amendment before the Committee is one which requires that in the case of every Bill the Lord Lieutenant shall apply to His Majesty for instructions. I do not know that much importance is attached to the Amendment even by the hon. Member who moved it, and certainly it is a most unnecessary and inconvenient provision to be inserted in an Act of Parliament. In every subordinate Legislature throughout the length and breadth of the Empire the Chief Executive officer, by whatever name he is called, as representing the Crown, is entrusted, on behalf of the Central or Imperial Parliament, with the power that this Clause proposes to confer upon the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Primâ facie an Act passed by a local subordinate Legislature is entitled to receive, and in the ordinary course does receive, the assent of the representative of the Crown, and thereupon becomes law.
    But throughout our Empire, in all the various forms in which local self-government has been developed and extended, from the most extreme form of Colonial autonomy to the most moderate form of delegation, it has been found expedient and necessary that there should be in every one of the communities so constituted a representative of the Imperial authority, acting upon the advice of Imperial Ministers here who, in the last resort, shall allow or disallow the proceedings of that Legislature over which he presides. I should have thought yon cannot carry on any system of Colonial, or federal, or delegated government without having in such a community a representative of the Imperial authority. With regard to the precise form in which this intervention is to be invoked from time to time, you must, of course, have regard to geographical and other conditions. Ireland is so near to our shores that whatever takes place there is immediately known and familiar not only to those who are responsible for the Government, but to the whole community, and the more or less elaborate provisions for delay which have been found necessary in the case of long distances seem to be altogether inappropriate and unnatural here. That, I suppose, is enough to dispose of the actual Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

    277
    It would be a sheer waste of time to require that in the case of every Bill—the humblest and most trivial Act passed by the Irish Legislature, the Lord Lieutenant should formally ask the Imperial Government for his instructions. Again, in regard to another question put by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, whether instruction should only be asked for with regard to Bills that come within the prohibition of Clauses 2 and 3, obviously that is the one case in which instructions are not necessary. If the Irish Legislature passes a Bill which transcends the powers given by Clause 2, or is obnoxious to the limitations of its powers in Clause 3, the Bill does not receive the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, and it does not become law. No Court of Justice, either of Ireland or of England, would recognise its validity. I want, if I may, to ask the Committee to take a rather larger view of this matter than any question of mere drafting.
    I have pointed out that wherever you have a delegated non-sovereign Parliament for the British Dominions, you must have a representative Imperial officer who, in the last resort, acts upon the Imperial advice, on the advice of the Cabinet who is responsible to the Imperial House of Commons. You must have an Imperial officer acting on the instructions of the Imperial Cabinet, responsible to the Imperial House of Commons, who in the long run will say whether or not the Act of the local Legislature shall take effect. Nothing can be easier from the point of view of dialectical exercise and ingenuity than to imagine cases in which the exercise of that ultimate controlling power here, with, on the other side, autonomous powers on the part of the local Legislature might lead to a complete deadlock. Of course it would! There is no Constitution in the world which could not be brought to a deadlock in a month if all the parties concerned acted up to the extreme limits of their legal powers without any regard to their common interests. This is not a new question. There is nothing in this Bill as compared with the previous debates on this subject which is in the least degree novel. It was raised in 1886 and debated exhaustively in 1893, as I remember. Though I am not fond of quoting myself, I will venture to read a sentence or two from a speech I made on the Second Beading of the Bill in 1893, which are just applicable to-day as they were then, and which deal with the precise point raised by this Amendment on this Clause. I
    278
    said, speaking in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, on 14th April, 1893:—
    "I will make a concession to my right hon. Friend. I will agree that, given perversity on the one side and pedantry on the other, it would he perfectly possible to wreck the Constitution which is set up by this Bill. If you can imagine the Irish people so dead to the sense of their own interests that they use their Legislature as an instrument for oppression: if you can imagine the English people so blind to the traditions of their own Constitution that they insist on a perpetual and meddlesome interference with the affairs of Ireland, then I agree that no assurances, however solemn and sincere, can possibly be affected. But the difference between my right hon. Friend and ourselves is this: That we believe in the good faith, the common sense, and the self-interest of two great nations. That, I agree, and that alone, is the ultimate security for the safe and smooth working of this Bill, as it is for the safe and smooth working of any free Constitution in the civilised world."
    That goes to the root of the whole matter. What is the hypothesis upon which all these ingenious dialectical illustrations of possible Constitutional deadlocks ultimately depend? The hypotheis is this: That you have, on the one hand, in the Irish Parliament the representatives of the majority of the Irish people who are bent upon oppressing their fellow countrymen, indulging in every form of persecution, civil, political, and religious, who are enemies to the unity of the Empire, who are seeking in every possible way to take advantage of the legislative power which has been conferred upon them by the Imperial Parliament to make the life of the minority in Ireland impossible, and the unity of the Empire as a whole a sham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear the voice of Ulster. That is one branch of the hypothesis. The other branch is this: That you have here on this side of St. George's Channel a British Parliament vigilant, jealous, suspicious of the powers, or of the mode of exercising the powers, which it has itself granted to the Irish people, determined by a microscopic, continuous, perpetual survey to detect possibilities at any rate of oppression or injustice in any legislation which they may propose, and therefore, acting in that spirit and working upon those lines, to use the reserved powers, whether by the executive power of the Lord Lieutenant or the overriding legislative power of the Imperial Parliament, in such a way as to render the autonomy granted to Ireland an illusion and a sham. Those are the two branches of the hypothesis on which really all the arguments against this Clause depend for their plausibility.
    I will make this concession to the two hon. Gentlemen who have just sat down, or to anybody who is going to follow me

    279
    from the other side of the House: If these hypotheses or either of them, certainly if both these hypotheses are founded upon reason and upon fact, not only is this seventh Clause of the Bill absolutely unworkable, but the very foundations of the Bill itself are undermined. I make you a present, and gladly make you a present, of that. It is because we believe that neither hypothesis has any foundation in fact, because we believe—not for the moment appealing to any higher or more exalted motives than those of actual self-interest—that once this great concession of self-government to Ireland has been made, the common sense, yes, and the self-interest of both peoples will lead them, so far as they can, to devise a smooth and workable method of combining Imperial supremacy with local autonomy; it is because we believe that that we are proposing this Bill, and believe this Clause to be an absolutely workable Clause. So we really get here, not the question of machinery or method, but down to a fundamental deep-rooted difference, an irreconcilable difference of principle and view as to what is going to be the broad effect of the grant of Home Rule. I do not think any hon. Member will differ from what I say, that if you accept my hypothesis the question, of the actual working of the Veto becomes comparatively simple. If I accept your hypothesis, I agree that the veto is absolutely worthless.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I thought it was a safeguard.
    The PRIME MINISTER: On your hypothesis it is not a safeguard of any value or efficacy whatever. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made that interruption, because I am going to point out why, upon my hypothesis, the Veto is necessary. We are often told that even if you grant self-government to Ireland, that if you look round the British Empire, and look at the various self-governing Dominions, and the various forms in which self-government has been granted, and the action of the representative of the Imperial power, we shall find that in practice the Veto is a worthless thing, and is not in fact exercised. It has been said over and over again that if you try to exercise the Veto, not merely in Ireland, but in any of these great self-governing Dominions, the Government will resign, there is no alternative government possible, and a dissolution will probably
    280
    produce an affirmation of the previous, verdict of the constituencies and a support of the original proposals of the Government that have been vetoed, and it would be reduced to a deadlock until the Imperial authority, unless it is prepared to go to war, would have to submit. We have heard that stated over and over again. Is that so where—I make that provision—there is, as there is throughout the British Empire, an honest desire both on the part of the subordinate Legislature and on the part of the Imperial Government to make an arrangement between them workable and smooth? Let me say this. I think I have said it before, but I cannot make it too plain. I do not think there is anywhere in the British Empire an exact analogy, or an analogy which can be cited without many qualifications-and reservations, to the relations between this country and Ireland. The conditions, which exist between Great Britain and Ireland geographically—a very important point—historically—not a less important, point—economic and social—perhaps a still more important point—the conditions and the relations which exist between ourselves and the adjacent island of Ireland are, I will not say fundamentally different, but so largely varied and qualified and conditioned by all these circumstances, that although the Colonial analogies may well be invoked for guidance and illustration, I am the last person to say there is any case which a lawyer would call idem per idem. I should say the same when we come, as I hope we may in time, to the application of self-government and devolution to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
    The conditions of Ireland are very different. It is comparatively near geographically, and its conditions are such that you can never apply, it would be pedantry to attempt to apply, the precise method of delegation and devolution you are giving to Ireland now to the other parts of the United Kingdom. I say this, not for the purpose of widening the area, of discussion, but simply to guard myself against being regarded as being inclined to treat Colonial analogies and Colonial precedents as if they were absolutely governing and dominant. I come back to the supposed impossibility, in a self-governing community with a Parliament of its own, with a responsible Government and Executive of its own, but with a representative of the central Government representing the

    281
    central power, to the supposed impossibility of reconciling local freedom—that is to say the expression of local ideas, local. sentiments, and local interests in local legislation—with the ultimate overriding authority of the Imperial power. I will take two cases only. I think they are two very significant cases. I take them by way of illustration, and not in any way as exhausting the subject. I take, first, the legislation of our great Colonies and Dominions in regard to a subject on which they felt most acutely—I am not sure they do not feel it almost as acutely now as they did in the past, but twenty years ago they felt it most acutely—that is the immigration of Asiatics and persons not belonging to the British race. Before the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Colony of New South Wales, the Colony of South Australia, the Colony of Tasmania, these three Australian Colonies and the Colony of New Zealand all passed Acts—I do not go into their minute provisions—with the object of restricting and ultimately preventing the immigration of coloured persons into those white Dominions. In regard to every one of those Acts—I will not use the expression Veto in regard to Colonial legislation—the assent of the Imperial Government was withheld. Here was a matter which most closely affected Colonial sentiment and feeling. It is the very sort of case which has been put hypothetically in this Debate as the kind of case in which you have a potential and, indeed, a probable deadlock between the Irish and the Imperial authority. What happened? In not one of those cases did the Colonies persist against the Imperial Veto. The ultimate result there was what I venture to predict the ultimate result will be in Ireland, if and when such a collision should occur between Irish opinion on the one side and Imperial opinion upon the other. The result was that, after deliberation, negotiation, and reasonable delay, a different solution of the difficulty was arrived at which both parties could agree to.
    Mr. BUTCHER: What is the date of that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The date of the Acts is 1896. The ultimate solution to which I refer, which was arrived at after the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth, was the Immigration Restriction Act of the Australian Commonwealth of 1901, which substituted what is called an educational test—not a
    282
    test of colour—for persons arriving in various parts of the Australian Dominions. A similar test was applied in 1899 in New Zealand by the Immigration Restriction Act of that Parliament. That is a very good illustration of what will take place where there is—and that is the hypothesis upon which I have proceeded—a genuine desire between the two parties to arrive at a reasonable agreement. I will take one other illustration, where the constitutional position was rather different. That is the case which arose in the Dominion of Canada. In some respects this may be considered even more relevant and more analogous than the case I have just cited. It was the case between the Province of British Columbia and the Dominion Government. This happened in 1898 or 1899. That, again, was a question which arose as between the two authorities in regard to this matter of the immigration of coloured labour, and the particular subject matter in dispute was the immigration of Japanese, and the province of British Columbia passed an enactment called the Labour Regulation Act for the purpose of restricting the immigration of Japanese. That Act was disallowed, not by the Imperial Parliament, but by the Dominion Government, and although it must have been a matter, as I imagine, and as I know from what I have heard, which caused a great deal of local feeling and heat, the disallowance of the Act by the Dominion Government was acquiesced in by the provincial authority, and although subsequent legislation has taken place, I agree, yet it has been legislation to which both parties, the provincial authority on the one side and the Dominion authority on the other, could bring themselves to assent.
    These are concrete cases occurring within recent years within the limits of our own Empire, dealing not with mere matters of administration of a non-controversial character, but dealing with matters as to which local opinion, local feeling, and, if you like to call it so, local prejudice or antipathy were keenly excited. Yet in all these cases it has been found perfectly possible to make the use of the Imperial or the central Veto effective, without exciting violent local animosity, and, in the long run, attaining a common method of dealing with a difficult problem which would commend itself to the one and to the other. Why, I want to ask, as a matter of common sense, is that which has taken place, which experience shows to be perfectly feasible and possible in our own

    283
    Dominions, not going to take place in Ireland. You may say, of course, that my hypothesis—the hypothesis, that is to say, that both parties to this great constitutional compact will endeavour to work it in good faith and upon the lines of common sense—you may say, of course, that is the hypothesis of a credulous optimist. You are entitled to say that. I would rather be a credulous optimist and even be convicted by the result of having so been than indulge in this temper of constant suspicion, doubt, and more than doubt, as to the motives of my fellow countrymen. At any rate, I hope I have made clear that that is the real line which divides us in this matter. It is not a question of providing this or that additional safeguard; it is a question of whether or not in the long run you believe this arrangement will be worked in good faith, and if you believe that as a matter of safeguard—and safeguards I agree are always necessary; we have found them necessary throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire, without any distrust of the patriotism or the good sense of our fellow citizens across the sea—if safeguards be necessary, the safeguard provided by this Clause is the one which experience has shown to be justified, and which in the long run has proved totally effective for the purpose.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in regarding this as one of the very important subjects which we have to discuss in Committee. He promised my hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment that before he sat down he would point out clearly, but briefly, exactly how these safeguards would work. He has pointed out to us clearly and briefly that on this theory no safeguards of any kind are necessary. He ended his speech by what seemed to me, under the circumstances, a peculiar declaration. He is, he says, on these matters an optimist, and a credulous optimist. He was willing to be considered a credulous optimist. He would rather be a credulous optimist and be wrong, and be proved to be wrong, than take our view on this question. That is perhaps a noble sentiment, but I do not think it is precisely the way in which the business of State is generally carried on. And I think there is a qualification to be put on that. He may be a credulous optimist in regard to the future, but he is a very practical politician in regard to the present. His optimism applies to other
    284
    people. He is prepared to run these risks with the greatest equanimity, not one of which affects him, but as a practical politician he now has the support of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland by whom he maintains his position. The right hon. Gentleman, in beginning his speech, made another general statement which I cannot accept. He said that in any subordinate Parliament, or in any case of devolution—I think he put it as strong as that—there must be tome representative of the Crown—someone in the position of a Lord Lieutenant—and yet he pointed out at the same time the peculiar difference of the position of Ireland as compared with our Colonies on account of the geographical position of the two countries.
    It is quite true, he said, to say that in this scheme of federal devolution, of which this is the first and necessary step, there would not be a precisely similar method of dealing with the different parts of the Kingdom, but I should have thought that though there might have been differences in detail the principle must be the same, and we are therefore, on the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman, in the strange position that the moment we begin to have federal Parliaments in Scotland, in Wales, in Yorkshire, and in Lancashire, we shall have a separate Lord Lieutenant for every one of them. I should have thought that the very fact to which he drew our attention, the difference of geographical position, would have made it evident that if this Parliament was in fact to exercise what he said it was intended to exercise, an overriding authority over the Irish Parliament, there was no need for a Lord Lieutenant, and that every Bill should go from the Irish Parliament to the Sovereign and be accepted or rejected on the advice of the Imperial Ministers. There seems to me therefore no necessity for that general statement which the right hon. Gentleman made. Now let us come to what is the crux of this whole question. The right hon. Gentleman put it, I think, quite fairly in this way. He said to us you are assuming that there is going to be friction, that there is going to be trouble, that the two Parliaments are not always going to work with a desire to act harmoniously together and therefore there might be difficulties. But let me say to him that his whole case as put to us this afternoon amounts to this, that the two Parliaments must work harmoniously together on all questions or else the Veto will not operate at all, and there can be no safeguard for it, in any shape or form.

    285
    Before dealing with the last part of the argument of the right hon. Gentlemen I should like to point out to the Committee that one of the things we should have liked to know was how he proposes that this scheme is going to work in actual practice. That is a thing that one would naturally expect to be put before us by the Minister responsible for the Bill. How is it going to work? As the Bill stands the Lord Lieutenant is to have authority to disallow any Bill in any shape or form. The Lord Lieutenant obviously is to be more or less in the position of a Sovereign. He cannot be as the Lord Lieutenant now is, that is certain—a member of the Imperial Government of the day. He is to be in a constitutional position. He has got to act on the advice of someone in his capacity of Lord Lieutenant. On subjects which the Irish Parliament can deal with and in regard to which no question of Veto enters there is no difficulty. He acts in precisely the same way as the Governor-General of Canada or India. But more than that is to be done under the Clause which we are discussing. He is to have the right of vetoing some Bill. Who is to advise him which Bill he is to pass and which he is not to be allowed to pass? Obviously the Irish Executive cannot give him that advice. The Imperial Government in some shape or form must give it. To whom is he to turn for advice? At present the Lord Lieutenant has the advice of the Law Officers and the Chief Secretary. This unfortunate man will not have a single soul in Ireland to whom he can turn for advice on all these questions—not a soul independent of the Irish Executive so far as we know. Then what is to happen? Whether you wish it or not, one of two things must happen: Either the Lord Lieutenant must do what we are asking to be done in this Amendment and send every Bill here and take instructions upon it, or he must use his own responsibility and judge whether or not any particular Bill is one which should be vetoed by this House. It must be evident to everyone that it cannot be left to his own responsibility, and if this is intended really as a practical scheme the least the right hon. Gentleman could have done would be to tell us how the Lord Lieutenant in such cases is to work, who is to advise him, and how the distinction is to be made between Bills which we pass automatically and Bills which must come under the review of the Government.
    286
    5.0 P.M.
    Now look at the working of it from a more serious point of view—the actual, practical working of it. We will assume that this Government is set up, and a Government representing one or other of the parties in this House is established here. Let us suppose it is the party represented by the right hon. Gentleman. There are to be forty Irish Members in this House. Assuming that you have got over the difficulty as to finding out which. Bills are to be considered at all, of which, there is nothing said in the Bill, how is the safeguard going to act on the assumption that there is a Government like the present, and a Government actuated like the present? They may depend, as they do to-day, on these Irish votes. Does anyone suggest for a moment that in that case a Government like the present would put any Veto on any Bill? But take the other case. Supposing there were a Government belonging to the party of which I am a Member. In every speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the country he has said, "You have the final safeguard that this House overrides everything which is done by the Irish; Parliament. There will be differences in Ireland, and it is possible, at least, that the party which I represent may still desire to protect the interests of the minority, and the party opposite may be inclined to make use of the Nationalist vote. What will happen then? On any subject which is raised in the Irish Parliament, and which we think infringes on the rights of the minority, we shall say that by the very speeches of the Government which brought forward this Bill; and, secondly, by the terms of the Bill, we have a right to interfere in every one of these cases. According to our principles, we should be bound to interfere. Does anyone contend that an arrangement like that could possibly be an arrangement which would outlast under such conditions the stress of even a few months of discussion? It is impossible. Then what does it come to? It comes absolutely to this: that either the thing will not work at all, and whenever that Government is succeeded by a Government from our party, it will be brought to a deadlock—it will either be that, or the Irish Legislature, so far as independence is concerned, will be precisely in the same position as the Legislature of Canada to-day. It would not be altogether in the same position, for we propose to pay old age pensions; but, so

    287
    far as independence is concerned, the Government of Ireland would be precisely in the same position as the Government of Canada. If that is so what becomes of your safeguards? I think everyone must feel that it must take that form if it is to continue at all, and indeed that is the only way in which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) would tolerate it for a moment. The words he used were:—
    "I say our position would be much worse than it is at present if, after having a local legislature in Ireland, this House should act as a sort of Court of Appeal to revise, amend, or repeal any Acts of the Irish Parliament."
    The hon. and learned Member always says, and I am sure he would say so to-day, that he stands where Parnell did. What did Parnell say?
    "Ireland refuses to admit any interference. Therefore she declines to obey the orders, so far as her own business is concerned, of any Imperial or English Minister, taskmaster or dictator."
    That is perfectly plain. The hon. and learned Gentleman accepts this Bill with safeguards; that is to say, he allows the right hon. Gentleman to make speeches about safeguards, and he accepts the Bill on the principle that, while the Veto is nominally there, no arrangements shall be made for exercising it, and it never shall be exercised. It is not merely that that is the view of these hon. Gentlemen; it is in the nature of the case. You cannot point to any single instance where one democratic Parliament has been living side by side with another where in the long run interference of the one with the other has not absolutely ceased to exist.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked to us about what would happen as long as we work with common sense and without pedantry. His mind must go back to 1893 and 1886. Does he remember how Mr. Gladstone so eloquently dwelt on the wonders that had happened in Norway and Sweden? We never hear a word about that now. The experience which we have had of the very illustrations Mr. Gladstone gave us has shown irresistibly that a kind of shadowy control like this is impossible, and that you must either have it completely or not at all, and this Bill obviously gives it not at all. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that even in regard to our Colonies the Veto is still exercised. He did it entirely to his own satisfaction. He gave us two or three instances out of all our Colonies, and may I point out that most of them were pretty old, that within the last fifteen years there
    288
    has been a great development of the sense of nationality in the Colonies, and that it is certain that what was submitted to twenty years ago would not be submitted to now? The only illustrations which the right hon. Gentleman gave were in regard to alien immigration. I ask the Committee to remember that that is a question on which it is quite true the Colonies did feel fairly strong, and do now. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he is aware of it—that the illustration he gave of British Columbia was not a very fortunate one. So far as my memory serves, I think there was intense friction, which lasted for years, and it was only put right by the passing of a measure which the Government at Ottawa did not wish to pass.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was a compromise.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A compromise, yes, but a compromise made necessary by the persistence of British Columbia. Let me give another case with which he must be familiar. In Manitoba on the schools question Manitoba took one line and the Government at Ottawa took another. Manitoba ignored the decision of the Government at Ottawa, and it had to be settled on other lines altogether. Remember these are all matters on which there was no feeling of hostility between one section of the people in the Colony and another. These were questions which were open to argument on general grounds. It is quite obvious to Australia, for instance, that if it is a question that does affect the Empire, it does affect them, and that they cannot make rules against Japan without the danger of having Japan for an enemy. There is no analogy there. Take cases where there is an analogy—cases within our own experience—though I have not had the opportunity of looking them up. At the time my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was at the Colonial Office a Bill passed the Newfoundland Legislature which the Governor believed was, I will not say corrupt, but was of such a nature that it ought not under any circumstances to pass. He delayed it. The Colonial Secretary of that day at once cabled, or at all events wrote, "You cannot continue your delay to that measure. It is within the powers of the Newfoundland Legislature, and the time has long passed when this Government can interfere with the Colonies on any matter which

    289
    is within the purview of a Colony." Here is the actual dispatch:—
    "In advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of her prerogative of disallowance, the Secretary of State has to consider the legislation submitted from a still more restricted point of view than the Governor. That prerogative is a safeguard for the protection of those interests for which the Secretary of State is responsible to Her Majesty and to the Imperial Parliament. To advise its exercise in cases where only local interests are concerned would involve the Imperial Government in liability for matters of the control of which it has divested itself."
    That dispatch is dated December, 1898. It is well known to the Colonial Office, and I am quite sure the Colonial Secretary is aware of it. There is another case still more recent, and it is an exact case in point. This very Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer considered that the Government of Natal was exercising justice in an unfair and cruel way. That is precisely the kind of thing in regard to which, if this Veto is of any value, it ought to be brought into operation. It is precisely the case where I think the right hon. Gentleman himself or someone said:—
    "If injustice is done, this Parliament will at once step in."
    That is a case where this Government thought injustice was done. They cabled to Natal to stop the execution of the sentence instantly.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That was not a case of legislation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the same thing. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, as that really is our case. You may make your laws what you like, but if you have an Executive absolutely independent of you, these laws are not worth the paper on which they are written. What happened in Natal? It was a case where the Government thought injustice was being done, and they tried to stop it instantly. I think the Natal Government resigned or threatened to resign, but that was not all. They got representations from other Colonies that the course they had taken was one which could not be tolerated, and they climbed down in twenty-four hours. And yet that is the kind of thing which the right hon. Gentleman gives as a proof that they will be able to exercise effective control in any case of injustice. The right hon. Gentleman never likes to go without ground, and that is the basis on which his credulous optimism with regard to this Bill is founded. I ask the Committee seriously to consider what are the kind of cases in which, if the Veto is ever to be
    290
    effective, it will be required, and practically the only cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the two Parliaments are willing to work sensibly and harmoniously, there will be no trouble, and in that case no Veto is necessary. In everyone of their speeches the assumption as to the Veto is that if difficulty or unfairness arises, this House will step in and put an end to it. How is it to be done? The right hon. Gentleman did not treat it in quite so airy a fashion as the Chief Secretary, but he did not seem to think that there was any great difficulty about it, and he thinks that common sense would prevail.
    What is the assumption? On some question the Irish Executive or the Irish Parliament does something which the minority consider is unjust. That is the assumption. It comes up for review in this House. The majority in this House also consider it unjust. It does not follow that this House is right, and that the Irish House is wrong. That is not the point. The point is that it is this House which is going to control. What happens? The Irish Executive are certain that they are right, or they would not have done it. They appeal to the Irish House of representatives and that House supports them, and they say to the right hon. Gentleman, or to anyone sitting in his place, "What we have done is just and fair, and if you Veto it, we will resign." They do resign. What are you going to do then? Let us assume that you try to start another Government. You go to somebody in the Irish House of Representatives and say, "Would you support a Government subject to this Veto." If we know anything not of Irish human nature, but of all human nature, if a question is raised like that, telling the majority that they are unjust and unfair, it will unite them in a way that nothing else will unite them, and it will be utterly impossible for any other Government to be formed. What happens? One of two things. Say that the Government will exercise this Veto; this is one of their functions. They will exercise it solemnly to protect the minority in the same way in which they carried out this question in Natal, by climbing down and giving way to the Irish Parliament. That is one way. There is only one other. That other is to realise that their position is so desperate and so intolerable that they cannot permit it and to begin once again to reconquer Ireland by force of arms.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman who seconded this Amendment lather reproached me because I had been more silent in these Debates than he could have wished; and naturally when I have heard night after night complaints from hon. Members above the Gangway that they had not sufficient time to put their arguments before the House, I think it was only proper and considerate on my part not unnecessarily to intervene. But my silence could not have been due to a desire upon my part to disguise my real opinion, because my opinion has been put before the House by hon. Members who have spoken above the Gangway with an iteration which made me almost ashamed to hear the words "the hon. and learned Member for Waterford." This Debate has made, as the Prime Minister has said, the line of demarcation between the two sets j of policies perfectly plain. It is no use for the Leader of the Opposition to ride off by drawing imaginary cases, such as that with which he has concluded. These cases have not occurred in the experience of the working of self-governing institutions in any other part of the world. [HON. MEM-BEES: "They have."] They have not. [Interruption.] It is a little unfair for hon. Members to ask me to speak, and then continue to interrupt me. I say that they have not occurred in the experience of self-governing communities in any part of the Empire. What is the case on which the hon. Member founded his argument? It is really that, first of all the new Parliament in Ireland is a Parliament made up of such vicious men and such stupid men that they pass a law of an outrageous character designed to interfere with the liberty and property and perhaps the lives of a certain section of their own fellow countrymen.
    Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: And that Bill of theirs is questioned by the Imperial Government, as, of course, it would be, and, of course, it ought to be questioned by them, that then the Government in Ireland which passed the Bill originally resigned, and that no other Government could be formed, and that the duty would be thrown upon England of reconquering Ireland. Has that, or anything like that, occurred in the experience of any self-governing portion of the whole Empire? Why, then, do you say it is likely to happen in Ireland? Only because of that sharp dividing line, of which the Prime Minister spoke, between those who
    292
    believe that the Irish people are not only criminals but fools, and those who, with some knowledge of the past history of the Irish race and with some knowledge of the part that the Irish race have played in building up the constitutional freedom of the whole Empire and in governing the Empire, believe that the Irish people at home in their own country will not prove themselves a nation of criminals, and, further than that, that they certainly will-not prove themselves a nation of fools. Just conceive for a moment the absolute insanity of an Irish Parliament, representing a people who, after untold trouble, sufferings, and sacrifices, had won that modicum of freedom for their country, setting to work immediately to embark upon legislation of that kind with the knowledge and with the certainty in their minds that the supremacy of this country would not allow them to proceed, and if they attempted to proceed, that they would immediately involve their country in ruin and their Constitution in destruction. It is inconceivable.
    I can say, for my part, nothing new upon this question of Imperial supremacy. A quotation was read from a speech of mine which I have not verified, but as far as I could follow it it exactly expresses my opinion. If this Parliament, having granted Home Rule to Ireland, set itself to the task of turning itself into a Court of Appeal with reference to every act of the Irish Parliament, then most undoubtedly our position in Ireland would be worse than it was before, and your position would be worse than it was before, and a system so worked must inevitably break down. The Prime Minister was absolutely right in saying that the only ground upon which you can predict these horrors in the future is the double ground that Ireland would accept this in bad faith and work it criminally and insanely; and that, on the other side, this House, having granted this freedom to Ireland, would endeavour to take it back and interfere in every small local matter in Ireland. While the Debate was proceeding I turned to some of the declarations that were made on this subject in the past, and it is worth while again quoting the words of Mr. Parnell. Here is what he said in 1886:—
    "I understand the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament to be this, that they can interfere in the event, of the powers which are conferred by this Bill being abused; but the Nationalists in accepting this Bill fire, as I think, under an honourable understanding not to abuse those powers, and we pledge ourselves in that respect for the Irish people, as far as we can

