Sitting of 1 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DOMINIONS (No. 13, 1913).
Copy presented of Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the representation of the Self-Governing Dominions on the Committee of Imperial Defence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WEST AFRICA.
Copy presented of Correspondence respecting the Grant of exclusive Rights for the Extraction of Oil from Palm Fruits [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rule amending Rules 63 and 64 of the Rules and Programme for 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MINING ROYALTIES (SCOTLAND).
Ordered, That the Order [13th December] for a Return relating to Mining Royalties (Scotland) be discharged; and, in lieu thereof:—
Mining Royalties (Scotland)—Return ordered, "as regards Scotland, for the last complete year for which the figures are available, (1) of the output of coal, shale, and iron ore, and (2) of the rent and wayleaves therefor, respectively, as ascertained for the purposes of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, under the following headings:—

Country

Output in tons for year ending 31st December 1912.

Rent

Wayleaves.

Fixed rent where there is no output.

Fixed rent where lordship does not amount to fixed rent.

Lordship where same exceeds fixed rent.

Total.

Fixed rent where no corresponding lordship.

Lordship Where wayleave exceeds fixed rent.

Total.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 57, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Dundas White.]

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a Home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TWEED FISHERIES PROSECUTIONS.
Return ordered, "of persons charged under the Fishery Acts in force on the River Tweed and its tributaries, from the 1st day of January, 1908 to the 31st day of December, 1912, specifying in each case the number and date, the nature of the charge, whether convicted or discharged, the penalty inflicted, the amount of fine and costs imposed with alternative imprisonment, and whether paid, went to prison, or absconded."—[Sir John Barran.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Tangier.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of I State for Foreign Affairs, what progress has been made in the negotiations for the internationalisation of Tangier; and what amount of territory and what strategic points opposite Gibraltar will be brought under international control?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The negotiations for the internationalisation of Tangier are still proceeding, and it is not possible to give details at present.

  Morocco.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information with regard to the new mining laws promised to Morocco under the French Protectorate?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am unable to state when the French and Spanish Protectorates in Morocco will be definitely

  333
  established and in a position to issue mining regulations.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any and, if so, what answer has been received to the British note of 17th August, 1912, addressed to the Government of China; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government accepts the contention, if advanced, that China has sovereign rights and rights of intervention in the internal administration of Tibet?
  Mr. ACLAND: A memorandum in reply to the British Note of 17th August last was handed to His Majesty's Minister at Peking on 23rd December. I have as yet only received a telegraphic summary of this communication which is now under consideration. His Majesty's Government would not accept any unqualified contention of the nature suggested in the last part of the question.

  Russo-Mongolian Treaty.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the Russo-Mongolian Treaty; whether such treaty practically excludes Chinese influence from Mongolia; and whether and to what extent, if any, it substitutes therefor Russian rights and Russian administration?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am unable at present to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Stafford on 21st November last.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information regarding the progress of the Baghdad railway?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Yarmouth on 31st October last. I understand that a new section, thirty-two miles long, has been opened to traffic recently, and that this section is from Kishla to Karapuna, at the entrance to the great Tchakit gorge, where there are some extremely difficult tunnels to be bored. The line is now open to traffic from Konia to Mamouret, with the exception of the difficult sections through the Taurus. Between Mamouret and Aleppo there is more tun-
  334
  nelling through the Amanus range. From Aleppo to Jerablus a section has been completed.

  Trawler "Collie" (Damage by French Boat).
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what decision has been arrived at with the French Government as to the damage done to the gear of the trawler "Collie" by the French boat "Monette"?
  Mr. ACLAND: Representations were made on two separate occasions last year to the French Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, but, after making inquiries, the French Government came to the conclusion that the responsibility for the damage to the gear of the "Collie" did not rest with the master of the "Monette." The owners of the "Collie" were informed accordingly.
  Colonel BURN: May I ask if the Government will take some steps to protect these fishermen? Damage is frequently done, and it is impossible for our men to defend themselves.
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, that is true; but the hon. Member was given details of this case on 21st February of last year. I think if there was more to be done we might have heard the hon. Member's views on the subject before now.
  Mr. KING: Might not there be some proposal for a compassionate allowance, or something of the kind?

  Opium Traffic (India and China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any representation from the opium dealers in Hong Kong regarding the failure of the Chinese Government to carry out their arrangements with the British Government in respect of the opium traffic between their respective countries; and, if so, what action has been or will be taken in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The Governor of Hong Kong has reported to me representations made to him by opium importers. The whole matter is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  Liberia (Native Recruitment).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether natives

  335
  of Liberia are now being recruited under contract to labour in San Thomé and Principe; and whether, in view of the fact that sleeping sickness prevails in the latter island, he will, in order to ensure the safety of the British Colonies north of the Equator which are at present immune from this disease, represent to the Liberian Government the desirability of not allowing recruitment for the islands?
  Mr. ACLAND: I understand that natives of Liberia have recently been recruited for labour in San Thomé, but I have no reason to believe that any are being recruited for Principe. The British West African Governments are fully alive to the importance of preventing the importation of sleeping sickness and precautionary measures are taken with that object.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it possible for the Foreign Office to make friendly representations to the Liberian Government that it is not worth their while to run the risk of sleeping sickness for the small fees which go into the pockets of those concerned with the export of coolies?
  Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question down.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are these indentured labourers imported to San Thomé returned to their homes?
  Mr. ACLAND: The general policy carried out is that of returning the labourers to their homes. If the hon. Member wants details, perhaps he will put down a question.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that at the present time in Liberia it is almost impossible to get sufficient native labour for the industries already established there, and will the Government take into consideration the making of friendly representations to the Liberian Government to prohibit such export of native labour?
  Mr. ACLAND: Would the hon. Gentleman put down a question?

  Rupee Coinage.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any rupees for circulation in East Africa are coined in that Colony or in England or are they all coined in India; and how is the profit on coinage dealt with?
  Mr. HARCOURT: None are coined in East Africa or in England. As stated by
  336
  the Under-Secretary of State for India on the 9th October, in reply to the hon. Member for Hertford, rupees are coined in India to meet the requirements of that country and not directly for exportation, but the Indian rupee circulates in parts of East Africa and passes, in the course of trade, from India to those countries and from them to India. The profit on coinage is dealt with by the Indian Government.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Does East Africa get any part of the profit?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Does it go to the gold standard reserve in India?
  Mr. HARCOURT: East Africa gets no part of the profit.

  Copyright Act, 1911.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the self-governing Colonies have adopted wholly, or with modification, the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911.
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Commonwealth of Australia and Newfoundland have passed legislation adopting the Act.

  Military Officers (Interchange).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for War how many Imperial officers are serving under the Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, respectively, and how many Dominion officers are employed in the War Office and in the military service of this country generally?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The figures are as follows:—
  Imperial officers serving in the Dominions—

  Canada

  …

  …

  …

  36

  Australia

  …

  …

  …

  11

  South Africa

  …

  …

  …

  14

  New Zealand

  …

  …

  …

  16

  These figures are exclusive of officers holding appointments as Aides-de-Camp to Governors - General and Governors. Dominion officers serving in the War Office and with British and Indian forces (exclusive of those attached for instruction)—

  Canada

  …

  …

  …

  2

  Australia

  …

  …

  …

  2

  New Zealand

  …

  …

  …

  1

  Sir G. PARKER: May I ask if the Government will not take into consideration a considerable extension of the appointment of overseas officers for service here, not only for the purpose of extending the existing good feeling, but also for the purpose of extending that knowledge which is necessary for the proper development of the Imperial military system?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, we are very anxious to extend this interchange of officers in every way we can, and to take every step possible in that direction.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LABOURERS AT BULL POINT.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, so far from 23s. a week being given to ordinary labourers in the stores department at Bull Point when employed on special duty or work only, some of these men with only twelve months' service are drawing this amount weekly, and are eligible for 24s., while others with ten years' service, four or five of which they had passed in the stores department, are only receiving 22s. a week; and whether he will explain this treatment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my replies to questions on the same subject on the 11th and 18th December. Two labourers at Bull Point Depot, one with a few days less than twelve months' service, and one with slightly more than twelve months' service, receive the special allowance of 1s. per week, and are eligible for 2s. per week. The men in receipt of this allowance have been selected as most suitable for the superior work in hand. The statement in the latter part of the question may be correct, but the explanation is to be found in the first part of this answer.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, although under the regulations skilled labourers at Bull Point receive 23s. a week and are eligible to rise to 28s., no man at Bull Point has been promoted to the higher rate for the last seven years; and whether he will explain this, as, under the present system, it would appear that unskilled labourers actually draw a higher rate of pay than the skilled?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not correct. During the past seven years thirty-eight skilled labourers have been granted the maximum of the scale of pay for that grade, namely, 28s. per week in the case of hired men, or 26s. 6d. per week in the case of established men. At the present time forty out of a total of 154 skilled labourers at Bull Point are on the maximum of the scale.

    Artilleryman's Uniform (Damage in Rescue Work).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State whether his attention has been called to the case mentioned at Woolwich police court on the 26th December, in which an artilleryman dragged from the river a woman who had attempted suicide, and in so doing damaged his uniform; and whether there are any means whereby a soldier damaging his uniform under such circumstances may be exonerated from the necessity of meeting a claim of the regimental authorities in respect of the damage?
    Colonel SEELY: I am having inquiries made, and if it is found that the facts are as stated my hon. Friend may rest assured that this man will not suffer financially in any way.

    Royal Horse Artillery.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked whether it. is intended to reduce or absorb batteries AA or BB or any other batteries of the Royal Horse Artillery; whether it is in tended to reduce or absorb the 21st brigade, or batteries 148, 149, 150, or any other brigade or batteries of the Royal Field Artillery; and, if so, whether he can explain this reduction of cadres?
    Colonel SEELY: I have nothing at present to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that no reduction in the batteries will be carried out without giving this House an opportunity of considering it and expressing an opinion upon it?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. I cannot give an undertaking that no steps will be taken without consulting the House. That would be an impossible undertaking to give. I have already said, and I repeat again, that

    339
    the rearrangements will be made in the sole interest of increasing the striking efficiency of the Artillery.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what are the steps he proposes to take to strengthen the Artillery?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. The matter is not yet settled; it is being considered with a view to increasing the striking efficiency of the Artillery. It is usual for the Minister responsible to take what steps he thinks best after consultation with his military advisers, and later it is for the House to express an opinion.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Are we to understand that the reduction or absorption of Artillery increases its fighting efficiency?
    Colonel SEELY: That is a matter of opinion and for debate. If the House of Commons thinks wrong steps have been taken, it is open to the House, by a vote, to get the matter altered.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to guarantee we shall have an opportunity of considering the question in Debate?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think it would be possible, and it would be quite contrary to precedent, to arrange for a Debate on every possible rearrangement of our fighting forces which takes place from day to day. What the House has a right to ask is that no reduction should be made in our fighting efficiency without the House having an opportunity of considering it, but as to a rearrangement of details on the return of a battery from South Africa I think it would be unreasonable to make such a suggestion.

    Coinage (India).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is in a position to present Papers regarding the question of, the establishment of a mint for the coinage of gold in India?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The Secretary of State will be glad to present papers as soon as they can be printed.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Bombay or Calcutta mints have been working overtime at any time since September, 1912?
    Mr. BAKER: I have no information on the point, but except in the past month the outturn of new rupees does not appear to have been much if at all in excess of what the mints are able to produce without overtime.

    Indian and Provincial Civil Service.
    Mr. MacCAWasked the Under-Secretary if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the questions relating to the Indian Civil Service and the Provincial Civil Service, published by the Royal Commission on the Public Services in India?
    Mr. H. BAKER: A copy of the "Calcutta Gazette," of 11th December, 1912, containing the questions referred to, will be placed in the Library.

    Prisoner's Insanity (India).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if the Report on the case of Ulaskar Dutt, which was promised on the 14th November, has been received from India; and, if so, does the Report admit that his madness was caused by the torture to which he was subjected in prison?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The Report has been received. Ulaskar Dutt was pronounced to be insane after two months' observation in the medical ward. He suffered from daily attacks of malarial fever accompanied by convulsions, and his insanity is attributed to severe malarial infection. The Government of India are satisfied that it did not result from prison treatment.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that this man's hands were tied to pillars, and that he was held in that position for a considerable time, and that after scientific treatment signs of insanity followed?
    Mr. BAKER: No, Sir. I understand what happened was that he was subjected to a perfectly proper form of prison punishment, in which his hands were confined on a level with his breast, and that he then contracted malarial fever, and that in consequence of malarial fever insanity supervened.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a practice for which £1,200 was offered before the National Insurance Act was in sight realised one offer of £900 soon after

    341
    it was passed, and is now unsaleable, and that many similar cases have occurred; that the passing of this Act has stopped the buying and selling of practices and brought ruin to medical men all over the country; and what compensation it is proposed to give to the owners of such depreciated practices?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. I am not aware that any scheme of compensation is required in connection with an Act which will greatly increase the remuneration of those who accept service under it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the facts put forward in the question? Does his ipsi dixit make any difference in the adopting of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman asked me if I heard of these facts, and he said I have not. There is not the slightest doubt but after a few months' time the doctors on the panel will find their practice worth very much more than now.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not that confined to doctors who have been strike-breakers? Are there not other doctors to be considered besides these?
    Mr. KING: Are not the doctors themselves to blame for having been lead into the morass in which they find themselves?
    Sir J. D. REESasked what steps the Government intend to take to provide medical benefits on and after 15th January, 1913, in view of the fact that insured persons on that date have paid tax for six months on the faith of Government assurances that medical benefit will be forthcoming; and whether the Government proposes to proceed with the compulsory collection of insurance tax, notwithstanding the fact that 42 per cent. of the medical profession have formally refused service under the Act in its present form, which refusal practically makes the medical benefits of the Act impossible of attainment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Medical benefit will be provided in accordance with the National Insurance Act as from 15th January, and insurance contributions will continue to be paid as required under the same Act. I do not know the hon. Member's authority for the figures given in the
    342
    last part of the question, but I would point out that if, as he suggests, only 42 per cent. of the medical profession have preferred not to undertake the provision of medical benefit under the Act, the remaining 58 per cent. would be very largely in excess of the number required to give adequate medical attendance to the insured persons.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make a statement to-day or to-morrow as to what is to be done in the case of counties where there are no resident doctors to work the Act? Is he aware that great anxiety is felt by the insured persons in such cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If there are such cases some statement will be made.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether it is intended to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons before any arrangements are made by the insurance committees for the provision of medical benefit which involves the payment out of public funds of amounts in excess of those hitherto sanctioned by Parliament?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The National Insurance Act does not impose any limit upon the amount which may be expended out of contributions in the provision of medical benefit. The effect of spending more than the amount allowed in the actuarial calculations upon which the scheme is based would, in the absence of a special Grant, be to reduce the amount available for other benefits. It is proposed to ask Parliament for a special Grant to defray the expenditure which may be incurred by insurance committees after the moneys actuarialy available for the present calendar year have become exhausted. The agreements now being entered into with the doctors in no case run for more than three months, and no public money will be expended without the previous sanction of Parliament.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the ease that binding agreements will be entered into before Parliament is consulted, and what becomes of the control of this House over finance if binding agreements are entered into before the sanction of this House is obtained when that sanction could be perfectly well asked for and obtained beforehand?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No binding agreement with the doctors, involving the expenditure of public money outside that

    343
    provided by the National Insurance Act, will be entered into until Parliament has voted the money, if it does vote the money.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that unless the additional money is found out of public money there will not be enough to provide for medical benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have said that agreements with the doctors are only for three months. Those agreements can be fully honoured out of the money already provided by Parliament.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any special reason why this House should not be given an opportunity of considering this matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope on the earliest appropriate occasion the House will be given an opportunity, but, of course, that rests with the Prime Minister and not with myself.
    Mr. CASSEL: The question was addressed to the Prime Minister.

    UNITED NATIONAL FRIENDLY ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked how many persons are now insured with the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society, having its head office in Glasgow but working chiefly in Ireland; what financal provision, if any, that body now possesses for its growing liabilities; how many paid agents it has in its employment and where they are operating; and, in view of the facility it derives from the approval of an offshoot under the National Insurance Act, whether he will have that approval reconsidered by the Insurance Commissioners in Great Britain and in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It appears from the annual return of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society for 1911 that the number of benefit members at the end of that year was 7,424. The assets are stated to be cash in bank and in hand, £438 19s. 8d; furniture, etc., £84 l1s. 6d.; stationery, £50; outstanding premiums, less commission, £l,380 13s. 8d. Price of goodwill of business purchased for National United Insurance Society, Limited, £2,111 13s. 3d., a total of £4,065 18s. 1d. Against the last item there appears a liability to the National
    344
    United Insurance Society, Limited, of £2,083 8s. No investments are stated in the return. I have no information as to the number of paid agents or where they are operating. The operations of the United National Friendly Approved Society are financially separate from those of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society. I am asking that inquiry may be made by the Joint Committee, but I am not prepared to say that action is called for under Section 29 of the Act, which lays down the conditions under which approval can be withdrawn.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the attention of the Insurance Commissioners be called to these things?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Approval will rest with the Joint Committee of the National Insurance Commissioners, and I will call their attention to the facts put before me.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether an approved society has been formed for Ireland, under the National Insurance Act, by the United National Assurance Society of Glasgow; if so, will he give the names of those Irishmen who have been appointed to act as guardians for the insured members; who is the secretary to the approved section; and how many members are enrolled in it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The United National Friendly Approved Society is a separate section of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society formed for the purposes of the National Insurance Act; by "guardians" I understand the hon. Member to mean the trustees of the approved society, who are Messrs. Robert Macgregor, James Tinoney and Frank Greenhill; the secretary is Mr. Denis O'Callaghan. The number of members in the approved society cannot be stated until the final returns of the contribution cards have been examined.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any Irish guardians have been appointed by this society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not quite know what is meant by "guardians." I have given the hon. Member all the information: at my disposal, and perhaps he will put down a further question.
    Mr. LUNDON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this society has circulated throughout Ireland a statement to the effect that Irish

    345
    insured members will have their interests protected by Irish trustees, and in view of the extraordinary and shady manner in which this society has conducted its business during the past five years in connection with life assurance, will he cause inquiries to be made on this whole question, and thus prevent insured persons from being robbed as those who invested their money in its life insurance work have been?

    SECRETARIES OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can do anything to facilitate the payment of remuneration to secretaries of friendly societies and help to secure adequate recognition for the burden of work which has devolved on them in connection with the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is for each approved society to determine in accordance with its rules what portion of the total amount available for administration expenses shall be devoted to remuneration of its secretary or other officers, and to make the payments accordingly.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Has the right hon. Gentleman no influence by counsel or advice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a matter for the societies themselves within the limits of the money allowed for administration.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. HOLMESasked whether insured persons whose cards have not been stamped for some weeks of unemployment or because employers have omitted to stamp them could become qualified to receive benefits by 15th January?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Persons who have been in. insurance for twenty-six weeks, but through temporary unemployment or sickness have not had twenty-six weekly contributions paid in respect of them, may qualify for sickness benefit by paying up the omitted contributions. They can do this by putting stamps in the vacant spaces of their ordinary cards if the omissions have occurred in the current quarter; if they occurred in the previous quarter they should put the necessary stamps on "arrears" cards to be obtained from their societies. An employed person who has been in insurance for the necessary time may similarly qualify for
    346
    maternity benefit by paying any omitted contributions so long as these are paid before the birth of the child. Medical benefit will be provided as from 15th January for insured persons independently of the time a person has been insured or the number of contributions paid. If the omissions in payment are due not to unemployment but to the fault of the employer, the insured person may, under Section 70 of the Act, recover by civil proceedings the value of any benefit lost. If prosecuted, the employer may under Section 69 of the Act, in addition to any fine inflicted, be required to pay to the Insurance Commissioners a sum equal to the amount of the contribution he had failed to pay, which sum will be taken as a payment in satisfaction of such contributions.
    Mr. FELLasked what is the explanation of the fact that only 13,000 cards have been received by the National Insurance Commissioners in Ireland; are there some hundreds of thousands of cards in the hands of the Irish approved societies, and, if so, why are they not handed in to the Commisisoners; and if it will be possible to give benefits after the 15th of January to any of these persons whose cards have not been received by the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not the case that only 13,000 cards have been received in Ireland. The Irish deposit contributors' cards, which have now been returned from the Post Offices, amount to about 13,800. The great bulk of the cards of members of approved societies amounting to some hundreds of thousands, have been sent in from the societies, but as they have not all come in yet, their total number cannot be given. The payment of benefits will be made by reference to entries on the societies' registers, and no delay in payment is anticipated.
    Mr. FELLasked what number of cards have now been received from the approved societies and from the deposit contributors under the National Insurance Act; if the approved societies have entered the names of the contributors in their books with the necessary particulars to enable the benefits to be given after the 15th January; and if any delay in the matter is anticipated?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: About 480,000 cards have been received from deposit contributors. Approved societies are still sending in their cards, and the numbers cannot,

    347
    therefore, be given at present. The registers of members and contributions are filled in before the cards are returned, and the reports in the hands of the Commissioners show that societies are completing this work satisfactorily, so that delay in the payment of benefits is not anticipated.
    Mr. FELL: Why has this delay taken place, because these cards should have been in the hands of the Commissioners in the month of October and we are now within a fortnight of the benefits and still a large proportion have not been received?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The cards were in the hands of the approved societies at the end of October. They had then to make all their arrangements for registration and writing up their books and so on before they could send them in to the Commissioners. No date was fixed for sending them in to the Commissioners.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects those books to be written up in respect of the second quarter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know, but I should think in a much shorter time, because all the difficult work is the initial work.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: May we take it that 400,000 represents the total number of deposit contributors so far known both in the United Kingdom and Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total of 480,000 represents the number existing in October last, but I think the number has very much decreased owing to deposit contributors joining approved societies.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: May I ask if the societies give no returns as to the number of insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Returns will be received when the cards are sent in.
    Mr. FORSTER: Do not they make a return when they are sent in?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly.
    Mr. FORSTER: Then why cannot you tell us how many there are?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A large number of societies have sent their cards in, but others have not completed the arrangements necessary to be completed before they send in their cards. As soon as they
    348
    are received, I shall be very glad to give the hon. Member the information he desires.
    Mr. FORSTER: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many cards have been sent in?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It varies from day to day, but I can give the number if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Do not the societies make actual returns apart from the cards, and do not they receive payment on account in respect of their numbers, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman say what they are?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no returns. I will endeavour to obtain the information the hon. Gentleman requires, but the Commissioners have no returns as to the actual numbers.

    COLLECTING AND APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information showing that the competition of collecting societies has forced all approved societies to bid for members by abolishing medical examination and by admitting to membership many who are afflicted with drinking habits, involving the certainty of sickness, accidents, and unemployment resulting therefrom; and, if so, will he endeavour to protect the national insurance funds from this danger by bringing in a temperance Bill without unnecessary delay, and thus correct as far as is now-possible the dislocation in the natural sequence of reforms?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have no official information upon the matters referred to in the first part of the question. I understand that immediately the Act was passed, certain of the largest friendly societies decided to dispense with actual medical examination except in special cases, being satisfied with personal inquiry as to character and health of the applicants for membership. With regard to the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on 11th December last to the deputation which presented a memorial from the National Temperance Convention.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is not the right hon. Gentleman himself one of those who set a; very bad example of drinking habits by dining at the Hotel Cecil last night?

    Housing Problem.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether, in view of the fact that in the year 1905–6 the number of dwelling-houses in Great Britain under the annual value of £20 increased by 112,838, and that the average annual increase in the four succeeding years was over 80,000, he will explain why the increase in the number of such houses in the year 1910–11 was only 10,651; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the housing problem, he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into the subject?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The figures given by the hon. Member are in accordance with the House Duty returns in the last report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The fall in the rate of increase is very largely due to the fact that 1910–11 was a year of new valuation—the first since 1903–4. Somewhat similar falls have invariably followed the periodical revision of the assessments.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the building of cottages and small houses was arrested simultaneously with the passing of the "People's Budget," and does he not know there is some connection?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has not the boom in trade also followed upon the "People's Budget"?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Royds), I may say I have very great difficulty in accepting the hon. Member's deductions, because since the Budget was introduced, there has been a steady decline in unemployment in the building trade. Last year the unemployment in the building trade was lower than at any time during the present century.
    Mr. ROYDS: Are not the facts and figures I have given, in view of the urgency of the housing problem, sufficiently startling to justify some explanation and inquiry?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the subject an interesting one; I am having some inquiries made, and if the hon. Member will put down a question in a few days' time, I will see if I cannot give him the information.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Why not submit it to the Colonies?

    Motor Spirit (Excise Duty).
    Mr. FELLasked what would be the Excise Duty charged upon alcohol manufactured in this country and used for the purpose of driving motor vehicles?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the absence of special legislation, undenatured alcohol used for the purpose of driving motor vehicles would be chargeable with the ordinary rate of Spirit Duty.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the matter when framing his next Budget?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will convey the wish of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend.

    Common Rights.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state upon what grounds he has withheld his consent to the proposal of the Earl of Westmorland, as lord of the manor of Sharlston, to enclose and convey 368 square yards of the common, consisting of seventy acres, to the manager of the Church of England school at Sharlston for the purpose of extending the playground and building necessary conveniences for the school; whether any commoner or owner of commonable rights has objected to such enclosure and conveyance; and whether he is aware that the 368 square yards in question are bare ground without grass or any herbage growing upon it?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The facts are substantially as stated in the question. I refused my consent because in my opinion a proposal to enlarge the premises of a privately-owned school affords no justification for the enclosure of common land.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the Board of Agriculture, in the first instance, sent a letter to the managers of the school, saying they might expect their consent in the following month, and in consequence the building was proceeded with; and is it the intention to have the building pulled down now?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of the communication to which the hon. Member refers, but, so far as I am concerned, I cannot agree to the enclosure of any common land.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the Board have no right to refuse such a suggestion except on the ground that those having commonable right object?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot admit the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. I am charged with the duty of preventing common lands from being enclosed.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the commoners and got their opinion?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot agree to commoners alienating common rights.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any objection made to him by any individual?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must have notice of that, but even if I had no objection by any individual in the district I should still oppose it.