    293
    pledge ourselves for anything, not to abuse those powers, and to devote our energies and any influence which we may have with the Irish people to preventing those powers from being abused. But if those powers should be abused, the Imperial Parliament will have at its command a force which it reserves to itself and will be ready to intervene, but only in the case of grave necessity."
    That is exactly the meaning of the words which were quoted by myself a few moments ago. Under Home Rule it would be idiotic to suppose that this House would be a Court of Appeal from everything done in the Irish Parliament, but this House will remain, and nothing can prevent it from being, a Court of Appeal in cases of grave injustice. I came across, a moment ago, a quotation which bears this out, and which is rather interesting. The quotation is from a speech of Lord Haldane, the present Lord Chancellor. It says:—
    "The extent to which a subordinate body must be actually controlled by the Imperial Parliament was a question of practice rather than of theory. It was impossible to define it in a Bill. It should be a control of various degrees and of varying periods. But if the action of a subordinate body were justified by experience, then Imperial interference practically lapsed, and so it seemed to him that the demand that a Clause should be put into the Bill declaring the extent of the practical supremacy to be exercised by the Imperial Parliament was not a reasonable demand. As the Irish Parliament fails or succeeds in its mission, so would the control of the Imperial Parliament be greater or less. If the Irish Parliament were successful, there would be no need to interfere except on the subjects reserved to the Imperial Parliament, and, if the Irish Parliament failed, then the theoretical supremacy would become a real supremacy and would be acted upon. If the Irish Legislature succeeded, the Imperial supremacy would be exercised less and less; and if it failed, that, supremacy could easily be enforced under the powers contained in this Bill."
    The Leader of the Opposition asked, when was the Veto put into operation against the self-governing Colonies? Why the fact that it has not been necessary for this Imperial Parliament to exercise its supremacy in these cases is proof of the success of the working of the system, and when the right hon. Gentleman quotes the dispatch which he read, which was written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in which that right hon. Gentleman laid down the meaning of the Imperial supremacy, by saying that it should only be exercised in matters which concerned the people and Parliament and Government of this country, and not in matters which concerned merely local affairs, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he mean to say that if a Parliament in Ireland attempted to enact laws to interfere with or suppress the Protestant religion in Ireland—which is the case made on the platforms of this country—if the Irish Parliament attempted to interfere with men's liberty, property or lives
    294
    because of their religion, could that be held to be a local matter? Why the Government of the day, the Parliament which attempted to deal with it as a local matter would find itself in a very difficult position in face of the universal indignation of the great Protestant nation of England which would not tolerate it.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: You are doing it in Wales now.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that some authority in Wales is interfering with the liberty, the property or the lives of people in Wales because of their religion. If any Government is convicted of any attempt of the kind it will not be able to plead that this is only a local matter; it will have the indignation of the whole English nation to reckon with.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Withdraw the Bill.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Exactly the same predictions of failure have been made in every case in the past in which self-government has been extended. We had it only the other day in the case of South Africa, when we were told from that bench and by the same men that it was practically insanity to trust these people in South Africa. You had it in the case of Canada, where in the debates in the House of Lords Lord Durham's proposals were denounced as certain to load to the oppression of the English Protestant minority, and certain to lead to the dismemberment of the Empire. There is no case in the whole history of this Empire where the advantages of self-government were extended in the past where these predictions have not been made, and there is no case in which history has not falsified them. All that my colleagues and I ask from the people and the democracy of this country is that they shall not believe in the scathing words of Mr. Gladstone, that we Irishmen have a double dose of original sin. Some people laughed at us the other night and said, "You are not angels." No, and neither are you angels; but we are not more demons than you are. Believe me, the goodness, the virile qualities, the common sense, the courage, the decency, the sense of religion which are to be found deeply embedded in the character of Englishmen are not wanting in the character of Irishmen, as their past history has shown, and we ask the people of this country to trust us.
    Sir E. CARSON: I hardly think that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken was quite sincere when he said that the reason he had not joined in this Debate was because he wished to leave some time to the Opposition. I have never seen much disposition on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman or of his colleagues below the Gangway in anywise either to try and convenience us or in anywise to try and help us to get any further time for the purpose of carrying on our Debates.
    Mr. J. REDMOND: To be quite frank with the right hon. Gentleman I desired to deprive him of the argument he has been using, that he had not sufficient time, and I would have strengthened that argument, if I had occupied any considerable time.
    Sir E. CARSON: Really the futility and folly of such an argument I think is demonstrable by merely the statement of one fact, that the hon. Gentleman himself was a party to the gagging Resolution, and it could not have been carried without him; so that he is really, when he gets up with this great generosity, with these great appeals to all that love and friendship that he is desiring to hold out to us in Ireland, the very man who is using the gag here at the present moment. He is insisting upon promoting goodwill towards this Bill in Ireland by maintaining night after night that the proper course of conduct in relation to the Bill to govern Ireland for all future time is that the great majority of the Clauses and lines of it, and all the Amendments upon it, never shall be discussed at all. I leave the House to judge of the hon. and learned Gentleman's sincerity. It is just upon a par with the sincerity of his statements in this country, as compared with his statements in America and Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an impassioned appeal to us, and said that we are not to use Mr. Gladstone's phrase to imply that the Irish character is endowed with "a double dose of original sin." I hope for my own sake it is not. But, upon the other hand, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman see—and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in this House uses as a foundation also of his argument— that he is arguing upon the assumption that the Irish character is endowed with a double dose of original virtue. That is the whole meaning of what the Prime Minister was saying in the course of his
    296
    argument, and what the hon. and learned Member was saying—only trust us, only leave us alone, and we are such a nation that you have no right even to be suspicious that anything could happen which would bring about friction between the other House you are setting up in Ireland and this House.
    All that is arguing upon a very false state of facts and entirely against the history both of Ireland and of this country. For my own part, I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the main difference between us, in approaching this Bill, is one of temperament, and one of belief, as regards what will happen in the future, having regard to the past. The right hon. Gentleman never tells us on what it is he founds his credulity as regards the way in which Irishmen will act in future. We tell him the reasons of our suspicion: we point him to the history of our country, we point him to the illimitable crimes that have been condoned by hen. Members below the Gangway, and are being condoned to-day. The only answer we get is, "Trust to me; I am optimistic; I am the great optimist." Well, we do not trust him, for the simple reason that he gives us no ground for trusting him. He quotes nothing in the past, and we really cannot elevate, whatever else may be desired, his great position as Prime Minister to the position of a secure prophet, of the future. So far as I am concerned, the only interest I take in this Amendment is this: The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and many hon. Members of this House, have stated throughout the country that the safeguards constitute the main provisions, the cardinal provisions, of the Bill. What does the Prime Minister tell us? Why, his whole speech went to point out, as clearly as it could, that the Veto and the Imperial Parliament are two safeguards which are always relied on, yet his whole speech was a clear demonstration that this Veto is no safeguard whatsoever.
    The right hon. Gentleman, upon the whole assumption of his argument, said no safeguard was necessary. What was his point? He said that as regards the Veto you will never require it. He said you have, to take the true state of the facts. You have to take the Parliament in Ireland and the Executive in Ireland as working so much for the good of their country, and so absolutely in accordance with what is laid down as the duty of any other Govern-

    297
    ment, that they will be acting, on the one hand, in such a way that there will never be any necessity to challenge their action; and then, on the other hand, you must take into consideration, and take it as the basis, that this Parliament will be acting in such a way that they will not desire to challenge the Irish party. If you take these two hypotheses, if nothing is to happen in Ireland, and if this House is never to be inclined to interfere, what becomes of the safeguards? That is exactly what we have been saying all through. It has been exactly the purport of every argument I have tried to put forward in this House and in the country, namely, the moment you set up an independent Irish Parliament, or Irish subordinate Parliament, without using the word "independent," you will never be able to interfere, you never will interfere—you know you will not interfere; you do not intend to interfere— yet still you go about pointing to the Clauses of this Bill and saying to the people of the country that they are safeguards. The right hon. Gentleman went into one or two cases in our Colonies within the last twenty years, and he said that the Veto was exercised with a view to bringing about a compromise. I tell you what I wish the hon. Gentleman had done, or what some right hon. Gentlemen who will speak afterwards will do at some stage, namely, indicate to us the class of cases where the Imperial Parliament, or the Government responsible to the Imperial Parliament, will be prepared to exercise the Veto.
    The right hon. Gentleman himself said, and said very rightly, that if there were a clear case of ultra vires, where a subordinate Legislature was going beyond its power, or taking any reserved powers in the second Clause of the Bill, it would not be necessary to exercise the Veto, because the Acts themselves would be illegal, whether the Lord Lieutenant or the King gave assent to them or not. I think that is perfectly true, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman would also go as far as to say, as regards local matters entrusted to the Irish Parliament, that the Government never would interfere. But I would like to know where you are going to interfere. I would like somebody to indicate to us the line of cases in which the Imperial Government would interfere. I know perfectly well that they never will interfere, and that is why I think it necessary to show that this is a sham safeguard, in whatever form you put it in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John
    298
    Redmond), in his impassioned way, appeals to us and says, "Do you think we are going to pass legislation as against Protestants? Do you think we are going to pass legislation that will be persecuting the Protestants?" Has anybody ever said that? I certainly have never said that. I give my Irish fellow countrymen credit who would be inclined in any wise, or from any motives, to interfere with their fellow countrymen on account of religion, that it would not be by legislation.
    Nobody supposes that any Government-would pass an Act of Parliament to permit of the cruelties of boycotting, but the party can carry on the most dangerous system of tyranny and interference, and are still carrying it on, as the Chief Secretary knows. That is not done by law. People do not do these things by law. It is not done by law except so far as it is done by the law of the League. But still it goes on, and there is no use in talking to us as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford does, saying, "Do you think that any such law as that would be passed?" I answer, "Very well, I do not think it would be passed; I think it would be too absurd, and I know perfectly well that when a tyranny of that kind is attempted to be carried out, it is not carried out in that way at all; it is carried out either by conniving at it, or by not enforcing the law against it." It is because of that reason that we seek to demonstrate here that your Veto and your Imperial Parliament and all the rest of it that you set up and flaunt about on platforms, are useless, and that anything like the Veto of the great Imperial Parliament or the Veto of Lord Aberdeen is absolutely absurd and ridiculous.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that every subordinate Parliament throughout the Empire had to have either a Lord Lieutenant or somebody in an analogous position. Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted as regards the proximity of Ireland to England, and as regards the fact that it is still, according to their argument, to be a United Kingdom, and having regard to the fact that we are to have still forty-two Members in this House—and this is always left out of consideration when you are considering the Colonies, and it makes an absolute difference between this and every other-Constitution, not only in the Empire, but in the American Constitution—will somebody inform us what is the use of the Lord Lieutenant at all, except as a sham safe-

    299
    guard. According to the Bill as it stands, is the Lord Lieutenant to act upon instructions—which I know means general instructions—as regards giving his assent to a Bill? Why on earth cannot the assent be given by His Majesty in the ordinary way? It is only another illustration of your keeping up all these absolutely useless and worthless provisions, which none of you are able to demonstrate as being of any real effect in the Government you are setting up. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has challenged the right hon. Gentleman and his Government as to the use of the Veto throughout the Colonies. All I can say is I had the honour of being a Law Officer for six years, and I saw a great many Acts of Parliament that came from the Colonies and a great many questions were asked, but I do not believe that in my time a single Act of Parliament was ever rejected although Bills were reserved. We knew perfectly well we dare not do it, and it was not but we were often asked by sections to do it. So far from that being done, my recollection is that whenever we found out that those subordinate Legislatures had exceeded their powers, and had made changes which did not come within their Constitution, so far from ever interfering with them we at once brought in Bills in this House to validate everything they had done in order that the Bills they had passed outside their own Constitution might not be challenged even in their own Courts. You will find many instances of that kind in validating Bills.
    Then I should like to know are we going to have an answer to this, because the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke has not certainly attempted to give any answer. When he said that the Veto was effective and that he was willing it should be effective, he did not grapple with the cases that were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and nobody on the other side ever does grapple with them. Will they explain, because they know better than anyone else why did the Government give way as regards Natal. It is an exact case in point. It is a case where this Government rushed in to prevent what they believed to be an injustice, and murder I think they described it, by the local Parliament. Do you think when you were not brave enough to stop that in Natal that you will stop it in Ireland? Do you think you will be able to do so when you did not stop it in Natal miles and miles away from you, having no
    300
    influence upon the electors of this country and no Members in this House? Do you think that you will really stop it in Ireland when you are dependent on forty-two Irish votes? And then will some hon. or right hon. Gentleman who follows also take up the case of Newfoundland which was a matter of very gross fraud that was being attempted to be committed or was committed: a case of corruption, relating to contracts? Will anybody tell us as to whether the statement put forward by the then Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), in which he concludes his dispatch, is not an actual statement of what is the fact of the present day? He refers to the extraordinary and unparalleled character of the contract and the serious consequences that may result from it. He goes on to say:—
    "My action has therefore been governed solely by constitutional principles on which I am bound to act and I think it desirable that it should be made quite clear that in accepting the privilege of self-government the Colony has accepted the full responsibilities inseparable from this privilege, and if the machinery it has provided for the work of legislation and administration has proved ineffective, or the persons to whom it has entrusted its destinies have failed to discharge their trust, they cannot look to Her Majesty's Government to supplement or remedy those defects, or to judge between them and their duly chosen representatives."
    Of course, you may argue that the Colonial Secretary was a very weak man, but everybody knows now perfectly well that it is the case throughout the whole of the Empire, in any single case in which a local Legislature raises any serious objection and refuses to assent to a Veto from this Government, that there is not a Minister in this country who would dare for a moment to hold out against it. Everybody knows it would be extremely foolish to do so. It all comes back to the same thing. In the end once you set up your local Government, you cannot in any wise afterwards interfere by any action upon the part of your Government here, or on the part of this House, or by Veto, or any other way, to prevent that local Government which you have set up doing any injustice that they may think proper, according to the policy that they may themselves frame. So far as I am concerned, as I said at the beginning, the only reason I take any interest whatsoever in this Amendment is that it gives to us the opportunity of raising a discussion here to show how false and hypocritical are the arguments that are put forward, both in this House, when it suits, and always throughout the country, when you say that you have in the interests of the minority in

    301
    Ireland stuffed this Bill with safeguards which you yourselves know are mere shams.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The right hon. and learned Gentleman began his speech by refusing to believe in the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. Redmond) and those who are associated with him. We on this side of the House refuse to take that view. We believe in the sincerity and earnestness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Garson) and those who support him, and equally Ave believe in the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford and those who are his supporters. We see no reason why we should draw—
    Captain CRAIG: Resign your seat on Home Rule.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Why we should draw a distinction between the sincerity of hon. Members who happen to sit above the Gangway and those representatives from Ireland who happen to sit below the Gangway.
    Captain CRAIG: Will you resign your scat on Home Rule? Try it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, further, that although he did not claim that the Nationalist Members or that Irishmen as a whole had a double dose of original sin, he asserted that they had not a double dose of original virtue. Much as I admire and respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, I have never yet accused him and those who support him of having a double dose of original virtue. What we do say with regard to him, and with regard also to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, is that we regard them as human beings whose views are to be respected and taken into account. That is all we have claimed for those who sit below or for those who sit above the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman went on to make what I think must prove to be a very valuable asset to us in the course of these discussions, the discussion to-night and those that follow, because what is it we are discussing at the present time? I cannot help thinking that in the greater part of his speech he forgot the Amendment to which we are addressing ourselves, and was regardless of the Clause which is at present under discussion. In that Clause
    302
    we have nothing whatever to do with administration, and we are dealing with the Veto of the Lord Lieutenant upon Bills.
    Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying and arguing. I did not forget that at all. I said the Veto was no safeguard, because you got round the Bill by administration.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Then, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, he ought to support us in voting against this Amendment, because, according to his view, he wants but administrative perfection. I really think that that is a feature of the Debate we must remember. He told us that he was not one of those, and I am not surprised at him saying so, who labour under the delusion or who are suspicious that if hon. Members who sit below the Gangway and who represent Ireland, came into power, and were the Executive Government in an Irish Parliament, that they would pass laws which would bear unjustly and oppressively upon those who differ from the Roman Catholics in their religion. He has told us that in plain language, and at least Ave are glad to have that stated so definitely All those who sit behind him, or some of those who sit behind him, who have very different sentiments, or who certainly take different views, must henceforth take pattern from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and also from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long). Both those right hon. Gentlemen, who speak no doubt with very great authority on Irish affairs, have demonstrated absolutely clearly that there is really no anxiety in their mind that those who profess the Protestant religion will be oppressed by anything that is done in the nature of legislation.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to specify any person who has expressed a contrary opinion?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Then I am the more delighted, and I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh is not present. I take it that he has not said it, and does not mean to say it, and does not think it.
    An HON. MEMBER: Nobody has said it.
    Sir E. CARSON: You ought to quote when you make a charge.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I say without hesitation that again and again statements

    303
    have been made in the course of speeches on the platform which have suggested that there would be oppression by the Irish Parliament upon those who differed from them in religion.
    An HON. MEMBER: Not by legislation.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Then if you say it is not by legislation, what is the good of all this parade of wanting to see what is going to happen in an Irish Parliament which is passing Bills dealing with matters of the kind? After all, we need not have any acrimonious discussion about it.
    Sir E. CARSON: You ought to quote when you make charges.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says I am making a charge. I am not making a charge at all. If I am wrong in the view that hon. Members have expressed that opinion, then not only most unreservedly, but most delightedly I will withdraw anything of the kind, and I will accept it then as conveyed by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, and assented to by those who sit behind him, and who follow his lead, that we may state to the country, and state it as assented to by the right hon. Gentleman and those who support him and the whole Unionist party, that there is no reason to fear in any legislation which may be passed by the Irish Parliament that there will be any oppression of those who may profess a different religion. Then we come to the next step. What is it we are discussing? When I hear these disclaimers, which I may be permitted to say, without offence, do credit to hon. Gentlemen opposite—
    Sir E. CARSON: I disclaim nothing. I cannot disclaim what I never said.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If we have these what I call disclaimers—if the right hon.
    Gentleman objects to the word "disclaimer," I will use the word "denial," although I did not use the word in regard to him—
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes, you did.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks for a moment he will see that he is doing me an injustice. I started what I said on this point by saying that I had heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say the same thing before, and I
    304
    did not make the reference to him at all. I said that he had said it before, but that I was glad at any rate that he had said it here, and that those who sat behind him ought to take note of it. Whether it was was a disclaimer or a denial—I care not which word is used—it was meant to represent the views, not only of those Irish Members who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman, but of all the Unionist party. If that is the case, I cannot understand why it is that we are at the present moment giving up this time, at the request, or at any rate with the assent, of the Unionist party, to discussing the effect of the Veto on legislative proposals in the Irish Parliament, as everybody seems to agree now that you have nothing at all to fear in that respect. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Religion."] I quite accept that hon. Members are entitled to say that nothing they have said goes so far as to assert that they have no anxiety in regard to the Veto in matters other than religion. But, at any rate, we have got this step, that it is not in religious matters, which we thought—we may have been wrong—were the most important matters in regard to which a safeguard was desired and in regard to which hon. Members opposite were most apprehensive.
    If it is not that, let us proceed to ask what it is. Of what shape is the legislation, or in what direction it will go, of which hon. Members are apprehensive? Is it with reference to life, or to liberty, or to property? I certainly thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself took the view that that was not likely to happen either. This much he certainly made perfectly plain, that the provision as to Veto which we have introduced into this Bill is not meant to guard against the everyday normal course of business. Hon. Members opposite have spoken of the Veto as if we were saying that in regard to every Bill passed by the Irish Parliament this question of Veto will have to be discussed, and that it will form a matter for serious consideration whether or not the Lord Lieutenant is to exercise the Veto. That is not the point at all. The object of having the provision as to the Veto is as a safeguard to be used in case of necessity. As far as I am aware—hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—in every subordinate Parliament that has ever been created by this Imperial Parliament there has been within the Statute itself a provision for the Veto. You may look at what has happened during the last twenty

    305
    years, or even further back. In the British North America Act you will find a provision of a similar character. You will find it also in the Australian Commonwealth Act, and in the Union of South Africa Act. Suppose you did not find the provision in this Bill. Suppose we had not introduced these particular proposals. I can imagine, although I cannot attempt to emulate, the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University would have made. He would have said, "Why, look at your safeguards! You and the hon. Member for Waterford have been telling the country that all that was going to be given to Ireland, and all that was desired was a subordinate Parliament. A subordinate Parliament? I look at once for the provision as to the Veto of the Crown on legislation, and I find that it is absent. You are not creating a subordinate Parliament; you are creating a sovereign Parliament.
    But when you have created your subordinate Parliament, the Bills which are passed through the two Houses do not become Acts of Parliament. They do not become law until the Royal Assent has been given. That is the very thing with which we are dealing here, and by which we make it quite plain that the Parliament is to be a subordinate Parliament, and that there is to be that Veto over legislation. It is quite right to say—I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it—that you do not require this provision with regard to all the matters which are either excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament by Clause 2 or forbidden by Clause 3. They are already dealt with. The laws themselves ate absolutely void, and there is no question of exercising the Veto. If any doubt or any question arises in regard to the matter it has to be settled by the Privy Council. This Veto applies only to cases of necessity, in which such questions might occur, for example, as those with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was familiar as a Law Officer—questions in which the Law Officers have to consider whether in the Bills which come up for the Royal Assent there is anything making it necessary that further steps should be taken in regard to the matter dealt with. Why does the Law Officer look into those Bills?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman
    306
    kindly indicate more clearly the class of case to which he is referring?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is what I am pointing out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his recollection of what happened during the years that he was a Law Officer of the Crown. I have been a Law Officer of the Crown, not so long as he was, but between two and three years, and the cases in which Bills come before the Law Officers are rare.
    Sir E. CARSON: Except from the Isle of Man.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had those in mind when he made the statement.
    Sir E. CARSON: No.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: He said that a number of cases came before him, and I understood him to mean that they came from the self-governing Dominions. Why do these Bills come before the Law Officers of the Crown? Not on questions of policy. Bills do not come before the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General for him to decide whether as a matter of policy it is desirable that the Royal Assent should be given or reserved. They come merely for the purpose of its being seen whether it is necessary that there should be some Imperial legislation for the purpose of giving effect to the measures, or whether the particular Bill under consideration conflicts in any way with Imperial legislation already in existence. That was made plain by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's subsequent statement, in which he said that he had actually had to take part in advising that there should be Imperial legislation, either to validate what had taken place or to follow up the consequence of what had happened in a self-governing Dominion. Reference has been made to cases which I do not propose to discuss in great detail. There were instances given by the Prime Minister; and other cases were referred to, particularly one in reference to Natal, a case which concerned the administration of justice and not in any way dealing with legislation. The administration of justice in a self-governing Colony is a much more difficult matter to deal with. That being the case, I look at the Acts of Parliament of the various Dominions in regard to which the Royal Assent has been reserved, and I

    307
    find that as late as 1908, in Natal, the Royal Assent was reserved in connection with two Bills dealing with prohibitions in the matter of trading licences being held by Asiatics. Hon. Members will remember that a very serious question arose in regard to the matter of trading licences, and a reservation was made in regard to those two Bills. The whole argument comes to this. As I follow what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those who support this Amendment, their view is that you must not have a Veto which can ever be exercised, and that if the Veto can ever be exercised at all, as far as I can follow the argument, you really ought not to give a Parliament. I quite fail to appreciate—it may be entirely my fault—where it is that hon. Members opposite say that the Veto which does exist with reference to self-governing Dominions could be exercised. Is it asserted that never in any circumstances could that right of Veto be exercised?
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Practically.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Practically. That really means that it would never be exercised except in extreme cases. That is what it means, and I will assent to that view. That is really the argument which I am putting forward in favour of the Veto in reference to Ireland. That is the way in which it would work. You would never exercise it except in a really serious and extreme case. Suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to consider a Bill in a different capacity from that of a Law Officer. Supposing he was considering, as a Minister of the Grown, whether or not a particular Bill should receive the Royal Assent. Supposing, on looking into the Bill, he saw that it was a grossly unjust Bill, one which it would be impossible to treat as fair, just, and equitable, no matter what view one took with reference to the particular question in a self-governing Colony or Dominion. Is it suggested that there would be no right of Veto in such a case? The true answer is, of course, that you would never get such a Bill. You do not get Bills of that kind, or, at any rate, if you get them at all, they are extremely rare.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The question is, imagining a case, such as the Attorney-General puts forward, how do the Government suggest that the Veto is in point of fact to be enforced?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is a question which has already been answered by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Surely that is so. I do not at all object to the question, bur it has really been answered. I do not quite appreciate what the hon. Member means by enforcing the Veto.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I mean in the event of the resignation of the Irish Government.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You do not enforce the Veto. A Bill comes up for the consideration of the Minister responsible or the Cabinet, as the case may be. I will assume that it is a Bill to which it is thought the Royal Assent should not be given. The Lord Lieutenant does not, on instructions, give the Royal Assent. What happens? The Bill which has passed through the two Houses does not become law. To follow it further: It seems to me that hon. Members are always creating this terrific bugbear for themselves. They say, "Well, now, if the Government were to resign what on earth would happen]" I suppose that would happen which would happen in one of the self-governing Dominions. We have had cases discussed to-day in which it has been shown that when there has been a refusal to give the Royal Assent there have been negotiations, and discussion, and no doubt a considerable correspondence. The result of it has been that some way has been found in which not perhaps the precise proposal, but a proposal which was at any rate acceptable to the self-governing Dominions has been accepted.
    An HON. MEMBER: That never happened in Natal.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not want to go through it again, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out exactly what happened in two instances with which he dealt. Exactly in the same way would the case be met in Ireland. Supposing you had the difficulty arising there. It would be much easier, I should have thought, to bring about a settlement of a matter of this kind in Ireland, because Ireland is much closer. We know exactly, through the daily papers, what is happening. It is not the case of correspondence taking some time, or a question of cabling. We know daily what is happening there, and we can keep in

    309
    active touch with matters. There is good reason to fear little difficulty, unless you assume the hypothesis of the Prime Minister that you are going to deal with men who are not only unjust by nature, but who will set to work to do wicked things either by legislation or administration, or with the intention that their acts should press unduly upon the people. If you leave out a consideration of that kind, and get rid of these suspicions, it would be perhaps better for all. I cannot help thinking, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that the true view of this question is to be obtained only by the way in which you choose to look at the Irish people, and at the Irish Parliament which will be created when this Bill is passed. If you choose to assume that all the hon. Members who will be returned to that Parliament, or a majority, will do all these wicked acts why, then, there is no means I know, I agree, which would prevent us from interfering on every occasion. But nobody certainly has suggested that such a thing would happen. If, on the other hand, you assume that you are going to deal with men who, though they may be of totally different political views with regard to their own country from the right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who so loyally support him, are going to legislate—that they mean, at any rate, to do it as representative of the largest number of seats in Ireland—the best they can in the interests of the community at large, and in order to advance the prosperity and the happiness of their own country, then all these fears, suspicions, and apprehensions vanish, and we may rest in safety and peace in the knowledge that this Veto is still in existence.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The speeches which we have had this afternoon from the other side of the House, including that of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, have all proceeded on one assumption, and that is that when this Bill becomes law amicable feelings will exist between the various parties in the Nationalist Parliament. That is a wrong assumption, because this Clause about the Veto must necessarily assume that all is not well. If all were well, I quite agree with the Prime Minister that safeguards would not be required. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely neglected the fact that in Ireland we must, whether we like it or not, recognise the presence of two peoples and two nations.
    310
    The one is spread all over Ireland, and the other is concentrated very much in the North-East corner of Ulster. You must recognise that these are two separate nations, both in race and religion, and that the loyal minority, whether we like it or not, do fear the powers which may be exercised by a Nationalist Parliament in Dublin. That is an assumption which the right hon. and learned Gentleman ignores. Both the Prime Minister and he have proceeded on the line that safeguards are not necessary. We say that safeguards are necessary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has also made a speech this afternoon. He said that he adheres to the opinion which lie has already expressed about the exercise of this Veto in a Nationalist Parliament. I should like to quote two other views that have been expressed on this subject as a test to show whether there is or is not anything in the Veto. The first is a speech made by Mr. Patrick Ford. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I believe Mr. Ford is a gentleman of very great influence amongst them. What does he say about the exercise of the Veto, speaking on 20th April of this year:—
    "The Lord Lieutenant, ns representing the King, will have the power of Veto, but it is tolerably certain he will never exercise it. There has been no Veto in England for 200 years. It is never heard of in any of the British Colonies, and it is not at all likely to be revived in Ireland."
    Let me quote another opinion, that of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Patrick White). Speaking on 10th March, the hon. Member said:—
    "The people of Ireland wanted full and free self-government without injuring any Imperial interest. The Irish Parliament must be supreme with regard to all Irish questions without any English Veto—"
    They will not have it—
    "An English Veto on the laws passed by an Irish Parliament would break down and destroy that Parliament before it would be two years in existence."
    That is only an example of the attitude which is taken up by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. They will not accept the Veto. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am quoting speeches, and they say the Veto will have no effect, and the hon. Member for Meath, whose opinion I have quoted, says that the Veto will not be exercised. I should like to go back a little in history to the time when there was an independent Parliament in Ireland. I refer to Grattan's Parliament. Pitt had been arguing in 1798, just before the Union, in a speech made in this House, that Ireland was practically independent, and that the only con-

    311
    nection with this country was the Crown— "the very slender thread of the Crown," he called it. A Debate took place in the Irish Parliament on the Regency Bill, and a celebrated speech was made by Mr. Speaker Foster, who took the opportunity to reply to the remarks of Pitt about the slender connection between Ireland and England at that time. I am quoting from Lecky's "History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," Vol. V., chapter 12:—
    "Pitt said that one system of connection had been destroyed and that no other had been substituted for it, and he described the connection of the two countries as now depending merely upon the existence of the King—"
    that is what I have just said; that Pitt had put it, that the only practical connection between England and Ireland was the existence of the King—
    "and on the continued agreement of two entirely independent Parliaments exposed to all the attacks of party and all the effects of accident."
    How did Mr. Foster answer that? He said:—
    "But in the amended Constitution of Ireland, no Bill could become a law of Ireland which has not been returned from England under the Great Seal of Great Britain.'"
    Under the Act of Parliament which he quoted, the 21st and 22nd George III., Chapter 47 which enacted:—
    "The Lord Lieutenant should certify to the King only such Bills as both Houses of Parliament in Ireland should certify to be enacted under the Great Seal of Ireland without alteration; that such of the same as should be returned under the Great Seal of Great Britain without alteration, and none other, should pass in the Parliament of Ireland…"
    Mr. Speaker Foster, when he had quoted that, continued:—
    "and the very object of this provision was to prevent the connection from being 'a bare junction of two kingdoms under one Sovereign'; by 'making the British Ministry answerable to the British nation, if any law should receive the Royal Assent, in Ireland which could in any way injure the Empire or tend to separate Ireland from it."
    What happened? Was that Veto, under the provisions of this Act of Parliament, ever exercised during Grattan's Parliament? Never once. Why? Because they in this country knew that if they attempted to in any way interfere or repeal an Act passed by the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin there would be a rebellion. It is perfectly true. I find it in the Castlereagh correspondence, which is in
    312
    the library, and I believe it is a letter written by Lord Cornwallis, who was Viceroy at that time. He sent a letter to the British Government telling them that if any attempt was made to exercise the Veto in any way on the legislation passed by the Nationalist Parliament, there would be a rebellion.
    Hon. Members must all admit that probably this Veto would be very difficult to exercise. At the same time it is meant to be some kind of safeguard by the Government, or else they would not put it in. It ought to be put in, then, in such a shape as to make it a real safeguard. It should not be a Veto that will have very little effect. It ought to be such a safeguard that every Act of Parliament has practically to obtain the sanction and the agreement of the Imperial Executive. Bills should be directly referred to this Government for sanction. That is the view we hold. I hope the Government will see either now or on the Report stage that this Bill—I do not say that the wording of this Amendment is absolutely essential —contains some provision that will make what I say perfectly clear. The Government over and over again have invited the loyal minority in Ireland to name their own safeguards. They have almost gone the length of saying, "If you name safeguards we will put them in the Bill." This is one question where we ask the Government to recognise that those different in race and different in religion from the rest of Ireland should have some separate treatment, and some guarantee that a system of oppression shall not be exercised.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I think very little of this Amendment, and I think very little of the Clause it proposes to amend as having no practical effect whatever upon the loyalist minority in Ireland. I had an Amendment upon the Paper to Clause 3, by which I proposed to leave out that Clause altogether, and the reason I propose to leave out Clause 3, and the reason why I think so little of this Clause is that these safeguards in the view of the loyalist minority in Ireland were not introduced for their benefit at all, but were introduced as a sop to the consciences of some Members of this House and the people of this country in order that the Government might say that they had provided adequate safeguards for the loyalist minority in Ireland. From the very first we said we did not value these safeguards, one pin's point. We did not think they

    313
    would in the slightest degree better our position, and speaking for myself I would gladly have them left out. If they are unnecessary, as we believe they are, they are useless; and they are insulting if they are necessary and required.
    We have demonstrated a large number of these provisions are useless and that a large number of the provisions of this Bill are unworkable. The answer we always get amounts to this. We are asked to join in a sort of confidence trick in which we are asked to entrust all we hold dear to the care of people we do not trust at all. In all the discussions in Committee on every Clause of this Bill the same absurd answer is made to every point we make and to all our objections. We are told what we say is quite true, and that we are quite right in the view we take as to the probable course of events, but the answer we get in every single case amounts to this, that we are to trust to the Nationalists. It is admitted we do not trust the Nationalists. I do not know why on earth we should. It is not so much, as has been pointed out, that we fear the direct legislation of the Irish Parliament as its administration. We do not trust them in administration; we do not trust them any more than we trust the present Government in its administration.
    The Irish Government, if it is ever set up, which I doubt, will have control over questions, for instance, such as the franchise laws in Ireland. Can we trust them in the administration of these laws? Will they do any better than the present Government? The loyalist minority in Ireland had a rooted distrust of the present Government in the administration of the franchise laws. I will give one or two illustrations of the reason why, and a fortiori, why should we not trust the Irish Administration. In this country the appointment of revising barristers is in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice. Whether he is a political partisan or not I do not know, but at all events he does not depend for his salary upon the result of elections. In Ireland the appointment of revising barristers is under the control of the Irish Government, and Irish Unionists have grave cause of objection to the way in which that power is exercised. We do not forget that it was attributed to one revising barrister appointed by the present Government that he did not object to the loyalists living in Ireland, because they were useful, practical, business
    314
    people, but he did object to their having votes in Ulster. In this country men are appointed who are not active politicians, but in Ireland it is the opposite. The most heated partisans are the people most sought after to conduct the revision of the voters' lists. In one instance a gentleman revised the voters' lists for South Derry and immediately afterwards stood as a candidate for that constituency. He had not had time to properly prepare the ground, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Derry (Mr. John Gordon) beat him by a small majority. In another instance one of the revising barristers stood for North Derry. That was rather a hopeless enterprise, but having contested the constituency in the Liberal interest he was immediately appointed in the following revision to the position of revising barrister there.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I know that the Debate has been allowed to extend over a wide area, but I think the hon. Member is going rather deeply into the question of administration. General reference to administration has been permitted, but I must ask him not to go too much in detail into such matters.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I do not propose to go beyond the present illustration, which, I think, is a very striking one. In that particular case this revising barrister was sent to revise a very critical constituency, and he has done his business very well from the point of view of those who appointed him. That can be done by administration, and, of course, by legislation also. The Protestant minority might be placed in even a worse electoral position than at present, because there are a large number of Unionists all over Ireland —some of the most respectable and intelligent citizens in all parts of the country— who are absolutely without any political power, and consequently they are very sensitive about any attack upon the position of the Unionist representatives in the North.
    I only select that as an example of what administration can do. It would be perfectly possible, assuming the Irish Government would be willing to do it, to make the lot of the Unionists and loyalists in Ireland perfectly impossible without any legislation at all. That is why we have attributed no importance whatever to these so-called safeguards, which we have

    315
    all along regarded as only put into this Bill for British consumption. It is said, and the argument is a powerful one, "Trust the Nationalists." That is what it comes to. We heard the appeals of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) to history, and so forth, as to why we should trust the Nationalists; but if we go back to older history, I ask, why should we trust them? What has happened in the past in Ireland that would ever induce us to trust them? If you go back to the older times you will find that the Unionists and the Protestants in Ireland had a very bad time of it, except where they were able to defend themselves by the strong hand. We have not forgotten the Irish Parliament of 1588, and the confiscation of the property of the Protestants of the country. We have not forgotten the massacre of 1641, and we have not forgotten, coming down to more recent times, the rebellion of 1798. We have not forgotten that time of religious war, and I say it would be a long time before the Protestants of Ireland forget the Bridge of Wexford and the Barn of Scullabogue.
    These are matters of history, and are somewhat ancient, and I would not refer to them at all if the more immediate past did not very much correspond with them. Why on earth should the Protestants and Unionists of Ireland trust the Nationalist party with the record before their eyes of the last thirty years? The Nationalist movement during the whole of that time has been marked by intimidation, outrage, and murder in every part of Ireland where the United Irish League held sway. That has continued up to the present time, and to-day there are people in Ireland strictly boycotted by the executive of the Irish Nationalist party. I would be very glad, no one would be more glad than myself, to forget the past, and to live in peace and amity with all my fellow countrymen, and wherever I can do so nothing affords me greater pleasure. But is it not asking rather much to say that we are to take all the risks?
    It is all very well for the Prime Minister to indulge in cheerful optimism, but he does not live in Ireland and is not an Irish Unionist. His willingness to take the risk is vicarious. He would make the experiment with us and ask us to trust people that he himself does not trust and is not asked to trust. I feel we are entitled to say, as the right hon. Member for North
    316
    Tyrone once said (Mr. T. W. Russell), that the record of these men whom we are asked to trust was so bad, so stained by crime and outrage and intimidation, that we ought not to be asked to trust them. And the whole basis on which we are asked to accept the provisions of this Bill with its illusory safeguards is that the Members of the Nationalist party in the future will be something they never were in the past. That is practically what is said, not only in the Debate to-night, but in the Debates every night. These Debates here are practically a waste of time, because the arguments put forward from this side, however they destroy or batter down a particular Clause, are always met with a cheerful optimism which says, "You are all right in your arguments and sound in your reasoning, but under the superhuman virtue of the Irish party it will be all right under the new Constitution."
    I always understood a Constitution was framed to stand stress and strain, and not to be a fair-weather Constitution that will only work if everything goes right. We are entitled to assume that a great deal will go wrong and we are entitled to do our best against it. We often wonder what do hon. Members opposite suppose is the state of the mind of the Protestant minority in Ireland. Are the whole people in the North-East corner and the thousands and thousands of loyalists scattered all through the rest of Ireland—some of them the best educated and most intelligent people in the country, who are absolutely convinced in their minds that they would incur intolerable risks by submitting to-this proposed Bill—to be ignored? Are the sensible, shrewd, and by no means emotional people in the North of Ireland, who have made up their minds that they will face the greatest risk before they will submit to put their destinies into the hands of the Nationalist party, not to be listened to?
    It is a most extraordinary thing that the Protestant community, and that a very large number of Roman Catholics also who know Ireland, should be treated in this manner. Nothing is more irritating than the attitude of many hon. Members in this House, who know no more about Ireland than they do about Jerusalem, telling them that they do not know the mind of the people amongst whom they live. We are told we do not know anything about the conditions of our own people, and that we are absolutely foolish and wrong when we say that our position would be in-

    317
    tolerable under an Irish Parliament and when we say we are not prepared to take that risk. Yet we hear night after night Member after Member getting up and assuring us that we know nothing about the conditions of our country, that we are absolutely wrong in refusing to trust men whose records we know, and that they, who know nothing about Ireland, are absolutely right in saying that we have no reason to fear alarm and have no reason to fear a domination which the people in the North of Ireland are prepared to take very serious risks rather than submit to it. Speaking as an Ulster Member, from the very commencement of these Debates, from the time this guillotine was set up I could not see what was the object of our being here discussing kangarooed Amendments under the shadow of the guillotine. I think we would be better advised if we adopted the suggestion made by the President of the Board of Agriculture and ceased to indulge in wholly useless and unprofitable Debates in this House and went back to our constituencies in Ulster, where we could be more usefully employed.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the question raised by this Amendment is of supreme importance, and it is really a test whether or not the Government intend to insert a proper safeguard. I wish to offer a word of criticism upon the Clause itself. I confess I am quite unable to understand the Clause. It says:—
    "The Lord Lieutenant shall give or withhold the assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament."
    And it goes on to say in Sub-section (1):—
    "He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill."
    It further says in Sub-section (2):—
    "He shall, if so directed by His Majesty, postpone the assent of His Majesty to any such Bill presented to him for assent for such period as His Majesty may direct."
    What are the instructions contemplated in Clause 1. One would have thought that the only instructions that could reach the Lord Lieutenant from the King would be to assent, refuse his assent, or postpone the consideration of the Bill. All these things are specifically enumerated in other parts of the Clause, and if that is what Sub-section (2) means, then it is surplusage
    318
    from beginning to end. I hope Ave shall hear from some Member of the Government what they really propose as instructions under Section 1, which obviously are not instructions at all. I can only suppose what is intended is that there shall be some instructions given to-the Lord Lieutenant to assent upon terms which, I presume, will include some alteration in the Bill. I think attention ought to-be called to this matter. I want to suggest to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that, if he really wants this Bill to work smoothly, he would do well to accept the suggestion contained in the Amendment. If you provide as part of this Bill creating a Home Rule Parliament that every Bill which is passed by the Irish Houses of Parliament of necessity requires the assent of the King, then we understand it, and there can be no objection or grievance upon the-matter, but if on the other hand this Bill remains in its present form without this Amendment, you have this condition of things. The Lord Lieutenant who, I suppose, will act upon the advice of the Irish Executive, is in doubt whether he shall give his assent or not to a Bill. Automatically he does not require the consent of the King, and all of a sudden the British Government comes down and interferes with the passing of the Irish Bill. The Bill as it stands at present does not provide that the Irish Parliament would of necessary require the consent of the King, because the consent of the Lord Lieutenant; would suffice. If the consent of the Lord Lieutenant be considered sufficient, then you have an interference by the English Government of the day which I can well believe would create irritation, and by accepting this Amendment you could not have such a possibility. Let me point out to the Committee the sort of questions I suggest are likely to arise. Under Section 41 of this Bill, Sub-section (1), it is provided that if an Irish Act of Parliament is passed which contravenes an Eng-list Act of Parliament dealing with Ireland, that Act is ipso facto void. It provides that:
    "The Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision-of this Act (except as is specially provided by this Act), or of any Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this Act and extending to Ireland, although that provision deals with a matter with respect to which the Irish Parliament have powers to make laws."

    319
    It goes on to provide in Sub-section (2) that—
    "Where any Act of the Irish Parliament deals with any matter with respect to which the Irish Parliament have power to make laws which is dealt with by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the passing of this Act and extending to Ireland, the Act of the Irish Parliament shall be read subject to the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and so far as it is repugnant to that Act, but no further, shall be void."
    If the Irish Parliament passes a Bill which is inconsistent with an English Bill, that Act is void. Consider the condition of things which will arise. Suppose the Irish Parliament passes an Act which the Government of the day contend entails no contravention of an English Act of Parliament, but the Opposition says that it does, it is a question for somebody to determine whether the Irish Act does or does not contravene the English Act, because if it does it is void. The Opposition take one view and the Government in Ireland take another view, and who is to decide. I do not look forward with a great amount of satisfaction to the inevitable debate that would follow in this House. The Irish Government of the day have got to decide whether or not the Irish Act of Parliament contravenes an English Act. One can foresee what will inevitably happen. The question would come up for discussion in this House, and you would find yourselves here discussing all over again the very questions that had been discussed in the Irish House of Commons. We are told that this is a Bill designed to remove the discussion of Irish affairs from this House, and entrust them to the Irish Parliament. That is the sort of question that would come up for consideration in this House. The question which would be considered here in regard to the two Acts of Parliament would be whether the Irish one contravened the English one. What a field day it would be here for the Attorney-General and the ex-Attorney-General. It would probably mean many field nights and when the Closure came and the discussion was brought to its inevitable conclusion this House would be left with the inevitable task of deciding whether one Act of Parliament did or did not contravene the other.
    Did any human being ever hear of such a way of determining an Act of Parliament,
    320
    and yet such a thing is inevitable under this Bill. I could imagine the Chief Secretary saying, under Section 29: That is a question which will be referred for determination to the Privy Council; but that is not so. The questions dealt with under that Section are those which arise when the Irish Parliament is alleged to have exceeded the powers given to it by the Constitution. But that is not such a question as I am considering now. The question I am surmising is whether or not a particular Act of Parliament which comes within the powers of this Bill does or does not contravene an English Act of Parliament. What Section 29 deals with is cases where the Irish Parliament exceeds the powers given to it by the Constitution, but in the case I have put they would not be exceeding the powers of the Constitution, but it would be alleged that the Act was void because it was a contravention of an English Act of Parliament. I do not pay much attention to the analogies which have been so often drawn between this Bill and the Colonial Legislatures, because the like of this Irish Bill was never dreamt of in heaven or earth. It is unlike any Colonial Bill of any sort or kind. This is a Bill which creates a Parliament with power to impose taxes which it cannot collect, to create laws which have to be enforced by a body of men paid and controlled by someone else; which has no power to regulate the external trade of this country, and on the other hand an Act of Parliament which retains not only control of the post office arrangements, the responsibility being borne by somebody else, and forty-two Members of the British Parliament—
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss all the Clauses of the Bill on this Amendment. I know I said I would allow a wide discussion. This Amendment seemed to cover most of the other Amendments, but the hon. Member must not discuss all the Clauses of the Bill.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I was dealing with the analogy which has been drawn between these proposals and the Colonial Parliaments. If you say I am out of order I will not pursue that argument. I want to point out that if this is really an honest attempt on the part of the Government to create safeguards you have in this Amendment a perfectly simple way of achieving that end and nothing could be simpler. Here you have a simple proviso that whenever an Act of Parliament has been

    321
    passed in the subordinate legislature, before the Lord Lieutenant gives his assent, it has to come before the King which means the advisers for the day in this House of the King, and so you have automatically perfect control over every Act of Parliament passed by the Irish Parliament. This Amendment would give you one simple effective safeguard, and if it is put in the Bill no one can then complain, because it will be a safeguard which will be always operative, and if the Irish Parliament fulfils your expectations you will not need to put this proviso into operation. If on the other hand apprehensions were felt, this Amendment will give you a proper precaution against such an abuse of power as we have heard threatened. I hope the Government will seize this opportunity of showing that they are not doing what we suggest they are doing, that is trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds and not putting safeguards in this Bill which they know are quite ineffective, and therefore will be satisfactory to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. On the contrary, if you are honest in your desire to create a really subordinate Parliament leaving the English Parliament to have an effective control, a simple way of accomplishing this is by accepting the Amendment now before the Committee, and on those grounds I trust that this Amendment will be accepted.
    7.0 P.M.
    Captain CRAIG: The Prime Minister said he stood where he stood in 1886 and 1893 with regard to this matter, and the lion, and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) quoted a speech of Parnell, and said he also stood where Parnell stood in 1886 and 1893, but neither of them went so far as to admit that if their aspirations of those days had succeeded Ireland to-day would be a bankrupt country. They produced these arguments against accepting this Amendment, but they did not point out that if those arguments had been acted upon then they would have left my country bankrupt, shorn of all the good which has been done in the intervening years. The Prime Minister said if there was pedantry on the one hand and irreconcilability on the other, of course it would be impossible to hope that even this measure would be a success. You have pedantry on the one hand and irreconcilability on the other, and the Prime Minister therefore is condemned out of his own mouth so far as
    322
    the practicable working of this measure is concerned. There was a little weakness in the argument of the learned Attorney-General. I challenged him to resign his seat on this very point and see whether the country supported him in his views. I would myself be very glad to meet him down in Reading and fight him on this issue of Home Rule. The Attorney-General followed the Prime Minister with a very clever but unconvincing speech with regard to the Colonial cases, but over and over again he refused to come to the real issue raised by this Amendment.
    If the Irish Parliament run counter to this House, how is this House to meet that case in the event of a resignation taking place in Ireland? The analogy of Natal was put to every speaker on the Treasury Bench, but they all run away from that concrete case. This Government said murder was being done, and it must stop. How did they stop it? They sent out telegrams, and it is common knowledge all the Colonies wired, with the result that the mere threat of resignation was enough to make the present Government haul down their colours. That is the whole argument we wish to press home to this hard-hearted Government. The Prime Minister refused to meet the case at all, and the Attorney-General shuffled round it in a clever manner. Perhaps the Chief Secretary or the Solicitor-General will tell us in some simple language how they intend to meet, the case we loyalists in Ireland fear most of all under this Bill. We, in fact, regard this particular Amendment as the kernel of the whole Bill. The Government say it is a Parliament subordinate to the Imperial Parliament, but, whenever it is pressed home to them, they cannot tell us how it is subordinate to this Parliament or how this Parliament is to have the slightest Veto or control over the doings of the Irish Parliament. They have absolutely failed to answer that concrete question. The way the Amendment is worded is a mere detail. I am not learned in the law, and I do not know the best way to carry out the proposition, which is to keep in the hands of the Imperial Parliament absolute control over every class of legislation proposed in the Irish Parliament, so that the loyal minority in Ireland will feel they have some real safeguard, not against any fresh terrorism, but against the continuance of that system of leagues and terrorism which exists to-day.

    323
    The Prime Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and hon. Members opposite, all come down to this House and adopt an attitude as if they lived in the shadowy past a couple of hundred years ago and were quite cut off from all the speeches that have been quoted in the last few weeks, and as though we were digging them up in order to reproach and vilify our fellow countrymen. Nothing is more painful to me individually, and I am sure to every one of my colleagues, than to have to call attention, as we have been compelled to do, to certain matters with regard to the South and West of Ireland. We shall continue to do so while the necessity lies so nearly before us. The Nationalist party are desirous of getting this Bill through as quietly as possible, and the arguments they use are entirely different from that which is customary, not only in America, but in Ireland itself. When it comes to the question of safeguards, you find the hon. and learned Member for Waterford striving to impress the House with the value of the safeguards and of their reiterated promises, which neither he nor any one of his party could possibly hope to fulfil, while outside Nationalist Members say these safeguards are not worth the paper on which they are written, and that avowed out and out separatists in Ireland or America need not be afraid because a coach and four could be driven through any Home Rule Bill the present Government could make out. I hope the Committee will cast on one side these modern deathbed repentances of all the Irish Nationalist Members.
    We are not dealing with the distant past, but with the present, and what we are most afraid of, is not the legislation that might be carried under Home Rule, but the administration when the whole of these matters are in the hands of the Nationalist party. The Attorney-General actually went so far as to put words into the mouth of my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson). What my right hon. and learned Friend said—and I agree with him—was that the Nationalist party would find it to their interest to behave outwardly very well indeed towards England and the loyal minority in Ireland until they had got all the power they saw possible into their own hands. I agree they would be extremely foolish and far more stupid than anybody here would imagine them if they were to immediately burst out into
    324
    Acts of Parliament to crush in any way the minority in Ireland. They have a far more powerful method of terrorising the minority in Ireland and of exercising their will than through Acts of Parliament, and that is by those underhand, mean leagues which exist at present and which are entirely run by hon. Members representing Nationalist Constituencies.
    The ramifications of the Ancient Order of Hibernians are already sufficient to run Ireland without an Irish Parliament, and if the Chief Secretary would only tell us what he knows about these inner workings in Ireland, I am sure he could give us four volumes as large as the life of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and far more interesting to read. The truth is the wording of a Section or the acceptance or the refusal of an Amendment does not get down to the real sincere feeling of apprehension that exists under any form of Home Rule. We do not suggest they are going to order all our heads to be cut off or that they are going to do something outrageous in the way of immediate legislation, but history has taught us they are not fit to rule themselves. All their local government—their county councils, their Poor Law guardians, and all those other bodies—have been an absolute failure, leading in many instances to bankruptcy. These safeguards are inserted not because they are of the slightest value, but simply and solely that they may act as a stalking horse in the country. They are inserted in order that hon. Members may go on to British platforms, and when the minority in Ireland are mentioned, say, "Why our Bill is bristling with safeguards!"
    Mr. FLAVIN: "Hear, hear."
    Captain CRAIG: Yes, and the hon. Member would be the very first to go over to Ireland and in his own constituency claim their hearty support for the Bill because the safeguards in it were only "window dressing," and they would be able to carry anything they wanted once they got their Parliament established in Dublin. There is not a single Nationalist Member who will deny that what I have said is perfectly true. It is because we know it is true, and because we know that the people of Ireland most concerned in this matter are behind us in this struggle, because we know that they are not to be humbugged and tricked by these lawyers' niceties as to safeguards, that I heartily support the Amendment, if only that I

    325
    may have one more chance of voting against the Government.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. and gallant Member will probably have many opportunities of gratifying his desire to vote against His Majesty's Government.
    Captain CRAIG: I only wish we could turn you out.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That, no doubt, is the feeling entertained by many Gentlemen sitting on the same bench. The speech which the hon. and gallant Member has made hardly contributes to the discussion of this particular Amendment. I should like to say a word or two on the Amendment in reply to the hon. and learned Member for the Rassetlaw Division of Nottingham (Mr. Hume-Williams). The hon. and learned Member appears to feel that if this Amendment were passed it would prove a real safeguard against certain dangers which he contemplates. But the Clause itself relates simply to the Veto on Bills. It interposes something which prevents a Bill becoming law. The Irish Houses of Parliament may present a Bill which, but for the Veto, would become law, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out that this Amendment will not at all have the effect suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It will not affect Bills which cannot become law, and consequently we are not dealing with Bills which infringe or touch upon any subjects which are made ultra vires by Clause 2, nor are we dealing with any Bills or any Clauses of a Bill which would by any chance, directly or indirectly, establish religion or prohibit or restrict the free exercise of religion or interpose any disability or disadvantage on account of religious beliefs, and so on. Therefore anything under Clause 2, or which is prohibited under Clause 3, is outside the scope of this Clause altogether. We are only dealing with Bills which do not touch upon Clause 2, or outrage any of the principles established by Clause 3. We are not dealing with Bills of an outrageous or highly controversial character, neither are we dealing with acts of administration. Acts of administration may be more likely to be tyrannous than legislation, but they do not come under this particular Clause, which only relates to the Veto the Lord Lieutenant is going to give on advice or instructions. We cannot go outside that; we must therefore limit our observations to it.
    326
    I do not suppose that the class of Bill to which this Veto applies can be of a particularly sensational or highly controversial character; it is not that sort of Bill which is contemplated by this Clause. What we have inserted in this measure, and what we find inserted in it, is the reservation of the right to exercise this Veto. We have been asked, "What class of Bill have you in your mind?" I do not think it is possible for any person to say what class of Bill they have in their mind. But for Clause 2 or Clause 3 it would be easy to say we have in mind Bills which affect civil and religious liberty or infringe on the reserved services, or which would affect all sorts of Imperial matters which have not been delegated to this Parliament at all- But having regard to the presence of Clauses 2 and 3, it is impossible to say precisely what kind of Bill anybody would have in his mind. It is, nevertheless, a probability that a Bill might contain matter which, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, it ought not to contain, and upon which, therefore, it would advise the Lord Lieutenant, as the executive officer of the Crown, to Veto, or, as Subsection (2) provides, to direct that it be postponed in order to gain time for further consideration.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the instructions contemplated in Section 1, not what are the Bills, but what are the instructions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Let me, in order to show how this thing presents itself to my mind, give this quotation from the book of Sir Henry Jenkyns upon "British Rule and Jurisdiction Beyond the Seas." There it is laid down, in dealing with the Government's Veto, that:—
    "He may withhold His Majesty's assent, i.e., Veto the Bill in His Majesty's name. The Bill is then as absolutely lost as would be a Bill of the Imperial Parliament were the Crown to exercise its obsolete power of Veto over Imperial legislation. The Governor's Veto is exercised like his power of reservation, in accordance with instructions from home. These instructions may be in general terms or in reference to a particular measure; they may owe their origin to the forethought and experience of the Colonial Office, or they may be in answer to a request of the Governor for advice in view of apprehended damage to Imperial interests. Failing such instructions, the Governor of a self-governing olony now exercises his Veto only on the advice of his Ministers, and not according to his own personal discretion."
    I say with regard to these instructions, which may be either in general terms or in reference to a particular measure, that they owe their origin to the experience to which