    Buckingham Palace (Refronting).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can say when the structural work of refronting Buckingham Palace is to be commenced, and when it is expected to be completed?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): As at present arranged, the refronting will be commenced on the 1st of August next and will be completed about the end of October.

    Ardglass Harbour.
    Captain CRAIGasked if arrangements have been satisfactorily concluded between the Treasury, the Office of Works, and the Development Commissioners for a Grant towards the improvements in the Royal harbour of Ardglass necessary to cope with the increasing fishing industry before the next season begins?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The application of the Board of Works for a Grant from the Development Fund for improvements at Ardglass Harbour is now before the Development Commission, but I cannot say when the recommendation of the Commissioners upon it will reach the Treasury. I am afraid that it would not be possible to complete the proposed works before the next season begins.

    Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked on what grounds and by whom the expansion of demands for loans from the Public Works Loan
    352
    Commissioners, for which an additional £1,000,000 was provided for the year 1912–13, was anticipated; did the Public Works Loan Commissioners submit any evidence in support of the additional requirement; has any part of the additional sum been utilised; and, seeing that it was not ear-marked for any special purpose, will he say with whom the proposal to authorise the additional £1,000,000 originated, and after what inquiry it was provided for in the Public Works Loan Act, 1912?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The suggestion that the maximum within which the Public Works Loan Commissioners might lend should be increased originated with the Local Government Board, who anticipated a possible expansion of demands for loans, and on consideration the Treasury thought it advisable to adopt the suggestion. No part of the additional sum has been utilised. I may add that the amount specified in the Public Works Loans Act is the maximum sum which may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners during the period covered by the Act, and that cash is only issued by the National Debt Commissioners as required by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purposes of actual advances.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Had the Local Government Board any particular class of loans in view when they made this suggestion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not quite sure about that. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to the Local Government Board.

    Sanitary Authorities.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of sanitary authorities, other than a rural district, who have populations of 50,000 and upwards, 100,000 and upwards, 250,000 and upwards, and 500,000 and upwards, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The numbers in England and Wales are as follows:—

    With a population of 50,000 and upwards

    122

    With a population of 100,000 and upwards

    65

    With a population of 250,000 and upwards

    16

    With a population of 500,000 and upwards

    3

    Twenty-seven Metropolitan boroughs are included in these figures.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. STANIERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has any knowledge of the experiments being conducted at the Glasnevin College regarding foot-and-mouth disease; whether any safeguards are being taken to prevent the disease spreading from the college; whether they are sterilising hay and working on the culture of the disease; and whether any of the outbreaks are connected with the experiments?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): No experiments of the nature referred to have been or are being carried out at the Albert Agricultural College, Glasnevin.
    Mr. STANIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if any experiments of a similar character are being carried out at any other place?
    Mr. RUSSELL: At the laboratory at Merrion Street experiments are being carried out, but that is an isolated institution, and I hope no one thinks we would use the Agricultural College at Glasnevin to carry out any such experiments.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if during the course of this outbreak any conclusion has been come to with regard to the time of incubation of the disease?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) when he proposes to remove the restriction on movement of cattle in North Fermanagh; has any case of foot-and-mouth disease been traced to any, and what, place in that district; has he traced all the cattle, three of which were supposed to have had foot-and-mouth disease, to the different farms from which they were bought by Mr. Cassidy, and has any trace of disease been found on any of them; is it certain that the lesions on the heads discovered at Glasgow were those of foot-and-mouth disease; was there a difference of opinion between experts on this point; and what was supposed to be the age of the lesions?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is hoped that, if nothing unexpected occurs in the meantime,, it may be found possible to remove
    354
    the restrictions within the next fortnight. The various lots forming the consignment to which the three cattle belonged whose heads were seized in Glasgow were traced to the farms from which they came. No foot-and-mouth disease has been discovered on any of these places. The appearances found on the three heads that went to Glasgow were held to be strongly suspicious of foot-and-mouth disease, and precautionary measures were taken accordingly. Meanwhile, an inquiry into the point by expert officers from both the British and the Irish Departments is proceeding.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say when the restrictive Order will be withdrawn in the adjoining district of South Donegal?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Certainly not before that date. The cattle were traced to the Ballyshannon district in Donegal, and there were other cattle traced to Ennis-killen, but I hope within a fortnight, if nothing happens, it will be possible to remove all these restrictions.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether in one of the cases of the three heads that were found in Glasgow it has not been held by some of the authorities who examined them that the lesions were the result of a bad tooth?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No, the bad tooth was in the Newry cargo, which went to Birkenhead.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Seeing that nothing expected or unexpected has happened in Munster and Connaught, may I ask how soon it is the right hon. Gentleman expects to remove the quarantine of fourteen days?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The quarantine was not imposed by the Irish Department, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and, as I have stated, my right hon. Friend and I are consulting on the matter, and we hope to make a statement to-morrow.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether, in any of the alleged or confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred in Ireland this year the feet of the animals were affected; and, if so, to what extent and in how many cases?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Foot-and-mouth disease lesions were found in the feet of a number

    355
    of the animals slaughtered in connection with different outbreaks. To give the actual number so affected would necessitate an examination of all the reports dealing with the post-mortem examinations of the animals slaughtered since the end of June last. Such an examination would occupy a considerable time.
    Mr. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will publish these reports which have been issued in respect of this particular matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the two lots of cattle from county Meath which were detained on suspicion, one in Dublin and the other in Dundee, have yet been removed to their farms of destination; if they have shown any symptoms of disease; and whether the officers of his Department adhere to their original diagnosis that the animals were at no time suffering from infectious foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The lot of 147 cattle detained at South Wall, Dublin, were disposed of as follows: 120 were shipped to Birkenhead for slaughter there, one was injured and was slaughtered in Dublin. and twenty-six cows were shipped to Manchester as stores. For information as to the ultimate places of destination and as to the present condition of health of these twenty-six cows and of the cattle detained at Dundee, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. As regards the last part of the question, I made a full statement to the House on this point on 5th December, and nothing has since come to the knowledge of the Department to cause them to alter the view then held.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Am to understand, from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, that under the Order which is in course of issue from his Department, fat and store cattle may be sent from county Meath to all the ports that are now open in Great Britain for the reception of Irish cattle?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes; under an Order which comes into force to-day, fat and store cattle are permitted to be exported from county Meath.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can state what arrangement ho proposes to make respecting the detention of livestock in ports from Ireland; whether it is intended to be of a permanent character, and, if so, what measures are being taken to provide accommodation so that the trade may be carried on with the minimum of delay and inconvenience?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As soon as the fear of any recrudescence of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland has disappeared, it is proposed to issue an Order providing for the inspection of all Irish stock by veterinary officers of the Board at the landing places in Great Britain. For this purpose, and in order that the animals may be rested, fed, and watered, before proceeding to their destinations, they wilt have to spend twelve hours at these landing places. This Order will be of a permanent character, and the Regulations will, of course, apply uniformly to all the? ports concerned. When these arrangements have been tested by experience, I shall be prepared to consider whether the-time necessary for the purposes mentioned above can be reduced, but in any case the time must be the same in all the ports. The Board have been in communication with the authorities at all the principal ports where Irish stock is landed, and in those cases where satisfactory accommodation does not already exist, arrangements for meeting the Board's requirements are being pressed forward with all possible dispatch.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will this Order be put into force without Parliament having any opportunity of discussing or considering the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The usual opportunities will, I have no doubt, be taken inside the House as well as outside.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I point out that that is not an answer to my question. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will enforce this Order until he has given Parliament an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Parliament had an opportunity of discussing it only two nights ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "For half-an-hour."]—and I have made statements on the subject over and over again in the House.
    Captain CRAIG: Where the destination of the cattle is only about half-an-hour or an hour's journey further than the new compounds, it is proposed to erect, will it be necessary to detain the cattle for twelve hours for resting and watering?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The detention will be primarily for the purposes of inspection. We cannot dispense with that, even if the animals are going for only half-an-hour's journey afterwards.
    Mr. MOORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any resolution from the Nationalist party against this entire alteration of the cattle trade of Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a number of resolutions from many parts of Ireland with regard to this matter, but most of them are based upon an entire misapprehension of the Order.
    Mr. MOORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any resolution from Nationalist Members of this House protesting against this interference with the trade of the country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes; Nationalist Members as well as Unionist Members from Ulster have been in constant communication with me on this subject.
    Mr. MOORE: Of course we have objected, but have you received any resolution from the Nationalist party in this House protesting against this change—Yes or No?
    Captain MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrangements are being made at Aberdeen for the importation of Irish cattle?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should require to have notice of that question. At present I do not know of any. At most of the Scottish ports arrangements are already proceeding, and in many of them are complete.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon the authorities in Ireland retaining the cattle there for twelve hours before embarkation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly not.
    Captain CRAIG: If the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture threatened to resign, would that stop the matter at once?
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Pending the issue of the Order, will the right hon.
    358
    Gentleman permit cattle to be moved by rail from the port of debarkation to their place of destination?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman clearly understands that this Order is intended to come into force when the trade has resumed its normal course, and then animals will be free, immediately they have spent their short time of resting at the landing places, to go to their destination by road, rail, or otherwise, as is most convenient to the consignor.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Pending the restoration of the trade to its normal conditions will the right hon. Gentleman continue to insist on the four days' quarantine on this side for Irish store cattle?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It does not apply to cattle slaughtered at the landing places. I hope the four days' quarantine for store cattle will soon be quite unnecessary.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist upon the four days' quarantine being continued for fat cattle landing at Holyhead on their way to London?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no four days' quarantine for fat cattle. Fat cattle have to be slaughtered at the landing places.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Will you allow them to go through without being slaughtered at the landing places?
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is not evident that this question ought to be discussed in a free House? It is too important for mere question and answer.

    Milk Bill.
    Mr. STANIERasked the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Milk Bill will be taken in the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. STANIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be taken this Session or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot say.

    Ex-Civil Servants and Trading Companies.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has

    359
    been directed to the growing practice of high Government officials on retirement from the public service with pensions accepting immediately, or shortly afterwards, salaried offices from trading companies whose trading operations were, while these high officials were in the public service, worked under regulations drawn up by them; and whether he will say what steps, if any, he proposes to take to put a stop to Government officials accepting offices in such aforesaid companies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion of ex-Civil Servants as regards their acceptance of such appointments unless public interests are adversely affected.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on behalf of the Government, that in the opinion of the Government it is highly undesirable that public servants who have been making contracts with private firms should receive these appointments, and will he take steps to see that in all future appointments of Civil servants it is made a condition that these appointments are not accepted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think such a case as the hon. Gentleman suggests has occurred.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There was one occurred yesterday.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing a Return showing how many ex-Civil Servants have accepted positions as directors or otherwise of companies with whom, as Civil servants, they have had associations?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Director of Naval Construction, who had the giving out of large contracts, yesterday, as reported in the Press, received an appointment on the directorate of Armstrong, Whitworth and Company?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is a fact; but if my hon. Friend will put down a question I will answer it.

    Minority Representation.
    Sir ALFRED MONDasked the Prime Minister whether the provisions for minority representation in parliamentary
    360
    constituencies returning three Members, contained in the Act of 1867, have ever been repealed; and, if not, whether, in order that the provisions for elections in Irish parliamentary constituencies may conform to the existing law affecting elections in parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain, the Government will consider the advisability of amending Clause 9 of the Government of Ireland Bill so as to provide for the representation of minorities in constituencies returning three or more Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the fact that the Irish Parliament will be in a position to deal with the matter after the expiration of three years from the passing of the Bill, the Government do not think it advisable to introduce any such special provisions as those suggested by the hon. Member.

    House of Commons (Blocking Motions).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience that is continually caused to Members of this House by the practice of Blocking Motions; and when the Government propose to take any steps to deal with this abuse?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of the inconvenience. If my hon. Friend will refer to the replies which I gave on 21st October on this subject he will find the position of the Government clearly explained.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is practical unanimity in the House in favour of an alteration of the rule and of the matter being dealt with after eleven o'clock?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am by no means satisfied of that.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since 31st October considerable inconvenience has been caused to hon. Members by these Blocking Motions and that much greater inconvenience is likely to be caused during the present year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have often expressed my own view. I should like to see the rule abolished, but I am sorry to say that that is not by any means the unanimous view of the House.
    Mr. WHYTE: Is it necessary to insist on unanimity?
    Mr. MORRELL: Are a few Members alone to be allowed to interfere with the rights of hon. Members in regard to the business of the House?
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the claims of the loyal minority?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is just what I am considering.

    Criminal Law Amendment Act.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Home Secretary if he will take steps to secure an early consolidation into one enactment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the Vagrancy Act, 1898, the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912, with a view to simplifying and facilitating the administration of the provisions which they contain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I recognise the value of the consolidation suggested by my hon. Friend, but I cannot see my way to propose legislation for this purpose at the present time.

    Ex-Inspector Syme.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the special inquiry instituted in the case of engine-driver Nicholas Knox on the ground that he suffered loss of employment as the result of a conviction which the Home Secretary is now satisfied was a wrongful con viction, he will say on what grounds ex- Inspector Syme, who has also suffered loss of employment through a judgment of the Chief Commissioner which is alleged to have been arbitrary and not in accordance with the evidence, is denied an inquiry or even the publication of the evidence; and will he now instruct a magistrate, or other judicial person, to make a further investigation of the case, and so put an end to the fear that there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, there is no occasion for such investigation. As I have already stated, no similarity exists between the cases referred to.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the withholding of evidence has created the impression outside that Mr. Syme has been very badly treated? Is it not desirable to remove that impression?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this man was tried by a secret tribunal on evidence which has never been revealed, whereas Knox was tried before the magistrates, and the evidence was open to all the world. Does not that make Mr. Syme's claim to an appeal all the stronger?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is simply repeating a former question, and I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to that.

    Colliery Manager's Certificate (Examinations).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among working-class mining students in Scotland regarding Rule 4 (a) (v) issued by the board for mining examinations, which provides that an applicant for a first-class colliery manager's certificate must produce the plan of a mine survey, in the production of which the purchase or hire of costly mining instruments is involved; and whether, in view of the fact that this rule is resulting in a decrease in the number of students presenting themselves for examination, he will consider the advisability of either abolishing the rule in question or altering it in such a way that the poverty of a student shall be no bar to examination?
    Mr. McKENNA: The rule to which my hon. Friend refers was made with my approval by the Board for Mining Examinations, on which, as he is aware, the working miners are fully represented. I am advised that the rule, which was already in force in some districts under the old system, is very necessary to ensure that a mine manager is possessed of the practical knowledge and draughtsmanship required for the keeping of proper colliery plans. The manager is responsible under the Act for the plans being accurate and up to date, and he is also regarded as qualified to act himself as surveyor, subject to his having had some actual experience of the work. The need for a higher standard of surveying was strongly emphasised by the Royal Commission on Mines. I am informed that it is a common practice for managers to allow intending candidates the facilities and use of the necessary instruments for carrying out a survey for the purpose of their examination, and no representations have reached me which would lead me to suppose that any serious difficulty is likely to arise in this respect.

    363
    In any case I have no power of my own motion to alter the rule, and, if such difficulties have arisen, I suggest that my hon. Friend should get them brought to the notice of the Board, with whom the consideration of the matter will rest in the first instance.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill (Petitions).
    Mr. KINGasked the the right hon. Member for Morpeth, as chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, if he will state how many petitions, if any, have been presented from Ireland against the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    Mr. BURT: There have been no petitions against the Bill for Ireland.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Were there any petitions from Ireland in favour of the Bill?
    Mr. KINGasked the right hon. Member for Morpeth, as chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, whether he proposes to put a notice on the Order Paper giving effect to the recommendation of the Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions that the petition from Llanbadrig against the Established Church (Wales) Bill be rejected?
    Mr. BURT: The petition mentioned has been condemned and rejected by the unanimous vote of the Committee. I should have felt inclined to leave the matter without expression of opinion, but if I find that further steps are necessary to give effect to the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee, those steps will be taken.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to find out who are the forgers and fabricators of these names?
    Mr. BURT: I do not think that any steps have been taken.
    Mr. KING: Is it not desirable to make it known as widely as possible to the public the conditions under which petitions can be presented to this House?
    Mr. BURT: There are printed instructions which are widely disseminated. Those who wish to present petitions ought to make themselves acquainted with the Rules of the House.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is not this but one petition among a great many thousands?
    Mr. KING: But is it not typical of many?

    Telephone Service.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now state if arrangements have been satisfactorily concluded for establishing a public telephone call office in Downpatrick, county Down?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Treasury have sanctioned the extension of the telephone system to Downpatrick. The work will be taken in hand as soon as possible.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the Amendment he proposes to Clause 2 of the Government of Ireland Bill, whether it is intended that the Imperial Post Office should employ its own officials in Ireland to maintain and work telegraph and telephone wires not used for the internal system of communication between one place in Ireland and another such place, or for any service which is executed completely in Ireland; and, if not, how it is intended to maintain and work such wires?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The telegraph and telephone service, both for internal and external communication, would be worked by officers of the Irish Post Office.

    POSTAL SERVICES.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Postmaster-General with reference to Clause 45 (e) of the Government of Ireland Bill, which provides for the execution of postal services by the one Post Office at the request of and on behalf of the other, what are the services in question which he has at present in view?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not at present in a position to state the details of the arrangements which will be made, but it is not contemplated to maintain a separate establishment in Ireland in addition to that maintained by the Irish Government.

    ROYAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHISTS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Postmaster-General whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, it is intended to withdraw the Royal Engineers now employed in maintaining and working a large part of the Post Office and railway telegraphs in Ireland; if so, how it is proposed to afford the Royal Engineers facilities for practice in the maintenance of railway telegraphs; and, if it is not intended to withdraw them, how it is proposed that the Irish Government should fill their places if at any time they are required to take part in the operations of an expeditionary force?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No decision has yet been arrived at on this point.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When will a decision be arrived at?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is obvi ly premature to settle a question of detail of that kind until the Bill has passed.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will a statement be made to the House on the point before the arrangement is completed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, not on a detail of administration such as that.

    UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (CORK AND GALWAY).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the presidents and professors of the University Colleges of Cork and Galway are within the provisions of either Clause 32 or Clause 33 of the Government of Ireland Bill; if not, whether there is any, and, if so, what provision in the Bill safeguarding the position of such presidents and professors and securing to them adequate compensation on retirement, compulsory or otherwise, arising out of the creation of a separate Irish Parliament and Executive; and, if the Bill contains no such provision, whether he will now insert Amendments to give such protection to the presidents and professors of those colleges?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Bill does not alter the position of the presidents and professors of the University Colleges of Cork and Galway, and there is, therefore, no reason why the Civil Service provisions should be extended to them.

    Wellington Post Office.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Postmaster-General if he could give information as to the proposed removal of the post office of Wellington, Shropshire; whether a site in Walker Street has been acquired for this purpose, and, if so, before selecting the site, the opinion of those mainly interested as to the position of the post office has been obtained; and, if not, before proceeding further with the matter, will he take into consideration the views of those best able to form an opinion?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The post office premises at Wellington, Salop, are inadequate to the requirements, and, as no satisfactory scheme of enlargement is practicable, it has been decided to break the lease and provide a new office. A site in Walker Street has been selected for the purpose, and arrangements with a view to purchase are in progress. The site in question is about 330 yards from the present office and the railway station, but is in close proximity to the urban district council offices, the free library and the telephone exchange, and would appear to be quite as convenient for the principal shops and business premises of the town as the site of the present office. The selection of the site was determined only after careful consideration of the general requirements of the town.
    Sir C. HENRY: Has not my right hon. Friend received a letter from the Urban Council of Wellington protesting against the proposed site and stating the reasons for that protest? Will he satisfy himself that the premises at present used do not possess a sufficient area to enable them to be extended sufficiently to meet the Department's requirements?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The whole point has been most carefully investigated and I am advised that it is not practicable to enlarge the present post office. Representations have been received in opposition to the removal; indeed, whenever it is proposed to remove a post office there are always representations from those in its immediate proximity against the removal.
    Mr. STANIER: Was the council of the town consulted before the removal was decided upon?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the proposed site has not been generally condemned by the bulk of the inhabitants of Wellington?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My information is to the contrary, but I will make further inquiry if the hon. Member puts another question down.

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has now seen a copy of the agreement between the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada and the Newfoundland Government; whether this agreement does give a complete monopoly for the erection of wireless telegraph stations; and, if so, whether the Government intend to make any protest against the ratification of this agreement, which is against the interests of the public throughout the Empire?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not yet seen the agreement to which the hon. Member refers. I have asked to be supplied with a copy as soon as it arrives.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information by cable, and is not the Post Office interested in preventing a great Marconi monopoly controlling the communications of the Empire?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The matter is in the discretion of the Newfoundland Government, over which we have no control. I have asked the Colonial Office to cable for a copy of the agreement. They have done so, but it has not yet arrived.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is this in accordance with the new policy of the Leader of the Opposition to coerce the Colonies?
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House the Surrender and Agreement between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, and the Marconi International Marine Communication Company, Limited, with His Majesty's Postmaster-General, dated 29th September, 1009; and whether any arrangement has been concluded with the said companies which causes the above agreement to be of non-effect?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The agreement referred to by the hon. Member was laid on the Table of the House and ordered to be printed on the 2nd December, 1909. No further arrangement on the same subjects has been made with the companies
    368
    in question, and the agreement is still in operation.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown taken with regard to this agreement before the Marconi agreement was brought forward?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question relates to the agreement of 1909, which was made in the time of my predecessor. I would ask for notice as to whether the Law Officers were consulted.

    Mail Van Drivers (Belfast).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the right hon. Gentleman the result of his inquiries into the wages and hours of mail van drivers of Belfast, and as to how those wages and hours compare with those paid and observed by private cartage firms in Belfast in the matter of their employés (drivers)?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce the result of the inquiry, but I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Elementary Schools (Medical Inspection).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education the total cost of the medical inspection and treatment of children in elementary schools in England and Wales during the last complete financial year; and what proportion of such cost was borne by the ratepayers?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The total expenditure on medical inspection and treatment of children in elementary schools in England and Wales, as shown by the returns received from local education authorities for the financial year 1910–11, amounted to £136,999. This is the latest year for which complete returns have been received. The whole of the cost was borne by the local authorities.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Have all the local education authorities appointed medical inspectors for the schools?
    Mr. PEASE: I should like to have notice of that question.

    Crown Jewels (Dublin).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General (1) whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will now obtain a list of all the persons who had access to

    369
    the Crown Jewels in Dublin Castle at the time they were stolen in 1907 and of all admitted to the Castle at that time by those persons; and (2) if the Director of Public Prosecutions is unable to obtain the names of the persons who had access to the Crown Jewels in Dublin Castle at the time those jewels were stolen in 1907, and of others admitted to the Castle at that time by those persons; will he say how many of those persons domiciled in England can be made amenable to the criminal law; whether the names have been obtained or will be obtained for this purpose; and, if not, will he say what peculiarity in the crime mentioned confers immunity on persons who in other circumstances would be subject to the ordinary criminal law?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): As I have already stated, the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions are confined to criminal offences alleged to have been committed in England or in Wales, and it is not within the scope of his duties either to make the inquiries or to obtain the information to which the hon. Member's questions refer.
    Mr. GINNELL: I wish to know whether the administrators of the criminal law have obtained in Dublin or from the War Office the facts connected with the expulsion of two officers named in this House on the 27th April, 1909, their expulsion having been in connection with this crime?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That does not come within my province.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the administrators of the criminal law, whose duty it is to investigate crime, failed to discharge their duty in this particular case even after having been given names and dates in this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already stated that it does not come within his jurisdiction.
    Mr. GINNELL: How is it that it is only in this particular case that the administrators of the criminal law have no information, refuse to seek it, and refuse to take it when given?
    Mr. KING: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Somerset not to ask on every occasion.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my second question?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have already answered it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a sworn investigation into this case, and, if not, why not?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The matter is not within my jurisdiction.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many evicted tenants have been provided for; and the number which are still outstanding?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Three thousand one hundred and eighty-one evicted tenants or their representatives have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with other holdings, and 327 are provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land as acquired. These cases are being dealt with as rapidly as practicable.
    Mr. LYNCH: Does not the right hon Gentleman think that the time has come to clear off this question once and for all, instead of allowing it to drag on year after year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is being cleared off, I am happy to say, very rapidly, and we are at the fag-end of it.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the right hon. Gentleman the number of acres of untenanted land acquired by compulsion under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, in each of the four provinces?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have acquired under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, some 1,900 acres in Ulster, 8,400 acres in Leinster, 4,200 acres in Connaught, and 10,800 in Munster.

FALSE FIRE ALARM (SUFFRAGIST SENTENCED).
Mr. WRIGHTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Rose Elsie Neville Howey, suffragette, who was sentenced on the 11th December, 1912, to two months' imprisonment in the third division forgiving a false fire alarm and who is now in Holloway Prison; and whether, in view

371
of the state of her health at the time of her imprisonment, he will exercise in her case the clemency which he has shown in the case of other similar offenders, charged with more serious offences, at any rate, so far as to issue an order permitting Miss Howey to be visited at an early date by her mother and her medical adviser?
Mr. McKENNA: This prisoner's health is well maintained, notwithstanding her persistent refusal to take food in the ordinary way. I see no reason for advising any reduction of her sentence, nor for allowing her the privilege of receiving visits, which she has forfeited by her misconduct. I would point out that she can secure her discharge at any time by payment of the remaining proportion of the fine imposed by the Court.
Mr. WRIGHT: Docs the right hon. Gentleman consider that giving a false fire alarm is a more serious offence than trying to set letters on fire?
Mr. McKENNA: No. The hon. Gentleman's question does not touch that point. The only question which we have to consider in keeping her in prison now is whether her health is well maintained or not, and she is, I am informed, in good health.

MEMBER HOLDING GOVERNMENT CONTRACT (VACATION OF SEAT).
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister when he intends to discuss the proposal made by the Committee appointed to consider whether or not the seat of the hon. Member for Whitechapel has been vacated?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at this moment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the question to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  REPORT.—[SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  As amended, further considered.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Irish Parliament.)
    (1) On and after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament consisting of His Majesty the King and two Houses, namely, the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons.
    (2) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish Parliament or anything contained in this Act, the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof.
    Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (I), after the word "Ireland" ["there shall be in Ireland"], to insert the words "except in the province of Ulster."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is in order to move an Amendment which can have no legal effect, there being no such legal entity as a province and no such legal entity as Ulster?
    Mr. SPEAKER: IE the Amendment was carried it might be necessary to insert a definition of Ulster in the Definition Clause. We know pretty well what is intended by the expression. If these words were put into the Bill there would still be an opportunity of making it clear.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is no such place as a province. It is a place unknown to the law.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am very anxious to move this Amendment without any exhibition either of invective or heat. May I also suggest, without being offensive to some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, that they might very well dispense, at all events on this Amendment, with that holiday hilarity with which our proceedings have been carried on since the House reassembled. I can assure them I am not saying that in the least with a view of offending them, but I really think they do not understand and do not feel the seriousness with which we at all events look upon these proposals for what is called the Government of Ireland, and if they were standing here with proposals
    378
    affecting the whole future of those whom they represent, they would just as much and a great deal more, resent the kind of treatment we have been receiving for the last two days in trying to turn discussion into a joke.
    Mr. PRINGLErose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will see that it is impossible to have a proper discussion if any Gentleman who is suddenly seized with a thought or an argument desires at once to put it. It brings all Debate to an end.
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I understand these remarks are particularly addressed to hon. Members below the Gangway. I desire to know to whom they were specially addressed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of asking that question when he has heard the speech out to the end.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir E. CARSON: I pass away from that matter. I thought it necessary to emphasise it, and having said so much, if it has offended anyone below the Gangway, I extremely regret it. It was not with a view to offending that I made it. It was that we might at all events on this Amendment have a serious and deliberate consideration of the matters which have to be brought up for discussion. We have already had during Committee, a Debate upon the question of the exclusion of part of Ulster. It was very fully argued, because it came on before the guillotine had been set up, and although it was in a different form from the present Amendment, it raised most of the questions with which we have to deal in considering the present Amendment. We were beaten on that Amendment, and if it was a mere question of again going into the subject of the exclusion of Ulster, so far as I am concerned, I would not myself have raised the question. I would have accepted the verdict of the House upon the former Amendment, and I desire to make it as clear as I can, why my colleagues and myself upon the present occasion have thought it necessary to take the course we have taken in the most deliberate way that we thought possible by giving information of our reasons in the letter which we thought proper to address to the Prime Minister the other day. I have seen in part of the Press a good deal of misrepresentation as to what our object is, and indeed a good deal of invention as to how

    379
    it came about. I see that the game is up, and that is why we have brought the Amendment forward, according to one paper. It is the first step towards our making an advance for a compromise. That is absolutely untrue. I desire to say at the very outset—and let nobody give me their sympathy upon any contrary assumption—that neither my colleagues nor myself would compromise upon this matter if we could, and we could not compromise upon it if we would. We are opposed to the whole Bill root and branch. We consider it in its present form, even apart from that sentiment, and apart from all other considerations, unworkable, impracticable, and disastrous, to the best interests of Ireland and the best interests of Great Britain, and having that view of the Bill, the suggestion that we should approach the Government or make any move in the direction of compromise is, of course, absolutely impossible. Compromise is also impossible, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) said when this subject was before the Committee on a previous occasion, because, he stated, that even if we did advance proposals as regards the exclusion of Ulster with a view to the acceptance of the rest of the Bill, he and his friends could not be any party to any compromise on these lines, and, therefore, I say that, so far as compromise is concerned, compromise is absolutely out of the question.
    There is one other observation which I saw also in the newspapers. It was that I had gone to Belfast to try to persuade people over in Ulster to allow this Amendment to be moved. I was described as attending dinner parties of various leaders and other people, and trying to prevail upon them to allow me to have the pleasure of making the speech I am making to-day. I can only say that statement, which appeared in a very eminent Radical journal which is apparently the guardian of everything else but truth, is an absolute myth and an absolute invention. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. I saw in one of the journals that support our side that I was going to move this Amendment, and that I had written the letter to the Prime Minister as a matter of tactics. I entirely disavow that. There are no tactics in the matter at all. The letter states exactly why we thought, upon our responsibility as Members of Parliament, that we ought to bring this matter before
    380
    the House, and I can assure the House that this question, to me at all events, as it is, I believe, to all my colleagues, and, I believe, to the Unionists of Ulster, is not only outside of all consideration of questions of tactics, but is outside of questions of ordinary politics, as we understand them. The truth of the matter is that, having the Parliament Act, and the declarations of the Prime Minister, this may be the very last opportunity upon which the question of the exclusion of Ulster can ever come before this House. But it is a serious matter. In addition to that, we have been informed by the Prime Minister that the matter is never to be referred to the electorate of this country. Well, if it is never to come again before this House, and if it is never to go to the country, we are now upon the very last stage at which the question of Ulster or the exclusion of Ulster can be considered.
    I think when I have pointed that out I have a right to say that we are up against a question to-day which we cannot pass by, no matter what our views are, with indifference—a question which may be vital even to the success of your Home Rule Bill after it becomes law in Ireland, and may be vital to the whole Constitution of the United Kingdom. What is the question? There are two questions. The first is, Will the Unionists of Ulster accept this Bill as creating a Constitution under which they will be content to live in the future as they have been content to live under the Constitution of the United Kingdom in the past and up to the present time—will they accept it or will they resist it? And has the House now made up its mind—deliberately made up its mind—to drive them out of the Constitution under which they are willing to remain, and to compel them to live under a Constitution which they abhor, and which is loathsome to them; and in doing that has the Government, and has the House made up its mind—because this is the time to consider it—if Ulster refuses to accept this Constitution—when I speak of Ulster I mean Unionist Ulster—that it will use coercion for the purpose of compelling it to come under the new Constitution, and to obey the Parliament you are setting up? There is no use shirking the question. There is no use saying, "Well, perhaps things will be different in a year or two." There is no use saying, "We are only dealing with bluffers and blusterers." Everybody knows, or, if they do not, I think they are very ignorant of the situation, that

    381
    Ulster is a serious fact, and a stern reality, which will not be got rid of either by turning myself and others into ridicule, or by pretending that the facts are different from what they are.
    Let me just in a very few words review the position of the men for whom I am now speaking. We hear a great deal in this House from day to day of yielding to the repeated demands made for the last thirty years, perhaps more, of two-thirds of the representatives from Ireland. It has been said, and truly said, that they have sunk their differences over many, indeed over all, questions, so that they might put forward at each election, and at all times in this House, their demand for Home Rule. That may be quite true, but what about the other third? For the same period they have made up their minds to sink all differences even to a larger extent than hon. Members below the Gangway, because they have put aside every personal interest to themselves, whether it be as regards agrarian legislation, or labour legislation, or anything else, for the last twenty-five years, and even during that period day by day their opposition has grown not less, but more, acute as regards the question we are now discussing. Indeed, I cannot put it better than it was put by the late Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) when he said:—
    "In 1886 Ulster expressed quite clearly its dislike of the measure; the dislike of 1886 had grown to detestation by l893, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, unless all the information that reaches me on the subject is utterly erroneous, the detestation of 1893 has grown into incalculable loathing."
    That being the state of the facts, as he described it, when this matter was before the Committee, I must refer to what has taken place in the autumn in Ulster. Nobody could have been in Ulster at that time—I care not what his politics are, and I have discussed the matter with some who were over there, and who differ entirely in politics from myself, and, of course, take a different view of what the solution should be—and nobody could have been present at those scenes leading up to the signing of the Covenant in which they pledged themselves not to submit to Home Rule, without coming to the conclusion that those men were grimly in earnest, and grimly determined at whatever hazard and cost to themselves, never to submit to the degradation of a Parliament set up in Dublin to rule them. I am certainly of that opinion. I do not set myself up, as
    382
    hon. Members of this House so often do, as a sort of infallible Pope, but I say from the bottom of my heart and with all the sincerity that is possible that I am as firmly convinced as I stand here that never without the use of force, which everybody would deprecate, can you compel these men to break their Covenant and submit to-Home Rule.
    The House must now make up its mind as regards the truth of that situation. We who believe it, at all events, have a very plain duty. We have the plain duty of trying to avert what we believe would be the greatest disaster to the United Kingdom that has occurred for some hundreds of years. We have the perfectly plain duty of trying if we can by every constitutional means in our power to obtain for these men what they, whether rightly or wrongly, think they can obtain for themselves by force if you pass the Act of Parliament. I do not think anybody will deny that that is our duty. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill), who made some speeches at Dundee since we last discussed this question, as far as I can see was under no delusion as regards the seriousness of the question. He said:—
    "That the position of Ulster was a serious obstacle he had never doubted, and it was an obstacle be bad never underrated."
    What has been done to get rid of the obstacle? Absolutely nothing, as I will show in a few moments when I come to consider the Bill. You have done nothing that could possibly conciliate the Unionist feeling in Ulster, and, if anything, you aggravate it by the way in which you have attempted to set up this Constitution with out allowing free discussion in this House. So much for the moment for the First Lord of the Admiralty. I will ask the Chief Secretary, who knows Ireland—at least he has been a good while there—who has, of course, open to him all sources of information, who gets, I have no doubt, daily reports, even if he does not go-through the whole of them—I do not know whether he does or not—would he get up and say he believes that Ulster is prepared to accept and acquiesce in this Bill? Will he get up and, from his official information, deny not only the possibility but the probability of the resistance of Ulster to the Bill? I am perfectly sure that he will not. If that is so, if these Ulster people will even probably resist—and I am bound to say if they do resist I think they will be right—but if they do

    383
    resist, if that is the state of the facts, it is not a question that you have to consider as to whether they are right or wrong—though, as I said a moment ago, I myself think they are right—but you will have chaos and confusion in Ireland, and not merely in Ireland, but I believe we will have at our backs in relation to that contest the whole body of Unionist opinion in this country, and a great many who would be willing to give us not merely a passive sympathy but active help.
    Let us see for a moment what your justification is for creating this situation. What is the claim of these men? The First Lord of the Admiralty, in the speech to which I have referred, said he thought the time had come when the Leaders of the Opposition should be required to state frankly and honourably and sincerely where they stood in relation to North-East Ulster. The Leader of the Opposition has already spoken, but he will speak on this occasion for himself. I can only say that I have always attempted on this question to state frankly, I hope honourably, and I hope sincerely, where we stand in relation to North-East Ulster. Our claim can be put in a sentence. We claim to stand where we are; we claim to have been given a Government, to have come into it not very willingly as regards a great portion, one section certainly, of the Protestant part of Ireland, but we claim to have done our best under it; we claim to have succeeded under it, and it is for you to justify the turning of us out and not for us to show reasons why we should remain under a Government with which we have never quarrelled and under which we are satisfied to remain. I know that hon. Members below the Gangway say that their demand has been founded upon the failure of the Act of Union, and of the failure of Imperial government from your Imperial Parliament, and you yield to them. We make our claim on the grounds of the success of the Union and the prosperity of Ulster under it. You yield to the men who find failure, and you do nothing for the men who have built up success. I cannot understand why you listen to one more than the other. Where is your precedent for it? Has there ever in the whole of the history of our country been any precedent to which you can point for turning out a great community, successful under your rule, cleaving to your rule and desiring to remain under it, because other people have been discontented
    384
    and say that they have failed to work successfully under your rule?
    Take the four counties alone—I leave out Fermanagh and Tyrone, which are also plantation counties—which, I believe, are referred to as North-East Ulster. The population of those four counties alone is about five times as much as the population of Newfoundland, which you have never compelled to go into union with any country. It is as large as the population of New Zealand or larger, I think a great deal larger, and it is very nearly as large, if not as large, as the whole white population of South Africa, to which you are so fond of referring. In these circumstances, is our demand an extravagant one, that with a population such as that we should be excluded from the operation of a Bill that we loathe? Take South Africa, to which you are so fond of referring—I do not know whether in a short time you will refer to it so often, although I earnestly hope it may turn out to be the success which has been anticipated—but I ask this simple question: Take Natal or take the Cape, would you by force have driven either of those countries into the Union against its will, and, if you would not, why should you drive us into it against our will? That is, shortly, the case that I put for exclusion, but I should like to ask you: Is is unreasonable that Ulster should take up the position that she does? I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War saying—I think upon the Second Reading, but, at any rate, in some speech—that Ulster ought to remember the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and the interests of the other parts of Ireland. But what are the inducements held out by this Bill to them to make a sacrifice of everything that, at all events, they hold dear, for the purpose of going under the Dublin Parliament?
    Let us leave out the sentiment of the matter altogether; not that I despise sentiment either on one side or the other; everyone knows that it is a potent factor in all these kinds of questions regulating the Constitution under which we are to live; but I ask this question: How will Ulster be better under the Bill? In what single respect, what single advantage will Ulster get under the Bill? In my opinion she will be in a degraded position; she will be degraded from her position in this House, and she will be put into a perpetual minority in the House in Dublin, and the great and expanding

    385
    industries in the North of Ireland will be at the mercy and governed, by whom?—I gave the figures, I think, the day before yesterday in this House—some three or four hundred thousand small farmers with the labourers attached, in the South and West of Ireland, with whom they have nothing whatsoever in common, either in ideal or objects, or race or religion, or anything that makes up a homogeneous nation. And what are the material advantages that you hold out to Ulster? Can you tell us one or a fraction of one? It is all the other way. In Belfast, at all events, and in some of the larger towns around it, you are dealing with men who have to engage in great businesses, and you have given us in the Bill the rottenest finance that has ever been proposed in this House—finance which has been condemned by every expert committee, Nationalist or Unionist, which has considered it in Ireland. You have disregarded your own report in regard to which you have never allowed us to see the evidence. The question was considered by the general council of the county councils of Ireland, who are a Nationalist body, and they condemned your proposals. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Cork who described it as rotten finance.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Putrid.
    Sir E. CARSON: I suppose that is a stage beyond rotten. That being so, that is what you are asking them to receive in Ulster as the inducement apart from their sentiment. "Look at what we are piling on you in the way of benefit, putrid finance. That ought to satisfy you for the loss of your sentiment and the giving up of all you are content with." I quite understand the position of hon. Members below the Gangway; they accept it as satisfying their sentiment, and they think no doubt, that they will be able to alter it subsequently. It may be something that is putrid finance, but it satisfies their sentiment, but when you get putrid finance with the outraging of your sentiment, what is to be the condition of the men who are asked to accept it as the future Constitution under which they are to live and flourish? No, Sir; there is nothing in the Bill that improves the material condition or can improve the material condition of Ulster. Ulster believes in the joint Exchequer of the two Kingdoms; and certainly, so far as Ulster is concerned, if you go into the figures, I
    386
    think you will find that you cannot make the complaint that Ulster at least—at all events as regards the six counties—does not pay its way, and a fair share towards the contribution to this country. But you want to divert that to the South and West of Ireland, and on condition of that being diverted to the South and West, the South and West say, "We are so fond of England, and so fond of Great Britain, that we are quite willing to cut the loss." They want to cut the loss, but at the expense of Ulster. What is it which, above all other things, build up the progress of the great businesses of Belfast and those other surrounding industrial towns in the North of Ireland? It is credit. Will you tell me that under this Bill, with its putrid finance, that the credit of Ireland in the future is going to be greater or equal to its credit in the past? I can assure you, from conversations with many merchants and business men of Belfast, that there is nothing they dread more than the shock to credit that will happen in Belfast when this Bill becomes law. Has anyone considered the rate of interest at which the Irish Government are going to borrow, or ever taken the trouble to inquire in the city, or will they be able to borrow at all except at prohibitive rates? If the Government rate of interest over there is high—and I am told it will be very high if it is a possible rate at all at which you can borrow—what would be the bank rate?
    How will that affect business in Belfast? Will Belfast merchants got the same credit in their dealings with this country, and they are mostly with this country, that they have hitherto had? Everywhere you turn, and everywhere you look with regard to this Bill, whether it be on the sentimental side or the material side, you can point out nothing whatsoever that can be of advantage to the people of Ulster. What, then, is there to mitigate the position of Ulster? Is it the action of hon. Members below the Gangway? It is twenty years since this subject was last before the House, and I ask can you point to one single incident in the whole career of the Nationalist party which ought to give, or could give, or would give, any single element of trust or confidence to Ulster. It is all very well these death-bed repentances. They may go down in this House; they do not go down in Ulster. They know them too well. If that is so, why should Ulster accept the Bill? Ulster, I believe, will not accept it, and, if so, it

    387
    is plainly our duty to consider beforehand, because you cannot leave a question of this magnitude to chance. It is plainly our duty to consider how we will stand if Ulster refuses to accept it, and proceeds to defy it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Hear, hear.
    Sir E. CARSON: I read an article some time ago in a Radical paper called the "Star." It seemed to me as if they had somebody in the office who understood something about Ulster, because it said this:—
    "It is impossible to impose Home; Rule upon Ulster by force. The subjugation of Protestant Ulster by force is one of those things that do not happen in our politics. It is because we believe in Home Rule that we are anxious to see from the very start in the conduct of the Bill an utter and absolute refusal to do wrong to Ulster in order to do right to the rest of Ireland. In other words we ought so to shape the Home Rule Hill that Ulster may at some stage or other of the great evolution now in progress, come into the Irish nation of her own free will. Unless she comes into the Irish nation of her own free will she will never come into it."
    There is another matter to which I would like to refer, and I think you will see that it is entirely material upon the Amendment which I am now moving. We are told that this Bill is only the forerunner of a system of federation; and since then we have had the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty at Dundee as regards further devolution in this country. I do not know whether he was serious upon that occasion. He stated that he spoke only for himself. I think that it is very difficult for a statesman in his position to throw out this kind of proposals, merely upon his own behalf, without involving, at all events to some extent, his Government in them. I think that upon this question of the exclusion of Ulster, his speech gave away the whole case, and a speech like that cannot remain as if it had never been delivered. What did he say, in talking of the number of Parliaments that he was going to set up, and the reason for them in this country? He said this:—
    "In Yorkshire you have a different point of view from Lancashire, but still a point of view which it is very desirable should receive a real and consistent expression in the political life of this country."
    If the point of view of Yorkshire and Lancashire ought to receive a different permanent treatment in the life of this country, what about Ulster and the rest of Ireland? Is there a greater difference between Yorkshire and Lancashire than there is between the county of Antrim, the county of Galway, and the county of Cork? And, after all, if there is any object in that
    388
    speech, if that speech or the terms of the federation can have any force in the future policy of this country, would it not be well to stop and deliberate, and leave it over, leave it as it is, and see, after you have further matured and developed your ideas as to the consistent expression of these various places in the political life of this country, whether you cannot find some better solution than throwing Ulster under a Constitution which she abhors and detests. People come to me and say—I think in perfect good faith—"After all, how can you fight in Ulster? We have got the Army and the Navy." Of course, I am not fool enough in these things to dispute that point. They also say, "What are you going to fight, and who are you going to fight?" Can any man measure beforehand—if you once try to drive people out of a Constitution they are satisfied with into another—where the forces of disorder if once let loose will find their objective, or what will be the end of it? There will be many matters which many of us would abhor, but it is a silly question to ask me, "What are you going to fight, where will you fight, and who will you fight," and all that sort of thing. It is enough for me to say that my opinion is that they will not accept and they will resist. Where their resistance will come in will be where they find it best for giving vent to their views and their determination to keep their solemn pledges in the Covenant that they have entered into. I have one point more that I wish to deal with: When this question came up before, the Prime Minister and some of the Radical Press, and some of the Nationalist Press in Ireland, became greatly concerned about the Protestant minority in the other parts of Ireland. I think we understand them as well as the Prime Minister, or as well as the "Freeman's Journal," or those other papers. My colleague in the representation of Dublin University and myself are both of us men who come from south of the Boyne, as we say in Ireland. We are just as solicitous about these scattered minorities in the South and West of Ireland as anybody else is.
    But my firm conviction is, and I believe it is now shared by the majority of these people, that even by the exclusion of Ulster, if this Bill unfortunately becomes law, these people would be in a far better position than they would be if Ulster were retained in the Bill. What would be their position under a Home Rule Parliament?' They would have a few representatives

    389
    from Ulster who would really have no power, who would be at variance with the whole ideas of those who came from the South and West. But what would they have if Ulster was excluded? They would have the same representation here in this House as they have now—exactly the same—with a full representation from Ulster, which is all they have got now, to watch their interests in this House, and to take care, as far as they were able, at all events that some watch should be held over the way they were treated under the administration of the new Government in Ireland. In addition to that, they would have in Ireland itself an Imperial power and an Imperial force which could not be disregarded by the subordinate Parliament for the rest of Ireland. I want to say one word about the form of the Amendment. The Amendment goes beyond the Amendment which the hon. Member moved in the Committee stage. For my own part, when you are excluding a portion of Ireland, I think you ought to exclude at least the province, and I will tell you why. Before you have a right to change the Government, yon have a right to show a preponderating force in favour of that change, although I frankly admit that in some of the counties of Ulster there is a preponderating majority against us. That, of course, is a fact, but still, when I take the whole of Ulster, bound up together in their business with the industries permeating out from the counties of Antrim and Belfast into these various towns around, with Belfast practically as the capital of the province, when I take that and then see what Ulster is, do I find a preponderating power in Ulster even with the allowance of those counties in favour of this? Certainly not. As a matter of representation there is one more Unionist for the whole of Ulster than there is Nationalists. One would think I was stating something that was not perfectly well known. But, then, on the argument that I am making if hon. Gentlemen will only follow me, if you take the Province and find that state of facts, so far from having a preponderating majority in favour of a change in the Constitution, you have a majority against it.
    When I take the whole of Ulster and divide it, in the way in which, unfortunately, we divide these things in Ireland, into Catholic and Protestant, I find there are about 200,000 more Protestants in Ulster than there are Catholics. If you take, on the other hand, the four counties
    390
    and boroughs in them, which have a population of 1,046,000 people, you will find that in those four counties a preponderating representation of Unionists who claim and are anxious to remain under the Constitution under which they were born. If you take the other two plantation counties, Fermanagh and Tyrone, with a population between them of some 200,000 or thereabouts, it may be a little more or less, you will find Fermanagh represented in this House equally by a Nationalist and by a Unionist, and you will find Tyrone represented by three Nationalists and one Unionist. The majorities in Tyrone, where the parties are very much more evenly divided, are small as compared with the other parts of Ireland where these differences exist. Therefore I say that, as regards the whole province, I, at all events, argue, if you are to have exclusion, it is far better statesmanship to exclude the whole of Ulster than to select counties which are nearly, so to speak, all the one way. If you send representatives to this House surely it is fairer instead of selecting counties which will send representatives all the one way and representing practically one religion, that you should have them mixed up, as I have suggested, by treating the province as a whole. I see nothing unfair about it. I think if you have the right to test the opinion of Ireland by taking it as a small portion in proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom, we have just as good a right to take the province of Ulster and compare it in relation to the rest of Ireland, and ask to have the same consideration advanced to it as you give to the other.
    A great deal has been said in the course of these Debates as regards the mandate of the Government on Home Rule. I am not going into the old controversy, I am not going into the old question as to whether the best way to show your sincerity in relation to a particular matter like Home Rule is to omit it from your addresses. We have had it over and over again, and we will never agree about it. But what I would like to ask is this, where has any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other of the great Ministers I see before me, gone down and categorically explained before the electors, to the people of this country, that notwithstanding their opposition and detestation they were determined to force Ulster under a Home Rule Bill, and compel them to obey it against their own wishes. I believe no such speech has ever been made, and surely, on the basis

    391
    that I have been arguing that this may lead to trouble and turmoil in Ireland and I think to vast disruption even in this country, surely upon that basis the question is big enough and wide enough to have taken the opinion of the electors as to what ought to be done. In conclusion, having regard to the object which I have in view in moving this Amendment, which is to put before the House the views which my colleague and myself entertain as regards the position that is created in Ireland, I would like just to read one passage from a great historical document which was, I believe, drawn up mainly by Ulster Scots. It is this:—
    "Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by the Legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded thorn of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow those usurpations which would invincibly interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity."
    The rest of the quotation I shall not read, but there is time yet left in this case to avert disaster.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I can assure the right, hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall endeavour in the few observations I am going to make to the House to approach this matter with the same spirit of seriousness which he himself has, if he will allow me to say so, so admirably exhibited in the very powerful and moving speech to which we have all listened with great respect. I have never said, I have a perfectly clear conscience in this respect, from the beginning of this controversy up to this moment, a word in disparagement of the motives or in belittlement of the magnitude or extent and seriousness of the opposition of some parts of Ulster to this Bill. I have always treated it, and I treat it now, as one of the gravest factors in the case, which it is no use to ignore, and which it is no use to minimise and which has got to be faced and got to be dealt with. It is with the full consciousness of the seriousness of the problem that, I now venture to ask the attention of the House to one or two observations by way of reply to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. In the concluding part of his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what in the course of this topic is now an old controversy, namely, the question whether or not these proposals for Home
    392
    Rule have been adequately submitted to the electorate when they were last consulted. Like him I am not going back into the controversy which has very little relevance to the particular issue raised by this Amendment, but I should like, since he has raised the question, to put this question to him, and those who think with him. Supposing this Bill as it stands, as it has emerged from the Committee, as it will emerge from the Report stage, supposing this Bill, as it stands, including Ulster with the rest of Ireland within its scope, were submitted to the electorate, and were approved by them, what would be the attitude of Ulster? That, Sir, is a very serious question, and it is one to which I think we are entitled to an answer.
    5.0 P.M.
    I am most anxious not to interpret in a merely literal sense expressions of opinion and feelings by people much moved and reasonably moved. I am most anxious not to interpret them too severely in the literal sense. But if we are to take as really meant, as seriously intended, the expressions of opinion which were given vent to in Ulster, some parts of Ulster, in the year which has just ended, no amount of popular approval of this Bill by the electorate of Great Britain would ever induce the minority in Ulster to assent to it. That raises a very serious issue. I should like very much to know, and I hope we may be told before this Debate comes to an end what is the attitude of the Opposition with regard to it. I pass from that, which, after all, is incidental, to the merits of the issue which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I admit, and not only admit, but I allege, that in framing this Bill we have treated Ireland as a whole, and that this Bill has been conceived, and its details have been worked out, in the belief that that which in the long run is for the benefit of Ireland as a whole cannot in the long run be injurious to any part of it. I do not ask hon. Gentlemen to share that view, but that is the honest belief in which the Bill has been conceived, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us, as he has done to-day, and not for the first time, that his fellow countrymen in Ulster are going to be turned out—I think that is the phrase—of the British Constitution, just let me ask how that contention really appears to the mind of the average fair-judging British citizen. What is he going to be turned out of? He is certainly not going to alter his allegiance; he will still be a subject of the Crown. He will still be represented, unlike any of our Dominions outside the United