    327
    reference has been made. The hon. Gentleman assumes that this new Irish Parliament will very soon give rise to novel experience. I do not anticipate that, nor indeed do I think it is likely to arise in connection with the legislative action of the Irish Parliament. In fact, it has been suggested that for a long time these very clever, though devilish, persons will be most astute in avoiding anything in the nature of legislation which would be startling to British or Imperial ideas, and that they will confine their fraudulent treatment of Catholics and others to acts of administration. This Clause deals only with Bills. I do not think, therefore, we shall have very novel experiences in legislation on the part of the Irish Parliament. If we do, Ministers of the Crown responsible in the matter will gain experience which may induce them to give general instructions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know whether before the appointed day Ministers of the Crown will take upon themselves to deliver to the Lord Lieutenant a code of rules stating beforehand what possible Bills of the Irish Legislature he is to Veto, I say quite frankly that we have no such idea in our mind. They will have to be guided by the course of events, which has a remarkable habit of frustrating the ideas, of frustrating sometimes the hopes, and sometimes the fears which the course of events proves to be entirely unfounded.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Can the Lord Lieutenant suggest Amendments?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Of course he can suggest Amendments to his own Irish Ministers.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: After the Bill has been passed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not say that Suppose he reserves a Bill. Suppose he postpones a Bill, is it not conceivable that rational men would ascertain what it was that stood in the way and what was the obstacle to the Royal Assent being given to the measure; and would not they try to get over the difficulty' just as they did in the case pointed out by the Prime Minister, which, after all, was a perfectly genuine case, the Veto having been used against, the local Legislature on matters which deeply affected it? It was said that the local Legislature eventually got over the difficulty because the matters to which objection was taken were altered, and in that way an adjustment was arrived at.
    328
    That was an instance of the use of the Veto; it enables the interchange of ideas and opinions, and, although it may take in some eases four or five years, it eventually results in the parties coming to an agreement. We have been confronted with the difficulty of a deadlock.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite have put with considerable force the objections with regard to circumstances that may give rise to a deadlock. They say if the Irish Parliament were bent on passing a particular measure, if the whole Irish Parliament were bent upon that, they would send it along with other measures to the Imperial Government for its opinion; and then it is suggested that if the Lord Lieutenant exercises his Veto there would be deadlock, with the result that every Bill, good, bad, or indifferent, important or unimportant, would be at a standstill. But the Prime Minister pointed out, in the first place, that this Clause would not apply, because a measure of the kind suggested could not become law. Again, it is said that if the Government resigned nobody else would be found to form a Government, and that therefore a dissolution would be no good. It is further said that there is no opinion in Ireland, no real opinion, because everybody votes by machine, and consequently the majority would be returned just the same as before, and the deadlock would continue, and there would be no way of getting out of it. Here in tins country the Referendum has been suggested. A good many people are in favour of the Referendum, and no doubt it is, in a sense, a way out of a deadlock. A dissolution in Ireland would be a Referendum, but it is suggested that thus to take the opinion of the country on the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant would have no effect, because everybody would know beforehand what the answer of Ireland would be. Consequently the deadlock would continue, but to my mind this Amendment docs not remove that difficulty; it does not deprive the argument of its force.
    The Natal case has been quoted, but it does not come within this particular Clause at all, and I would say that the difference between the Natal case, to which reference has been made, and the case of Ireland seems to be enormous. Hardly anybody in this country knew or took the least interest in the particular acts of injustice, which excited some indignation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

    329
    I am bound to say I have asked a good many people in the course of the last week or two what they remembered about the case and they did not give me any clear account about it at all. This I contend, and I doubt very much whether anybody will controvert it, that there will be far more interest excited amongst the Protestants of this country by any act of gross intolerable administrative injustice to their fellow religionists across the St. George's Channel than there would be in the case of persons in Natal. I do not in any way wish to limit sympathy by mileage, but I am certain of this, that it would be ridiculous to say that people in England, Scotland, and Wales will not watch with indignant interest what appears to be a shocking violation of justice, or to imagine that the Irish Parliament under this Bill can hold itself independent of and defy the opinion of this country in the same way as the Natal Parliament was able to do. That would be to strain one's capacity of belief.
    I think public opinion in this country will operate far more readily and with greater influence and greater accuracy. The people will know the merits of the case and form their judgment upon it, and any Irish Parliament would find that it had a great body of feeling to deal with which it would not be able to disregard. The Natal case was not a case of legislative enactment, but, I am told, an extreme administrative injustice. I feel perfectly confident myself that any such act which violated the principles of civil and religious liberty, were it ever to be attempted by an Irish Administration, would be visited by a strong body of public opinion. So far as this particular Clause is concerned, it follows every kind of precedent and is absolutely essential in a Bill of this kind, which maintains Imperial control over the Trish Parliament's Bills. A Veto of this kind is necessary, and the Veto we have inserted meets all the necessities of the case.
    Mr. HEWINS: I do not think the Chief Secretary has added anything at all to the case made by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. His case is this: He says, "Assuming you are going to have Home Rule, the Bill we have now before us is about as perfect a Bill as I can imagine, and in Clauses 2 and 3 the legislative powers of the Irish Parliament are sufficiently defined, and if any question of difficulty arises between the Imperial Par-
    330
    liament and the Irish Parliament afterwards, the experience we have had in our self-governing Colonies leads us to suppose that the Veto we suggest will be ample to meet the case." That argument breaks down at every point. You cannot assume that Home Rule is to be granted before you have decided whether the powers you propose to confer on the Irish Parliament are defensible in themselves. In the second place, Clauses 2 and 3 are not a watertight division of subjects which the Irish Parliament may not deal with; and, in the third place, the examples which the Prime Minister and subsequent speakers have given as to the working of the Veto relations between the self-governing Dominions and this country do not prove the case.
    I will take a case, not of dramatic conflict between the authorities here and the authorities in the self-governing Dominions, but a case of a mere difference of view and its profound influence upon the relations between this country and the Empire. I will take a ease which the Chief Secretary well knows, I mean the navigation legislation of the Australian Commonwealth, which was considered ultra virus, and is at the present time suspended. What was the effect of that? There was no quarrel, no conflict. The Act is suspended; but there you have it as a record of the aspirations, wishes, and desires of the Australian Commonwealth, and, on the other hand, you have the Imperial power. The effect of the passing of that Act was that at the Imperial Conference an important resolution was introduced by Mr. Fisher, asking for the modification of our treaty relations, and this Government, of which the Chief Secretary is a Member, is now actually engaged in obedience to that in pulling those treaties to pieces.
    If you can have a case like that, affecting the whole situation of the Empire, arising when there is a mere difference of view which is expressed and contained in an Act which is ultra vires and suspended and where there is no conflict, how great are going to be the results of a difference of view which amounts to a conflict, and which goes to the root of the relations of the populations here and in Ireland. Take the other point raised by the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister, that Clause 2 states definitely and succinctly the subjects upon which the Irish Parliament may not legislate. They say it is the simplest, thing in the world, and that no difficulty will arise. Is it so simple? I will give the

    331
    right hon. Gentleman a case which he gave to me some time ago in reply to a question, a case of a service which is reserved, but which is not in the Bill at all. He says it is reserved because of the implications of something else which is in the Bill. That is the case of the Irish fisheries. Hon. Members below the Gangway are greatly interested in Irish fisheries. Because Irish fisheries are governed by an Act of Parliament which was passed to carry out regualtions drawn up by a body of Commissioners, who were appointed years and years ago to carry into effect a treaty with France, therefore Irish fisheries are reserved. I give that case because the Chief Secretary knows it perfectly well. There are countless other instances of services which will be found to be reserved on inquiry, and upon which the Lord Lieutenant and the Cabinet here cannot come to a decision unless they go carefully into the matter and obtain legal assistance. What provision is there in the Bill for investigating these cases, and saying whether or not Ireland shall have a special Act of Parliament? I do not see any provision in the Bill for dealing with cases of that kind, which are likely to arise every month.
    I have given the case of a reserved service which is not specifically mentioned. I will give the case of a service which is reserved, but where, as a matter of fact, other provisions of the Bill practically take away that reservation. The Chief Secretary may point to Clause 2, and say it is stated there that the Irish Parliament may not make laws in regard to treaties. I suppose it is said that treaties are entirely removed from the purview of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Executive, but are they? Clause 2 also contains a provision giving the Irish Parliament very large powers of internal taxation and powers of differentiation; and, as everybody knows who has read a commercial treaty, it is a very simple thing indeed to neutralise the effect of the treaty by internal legislation, which is fully within the competence of the Irish Parliament. Supposing they pass a Bill affecting the taxation of my hon. Friends in Ulster. Who is to say it contravenes the treaty? Who is to determine that point? It may alter the whole position, let us say, with regard to which sugar is imported into Ireland. It is purely an internal matter, and entirely within the competence of the Irish Parliament, and yet it does modify a treaty. Is that to be ruled out of the Veto or not? Who Is to decide the point?
    332
    This conflict is going to turn up at every point, and, as the Chief Secretary knows, you cannot draw a hard-and-fast line between a body of subjects solely concerned with its external affairs, on the one hand, and its internal affairs, on the other hand. They act and react upon each other at every point. The Chief Secretary sets up no body of advisers to tell the Lord Lieutenant whether or not he may give his assent to a particular Bill passed by the Irish Parliament. Where is the machinery? I would give all the poetry we have heard from the Front Bench this afternoon for five minutes of real constitutional discussion. We do not know where we are. I have said nothing as to how the Executive may range over a whole variety of subjects and modify treaties. There is no guarantee against that in this particular Clause. I have shown good reason for saying that under the Bill, after taking into full account all the reservations in Clause 2, the Irish Parliament may, in the exercise of powers which are within its competence, modify a situation which the Imperial Government is bound to take account of, but which it cannot act upon owing to the difficulties created by the Bill itself.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether the hon. Member heard the Attorney-General state that it was part of his duty to consider Bills coming from the Colonies in order to ascertain whether they did or did not infringe any particular treaty, and in the same way it is the duty of the Law Officers, if their attention is called to it, as I have no doubt it will be, to consider the Bills passed in the Irish Parliament with a view to considering whether the Lord Lieutenant ought to exercise his Veto because they do violate treaties. You do not want machinery for that.
    Mr. HEWINS: If the Chief Secretary will allow me to say so, he cannot point to any self-governing Colony or Dominion which has the financial powers given under this Bill. What country, what Colony, what local governing body, what Imperial body, ever tried to regulate finance by an abstract principle like that contained in the system of drawbacks. I cannot under the rules of Order go into all the financial absurdities, but there is no Dominion in the British Empire which has financial powers defined in at all the same way as these are. I am not considering what may or may not take place under a

    333
    federal Power, such as America or Germany, or what may or may not take place in a British Colony or Dominion; I am considering what the Irish Government-can do under this particular Bill, and I want to know what guarantee or safeguard you have. That difficulty is not overcome by anything the Chief Secretary has explained. If these difficulties can be overcome, do not reply to me by saying that the Attorney-General said this or that about something that does not occur.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is the same thing.
    Mr. HEWINS: The same thing?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, the same class of thing.
    Mr. HEWINS: Oh, the same class of thing. If it is the same thing, why do the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary so object to discussing Ireland and Irish conditions and circumstances. Here is the Bill. Here is Ireland. Here are the cases which will actually arise. Let us have an answer to the specific request that we make. I feel certain that the more carefully we go into this Bill—it is greatly to be regretted that we have not had an ample opportunity for the discussion of Clause 2, on which so many of these important questions might be properly raised—the more we see that this Clause cannot operate because of the inconsistencies between it and the Clauses we have already passed.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The Chief Secretary made one statement which caused me considerable surprise. He said the Veto of the Lord Lieutenant on legislation was never to be exercised on laws which were passed by the Irish Government in excess of their powers—in other words, on laws which contravene the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. The right hon. Gentleman is under an entire misapprehension, because these laws will be passed by the Irish Parliament, or at any rate may be, and they will go to the Lord Lieutenant for the Royal sanction. I understand the Chief Secretary to say that the Veto of the Lord Lieutenant in such a case will not be exercised. But I ask why not? If it is not exercised, the Bill will become law, and it will be perfectly valid until some Court of Law says it is bad. Therefore, we have this extraordinary situation, which certainly is a novelty, that you have the Irish Parliament passing a Bill through both Houses and sending it up to
    334
    the Lord Lieutenant to be assented to, and the Chief Secretary says the Lord Lieutenant is not to exercise the Veto and therefore he must assent to it, and therefore the Bill, which is on this hypothesis beyond the power of the Irish Parliament is to become law and will be good until the Privy Council sets it aside. May I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider that position, and to say that where a Bill—I am not talking about a Bill as to which there might be some nice constitutional question—but where a Bill which it is plainly beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament to pass into law is sent up to the Lord Lieutenant for the Royal Assent, may I ask him to say that the Lord Lieutenant will have power to Veto it? It seems to me that is only reasonable. But supposing he does Veto it, under whose advice is he to do it? Is he to be asked to act on his own responsibility, or is he to have an adviser always at his hand, and, if so, who is the adviser to be unless the Irish Ministers? In a case like that the Irish Ministers are absolutely worthless as advisers. Of course if they advise the Irish Parliament to pass this Bill they are not going to advise the Lord Lieutenant that it is void. Therefore the Irish officers are useless. Then are we to leave the Lord Lieutenant entirely to his own responsibility?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Ho can take advice for himself or he will get it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: And how is he to know where he is to go for advice. He is left in this difficulty. He will not be a lawyer, I suppose, he will not even be a constitutional lawyer, whatever that may be, and therefore you put this unfortunate man, who has already, Heaven knows, difficulties enough, with two masters to serve—you leave him to his own responsibility to say whether or not he shall give the Royal Assent to Bills which exceed the powers of the Irish Government. That difficulty might be got over if this Amendment were accepted, because then you would have automatically all Bills passed by the Irish Parliament sent over to the English Ministers, and they would give instructions to the Lord Lieutenant whether they should receive the Royal Assent or not. Then let us take the Chief Secretary's own view that this Veto is to apply merely to matters which are within the legislative competence of the Irish Parliament. Again, I ask, supposing the Irish Ministers ask him to pass a law and

    335
    he has some doubt in his own mind, is he again, to act on his own responsibility? The difficulty can only be got over by stating in the Bill that in all these cases he is to apply to the English Ministers for instructions.
    It has been pointed out that cases will I arise when the Veto ought to be exercised, and that there are difficulties in the Lord Lieutenants exercising the Veto, and that, at any rate, this Amendment affords a remedy for some of these difficulties. What is the answer of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General? Perhaps I ought to say, What is the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman Mr. Redmond? He declines to admit the existence of a case at all where the Veto would be necessary. He says you can only imagine such a case if we are all criminals or fools, and, of course, the Attorney-General submissively adopts his argument and says the same thing. Without imputing either criminality or folly to the Irish Parliament, many cases must arise, upon the admission of the Prime Minister himself, where the Veto ought to be exercised. If it is never to be exercised, what is the meaning of all the flaunting in the country of this Veto as a great safeguard against oppression? Have we not heard already, on platforms innumerable, that no oppression of minorities can occur because there is this Veto, exercisable on the advice of English Ministers, which will prevent the passing into law of any such legislation?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Carson said that to-day.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I see the hon. Member is one of those who use that argument.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Carson said that.
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have two speakers at the same time.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I gather that the hon. Member approves of the argument that cases may arise when the Veto ought to be exercised. Not only is that said on the platforms by English Radicals, but that very argument has been used in the House by the Prime Minister himself, and used when he introduced this Bill. He said, in effect, that certain limitations and powers of the Irish Parliament have been omitted from this Bill which were contained in the Bill of 1893, and he justified these omissions mainly by this argument, that the safeguards were to be found in the Veto
    336
    and in the power of overriding legislation. I should like to refer to two or three words which he used in his speech in 1893. He said the Bill of 1893 contained certain limitations which were not embodied in the present Bill. Amongst those limitations, as we all know, is that very important limitation which we asked the Prime Minister the other day to introduce in this Bill preventing the Irish Parliament from depriving any man of his life, property, or liberty, without due process of law. The Government have expressly refused to put that provision in this Bill, because the Prime Minister told us, in this-speech from which I am quoting
    "these dangers are provided against by the other safeguards in the Bill."
    Then he went on to enumerate those safeguards, and lie said they were, first, the Veto, and, secondly, the power of overriding legislation which is left to this Parliament, and he said:—
    "We reserve completely unimpaired, subject to the responsibility of the Executive here and the Imperial Parliament here, the power of Vetoing or of postponing any legislation which the Irish Parliament may pass."
    So that the Veto there was not put on one side as though it could never arise. It was expressly referred to as a valuable safeguard against the oppression of the minority.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members wore not present; House counted and forty Members being found present,
    Mr. BUTCHER: If the Prime Minister was really sincere in making this Veto effective, what possible objection is there to accepting this Amendment and ensuring that Bills passed by the Irish Parliament are brought over here for the consideration of some English Minister? I am aware that there is a difficulty which arises from the attitude which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) adopted on the First Reading of this Bill. He said, true, you have the Veto in this Bill and you have the power of the English-Parliament to pass overriding legislation, but he went on to say that, in his view, that Veto should never be exercised, and overriding legislation should never be passed except in the same way as the Veto is exercised and overriding legislation passed in the case of our self-governing Colonies, and he insisted that the Veto should never be passed on Irish legislation, which is within the

    337
    competence of the Irish Parliament to pass unless in such cases as it would be exercised in the case of the self-governing Dominions. That means that the Veto would not be exercised at all, because we know in the case of the self-governing Dominions, when they are legislating on matters within their admitted competence, the Veto is never exercised. Does the Chief Secretary dispute that proposition? Whatever was done in times past, at the present time it cannot be exercised.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not believe it cannot, but it will only be used in very grave cases indeed.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Such grave cases cannot arise. No case can arise in which the Veto would be exercised, and, if the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, let me read him the views of Professor Dicey, whose authority he will accept. He says:—
    "The Imperial Parliament, though for Imperial purposes it may retain an undefined supremacy throughout the British Empire, has, as regards the self-governing Colonies, renounced, for all other than Imperial purposes. Executive and Legislative functions."
    In other words, when the Dominion Parliaments are legislating within their own competence, no matter what the legislation is, whether grave or not, I say this Government will not interfere to Veto that legislation. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) says that the Veto must not be exercised except as in the case of the Dominions, in other words, it must not be exercised at all. Therefore we are reduced to this, either that the view of the hon. and learned Member is to prevail that the Veto is not to be exercised at all, or that the Government might have the courage of their convictions, and for once in their existence go contrary to the advice or instructions of the hon. and learned Member. Let them take their courage in their hands, and possibly he will give them leave to continue a little longer in office. Probably he might waive his supremacy in this case and allow them to exercise a little of their own judgment in this matter. Let me suggest to the Chief Secretary that it might be worth trying. Let him do what admittedly, according to the Prime Minister, is right, namely, make the Veto effective by accepting the Amendment, and he will prove two things. He will prove in the first place that he is sincerely anxious to give effect to the Veto which the Prime Minister admits to be necessary, and secondly he will prove for the first time I am bound to say
    338
    in connection with this Bill, or for a long time past, that he has a mind of his own, and that he is not willing to submit constantly to the servitude under which he labours of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry, South): I should certainly like to have some information on one or two points. I listened to the Chief Secretary very attentively, and so far as I could gather there are no Bills to which this Clause will apply at all, because, as I understood him, it would not apply to those things in regard to which the Parliament in Dublin is to be prevented from dealing under Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman cannot conceive of this new Parliament doing anything which would call into existence or bring into force the power which is given to the Lord Lieutenant by this Clause. He said in conjunction with that that what is contained in this Clause was according to precedent. He said it was essential. According to his own argument, for what is it essential? If it is essential, it must be for some purpose. The purpose, as he points out, cannot be (he giving of assent to any Pill with which the Irish Parliament cannot deal. Suppose they attempt to deal with something within their powers—suppose they attempt to deal with a mode of taxation which would be unfair to certain parts of Ireland, and certainly unfair to certain people in Ireland. That could be done. I could point out a mode of taxation which would never take a penny out of a Nationalist's pocket, and which would raise considerable revenue. The Nationalists in Ireland do not possess any of the industries which have created any of the commercial prosperity of the country. You could pass an Act of Parliament imposing a tax upon certain classes of machinery, or certain classes of industry connected with the real prosperity of the country, and no Nationalist would have to pay a penny. Is that not a matter in regard to which there should be some power vested in somebody to prevent it becoming law? The Lord Lieutenant, as I understand, is to i have power to give or withhold his assent. Is that to be according to his own opinion, his own unaided judgment. Is he to have no advice, or is no other person or body to be consulted as to what he is to do? If the Amendment is accepted, you will have in any case the necessity of reference to His Majesty, and we may take it that would be His Majesty's Government in this country.

    339
    There is no other way I can see, and certainly no other way provided by this Clause whereby His Majesty's Government can have any official knowledge of what is taking place in Ireland. They may read it in the newspapers, as any other Member of the community may do, but there is no provision in this or any other Clause for their having official information as to what the Irish Parliament is doing. This Amendment would ensure that they should have official and direct information as to the legislation which the Irish Parliament was attempting, and they could advise the Lord Lieutenant to give or withhold his assent to that intended legislation. The Chief Secretary says this is essential. There are people in Ireland, notwithstanding all the great trust of the present Government, and notwithstanding all the credulity of the Prime Minister, who have profound distrust of the Parliament you are going to establish in that country. If it is essential to have some provision of this kind in the Bill, let it be real. Let it not be an imaginary and worthless provision which can effect no good or useful purpose. We say that an Amendment of this kind would, at all events, give an opportunity to the Government to examine into the nature and effect of the legislation which has passed the two Houses, and has not yet received the necessary assent to make it law. It is said that if any injustice is done to Ireland, it will at once excite agitation in England. That may or may not be, but that is not the way to leave the question. It should not be left for popular opinion to operate in this country upon His Majesty's Government. They should have direct and immediate information as to what is proposed to be done. The Chief Secretary says that this Amendment will not get rid of the deadlock which has been spoken of. It might not, but, at all events, it would place clearly on the face of the Bill, that Bills which have passed both Houses of Legislature, in Ireland are not thereby to become law without the approval of His Majesty's Government, and without the Government consulting, perhaps, the Imperial Parliament with reference to the matter dealt with.
    That would to a large extent get rid of the necessity and occasion for deadlocks arising, because people who know beforehand what are the limits of their power are less likely to exceed those limits. For my part, I cannot understand why, if Clause 7 is inserted at all, there should not be an Amendment like this inserted also which
    340
    would give it some reality. We have heard a great deal about the position of our Colonies. Every man knows that the incident in Natal created a very great impression upon the people in these countries. I think there are very few men who read newspapers who were not greatly impressed by the want of power on the part of this Government to carry out what they thought was the wise and just opinion they had formed in regard to what had taken place in the Colonies. How are you to do it in Ireland if you once allow Bills which have passed the two Houses to receive the assent of the Lord Lieutenant without your having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them? How are you then to interfere? Surely the time to interfere is before they become law in Ireland. We take a very different view of the situation from that taken by the Government. The Government are never tired of telling the people of this country that they have not merely provided in their Bill the safeguards necessary for the people in Ireland who do not approve of this class of legislation, but that they are perfectly willing to insert any other reasonable safeguards. What is there unreasonable in the safeguard proposed by this Amendment? If there is the smallest reliance to be placed on the words of Ministers with reference to safeguards, or their willingness to accept safeguards, then the Government ought to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: The whole question involved in this matter depends on whether the supposed safeguards are of any practical value or not. If they are of no practical value, they should never be proposed. I listened carefully to the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon when he gave his reasons for stating that these safeguards are of real practical value. He divided his argument under two heads. One was that the case of Ireland was peculiar and therefore analogies could not give entire satisfaction. On the other hand, he gave as analogies some instances in support of his view. He no doubt searched with very great care to find analogous cases in our Colonies, and he gave two which struck me very much, namely, the Australian one and the British Columbia one. Both related to the immigration into these countries of coloured races, chiefly Mongolian. In both cases the Prime Minister unfortunately was not accurate in his facts, and he did not state the whole case as he should have done. I am addressing the Committee now from

    341
    personal knowledge, because I happen to know intimately about both cases. The Australian case occurred shortly before the Commonwealth was formed, and therefore it never came up as an issue at all, and could not be an issue, between the Federal power in the Colony and the province. It was an issue between the Imperial Government and the Colonies of Mew South Wales and New Zealand. Almost immediately there was a proposal for a Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, when established, passed the very enactment which the Colony of New South Wales originally wanted. In New Zealand, on the question of Mongolian immigration, they can pass laws making conditional the coming into the country of Chinese and Japanese. We will take the Canadian case. The British Columbian case was this: There was a large immigration of Japanese coming into the country. The Labour party—and in fact all parties on both sides of the House in British Columbia—strongly opposed that immigration unchecked. They passed an Act through the local House prohibiting all immigration of Japanese into the Colony, except under very stringent conditions. By the British North America Act there is a certain limited period of time within which the Federal Parliament allows or does not allow Acts of the Provincial Parliaments, and if they are not allowed within that period they lapse. That Act was not allowed, and what was the result? This is what the Prime Minister absolutely omitted. He did say that the Dominion Parliament disallowed the Act; he ought to have said they did not pass the Act, though that might be practically the same thing, but he also said that the British Columbian people acquiesced in that disallowance by the Dominion Parliament. That was absolutely incorrect.
    The hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who sits on the Radical Benches, happened to be in the British Columbian Parliament at the time, and I heard him say in the House that the British Columbian people would oppose to the last point this disallowance by the Dominion Parliament. Riots ensued, the Militia were called out, and for a fortnight the -whole country was in a state of turmoil. Then what happened was not the acquiescence, as the Prime Minister stated to-day, of British Columbia, but that the Japanese people of their own Motion, on receiving a letter from British Columbia, entered into an agreement,
    342
    which is in existence to-day, limiting the immigration of Japanese. That ended the matter. This was the case which the Prime Minister wished us to believe this afternoon was a case of acquiescence. Where was the acquiescence when rioting took place and the Militia had to stay out in camp for a fortnight to put it down and every man was up in arms against it? The Prime Minister, when stating matters of this kind, should be more careful than he has been to-day in his facts. It was the action of the Japanese people in agreeing to limited immigration of their countrymen which put an end to a state of things that had produced an absolute deadlock, and I say with all confident knowledge that if they had not entered into that agreement there would have been an armed conflict between the province of British Columbia and the Dominion. How can we found an argument on such a case as that to show that this Veto power in this Bill is of any value at all? In addition, you have other Colonies where these things have happened. There is the Natal case, which is absolutely unanswerable. What would have happened in British Columbia if the Japanese had not acquiesced in what the people wanted? If the British Columbian Government of that day resigned you could not have elected a Government in that Colony at that time. It would have been an absolute impossibility.
    I wish to urge on the Committee this proposition: We know that the Irish people have very strong opinions in whatever matters they take up, far stronger probably than any other people in our Empire. It is their nature. They take up a thing strongly and earnestly, with the desire to carry it through. Take the position of a Government, if this Bill became law, trying to enforce the so-called safeguards. Will any hon. Gentleman contend if the majority of the Irish people as represented by their Government are earnestly desirous to have a certain thing passed in their country and the Government here say, "You shall not pass it," that you could then get a Government in Ireland elected by the people to support this Parliament against their own Parliament? Of course you could not. That must be the inevitable result if this Bill ever becomes law. Then where are your safeguards? If you are to pass an Act and if you wish to make peace between the two countries, do not let these propositions for safeguards go out to our people when you

    343
    must know from all history, from your whole Empire and from your knowledge of the Irish people, that these safeguards are simply a sham and a fraud. Why not be honest and say, "We will trust the Irish people altogether, and we will not have these safeguards at all"? Is it fair to the people of our own country to go on platforms and tell them that we have given every safeguard they can possibly want? If you cannot support your safeguards by a better argument than those of the Prime Minister to-day; if you cannot give us instances where similar safeguards have been of value, then drop them, or accept the Amendment, and be just and fair to the people of this country, instead of perpetrating a sham and a fraud.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot understand the uncompromising attitude adopted by the Government whenever we put forward a reasonable Amendment. I should have thought that, knowing the extreme bitterness of feeling which this Bill has aroused in the country, they would have done their utmost to meet the Opposition even more than half-way. They expressed surprise at the anxiety of the Opposition in regard to the particular point which is raised by this Amendment. There is no reason for that surprise considering the number of speeches which have been made by hon. Members below the Gangway on this side and others, showing that they intend that the Veto—that is to say the Imperial supremacy—shall really be a dead-letter. I have here part of an article written by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford at the time of the last Home Rule Bill. He said in this article, on a question of Imperial supremacy:—
    "We are not wholly satisfied by the Bill. That supremacy we recognise ns unquestionable and inalienable. At any time after the establishment of an Irish Legislature, the Imperial Parliament will be competent, as it is now, to legislate for Ireland But the establishment of that Irish Legislature would of course mean that, in relation to purely Irish affairs committed to its charge, the Imperial Parliament should leave its powers dormant. That this is the intention there is no room for doubt."
    I am very glad also to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), at the time of the last Home Rule Bill, practically said exactly the same thing about the Veto. He said:—
    "Look at the situation which would be created under the Bill if a Statute were passed by the Irish Parliament that the majority of this House would consider oppressive! They had got eighty Irish Members, first of all, hanging on their flank to deal with; and what was more certain than that one party would make terms with the eighty outside and bring them in, and
    344
    the position of the Imperial Parliament in endeavouring, to right the wrong done in Ireland would be almost intolerable?"
    After the speeches made on this point, the anxiety of the Opposition really ought to excite no surprise at all. I think it was, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington who said the other day that it was a tragedy that Ireland up to now had not had self-government and an Executive of her own, but, to my mind, it will certainly be a tragedy for Ireland in future that this sort of Executive, with all the complicated machinery which the Lord Lieutenant will have to direct, is set up as this Bill proposes to do. I am really not at all surprised, when one looks at this Clause, that Home Rule was not properly put before the country at the last election. It seems to me that now the only bait that you can offer the people of this country to accept Home Rule, is that the Bill should be a final settlement of this intolerable and perennial Irish question. But I do not think there is anything more likely to postpone the settlement and to exacerbate the relations between this country and Ireland than the provisions which you are laying down in the Clause you are discussing. As this Clause stands, the position of the Lord Lieutenant is really intolerable. Last week the Chief Secretary spoke of the Lord Lieutenant as acting not only in a dual, but in a triple capacity. He spoke not only of bisection, but of tri-section of the Lord Lieutenant in the future. I believe that is perfectly true. I go further, and say that I believe that the Lord Lieutenant will act not only in three, but in four capacities.
    In the first place, a Lord Lieutenant is going to be advised by the Imperial Government on matters which are considered of great importance to the Government on the one hand, and, on the other, giving advice or asking for advice. In the second place, the Lord Lieutenant is going to be advised by the Irish Executive in regard to purely Irish local affairs. In the third place, he will have to take his own advice, and act on his own initiative from day to day in regard to Irish local affairs which happen to be reserved by the Imperial Parliament. There is a fourth capacity which I submit he will also have to fill. If you look at Clause 4, Sub-section (2), His Majesty, it is quite clear, may, on the advice of the Imperial Government, delegate practically the whole of the Royal prerogative to the Lord Lieutenant. So that the Lord Lieutenant