    393
    Kingdom, here in the Imperial Parliament. He will still have, through that representation in the Imperial Parliament, and through the overriding legislative power which the Imperial Legislature will still possess, and which on all occasions I do not hesitate to say it will undoubtedly exercise—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No"]—on all occasions of proved injustice. Through his representation here, and through the power which this Parliament possesses, he will still have a voice, if occasion arises, a potent, and it may be a decisive voice, in the control of the affairs both of his own country and of the Empire. How does he fare in Ireland in the Irish Parliament? There, again, no one has suggested that Ulster, particularly the special counties in Ulster for whom the right hon. Gentleman has spoken to-night, will not be adequately and fairly represented. We have inserted in the Bill provision after provision to guard against all the possibilities that have occurred to us of the misuse by the Irish Parliament of its legislative power, for the oppression or persecution, either upon religious or political or social or financial grounds, of the minority in Ireland. I have said before, and I repeat today at this stage in the history of the Bill, that if anyone can show any respect in which those safeguards ought to be increased, either in number or in strength, we are perfectly prepared to consider such suggestions and to give effect to them.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Why did you not do that in Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg pardon. We did everything we were asked to do in this particular respect; and if there is more, the Noble Lord, when he comes to speak, will perhaps suggest Amendments.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but as he challenges me, I said in a speech in Committee that the matter of judges was just such a safeguard as might be of value to the people of Ulster. Of course, the Amendment was rejected.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord refers to the Amendment that judges should be appointed from here instead of from Ireland. We did not regard that as a safeguard which was reasonable or proper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it would not give any real additional protection to the Irish minority, but it would lead to perpetual friction. I am
    394
    speaking, of course, of reasonable safeguards; and I say now, again, what I have said frequently before, that if anyone can suggest for the protection of the minority a reasonable safeguard, consistent with the working of self-government in Ireland which does not at present appear in the Bill, we are perfectly ready to consider it. That, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to say so, is the point of view from which the position of the Ulster minority, when this Bill passes this House, will be regarded by the average British citizen. I do not beleve that, if he would go down into the country and state fairly and intelligibly what the provisions of the Bill were, he would find any response in any part of Great Britain to the suggestion that this Bill was a Bill under which serious oppression could possibly be worked by the majority against the minority in Ireland. That, I think, is the fundamental weakness of the Ulster position. It will not appeal to the imagination or reason of the British people.
    Mr. MOORE: Try Reading.
    The PRIME MINISTER: At the same time, I admit that these apprehensions exist. As I have said before, I do not minimise either their reality or their gravity. I want, therefore, to deal with this Amendment, as it deserves to be dealt with, on its merits, quite apart from the general considerations to which I have already adverted. What is the Amendment? The Amendment is to exclude from the operation of the Bill the province of Ulster. What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what it means. It means the wrecking of the whole Bill. He does not conceal that for a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there is not a single effective or operative Clause in the Bill which, if Ulster were excluded from its operation, would not become practically unworkable and unmeaning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The whole finance falls to the ground at once, as everybody knows. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a passage, a very important passage, from: the letter which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues addressed to me when they courteously gave me an intimation that they were about to move this Amendment. This is the passage:—
    "The exclusion of Ulster from the Bill cannot indeed conciliate our opposition. Unionists in Ireland as in England are opposed to Home Rule as disastrous to the best Interests both of Ireland and of the rest of the

    395
    United Kingdom on many grounds besides the claims of Ulster. That opposition is fundamental and unalterable."
    So that what we have got here is—I will not say under the guise, because that might seem to imply something in the nature of insincerity, which I am far from doing—but under cover of an Amendment to exclude Ulster from the operation of the Bill we have an absolutely honest, avowed, and undisguised expression of opinion that the Bill, as a whole, is one which ought to be unalterably opposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I was quite certain the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me. There is no mistake or concealment about it. Under the claim to exclude Ulster from the operation of the Bill, a claim is, not ostensibly, but is actually and admittedly put forward, that because Ulster or certain portions or sections of the population of Ulster—
    Sir E. CARSON: You must not take me as admitting that.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will use the word "Ulster" if you like. Because Ulster is opposed to Home Rule, Ireland, as a whole, is not to get Home Rule. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a claim that they are to have a veto.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No.
    The PRIME MINISTER: An absolute veto. Let me come to inquire what Ulster, for this purpose, really means. The right hon. Gentleman, in the concluding part of his speech, seemed to put forward the case that this was a more logical and reasonable Amendment than the one already discussed and rejected in Committee, which proposed to exclude certain of the Ulster counties from the operation of the Bill. If this Amendment were carried, the whole of Ulster would be excluded. What is Ulster? I have here a very useful map in which Ulster is coloured. By looking at that map I see that, dividing Ulster according to its representation—leaving population for the moment—between those who are in favour and those who are against Home Rule, the whole of the North-West, the whole of the South, the larger part of the middle—by the middle, I mean the county of Tyrone—are almost unanimously in favour of Home Rule. That is a geographical fact; there can be no dispute about it whatever. Under this Amendment the whole of Donegal, which returns a united Nationalist representation, the whole of Tyrone, of which three divisions as compared with
    396
    one return a representation in favour of Home Rule, the whole of Monaghan and Cavan, part of Fermanagh, part of Armagh, and part of Down, although they have a preponderatingly Nationalist population and are represented in this House by Members in favour of Home Rule, would be excluded from the benefit of the Home Rule Bill. That cannot be disputed. It is not disputed by the right hon. Gentleman. In point of fact, as was clearly indicated in Committee, there are only two counties in Ulster which return a uniform Unionist representation—Londonderry and Antrim. The whole of the rest of the Ulster representation is either wholly Nationalist or divided between the Unionist and Nationalist parties. I confess that, to my mind, if you are to have a segregation of one part of Ireland from the rest, there is no argument whatsoever in favour of excluding the province of Ulster as a whole; the only argument, whatever it be worth, is in favour of the Amendment which was debated and rejected when we were in the Committee stage.
    If you look at the population, how does the matter stand? In what I will call, for convenience and brevity, Unionist Ulster—that is, the part represented in this House by Unionist Members—the population is, roughly speaking, 680,000 Protestants, 270,000 Roman Catholics. On the other hand, if you look at Home Rule Ulster, that part which is represented here by Nationalists or Members in favour of Home Rule, the Roman Catholics there are 436,000, and Protestants 194,000. If you take the province of Ulster as a whole, roughly speaking—I do not pretend to precise mathematical accuracy—there are in it, nine Protestants to seven Catholics. Anxious and most anxious as he may be to conciliate all reasonable opposition, and above all, to give such effect as he can to whatever is reasonable, to whatever can be given effect to in the apprehensions and sensibilities of Protestant Ulster—how is it possible, in the face of figures such as these, for anyone who accepts the principle of this Bill, to justify the exclusion of the whole province of Ulster from the operation of the Bill? The argument has really only to be stated to refute itself. I have pointed out already that the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly and sincerely says that, even if this proposal was agreed to, it would not in any degree mitigate the hostility of himself and his Friends to the granting of Home Rule to Ireland as a whole.

    397
    The effect, therefore, of carrying this Amendment, as I have shown, when the facts and figures come to be analysed, is totally unsupported by logic or reason. The effect of the carrying of the Amendment would be to render the rest of the Bill practically unworkable, and in no way to facilitate the passage through the two Houses of Parliament of such wreckage of the Bill as remained. It is indeed, as I have said, a claim which I do not think you will find the people of Great Britain will ever recognise or acknowledge, a claim of a small minority, a minority I agree whose material prosperity, whose intelligence, whose strong religious feeling entitle them to every possible degree of consideration and respect—it is a claim on the part of a relatively small minority in Ireland to frustrate the aspirations and defeat the wishes of the Irish people as a whole. That is a claim which, on the purest principles of democratic Government, neither this House nor any Legislative Assembly founded upon democracy, and framing Its policy by democratic principles, can ever yield to.
    The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a picture—I am sure in perfect good faith, not at all in an inflammatory spirit—of the possible consequences that we may have to face if legislation of this kind is carried in defiance of the opinion of those for whom he speaks. I have always myself held the same language, and held the same language, because I have always felt the same thing in regard to that. I cannot bring myself to believe, without in any way undervaluing the reality and intensity of the feelings of those whom he represents, that when the whole situation as it will emerge, after the passing of this legislation, becomes clear, and when it is realised as I said at the beginning, what a solid protection the minority in Ireland have with regard to their just rights and interests, not only in the provisions of the Bill itself—fettering and limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament—but in their continued representation in the Imperial Parliament here—I cannot bring myself to believe that they will not, when they reflect upon these things, see that it is their duty as good citizens and loyal subjects to accept the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. I shall certainly not speculate and lay down contingent policies in view of any other hypothesis, because that hypothesis I do not believe to be in conformity with probability, reason and common sense.
    398
    While I believe that I yield to no man in my respect for the genuine feeling of Ulster in this matter, I cannot believe that it will ever be possible or right for this Imperial Parliament to abstain from doing that which it believes to be just, to be politic, and to be in the best interests of the Kingdom and the Empire as a whole, because by so doing we may do that which is unpalatable to a minority, and something which that minority may, as they think, justly and legitimately resent. I hope I shall not be thought to be using unsympathetic, still less arbitrary language, but I do believe that it would be the worst example possible, in the interests of democratic government, if such a principle as that were ever recognised by this House or any Parliament.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I confess I feel some surprise and disappointment that no one has risen on the Front Opposition Bench to answer the Prime Minister. Coming after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I would not think it right to speak at all were it not that I think that the view entertained by the Irish party, for whom I speak upon this question, ought to be put before the House as soon as possible. May I respectfully associate myself with the opening words of the Prime Minister? The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir Edward Carson) was a serious and solemn speech, and I will say bore every trace of absolute sincerity. I desire, if I can—and I am sure I will succeed—to imitate the serious tone in which he spoke. From the right hon. Gentleman's speech I need not say I profoundly disagreed. He made a number of statements which seemed to me to outrage some of my most cherished convictions, but I shall make this acknowledgment, that he made those statements, those strong statements, without any rancour of tone. I certainly shall endeavour to imitate the calmness, solemnity and seriousness with which he dealt with the subject. I think that we have all reason to congratulate ourselves on the fact that he mentioned that this subject, which undoubtedly is one of the most important connected with this Bill, has been adequately discussed. It was discussed at very great length before what is called the Guillotine Procedure Resolutions came into operation at all. Therefore no one in the future will be able to say that this great subject has not, at any rate, been fully and freely discussed.

    399
    Many representatives of the Unionist party have been in the habit of accusing the Irish party, and the Leaders of that party, of treating proposals put forward on behalf of the Ulster Unionists with levity, and with irreconcilable hostility. I desire respectfully to contravene that statement. I say, on the contrary, that ray colleagues and I desire to give every serious proposal made by them the most anxious and serious consideration. We take the view that the mere fact standing alone that a section of our fellow countrymen, even though a very small minority of the population of our country, are opposed to Home Rule, is a serious and, to us, a most lamentable fact. We do not, of course, take exactly the same tragic view of the consequences which are likely to result from the attitude of this section which hon. Members above the Gangway would no doubt like the whole of the House to take. For instance, I, for my part, am not seriously influenced by the threatened danger of civil war in Ulster. We know that there is a strong feeling in this matter, but we know also that just as strong feelings were aroused in the same quarter in Ireland when the Church Act of 1869 was being passed. Some of us believe that the feeling of resentment then was more widespread and more deep than it is now.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if it is not a fact that at that time the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were opposed to each other?
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I repeat my statement that we believe that the feeling of hostility at that time in Ireland was, if anything, more widespread than and quite as intense as at the present time. The language used was equally as strong. The threats used were quite as unveiled. The strong language and the threats did not emanate solely from Irish Unionist Members. In those days, just as at the present time, responsible English leaders used language and threats of this character. Mr. Disraeli, the Leader of the Opposition at that time, speaking on the Third Reading of the Church Bill on 31st May, 1869, used these words—quite as strong as the present Leader of the Opposition has used or will:—
    "What will happen? Is it probable that the Protestants of Ireland will submit without a struggle? Who can believe it? They will not. What I fear of
    400
    the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is that its tendency is civil war. Is it natural that the Protestants of Ireland should submit without a struggle? Ton know they will not that is settled. Is England then to interfere? Are we again to conquer Ireland? Are we to have a repetition of the direful history which on both sides now we wish to forget? Is there to be another Battle of the Boyne? Another Seige of Derry? Another Treaty of Limerick? These things are not only possible but probable. You are-compassing a policy that will inevitably lead to that result."
    We know what happened. As soon as the quite honestly alarmed Protestant opinion of Ireland found that they were not injured either in their civil or religious lives by the legislation that had been passed, that all their fears had been groundless, all talk of civil war disappeared. While I am not disputing for a moment the sincerity of the statements which are made by hon. Members above the Gangway, especially by the hon. Member who opened the Debate—I believe they are expressing what they honestly believe—notwithstanding, I am entitled to my belief, and to my belief, as I think, fortified by the experience of history,. that what happened then will happen again now, that as soon as the Protestants of Ireland find, as for my part I believe they will speedily find, that there is no attack upon their rights, property, liberties, or religion, that they will, as the Prime Minister has expressed the hope that they will do, as good citizens fall in with this legislation, and bring to the service of what, after all, is their country as well as ours, all those great qualities which, for my part, I believe will be perhaps the most valuable in the government of Ireland in the future. Therefore I must be allowed to say that I do not take the tragic view of the results of the present position that the Unionist Members do on the question of Home Rule, even if that compromising hostility is maintained to the very end of this controversy. At the same time it would be indeed very foolish for anyone to deny the seriousness of the position. It is serious, not only from the Parliamentary point of view, but I say, speaking as an Irishman, it is serious from the national point of view. It is serious from a Parliamentary point of view, because of this. No one who observes the current of public opinion in this country can doubt for one instant that if this opposition from the North-East corner of Ulster did not exist, Home Rule would go through tomorrow as an agreed Bill. [HON. MEM-BEES: "No, no."] In my opinion it would be welcomed in their hearts by Members of the Unionist party as leading to the

    401
    solution of that perennial Irish question which has been a danger and an inconvenience to them just as much as to every other English party since the Union; and thus the position is serious from the national point of view for Irishmen, because no lover of Ireland can possibly help deeply regretting the possibility, even if Home Rule should come into existence, of the creating of a bitter political defeat for any section of his fellow countrymen.
    I therefore say that within certain well-defined limits—and I put that qualification in—within certain well-defined limits there are no limits that for my part I would not be willing to go in order to conciliate the opposition of those Gentlemen. Any proposal therefore which is put forward by them deserves, and will certainly receive from me, the most careful and anxious consideration on two conditions which are absolutely essential if the proposal is to deserve such serious consideration. The first condition is that the proposal must be a genuine one, put forward not merely as a piece of tactics, put forward not merely as part of a general campaign to wreck the Bill, but put forward frankly as part of a general settlement of the Home Rule question. The second condition which I say is essential is that the proposal itself should be of a reasonable character, and not inconsistent with the fundamental principle of national self-government. Allow me for a moment, and I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, to apply these two tests to this Amendment. Is this Amendment put forward frankly as part of a general settlement of the Home Rule question? Why, the exact opposite is the case. The frankness has been there, I admit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been perfectly frank, and he has told us that this Amendment, if carried, will not mitigate in any degree the fundamental and unalterable opposition to this Bill. He has been, I am bound to say, perfectly consistent all through. He has spoken during the past year many times, not only in this House but outside this House, and he has repeatedly stated that Ulster did not ask for separate treatment as part of a compromise upon this question, and to-day, following that consistent attitude, he has told us in his speech that this is not a first step towards compromise, and that from his point of view his only policy is to defeat and to destroy the Home Rule proposals of the Government.
    402
    On the question of the exclusion of the four counties, the right hon. Gentleman said he supported that Amendment, not as part of the settlement, but because he knew that if Ulster or any portion of Ulster were excluded, Home Rule was-dead. He declared:—
    "We do not accept this Amendment as a compromise. Upon this question there is no compromise possible."
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not put this forward as a contribution towards the "settlement" of this question—he deprecated the use of the word himself in his speech—I must be allowed to say his proposal must cither be a genuine attempt towards settlement of this question or it must be a mere question of Parliamentary tactics. That was his attitude with reference to the exclusion of the four counties, and his attitude to-day with reference to this proposal is precisely the same; and,. Sir, his attitude to-day from the point of view of a party tactical move is thoroughly understood, and is thoroughly approved by his own supporters in Ireland. I have here an extract from "The Belfast News Letter," which I think is a leading organ of the Unionist party in the North of Ireland, and commenting, upon the 18th December, on a statement which appeared in its columns to the effect that an Amendment similar to this was about to be moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) "The Belfast News Letter"said:—
    "If the proposition is being put forward there will be only one answer to it and that is that the Unionists of Ulster will not have Home Rule under any circumstances whatever. The value of Mr. Pirie's Amendment here in Ulster is confined to the fact that if it was adopted it would kill the Home Rule Bill, and we are-quite indifferent to the means by which it is killed.
    That was before the present Amendment had been produced. After the present Amendment has been produced "The Belfast News Letter" approved of it, but approved of it solely as a tactical move. Here is what. they say:—
    "To all intents and purposes the proposal to exclude Ulster—"
    This was written on the 30th December—
    "from the operations of the Home Rule Bill is offered to the Prime Minister by the Unionist Members as an alternative to civil war. In other words, it is a tactical move. Is it good tactics?…In thus challenging the Government to declare its hand on Ulster, the Irish Unionist Members will no doubt be charged with having deserted the scattered Unionists in the other provinces. But the Unionists in the other provinces need no assurances to the contrary, for they will understand the tactics underlying the decision to put this Amendment forward."
    And in yesterday's London "Times" the Dublin correspondent writes—I will not read all of it—as follows:—

    403
    "…The Irish Unionist party's proposed Amendment seems to have the approval of Irish Unionists in the three Southern provinces, This seems surprising at first sight."
    And he goes on to say:—
    "The Unionists are confident, however, that Mr. Redmond will not allow the Government to accept the Amendment."
    Therefore they are in favour of it, and he goes on to say:—
    "The Amendment is regarded, in fact as a shrewd and perfectly legitimate piece of tactics. It puts on the Government the responsibility of declaring definitely for civil war in Ulster, and there is no doubt that it will trouble the consciences of many of the Government's Liberal supporters. As a piece of tactics, therefore, the Southern unionists accept the Amendment without criticism, but this acquiescence ought not to be misunderstood. The Unionists of Dublin and the South, if Home Rule were indeed inevitable, would be horrified at the prospect of submission to an Irish Parliament…The Irish Times' said many months ago that the segregation of Ulster would be the worst form of separation. This sentiment was approved of by Unionists south of the Boyne, and I have no reason to suppose that they have changed their views"
    Therefore I submit respectfully, I am justified in saying that so far from this Amendment being put forward as a genuine contribution towards the settlement of this question, it is a mere piece of tactics, and is so tolerated and approved by the Unionist supporters of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Ireland. And Home Rulers, men who believe in the principle of this great measure, men who believe in the right of the majority of the people of Ireland to govern themselves in their own affairs, are actually asked to make the enormous sacrifice of nullifying all their convictions and stultifying themselves, and for what? For nothing, because in return we are not even to get a mutilated Bill passed, but after all this enormous sacrifice of principle has been made, by Home Rulers the opposition to the Bill, here and elsewhere, is to continue as unalterable as it is at the present moment.
    Let us consider shortly the other condition I laid down. Let me say a word on the actual proposals of this Amendment, and I need not dwell much upon that, because the Prime Minister has really covered the ground, but let me make one or two observations to supplement what has been said, and let me then shortly explain the general attitude of the Irish party upon this matter. The proposal for the exclusion of the four counties of Ulster had at any rate some characteristics which enabled men to use more or less plausible arguments in its favour. There were undoubtedly in these four counties large Unionist majorities, although in these four counties there were large Nationalist minorities.
    404
    We hold in these four counties four seats at the present moment, namely, South Down, South Armagh, Newry, and West Belfast. In the immediate past we held other seats, and if another election were to take place in the immediate future we probably would hold more, and the great weakness in the argument in favour of the exclusion of these four counties was where were you to draw the line. If you were to give representation to the Unionists of these four counties, why not give representation to the Nationalist minorities'! In Belfast about one-fourth of the whole population is Nationalist. Why should they be coerced in this matter if you are going to make these fancy distinctions and say that Unionist majorities are to have that representation? Still it was undeniable that so far as these four counties were concerned there were large Unionist majorities, and, so far as that fact goes at any rate, some plausible argument could be used in its favour. But what of this proposal for the province of Ulster, with its nine counties? How is that population divided? The Prime Minister has mentioned the general effect. It is not possible to give an accurate account of the division of parties according to politics, and we can only take the religious distinction, but I do assure the House that the religious division of the population in Ulster is not an accurate indication as to its politics We may differ, and no doubt we do as to how many of the Protestants of Ulster are in favour of Home Rule, but the fact remains that some of them are, and for my part I believe a considerable number of them are, in favour of Home Rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"]
    Let me just go through the figures in another way. In Antrim the Catholics form 20.5 per cent. of the whole population; in Armagh the percentage is 45.3, and in Belfast borough 24.1. In Cavan the Catholics are 81.5 of the whole population, and in Donegal 78.9. In Down it is 31.6, and in Fermanagh 56.2; while in Derry county and city together it is 45.8. In Monaghan the percentage is 74.7, and in Tyrone 55.4. That is five out of the nine counties included in the province of Ulster which are to be excluded from Home Rule, although they have overwhelming Catholic majorities at this moment. Taking the whole province, the Catholics are 43.7 of the whole population. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, of the Parliamentary representation of the province of Ulster sixteen are Nationalists

    405
    and seventeen Unionists. How are these Nationalists elected? Why there are great portions of Ulster where the Nationalists when the elections take place are returned by majorities of thousands, and there are some constituencies so thoroughly Nationalist that there never has been a contested election since the general extension of the franchise in 1885. Only the other day we held a majority of the seats in Ulster, and so we might to-morrow. Therefore I say that no case has been made out with regard to a homogeneous population for separate treatment. The claim put forward in this Amendment will not stand examination. The Irish party opposed the exclusion of the four counties, and a fortiori the Irish party oppose the exclusion of the province of Ulster.
    Therefore I base my attitude upon this matter first, upon the fact that this is not a genuine proposal at all, and is admittedly a mere question of Parliamentary tactics; and, secondly, that the proposal, on its merits, has no merits. I also found myself, and it is only just and honest to the House that I should do so, upon a broader ground than either of these. This Home Rule question is for us the demand of a nation for the restoration of its national rights. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment asked the Government were they going to coerce the North-East corner of Ulster to live under a rule they detested? What did you do in the case of the Union? Remember that then the ancestors of these men were opposing the Union. and yet you practically forced the whole country under a rule which they detested. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, who asks, "Will you coerce the North-East portion of Ulster to live under a rule they detest?" I ask, will you, if this Bill fails by force, coerce the rest of Ireland to continue to live under a system of rule established at the Union which they loathe and have loathed from that day to this? I say this is a national movement in Ireland. This movement never could have survived the famine, the periods of emigration, the unsuccessful insurrections, and the apparently useless sacrifice of life and of liberty on the scaffold and in the cell, were it not that the soul of the movement was the distinct and indestructible nationality of Ireland.
    Ireland for us is one entity. It is one land. Tyrone and Tyrconnell are as much
    406
    a part of Ireland as Munster or Con-naught. Some of the most glorious chapters connected with our national struggle have been associated with Ulster—aye, and with the Protestants of Ulster—and I declare here to-day, as a Catholic Irishman, notwithstanding all the bitterness of the past, that I am as proud of the heroism of Derry as of Limerick. Our ideal in this movement is a self-governing Ireland in the future, when all her sons of all races and creeds within her shores will bring their tribute, great or small, to the great total of national enterprise and national statesmanship and national happiness. Men may deride that ideal; they may say it is a futile and an unreliable ideal, but they cannot call it an ignoble one. It is an ideal that we, at any rate, will cling to, and because we cling to it, and because it is there embedded in our hearts and natures, that it is an absolute bar to such a proposal as this Amendment makes, a proposal which would create for all times a sharp and eternal and dividing line between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, and a measure which would for all time mean the partition and disintegration of our nation. To that we as Irish Nationalists can never submit.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: This is a question upon which my feelings are of a very deep character. It seemed to me that both in the very able speech of the Prime Minister and the speech to which we have just listened there was some confusion of thought. The Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford have both dwelt at great length on the numerous Roman Catholic and Home Rule population which is to be found within the province of Ulster. There is, however, a very simple answer to that argument. If you agree with us that a certain part of Ireland ought to be excluded from the operation of this Bill, then we should be perfectly willing to discuss with you afterwards the precise limits within which that exclusion should be limited. It would not be a difficult thing to take an actual vote of every local Government district in Ulster to find out on which side the majority in each district was, and then a line could be drawn which would include the Unionist districts, on the one hand, and all, the Nationalist districts, on the other. There would not be the smallest difficulty if you once admit the principle of exclusion, and if you do not admit the principle, then it is merely a waste of time to argue the point.

    407
    A great deal has been made of the declaration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) and those who agree with him that their opposition to Home Rule is in any case unalterable and fundamental. Of course it is, but Home Rule is opposed by the whole Unionist party on a great many other grounds which have no connection whatever with Ulster and some of them, we think, are even more important than the question of Ulster itself. The establishment of a separate nationality within the United Kingdom certainly is a matter which would make all Unionists obstinate opponents of Home Rule. There is one peculiar feature about Ulster which does not apply to the general opposition to Home Rule, which will go on in any case, and it is the resistance of a large part of the people of Ulster to the operation of this Bill. In addition to the general opposition to Home Rule, there is threatened an actual resistance by part of the country to the operation of the Bill if it passes, and the purpose of this Amendment is to endeavour if possible to avert that resistance by cutting out of the Bill that part of the population which threatens to resist. The answer to the argument which has been put forward on this point is that at any rate by accepting this Amendment you will have gained something, not only from our point of view, but also from your own point of view, because you will have got rid of the question of the resistance of Ulster. By that course you will not prevent this Bill being passed through Parliament. We have a perfect right to oppose any Bill we disapprove of in Parliament, but by the course I suggest you will have got rid of the question of armed resistance or passive resistance, or any other effectual form of resistance of the law which may take place in Ulster if this Bill becomes law. To confront my right hon. Friend and those who act with him with the question, "Are you prepared to make this an agreed Bill?" and if they are not, to tell them that you will not listen to their Amendment, is to approach this subject in a very unreasonable spirit. This Amendment proposes to take out of the conflict that very dangerous and formidable weapon, the threat of resistance, which has arisen in part of the counties of Ulster.
    6.0 P.M.
    The Prime Minister, as I understand him in this connection, asked a question generally of Unionists. He asked, "Would it
    408
    make any difference to this prospect of resistance if, when the people of this country were consulted, it was found that they were in favour of this Bill?" I do not complain of that question, but I do not think that when you are contemplating a matter so inexpressibly grave as resistance to the law you can ask party questions. I am not sure it is always right to vote as your party votes, but it would be a most immoral principle to fight as your party fights. This is a matter of absolute individual responsibility, and every individual must act according to his conscience. For that reason I venture to make for my own part a reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him in thinking that the verdict of the country on this question would make no difference to the people of Ulster, because their feelings are so deep and so-strongly excited that they would not accept a Home Rule Parliament under those circumstances. I do not, however, think that that is the point of view of a great many British Unionists, who take a rather different view of the matter. They say that this Bill, if it passes under present conditions, will not have the moral authority of law at all. It is being passed first of all by what we regard as an unconstitutional suspension of the Constitution. It is being passed by a serious loss of power, of liberty, of independent opinion, merely as a party decree, put on the Statute Book by unconstitutional and illegitimate means, and has not the moral authority of law. A Statute so passed may be resisted on grounds much lighter and smaller than would apply to a Statute which really had the authority of law behind it, such as this Bill would have if it were fairly approved of by what we all regard as the sovereign authority in the country—the verdict of the people at large. Though that makes a difference, and though I think it would be found, if the experiment were tried, that whereas the people of Ulster and Belfast would take the view that they must in any case resist it, a great many British Unionists would take the view that if Home Rule were approved of by the people at large then resistance ought not to be engaged upon, in the end it would come to much the same thing, for this reason: Supposing the people of North-East Ulster-did resist, the question would at once arise, how are you going to deal with their resistance? I do not think you would find two opinions in British Unionism. It

    409
    would be regarded as intolerable tyranny to use force to put down that resistance. The moment you attempted to use force against the resistance of Ulster you would reunite the whole body of British Unionist opinion and a great deal of other opinion in Great Britain which is not Unionist in the opinion that others than Ulstermen ought to go over and assist them in their resistance. I have given the Prime Minister a very full and detailed reply to his question. I am not entitled to speak for anyone but myself. I speak merely as an observer having used my eyes to the best of my ability to judge what is the mind of Irish Unionists and what is the mind of British Unionists on this side of St. George's Channel, and I am quite sure the Government do not get out of the difficulty they have to encounter in this Amendment by asking such a question, or by any answer that can possibly be given to it. Surely we are all agreed this is not a matter of importance which depends upon its significance in the party battle on the floor of the House or in the polling booth outside. It does not really matter what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law), or my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), or Lord Lansdowne, or anybody else says about this matter beyond their own individual opinion. The essential importance of it is that it is a real fact there are people in the North-East of Ireland who are not prepared to submit to Home Rule. You have to face that fact one way or the other.
    The Prime Minister said it was an exaggeration to speak of turning out the people of Ulster from the Government of the United Kingdom. I hardly think it is consistent with the general advocacy of Home Rule to minimise the importance of what you are doing to the people of North-East Ulster. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) said this was the demand of a nation; this was to create a nation. The hon. Member gave his own view of history. It seemed to me a very romantic view and one not at all justified by the facts of the case. He said, among other things, or he indicated, that the Union was carried by force, which it certainly was not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fraud"]—and that it was generally opposed all over Ireland, which is ludicrously untrue. It was received with absolute apathy by the greater part of Ireland. He also said, and this was more relevant to the Amendment, that the
    410
    people of North-East Ulster, the people who are concerned here, are members of what he calls "the Irish nation." Do not let me be understood either to sneer at—which I should not do as a matter of courtesy—or to express disbelief in the Irish nation. I do think that at present, in the true sense of nationality, the Irish nation has not come to exist, but I do believe a great deal more thoroughly than hon. Members opposite in the possibility of creating an Irish nation, and it is percisely because, like the devils of St. James' Epistle I do believe and tremble, that I am so strongly opposed to this Bill. Hon. Members opposite talk of how much they think of the Irish nation. They do not believe one word of it; they think it is a nice little word just as one might call a cat a "darling." They do not really think Ireland is a nation in the true sense of the word. They do not think it is or can ever possibly be a belligerent unit and that is the true definition of a nation; that is the really important distinction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am not going to wrangle over words. If we use words in a different sense the best way is to use other words and make the ambiguity clear. The true distinction between a nation and any other minor classification is that a nation may lawfully go to war with another nation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland?"] Scotland is not a nation in that sense. It was a nation in the days of James I.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is Wales a nation?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No, nor is England a nation in that sense of the word. I am not denying many interesting points of distinction between the different parts of the United Kingdom, or that they may legitimately be made the centres of sentiment, but, if you are going to use language which is worth a meaning, you must have one word to describe this all-important distinction, which goes to the root of political science, the distinction between a community that may make war on another community and any other classification. There is no other distinction anything like so important. If you do not like my language let us call it "A and B" or "X and Y," or anything else you like. It is obvious that sort of community which has the moral right to go to war with another community is a distinction of the utmost importance. The question is: Is that the claim that hon. Members who come from

    411
    Ireland make on behalf of Ireland? I should say it certainly is. I should say they have uniformly treated Ireland as though it was in the true sense of the word a nation, a nation which has the moral right to go to war with another. How often have we not listened to hon. Members sitting on the benches behind me speak of wars in which this country has been engaged as "your war"? We all recollect their attitude not merely of detachment but of positive hostility at the time of the Boer war. That is consistent with the true idea of nationality. They did not feel Ireland was taking part in the act of war upon which the rest of the" United Kingdom was engaged. At any rate, they claim to be a nation, and, as I think, they claim to be a nation in the true and right sense of the word.
    You are really, in insisting on including Ulster in this Bill, handing over the people of Ulster to a nation to which they do not wish to belong. They make it perfectly clear they prefer, if the country is to be divided into two nations, to remain in this nation. What right has anybody to say they have no right to choose, and what right has anybody to say it is a small matter? If it is a small matter, why are you passing this Bill? If it does not very much matter whether Ireland is a nation or not, or if the distinction between British and Irish nationality is an unimportant distinction, why spend all these months, straining the Parliamentary machine to breaking point, for the sake of passing this Bill? Evidently you think it very important. Evidently you think this question of nationality, however you understand it, is a matter of capital importance. What right have you to say to the people of Ulster, "We are going to create a nation, and, much as you dislike it, you shall belong to that nation"? Has any Liberal statesman ever used language of that kind before to-day? Can the Prime Minister point to a single responsible Liberal statesman who has not begun by saying in this matter of nationality, "The people must choose for themselves"? You are going to force people into a community which at the outset they repudiate.
    Sir W. BYLESmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: We say the Union of the United Kingdom is a true Union; that is our theory. We do not propose to force anyone from where they are. The Union was undoubtedly passed with the
    412
    consent of the only authority able to give consent, and there is the best possible reason for believing the majority of the people of Ireland gave their consent, so far as they had any opinion, to the passage of the Union. You are, therefore, taking a course which on your own principles is illegitimate. The only remaining argument put forward for taking a course of this kind is that this Amendment will wreck the Bill. Why should it wreck the Bill? I dare say it may be inconsistent with the machinery of this Bill, but why should it wreck the passage of Home Rule altogether? Why should it be inconsistent with the passage of Home Rule? Have the Prime Minister and others who use that language considered what an admission they are making to the opponents of Home Rule when they say this would wreck Home Rule? I do not necessarily mean this Bill.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): That is what the Prime Minister said.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Then surely it is treating this subject with insufficient gravity. Because a particular bit of printed paper does not cover the exigencies of the situation, you are not prepared to withdraw that bit of paper and substitute another that will do better. I agree that in the way you are carrying this Bill it would be difficult to do that because you are carrying it without any popular support, but if this Bill really represented the will of the British people there would be no difficulty in withdrawing it and bringing in another Bill in another shape.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It would be opposed.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: You are trying to carry legislation, which is of the utmost importance, by what is essentially a trick. Everyone knows, if this Bill were submitted to the British electorate, it would be rejected. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] You cannot put it by for three months, and you cannot tear up this Bill and bring in another Bill, because it would upset the whole machinery of the Parliament Act, and the upshot of it would be that you would not pass the Bill. Can anyone who has the smallest insight into the science of statesmanship or political skill believe it is wise or prudent to take a step of this gigantic importance when you know all the time you have not sufficient force behind you to make any serious alteration in the Bill without the game

    413
    being up and you being unable to pass it at all. Is this Amendment inconsistent with the scheme of Home Rule? If it is inconsistent, then Home Rule will not work, because it means you have to get something out of Ulster which is essential to the Bill. What an iniquity the proposal is when you come to examine it! It means you want to get the money of these unhappy people to work a Government they detest and abhor. Was there any other quarrel than that which lay at the root of the War of Independence in America? Indeed, the American independents had a far smaller case than the people of Ulster have, because under this Bill you are going to impose upon them the intolerable wrong of taxing them. Without taxing them you could not make Home Rule work. It has been conceded that Home Rule will not work if you leave out Ulster, and everyone will therefore see how rotten the position is. I do not suggest there will be actual fighting. All they will do will be to wait until a General Election takes place, and they will trust to the new Parliament to get them out of their difficulty. The Prime Minister himself has said that there is not a Clause in this Bill which will work if you cut out Ulster. How then is it going to work if Ulster cuts itself out. Was there ever such a gamble as this? A good deal has been said about the position of the Irish Church. But this Bill goes far beyond that, because it alters the whole system of government and cuts at its mechanism right down to the bottom. This Amendment does not depend for its force upon being merely a skilful piece of tactics. It depends for its force on the fact that it strikes at the root of the proposals. Whether the Amendment is carried or not, you have to confess that if you leave out Ulster it will wreck the Bill, and then your whole policy will result in chaos. The position on this side of the House is perfectly plain and simple. We are irreconcilably opposed to Home Rule and desire to reject it. The Government suggest that Home Rule will provide a solution of the whole Irish question. We have pointed out a vital defect in it. We propose to cut out from their proposal so much as we think will lead to a state of disorder. The rejoinder on the Government side is that the cutting out of Ulster wil Imean the wreck of the Bill. The English people have a passionate devotion for liberty, and they will never agree to force on the city of Belfast and the counties around it against their will the authority of a Home
    414
    Rule Parliament. I can only say, in conclusion, that unless this Amendment is adopted you will be embarking on a policy which can bring the Liberal party nothing but shame and discredit.
    Mr. LYELL: I am not going to follow the Noble Lord in his remarks on the question of nationality, because his conception of nationality differs absolutely from the-conception held by Members on this side. The Noble Lord has endeavoured to entrap us into a species of dilemma on the question whether or not this Amendment would wreck the Bill if carried. There is no doubt about it that, even in the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it, the exclusion of Ulster would absolutely wreck the Bill. The Noble Lord says, "You may wreck the Bill, but you do not wreck the principle." I venture to absolutely differ from the Noble Lord's view as to the method of dealing with this question. We know what have been the tactics of the Conservative party for a long time. They want to force a trial of strength in the country on the question of Home Rule. They want to fight with loaded dice and we respectfully decline to play their game. There is one point of the Noble Lord's speech in which I was very much interested. He put a question I have often myself asked, and to which I have never yet been able to obtain a satisfactory answer, and that is in regard to what the reference to the country should be. The whole of this Amendment hinges upon the question of reference. The Noble Lord has often spoken about the reference as though it is a concrete entity. I do not seek to minimise the value of the reference, but I certainly should very much like to know what form it is going to take.
    There is to be a reference in regard to taxation. I fail to see how anybody in Ulster, however keenly they may desire to refer to that fact, can act upon such a reference. Let us suppose, for instance, that tea and sugar and other commodities are to be brought into Belfast and that there the duty is to be collected by officers of the English Government. It is quite possible, in the event of opposition, that the duty would be entirely lost, and that the Belfast trade in these dutiable commodities would be destroyed, and would be transferred to Dublin and other ports. But let us look at the question of direct taxation. Take the case of the Income Tax. That is, in the vast majority of cases, collected at its source. It is possible that the person responsible for the

    415
    collection may take the responsibility of refusing to grant a deduction, and in that case a certain amount of Income Tax may be lost. I am prepared to bring figures to prove that the loss will be considerable in cases under Schedule D, where direct payment is made. What will happen? Suppose that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford becomes Prime Minister in the new Irish Parliament. He will find placed at the disposal of the Government of Ireland a sum which the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Wales will have to provide, and the hon. and learned Gentleman may find himself in a much worse position by reason of these financial difficulties. The Irish Government which is going to be set up is, we are told, going to be tactful. I venture to believe that the question with reference to Ulster is going to be a very much smaller difficulty than the Noble, Lord asks us to believe. Can we have a really effective method by which the Government in Ireland can be brought to a standstill? That is a point which has much puzzled me. I venture to suggest that a great deal of time has been wasted in talking upon it.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: If we can produce the evidence, will the hon. Member vote for our Amendment?
    Mr. LYELL: I am not prepared to say that, and I am not prepared also to say that it would not influence me in my attitude towards the whole question. There was an Amendment moved in Committee to leave out certain counties in Ulster in which it is admitted there is a large Protestant and Unionist majority. In the present case the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, proposes to exclude the whole of the province of Ulster. Again it is a question of a majority, but it is a very small majority on the side of the Unionists in Ulster—a majority which represents some 10 or 15 per cent. in its voting strength. Why should majorities be sacrosanct when they are on the Unionist side, and why should their authority be contemptuously rejected when they are on the Devolutionist side? There is a majority of Ireland which happens to be a majority not in favour of Unionism but in favour of Home Rule. Every word that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) used in moving the Amendment on the question of the majority applies with no less equal force to the majority in Ireland. There is a majority in the United Kingdom in
    416
    favour of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I assert that without any hesitation. Why should the authority of that majority be rejected? Let us come to the still wider nation. Let us come to the most extended form of the nation in the Noble Lord's own conception of nationality. Take the British Empire. Does the Noble Lord assert for a moment that there is not a majority in the British Empire in favour of the proposal for Home Rule? We all know that if you could take a Referendum of the electors of the British Empire—of the people in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—you would have an overwhelming majority for Home Rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Captain CRAIG: Quite wrong.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Quite right, I have been there, and you have not.
    Mr. LYELL: That is a question upon which we are all entitled to our own opinion. The resolutions passed by the various Legislatures proves that the evidence is overwhelming on that point. The Noble Lord said that the British people love liberty. That is quite true. I thought he was going on to say what I should have expected was the natural conclusion in the mouth of the Conservative party—that they also love order.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LYELL: I believe that to be profoundly true. It is just because the British people are orderly and like to see the laws obeyed, that I believe they rejected Home Rule in 1894; and it is just because they are orderly and like to see the laws obeyed, and profoundly repudiate such speeches as have been made lately in Ulster, that they are going to pass Home Rule on the present occasion.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not propose to dwell at great length on the arguments by which the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Lyell) persuaded himself that if this Bill passes there will be no resistance by Ulster.
    Mr. LYELL: I never said that.
    Mr. CAVE: At all events any resistance of which the right hon. Gentleman is afraid. The hon. Gentleman says that under the Bill it will be very difficult to resist the collection of taxes in Ulster. I believe that is the basis upon which this Bill is drawn and the basis on which some of its Clauses rest, and I believe it is a

    417
    fact that the Government have persuaded themselves that by this method of drafting they have got rid, to a great extent, of the danger of resistance to the Bill in Ulster. If so, what blind folly it is. It is perfectly absurd to ask us, who believe that the resistance of Ulster is a reality, to say exactly how, when, and where it will be made. Who before any rebellion was able to foretell the place, time, and manner in which the real difficulty would begin? The answer to that question was given by my right hon. and learned Friend, who said it was useless to endeavour to foretell how these troubles begin. They begin apparently accidentally and from some small cause, but, when the flame is once lit, the whole feeling behind it takes fire, and you have, possibly, the whole country in a flame. Who could have foretold in the United States how the trouble would begin there? If once you force the people to resist, to take part in what may be rebellion, or what may deserve even a harsher term, you cannot prevent the evil breaking out in a manner which neither the hon. Gentleman himself, nor I, nor anybody can foresee. While I deprecate arguing this Amendment only upon the basis that it will have the effect of preventing that physical resistance to the power of Great Britain, yet I beg the hon. Gentleman not to share, for reasons such as he has in mind, in the great responsibility, which all those take who attempt to force this particular measure upon Ulster.
    I do not rest the case for the Amendment upon that argument only. I want to deal with what the Prime Minister said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend, who suggested to the House that it was unwise from the point of view of every part of the United Kingdom and wrong to endeavour to force Ulster out of its allegiance to this Parliament. As I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend. I could not help feeling as an Englishman rather proud that such a speech should be made in this Parliament. It is not much more than a hundred years since that the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland were, many of them possibly most of them, anxious for Union.
    Mr. DILLON: Not at all.
    Mr. CAVE: I believe that is true. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with me, but that is my view. The point I was making is that at that time a great body of resistance to the Union came from the Protestants, and specially from the North
    418
    of Ireland, yet here to-day we have the inhabitants of that part of the country, or a very great majority of them, in fact, I suppose almost the whole of the Protestant inhabitants of Ulster, coming here and begging the other Members of the United Kingdom not to force them out of the protection of this Parliament. That is the greatest tribute which can be paid to the administration of Ireland by this country, especially during this last twenty or thirty years. What is said in answer to that? The Prime Minister says: "You ask us not to force you out. Force you out of what?" Surely the answer to that is very clear. The Bill forces Ulster out of its allegiance—not, I agree, its allegiance to the Crown, although the Prime Minister has told us that the veto of the Crown is as dead as Queen Anne; but you are endeavouring to force Ulster out of its allegiance to this House and to this Parliament, and, above all, out of the equal protection of our British laws. Have you a right to do that?
    I quite agree that allegiance does not rest wholly upon consent. A well-known writer said that it rested upon contract, but I do not think that is true. It rests partly upon consent, partly, no doubt, on status and on the condition of things brought about originally possibly by force, but sanctioned by the lapse of time. Therefore allegiance exists no doubt independently of the consent of the individual. But you are trying to change the allegiance, to transfer it from one object to another. There, I think, you must have consent. I do not believe you have a right to transfer the allegiance of a part of this country from this Parliament to another unless you have for practical purposes the consent of the community with which you are dealing. Here you are endeavouring not only to take from Ulster the protection of the laws of this country and of the power of this Parliament, but to put that same community under the control of a wholly different Parliament, differently composed, differently inspired, and containing, or likely to contain, as they believe, a great majority of those in whose opinions and methods they can have no trust. I do not believe you have a right to do that. In doing that I think you are going beyond the powers of any country, and, to push the matter to its logical conclusion, for that purpose you must either persuade Ulster, or you must reconquer and coerce Ulster. There is no third alternative. You cannot expect

    419
    by a mere stroke of the pen, or by a mere act of this Parliament, to be able to traffic, if I may call it so, in the allegiance of a community, and to transfer at your will and pleasure the loyalty which Ulster has to this Kingdom and to the estates of this realm, to the Crown indeed, but to the Crown advised and guided by a different Parliament altogether. That, I believe to be the answer to the first question the Prime Minister asked.
    Whether it is wise and just to do so, if you have the power, is of course another matter, with which I am not going to deal at length, but is it wise or just, from any point of view, to start the new Irish Parliament with a Home Rule question of its own? If we have been troubled, as we have for the past fifty or sixty years, by a Home Rule question, by the existence in a part of the Kingdom of a desire to alter our institutions, and if some of us, although not at all, have given up our resistance to it while others are not prepared to yield, is it fair to Ireland to start the Irish Government with a question of the same character, which I believe would be far more difficult than that with which we have had to deal. You begin their Government with a great religious division between the two parts of the country, a division not only founded upon religion, but marked also by political differences of the keenest possible character. It is strange that we with our experience of this question should yet expect Ireland to prosper when she starts with a broad line drawn between the two parts of the Island. For that reason, among many others, it is neither wise nor just to reject this Amendment.
    The Prime Minister used conciliatory words in regard to the spirit underlying the Amendment. The only argument used against it by the Prime Minister was this. He said, to accept this Amendment is to allow a part of Ireland to have a veto upon the grant of Home Rule for the rest of the country. Hon. Gentlemen accept that argument. I ask them, why? Why is it that the acceptance of the Amendment would prevent the grant of Home Rule to the rest of Ireland? The Chief Secretary, explaining just now the speech of the Prime Minister, said that what the Prime Minister meant was that as a matter of drafting, if you excluded Ulster you could not pass the Bill as it stands. Is that really
    420
    what the Prime Minister meant? It is a very grave and serious question of policy. Is a matter of that moment to be determined by the consideration whether when a particular Bill is before the House you could without some formal process introduce Amendments to give full effect to it? I think the Chief Secretary must have misunderstood the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister cannot have intended to influence this House by considerations of that kind. If there are reasons, as I believe there are grave reasons, for excepting Ulster from this Bill, surely those reasons must be considered on their merits, and if the effect is to destroy or alter the form of this particular Bill, for Heaven's sake withdraw it and bring in another, and do not let a mere matter of form or of drafting prevent you from doing full justice to a community which forms part of the United Kingdom.
    If that is not the reason, what is it? I listened with great attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), who said, in very serious and earnest words, that he would not accept Home Rule without the inclusion of Ulster. I did not catch from him exactly why. The only reason I have seen given for this statement is a financial one. It is said, and said with great truth, that Belfast and the northern part of Ulster contains a very large part of the wealth and the manufacturing power of the country, that it pays a very large proportion indeed of the customs which are paid in Ireland, and that without Belfast there would not be sufficient means to carry on the Irish Nationalist Government. Is that the reason? One would like to know whether that is what the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland mean when they say they will not have an Irish Government without the inclusion of Belfast, because, if so, think what that means. It means that in order to satisfy the rest of Ireland—the part of Ireland which is dissatisfied with the present form of Government—and in order to provide them with means for carrying on what they call a National Government you are ready to compel a part of Ireland, which does not take the same view, to unite with them and to contribute the larger part, or, at all events, a very large part, of the resources of the new Government. In other words, in order to satisfy the rest of Ireland you are going to sacrifice Belfast. That is how it works out, and if hon. Gentlemen will explain to us some other meaning of the phrase which is