    345
    may practically exercise the whole of the Royal prerogative delegated to him on the advice of the Irish Minister. Could there be greater complication or more opportunities for quarrel and friction, or more danger to the solidarity of the United Kingdom than the four capacities in which the Lord Lieutenant will have to act in future, especially if you have a Government in this House willing to act with the Irish Members, who are going to sit here, in sympathy with the Irish Executive on the other side of the Irish Channel? Mr. Bryce, the present Ambassador at Washington, said at the time of the last Home Rule Bill, that
    "the system of Grattan's Parliament worked extremely badly. One of the reasons why that system could not have lasted, although it need not have come to such an untimely end as in fact befel it, was that the Irish Executive was not necessarily in due sympathy with the Irish Legislature."
    But does the right hon. Gentleman really think—does it follow at all—that the Lord Lieutenant, at the head of a future Irish Executive, will be in due sympathy with the Irish Legislature? I think it most unlikely that he would be always in due sympathy with the Irish Legislature. I certainly think that this Clause is not fair, to say the least of it, to any future Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant may frequently have to act upon his own discretion on the spur of the moment without having any advice to call upon in regard to local matters reserved by the Imperial Parliament. We have not been able to elicit a categorical answer upon the point, as to who will be able to advise him in any particular difficulty in which he may find himself. It is inevitable that many questions will arise on the boundary between the spheres of the Lord Lieutenant as an Imperial officer on the one hand, and those subjects with which the Irish Minister is entitled to deal. Who, on the spur of the moment, has really to decide finally the particular question that may happen to arise? As far as I can see, the Lord Lieutenant will be entirely divorced from many urgent questions of the day from all executive advice and all practical moral support. I feel that it is certainly against public policy to throw this very heavy burden of responsibility upon the shoulders of one man. I think it is absolutely undemocratic, and I believe in the long run it will certainly tend to undermine liberty of speech.
    New Zealand has been referred to this afternoon, and I should like to refer to that country from another point of view. Surely the example of New Zealand ought
    346
    to be a warning to us in this matter. At one time, as hon. Members probably know, New Zealand had the same sort of Imperial control as you are now setting up in Ireland in respect of local affairs. The Imperial control was conceded by New Zealand to Great Britain just in the same way as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are now conceding supremacy to Breat Britain under the Bill. Many New-Zealand local affairs were taken out of the hands of the Colonial Government and vested in the Governor of New Zealand. The Imperial Executive officer, just as will the Lord Lieutenant under the Bill, will have to act on his own discretion in many sudden emergencies. What happened? The result of that dual control in New Zealand led to heart-burnings, difficulties, bitterness, and eventually to a series of bloody wars with the loss of thousands of lives and the waste of a good deal of Treasure. Lord Stanley, in a great Debate in this House in the year 1845, described the intolerable situation which had been set up by this new and irresponsible control. Governor Fitzroy, who was Governor at the time, after a series of blunders, was dismissed from his post of Governor of New Zealand. Sir George Grey succeeded Governor Fitzroy, and exactly the same difficulties occurred under the system. The wars in New Zealand, owing to this difficulty of irresponsible dual control, lasted for about twenty years uninterruptedly, with the loss of a great, deal of money and a great many lives. The end of the whole of this difficulty was that the Governor's irresponsible control over the internal affairs of New Zealand had to be abandoned, I think, in 1862 or 1865. The further result of it was that New Zealand, which up to that time had been divided into nine provinces, was unified under a central legislative authority, and it remained unified to this day.
    We need not go to New Zealand for an example, as we had one in Cape Colony. There was a Governor of Cape Colony, Sir Bartle Frere, who had to act on the advice of the Cape Ministry and on his own discretion in the internal affairs of the Cape where they happened to touch upon Imperial interests. It was that irresponsible situation and dual authority which led directly, as hon. Members will remember, to the Zulu war. You will find practically the same thing in the United States. When they set up their first Constitution in 1781, the central power had

    347
    no practical authority, but the Government did try to exercise authority over the different States. The central authority certainly could recommend good laws, but they had absolutely no power to prevent bad ones. The result of the whole thing was that the States at that time fell into a condition of complete anarchy, and the result of that was that they had to re-frame the Constitution in 1789 and give the central authority proper, effective, and practical responsibility in the various States of America. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Suppose, for instance, the Lord Lieutenant vetoes a Bill on his own initiative which has a large majority of Parliament in its favour, is it for one moment to be supposed that that is the sort of condition which will lead to peace, order, and good government in Ireland1? Will it lead, for instance, to peace in this House, where there are going to be, I believe, about forty Irish Members taking part in our Debates? I have a quotation here from a gentleman whose name is very much respected by hon. Members below the Gangway, Mr. Frank Hugh O'Donnell, the author of a history of the Irish Parliamentary party. Mr. O'Donnell said that—
    "no Veto will be worth even a minute's purchase so long as yon keep forty or fifty couples of wolf-dogs able and ready to fly at the Imperial throat at the first hostile demonstration against our country."
    Suppose, instead of the Lord Lieutenant of the day being in the right, that he happens to be wrong, and that the Veto is reversed by an overriding Act of the Imperial Parliament. Is it likely that the Lord Lieutenant's executive authority will be enhanced? It is quite possible that at the time of the reversal the Lord Lieutenant may be moving constabulary about Ireland against the advice of the Irish Executive, and not being able to get any English advice at the time. I think it is difficult to appreciate what the conditions in Ireland might be if that sort of thing happened. In fact, there will be nobody, as far as I can see, to advise the Lord Lieutenant as to how he should act in any emergency in regard to Irish internal affairs. It really would not so much matter if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had used Colonial precedents, and if Ireland was going to be a self-governing Colony. After all, any Colony, if it desired to separate from the British Empire, I imagine, would be allowed to' do so. I think Ireland stands in quite a different position, and separation would certainly be impossible. I do
    348
    feel on these grounds that it is enormously important, if possible by some Amendment, to link up the Imperial Parliament and Imperial Government directly and effectively with the Executive of Ireland. This Amendment raises that issue, and would, I believe, secure that the Imperial Government would be linked up in that way, and I therefore have great pleasure in supporting it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The character of the Debate this afternoon has been twofold. There is, first, the issue raised by the Amendment itself, and, secondly, the broad issue of the whole question of Veto, which, by general consent of the House and by the indulgence of the Chair, has also been opened up. I think perhaps what I may call the practical aspects of the questions involved by the Amendment have been sufficiently elucidated. There are one or two points about which I should like to ask the Postmaster-General as to the intentions of the Government. In the first place, this Clause says—and the Amendment is designed to meet this point—that,
    "The Lord Lieutenant shall give or withhold the assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the two Houses,"
    and it goes on to say,
    "He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill."
    I would ask why is there no machinery provided for the Imperial Government being informed as to the passage of a Bill in question, and as to the decision of the Lord Lieutenant in the matter? It might very easily occur that the Lord Lieutenant might give his decision without the question having been properly considered by the Imperial Government at all. The Imperial Ministers are naturally a busy set of men. They have many things to think about and they might easily ignore an Irish Bill, even though it were of great importance to Imperial interests, and the Lord Lieutenant might give his assent and the matter might never have been properly brought before them at all. I think that is all the more likely because we understand the Irish Parliament is to sit in the month of September. September is exactly the month in which the energies of Imperial Ministers are usually more relaxed. The Imperial Minister most nearly responsible for the conduct of affairs in Ireland might easily be undergoing a course of recuperative treatment at a foreign watering

    349
    place, and he might not have the gravity of a Bill, passed in a hurry by the Irish Parliament, and assented to by the Lord Lieutenant, brought properly to his notice. Therefore, as a mere matter of machinery, I submit that if the Veto of the Lord Lieutenant exercised at the instance of the Imperial Government is to be made a reality, some machinery such as is suggested by the Amendment ought to be introduced, whereby every Bill before it becomes law in Ireland should be sent to the responsible Minister in this country and considered upon its merits. I notice a rather peculiar circumstance, namely, that the Lord Lieutenant has no suspensory power of his own. He may suspend the giving of the assent of His Majesty for such period as His Majesty may direct; but why can he not exercise that suspensory power on his own volition? Surely if he has some doubt as to the merits of a Bill, or as to whether or not a Bill is within the powers of the Irish Parliament, he should have some power of suspension on his own volition, without reference to this country.
    Further, no Amendment is provided for. In certain Colonial Constitutions it is within the power of the Governor-General to send back a Bill, suggesting certain Amendments. He does not Veto the whole measure or put the Parliament in the position of taking ail or nothing. He sends back the Bill with certain suggested Amendments. Why is not such a provision embodied in this Bill? It is quite certain, whatever may be the other consequences of this measure, that the House of Commons in the Imperial Parliament will not be free from Irish questions; they will come up on all hands. It would be going beyond the scope of the present Amendment to suggest other Irish matters which might be discussed; but to take the question of Veto alone, if any Bills are subjected to the Imperial Veto they will undoubtedly be discussed in this Parliament, and the Irish Members who remain in this House will take a prominent part in those debates. What provision is there for a proper department of the Imperial Ministry to be responsible for the determination of these questions in the Imperial Parliament? Who will represent the Lord Lieutenant in this country? Who will be responsible to this Parliament for the decisions of the Lord Lieutenant in his capacity as an Imperial officer? No light whatever has been thrown upon this question. It is left absolutely in the dark. We
    350
    pity the position of the Lord Lieutenant; we speculate as to who he may be.
    Mr. MOORE: Lord Pirrie.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: No; I think he will probably be the right hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough). I can imagine no one better qualified by his knowledge and independence for the position. But whoever he may be, it would be unfair to put those duties upon him without providing some representative who would be able to defend him and bo responsible for his actions in the Imperial Parliament. I turn from these somewhat technical matters to the broader aspect of the question. There has been a good deal of semi-theological discussion this afternoon as to original sin and original virtue. Hon. Members opposite have alleged that we have charged the Irish nation with possessing a double dose of original sin. Our spokesmen, on the contrary, have said that the Government have proceeded as though the Irish nation were possessed of a double dose of original virtue. I think that those two allegations might be allowed to cancel one another, and that we might consider the question of the working of the Constitution of the Irish Parliament in the light of ordinary human nature. If we consider it in that light can anyone deny that in the ordinary course of human nature difficulties may occur, just as they have occurred in the past in other Constitutions. It seemed to be assumed by the Attorney-General, who made a very flamboyant speech, that the only possible difference that could arise was on the question of religion. Has he never considered the possibility of taxation which some part of the Irish nation or some interest might consider unfair? Have such questions never arisen in this Parliament? In the experience of the Postmaster-General have the members of no honest trade ever considered themselves the victims of unjust and discriminating taxation? They have, and for very good reasons too. What has happened in this Parliament may very easily, and even probably happen in the Irish Parliament or in any other subordinate Parliament that may be set up. If that is so, will not the question of Veto arise? Do not the Government contemplate that some such question may arise? If they do not, why this Clause at all? If they do, they ought to see that the provision in Clause 7 has some effective sanction behind it.
    The matter may arise in many forms, not necessarily on questions concerning

    351
    any minority in Ireland at all. It may arise on some question concerning the interests of the Imperial Government. For instance, I asked a question the other day, to which I had no answer. How about the working of the Aliens Act? The status of aliens, no doubt, is a matter reserved to the Imperial Parliament. But the question of the immigration of aliens or, in time of trouble, the emigration of undesirable characters, would, I presume, be within the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament. Suppose they relaxed the existing Aliens Act, or passed a measure allowing immigration of a kind of which the Imperial Parliament disapproved. That might easily raise the question of Veto, because, if such legislation were allowed, Great Britain might have to take steps for refusing admission to the aliens admitted to Ireland under the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament. Take the importation of arms. The Irish Parliament might easily permit the importation of arms, to which the Imperial Parliament might object, and they would be under the obligation either of exercising the Veto or of passing special legislation to prevent the arms which had been imported into Ireland being imported into this country. Take, again, the whole question of protection, which is rather a pertinent one, whether in regard to diseases of human beings or diseases of animals. Suppose the Irish Parliament, under the pressure of a strong agricultural interest, relaxed the regulations for preventing the spread of disease. It might easily be a very pertinent question for the Imperial Parliament whether or not they should Veto such a measure. Again, they would be under an obligation either to Veto the measure or to pass special protective legislation of their own. Take, again, the question of the security of the Imperial Parliament for their advances under the Land Purchase Act. Is it not easily possible that the Irish Parliament may bring in legislation impairing that security? It might be done in many different ways. It might be done by simply increasing the burden of unavoidable taxation so that the margin—I do not think this is a likely way, but it is possible—of purchasers pay- I ing their instalments might be impaired. I It might be done by creating conditions amongst those who had not signed agreements to purchase which would excite envy on the part of those who had signed agreements, and might make them combine
    352
    to refuse to pay their instalments. At all events it is easily possible that, not in the interests of a minority, but in the general interests of the Empire, and of the security for their advances, that they would have to Veto such legislation. Well now, if that be the effect of it, the question next arises, how are they to make that Veto effective? Behind every law there should be a sanction. What is your sanction here? The truth is in a case like this where you have the Veto you must either be prepared to waive that Veto if the question of conflict comes, or be prepared with some powers which will enable the Government of the country to go forward, apart from the ordinary machinery of Government.
    The question of jurisdictions throughout the Empire have been raised. Something happened in a Crown Colony not many years ago where the elected members of the Legislative House went on strike because they could not have their way with regard to the language in the Law Courts. It did not matter, because the Imperial Government had reserved powers which enabled them to deal with this question. But if they had not had these reserved powers what would it have been possible for them to do? This was on a small scale in a Crown Colony, where no great question can arise. But in the great self-governing Colonies it is perfectly patent, or has become so in the course of this Debate, that the Imperial Parliament has no ultimate sanction where domestic affairs are concerned. They must acquiesce, because they are not, and could not be, willing to enforce their demands by force, or to create an alternative machinery of government. It might be different in the case of Ireland if you could bring any financial pressure to bear. Supposing you reserved the powder to withhold the Transferred Sum, or part of it, in ease the decision of the Imperial Government were not acquiesced in. But you do not! The whole of the financial provisions are not under control of the Imperial Government at all. They are in the control of this hybrid, bastard cross of a Joint Exchequer Board over whom we have no power. Therefore you have no financial lever. What other lever have you? You have no reserved powers, no emergency paragraph, and in the ultimate resort you must be prepared either to give in or to Veto this Constitution—by force if necessary.
    9.0 P.M.
    A good deal has been said about Colonial analogies, but very little has been

    353
    said about Imperial analogies. I cannot help thinking that the Government, which sometimes taunts us on this side of the House with a rather too insular patriotism, have been singularly loath to look at the analogies of foreign Governments. I do not attribute a double dose of original sin to foreign States, but these difficulties have occurred with foreign States and foreign people, and they have ended disastrously. I think in every case where there has existed anything at all analagous to the Constitution proposed to be set up the end has been disastrous. The Norwegians broke from the Swedes, not on account of original sin: they refused to obey the decisions of the Swedish Executive, not on account of any special original sin, but because a Constitution of this kind, once having been granted them, it could not work as it stood. The thing went from one step to another in the direction of separation. What has happened in Hungary? There the Government has only been able to carry on at all by the most extraordinary powers being exerted. The Hungarian Parliament refused to comply with the directions of the Imperial Executive with regard to the enlistment of troops. For a time no Government could be formed. When a Government was at last formed it could only obtain a majority by a degree of mixed force and corruption, for which, happily, there is no precedent in this country. When the Government was formed it was only able to carry on and get its decrees through by the gag and the guillotine, to which even the proceedings of the Prime Minister and the Government afford no parallel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is indeed a surprise that it is possible to quote anything worse than this Government—but it is possible! Take the case of Russia and Finland. There the question has been quietly settled by the absorption of the smaller country. I suppose hon. Members below the Gangway will disregard the precedent in that case. I mentioned the other day the case of Croatia, and the face of the Postmaster-General was suffused with a benevolent and somewhat contemptuous smile. But it is really a very pertinent case, because it affords a nearer parallel to the present proposed Constitution. What has happened there? The Constitution has absolutely broken down, not because of any special wickedness that I know of in the parties, but because the system absolutely
    354
    could not work. It was a question neither of real autonomy nor of local government.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Those observations are rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think I can connect this matter and the Amendment, especially with regard to the arguments that have been put forward by the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General. They said that you want only a little goodwill and a little common sense on both sides for a Constitution like this to work admirably. In this case it has not worked admirably. So deplorably has it worked that the whole machinery of a free people has been suspended, and you have a Royal Commissioner enforcing despotic power over the people of Croatia. That is an end to their Constitution, and their Constitution is the model on which this Bill and previous Bills have been founded. At least they had a remedy in the background. They had power to appoint a Royal Commissioner. You have no such remedy. You put forward your Constitution. You talk about your Veto. You know at heart you have not the power nor the inclination to enforce that Veto. So long as you talk about the overriding powers of the Imperial Parliament through the Veto in this Clause, you are merely going a further step forward in your plan of deceiving the electors.
    Captain O'NEILL: I certainly do not intend to detain the Committee very long to-night, especially in view of the most inadequate time which is at our disposal to discuss so important an Amendment as this. I was rather struck to-day by the Prime Minister's speech. In it, I think, he certainly gave no adequate reason for not accepting this Amendment. His speech suggested to me that if the Irish Government made unreasonable laws that had always to be vetoed that this Bill becomes unworkable. Certainly I quite agree with that proposition. But what difference, I would like to ask, would it make if the King exercises the power of Veto instead of the Lord Lieutenant? It would make no difference whatever to that argument. After all, Bills referred to the King would not be more likely to create a deadlock than reference to the Lord Lieutenant. The Government must realise that quite well. Therefore I say why will not the Government accept this very reasonable Amendment? Again the Prime Minister

    355
    says that the geographical position of Ireland prevents legislation passing unobserved. We are very doubtful indeed about that. So far as we can possibly see the future state of the Irish party we shall not have the advantage of the presence of the junior Member for the City of London on this side, nor the hon. Member for Ponte-fract on the other side to watch the legislation. Consequently I take the very opposite view, and say that this very reason, that is to say the proximity of Ireland to the English shores facilitates in every way the reference of all Bills, because that is the point, which may be passed by the Irish Parliament direct to the King himself and the British Executive here responsible to him.
    All through this Home Rule Bill, both in this House and out of it, the Prime Minister has always been talking of safeguards and assuring us that if we only brought forward reasonable suggestions for safeguards, he would be willing to accept them. If there is any truth in that statement, why will the Prime Minister and the Government not accept this Amendment. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot say that this particular Amendment is a wrecking Amendment. We should be equally glad, no doubt even more glad, to support it if it were a wrecking Amendment, but in this particular case it is not. It is a reasonable Amendment which is another reason why the House should accept it. What confidence can we, or the country have in any assurance the Prime Minister gives in this House or to deputations he may receive of safeguards when he deliberately refuses such a one as this. It is really no use arguing upon this subject. The Prime Minister has already told us he will not accept this Amendment. I should like therefore Jo make a few remarks upon the Clause as it stands, which I think are quite relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee.
    The Lord Lieutenant, as I take it, must have his authority and his responsibility very largely increased from what it is at present if this Bill ever becomes law. Is it intended that the Lord Lieutenant of the future, if this Bill passes, is to exercise any real and personal Veto apart from what I might describe as the constitutional Veto which he would only exercise, either at the direction of the Irish Executive or the Executive here as the case might be. I think that the situation would warrant the establishment of a Lord
    356
    Lieutenancy rather different to that to which we have hitherto been accustomed. I think in the future the Lord Lieutenant with the power and responsibility which it is proposed to give him under this Bill should be a man of rather different qualities and capabilities to many who have occupied that important position in the past. It will not be sufficient, in my opinion, under this Bill that any man should be appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland simply because he happened to be possessed of wealth and happened to hold a high position in the peerage, I think he would have to be appointed with equally if not with even more important powers than are now given to a man occupying such a position as the Viceroy of India. He would have to be a man who is not biassed by ordinary party politics, and he would have, in my opinion, to be a strong man and an independent man, and what our newspapers are pleased to call one of our great proconsuls. I should like, as we do not get many opportunities, on my own behalf and on behalf of my Constituents, to join in the protest very often reiterated from these benches against the Government for the scandalous way in which this Bill is being carried through the House. It would really meet the case just as well, no matter how reasonable the Amendments we bring forward are, if the Government—
    The CHAIRMAN: That line of argument is not in order upon this Amendment or upon this Clause.
    Captain O'NEILL: I am quite aware of that. At the same time I hope you will receive my assurance that I am about to sit down, and therefore I shall not for more that two or three inmates go wide of the Amendment now before the House. I was only going to say that such a state are we brought to that it would be just as suitable if the Government, or the Chief Secretary, were represented by a wax doll in whose inside there was fitted a suitable gramophone, which might be wound up by one of the Members from Ireland below the Gangway who is a warm supporter of the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: The hon. and candid Member who has just sat down advocated that the new Lord Lieutenant for Ireland when the Home Rule Bill becomes law should be a most brilliant member of the peerage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin

    357
    University (Sir E. Carson) believes in wiping out the Lord Lieutenancy altogether. That conflict of view is very difficult to reconcile.
    Captain O'NEILL: My contention was not so much that, but rather was that this question should be referred direct to the Sovereign; but failing that, and as we know this Amendment is not going to be accepted, if there is to be a Lord Lieutenant, I said I was strongly of opinion he should be the most capable and efficient man this country could find.
    Mr. H. GREENWOOD: I am heartily in accord with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but my point is there is a conflict of view on the benches opposite as to whether there should be a Lord Lieutenant or not.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: No, there is no conflict of view. We all want him swept away.
    Mr. J. MacVEAGH: The Unionists want to sweep away the Lord Lieutenant.
    Mr. H. GREENWOOD: Let me put this point of view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is young enough and able enough to be willing to consider other points of view than those he puts forward himself. Anyone who takes a broad view of the Empire surely does not wish to worry the Sovereign of these realms and Empire with additional duties and more manual routine. He has enough to burden the strongest man, and it is anti-Imperial to advocate increased burdens rather than a delegation of them. In the course of these Debates as to the Veto power over Bills, naturally the Colonial example has been drawn upon by all sides. It has been held by hon. Members opposite that the Veto on Bills of the Oversea Parliaments is dead; that that Veto does not exist. I admit at once that the Veto of the Imperial Parliament is rarely exercised in reference to Colonial legislation, but surely that is not a cause of complaint, but is rather a cause of congratulation. The Veto is still there, but in obeyance. I hope it never will be required in years to come, but the reason why it is not used as it used to be a generation or two generations ago, is because this Empire is drawing closer together, and every Parliament, whether it be a Parliament of mixed races in Jamaica or one of the score or more Parliaments in the Caribbeans, or whether it
    358
    be a Parliament of one of the great Oversea Dominions, all these Parliamentary Governments are actuated by a desire to put themselves in accord with Imperial movement, and not to cut athwart the constitutional progress of the British Empire. I confess I do not understand hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are eternally prating about the Empire. You cannot read a single modern text-book on the development of the Oversea Dominions without coming to the conclusion that the Veto is not used because all serious grievances were swept away by generous grants of Home Rule.
    Secondly, the local Parliaments abroad never wish, if they can possibly avoid it, to raise, any point of conflict between their local interests and the wider and greater interests of the whole Empire. There is a great exception to that rule, and it covers all the cases quoted to-day up to the present, with one exception, namely, Newfoundland. In reference to the Aboriginal races, and the question of Oriental immigration, there is still a conflict of opinion between self-governing Dominions and the Imperial Executive of the day, whichever party happens to be in power. That is the only source of conflict existing now between our self-governing Dominions and the Imperial Executive. This difficulty has been met in different parts of the Empire in different ways, but it still remains an outstanding problem, and I should not be frank if I did not admit it. Let me give one case of a great Dominion where the Government and the opposition showed themselves willing to be in accord with the Home Government against their electoral interests. This is the greatest strain you can put on any Parliamentarian.
    We all remember the Japanese Treaty, which was made by the late Government and adopted by the Administration which came into power in 1906. At that time the Government of Canada, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the present Government of Canada, with Mr. Borden at its head, both agreed to the adoption by Canada of that treaty, although there was not the slightest pressure put upon them and they have or will suffer electorally. There is an instance of the willingness of a self-governing Dominion to put itself in accord with the greater interests of this Empire as a whole. Let me give a case in which the Veto of the Imperial Executive was insisted upon. When the Commonwealth

    359
    delegates of Australia were here in 1901 there was a great discussion with the Government of Lord Salisbury in reference to the appeal to the Privy Council from Australia in Clause 74 of the Commonwealth Act. The Australians were determined to cut the appeal from Australia to our Privy Council, but the late Marquess of Salisbury, to his eternal credit, was equally determined not to have that appeal to the Privy Council cut, and he held out and insisted upon his view and it was incorporated in Clause 74 of the Commonwealth Act. There was a case in which the Executive of this country—in what I consider a wide Imperial interest, namely, an appeal to the Privy Council which is really an appeal to the Crown—insisted that that should be included in the Commonwealth Act, although every single delegate from Australia was opposed to it.
    Leaving out these questions of the Aboriginal races and the Oriental immigrants, I would like to deal with Newfoundland. The facts of this case show that the Government of Newfoundland saw fit to sell to a very able Scotchman the whole of their railway system, telegraph system, and an enormous acreage of land. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University said this was fraud and corruption, a most amazing thing for an Imperialist to urge against a Dominion Government. I am not aware that there was any fraud in it. On the contrary, it was a piece of business which the Government of Newfoundland saw fit to carry out, but it was vetoed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in the name of the Crown. Let me remind the Committee, with all humility, that it is quite possible that Colonial Secretaries are sometimes wrong. There is nothing particularly divine about a Colonial Secretary or an Imperial Government any more than there is about a local Legislature in an Overseas Dominion. In this case it is not only the accepted view of Newfoundland, but the accepted view of other Dominions that Mr. Chamberlain was absolutely wrong in endeavouring to Veto this contract between the Government of Newfoundland and the purchaser of the railways. There was a case in which a self-governing Colony was quite within its powers and within its Constitution. I am bound to say that unless it can be clearly shown that such a local Act has some effect upon the Empire as a whole, no Colonial Secretary has any business to Veto such local legislation.
    360
    I say the same thing in reference to Natal. Personally, I think the Colonial Office was quite wrong to interfere with Natal. I have given a case from a Liberal Administration, and from a Conservative Administration, which show that Imperial Executives are no more divine than local Legislatures, for both are liable to err and make mistakes. The outstanding fact is that the vetoing power of the Imperial Executive is now used less frequently because there is on the one side, namely, the Colonial side, a growing desire to fit in with Imperial needs and aspirations, and there is on the other side, namely, the Imperial Executive side, a growing trust and confidence in the Dominions free from all the red-tape of the old-fashioned Colonial Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "No Veto."] Yes, the Veto still exists. Hon. Members opposite seem to make a complaint because it is not used every day and trotted out to show the great power of the Imperial Executive. The more you use a thing like the Veto, the less effect it has, and the more you remove grievances from your Overseas Dominions—and those grievances are nearly all gone now—the less need there is for an Imperial Veto.
    Let me remind the Committee that the whole idea of the Veto grew up at a time in the history of our Empire which has now gone by. The old-fashioned Governors who used to go to Canada at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, before the time of telegraphs and steamships, actually received written instructions, and were sometimes removed from their homo Governments for months, and at certain places for a year or more. These men were generally soldiers, and good soldiers too, and they had to act upon their own initiative. They did not refer every question to the Home Government, and speaking generally they had not the slightest confidence in, and no use for, Parliamentary institutions at all. An old-fashioned soldier of the early Victorian period was the worst possible man to put over a self-governing Colony that aspired to have perfectly free Parliamentary institutions. These men vetoed right and left. It was their pride, and they thought they were doing good for the Crown and the Home country, to show these miserable Colonials how to keep their place and not pass the democratic laws they were passing and are, I am glad to say, passing now. That period has passed away for good.
    When a Governor of the self-governing Dominions or any Colony, because we