    421
    used, I am sure we should listen to them with pleasure. I know no other reason, and have heard of none, in support of the suggestion that without Ulster you could have no Home Rule. I think we are entitled to have some better reason than has been given.
    I believe the true answer to the problem is that both the country and the party opposite ought to take a little more time to consider this question. It may be true, indeed after the declaration of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) it no doubt is true, that if the Amendment were passed this Bill could not pass. That results from what he says, but it does not at all follow that this Amendment is wrong, for apart from that consideration I believe there is reason and justice behind the Amendment, and it ought to receive independent and serious consideration, and you ought to find a way by which, if possible, you can satisfy the reasonable desires of the southern part of Ireland without doing injustice to the convictions of the northern part of Ireland. The time would not be lost. We might be able, with the help of a short delay, to settle not only the Ulster question, but the Scottish question and questions affecting other parts of the Kingdom. You might consider what was said by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he sketched a whole collection of Parliaments, which would deal with different parts of the country, and you might show that you had borne in mind what he said about the rights of Yorkshire and Lancashire in connection with the Ulster question. A little delay-would hurt no one and might prevent a very grave injustice. This Amendment has been seriously debated on both sides, and I am glad of it, because it raises a very serious question indeed. It may be that this is the last chance we shall have of discussing this question without our minds being disturbed by events outside. I believe the sands are fast running out, and I believe if you reject this Amendment the result may be, either that you will kill this Bill, for public opinion will not support it as it stands, or else that you will provoke, and indeed will have brought about, the most serious disaster which has occurred since the outbreak of civil war on the other side of the Atlantic.
    Mr. LOUGH: I quite recognise the serious tone in which this question has been debated, yet this Amendment brings up again one of the fallacies which I thought we had got rid of in discussing
    422
    the Home Rule question. The Amendment is based on the theory that Ulster, in the wide sense, is against Home Rule. I do not think any Gentleman, even including the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), has been able to make good that statement. I should like to refer to one or two remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave). The Prime Minister said that without Ulster the Bill would have to be dropped, and I believe everyone admits it. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) moved the Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. He said the Bill could be carried no further if Ulster was struck out of it. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) gets up and says, "Why?" There are a hundred reasons. It is quite easy to tell why. You could not deal with any of the local problems of Ireland if Ulster was segregated from the rest of Ireland. Take the case of the railways. That is one of the most pressing cases which will have to be dealt with. Even this Parliament admits that in time it would nationalise the Irish railways or do something with them to draw them together. Instead of having thirty-three companies, the majoriy of them almost bankrupt, it would have one great railway system in the country. That great ideal, which would do much to develop the resources of Ireland, could not be realised if Ulster, or any province, were cut out of the Rill, for the simple reason that a railway commences in one province and runs into another. I will take as an example one bad railway, constructed by this House at a great cost to the local authorities—the Cavan, Leitrim and Roscommon Railway. It runs from Ulster into Connaught, and most of it is in Connaught. The Great Northern in the same way runs largely through three provinces. So the railway question, or the question of draining rivers or dealing with any of the local resources of Ireland would be hopelessly checked if you drew this cruel line which the Amendment proposes. To come back to the point. The reason, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, why the Prime Minister and all who support him in this question in the House want to include Ulster is because we want to plunder Ulster. Really that base argument has been submitted often enough. It has been stated a dozen times that an Irish Parliament would tax the industries of Ulster unfairly.
    Mr. CAVE: I did not say so.
    Mr. LOUGH: The hon. and learned Gentleman is too cautious to say so, but at the same time he sheltered himself under that most convenient argument, and be dropped one familiar illustration. He said, "Does not Belfast pay most of the Customs Duties?" What is the meaning of that? Belfast only collects them. It only pays them as agents for the rest of Ireland. The real people who pay Customs Duties are the consumers of the articles on which the duty is levied, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had paused to think what that means in relation to Belfast he would not have used it as an argument in support of the Amendment. It means that Belfast, after all, whose splendid position all of us acknowledge and are proud of, owes her supremacy in the North to the loyalty with which she is supported and assisted by all parts of Ireland. If you confine the trade of Belfast, if you encourage the boycott of Belfast in the rest of Ireland, the glorious days of Belfast would have departed. So when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that owing to the fairness with which Belfast merchants are treated; owing to the welcome that Belfast commerce receives in every part of the island, Belfast collects more Customs than any part of Ireland, he is urging an argument which cannot be dealt with by any Member of the House who approaches the question fairly against the Amendment that has been brought forward. Most absurd theories with regard to the wealth of the North are often presented to the House, theories which would not live for a moment if the various speakers here could not absolutely rely on a want of knowledge of everything connected with Ireland which all Gentlemen in this House exhibit. It is suggested that all the wealth of Ireland is contained in the North. I believe £l per head more Income Tax is paid by the people of Dublin than by the people of Belfast, and Income Tax is a far better proof of the wealth of a community than the collection of Customs Duties.
    7.0 P.M.
    I will call attention to another fact with regard to the matter to show how essential the provisions of this Bill are to Ulster as well as to every part of Ireland. A most interesting Blue Book has been presented to the House in the last few days dealing with the industries in these counties, and especially Belfast. I allude to the Report of the Committee under Sir Ernest
    424
    Hatch, which inquired into the wages paid in connection with the industries in the North of Ireland. We all knew Sir Ernest Hatch when in this House. He belonged originally to the party on the other side of the House, but I am not certain whether he still belongs to it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is a rat!"] Never mind, he is a man for whose fairness anybody who knows him would be prepared to vouch. Anyone who reads the Report will see that it is based upon a careful collection of facts in regard to Ulster, and I believe that the case presented to the House in that Report will appeal irresistibly to our judgment. What are the counties with which the Report deals'? First and mainly with Belfast, Down, Tyrone, Donegal, and Fermanagh. What industries does it deal with? It deals with the large linen industry, which is supposed to be the foundation of the prosperity of those counties. I will not trouble the House with many details. I was perfectly astonished at the illustrations of sweating given in the Report. There were about thirty-three meetings held by the Committee in Belfast, Lisburn, and Londonderry. The employers were called before the Committee as well as the workers, and everything was done very carefully to enable the Committee to elicit the facts in relation to the evils which were being dealt with. What were the evils? There were various trades brought forward in connection with the linen industry. There was one called "thread drawing." I do not understand the business technicalities at all.
    Mr. M'MORDIE: Has this anything to do with the exclusion of Ulster from the scope of the Bill?
    Mr. LOUGH: I am not going into the matter in detail. In connection with that industry the Report says that twelve great firms have admitted that wages of a penny an hour were paid. Forty-one out of sixty pay between a penny and twopence an hour. In connection with the making of "pillow-shams" a half-penny an hour is paid to the workers. Will the House consider what that means? Suppose a poor operative works ten hours a day for six days a week, the wages earned amount to half a crown. These wages are paid in counties as to the prosperity of which hon. Members opposite have been boasting all through these Debates. Hon. Members have been taking advantage of the want of knowledge of everybody with regard to

    425
    the conditions in that country. [An HON. MEMBER: "On both sides."] On both sides if you like. A great deal of responsibility rests upon those who pretend to know something of the state of things in Ireland. I may summarise the Report, and hon. Members will see that I am not trying to represent it unfairly. It means that there is a scandalous system of low wages, almost sweating wages, which comes into the question as showing what the prosperity of Ulster rests upon. The Report shows the wages received by the workers, and it says that the Truck Acts are set at naught, the workers having to accept goods at a large margin of profit to the employers for their poorly earned pittance. The Report recommends that a Wages Board should be set up there to deal with these evils. What is the conclusion this House ought to draw from the Report? The conclusion is that many of these boasted industries in the North of Ireland are founded on a system of low wages which would not. be tolerated in this country, and which do not exist at present in any other country in Europe. Of some of the great industries flourishing in the North of Ireland you might almost say they are founded on the lives and suffering of the people there. I do not want to make any capital out of these facts. I believe hon. Members opposite would repudiate them as much as I do. This Report adds another to the miserable tales that are flung on the Table of the House—what we call miserable tales from our Imperial point of view. There is a Report on Railways, Drainage, and Wages in the Linen Industry, and there are Reports also about Education and the Poor Law.
    All these matters in Ireland have to be dealt with. How can they ever be dealt with if you do not set up a local authority, which will have some years of hard work before it in regard to them? They are matters which this House would find it utterly impossible to deal with. I think I have answered a few of the points put by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave). I have shown that all this about the wealth of Ulster is a very questionable argument to be put from the other side of the House. There is great poverty in Ulster, and a condition of things which a local government is wanted to amend just as much as in the other parts of Ireland. I have shown that Ulster will present its own peculiar problems to the Irish Parliament, and I am quite sure they will be dealt with in a broad, kindly, and sympathetic spirit. When I digressed to reply to the hon. and
    426
    learned Gentleman on these points, I was speaking on the question whether Ulster itself is at all opposed to Home Rule. I deny it entirely. If Members of the House would grasp what Ulster is, they would begin to see the fallacy and the folly of most of these arguments. What is Ulster? It contains the great and flourishing city of Belfast, which has a population of almost 400,000, and beyond it are spread nine counties with wide agricultural districts. The city of Belfast has a strong and powerful community, and we in Ireland are proud of it. We would like to see better wages paid to the workers, and greater wealth coming to the employers. We know of the great ships built at Belfast, and we wish to see them building more ships, but with every good wish to Belfast, it should not be assumed that it is the whole of Ulster. It is only a city in Ulster, and when you look at the population of that city you get some light about the division of opinion in Ulster which you cannot get in any other way. Of the population 90,000 are Catholics, so that 310,000 are Protestants. Therefore, all the vehement and virulent Protestants, as you might say, exist in this single city of Belfast. I do not want to say anything unkind to Belfast, or wish it anything but well. If you leave Belfast out of the tale, you find that in the nine counties religious opinion is equally divided. As the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) said, religion does not govern this question entirely. There are many Protestant Home Rulers, and they are an increasing number.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: There are Catholics opposed to Home Rule.
    Mr. LOUGH: There are very few Catholics opposed to Home Rule. I quite admit the fairness of any argument presented by the hon. Baronet opposite. Until the Ulster question was run so bitterly, there were some Catholics opposed to Home Rule, but that has converted all the Catholic in Ireland. Imputations have been made on the good faith of Catholics which even the most moderate Catholics throughout Ireland have repudiated. I was giving the House, as it were, a glance at the province of Ulster. I say that throughout the whole of the nine counties, if you leave out the city of Belfast, there is a majority of opinion in favour of Home Rule. In five of the counties there is a great majority for Home Rule, and only a minority of Unionists, and in four counties where there

    427
    is a Unionist majority opinion is divided. I say on these facts there is no case whatever for dealing separately with this problem, and if the House pays any attention to the argument that Ulster requires to be dealt with as much as any other part of Ireland, then this House would do a cruel and shameful act if it cut Ulster out of the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) who opened the Debate in one part of his speech referred to the population of four counties, and I asked myself, is he going into the question of population? I could not imagine how he would get an argument from the question of population in favour of leaving out Ulster. He compared the population of Ulster with that of Newfoundland. I want to compare it with what is was sixty years ago. If Ulster is so prosperous why have half of the people gone? Why does Ulster suffer more from emigration than any other part of Ireland? If Ulster is the Paradise which hon. Gentlemen opposite represent it to be in this House, why are people pouring out of the province even as they are doing at present?
    The right hon. Gentleman and his friends opposite have been speaking to us through these Debates about the great improvement which has taken place during the last ten years in Ireland. During the last ten years the population of every county in Ulster has diminished. The one county which has had an increase in population, leaving aside Belfast, is not in Ulster, but in Leinster. Therefore, by this great test of population, so far as it throws any light on the question, Ulster is indeed in a very sad way, and wants all the remedial measures which the Bill will give, as much as any part of Ireland. I regret the tone given to this Debate by the Mover of the Amendment and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because there is a serious side to the question raised in the name of Ulster. I have made one appeal already, and I will make another. It must be admitted—I have said it before, and I hope I will not get into trouble with my hon. Friends for repeating it—that something ought to be done, more than is done in the Bill as it stands at present, for the representation of the minority in the Irish Parliament. I think the idea that the minority in Ulster, or the minority in Ireland are satisfied with present conditions is ridiculous. Ulster has received nothing but cruelty and neglect from this Parliament. This Parliament has proved
    428
    itself—well, I do not wish to put it quite so strongly, for in the last twenty years, in common with the rest of Ireland, it has received the same good things from our Parliament, but Ulster is suffering from the way legislation is conducted in this House. Ulster is not able to deal with such evils as those I have mentioned as existing in Ireland, and therefore Ulster would derive quite as much advantage from the setting up of an authority in Ireland that would be able to deal with her wants as any other part of Ireland would do
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman used these words in the course of his speech. He said Ulster knows the Gentlemen below the Gangway. He meant that in an unkind way. He meant that Ulster knows their speeches and gloats over any mistakes they may make. That may be true, but there is another sense in which Ulster knows the Gentlemen below the Gangway. It knows them because of the good services they have done Ulster. Ulster identifies the Gentlemen below the Gangway with the Labourers Acts, and Ulster received these Acts most reluctantly. In fact, every remedial measure passed has been received by Ulster with somewhat the same coldness as is being shown to this measure to-night. But I think there is a basis of seriousness in the Amendment. I am going to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on a point which I mentioned to him before. I cannot make any charge against either my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this matter on the hon. Member for Water-ford. The hon. Member made one of the most serious and I think satisfactory statements as to the treatment of the minority in Ireland with regard to his reception of any proposal to deal with that matter that we have heard from him yet in the course of his speech this afternoon, and the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary also said that the Government will consider favourably any proposal brought forward in an honest and helpful spirit. We had a sentence at once from the Leader of the Opposition—"Will you consent to give the Protestants half the representation in the Irish Parliament?" I think that that was an extravagant claim for the right hon. Gentleman to make. You could not give them a majority; but still it showed his thoughts were taking a right direction, and I would like in the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition to discover the possibility of agreement if something were proposed

    429
    in the shape of strengthening the representation of the minority in Ireland. If the activity of hon. Gentlemen opposite took that shape or any constructive shape, then I believe our Debates would be much more useful than they are likely to prove in this direction. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that perhaps they would give away their principles if they tried on the Report stage or the Committee stage of the Bill to improve the Bill. That is not the old Parliamentary theory. You threshed out your principle on the Second Reading and you had an opportunity again on the Third Reading of voting against the principle without any objection on those occasions being made to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had tried to improve the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Dublin University said in an aside this afternoon, when the Prime Minister was saying that the Bill had got every protection for a minority he could put into it, "Ask the Member for Islington." There, is a point on which I differ from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with regard to those safeguards. The Ulstermen do not care for these constitutional safeguards in the Bill. I believe that Ulstermen, as much as any part of Ireland, would strive to make the Parliament once they get into it as great and as strong—
    Captain CRAIG: They will never go into it.
    Mr. LOUGH: They will so. Everyone who says "never" has cause to repent of it. When the Ulstermen get into it they will be as eager as any other section of Irishmen to extend the power of the Parliament. Therefore I do not think they attach any importance to these constitutional safeguards. But what they want is to be put into a strong position where they can look after themselves, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of bringing forward this Amendment and occupying so much time with it, brought forward some Amendment consistent with the principle of the Bill, I think that our Debate this afternoon would be much more fruitful than it is likely to prove. Take this one point of electing the House of Commons in Ireland by proportional representation. That would give ten more members to the minority. The minority has never been rightly treated in this House, nor had it a fair representation here, but it did not bother because it said "all the English Members are our friends." But if some
    430
    reasonable proposal of the kind were made I do think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would turn their energies to better account than by insisting on these wrecking Amendments. The last word I offer the House is that the Amendment is built on the theory that there can never be a reconciliation between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland. I totally disbelieve that statement. For all the way in which this Amendment may be cloaked by clever speakers, like the hon. and learned Member who sat down before me, the real case that is put forward is that the Protestants will not submit to be governed by a Parliament that would be Catholic in Ireland. In presenting that argument no doubt Gentlemen opposite occupied strong positions. They are appealing to the old traditional hatred, which was strengthened by this House for centuries, the old traditional religious animosity between the two parties in Ireland. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, what side are they going to take in that great quarrel? Are they going for ever to try to inflame evil passions between the two religions, or will they try to do something that will bring them together and to get them to co-operate with one another for the benefit of their country?
    I ventured the other day to write a letter to the Papers on this question, and I suggested in the "Times" that the attention of the people of England might well be turned away from Belfast to country districts, especially to the country district in which I live myself, in which we have endeavoured to bring the two parties together. I hope I may be forgiven for alluding to the work which friends of mine over there have been carrying on for twenty years. There is no man, from the bishop down to the curates and the villagers on the Catholic side, who has not helped us, nor is there any man, including the rector and everybody else on the Protestant side, who has not also helped us in everything which we have tried to do; and so we have been able to get up a great co-operative society that serves a large district, and we have been able to undertake a more difficult work than that, and to get up a mutual aid society and form an institute in the village, with a technical school and a boarding school for the children of the poorer class of the community when they leave the National school. The state of education there, as everywhere else in Ireland, is lamentable But we have been

    431
    able to do all these things with the help of both towns, and it has now been carried on for twenty years. Many Members of this House know the great movement for co-operation in Ireland, and that the greatest co-operation that can take place is for the leading representatives of the two religions which have torn Ireland asunder for centuries to try to say nothing more about their past quarrels, but look to the future and work hand in hand, as this Bill invites them to do, for the safety and for the improvement of the common country.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, at an early period in the Debate, expressed his astonishment and regret that no Member had risen from (his bench to reply to the Prime Minister. It was not because we thought that the speech was incapable of receiving a reply, but I think the House would have shown some impatience if three Front Bench men followed one another, and I am not at all certain that I am not perhaps unduly trespassing on the House in intruding even now. I may say frankly, as far as the weight of argument is concerned, I should be quite content to leave the case for the Amendment where it was left by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, who originated the Debate, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, and the hon. and learned Member for Kingston. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington can himself believe that he has met that case. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman divides itself into two parts. The first portion was devoted to minimising the wealth and prosperity and belittling the greatness of Ulster. The second part was devoted to 'proving that there was no Ulster question. I cannot recognise the right hon. Gentleman's claims to speak for the people of Ulster. He sits for Islington, and not for an Ulster constituency.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Neither does Carson.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is to the representatives of Ulster and Unionist Ulster that we must look for a true presentation of their case. Take the very people of whom the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I do not know the conditions of the linen trade in Ulster. I have not read the reports to which he refers. But whether the figures in it are
    432
    trustworthy or not, what argument do-they present for Home Rule. Are the men and women to whom that report refers supporters of this Bill? Do they look for an improvement in their conditions to the Home Rule Parliament? on the contrary, they look for an improvement in their conditions to their own exertions and industry, and they are right to do so. In which way are they more likely to raise the conditions of labour in Ireland? By separating from the wealthier country, from the organisations of labour in this country, from the Parliament in this country, or by concentrating all their hopes and expectations on a poor country and on a Parliament representing for the most part other people less prosperous even than themselves, or by remaining, as they are now, part and parcel of a great and wealthy community which has raised itself and seeks also to help them to raise themselves, and not without success. For, bear in mind, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman Ulster has prospered, and Ulster is prospering, and it is-in a large measure that prosperity which has reconciled her to the Union, which she at first opposed, and has made her people so loyal to the British connection.
    The right hon. Gentleman in the second part of his speech seemed almost to deny the existence of an Ulster question, yet his closing sentences showed that he had a hazy consciousness that there was an Ulster problem. After all, he is not satisfied with the treatment of Ulster under this Bill; but when the suggestion is made by the Leader of the Opposition that Ulster should be given half the representation in the new Parliament he thinks that an exorbitant claim. Why did my right hon. Friend mention that? It is because that is exactly what was done in the case of the two races and the two religions in Canada and what has worked so well there the right hon. Gentleman rejects when we desire to apply it here. He appeals to the Government to find some further security for greater representation of the minority, but it is always to remain a minority. It is to have no chance of being a majority. Why should Ulster welcome being transferred to a Parliament in which she is always to be in a minority, instead of continuing to be represented in this Parliament where, though they may be a minority at this moment of those who sympathise with her, they have been in a majority in the past, and they will be in a majority in their turn again.

    433
    The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to answer the case which was presented by my hon. and right hon. Friends. For my part, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition invited me to say a few words in this Debate. I belong to the old Liberal Unionist party. That party was in a very special way associated with the resistance which Ulster offered to the previous Home Rule Bill and with the defence of the position in Ulster, and I have lost none of my interest either as a Liberal Unionist or as a Nonconformist in the fate of the Unionists and Nonconformists of Ulster, and I am as ready to serve their cause if I can now, as I was in such way as was open to me in the earlier struggles in which they were engaged.
    The Prime Minister, followed by other Gentlemen on that side, declined to treat, I will not say declined to treat the opposition in Ulster as serious, because the Prime Minister certainly recognises its gravity, but he declined to do anything to avert the crisis, under the conviction that, after all, the clouds may pass away, and that Ulster will become reconciled. The right hon. Gentleman opposite put the argument in a nutshell when he said that our opposition was based upon the assumption that Ulster and the rest of Ulster could never be reconciled. Upon what is this whole Bill based? It is based upon the assumption that the rest of Ireland can never be reconciled to this Parliament, but the opposition of the rest of Ireland to government by the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not more consistent, it is not stronger than the resistance of Ulster to the proposal that they should not remain under this Parliament. The process of reconciliation must, in any case, take a long period, and it seems to me that there are better prospects of reconciling the whole of Ireland to share in this great Parliament than of reconciling Ulster to the abandonment of her true share in this Parliament, and to the acceptance of permanent inferiority in a Parliament in itself inferior. But it is, after all, Ulster as she now exists that we have to deal with. It is not what she ought to feel, but what she does feel; that is the fact with which statesmanship has to deal. It is of no good pretending that things are other than they are, or passing legislation on the assumption that by fine words we can change grim and stern convictions.
    Does anyone doubt the intense and the passionate resistance of Ulster to this
    434
    Bill? Is there anyone who thinks that the past history of the people of Ulster, the race of which they are bred, the traditions of their forefathers, are such that they are to be accused of being mere blusterers-when they say that at whatever cost to-themselves, and at whatever risk, they will never accept admission to the Dublin Parliament? Nobody who knows them, nobody who knows the stock from which they come, can treat such utterances with disregard. I have said once before in this House in connection with this question, and the Prime Minister nodded acquiescence, that none of us who-contemplate the progress of politics-at this time can feel that there is not danger very imminently threatening the successful working of democratic institutions, and that is the lessened sense of respect for the law. We see it on many sides and in many ways. Does it not be hove us as legislators to be very careful what laws we pass? Does it not be hove us to be more careful to carry the consent of the people with us when we are dealing with their faith, their lives, and their fortunes? Does it not be hove us to make use of every means to secure their consent to the system of government which we pro pose for them? But you are riding roughshod over their convictions. You are making no concession to them of any consequence in the whole of this Debate. We-have advocated safeguard after safeguard in the discussion of this Bill, and we have had the practical admission of Members of the Government defending the Bill that those safeguards were unworkable and could not be used. The Ulstermen do-not think so, and they do think that such safeguards are necessary. And have they not some cause? I listened to the speech of one of my hon. Friends from the North of Ireland yesterday, when he described the state of affairs in Belfast at this moment, and how the sight of the British-flag on a cottage was an incentive to disorder among the Nationalists of Belfast, and that Belfast was out of bounds to soldiers because they could not safely go-there wearing the King's uniform; and yet you are asking the men of Belfast to trust to the loyalty of the Nationalist party. You ask the loyalists of the North of Ireland to rest secure in the assurance that the Nationalists will be more loyal than themselves; that they will never offend their principles or prejudice their religion, and never interfere with their rights or their liberties.

    435
    Is there one man in this House, whether he be an Englishman or a Scottish Member, who would accept admission to a Parliament of the kind proposed by this Bill for himself, with such safeguards as are proposed, or would his constituents care to be subject to the Dublin Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me and the Prime Minister himself both sought to belittle in one sense the cause -of Ulster, they sought to minimise the number of the people concerned, and the importance of the case from that point of view. There are at least as many people in Wales, and the people of Wales are not more different from the population of the rest of Ireland than are the people of loyal Ulster. Is there any Welshman who will venture to say that any Welsh constituency would for one moment listen to a proposal to have the fortunes of Wales in education, in religion, and all the other countless matters, transferred to the Parliament in Dublin, in which they would have no more representation than the people of Ulster are to have? We know it is not true. We know that our own Constituents would not support it, and what right have we to treat the fortunes, religion, and rights of other people in a way that we would not stand ourselves? 'One answer made from the other side of the House is that Ireland is a unit. The United Kingdom is a unit. Ireland is not more sacred as a unit than the United Kingdom, and if one can be broken up why cannot the other? The claim on the part of Ulster is that they should remain as they are; but it is the policy of the Government that there should be Home Rule for those who want it in every quarter of the United Kingdom except Ulster. Scotland is to have Home Rule if she wants it. Wales is to have Home Rule if she wants it, and I believe England is to have Home Rule if she wants it. The First Lord of the Admiralty offered Home Rule to Lancashire and Yorkshire, and I do not know how many different sections of Great Britain, but to one part of the United Kingdom, and one part only, Home Rule is refused.
    The Prime Minister inquired of what Ulster was being deprived; from what was she being turned out? He seemed to think that my right hon. and learned Friend spoke of Ulster being turned out of her allegiance. Her allegiance is being transferred. If the Ulster people appealed to us against the action of the Irish Parliament, one of two things must happen—we
    436
    must impose our will by force, or must come away. Does anyone doubt that in nine cases out of ten we should come away, and that the appeal which Lister might make here, and which is nominally preserved, would be entirely ineffectual; in fact, not merely is the allegiance of Ulster transferred, but the whole faith, life, and interests of the people who joined the Covenant, and the women and the children for whom they are responsible, are placed at the unchecked mercy of the Nationalist party. And for what reason?
    The right hon. Member for Islington spoke of the prosperity of Belfast depending on the goodwill of the rest of Ireland. One of my earliest political missions was to go over to Dublin and Belfast to arrange for Unionist speakers in all parts of the country, and I remember the men whom I met, whose business had been attacked and deeply injured for no other reason than that they were opposed to Home Rule. We are told that they are to trust to the generosity and sense of fairness of the people who practised boycotting and intimidation against them. You tell Ulster men, who have seen the tyranny by which the league succeeded for a time in enforcing its will over the South and West of Ireland, that they must trust their lives and fortunes and all they hold dear, to the law-abiding spirit and sense of equity of that same party. I say we would not do it for ourselves, and what we would not do for ourselves we have no right to insist that others should do, Hon. Gentlemen on that side sometimes talk as if this resistance arises from the bitter and narrow Orange spirit, as one hon. Member said, at the time of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church; but the men who are the sternest in resistance to the present proposals were supporters of Mr. Gladstone, and on question after question they gave all the assistance they could. It was not until he deserted them by becoming a Home Ruler, that they withdrew their confidence and their support from him. It is not to Irishmen alone that this question appeals. There is one name which will be received with great respect at any rate by Gentlemen opposite. I well remember I was privileged to listen to the only speech that Mr. Bright made on the Home Rule question. It was an address which he delivered to his electors in the Election of 1886. Let me read to the House what he said then in regard to the position of Ulster, and let me call the special attention of the Prime Minister to it, who thinks that it is absurd for Ulster

    437
    to say that she is put out of her allegiance or thrust out of anything:—
    "You are asked to thrust out from the shelter and justice of the United Parliament the two million who remain with us and cling to us and passionately resent the attempt to drive them from the protection of the Parliament of their ancestors. I may express the hope that this stupendous injustice and blunder will fail."
    And as Mr. Bright expressed that hope then, so I express it now. We move this Amendment in the effort to prevent it; we do all that we can by moving the Amendment. If the Government remain deaf, if they will listen to no appeal of a Parliamentary kind, they will be driven hard up against ugly facts, and they will have to face that worst of calamities, the determined resistance of a large population to a law which they think unjust, and which they feel would be fatal to them by the transfer of their allegiance without their sanction or authority. In the same speech Mr. Bright went on to say that history had no example, either in a monarchy or a republic, of a capitulation at once so unnecessary and so humiliating, I know no parallel in the annals of peaceful government, and the only parallel to such a transfer of the allegiance of a people against their will is to be found in the peace concluded by unsuccessful belligerents after a disastrous war, when they have lost all on the stricken field. Then the bitterest of all things they have to do in the moment of their humiliation and defeat is to give up their friends and resign them to the care of others. We, the Parliament of this United Kingdom, to whose Debates so much has been contributed by the genius of our Ulster fellow countrymen, whose armies they have led to victory, whose cause they have made their own and served in every part of the world, we, without a blow struck, without any such overpowering necessity, are to desert our friends in the vain hope of making friends of our enemies. Sir, that is a mean policy, it is a cowardly policy, and it is a policy which never has succeeded and cannot succeed now.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The right hon. Gentleman who has just concluded an eloquent address finished up on a line which certainly will not appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House. He said it is a cowardly thing to hand over your friends in order to conciliate your enemies. We, sitting on this side of the House, do not consider, and have not considered, the Irish Nationalist Members are enemies. There was a time, not very many years ago,
    438
    when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly prepared to enter into negotiations and to enter into bargains to meet Nationalist leaders in empty houses in order to carry out the very "treachery" which they are denouncing to-day. It is not so very long ago since an Irish Chief Secretary sitting opposite was negotiating, more or less with the knowledge of a number of his colleagues, schemes of devolution as they were called, and, so far as I know, Ulster was not to be excluded from their scope or to be treated specially.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: What has that to do with Ulster?
    Sir A. MOND: I quite agree. Certainly Ulster did not agree, but it does not lie with the right hon. Gentleman or any right hon. Gentleman who were Members of the Government at that time to now get up and allege, as the allegation undoubtedly was, that they have been consistent in always backing up what we consider to be unreasonable demands on the part of a small portion of the population of Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with much effect John Bright. I hope he will carry his reading of John Bright back a little further to his most vigorous and best days in English politics, and that that will lead him to reconsider the policy which he is pursuing in this country. The right hon. Gentleman informed us that he was a Nonconformist and a Liberal Unionist. We should like to see a little more of his Liberal Unionism and Nonconformity in other matters in the House—we should like to see it on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill which his right hon. relative advocated in 1885. It does not appear to me that the Debate has been carried much further by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, eloquent though it was. When he speaks of Ulster he ignores what I may call the Catholic minority in Ulster. He says it is most unjust and ungenerous and unfair to drive the Protestant minority in Ulster out of their allegiance. It is equally unfair and equally unjust to drive the Catholic minority of Ulster out of an allegiance which they want into an allegiance which they do not want. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other speaker, has convinced me that if a Referendum were taken in Ulster there would not be a majority in favour of Home Rule. Look at the figures now. You have seventeen Unionist Members and sixteen Nationalist Members. There have been elections, and there may be