    361
    have any number of Colonies that are not called Dominions, sees a Bill started, within twenty-four hours the text of that Bill is known here in the Colonial Office. If it is not necessary to cable it, a steamship will bring a copy of the Bill within two or three weeks. The Colonial Governor, if he thinks there is a Bill introduced that will come into conflict with the policy of the Empire, does not use or threaten to use his Veto, but he invites his Cabinet to dinner. That is how it works in practice. I trust the hospitality of our Colonial Governors will never grow less—and after a good dinner he points out in the most friendly way to his Colonial Cabinet—they have not the benefit of sitting in this House and many of them may not come here during their lives, but all of them are anxious to do the right thing for the Empire—that if such a Bill becomes law it will come into conflict with Imperial interests. The Bill is then dropped. If it cannot be dropped because of electoral influences, it is passed through the elected House and snuffed out in the nominated Chamber. I have seen it done in the Dominion of Canada again and again. That is the modern way of exercising the Veto. There is no cause for grievance there. There is cause for congratulation.
    I say, therefore, that the Veto is now in abeyance. It probably will never be needed in the future because this Empire is growing closer together every day. I say, further, the Veto is not likely to be needed because all grievances in the Overseas Dominions are now removed. There are some local grievances, like naturalisation, left, but they are being settled at the present time, as a matter of fact, by negotiation. How is it that everywhere in your Overseas Dominions and other Colonies, where there are some forty or fifty Parliaments meeting, debating, quarrelling, and adjourning, you have removed the grievances and given the fullest Home Rule the need for the Veto at once ceases I In this matter undoubtedly the two parties—those who trust the Irishmen and those who mistrust the Irishmen—can never come together unless those who mistrust give in and yield to the precedents throughout the whole of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] You may never do it, but you are in a hopeless minority if you do not.
    Mr. C.CRAIG: Not such a hopeless minority as you think, if you will only put it to the test of an election.
    Mr. H. GREENWOOD: I would put it to a wider test than even this United Kingdom, Every speech of hon. Members opposite winds up, "And disruption of the Empire." What part of the Empire says Home Rule is going to mean disruption? I consider it more important to have the goodwill of the Overseas Dominions—
    Sir J. LONSDALE: What about Ireland?
    Mr. H. GREENWOOD: I thought Ireland was a part of the Empire. I consider the Overseas Dominions equally as important and even more important than the whole of Ireland.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Not to us.
    Mr. H. GREENWOOD: The Irish question after all is a local question; it is a parochial question. It is not a question anything like as important as some of those great Imperial problems that face this or any other Executive. I submit, therefore, that those who support this Amendment in the hope of destroying the Bill have against them the precedents of scores of Parliaments and the precedent of the experience of our Empire which prove beyond a doubt that where grants of Home Rule are made you do not breed a race of traitors, but a race of Imperialists and patriots.
    Sir G. PARKER: I am speaking personally when I say I always listen to my lion. Friend opposite with the very greatest interest, but his speech to-night, while commanding a very great deal of accord on my part in its generalities, had very little to do with the case under discussion. When my hon. Friend came down to any connection with the Amendment under discussion, I think he gave himself rather into our hands. The hon. Member has just said that whenever you give Home Rule at once the need of the Veto ceases. That is an extraordinary statement to make in the presence of recent history. I wonder what the Solicitor-General, who has had very lately the Copyright Act of the Dominion of Canada, and its relations with this Government within his historical recollections thinks of that. It is only a few years ago Canada passed a Copyright Act and sent it to this country for the approval of the Crown. She was told the Act could not receive the assent of the Crown, and it is only within the last few months that bitter question, which has caused a very great deal of irritation on the part of the people in Canada, was

    363
    settled. Year after year this exacerbation and protest on the part of the Dominion Government and this firm opposition on the part of the British Government went on, until an understanding was at last come to. But the hon. Member has just told us that when you give Home Rule, all grievances disappear. It was given to Canada in 1841, and from 1841 to 1912 is a good many more years than either the hon. Member or myself can acknowledge. During that time there has been these constant reservations of Bills of importance by the Crown requiring much negotiation and much delay before they were settled.
    The hon. Member cited the case of Newfoundland. I do not think it is a very good one. He said the Newfoundland Government was acting absolutely within its rights in dealing with the question. Of course, but why did not the hon. Member say this Government is not giving to Ireland the kind of Government it gave to Newfoundland. The Constitution this Bill is giving to Ireland is one which the hon. Member himself has said is not like that given to the Dominion of Canada or to the Commonwealth of Australia, but akin to that given to the British Province of Columbia or Manitoba. If that is the case, I would like to ask this question: Suppose that Bill had been passed by the Province of British Columbia instead of by the Government of Newfoundland, would it not have been referred to the Government at Ottawa, and could not the Government at Ottawa have given its Veto on the Bill. It is abundantly clear, the two instances which the hon. Gentleman cited do not stand the scrutiny of any constitutional or historical inquiry. May I address myself now to some of the other speeches which have been made. Prom the Prime Minister to the Attorney-General, and to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, we have been treated to doses of dope. To listen to the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen this afternoon, one would think that all this Committee had to do was to pass this Veto because it really meant nothing. The sum of the whole argument was that the Veto is only a kind of technical warning, a piece of machinery which is part of the constitutional legislation, and that it is not to be taken seriously. Have I given a wrong view of the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? They have said it will not be necessary to put the Veto into operation. It is merely there as a tenchincal warning, as a piece
    364
    of constitutional necessity, but in actual practice it will not be needed. If that be so why in the world has the Government been continually saying, "We are providing for those who are deeply concerned for the future of Ireland; we are providing for those who believe that this Bill will bring to Ireland miseries undreamt of in the legislation of this Kingdom?" Why is it they are saying that, and at the same time they are declaring there are already adequate safeguards in Clause 7. I hear an hon. Member interject the statement that it is a fraud. If the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen this afternoon mean what they would have us to believe they mean, that the Veto provided by this Clause will not be called into operation because the condition of Ireland will be such that there will be no necessity for it, then, I say, it is a fraud.
    The hon. Member who last spoke talked about grievances disappearing. If it is the case that after a hundred years grievances have disappeared in the Dominion of Canada, though they still exist, if they have disappeared in Australia, though they still exist, if it has taken a hundred years to do that, does it not remain the fact that you are to start in Ireland with a whole set of grievances, and, therefore, you will need a hundred years to get rid of them I [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate, you will not dispute this position. If you do not need a hundred years you will need a very considerable time before you arrive at the same condition of things that exists in the Overseas Dominions. If there are deep grievances in Ireland—and there are deep grievances in the North as well as in the South—if those grievances cannot be reconciled now, are they likely to be reconciled when a Parliament is set up in Ireland which the North of Ireland refuses to recognise? It is for those whose future it concerns in the granting of this Irish Parliament to answer that question. The Attorney-General, in his speech of soothing syrup alternated with forensie fireworks, said that in the case of a difficulty arising and the Veto having to be used to an Irish Bill, it would be easy to settle the difficulty, because we could meet from day to day, and negotiations can be carried on every day. But a few days ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the geographical separation of England from Ireland as being a reason why Home Rule was necessary in order to solve problems which could not

    365
    be solved so long as the Irish Sea ran between the two countries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used that argument as an argument for Home Rule; but when he comes to deal with the question of the Veto he says that the silver streak presents no difficulty, and that the officials in Ireland and in this country can meet together every day and solve their differences.
    Right hon. Gentlemen this afternoon have been doing exactly what they have done from the very beginning of this discussion. They have continually contradicted themselves. They have continually misrepresented their own views. I am in the hands of this Committee, and I think hon. Members will agree that if you must give Home Rule because of this geographical separation and because it marks a division, why, then, does it not mark the same division when you come to consider the effect of this Veto? The Attorney-General was arguing without logic and without effect. I do not remember whether it was the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General—I think it was both of them—who said that this Clause only dealt with the Veto of Bills, and that therefore my hon. Friends need not concern themselves about it. Is there any Member of this House who does not realise that legislation may be passed which will affect all future administrations. We have had during the last two or three years the Old Age Pension Act, the National Insurance Act, and the Finance Bill. These three Bills, though they are Acts of legislation, though they have dealt with questions which were for the Legislature alone, seriously affected the question of administration, and we believe on this side that questions have arisen in connection with that legislation which have amounted almost to scandals, abuses, jobs, and appointments that were made for purely political purposes, and as pure political rewards. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] My point is this: That whether I am correct or not in saying that Shere have been a multiplicity of jobs arising out of legislation passed in this House directly secured by administration, am I not reasonable in saying that legislation may directly affect administration, and that when we deal with legislation in relation to this Clause, we also deal indirectly with administration. May I turn for a moment to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). He made one or two
    366
    statements which I think ought to be corrected. We always hear the Dominions quoted when it suits the purpose of the Government. They are wonderful Imperialists when they want to make a point, and when they want to secure an advantage in argument.
    Mr. J. WARD: You never do it!
    Sir G. PARKER: At least the hon. Member might be courteous. If I do not secure an advantage in argument, I can at least say it would not be the hon. Member who would ever prevent me, if I may judge from his past expeditions into Debate in this House. I apologise for this personal reference, for after all I do not make discourteous remarks to my opponents. The hon. and learned Member for. Waterford said that in regard to Canada there were prophecies made in the House of Lords that there would be nothing but oppression and tyranny when self-government, was given to the Dominion of Canada—oppression and tyranny of the Protestant minority and of the English minority, as it was then. There have been the most continual misrepresentations of the Canadian case in this House, and I really think it ought to be disposed of. I am within the understanding of those who have studied this question. I ask the Committee this question: Was it not the case that the two Canadas separated, one French and one British, were brought together with the view, based upon Lord Durham's Report, that it would produce peace in Canada. The Union of 1840 was consummated for that purpose. Anyone who reads the history of the Dominion of Canada must realise that peace was not secured by bringing together that English Protestant minority and that Catholic French majority. On the contrary, from 1840 to 1867, the sectional differences, the intrigue, the struggle for position, the manœuvring for superior advantage were so constant, that at last the statesmen of Canada who tried to rise above it, both French and English, said there was only one way, and that was to broaden the area of administration and to provide a larger union, that union to consist of two provinces with an invitation to the other provinces to enter. Until the English majority was so large that there could be no question of its power then, and not until then, did the intrigue, the sectional differences, the faction fights between the religious and the racial

    367
    parties in the provinces of Canada cease. It was only in 1867 that by the larger union you were able to secure anything like an understanding between the different peoples of that great Dominion. The same thing occurred in South Africa.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think this is rather overlapping the point. It only bears slightly on Clause 7, and I do not think we can go into that.
    Sir G. PARKER: I am much obliged to you, Sir. I thought that the question was elaborated previously in Debate, and perhaps I was led into elaborating it because so much has been made by previous speakers regarding it. Will you allow me to say, in conclusion, in regard to the South African, analogy, that when, you gave the Transvaal its separate and independent Government, had you given Natal also a Government in connection with the Transvaal, as there was in Canada in 1840, you would have had to-day in South Africa not peace but discord. The same thing exists in Ireland. You attempt to bring these two sections together in a Legislature, and you will have exactly what you would have had in South Africa, if you had had Natal and the Transvaal, as two separate and distinct opinions and with their differing feelings, brought together. My point is this: That it was only by larger union that you were able to secure that peace, good order and understanding which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said have only been achieved in the Oversea Dominions by the steady decrease of the Veto. I believe that with this mongrel and hybrid Government you are attempting to establish in Ireland.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—it is mongrel and hybrid in Ireland, because it has some characteristics of dominion government and some characteristics of provincial government—your difficulties will be very much greater, and for that reason it is absolutely necessary that where you have the prospect of difficulties of legislation unheard of in our Oversea Dominions, with their clearly defined Constitutions, you ought to reserve to this Government and to the Crown the Veto on all legislation that is passed by the Irish Legislature, such as the Amendment suggests.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): I wish to ask the Committee, as the result of the discussion we have had,
    368
    to see whether there is not, on some important aspects of the controversy under discussion, really some considerable measure of agreement between us, because I think it will be found that while, of course, we differ, and deeply differ, and sincerely differ, in the broad aspects of this question as it relates to Ireland, there really is a much greater measure of agreement on some aspects of the whole policy and constitution of the Veto than would appear from some of the speeches that have been made. It seems to me that there are at least three things which all of us, whatever our views on Irish Home Rule, will be prepared to agree about in respect to the Veto. I desire to bear in mind the caution which the Prime Minister administered this afternoon when he said that the Colonial analogy must never be carried too far, but at the same time the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Parker) and other hon. Members have, as it seems to me, quite naturally and inevitably, referred to the operation of the Veto throughout the British Empire. Let us sec if there are not three propositions about it on which we can all agree. The first proposition which I invite the Committee to assent to is this.
    Wherever you may go throughout the British Empire where you find a subordinate Parliament which derives its authority from this Imperial Parliament, you will find in its Constitution a Veto, be it operative or be it inoperative, and you will find in every case, in the New World and in the Old, in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, that side by side with the full concession of local self-government we have, in fact, got a provision for a Veto. In the second place, I invite the Committee to observe that though that Veto exists in every such Constitution it is a, Veto which is brought into operation very rarely and in only the most exceptional cases. It is not, indeed, obsolete and dead, but it is certainly a part of the machinery of the local Constitution which is left in abeyance except in the most extreme cases, and it is because it is so treated, because it is a thing that is used so very seldom, and only in such very exceptional cases, that the self-governing institutions of the Empire operate as they do. That brings me to the third point on which I think there should be agreement, that while, as we concede, in our own" Empire there is a Veto provided in every

    369
    such Constitution, and while that Veto is in fact very rarely and exceptionally used, I make the concession in the frankest terms that if that Veto was constantly, irritatingly, and habitually used the whole machinery of local self-government would break down.
    I think these three propositions with reference to our experience of the Veto in our Empire beyond the seas are fairly stated, and I think they will receive common agreement. You find it everywhere. It is indeed sometimes, though very seldom and exceptionally used, and I frankly state that if it were used habitually and as a matter of system the whole method and manner of self-government, as we understand it, would break down and fail to work. It is upon these three propositions that we found ourselves in proposing this Clause. We provide a Veto, amongst other things, because all precedent goes to show that when self-government, whatever its precise form, is conceded, there should be over and above the Legislature which one sets up this overriding and final authority, but I concede frankly that if that Veto was habitually and irritatingly used as a matter of course in Ireland, just as in any other part of the British Empire, the machine would not work. But that is not our conception at all of the way in which the scheme embodied in this Bill is to operate.
    10.0 P.M.
    We propose that there should be a Veto which should be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is not designed to be a person belonging to a political party in this House. He is to act with the same impartiality and independence as Governors or Lieutenant-Governors act in self-governing areas in different parts of the Empire. He will not act in exercising this authority upon his personal judgment, his personal wisdom, or his personal prejudices. No Lieutenant-Governor does any such thing in any part of the British Empire with which I am acquainted. He acts in some cases upon the advice of the local Executive, and in so acting he always has regard to what may be, in an extreme case, the overriding advice of the central Government at home, and so it always has been, and while those cases are rare and no one desires to exaggerate their frequency, the fact is that from time to time, side by side with the well-applied and well-worked system of local self-government throughout the Empire you get this very
    370
    Veto being exercised, not as the result of the personal judgment of the Governor, but because the Governor gets instructions from the Imperial Government at home, that it is his duty so to do.
    I ask the Committee, what is the solid ground for supposing that that which in fact has happened everywhere else in the-Empire where this system has been in principle applied, is not only not going to happen in Ireland, but that the exact reverse is going to happen? It is not a good answer to tell me that certain honest persons think that the result is going to be disastrous. There has never been a case in which it has been proposed to extend the bounds of self-government in the Empire in which certain honest persons have not said the same thing. It is no answer to tell me that some of those who now speak on behalf of this area, have in the past used extravagant language. Does anyone think that extravagant language has not been used by the French Canadians before they got self-government or by the Transvaal Boers? Everyone knows it. It is not an answer to tell me that opinion is divided in the area where we propose that this solvent should be administered. There always is in these cases, before the grant is made, a body, the sincerity and genuineness of which I do not wish to challenge, who say they stand by the existing order.
    What are the special reasons for the views that have been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite? One reason has been several times developed in this Debate, and it surprises and amuses me. We are told, You may have your Veto in Ireland and you may think it is going to operate just as it operates elsewhere, but supposing an occasion ever arose in which the Imperial Government thought it right to intervene and Veto the decision of the local Legislature, what would happen? The Prime Minister of Ireland would resign. It astonishes me to hear that this consequence is thought to be so lamentable and alarming by the Unionists of Ireland. They usually suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) might have something to do with it. Hitherto I have always supposed that their principal alarm was that he was going to be Prime Minister. Now it turns out that the thing that really upsets them is the thought that he should ever resign, and it further turns out that the reason why they are so afraid of his ever resigning is that there is no one to take his

    371
    place. I pass from it with the observation that this will be interesting news to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy).
    On the other hand, let us get to what is, by the admission of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the principal difficulty which faces them. I do not think they are right in saying that in other cases there have not been acute and deep-seated differences between different cliques and clans in a country which has got self-government. At any rate, it is the circumstance which makes them express their honest apprehension. The hon. Member (Mr. C. Craig) on the 22nd inst., used language which I will quote. Pointing to what was the real reason in the view of himself and his friends why Home Rule for Ireland could not be adopted, although Home Rule everywhere else was all right, he said:—
    "Everyone who knows anything about it knows perfectly well that if we Protestants, Presbyterians, Churchmen, or whatever we may be, thought for a moment that we should receive fair treatment from our Roman Catholic fellow countrymen, and particularly from the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, we should look on the proposal for Home Rule in a very different spirit and from a very different point of view."
    I do not in the least complain of the hon. Gentleman making that straightforward assertion, but let the Committee observe that in the mind of those who propose this Amendment, and who criticise the Bill, the thing which they think explains this inexplicable contrast between the case of Ireland and the rest of the Empire, is the fear on the part of Protestants that they are not going to get fair treatment from their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. I do not wish to dwell on what transpired in the course of the Debate this afternoon. I quite understand what the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) said, though it was by no means, so far as I know, a new declaration on his lips. I understand that what he said was confined to the case of legislation by this Irish Parliament. His proposition was—and it is accepted and adopted by those who follow his lead on this crucial question, whether or not the Protestants of Ireland are going to be fairly treated by Roman Catholics—that so far as legislation is concerned, he has no fear. There remains administration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) is going to follow me, and that being so, let me invite the Committee once again to observe what his view is on that subject.
    372
    The fears that the Irish Parliament in their legislative action will maltreat and persecute Protestants have been wiped off the slate. We are left now with administration. The right hon. Gentleman knows Ireland well, and we all know the high reputation he has as a man of courage and character. Referring to the Leader of the Nationalist party on 2nd October last year, he said:—
    "Mr. Redmond also complains that we talk of the religious differences in Ireland, and that we believe the Catholic majority would trample upon the Protestant minority.…."
    not that they could pass laws to their prejudice, but—
    "would trample upon the Protestant minority. That again is an argument to which I have never attached importance. I know Ireland well, and I have a great many relatives and friends in Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic. I believe that in this and in any other country religious difficulties will always be settled by the general common sense of the people. I have never been so stupid as to ignore the fact that the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ireland occupy a totally different position from what they occupy in Scotland, England, and Wales, and in considering any legislation for Ireland you must not forget that the religious question will arise there as it does not arise here."
    That represented the view of the right hon. Gentleman then, and I do not doubt that it represents it now, and I call the Committee's attention to the fact, first of all, that we are told by the Unionist party that this special difficulty between Protestants and Catholics causes them to doubt whether Home Rule can be applied to Ireland as it has been applied elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Unionist party—
    Sir E. CARSON: The Irish Unionist party.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Leader of the Irish Unionist party has told us, not for the first time to-day, that as far as legislation is concerned he has no fear in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division, who speaks with all the authority of a Leader of his party and an ex-Chief Secretary, says that he has never attached importance to the statement that the Catholic majority would trample upon the Protestant minority. Difficulties there may be and will be. If we had always been afraid of difficulties there would have been no Home Rule in any part of the Empire, but a little common sense and pride of local institutions on the one hand, and a little sincere goodwill on the part of Imperial Parliament on the other, as we are well founded in thinking, is going to produce in Ireland the result which has been produced elsewhere by similar methods. Hon. Members opposite

    373
    circulate the fallacy of supposing that a community which, it may be, uses language of indignation when it feels it is labouring under a grievance, is still going to exhibit that spirit when it feels that the grievance has been removed. All history gives the lie to that, and for my part I do not believe that in the case of Ireland history is going to be falsified.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I have to express my thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy, but I regret that on my behalf he has had to abbreviate his own remarks. I do not believe any man whose judgment is exercised without prejudice would say that this Debate, full of the greatest importance not only to Ireland but to this country, and I think to the Empire as a whole, should be concluded in the very brief time now available, and under pressure of the Closure, which makes adequate consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's own speech absolutely impossible. The Solicitor-General began by telling us that in every constitution of which we have had experience in this Empire there is to be found a Veto, and obviously a Veto must be included in this Bill. It is unnecessary to make a statement of that kind, but if we are to accept that as a serious defence of the Clause, my reply is that if you have got this wealth of experience, and if you have got these numerous precedents why, with this experience and these precedents, why have the Government deliberately refused to follow the example set by their predecessors, and the example set by themselves a few years ago? Why have they adopted for Ireland a Constitution which in every detail is found to differ materially, fundamentally, and gravely, without any of those safeguards on which the Solicitor-General relies for his first argument to-night? The hon. and learned Gentleman criticised what was said on this side of the House, but through the whole of his speech, and the speeches we heard from the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General this afternoon, the same strange omission is to be found.
    We have argued this case from the beginning, in and out of the House of Commons, and during the election as we are arguing it now. I suppose the Government will claim that because we told the country at the election that the result of their policy would be Home Rule as found in the Dominions and in South Africa, and not in the provinces, therefore the country had this case fully before
    374
    them. They denied the truth of our statements. They declared that we were indulging in imaginary statements. They talked about bogies. This Debate has made quite clear, if there was any room for doubt, that the real object of the Government and the policy which they had in their mind while drawing this Bill and preparing it for this House, has not been the adoption of some provincial form of Home Rule, such as we find in the provinces of Canada or South Africa, but that form of Home Rule which is to be found in the Dominion, in the Union of South Africa, or the new Federation of Australia. Therefore it is that we have asked, and asked in vain, of the Government to-night that they will tell us what is the reality of these safeguards which in the country have been the one answer of the Government to the criticisms of my hon. Friends and those who act with us. I hope in a moment to deal with the quotation by the Solicitor-General from my own speech, though, like other Members of this House, I do not ever regard my speeches as worthy of the attention that is paid to them, mainly by political opponents. I have nothing to withdraw or qualify in the extract which has been read by the Solicitor-General. That quotation has nothing on earth to do with the grounds upon which we are pressing the Amendment now under the consideration of the Committee.
    We have been told in the country, hon. Gentlemen have told their constituents times without number, that there are these difficulties. A great many hon. Gentlemen and their predecessors upon that bench have realised, and I suspect that they realise now as much as we do, the reality of the religious difficulty in Ireland and that that difficulty is at the bottom of the greater part of the trouble in Ireland, and to quote my words as showing that if you believed that that was the only difficulty it is one that should be dealt with—and if it was worth while to go on I could have shown that I pointed out that it could be dealt with, in my opinion, by the determination of the people of the United Kingdom to use any means available to them to put down the power of a Church the moment it became identified with Government—but to use that as an answer to the contention that under this Clause as it stands you are creating a safeguard, which is a sham and a delusion, is evading the real issue which we ask the Committee to consider. The Solicitor-General, to my amazement, referred

    375
    again to the Canadian and South African precedents. I ask the Solicitor-General, in all earnestness, do he and his colleagues on that bench rest their confidence and their hope upon these precedents, because if they do they have done everything in the power of mortal man to do to destroy the whole value of those precedent for use on the present occasion? The Solicitor - General pointed to what has followed in Canada. He knows as well as any man in this House that the federation of Canada was only brought about by the most grave and open conference between all parties concerned. He knows, as everybody else in this House knows, that the same policy was adopted in South Africa, and something more than this. Not only had you conferences of the contending parties, not only had you them going from place to place in Canada, but it was the same in South Africa where not content with holding the conferences in one central place, however convenient, they went from place to place and from Colony to Colony, and they brought them within reach of everybody most intimately concerned.
    They did not stop there. This is not the only difference between the policy of the Government and the policy of those great statesmen who brought about federation in Canada or South Africa. They were in real union; they were honestly set upon the great task of burying the hatchet and removing grievances. Have you tried to bury the hatchet or remove grievances? The Solicitor-General tells us, with those extraordinary hopes which are based upon nothing but theory, that he looks to a future when all his going to be peace. What is the prospect of peace? Whatever importance you may attach to the new view which you form of them— though they themselves have never withdrawn the language which we have quoted —you attribute to them all these virtues, and think that they do not mean a word of what they formerly said. Supposing you succeed in your policy of conciliation, you are going to raise up against you—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted last nisht—a body of most determined and God-fearing men, such as no country ever possessed. What is your answer to that? Your answer to the country has consistently been, "We know that there are these dangers; we do not deny them, though we believe they will disappear; but in order to meet them we have
    376
    provided a Veto." What is the meaning of this Veto? I have read the Clause many times, and I have read, as no doubt some other Members have done, works which have been produced illuminating this rather difficult Bill. I confess that I honestly do not know what is the precise meaning of this Clause as it now stands. But I know what I want, and what those who act with me want. We want what is the only possible fulfilment of the pledges of the Government to the country, given times out of number on election platforms—that if you are giving those powers to a Parliament which can or may be so used, whatever your ideas for the moment may be, to the prejudice and injury of the minority, then safety must be found in the exercise of the Veto. But when we ask you what that Veto means, you tell us that it is to be exercised by the Viceroy on the advice of the Ministers who are themselves responsible for the legislation. When we ask you to define your Constitution, you turn round and point to our Oversea Dominions and great Colonies in other parts of the world, and you say, "We pass by all that we have said about safeguards. You will find this Veto in every other Constitution, and if you find it in every other Constitution it is naturally and automatically put into this." That is the attitude taken up by the Government.
    I now come to the charge brought against us. I listened to the Attorney-General this afternoon with great interest, and I have been long enough a Member of this House never to grudge any man the opportunity of enjoying a score if he thinks something has put it in his way. But I confess, having unlimited regard for the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, I am utterly puzzled when I heard him declaring amidst the enraptured cheers of his supporters, that he had made a new discovery, and had suddenly found out that the Unionist party had abandoned all their old criticisms and attacks on this Bill. We have done nothing of the kind. My right hon. and learned Friend, in language somewhat similar and very much better than was quoted from my speech, said that we do not anticipate that the Nationalist Parliament, suppose there be a Nationalist Parliament, will proceed to legislate against the Protestants, and this is the new discovery. I am referring to what the Attorney-General said as to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend dealing with the ques-

    377
    tion of legislation. Is it to be supposed if I used the words Catholic and Protestant, or does the Solicitor-General really think that either my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) or I, or anybody, would interpret that language as meaning that the Nationalist party would proceed to pass Statutes attacking Protestants as such and condemning them. What the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister refuse to recognise, because for some extraordinary reason they will not face the facts, is this, that you are giving to this new Parliament under this Bill extraordinary powers. For instance, in land legislation you will enable them to legislate in such a way that they may bring very great injury upon the minority to the advantage, through the circumstances of the case in Ireland, of the majority. What is their protection? You have told the country that their protection is in Veto. Those who anticipate this loss and this injury —it is to go out from this Debate to-night on your statement that their security and their protection and their safeguard against robbery or injury rests on the Veto of the man who will act on the advice of Ministers who have produced the very
    Bill of which they complain. There could not be in my judgment—I said it before and I repeat it—a worse Bill than the Bill which you have produced. There could not be for the purposes which you maintain you have in view a worse Clause than the Clause now being considered; a Clause which I shall vote against not only because it is a bad Clause, but because it is something worse than a bad Clause, I think it is that which I personally hate most of all, a gross sham. It is intended not for the protection of the minority. It is intended not as a precaution that the legislation of the new Parliament shall be just and proper, but it is intended merely in order to delude and deceive the electorate that you are doing that which you are not doing, and when in reality you are doing the very reverse. On those grounds I and others who share my views will vote against this Clause as being the worst Clause and the greatest sham of the worst Bill that has ever been introduced into this House.
    Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 813; Noes, 327.

    Division No. 280.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cassel, Felix

    Forster, Henry William

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cator, John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cautley, H. S.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Cave, George

    Glimour, Captain J.

    Baird, J. L.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Chambers, J.

    Grant, J. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Greene, W. R.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gretton, John

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford)

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Bird, A.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

    Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Boyton, J.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hohier, G. F.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hope, James Fltzalan (Sheffield)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Falle, B. G.

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Burn, Colonel C. R,

    Fell, Arthur

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Butcher, John George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Hunter, Sir Charles

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Starkey, John R.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stewart, Gershom

    Kerry, Earl of

    Nield, Herbert

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Let, Arthur H.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Pole-Carew Sir R.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Valentia, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

    Long, Rt. Han. Walter

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

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

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Winterton, Earl

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Royds, Edmund

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

    M'Mordie, Robert James

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Moore, William

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

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanier, Beville

    Goldsmith and Mr. S. Roberts.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Clough, William

    Gilhooly, James

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clynes, J. R.

    Gill, A. H.

    Adamson, William

    Collins, G. F. (Greenock)

    Ginnell, L.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Crean, Eugene

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Crooks, William

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

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    Balfour, Sir Robert

    Cullinan, John

    Guiney, P.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Barnes, George N.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hackett, John

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Barton, William

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Beate, Sir William Phipson

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    De Forest, Baron

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Delany, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Doris, W.

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Duffy, William J.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Brace, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hayward, Evan

    Brady, P. J.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperay, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Falconer, J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hinds, John

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Field, William

    Hodge, John

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Hogge, James Myles

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hoit, Richard Durning

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    France, G A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Churchill, Rt. Hon, Winston S.

    Gelder Sir, W. A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Clancy, John Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Hughes, S. L.

    380

    381

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Muldoon, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Rowlands, James

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Neilson, Francis

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Keating, M.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sheehy, David

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Shortt, Edward

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Simon, Sir John Alisebrock

    King, Joseph

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Ogden, Fred

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    O'Grady, James

    Snowden, Philip

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Law, Hugh A, (Donegal, West)

    O'Malley, William

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Leach, Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lundon, T,

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wardle, George J.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waring, Walter

    M'Kean, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Webb, H.

    Manfield, Harry

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Radford, George Heynes

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Martin, Joseph

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Reddy, M.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rendail, Athelstan

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

    Molloy, M.

    Richards, Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincol)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Morison, Hector

    Roch, Walter F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    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, 328; Noes, 213.

    Division No. 281.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, A. A, (Dumbartonshire)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Adamson, William

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmctt (Somerset)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Barton, William

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

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

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

    Guiney, P.

    Meagher, Michael

    Bentham, G. J.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hackett, John

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Boland, John Plus

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molloy, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Brace, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mooney, John J.

    Brady, P. J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brocklehurst, William B.

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Morison, Hector

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleephas

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Muldoon, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hazleton, Richard

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Neilson, Francis

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Clough, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Dowd, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ogden, Fred

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    O'Malley, William

    Crean, Eugene

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

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

    Crooks, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Dawes. J. A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    De Forest, Baron

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Delany, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Doris, William

    King, Joseph

    Pointer, Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Falconer, James

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Reddy, Michael

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richards, Thomas

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Kean, John

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ginnell, L.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Roch, Walter F.

    Goddard. Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Manfield, Harry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rowlands, James

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rowntree, Arnold

    384

    385

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Thomas, J. H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Whyte, A. F.

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wiles, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wadsworth, John

    Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Sheehy, David

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Shortt, Edward

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrooke

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wardle, George J.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Waring, Walter

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

    Snowden, P.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Sutherland, John E.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Sutton, John E.

    Webb, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Ainery, L. C. M, S.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Archer-Shee, Major W.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lee, Arthur H.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

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

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Falle, B. G.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fell, Arthur

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brown lee

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Fleming, Valentine

    Macmaster, Donald

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Mordle, Robert

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Foster, Philip Staveley

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Moore, William

    Bird, Alfred

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Munro, Robert

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Boyton, James

    Gretton, John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

    Nield, Herbert

    Bull, Sir William James

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Butcher, John George

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Cassel, Felix

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Cator, John

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Cave, George

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chambers, James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Edmund

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kimbar, Sir Henry

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

    386

    387

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Winterton, Earl

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Grant.

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

CIVIL SERVICES—AMENDMENT OF SUPERANNUATION ACTS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts, and to make further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service, and for the increase of this amount of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, or Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, apply, and for the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases."
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Perhaps I had better explain in a word the nature of the Bill to which this Resolution is antecedent. It is a small Bill, which, I think, is entirely uncontroversial in character, and it is designed to deal with certain hard cases which have arisen from time to time in connection with the operation of the Superannuation Acts. There is no alteration in the general principles of the Acts. The chief Clauses deal with the following points: The first is to prevent a man who receives superannuation shortly after promotion from getting less pension than he would have received had he not been promoted. The second is to preserve to a Civil servant who, at the request of the Government, leaves this country for service abroad, especially in Egypt, his pension rights while in the service. At present, if a man is invalided from the Civil
388
Service in the first ten years he receives a gratuity; and we wish, thirdly, that he should be not worse oil than if he were an ordinary insured person outside. We therefore want to take power to be able to give him not a mere gratuity, but 5s. per week during the time of his disablement. The last point of importance is one which is being felt now as a real hardship. If any member of the Civil Service becomes a pauper lunatic—I must ask the Committee to remember this Bill applies to all grades and branches of the Civil Service, postmen, policemen, and many people in humble life—by the operation of the law at present 4s. of the pension to which he is entitled has to be deducted from his dependents in order ostensibly, I suppose, to help to contribute towards the support of him in a State lunatic asylum. We have had a number of cases brought to our attention in which the dependents of persons deprived of that amount have fallen into great want and often under the Poor Law, and we think we ought to have the right to waive the condition so that the dependents may receive the full pension and not become a charge upon the Poor Law. The Bill in the main will affect the poorer classes of Civil servants. The total amount involved will not exceed £10,000 a year, and probably it will be considerably less. But it will meet real cases of hardship. I hope the Committee will consider this sufficient explanation until the Bill is produced, and after it is before the House I shall be glad to answer any further inquiries in connection with the matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move at the end of the Question to add the words, "such provision not to exceed the sum of £10,000 in any one year."
11.0 P.M.
I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I do not know whether Civil servants in the future will become to any extent pauper lunatics, I think the rest of the community probably will become so if the present Government continues on its present career. The right

389
hon. Gentleman has given us a very courteous and very ingenious explanation of what this particular Resolution enacts. I remember when I occupied a humble position on the back benches opposite, hon. Members now on those benches displayed great indignation when a Resolution of this sort was brought forward, for they said with great truth that it was quite impossible for the House to inform itself of the actual meaning of the Resolution. It was only possible to become aware of the terms if one was on sufficiently good terms with the clerks at the Table to ask them to inconvenience themselves to open their desk and give a glimpse of a written document hidden there, so that it might be surreptitiously copied. An experience of twenty years in this House has taught me that modesty is not a very great asset, and occasionally one must assert himself to know what is going on. Consequently I obtained a sight of a copy of the Resolution in the clerk's desk, and copied it at the expense of some ink and labour. I found it was a very involved document. What it said was this: "That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts and to make further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the Grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their rights thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service." It is good to write a thing out, as one then begins to understand it. I come to the conclusion that these words mean this: That where a civil servant in receipt of a salary say, of £500 a year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to him and says, "by reason of your great merit and great assiduity in the Civil Service, I am prepared to offer you a post worth £1,000 a year, but if you take it you will forfeit your right to a pension" The civil servant replies, "I will take that; it is a great increase in my salary and I probably shall live a considerable time." There is nothing to compel him to take it, but human nature being what it is, you may be perfectly certain a civil servant does not take the increased salary unless it is to his advantage to do so. Having taken that increased salary, he goes to the Secretary to the Treasury and says, "Now you bring in a financial Resolution, upon which you are going to found a Bill which will give to me not only the increased salary, but the pension which I
390
ferfeited." If the finance of the country is to be carried on upon that basis, we on this side of the Committee will become, and hon. Members opposite, unless they are given Civil Service posts, will also become pauper lunatics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I do not know whether hon. Members who shout "Agreed," agree with the statement that they are going to become pauper lunatics, or with the statement that they are going to receive posts under the Government in the Civil Service. If they are, no doubt they do not want any further discussion; but as I am endeavouring to protect the pockets of the taxpayers from too rapacious a tax, I think that we might have a few moments' discussion on what, after all, is an important proposal. The Resolution goes on to say:—
"for the increase of the amount of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, applies."
I have provided myself with the Act of 1834, and the first thing I see on opening that Act is:—
"Pensions to the First Lord of the Treasury, Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the India Board, and the President of the Board of Trade."
I do not know whether that part of the Act is proposed to be amended. I turn to Section 12, which, as far as I can make out, is to be amended, and I find it says:—
"Superannuation not to be granted on advanced amount of salary received for less than three years."
I commend this to the Labour party, who apparently two minutes ago were anxious to go to bed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that, for from their point of view it is very important. Certainly those who represent the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have always held that superannuation should not be paid to officials in the railway service occupying high positions on the salary they have received only for a year or two, and that when a person is promoted to high office, perhaps as general manager, with a salary of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, after he has received that for only one year he is not entitled to retire and receive a pension upon that amount. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to

391
do. He is proposing to abolish the three years' qualification. He is proposing that if a civil servant be promoted in 1912 to a position with a higher salary, and he retires in 1913, the salary which he has only received for one year is to be the basis upon which his pension is to be granted. In commercial circles, at any rate, the force of the argument of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite with regard to pensions in the Railway Clearing House has been admitted by that much-maligned class, railway directors. It remains for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are supported by hon. Members below the Gangway, to tiring in this Resolution, which is going to give a pension to a person who has received a higher salary for one year only.
The effect of Section 7 of the Act of 1887, which it is proposed to amend, is simply that where a person who is in receipt of a pension becomes a lunatic, the State shall keep him as a lunatic, and that the cost of his keep shall be deducted from his pension and the balance shall be handed over to his family. What is unfair in that? That seems to be an absolutely fair provision. The right hon. Gentleman says there are one or two hard cases. Hard cases make bad law, and if he is going to alter these two Acts of Parliament on the ground that there are one or two hard cases, I have made out a case against the alteration of the law, and the right hon. Gentleman has not brought forward any real valid reasons why the law should be so altered. We then come to the question of the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases. I have not the least idea what that means. That might give the right hon. Gentleman any power, and the House at this present moment when the expenditure of the country is £180,000,000 a year, ought not to pass a Resolution of this sort. It gives the Government a blank cheque. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not going to cost more than £10,000 a year, and probably it is not going to cost as much. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly sincere when he says that, but I remember the Prime Minister not so long ago telling us that old age pensions were going to cost £6,000,000. They now cost £13,000,000, and if the Prime Minister is wrong, how much more may the Financial Secretary be
392
wrong? Therefore, without in any way calling in question either the sincerity or the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, the House, in view of the experience of the past, should not be content to take-the estimate of a Minister as being the actual estimate which the service will cost. I have seen no reason brought forward for this alteration. I do not know what these hard cases are to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes. It would have been very much better if he had given us these hard cases in detail. As he has not done so, and as I am always willing to meet hon. Members opposite in a spirit of conciliation, I beg to move my Amendment.
Mr. CROOKS: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was to meet exceptionally hard cases. He and his predecessor have from time to time received petitions from all sides of the House as to the payment of gratuities to widows earned by men in the service. Over and over again it has happened that men have been stricken down while they remained on the books. If these men were discharged as medically unfit their widows would have been entitled to sums amounting to £10, £15, or more straight off the reel. But if a man happens to go home not quite well, and dies before the morning, the widow loses the amount the Government actually owed the man. There is no provision made for a case of that kind. These widows should receive the amounts due to their husbands. Would the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) agree that the money should be paid to the widows? I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, before making final arrangements, whether something could not be done to enable the widows to get the sums to which they are entitled. When petitions have been presented with respect to these matters we are always met by the circumlocution office known as the Treasury, and I have never been able to understand why the money is not paid to the widows of men who were in receipt of low wages while at work.
Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what will be the contents of the Bill which is to be founded on the Resolution? We have heard absolutely nothing except through the subterraneous excavations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I have had a pretty long experience of the House of Commons, and to

393
me the position is quite extraordinary. We see on the Order Paper "Superannuation;—Committee thereupon," but we get no information on the matter.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I spoke. I explained the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded, and stated that I thought it would be far more satisfactory if the House had the Bill in its hands before discussing it.
Mr. MALCOLM: I did hear every word that was said by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he was making a Second Reading speech. The House of Commons ought to have the Bill in its hands before passing the Resolution. The hon. Baronet has moved an Amendment to the effect that the amount should be limited to £10,000. What is that founded upon? It is founded merely on the personal opinion of the Financial Secretary. His opinion has been rather blown upon once this week, and it is not certain in this case that his opinion is shared by others. If it were not that an Amendment is now before the Committee, I would be inclined to move that you, Mr. Chairman, report Progress and ask leave to sit again. We should have more information and know how we stand in regard to the matter.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I find myself in agreement with many of the observations which fell from the hon. Baronet, and I am rather surprised to find how often I am in agreement. The House ought to be grateful to any watch-dog of the finances of the country. There is only one of the incidences which were lucidly explained by my right hon. Friend as to which I wish to express some doubt. I think it was the 4th which proposes by this Resolution to alter an Act of Parliament which deprives a Civil servant of his pension or portion of his pension—I am not quite clear which—when he becomes a pauper.
Mr. MASTERMAN: A pauper lunatic.
Sir W. BYLES: I believe it is the rule that when a pauper becomes a pauper, it is ascertained whether he has any property before he enjoys the rates which other people pay. I do not see why Civil servants should be an exception to that rule.
Colonel BATHURST: I wish to know if the rule which is going to be applied to Civil servants will be applied also to men who have served in the Army and Navy. I have a document received this morning
394
which reveals one very hard case. It is that of a man who was invalided out of the Army and received a pension of 6d. a day. Unfortunately he did become a pauper lunatic and on that—I do not know whether it is the Exchequer or the local authority—the pension is dropped and the wife and children are penniless. Soldiers and sailors deserve as well of their country as Civil servants.
Sir JOHN JARDINE: In the case of Civil servants transferred to Egypt from India it is provided that the Government of Egypt should pay a proper proportion of the payments that have to be made so that the finances of India may not be improperly charged with pensions for that-part of the time when the Government of India has lent the services of these men to save other Government or some native state or corporation in India. That is a very great safeguard for public finance and can be, very easily embodied in transactions of the kind that have been referred to.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the system which authorises the Motion which has been made is an unsatisfactory one. This is a plan by which, without any notice at all, a Resolution is proposed in Committee of this House, and simply binds the House in its future proceedings on this Bill. I am quite aware that it is not a new procedure but an old procedure, and I am quite aware also that the Bill cannot be produced until the Resolution is passed. At the same time it is a very bad procedure, because it docs not give any opportunity to the House to know what is going to be done until the Resolution is actually moved. The effect of the Resolution is absolutely to limit the Bill, and I apprehend no Amendment will be in order which contravenes in any respect the Resolution which we are to pass to-night. The Resolution absolutely governs it in every respect. My hon. Friend has moved an Amendment limiting the amount. I think there is a good deal to be said for the view that if we are to have these Motions, they should be limited in amount. My hon. Friend suggested that soldiers and sailors should be included, but that would be impossible if we passed this Resolution, as no Amendment would be in order. It has also been suggested that the widow of a Government servant ought to be entitled to what her deceased husband had earned before death. An Amendment to that effect would also be out of order.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: (Mr. Maclean): This is not the opportunity to discuss procedure. The Question before the Committee is to limit the amount to £10,000, and I must ask the Noble Lord to confine his remarks to the Amendment.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: On the Amendment I can still refer to the main Question. My objection to the Motion is that we are not able to include a subject with which the right hon Gentleman has promised to deal, and on which I think he might take the opportunity to tell us when he is going to fulfil his promise in that respect. If we are to have a Resolution of this kind as the very foundation of the Bill which is to be introduced, and which will limit the Bill in all its subsequent stages, then the Resolution ought to be put on the Paper before it is brought forward.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Noble Lord to direct his attention to the Amendment.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will resume my observations after the Amendment has been disposed of.
Earl WINTERTON: I ask for an answer to the question which has been raised as to whether soldiers and sailors will be included.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the question in order on this Amendment?
Earl WINTERTON: The question was asked by my hon. Friend, who was not called to order by you, Sir, and I submit that we ought to have an answer whether the Motion applies to soldiers and sailors or only to Civil servants.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That can be answered after this Amendment has been disposed of.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Is it not absolutely impossible to decide whether or not the limit is desirable before we know whether soldiers and sailors are to be included?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Soldiers and sailors are included, more especially the hard cases of soldiers in India.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the £10,000 will be sufficient?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Assuming that soldiers and sailors are dealt with. The outside estimate the Treasury gives me is £10,000.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does that include the teachers?
Mr. MASTERMAN: That question will be dealt with separately.
Mr. CROOKS: Does it include the gratuity to widows?
Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a much larger question of establishment and non-establishment, the settlement of which would involve something altogether disproportionate to this sum of £10,000.
Mr. CROOKS: The right hon. Gentleman ought to include power to pay people what the Government really owes them. The money has been earned, and you "scoop the pool" like an insurance society.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: If it is in order to discuss widows, I presume it is also in order to discuss teachers. I want to know whether the effect of the Amendment is that it will so limit the Bill as to make it impossible to include teachers. If that is so then I want to know when the Government propose to deal with the teachers' ease, as it is a very important matter.
Mr. MASTERMAN: Teachers are outside the scope of the Acts which this Bill proposes to amend. There is a Teachers' Superannuation Act, and I understand it is going to be amended in the near future.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: "When?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say. Better ask that question of the Prime Minister. Under that provision the whole question of teachers' superannuation will arise.
Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that the case raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, and the case of the soldier who becomes a pauper lunatic, and the wife who does not receive the pension she receives prior to his becoming a pauper lunatic, although she may be very poor, that all these cases will still continue under this Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): That is what this Bill is to amend.
Mr. MASTERMAN: All pensionable persons under the Superannuation Acts who become lunatics at present have a, sum of four shillings per week deducted, originally I suppose intended to pay for their support. We now find that as a

397
result of that they are dependent on the Poor Law and have not enough money to support themselves. We propose if the House agrees that that shall be removed. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich has nothing to do with lunatics or paupers. It is a much larger question as to the rights of non-established persons and involves many thousands of persons. That is a question which I submit ought to be dealt with by a totally different Bill.
Mr. CROOKS: Many widows are not pensionable persons at all. This involves a very small sum, and it is a very great hardship. It is simply asking you to pay to the widow what the man if in some cases he had lived an hour longer would be entitled to. Surely if any case is entitled to come within the scope of the Bill it is a case of that kind.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: As an illustration of the point raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, may I give a case which came to my personal knowledge. It was the case of a doctor who was in service in the Gold Coast. He was invalided home, and after being here for six months he received a clean bill of health, and returned to the Gold Coast. Shortly afterwards he died. If he had not gone back he would have been entitled to a sum of £1,200. His widow felt greatly grieved that she should be absolutely precluded from receiving anything, and in fact the Government benefited by death to the extent of that amount. That is undoubtedly a case of very great hardship, and if we could get some indication that that aspect of the matter would be considered, it would relieve many Members on this side of the House.
Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity of seeing and discussing the Bill before he tries to pass it sub silentio? That is not too much to ask, as many aspects of the case are very important and require discussion.
Mr. MASTERMAN: Immediately I receive the leave of the House, I shall introduce the Bill; but I cannot introduce it until the Resolution has been reported to the House, and the fullest facilities will be given to all those interested to study the Bill before it is discussed, and to discuss it when it comes before the House.
Sir E. CORNWALL: But is not this the point—that if we pass the Resolution
398
now, we shall be precluded by the terms of the Resolution from inserting an Amendment embodying the views of the hon. Member for Woolwich, which views many of us share? If that is the case, why not wait and amend the Resolution, so as to enable the House to amend the Bill in a direction which I believe would receive the general assent of the House?
Viscount WOLMER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Finance Bill this year before he had settled on his Resolution. Might not that precedent be followed in this case?
Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite impossible to introduce a Bill unless the Financial Resolution has been passed. The rule of the House is that where a Bill deals only with a money question there must be a Financial Resolution before the Bill can be introduced. Therefore the Government are absolutely correct in the course they are pursuing. Occasionally even this Government are right. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the outside cost would be £10,000. Why then do they not accept my Amendment, which is their own figure 1 In voting for the Amendment Members will not be depriving anyone of a single farthing; all they will do will be to limit the Government to the amount which they say is the amount they desire, I would not give a blank cheque to any Government, not even one of which I was a supporter. I am prepared to take their estimate of what the cost will be; then if they want more they can bring in another Resolution, and if they make out their case we will give the increase.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: A difficulty occurs to me after listening to the observations of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall). If the hon. Baronet persists in his Amendment, we cannot after disposing of that, move any further Amendment with a view to enlarging the Resolution so as to enable widows to be dealt with. This Amendment comes at the end of the Resolution, and we could not go back and insert words at an earlier point.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No Member of the House can move an Amendment that will increase the charge.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then in that case, I beg to move "That the Deputy-Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

399
This will give the Government an opportunity to reconsider this Resolution, and to see if they will not include in it words that will enable widows to be dealt with. It seems to me a matter of very great importance which has been brought to the attention of the Committee by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Woolwich and Bethnal Green. It is clearly a matter that ought to be dealt with; and it is one that we have had really no kind of adequate explanation upon. The widows have a prior claim upon the generosity and justice of the House. The House will be acting wrongly to pass this Resolution in its present form; because if we do we shall be quite unable to deal in the Bill with the case of the widows. If, on the other hand, we report Progress, then the Government themselves can propose an Amendment to the Resolution, and in view of the general expression of feeling in the House they will probably see that it is right to propose such an Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid the Noble Lord has not considered exactly the Amendment. Here is a small Bill dealing with admittedly hard cases that are pressed upon us from time to time, affecting soldiers and sailors and their wives, together with postmen and certain lower grades of the Civil Service. First of all the hon. Baronet the Member for the City wants to limit the sum to '£10,000; you must not spend a penny more whatever the grievances are. Then comes along my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich and says: "I have a grievance." That will cost £50,000 or £60,000.
Mr. CROOKS: £10,000.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The particular case that the hon. Member knows, I dare say, would not cost £50; but here is another hon. Member who has got a grievance. The Committee can take it from me that the Treasury have gone into the whole matter, and it will cost £50,000 or £60,000.
Earl WINTERTON: Then the scandal is all the greater.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The two points are absolutely inconsistent. One hon. Member wants us to accept his Amendment and limit the sum to £10,000, while another hon. Member suggests that we should be prepared to spend another £50,000 or £60,000. Both are going to combine to destroy a Bill—[HON. MEMBERS:
400
"No, no."]—which is going to remedy grievances that are admitted. If the Committee take that view, the responsibility must be theirs. We as a Government accept responsibility to redress these few small grievances. Hon. Members are combining from different points of view to kill the Bill. The responsibility will be theirs. Suppose the Noble Lord's Motion is accepted, and we report Progress. Does he imagine that there are no other grievances that other hon. Members will not raise? It is his view, and the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, that the Government shall not be allowed to redress these small grievances unless at the same time we redress all grievances dealing with superannuation? I ask the Committee to consider the thing very seriously. It is our duty to put this matter before them. The Noble Lord raised the question of teachers.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: It has been explained to me since that there will be a separate Bill dealing with them, and I am satisfied with that.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but that is the point of view of the Noble-Lord. If it is the view of the Committee that we had better not proceed to deal with one matter until we are prepared to deal with all the grievances of hon. Members, then it will be for the Government, to reconsider their position.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to put the Committee on the horns of a dilemma. He says we will deal with these grievances now or not at all. That is not the position that most Members and the Committee wish lo lake upon this matter. They want to know what the grievances are that are to be dealt with. The Secretary to the Treasury made, if I may say so, a most sloppy speech in support of the Resolution [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Withdraw."] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will object to that expression, because he must be familiar with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member to proceed.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Secretary to the Treasury must be quite familiar with the expression, because it was first used on his own side of the

401
House. I do not blame the Secretary to the Treasury for his speech, because I do not think he could possibly expect that the Resolution would be framed in the way it is. The Opposition is quite alive to the fact that this Resolution may limit the action of the Committee or the House on a future occasion, and the real complaint to-night is that this Resolution is framed in such terms that it prevents the House from discussing the matter when the Bill is brought before it. The House should be cognisant of what it is asked to vote for when the Bill is produced. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City has pointed out it is impossible to produce the Bill until the Financial Resolution is passed. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that is an answer, but surely it is not. It simply shows that the Secretary to the Treasury ought to have explained more fully to the House the limitation of the Resolution. He is proposing a Resolution which will limit the action of the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says you must pass the Resolution or else none of the grievances will be dealt with. The Secretary to the Treasury said the maximum cost under the Resolution would be £10,000.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather wide of the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I submit I am showing reasons why we should report Progress in order that the Secretary to the Treasury may bring forward a more concise Resolution, and one which
would show the House more particularly what is going to be done. This Resolution is a complete surprise to most Members of the Committee. I will undertake to say that no Member' of the House could read into the words "Superannuation—Committee thereupon" the discussion which is now taking place I think we should have had a further statement from the Secretary to the Treasury of the actual position. I support this Motion not because I wish to bring in every grievance which might be brought in, but because I am convinced that besides the matters mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury certainly that mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich ought to be considered, and when the opportunity comes I shall have others to add.
Mr. CROOKS: I know that a majority of the House are in favour of dealing with pauper lunatics, for we all know the hardship in these cases. I think it might be limited to people in receipt of certain wages, say, not more than £2 a week. My difficulty is to know how to do this. I am not going to vote for anything that is going to prevent you from dealing with pauper lunatics, because I know the abominable hardships the poor women have to suffer. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point I have raised.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 241.

Division No. 282.]

AYES

[11.50 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Jowett, F. W.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Baird, J. L.

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Larmor, Sir J,

Balcarres, Lord

Courthope, George Loyd

Lewisham, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Banner, John S. Harmood

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Croft, H. P.

Macmaster, Donald

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Dixon, C. H.

M'Mordle, Robert

Barrie, H. T.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Malcolm, Ian

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Forster, Henry William

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

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

Mount, William Arthur

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Goldsmith, Frank

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Beresford, Lord C.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Bigland, Alfred

Gretton, John

Perkins, Walter F.

Bird, A.

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

Peto, Basil Edward

Boies, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

Hodge, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hohler, G. Fitzroy

Royds, Edmund

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Sanders, Robert A.

Stanier, Beville

Touche, George Alexander

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Worthington-Evans, L.

Starkey, John R.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Stewart, Gershom

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Wilkie, Alexander

Younger, Sir George

Talbot, Lord E.

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

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Winterton, Earl of

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Wolmer, Viscount

Hildred Carlile and Mr. Philip Foster.

NOES

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Millar, James Duncan

Acland, Francis Dyke

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Molloy, M.

Adamson, William

Gill, A. H.

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Addison, Dr. C.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Agnew, Sir George William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mooney, J. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Greig, Col. J. W

Morrell, Philip

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morison, Hector

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

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

Muldoon, John

Arnold, Sydney

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

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Hackett, John

Needham, Christopher

Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hancock, J. G.

Nellson, Francis

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Barton, W.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Nugent, Sir Walter R.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bentham, G. J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Doherty, Philip

Boland, John Pius

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Booth, Frederick Handel

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Dowd, John

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Ogden, Fred

Brace, William

Hayward, Evan

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

Brady, P. J.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

O'Malley, William

8runner, John F. L.

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)

Bryce, J. Annan

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland

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

O'Shee, James John

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hinds, John

Outhwaite, R. L.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Palmer, Godfrey

Chancellor, H. G.

Hogge, James Myles

Parker, James (Halifax)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hudson, Walter

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Clancy, John Joseph

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

Clough, William

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

Pointer, Joseph

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

Pringle, William M. R.

Crean, Eugene

Joyce, Michael

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Crooks, William

Keating, M.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Crumley, Patrick

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cullinan, J.

Kelly, Edward

Reddy, M.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

King, J.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Dawes, J. A.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Rendall, Athelstan

De Forest. Baron

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

Richards, Thomas

Delany, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Doris, W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Duffy, William

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, Sidney

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley);

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Lundon, T.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lynch, A. A.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rowlands, James

Essex, Richard Walter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rowntree, Arnold

Esslemont, George Birnie

McGhee, Richard

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Falconer, J.

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Macpherson, James Ian

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

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Manfield, Harry

Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whltechapel)

Firench, Peter

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Scanlan, Thomas

Field, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Martin, J.

Sheehy, David

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Shortt, Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

France, G. A.

Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

404

405

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Waring, Walter

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Sutton, John E.

Watt, Henry A.