    439
    elections, when this very province of Ulster, which we are asked to tear you might say out of the heart of the country, has returned a majority in favour of Home Rule in actual Members. If I take the number of people voting at elections, I cannot find that there is any solidarity in Ulster on this question. Eight hon. Gentlemen have no right to speak of Ulster; they have a right to speak of the Protestant majority, though I do not know that it exists at all, and, if it does, it is a very small and very slender one.
    There is one practical point which has not been mentioned by any hon. Gentleman opposite, although I have heard all the speeches. They did not deal with the question of the legal entity of Ireland. It is all right to say that Ireland can be torn into pieces from the Parliamentary point of view and the national point of view, but how about the legal point of view? Is it not a fact that Ulster to-day has the same Land Purchase Acts as the rest of Ireland? Is it not a fact that the whole land system of Ulster is exactly the same as that of the rest of Ireland? Is it not a fact that Ulster has the same licensing system and rating system and divorce law, and that indeed, in many other respects, the province is entirely different from England? Is it not a fact that we do not govern or rule Ulster from this country, and is it not governed by a number of Boards sitting in Dublin Castle? I think we are suffering from an entire delusion on this matter, and, as far as I can gather, the Government of Ireland is carried on by forty-five Boards, which sit in Dublin Castle, and which are not governed by anybody except by their own sweet selves. The Chief Secretary is supposed to have some responsibility for them, but certainly this House has no responsibility for them, and does not govern them. Ulster is being governed from Dublin, and suppose you carry this Amendment, how are you going practically to govern Ulster from this country? Is it to come under the Local Government of Whitehall, and is the Board of Education to manage education in Ulster? Are law appeals from Ulster to go to Dublin or to come here? What system of law are you going to adopt in Ulster? Ulster is so interwoven with Irish law and Irish life and Irish practice that unless some hon. Member opposite explains how he proposes the administrative government of Ulster is to be carried on, I do not see how you could ask any person
    440
    to vote for this Amendment. We are told the people of Ulster will resist. We were told that in 1869, and we were told then that the people of Ulster were prepared to kick Queen Victoria's crown into the Boyne if the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill were passed. The Bill was passed, but Queen Victoria's crown was perfectly secure. I do not wish to in any way call up bad feeling by saying I do not believe those people are in earnest, but I must honestly say that people with a record like that behind them of violent language on all occasions when anything is done of which they do not approve, would want to-make out a much stronger case in order to make us do the most unstatesmanlike and unreasonable act of beginning to carve up and cut about in an impossible way a country which is one.
    8.0 P.M.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) made an eloquent speech in introducing the Amendment. I am surprised he cannot see the very weakness and fallacy of the case he is arguing. On other occasions he is one of the best Irishmen: in the House of Commons; he is prepared to go on deputations to the Board of Agriculture about Irish cattle, and to fight as hard as any Nationalist. That reminds me to ask, which Board of Agriculture will have charge of Ulster, the English or the Irish? Which Board of Agriculture will the farmers of Ulster prefer? When I say that this Amendment is not proposed seriously, I must remind the House of the extraordinary exposure and explanation which appeared in the "Times" newspaper, and which really showed the machinery underlying all the heated rhetoric. It is an extraordinary idea of the Protestants of the North wanting to desert the Protestants of the South and West. That is a thing they have indignantly denied, and the "Times" very carefully explained that the Protestants of the South and West are not protesting because they know they are not going to be deserted and they know the Amendment is not going to be accepted, and that it is simply a good show piece for the House of Commons. Therefore, I say we cannot treat this Amendment absolutely as a very serious one. On the question of safeguards, as one who has taken some interest in getting the system of proportional representation introduced so as to enable the Protestant minority in the South and West, as well as in the North to get a larger share of representation, I must say the attitude taken

    441
    up by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite on that occasion did not do much to convince me that they are in earnest about safeguards for the minority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College himself damned with less than faint praise the proposal moved from his own side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. A. Chamberlain) took no part in the discussion or apparently interested himself in the demand made by a very large number of leading Irish Unionists throughout the country. I want to make an appeal. I hope that when this proposal comes up on the Report stage it will receive a little more consideration from Leaders of the Opposition. It is a proposal which will undoubtedly do a great deal—I do not say it will do all—not merely to deal with Ulster—it is a mistake to separate this question into the question of Ulster—but with the minority throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland. There will be in the Irish Parliament a minority, but a minority sufficiently strong to exercise a great influence. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that the Irish Parliament will be divided absolutely between a solid Catholic majority and a solid Protestant minority.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman repeats the words "Catholic" and "Protestant." I do not think that I introduced them in the course of my speech.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. Will "Nationalists" and "Unionists" express his meaning?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not wish to use the terms in their religious sense at all for the purposes of my argument. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the Irish Parliament will be divided into two sections, a solid Nationalist majority and a solid Unionist minority. I think he assumes that because he said that Ulster would always be in a minority. My own view is, and I believe most people who have studied Irish politics at all agree with that conclusion, that in the new Irish Parliament you will have divisions of a totally different kind from those which now exist. You will have divisions, both urban and rural, on much more political lines than you have had in the past. I do
    442
    not think the religious differences will exist. Religious differences are now more in the nature of dead issues in a country like Ireland than in almost any other country. My view is that in 1886 there was undoubtedly a great fear in the minds of many people in this country that if Ireland had Home Rule there would be a Catholic majority—Catholic not from the religious, but from the political point of view—and that Ireland would run the risk of being governed in the same way as Belgium, Spain, and a part of Germany—so to speak, by a Vatican party. My view, which I believe is generally shared, is that that fear no longer holds good. It no longer holds good even in countries so much influenced by Catholic politics as Portugal, and certainly not to the same extent in Belgium and Germany.
    The old haunting fear that Home Rule means Rome Rule has no longer any practical application in Ireland. If that is so, the objection felt in 1886 by many Nonconformists like John Bright, and by many who valued freedom of thought, has to- day died out. That is the reason why many of those in the North of Ireland should reconsider the position they then took up, and from which they find it difficult to break away. If the differences which have hitherto existed are not to be the kind of differences in the Irish House of Commons, there must, as in every political system, be other differences, and I sec no reason why the politics of Ulster should be the politics of the minority in Ireland. It is impossible to prophesy, but the right hon. Gentleman has prophesied with great emphasis that the people of Ulster are to be crushed out of existence, that all kinds of terrible things are going to happen, and that even civil war would be better than giving a trial to an Irish Parliament to govern their own country. One feels sad, on hearing that kind of speech, to think that all the talents and ability so exemplified by the right hon. Member for Trinity College, instead of being applied to helping his country in a common cause, should be applied to making eloquent speeches in favour of banishing Ulster from the local Parliament. When I saw the right hon. Gentleman settling most amicably with the Chief Secretary the position of his university under this Bill, it seemed so easy for difficult matters to be settled when good will and confidence were displayed, that I had hoped the proceedings would go on on a smoother and happier

    443
    plane, that the fait accompli would be accepted, that the fact that Home Rule must come would be recognised, as it has been by many who in the past have opposed Home Rule but are now Home Rulers, and that even those who have been embittered controversialists would be inclined to bury the hatchet and to see whether they could not jointly build up their native country under happier conditions of unity and prosperity in the future.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Before the Government make up their minds finally to reject this Amendment, I would ask them to consider very seriously the consequences of their action. The proposal of my right hon. Friend offers them a way of escape from a very dangerous situation, which will inevitably arise if they pass this Bill in its present form, and attempt to put it into operation in Ulster. The Government have been left in no doubt as to the intentions of the Unionists of Ulster, if any attempt is made to force Home Rule upon them. The leaders of Unionist opinion have plainly declared what course they will recommend. You have evidence, in the signing of the Covenant, that the Unionists in the Northern province are banded together, by the most solemn ties, to defend their liberties and to resist Home Rule. The situation has been put clearly before the Government and the House by my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, in language which I desire to endorse as expressing the unchangeable resolution of Irish Unionists. I do urge the Government, therefore, to treat this matter with all seriousness. The decision of this question must rest with the Government—and with them alone. They cannot shift the responsibility upon the shoulders of the Member for Waterford. If they decide upon coercion, they will themselves have to undertake the task of compelling Ulster to submit. They will find it will not be an easy matter to overcome the resistance of a quarter of a million men, pledged to stand together to the last extremity in defence of their rights.
    It must not be supposed that we put this Amendment forward in any spirit of compromise. We are opposed—absolutely—to any measure of Home Rule; and if this Amendment were accepted we should continue to resist, by all constitutional means, the passage of this Bill. We should do so because we are convinced that Home Rule would bring disaster upon Ireland,
    444
    and be destructive of the best interests of the United Kingdom; therefore, we should be failing in our duty if we did not continue our opposition to the Bill, both in and out of Parliament. We submit this proposal to the House because we appreciate, if the Government do not, the terrible consequences which must result from any attempt to force Home Rule upon Ulster. We know the spirit which animates those whom we represent in this House; we share to the full the determination which they have expressed; and we propose this Amendment simply because we want to avert a disastrous conflict. I submit that, on its merits, this proposal can be thoroughly justified by argument. My right hon. Friend has gone so exhausitvely into the matter, that it is unnecessary for me to go over the same ground again, especially having regard to the fact that none of his arguments have been controverted. I wish, however, to emphasise this point: that every argument in support of Home Rule may be applied with equal force to this Amendment.
    The whole case for this Bill rests upon the ground that it is demanded, and has been demanded for a long time, by a majority of the people of Ireland. Hon. Members opposite say the will of the majority must prevail; and, therefore, they bring in this Bill. What we say is that, if you are to have regard to the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland, you must also have regard to the wishes of a majority of the people of Ulster. You have no right to compel a Unionist majority in Ulster to submit to a Nationalist majority in the rest of Ireland. If it is right to give the Nationalists what they want, because they are a majority, it must be equally right to concede to the Unionists what they desire when they are a majority. The contention which has been put forward by the Nationalists that the majority of the people of Ulster are not opposed to Home Rule cannot be regarded seriously. Speaking broadly, the line which divides political parties in Ireland is the religious line, that is to say, in the main, Protestants are Unionists and Roman Catholics are Nationalists. I say "in the main." I do not dispute that there are some Protestant Home Rulers, but they are very few in Ulster; and I venture to say that they are largely outnumbered by Catholics who are opposed to Home Rule. It is impossible to say exactly how many there are on each side; therefore, the only safe guide is to take

    445
    the Census figures of the population. Those figures show that there is in Ulster a clear majority of 200,000 Protestants. In other words, taking the province as a whole, a substantial majority of the population is opposed to Home Rule. That majority is not fairly represented by the number of Unionist Members in this House. We are only seventeen—as has been already said—and there are sixteen Nationalists. That is quite true. But it is also true that we should have a larger number of Unionists here if the Ulster seats were more fairly distributed. On a population basis the Nationalists are not entitled to more than 43 per cent. of the total representation. They have two more than their proper number. If those two were transferred to the other side, as they should be, the Unionists would have a majority of at least five. I say, therefore, that whether you have regard to the population or the representation in this House, the predominant voice of Ulster is in favour of this Amendment, and against having this new Constitution thrust upon them. The Government lay great stress upon the persistence of the Nationalist demand. I would ask the House: Has not the opposition of Ulster been persistent? Is there the slightest sign of abatement in the earnestness and determination with which Irish loyalists cling to their allegiance to this Parliament? I venture to say that not only has this devotion to the cause of the Union been continuous, but that there has never been a time throughout this long Home Rule struggle when the loyalists of Ulster were so united and so determined upon resistance as they are to-day.
    On what grounds, then, is this Amendment opposed? The Prime Minister has said it is impossible to cut Ireland into parts. In fact, he said, "You can no more cut Ireland into parts than you can cut England into parts." That is what the right hon. Gentleman said in June last when the proposal was made to exclude the four North-Eastern Counties from the Bill. But that was before the First Lord of the Admiralty had put forward his startling development of the federal idea. According to the First Lord there is no reason why England should not be divided up into parts. If it is part of the ultimate policy of the Government that there shall be separate Parliaments for Lancashire and Yorkshire and other divisions of England, I cannot see on what grounds you
    446
    can resist the partition of Ireland. We do not ask for a separate Constitution for Ulster. We do not even claim the right to veto Home Rule for the rest of Ireland. If the acceptance of this Amendment would make any Home Rule impossible, that is not our fault. It is so much the worse for the cause which this Bill represents. What who claim is the right to remain in union with Great Britain; the-right to send Members to this Parliament; the right to enjoy the privileges of citizenship under the Constitution in which we were born. We deny altogether the right of a majority of this House to decree that we shall be cut adrift from the United Kingdom against our will. It may not be-within the power of Ulster to prevent the other three provinces separating from Great Britain. But we have absolutely made up our minds that, God helping us, we will not go with them. We have been taunted this afternoon with the desertion of the Unionists of the South and West of Ireland. We are not moved by any gibes of that kind. Our fellow loyalists in the other parts of Ireland understand our motives, appreciate the reasons for the course we have adopted, and the action we have taken. They realise that if we were to succeed in this Amendment, and if Home Rule was set up in Ireland with Ulster left outside, we should be in an infinitely better position to champion their cause than if we were a small minority in an Irish Parliament, with our own particular battles to fight.
    This Amendment raises a direct and simple issue. Let me say, in conclusion, that if the Government believe the people of Ulster will go back upon all their declarations and allow themselves to be transferred like sheep to the tender mercies of a Nationalist Parliament, they hopelessly misunderstand the character of those whom we represent. I can understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike the idea of having to apply coercion against Ulster. They cling to the hope that this will never be necessary, and that when it comes to-the point Ulster will give way. Let me tell hon. Members that there is not a shadow of foundation for any hope of that kind. Ulster will never consent to this Bill. The Foreign Secretary, at an early stage of these Debates, said that if Ulster resists some other solution will have to be found. We offer you an alternative in? this Amendment. I put it to the Government: Would it not be wiser and more-statesmanlike to look the facts in the face

    447
    and adopt now the only solution, short of withdrawing the Bill, which will preserve Ireland from the horrors of civil war?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken showed great sincerity in the fears he entertained, and still entertains, as to what may happen on the passage of the Home Rule Bill. But I think he has wholly failed to meet the point even from a Unionist point of view that this Amendment is impossible; for the more sincerely and honestly he shows us that he entertains fears in regard to the large Protestant minority of the North of Ireland, the more he fails to justify this Amendment, which proposes to cut off the whole of the Unionists of the other three provinces of Ireland.
    Mr. MOORE: A lot you care about them.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make remarks of that kind in their proper place; he is not entitled to make them in defence of this Amendment to cut off Ulster for separate treatment, and thereby to expose a very much smaller and insignificant Unionist minority in the remaining three provinces to a tyranny which he appears sincerely to believe will be applied to Ulster.
    Mr. MOORE: You say it will not happen.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That, again, is an argument which we are entitled to use, but it is not an argument which the hon. Member is entitled to use in support of this Amendment, and I am really astonished that a Gentleman of his acute-ness cannot see that point. I pass to the reply that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) made to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Lyell). My hon. Friend asked hon. Gentlemen opposite who were to follow him to say what form the resistance would take. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston replied to that question by asking another. Who can foretell, he asked, when the revolution will take place? Surely there is a very cogent answer to that question. We cannot foretell, as in the case of the Balkans, with their long-continued history of tyranny, when the blow would fall, but we could be sure of this that there was good cause for revolution. Now what hon. Gentlemen opposite have to show us is that there will be good cause for revolution on the pas-
    448
    sage of this Bill. Let them show us that, and when they have shown it, I say, speaking for myself, and I think I can speak for all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that upon that good cause shown the cause of Home Rule dies, and that is just as true after the passage of this Bill as before it. What is the great protection of hon. Members opposite? An hon. Gentleman opposite smiles, but he must give me credit for sincerity just as I give him credit for sincerity. I tell him that on the accomplishment of Home Rule, if one-tenth of the fears he and his colleagues express become accomplished fears, then Ulster will not want a remedy for long, and that is really the final answer to those fears. We do not entertain these fears. We respect them in others so far as fears can be respected. Speaking for myself, I say that there will be no more-ardent Unionist or hearty co-operator with hon. Gentlemen opposite than I would be if these fears are accomplished.
    I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the remarks which fell from the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). The Noble Lord repeated what is so often said in the House, that this measure is without popular support in the country. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they are entirely mistaken in entertaining that view. There is no subject—I say this as a man who addresses a good many, and certainly more than the average number, of public meetings—there is no more popular subject upon a Liberal platform in this country than Home Rule, and if we can persuade a Member of the Nationalist party to appear on one of our platforms he is a popular idol, and if hon. Gentlemen on the Nationalist benches do not think I am undervaluing their eloquence or attractiveness as speakers, I say that a great part of that enthusiasm for them is not so much due to their merits as it is due to the merits of the cause they plead, and it is entirely erroneous for hon. Gentlemen on the Unionist Benches to think otherwise. For my part I am glad it is so, because here we have a subject which appeals to the English democrat in this way. He regards it as a subject in which he is not directly interested, although in reality he is directly interested in it: but it does not appeal to him as a kind of bread-and-butter question, and therefore the interest so closely exhibited by the English democracy in this question of Irish Home Rule is a tribute to the English democracy

    449
    and to their sense of fair play, and to those higher qualities which those of us who are democrats are glad to recognise in human nature.
    There was something else in the speech of the Noble Lord upon which I should like to comment. He touched, as it seemed to me, matters of profound importance in a rather fantastic manner. He spoke of nationhood. Nationhood, of course, is very largely involved in the consideration of this Bill, and he gave us this definition of nationhood—the moral right to make war. He seems to think in coining that definition that he was coining an argument against Home Rule for Ireland. I think that all the theory and practice of government throughout the world joins issue with the Noble Lord in regard to that definition. Can it be claimed that Canada at the present moment is not a nation or has not in her the making of a nation, although she has no moral right to make war upon Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. Is she any less a nation? Let me take another case. How recent was the joining together of those two considerable nations, Prussia and Bavaria. Napoleon HI. was not sure at the beginning of the war of 1870 that South Germany would join North Germany. Not many years have elapsed, and yet what considerable solidarity binds the German Empire to day, whose head is King of Prussia. Are the Bavarians a nation? There can be only one answer to that question. One of the things that remains in my mind is a banquet in the Royal Palace of Munich, with this significant thing at the end of the Royal Ban-quetting Hall. There are three decorative pieces, one a very large one of the late Regent of Bavaria, and on the right and left two smaller pieces, one of the German Emperor and the other King Edward VII., proving conclusively that Bavaria did not forget, because of the accomplishment of German Imperialism, that she was one of two nations; and so the Noble Lord came within sight of the great truth that underlies this Bill. He recognised it, but did not declare it to the House. What is the great truth of Home Rule? It is that Home Rule is the reconciliation of nationhood with Imperialism. It is the only possible reconciliation, and that is proved, not only in the experience of the British Empire, but in the experience of other empires. It is reconciliation which makes possible the continuation in the proper field of individual
    450
    nationhood with consent in the existence of a common Empire, and so the Noble Lord in placing before us this fantastic distinction, of what constitutes a nation, really reminded us of the great truth which underlies Home Rule. It is a great truth, and it is a truth which I think is large enough and great enough to triumph, in spite of what I believe to be the mistaken view of hon. Members opposite from Ulster. Let them take a little courage.
    Captain CRAIG: We are going to do that.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Not only the courage of fear, which I respect in its proper place, but let them take courage from the example of what has happened elsewhere in the world. In Italy you have a tremendous exemplary case of the power of Home Rule.
    Mr. MOORE: One Parliament and one King.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is perfectly true, but the hon. Member must remember that we have got other conditions, that we have got cases of the reconciliation of nations who for many centuries were divided, and, of course, there, taking the matter as a whole, the principle of Home Rule has been justified. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Let them take courage from the examples which have influenced us, most of which are contained in the British Empire, and then they will feel that their fears are not justified.
    Mr. CHAMBERS: I have taken very little part in the discussions in this House or in Committee in reference to the Home Rule Bill, but I do feel that the Amendment which is now being discussed is of such grave importance and fraught with such serious consequences to the portion of Ireland which I have the honour of representing that I am compelled to occupy the attention of the House for a very short time indeed while I join my appeal to those which have already been uttered from this side of the House, and to those which will doubtless be uttered during the remainder of the evening, for a grave and serious consideration of this question, because I believe that by the acceptance of this Amendment a disaster which is almost horrible to contemplate will be prevented in that portion of Ireland from which I come. The hon. Member who? spoke last asked us to take courage. In other words, he asked us to

    451
    accept his advice and thereby showed that we were taking courage, and if we did that he said all would be well. He said that our actions were prompted by a mistaken feeling. I hope he may be accurate, but beliefs can only be entertained and conceived on facts as they are proved to exist. It will be too late, first, to pass this measure, and then, if all our fears were realised, for him and others to step in and bring assistance to us. That is rather a foolish way of legislating. The only sensible and wise way to proceed is to judge by the experience of the past, and from such material as is at our disposal. I am willing to grant that some statements in the old days may have been made under the stress of resentment and may very well be forgotten, but we know the times in which we are living, and we have to draw our conclusions as to what is likely to happen from what is happening every day in the days in which we live.
    What will be the effect of this measure as regards Ulster? I am not going to speak of the material prosperity which has accrued to Ulster as a result of union with the United Kingdom. That subject has been discussed time and again in this House. It is there, and the Ulster people are enjoying that prosperity and that success as the result of British rule, with its equity and its justice, because they have refused to tolerate within their borders either the ideas or the principles which have characterised the rest of Ireland. I put it to every hon. Member in this House that when you ask a man or a body of men who have so succeeded and who are so contented under your rule to change all that and go in under the rule of those who have at all times differed from them on every question, whose every ideal and political method is different, when you ask them to turn round and quietly accept the control and government of those who have been always opposed to them, surely they are justified in asking you to believe them when they say that until they have exhausted every remedy in their power and every means they have at their disposal they will never consent to or tolerate such a proposal. I have frequently heard in this House comparisons made between Ireland and Canada, South Africa, and other places, but to my mind they are all idle because there is no parallel in the wide world for Ireland, none whatever. In order to let this House understand what is the feeling of the
    452
    people in the South and West of Ireland as regards us in the North of Ireland, I will read a passage from a newspaper called the "Tipperary Star," which appeared in its issue of the 30th November, 1912. Here is an extract from a speech delivered a very short time ago by the Rev. Father Hackett, who, speaking at the quarterly meeting of the executive of the Mid- Tipperary Branch of the United Irish League on the 25th November, said:—
    "The enemies of Home Rule, the lying, bigoted,, insulting, enslaving-souled and nameless Covenanters, are the representatives and mainly the progeny, of men who were in Ireland murderers robbers, sensualists and bigots without parallel in the world's history. And the descendants to-day have the same heart. and would, if it were possible for them have largely the same hand as their more than Turkish forbears."
    This priest is expressing views we know to be entertained by a large number of people in Ireland. That is a recent utterance, and I do ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, whatever country or place they may represent, if they were asked to substitute for British rule the rule of men amongst whom counsel such as that, I have read, would be given, would they willingly acquiesce in it or accept it. If the sentiment and statement of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is justified that our fears are mistaken, and have not a real and live force, I answer that I believe we have justice and foundation for those fears, and we are determined to persevere in our efforts to the bitter end. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Lyell) said he had no fear and that he really could not understand how the mind of any logical or honest man throughout the country could be influenced by those fears of disorder or rebellion, or whatever name you chose to give it, in the North-East part of Ireland. He referred to the fact that there would be nobody to fight your quarrels with. The hon. Member who has just spoken, referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) in which he stated that nobody could tell when the revolution would come. I do not think it is a case of when it will come. The people in the North of Ireland are animated, and, as I believe, profoundly and justly animated by the feelings they entertain in respect of this particular measure, and nobody can predict how or when the trouble will break out. These men, who have shown by the result of their industry that they are competent and capable men, are animated by these feelings, not as the result of bigotry or intolerance or any-