Winfrey, Richard

Taylor, John w. (Durham)

Webb, H.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Tennant, Harold John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Toulmin, Sir George

Wiles, Thomas

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Dewelyn (Carmarthen)

Amendment again proposed, "That those words be there added."
Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry to trespass on the time of the Committee, but I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is not possible to so amend this Resolution that it shall apply to the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich as well as to those actually coming under it. May I cite a case which has been brought to my notice. It was the case of a man not borne on the list of Civil servants. I believe there are many such working in the dockyards. He totally broke down in health and became a lunatic—and having no means of support beyond his labour he of course became a pauper lunatic. A wife has no means of obtaining from the Government any form of compensation, although her husband had worked for it for many years, unless he is borne on the Civil Service and, although his lunacy may be the result of overstrain and overwork brought on by his employment, there is no redress. There are many such cases of hardship. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that if such cases were included the cost would be not £10,000 a year but £50,000 or £60,000 annually. I am not concerned with that. It is none the less a scandal that such cases should exist, and, even at the cost of a large sum of money, such gross injustice should be redressed.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Question before the Committee is I believe that the sum shall be limited to £10,000. Is it in order to discuss a proposal to extend the amount even beyond the sum originally proposed in the Resolution?
The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to go beyond the amount.
12.0 M.
Earl WINTERTON: This point was raised in the Debate before the Motion to report Progress. I am well aware that these persons are not included in the Resolution. I say they ought to be included. I cannot understand the defence of the right hon. Gentleman that the cost would be
406
greater than was anticipated. That is no answer to the case put forward by the hon. I Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). It is quite a new thing to learn from the Treasury that £50,000 or £60,000 is such a serious matter. I do not believe they ever heard that in the little village in the Welsh hills. The last thing that they would hear of would be a few extra thousand pounds when it was a question of feeding the; hungry or clothing the poor. There is a great case to be made out for extending the provisions of the Resolution to the cases I have mentioned. The way in which the Resolution has been brought forward, the method in which it is worded, and the refusal of the Secretary to the Treasury to give any information is symtomatic of the way business is always done now in this House. It is remarkable that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who used at one time—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is discussing the question of procedure. That does not arise on the Amendment.
Earl WINTERTON: I was discussing the method in which the Government bring forward their Financial Resolution.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the Noble Lord will speak to the Amendment.
Earl WINTERTON: I fully recognise the courtesy you have always displayed to me and everyone else when you are in the Chair. I say the manner in which the Government have brought forward this Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is quite in order. We are not going to suffer from one hundred Chairmen of Committees. The way in which the Resolution is moved is remarkable for a party which, before it was allied with hon. Members below the Gangway, prided itself on being a party of economy.
Mr. KING Mr. KING rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Earl WINTERTON: The Secretary to the Treasury when he rose was unable to explain the effect of his own Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech showed that he knew no more about the Question than his right hon. Friend. To bring forward a Resolution which only deals partly with this subject—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would invite the Noble Lord to confine himself strictly to the Amendment,
Earl WINTERTON: The argument I was endeavouring, under some difficulty owing to the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to put forward was that the Resolution is brought forward in a very curious manner. If a question of this kind is going to be dealt with, all the difficulties and scandals which exist at the present time should be dealt with, and not merely a portion of them. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway, including the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks), will for once have the courage of their convictions, and vote with us. The manner in which the whole thing has been brought forward is a Parliamentary scandal of the first magnitude.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I think if the Bill had been a little better explained, there would not have been all this disturbance.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really cannot allow the latitude of the earlier -part of the proceedings to be further extended on this Amendment. The Amendment is that the sum be limited to the amount of £10,000 per year. All remarks of hon. Members must be strictly confined to that narrow point.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The point before the Committee is whether this shall be limited to £10,000 or more, and considering whether it should be limited to £10,000 it seems to me that we must necessarily consider whether there are claims which this Committee ought to meet which will in the aggregate exceed £10,000. I have just been able to secure a copy of the Resolution, and it is for an increased amount of superannuation. The Treasury Bench have not given us any information to show us whether £10,000 is enough or not. It is true they have said £10,000 is enough, but as the Resolution is in very wide terms, I do not propose to support my hon. Friend in his Amendment, because we are absolutely in the dark as to whether £10,000 is enough, and
408
we know that there are cases which are covered at least by the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury which require to be met. So, in order to avoid the risk of having to cut out later on when we consider the Bill, I am not going to vote for my hon. Friend, but I shall have to support the open Resolution not limited to £10,000, because we cannot judge at the moment whether that sum is enough or not. If the Secretary to the Treasury will give us further information on the subject we might be able to say whether that sum is enough or not, but rather than risk having any Amendment we may make to the Bill ruled out of order later on, I am not going to vote for the Amendment.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: May I ask whether or not the category of cases which have moved the spirit of the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) can be dealt with under the Resolution, supposing it to be passed by the Committee? I am not at all clear that it can. I am inclined to think it cannot be dealt with whether this limit of £10.000 be placed in the Resolution or not.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This deals purely with cases under the Superannuation Act. The cases referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) are not-covered by the Superannuation Act and therefore do not come under the Bill. My hon. Friend has raised a ligitimate grievance which ought to be looked into, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this Bill and could not come under it, and it ought therefore to be taken on its merits just as my hon. Friend's Amendment should be taken on its merits.
Mr. FORSTER: That clears away any doubt I had in my own mind as to the propriety or the reverse of supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. His Amendment is to adopt the Government's own estimate of the cost to the nation under the Bill. If they correct their estimate, and say that on reconsideration they would prefer to make it £20,000, I am sure my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment and move another in that form so as to limit it to the larger amount. All he has in his mind is that we shall not give to this or any other Government a blank cheque.
Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has advanced certain reasons which have been demolished by the right hon. Gentleman. I should be very loth to lose the support of my hon. Friend,

409
and I wish to assure him that my Amendment would not in any way damnify him if he desired to support some other proposal. This Resolution would be amended later on. A charge cannot be imposed on the nation on the Report stage, and therefore the only possible chance of amending the Resolution, in order to carry out what my hon. Friend desires to do, and what the hon. Member for Woolwich desires to do, was to get the Government to move an Amendment at the present moment, or to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. That was not done, and therefore we come back to this, that we are now voting for a certain limitation. It may be right or wrong. I take the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman, but if he should come afterwards and say, "I asked for £10,000, but that is not enough; I -want £20,000," I would say, "Take
£20,000." [An HON. MEMBER: "He said it was the outside amount."] Yes, but within an hour he may have changed his mind. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Opposition said this House should keep a check on the finances of the nation. They said they would "turn out the extravagant Tories." I say we ought to accept the estimate given by the Government until they come down and say they have made a mistake, and ask us to alter the amount.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Questions be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 218;. Noes, 75.

Division No. 283.]

AYES

[12.16 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Kilbride, Denis

Acland, Francis Dyke

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

King, Joseph

Adamson, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Essex, Richard Walter

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

Agnew, Sir George

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Falconer, James

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

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

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Arnold, Sydney

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Lewis, John Herbert

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Ffrench, Peter

Lundon, T.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Field, William

Lynch, A. A.

Barton, William

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Fitzgibbon, John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Bentham, G. J.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Macpherson, James

Boland, John Pius

Gelder, Sir W. A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Booth, Frederick Handel

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

McGhee, Richard

Bowerman, C. W.

Gill, A. H.

Manfield, Harry

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Brace, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Greig, Col. James William

Martin, Joseph

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Griffith. Ellis J.

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

Brunner, J. F. L.

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

Meagher, Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, H. J

Burke, E Haviland

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Millar, James Duncan

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hackett, John

Molloy, Michael

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hancock, J. G.

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morison, Hector

Chancellor, H. G.

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

Muldocn, John

Chappie, Dr. W. A.

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

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Clancy, John Joseph

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Needham, Christopher T.

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Neilson, Francis

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Dencaster>

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Nolan, Joseph

Cotton, William Francis

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Crooks, William

Hobhcuse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Crumley, Patrick

Hogge, James Myles

O'Doherty, Philip

Cullinan, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Donnell, Thomas

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Ogden, Fred

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

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Dawes, James A.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Malley, William

De Forest, Baron

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)

Delany, William

Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shee, James John

Doris, William

Joyce, Michael

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Duffy, William J.

Keating, M.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Kelly, Edward

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Robinson, Sidney

Toulmin, Sir George

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

Roch, Walter F.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Rowlands, James

Waring, Walter

Pointer, Joseph

Rowntree, Arnold

Warner, Sir T. C. T.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Watt, Henry A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Webb, H.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Pringle, William M. R.

Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Scanlan, Thomas

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Wiles, Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Sheehy, David

Wllkie, Alexander

Reddy, Michael

Shortt, Edward

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rendall, Athelstan

Sutherland, J. E.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Richards, Thomas

Sutton, John E.

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Tennant, Harold John

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Croft, H. P.

Peto, Basil Edward

Ashley, W. W.

Dixon, Charles Henry

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Balrd, J. L.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Foster, Philip Staveley

Spear, Sir John Ward

Banner, John S. Harmood

Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

Stanier, Beville

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

Gretton, John

Starkey, John Ralph

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

Stewart, Gershom

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Talbot, Lord E.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

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

Bigland, Alfred

Hohler, G. F.

Touche, George Alexander

Bird, Alfred

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Tulibardine, Marquess of

Boles, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

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

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Winterton, Earl

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lewisham, Viscount

Worthlington-Evans, L.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Clyde, J. Avon

Macmaster, Donald

Yate, Col. C. E.

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Malcolm, Ian

Younger, Sir George

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Courthope, George Loyd

Neville, Reginald J. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Rawlinson and Mr. Montague Barlow.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 218.

Division No. 284.]

AYES

[12.25 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dixon, C. H

Peto, Basil Edward

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Eyres-Monsell, B M.

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Ashley, W. W.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Baird, John Lawrence

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Foster, Phlip Staveley

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Balcarres, Lord

Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Banner, John S. Harmood

Goldsmith, Frank

Stanier, Beville

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

Gretton, John

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

Starkey, John R.

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Stewart, Gershom

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Talbot, Lord E.

Bigland, Alfred

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

Bird, Alfred

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Touche, George Alexander

Boles, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Bridgeman, William Clive

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Watt, Henry A.

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

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Larmor, Sir J.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lewisham, Viscount

Winterton, Earl

Clyde, James Avon

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Macmaster, Donald

Yate, Col. C. E.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Malcolm, Ian

Courthope, George Loyd

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

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Frederick Banbury and Mr. E. Cecil.

Croft, Henry Page

Perkins, Walter Frank

NOES

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Adamson, William

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

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Agnew, Sir George William

Hackett, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hancock, J. G.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

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

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

Arnold, Sydney

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pointer, Joseph

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Pollard, Sir George H.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hazleton, Richard

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pringle, William M. R.

Bentham, George Jackson

Henry, Sir Charles

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Boland, John Pius

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hogge, James Myles

Reddy, Michael

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Howard, Hon. Geottrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Redmond, William (Clare. E.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rendall, Athelstan

Brunner, John F. L.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Richards, Thomas

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Burke, E. Haviland.

Jones Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

Keating, Matthew

Robinson, Sidney

Chancellor, H. G.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roch, Walter F.

Chappie, Dr. William Allen

Kelly, Edward

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Kilbride, Denis

Rowlands, James

Clancy, John Joseph

King, Joseph

Rowntree, Arnold

Clough, William

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cotton, William Francis

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbirld, Cockenn'th)

Scanlan, Thomas

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Levy, Sir Maurice

Scott, A. MacCailum, (Glas., Bridgeton)

Crooks, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Sheehy, David

Crumley, Patrick

Lundon, Thomas

Shortt, Edward

Cullinan, John

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

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

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Dawes, James Arthur

Macpherson, James Ian

Sutherland, J. E.

De Forest, Baron

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sutton, John E.

Delany, William

McGhee, Richard

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Manfield, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Doris, William

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Tennant, Harold John

Duffy, William J.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Martin, Joseph

Toulmin, Sir George

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, tley)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elverston, Sir Harold

Meagher, Michael

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Waring, Walter

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford N.)

Millar, James Duncan

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Essex, Richard Walter

Molloy, Michael

Webb, H.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradesto)n

Falconer, James

Morison, Hector

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Farrell, James Patrick

Muldoon, John

Whyte, Alexander F.

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Wiles, Thomas

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Ffrench, Peter

Neilson, Francis

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Field, William

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Nolan, Joseph

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

Fitzgibbon, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Worthington-Evans, L.

France, G. A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

O'Doherty, Philip

Young, William (Perth, East)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

O'Donnell, Thomas

Younger, Sir George

Gill, A. H.

Ogden, Fred

Gladstone, W. G. C.

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

O'Malley, William

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGEclaimed "That the Main Question be now put."
Main Question put accordingly.
Earl WINTERTON(seated and covered): I desire to put a point of Order, and ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether your attention was called to the fact that

415
I rose to speak on my Amendment, and, although I was on my feet for some time, you never called upon me. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Worthing-ton-Evans) did the same.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With respect to the Noble Lord's point, the main Question being claimed and put, the result is that no discussion can now possibly arise.
Earl WINTERTON: May I ask who claimed the main Question?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Earl WINTERTON: No one heard him claim it.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts, and to make further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the grant of Superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service, and for the increase of the amount of Superannuation I and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which section twelve of The Superannuation Act, 1834, or section seven of The Superannuation Act, 1887, apply, and for the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday).

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  MONEY [RESOLUTION].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund" and out of moneys provided by Parliament of any Charges which may be incurred under any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland; and of authorising the imposition of additional Customs Duties in certain cases in pursuance of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand this Motion to be that this House tomorrow will resolve itself into a Committee to do certain things?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): It is simply for the purpose of getting on the Paper the Money Resolution of the Home Rule Bill, which the Prime Minister promised would be placed before the House as early as possible.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is it this day or tomorrow?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This day (Wednesday).
  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 Twenty minutes before One a.m., Wednesday, 30th October, 1912.

  Irish Land Commission (Clerks).
  Irish Land Commission (Clerks).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  EMPLOYER'S UNEMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.
  EMPLOYER'S UNEMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.
  WORKMEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT CARDS.
  WORKMEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT CARDS.
  ELECTION OF REFEREES.
  ELECTION OF REFEREES.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Fisheries.
  Irish Fisheries.
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Evicted Tenant (Cummer, County Galway).
  Evicted Tenant (Cummer, County Galway).
  Untenanted Land.
  Untenanted Land.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ENTRY OF BOYS (VACCINATION).
  ENTRY OF BOYS (VACCINATION).
  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Rosyth Dockyard.
  War in Balkans.
  War in Balkans.
  Street Distribution of Leaflets.
  Street Distribution of Leaflets.
  Alleged Assaults at Llanstumdwy.
  Alleged Assaults at Llanstumdwy.
  Civil Process Prisoners.
  Civil Process Prisoners.
  Toxteth Park Girls' Reformatory School.
  Toxteth Park Girls' Reformatory School.
  Congo State (British Subjects).
  Congo State (British Subjects).
  Unemployment (Grant for Emigration).
  Unemployment (Grant for Emigration).
  Japanese Imports and Exports.
  Japanese Imports and Exports.
  Wheat Prices.
  Wheat Prices.
  Coal Mines (Minimum Wages).
  Coal Mines (Minimum Wages).
  Iron and Steel Exports (Great Britain and Germany).
  Iron and Steel Exports (Great Britain and Germany).
  British and Danish Potatoes.
  British and Danish Potatoes.
  English Channel (Passenger Traffic).
  English Channel (Passenger Traffic).
  Postal Facilities, Mey, Caithness.
  Postal Facilities, Mey, Caithness.
  Post Office, Ballyhaise, County Cavan.
  Post Office, Ballyhaise, County Cavan.
  Trunk Telephone (Cavan).
  Trunk Telephone (Cavan).
  Imperial Exchequer (Irish Services).
  Imperial Exchequer (Irish Services).
  Sales of Reversions.
  Sales of Reversions.
  Housing in Scotland (Royal Commission).
  Housing in Scotland (Royal Commission).
  Small-Pox (Vaccination).
  Small-Pox (Vaccination).
  Forestry Education (Scotland).
  Forestry Education (Scotland).
  Inverliver Nursery.
  Inverliver Nursery.
ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
MARRIAGES IN JAPAN (VALIDITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF STALLIONS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the Registration of certain Stallions—Was presented by the Lord Saltoun; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 19 th of November. (No. 153)
FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate and simplify the Las relating to Forgery and kindred offences—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; red 1a, and to be printed. (No. 154.)
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893—Was presented by the Lord Ashby St. Ledgers; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 155.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 156.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to meeting places of Approved Societies and Branches thereof;

2. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the application of the Transfer Value of a Married Woman electing not to become a Voluntary Contributor:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 157.)

KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, who is attending an agricultural meeting in the country, I beg to move the suspension of the Standing Order in regard to this Bill. I think I ought to explain to your Lordships the reason why it is necessary to ask for this indulgence on your part. It is due to the fact that there was certain opposition in the other House to some of the provisions, which have since been modified. The Bill was introduced, in accordance with the Standing Orders, on May 22, but it was not until July 17 that the negotiations resulted in a compromise which enabled the Bill to proceed as an unopposed measure; and the Board,

841
although they did everything in their power to expedite matters, have been unable to ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading until to-day.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with.
—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Wednesday the 6th of November next.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to explain very briefly the character of this Bill. It originates with the Foreign Office, and its purpose is to bring the enlistment law of this country, as contained in the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, into harmony with the provisions which were agreed upon in The Hague Convention. A Committee has sat for the purpose of working out the details, and they are embodied in this Bill. I should state that the Bill imposes no restriction, but gets rid of a certain undue severity with which the law presses upon British shipbuilders. The Hague Convention agreed that the law should be that when a ship was being fitted out for merely commercial purposes as distinguished from purposes of war it was quite legitimate that it should be
842
bought and sold in the ordinary way, but the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 was drawn with such stringency that it goes beyond that; and the Foreign Office have prepared this Bill in order to make our law accord with the provisions of the Convention come to at The Hague Conference upon the point. The Bill is in every respect, I think, beneficial to the interests of British shipowners and shipbuilders, and it brings the law, as I have said, into conformity with the law recognised by other nations and by ourselves at The Hague Convention. The point is a very small one, but I think the Bill will prove useful. There is another provision in it to the effect that if a ship has been contracted to be built in time of peace but has warlike equipment connected with it, then the contractor may give notice to the British Government, and the British Government will decide what is to be done. The contractor is not allowed to let the ship leave these shores unless the consent of the British Government has been obtained. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question, with his answer to which I shall be content. I need not remind him that there has been some alteration of late years in The Hague Conventions. I want to know whether this Bill in any respect will bring into operation that to which this House has refused up to the present to assent. I conceive that the object of this Bill is to bring our law into accord with what is vaguely described as The Hague Conventions. If the Lord Chancellor will tell me that the Bill makes no difference with respect to the operation of the one to which this House has refused assent, I offer no objection to the Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the question which arose when this House refused its assent, there is no connection between the two, and there is nothing in this Bill which impinges on anything which this House has been unwilling to recognise.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday the 6th of November next.

KING'S BENCH DIVISION—ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now rise to move au Address, in the terms which appear on the Notice Paper, for the appointment of an additional Puisne Judge of the King's Bench Division. I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time in making this Motion. The matter was fully discussed in another place last Friday, and the Address which I move is in the same terms as the Address which was there agreed to. There are a good many points about which difference of opinion exists in connection with the general subject of the sufficiency of Judges, and whether the arrangements in regard to the Long Vacation, the County Courts, and other matters are the best possible, but I will not enter upon them to-day; because, as your Lordships are aware, the Government propose to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into these things. Consequently, at the present time our attention is directed simply to the much more narrow question whether at this moment another Judge ought to be appointed.
Your Lordships may recollect that a Joint Committee of the two Houses sat in the year 1910 and made a recommendation for the appointment of two additional Judges, but that was coupled with a recommendation that when the number of Judges in the ordinary course shrunk to the normal number of sixteen the vacancies should not be filled without an Address presented by both Houses. That recommendation is embodied in Section 1 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, and this Address is moved in pursuance of that section. I hope it will be found that this provision gives the control which Parliament desired to have over the appointment of the Judges, and at the same time proves to be not an embarrassing provision. The Royal Commission will throw considerable light on the whole question as to whether one additional Judge is enough, or whether in the future it may be that more Judges are wanted, or whether with certain changes the sixteen Judges of the King's Bench Division can get through the work which is normally assigned to them.
In the last few years various Acts have been passed which have increased the work of the Judges, notably the Act setting up the Court of Criminal Appeal, and your Lordships may recollect that
844
Lord Coleridge was appointed an additional Judge on the occasion of the passing of that Act. I will, however, not go into that matter now. I will only say that we are at this moment satisfied that, whatever arrangements may be made in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission to enable the Judges to get through their work more easily, the case has arisen for the appointment of at any rate this additional Judge. We do not wish to prejudice the question whether there ought to be more than one additional Judge. We are simply face to face with the fact that there is a congestion of business, and that the public interests seem to us to demand the appointment of an extra Judge; and if your Lordships assent to this Address the consequence will be that au extra Judge will be appointed at once. We have the great advantage to-day of the presence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, who is more familiar than any one with the conditions of business in the King's Bench Division, and I do not propose to occupy your Lordships further than simply to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the number of the Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice now amounts to fifteen, and that the state of business in the said Division requires that one additional Judge should be appointed to the said Division under the first section of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new Judge of the said Division of the High Court of Justice accordingly.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has appealed to me. I do not intend to occupy your Lordships' time at any length, but as I know the facts it is, I think, desirable that I should put your Lordships in possession of the present state of business in the King's Bench Division. I am most anxious to avoid entering upon any controversial question or saving anything of an argumentative character. The Joint Committee to which reference has been made unanimously agreed that there was congestion of business in the King's Bench Division at the end of the legal year 1910. Accordingly they recommended the

845
appointment of two additional Judges, subject in the future to a revision when a vacancy occurred. They accompanied that Report with a further recommendation to which I will refer in a moment.
I wish, in the first place, to tell your Lordships why the urgency now exists. My task has been rendered very easy on account of the, if I may say so, singularly fair and able speech made by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons last Friday. He had obtained the information, and he used it in a way for which His Majesty's Judges are grateful, because his speech led at any rate to the nonappearance of some of the things that were said—unjustly said—on previous occasions. At that time—I am speaking of Michaelmas, 1910—the total number of cases in the King's Bench Division was 1,120, included in which were 867 actions. We enjoyed the privilege of the two extra Judges for little more than a year. The result was most satisfactory; and may I here say how glad I am to see my noble and learned friend Lord Lore burn back in your Lordships' House. Mr. Justice Grantham died at the end of November, 1911. At the commencement of the next Term the total had gone down from 1,120 to 599, and the causes from 867 to 348. It is said by people who do not know the facts that immediately a vacancy arises the Judges press for it to be filled. I am glad to say that that did not apply in this case, for on the death of Mr. Justice Grantham I communicated at once with Lord Loreburn and said that in my opinion we might be able to get on without the vacancy being filled, and with my entire approval he did not take any steps to fill that vacancy. I might incidentally mention that Mr. Justice Grantham was one of the hardest workers in the King's Bench Division, and did as much work as any Judge I could name. Practically contemporaneously with the death of Mr. Justice Grantham Mr. Justice Lawrance was taken ill. The result was that from November, 1911, down to the present time we have only had fifteen Puisne Judges in the King's Bench Division. At once I began to see that I had probably made a mistake in thinking that we need not fill the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Justice Grantham. The work began to get into arrear, and by Easter, 1912, the number of cases was 694, included in which were 412 causes, and at the beginning of the Michael-
846
mas Sittings the cases standing for hearing amounted to 966, in which there were 659 actions for trial. I had meanwhile given to a Committee of the Cabinet all the information in my power. I will not say anything about their judgment. They have put down a certain Motion on the Paper. I can well understand that they may not have been able to go further. It is admitted by the Attorney-General and agreed to by the Lord Chancellor that there is now again very nearly the same congestion, and that the state of business in the King's Bench Division necessitates the appointment of an additional Judge.
People who do not understand the facts do not hesitate to say that it is the fault of the King's Bench Judges that there is this congestion. In regard to that I wish to say a word. I desire, first, to refer to the recommendation which was made when the two additional Judges were appointed. The Committee asked that the reforms and improvements they suggested should be taken into consideration. What these Reforms were has never been stated, but as far as it is possible I believe His Majesty's Government have carried them out. The first point is the question of the Circuit system. Lord Loreburn and myself were in constant communication, and almost one of the last acts that he did as Lord Chancellor to improve the condition of matters was to pass a new Order under which fresh facilities were given to Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Swansea, Exeter, Ipswich, Newcastle, Chester, and Lewes; and, in addition, the Order provided that Civil business might be taken at any town on the Autumn Circuit on the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. Except under an Act of Parliament nothing more can be done to improve the business upon the Circuits, because, as your Lordships are aware, criminal business must be taken in the county in which the crime has been committed. Therefore if you are going to do more with the Circuit system you must be prepared with an Act of Parliament for forcing people to try their cases or prisoners in counties other than that in which the matter arose. I therefore wish to point out—and the Attorney-General said the same thing in the House of Commons on Friday night—that except under Statute we cannot do more to get work out of the Circuit system.

847
The next point raised was that there was loss of Judicial time by the Circuit system. There is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion. It is astonishing how long an erroneous idea remains, and people quote it over and over again. In the year 1904 the late Lord Wolverhampton, then Sir Henry Fowler, who took a great interest in this matter, came to me and asked whether I could show him that there was no waste of time. I had a Return prepared and presented to Parliament for the years 1905 and 1906, from which it appeared that during those two years 395 hours more were occupied by sittings of the King's Bench Judges on Circuit than would have been the case had they been in London sitting full time. I continued that Return, and in 1908 the King's Bench Judges sat 231 hours more. I have kept up the Return since, and for the period from May 31, 1911, to August 1, 1912, the Judges sat on Circuit 477 hours more than if they had been sitting in London. This is due to the late hours to which they sit when on Circuit. It is a mistake to suggest that the Judges gain anything by going on Circuit. On the contrary, they work harder than if they remained in London. I may say that in the figures no allowance whatever is made for days occupied in travelling. The figures are the net result of the sittings of the Judges on Circuit. That Return, made up to the present time, will again be presented to Parliament and will be available for the investigations of the Royal Commission. If these sittings are taken into account, the King's Bench Judges sit more hours than any other High Court Judges. I am not saying anything against the other Judges, but am endeavouring to show that there is not the slightest ground for suggesting that the Judges of the King's Bench Division sit fewer hours by going on Circuit than would be the case if they remained in London.
I will refer only for a moment to the suggestion that the Judges were slack in London. We never knew from whom that statement originated, but the Judges felt it very keenly. I determined that there should be no doubt on the matter, and I placed before the Committee of the Cabinet the record of the daily sittings ever since the Joint Committee reported. With the exception of myself and unless prevented by illness the Judges sit on every available working day. I do not say
848
that there may not be a rearrangement of business that might make the Saturday-sitting more effective, but there is no shirking of work in the way of sittings on the part of any Puisne Judge of the King's Bench Division. For myself I will not speak. All I will say is that I have a great deal of work to do, and I have designedly said that I will not sit on Saturdays, although very often a great part of Saturday is occupied in getting up papers for the Court of Criminal Appeal. I shall be content to put before anybody the actual figures for every working day of the year. I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that there is a state of matters requiring the appointment of an additional Judge.
I will, in passing, call attention to the reforms which were suggested as possible. I do not refer to the County Courts, because there, again, there is necessity for a Statute. My noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn was anxious to pass a County Courts Bill which would have had far-reaching effect. But we cannot say we will not do the work because an Act of Parliament is going to be passed. We are obliged to ask to be sufficiently manned to be able to do the work. Then, again, the King's Bench Division is the one which is always drawn upon. If the Court of Appeal wants a Judge application is made to me to go, and I do at times go to the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Admiralty wants a Judge the King's Bench Division has to supply one. I put in a Paper before the Committee in which I stated that I estimated that the work additional to the ordinary King's Bench work—such as work at the Central Criminal Court, Admiralty cases, Election Petitions, and so on—would require 407 extra days, which represent the time of a Judge and a-half. As a matter of fact I was wrong in that figure, for we had to give 545 extra days of Judicial time from the King's Bench Division during the twelve months ended May, 1912. Nothing that we can do can get more work out of the King's Bench Division as matters stand at present.
I should, of course, have been glad to see a Motion for the appointment of two Judges—and there was a very strong body of opinion in the House of Commons in favour of that—but I recognise the difficulty which the Government have had to face and I do not wish to press them unduly. I hope and believe that I satisfied the

849
four distinguished members of the Cabinet that two were really necessary. It may be that Parliamentary difficulties arose, and that we could not have a Motion for the appointment of two Judges. I recognise that the Government have felt that they could submit a Motion for one Judge only, and I thank them for going so far. They have coupled it with a determination—which I, and which His Majesty's Judges of all Divisions, certainly of the King's Bench Division, welcome from every point of view—to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into these matters. I do not know what the terms of the reference may be, and I shall not speculate in anything more than mere generalities to show the difficulties. If you are going to inquire into the Circuit system—and by all means do so—do not think that you are going to touch an easy subject. It is a system which has existed for 600 or 700 years, and it is the outcome of our Judicial system as it has been for centuries. It is not a mere question of the number of Judges or the manner in which the Judges do their work; it involves a fundamental principle. I express no opinion upon it. But remember that if you abolish the Circuit system you are going then to deprive people in the counties of having the Judges cone down to them. You will find it a most difficult question. I doubt whether a day of Judicial time could be saved. But, whatever is done, you must devise a system which will give as great facilities as exist now to people to have their cases tried and crimes inquired into. It is not right to tell a man who lives in Cornwall, for instance, that he must come up to Exeter to have his case tried. All I say is, Do not enter into this Inquiry thinking that it is a mere question of a. few Judges going here or there. It is not. It involves fundamental questions of principle.
Again with regard to the Long Vacation, all I say is this. You have not got the King's Bench Division only. You have the House of Lords, you have the Court of Appeal, you have the Chancery Division and the Probate and Admiralty Division, and you have the solicitors and the Bar to deal with. I express no opinion whatever myself. I think the Judges work enough. All I say is, Do not imagine that this is a thing that can be determined with a few meetings. It raises questions of very great importance which will have to be looked at from
850
a national point of view in order to see what is the best way of doing the work. As I have said, I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for moving this Address. I am sure that at the impartial Inquiry which is to take place everything that I have said will be justified. It was a mistake—quite a pardonable mistake—for the Lord Chancellor to think that Lord Coleridge was appointed in consequence of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act. He was appointed on the recommendation of the Judges owing to the state of business in the King's Bench Division quite independent of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act and if the Lord Chancellor will study the speeches of Lord Loreburn and the then Attorney-General, Sir John Lawson Walton, he will see that I am correct.
I thank His Majesty's Government for having given us this concession, which will be an immense relief to those who have day by day to arrange for the conduct of work in the King's Bench Division. We cannot help illness—at present a most efficient Judge is away through illness—and we cannot help Judges being engaged in long cases. It is quite impossible for those who have not the responsibility of arranging the work to know what the anxieties of it are. I must say I fear that this extra Judge will not enable us to keep down the arrears, but no doubt sooner or later an opportunity will occur for again raising the question. I support this Motion, and I can assure your Lordships that the state of business in the King's Bench Division is such that additional assistance is urgently needed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper until Wednesday, November 6. Therefore with your Lordships' permission I move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until that day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.