    453
    thing of that kind, but because they have had the experience of actually living in the neighbourhood and the place. Can it possibly be believed those men will not find some means—some time, some accident, perhaps some little trifle—of starting in Ulster a flame, the results of which will make humanity shudder the wide world over? I know those men; I live amongst them; I have talked with them, and I know their feelings, and I say it is a fact which cannot be ignored that trouble will arise there which will be of the gravest dimensions and which will be discreditable and disgraceful to the Empire and to those upon whom the responsibility must rest.
    It is said the leaders of the Unionist movement in Ireland are responsible. I tell you, if you lop off the heads of every leader of the party the spirit will still be there, permeating right down through every grade of society, animating them all. If every leader were struck down tomorrow, others would be found to take their places. The spirit of the people is there, the spirit of determination is alive in the community, and it is impossible to believe, if this measure be passed, those men will quietly and tamely submit to it and settle down to take part in its work. They never will, and I say a Government which, knowing that and warned of that as this Government have been from time to time, still perseveres in this policy and goes on foolishly, as we believe, to complete this measure of Home Rule and to place it upon the Statute Book, will have the responsibility for the consequences resting upon their shoulders and upon their shoulders alone. They have been warned, and they have refused to take the warning. This is the last opportunity they will have to act upon it. The day of disaster has not yet come, and there is still time to avert it. It is said this would wreck the Home Rule Bill. Speaking for myself, I should be very glad if it did, but it would not wreck Home Rule theory. Let those who want Home Rule in Ireland have it.
    You are cutting off Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom in the sense that we shall no longer be under the protection of the British law. It will be Irish law, made by men who will be influenced towards us by such feelings as are reflected in the most recent utterance of a responsible man, a man who is a guide of the people, a clergyman of the Roman Church, and a man who is looked up to.
    454
    If you find such sentiments harboured in his heart and in his breast, a man of education and a teacher of religion, what must be the influence of his teaching on the great body of people whom he influences and controls, and who will have a voice and a power in the election of the Irish House of Commons, and those who make the laws there? No sensible man, no man who looks at this question and understands the facts, can honestly think or believe that Ulstermen can, under any circumstances, acquiesce in or accept this policy, or that they are not justified in their determination to leave nothing un done in the first place to prevent this Bill from becoming law, and in the second place, if it does become law, to bring about its repeal or to do away with it by some means. They will never submit to it. They will send no representatives to the Irish Parliament, and they will take no part in it. We say if, warned as you have been, you persist in the measure, that is how it will be accepted by the Unionists in Ireland, and, if with that knowledge you go on, the responsibility for the consequences will rest with you.
    Mr. PIRIE: It is one of the drawbacks of the conditions under which we discuss this most important constitutional change that I am again to-day, in deference to the wishes of the Chair, to which I am sure my seconder and I most freely bow, obliged to address the House with the avowed intention of not moving the Amendment which I have down on the Paper. I understand there is only going to be one day's Debate, and I quite see the point of the Chair that it should not be unduly restricted. That, however, does not in the least take away from the regret I feel that I cannot put this Amendment before the House. That regret is all the more because on the Committee stage of the Bill I had a similar Amendment relating to the four counties then proposed to be excluded from the operations of the Bill, which, although the guillotine was not then in operation, was closured. It is really most regrettable that on this question, which is the most important of the whole Bill, hon. Members should say it has already been fully discussed, because the guillotine was not in operation when it was debated in Committee. It is true the discussion of this question in Committee lasted three or four days, but it never flagged during all those days, showing that when you really get a vital issue Members are only too anxious to do what

    455
    they can to enlighten the country about it. It is, therefore, doubly regrettable that on the Report stage we should only have one day given to us to discuss this vital question. I am not going to move my Amendment, but I should like to read it, so that it may be on record. My proposition was to add at the end of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) the words—
    "until the majority of the representatives of the constituencies of this province in the Imperial Parliament have presented to His Majesty a petition in favour of this province being included under the provisions of this Act."
    That was my proposition. It was put down, not with an idea of wrecking the Bill but of saving the Bill and of affording a bridge for the reconciliation of different and contending feelings conscientiously I held by two sections of the population in Ireland. I still more regret that I am unable to bring it forward for full discussion in the House, because I have had representations made to me to alter my Amendment in order to secure the assent of hon. Members opposite, so that instead of "the majority of the representatives of the constituencies" it would read "the majority of the Parliamentary electors of the constituencies." I would not have minded the particular words provided I had achieved the object I had in view, namely, the saving of this Home Rule Bill from defeat. The Prime Minister pointed out that if the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were accepted the Bill would thereby be wrecked. Not at all. I believe absolutely in the theory put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, and I suggest that such an important measure as this ought not to be allowed to lapse simply because the drafting has to be changed. It is quite possible that the drafting may have to be changed if this Amendment be carried. But we are now discussing a question of principle, and no extra trouble in the matter of drafting ought to be allowed to interfere with the decision on a question of principle. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford quoted an extract from the "Belfast News Letter," but I entirely disagree with the conclusion at which that paper arrived, namely, that this Bill would be wrecked as a consequence of the acceptance of this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite, I believe, would have accepted this Amendment in the idea that the pro-
    456
    vince of Ulster would never have given a majority in favour of coming under the operation of this Bill. I take an absolutely different view. No doubt, at the first time of asking, the majority would be against, but if the electors of Ulster were allowed a free exercise of their views in regard to this matter they would eventually come to a very different decision. The question, indeed, to which they would be invited to give an answer would be a different one. At the present time they are being asked whether or not they are in favour of Home Rule, but under the new conditions set up by my Amendment they would be asked if in the event of Home Rule being passed into law they were willing to be part of Ireland or not, and I venture to suggest that by an overwhelming majority their answer in that case would be in the affirmative.
    9.0 P.M.
    In support of my argument I would call attention to the trading interests of Ireland, and there, again, I suggest that those interests would induce the Ulster electors to come under an Irish Home Rule scheme. The capital of Belfast is inextricably bound up with the capital of the inhabitants in the South of Ireland, and that fact alone would induce the electors to take the line I have suggested. I want to see this question settled on a final basis, and I believe you will never get a final settlement except with the assent and consent of both parties. You have to bear in mind the feelings of the people of Ulster, feelings of pride and conscience. This Bill represents a very shortsighted policy, and I venture to repeat a strong word which I used at an earlier stage when I said that the word on the face of the Bill from beginning to end was obligation and not statesmanship. To make it obligatory is not the way to bring together parties who are bitterly and naturally opposed, as is the case in regard to this Bill. Statesmanship demands something different. I refuse entirely to believe that the last word has been said on this question. It is unthinkable to say that this Bill as it will leave this House next week will, without the change of a syllable or comma, become the law of the land. If it did that, I should never call myself a Liberal again. This Bill, exposed as it has been to discussion of a very cursory sort—even on the Report stage the Debate is to be limited to seven days—is of such a nature that I venture to assert that no Government would have a right to pass it without an appeal to the electors. If after such an appeal they were

    457
    returned to power, then they would have a right to pass it. But I think that next year there will be a conference with a view to coming to an agreement upon this measure. That is what the course of events should bring about. I believe that next year there will be a conference with a view to a settlement by agreement.
    But I refuse to believe that the Bill can become the law of the land in its present form without there first being a General Election, and if anything could justify the position taken up by the Ulster Members it would be the fear of such a possibility. There is one other point to which I would like to invite the attention of the Ulster Members. It should not be forgotten that sooner or later this will be part of a federal system. You cannot stop the tide rising; we are going to have devolution in some form or other, and I would ask the representatives of Ulster what they are going to do under such circumstances. Had this scheme been brought forward from a federal point of view, what would have been their attitude? Would they have cut themselves apart from the rest of the United Kingdom? Would they have retained their affection for a Parliament out of date and not able to cope with modern requirements? It is only by a policy of conciliation, by a policy of give and take on both sides that this question can ever be brought to a permanent settlement. I cannot but recall the attitude of the least numerous section of hon. Members opposite who have time and again put before this House and before their fellow countrymen the desire for conciliation. As the hon. and learned Member for Cork said, when they put forward conciliation they were met by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway at the point of the sword. That is not the way to bring about conciliation or agreement. I can only regret that I am unable to move my Amendment because I believe it would have been a step in the direction of adopting a more conciliatory attitude and of bringing together divergent interests.
    Mr. M'MORDIE: There was a question put by the Prime Minister which has not yet been answered. He wished to know what Irish Unionist Members would do in the event of the Home Rule Bill being approved of by the electors at a General Election. That is a very fair question. I put it stronger. If English and Scottish Unionist Members on this side of the House agree to the federal system indicated by the last speaker, it will not have
    458
    the slightest effect or influence on any Unionists in Ulster. I am a Labour representative, and represent a labour constituency. Out of over 19,000 electors there are 2,500 Nationalists, and the people who work with their hands number 15,000. There is no such solid labour constituency on this side of the Channel After a most careful inquiry I have got to know six who are for the Government. I am told there might possibly be 100. If I indicated here to-night that under any conditions, even if an agreement as indicated by the last speaker was arrived at, or if the electors at a General Election approved of this Home Rule scheme, it would alter my attitude towards Home Rule, if I were to put up for election I would not get ten votes in the whole constituency. Their minds are made up. We have had "penny reading" speeches from the other side of the House; but this is a serious matter. We have men of little experience who have not been in Ireland getting up and making Saturday or Sunday evening speeches as if they were speaking to Sunday school children. They treat us as if we were children, and, to say the least of it, it is offensive. There is no part of the United Kingdom where the same population contributes the same number of men towards building up the Empire. We have contributed Empire builders, and men of science, as much as any other part of the country with the same population. The Prime Minister saw the harm that is being done by jeering, and, whether he meant it or not, con-ceded that the situation was a very serious one, and that the Unionist Members from Ireland were both conscientious and honest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I tell those hon. Gentlemen who sneer that they have never given any serious thought to the subject at all. [HON-. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] They are holding up their mouths—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I think the hon. Member is challenging the very thing he wishes to avoid.
    Captain CRAIG: They were sneering over there. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing of the kind."]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would invite the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.
    Mr. M'MORDIE: I thought it was quite time to stop the sneering which was breaking out, and I thought it was right to rebuke it. The hon. Member for East

    459
    Clare made a speech breathing peace and goodwill, and showing that he and other hon. Members below the Gangway were spending their whole time in an effort to draw closer the bonds of Empire. The hon. Member dare not deliver that speech in Clare. No doubt if information be given in advance that he wishes to deliver a Union Jack speech, there will be a large number of Union Jacks, but at present no Union Jack can be displayed in any part of his constituency, and in no part of it dare he deliver that speech. With regard to feeling in the Colonies, it is only right that hon. Members should know that the Unionists of Ireland have a special connection with most of our Colonies. Right across Canada the sentiment is our sentiment. In Toronto there are already men enrolled to come over in case any trouble arises. If anything hurts Ulster you will not have a friend left from one side of Canada to the other. The same applies to Australia. We have our special connections there, and wherever our people have gone the link is not broken. We have a stronger connection still in New Zealand, and if you take the United States of America from east to west, so far as there is any sentiment relating to Ireland, it will go to us if there is the least trouble in regard to Home Rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the American dollars?"] They came from the servant girls. We did not get any of them. Thirty thousand pounds is not a large sum to take from 20,000,000 of Irishmen in the United States. The remarkable thing is that Irishmen at home assessed themselves, I believe, at something like a farthing a head.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting rather far away from the Amendment again.
    Mr. M'MORDIE: We have our connection with the Colonies, and if any difficulty arises, if this war is to be, the sentiment is with us. One or two speakers have asked in what way we are going to resist, but the question is, how will you enforce the law? Does not that come first? You do not ask a man how he is going to resist the enforcing of the law until you enforce it. If you enforce it you come down to contact with the judges and with the police. If people do not do what you want you can get a judge's order for committal. Then the issue is raised, because there is no official in any uniform carrying
    460
    out the judge's order who will receive a particle of attention in the districts we refer to. You have asked how we will resist, and I have given an answer. Speaking of the judges the Prime Minister made, I think, a hasty remark when he said that the majority, with judges or without, could not oppress the minority. We all remember that for many years one of the great grievances of Nationalist Ireland was declared to be that they were unfairly treated in the law. They had a Chief Secretary, a member of the Society of Friends, who was called Buckshot. A British majority with an Irish minority were able to use the Chief Secretary and police to oppress the Nationalist minority. A distinguished man, now on the Bench, was honoured with the name of Peter the Packer. They accused the British Government, through the judges, through the lawyers, through the police, of oppressing them. If a British Government could do that, why could not a majority in Ireland do it on the minority there. If the desire to oppress is there, there is no difficulty whatever in carrying it out, especially under the methods we have been referring to where men are pledged to resist, and that is as solemn a pledge "as could be taken. In the American War of Independence the Ulstermen took their stand and carried it through. At a more remote period a handful of men in the city of Deny said what they would do and would not do, and they took their stand and let there be no mistake about it. What they have undertaken they will do, and all the forces at anyone's command cannot alter it. Reference was made to disobeying the law. There is some idea abroad that Unionist Ireland has undertaken to fight the British Army. They will not do that at all. When the British troops cannot get through other districts, and come through our district they will be nothing but friends, and the worst offence that has ever been committed towards them in our district has been to offer them cigarettes. You cannot shoot a man for offering a cigarette. But can the War Minister afford to leave 13,000 troops to police the boundaries of Ulster. It is not a question of fighting them but of using your men to police us. Not a Unionist would dream of shooting a soldier. That was done in South Africa where the Minister for War was a distinguished soldier himself.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject that we are discussing to-day was discussed in the Committee stage and there is one

    461
    difference in the tone of the criticism of the Amendment. On the previous occasion we were told that in supporting the Amendment we were insincere and had no other object than to damage the Bill without wishing to see the Amendment carried. I said on that occasion that nothing was further from the truth. We realised then, as we realise now, that if any attempt were made to carry this or any Home Rule Bill which includes Ulster against the will of Ulster, nothing but disaster could come to Ireland. We are utterly opposed to Home Rule altogether. We have never pretended that we would not use every legitimate means to defeat it. But this is more than a question of ordinary constitutional methods. We say, and I believe, that any attempt to carry this Bill with Ulster without first obtaining the consent of Ulster will be impossible without bringing disaster greater than anyone in this House would be willing to contemplate. From every point of view, if there is to be a Home Rule Bill, we should like to see this Amendment, or something like it, carried. My right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment this afternoon has pointed out in a way which is so conclusive that his argument has not been assailed, that the position of Unionists in the rest of Ireland would be made better rather than worse if Ulster was still part of the United Kingdom and sent Members to this Parliament. But there is another general view why I, and I think every Unionist, would greatly prefer, if there is to be a Home Rule Bill, that this Amendment should be carried. I at least believe that one of the great evils of a Home Rule Parliament for Ireland would be the danger to us as a, nation in any time of difficulty or of war, apart altogether from the question whether or not the new Parliament would be hostile. Nobody in discussing the subject has denied that the danger would be terrible if she were hostile, and, therefore, looking at it from the national point of view, who are gambling on the possibility that the whole feeling of Nationalist Ireland will be changed. I think that is a very large assumption, and it is a gamble which the nation would not readily undertake, but from that point of view the danger would be enormously less if, instead of having one Parliament for all, you had only a Parliament for Nationalist Ireland which would in effect be a subordinate Parliament, and the fact that part of Ireland was under this House would greatly diminish the danger from that point of view.
    462
    There is no doubt about the reality of our wish that this Amendment, or something like it, should be inserted in the Bill. As regards the Amendment, I am not able to say anything new, and if it had been possible I should have been very glad to leave the case from our point of view where it was left by my hon. Friends who have spoken this afternoon. All I shall try to do is to put before the House again as clearly as I can, and certainly briefly, some of the arguments in favour of this Amendment. I shall deal as well as I can with some of the answers made to these arguments. What is the ground on which this Home Rule Bill is justified by its authors? They tell us—the Prime Minister dwelt upon it in introducing the Bill—that Nationalist Ireland has persistently and insistently—I think these were the words of the right hon. Gentleman—demanded this change. Very well. We are to give it because Nationalist Ireland desires it. We are to allow them to govern themselves. Yes, Sir, but if you carry this Bill without this Amendment, it is not a Bill to enable the Nationalists of Ireland to govern themselves. It is a Bill to enable the Nationalists of Ireland to use British force in order to compel a great homogeneous community to submit to a Government which they detest. That is the position. What is this community? The Prime Minister made play—I was not surprised, and I was sure he would do it—about the use of the term Ulster. He said it was a dialectic, and that many parts of Ulster do not come under the category of what is generally understood as Ulster. It is easy to do that, and there they are on strong ground. But that kind of argument does not meet the real facts of the situation, because if they recognise the real facts, it is perfectly easy to alter this Amendment in such a way as to get rid of the difficulty of which the Prime Minister spoke. You could, for instance, make an Amendment—and if you did I might vote for it—that any county in Ulster might be given power to decide whether or not it should come into the new Parliament or remain in the British Parliament. That, therefore, is purely dialectic.
    What is the real question? It is whether or not I am right in saying that there is a great homogeneous community which will only submit to this Bill if it is imposed upon them by force. What is that community? In Belfast and the counties surrounding it there are more than a million people, a fourth of the whole population

    463
    of Ireland, who are overwhelmingly Unionist—almost as completely Unionist as Leinster is Nationalist. There are a large number of Catholics in these counties, but there are a large number of Protestants, mainly Unionists, in Leinster. There is a homogeneous community which is really separate from the rest of Ireland, and is now part of the United Kingdom. They demand that they should not be put under this Bill. If you say that the Nationalists of Ireland have a right to claim to go out of the United Kingdom as a community, if you say that 5 or 6 per cent. of the whole of the United Kingdom have that right because they wish to have separate rule for themselves, how can you say that a body in Ireland, not 5 or 6 per cent., but 25 per cent. of the whole population, has not an equal right to separate treatment. That argument has been put by many of us, and by myself many times, and it has never been answered, and there can be no answer except that which was given—and it was worthy of the source from which it came—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), that Ireland is one island, and that the railways go from one province to another. But the fact that people dwell in one island does not make them one nation. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman applies equally to Wales and Scotland. I say that the argument that Ulster has an equal right to demand separate treatment has never been met, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to meet it when he gets up to reply.
    There is something further. On what ground do the Nationalists say that they are entitled to have this Government by themselves. Over and over again their argument is this: The British House of Commons does not understand the Irish point of view, and no matter how anxious we are to deal justly with Ireland, we cannot deal justly with Ireland. I think we have tried to treat Ireland not only justly, but generously; but they say we have failed because we do not understand the Irish point of view. I put it to anyone who knows anything about Ireland—what right have they to say that they understand the point of view, or the ideals, or the aspirations of the people of Ulster, who are anxious to remain under our Parliament? How can they do it? I have many times gone from Glasgow to Belfast, and from Belfast to Dublin. No one will deny that
    464
    there is no more difference between Glasgow and Belfast than there is between Glasgow and Aberdeen or Edinburgh. But if you go to Dublin, you notice at once a real difference, and I say, without any hesitation, that anyone who knows Ireland knows the difference between Ulster and the rest of Ireland is far deeper than that between any part of the United Kingdom and Ireland taken as a whole. But it is more than that, and I am not glad of it at all. I am very sorry for it. I know that Ireland will remain after, as I believe, this Bill has been dead; I know that the people there will be our fellow citizens, and if I could find any method by which we could get rid of the discontent of Nationalist Ireland without injustice to others who have as great a claim upon us, I should gladly find such a way. In reference to this whole controversy, I say without fear of contradiction that as the easy optimism has been assumed that all the hostility of Ireland will disappear, it is necessary to point out that there is no reason either in history or experience to justify that anticipation. Yet with this conviction I have refrained constantly from doing anything I could avoid to embitter the differences between the different sections in; Ireland. I have, indeed. If hon. Gentlemen think I am wrong, I think they will find some difficulty in finding speeches of mine in which I have done anything to aggravate the feelings of hostility between different sections in Ireland. But it is a fact which I do not think anyone who knows anything about Ireland will deny that these people in the North-East of Ireland, from old prejudices perhaps more than from anything else, from the whole of their past history, would prefer, I believe, to accept the government of a foreign country rather than submit to be governed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
    Hon. Gentlemen may think in saying that I am exaggerating. I am simply trying to state what I believe to be a fact, and you have got to consider what the facts are. I say on the whole principle on which your Bill is framed, the principle of increasing liberty and, above all, self-government, nothing can be more ludicrous than in the name of self-government to try to force this kind of thing on a great community which will not have it unless compelled by force. But if it would be absurd in any case and I think it would, to do this even though you are openly

    465
    meeting the national aspirations of Ireland, is it not trebly absurd when you pretend you are doing it as the beginning of a federal system? Is it conceivable by anyone in Ireland that that should be done? You say this is the beginning of a federal system. The idea of this new federal system is to extend local government. Surely the first thing you would want to do would be to have the limits of local government within the areas where they were accepted by the people on whom you impose it. I do not object to an extension of local government. Our party has done a great deal to extend it. Even the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) at Dundee, though I thought it was driving a good idea to an insane point, had a good deal in it that I did not object to. What was his idea? He said that owing to differences in points of view there should be separate Parliaments for Lancashire and Yorkshire. Yet the right hon. Gentleman who holds that as his idea is actually suggesting that this great community, as large as the whole white population of South Africa, should be made subject to a form of local government which they detest. Nothing like what you are now proposing has ever been done. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there was nothing like it in this country. You will find nothing like it in any country in the world in any time of the world's history.
    Nations have indeed used force to prevent the people from seceding. Is there any instance that anyone can imagine where force was used to compel them to secede? You talk about Colonial analogies. They teach us that this kind of arrangement can never be made without consent. You point to Canada and the great work done by Lord Durham. What happened there? We gave self-government to Upper and Lower Canada. At that time Lower Canada was French and Catholic, and had a very preponderating majority, and Upper Canada, which was British and Protestant, had a comparatively small minority. Yet, in order to make this scheme workable, they gave the small population exactly the same representation as to the large population, so that they would be certain of not being outnumbered in the Parliament. But that is not all. Even under that arrangement the union between the French and the British did not work well at the start, and the federal system succeeded more easily for that reason. Under the federal system they separated Quebec, which was
    466
    French and Catholic, and Upper Canada, which was British and Protestant, and gave them separate parts in the federal system, and then only did it work satisfactorily. What is our own experience on this question in South Africa? Look at the time they spent trying to get agreements, going from place to place in order to do it. The case of Natal was referred to by my hon. Friend. It more nearly resembles Ulster than any other part of the-British Dominion. It is mainly British,. while the rest of South Africa is very largely Dutch. The Natal Government agreed to join the Union, but that was not enough. They wished to make certain that the people approved of it, and before carrying it out they actually had a plebiscite to make certain that the people were willing to have it.
    There is no instance of such a thing as this being done by compulsion. What is; the answer we get to all this? The Prime Minister says, "We are not driving them, out. What are we driving them out of?.' They are not changing their allegiance." Everyone knows that in our Constitution the real power is in the House of Commons and the Executive appointed by them. By changing the Executive which is to-govern these people you are in effect driving them from one form of government into another, and the Prime Minister went on to say, "Look at the safeguards we have given. We have given anything which you wanted." If he had been present during these discussions to-as large an extent as I he would know that the very reverse of that is true. Whenever my hon. Friends behind me asked for a concession to which they attach value the order came from that quarter that it was an insult to grant it. That is the answer which was invariably given from that bench, that it was an insult to Ireland to grant the request. The Prime Minister trotted out again this afternoon the power of veto, and that if any act of injustice were done this Parliament would interfere. Who is to judge of the injustice? This Parliament. Very well. There is the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) who is going to follow. He thought there was a case of injustice in Natal. He tried to interfere, and what happened? In twenty-four hours he climbed down and allowed what he considered to be an injustice to be carried out in spite of his power of veto. There-is no use of this humbugging pretence. We all know, every man in this House

    467
    knows, that the only protection which they will have is the sense of fair play of the Irish majority. And what is the use of pretending that there is any other when you do hand them over to the new Government, to a Government which they will not accept until you force them?
    What is the use of the Prime Minister making eloquent speeches to us about the reasonableness of the proposal? It is not we who have to be convinced. It is Ulster that objects. Let him convince Ulster. And what has he done to try and convince her? He may make soothing speeches here, but in Ireland, when he was speaking, he said there can be no two points of view, it was all a myth, or something of that kind. I say that that kind of speech ought to be made in Ulster, and then you will convince Ulster, and then, and only then, are you entitled to make the change which you propose. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford gave the kind of speech to which we are accustomed. He said that the people of Ulster will be treated fairly, and that they will have nothing to complain of. I really do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman would willingly treat them unfairly. But the people of Ulster take a different view. But if that is his view, why in the world does he not allow this Amendment to be inserted? Then the Prime Minister favoured us with an interesting and very conciliatory speech, but the one reason he gave was that this Amendment would wreck the Bill. What has that got to do with it? One of two things is evident. If the proposal is unjust you have got to alter your Bill, and if your Bill is just and you cannot alter your Bill, then you must leave things as they are, for you cannot remedy one injustice by perpetrating a greater. What right has a Prime Minister to say that this Amendment will wreck the Bill? His colleagues do not think so. The First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking on the Second Reading, said that Ulster has no right to veto Home Rule for the rest of Ireland, but. if the four counties want it for themselves let them say so. Well, they do say so; and, if he contemplated that as possible, what right has the Prime Minister to say that Home Rule is impossible if such an Amendment as this is passed? It was not the First Lord of the Admiralty alone, but the Foreign Secretary said practically the same thing. He said this—I have not got the exact words—
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Better quote.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman can correct my quotation if he thinks there is anything wrong with it. What the Foreign Secretary in effect said was this: If Ulster makes this settlement impossible, some arrangement will have to be found.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Made by you.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: But there is another solution. What right have you to say that the whole thing is impossible if the Amendment is introduced into the Bill? From beginning to end of this aspect of the question there has never been an argument that would stand for a moment. Why is that? It is because they have promised a Home Rule Bill, and they must give the kind of Home Rule Bill which is wanted or they wall not fulfil their promise. That is the explanation. I have promised to allow time to the right hon. Gentleman to reply, but what I have to say further has reference to what I regard as a most serious aspect of this question. How are you going to enforce your Bill? The right hon. Gentleman put this question to the Unionist party: "Suppose we submit it to the electors as it stands and they approve of it, what will be the attitude of Ulster?" I cannot say what the attitude of Ulster will be, but I can at once say what my attitude will be if I am Leader of the Unionist party—I say at once it will make all the difference. I say that, so far as I am concerned, and I believe I speak for all my colleagues on this bench, if that is done, we shall not in any way, shape, or form encourage the resistance of Ulster. I say that without hesitation.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are you encouraging it now?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I rather differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I am never ashamed to say exactly what I am doing. I have said before, and if it be any satisfaction to him I repeat now, that if you attempt to enforce this Bill, and the people of Ulster believe, and have a right to believe, that you are doing it against the will of the people of this country, then I shall assist them in resisting it. But if you put it before the people of this country as a clear issue, then it is a problem for Ulster and not for me. I do not know what Ulster will do, but I remember that two distinguished statesmen who were

    469
    members of the party which the right hon. Gentleman opposite represents said in regard to the very question that if the people of this country did give a majority, in their opinion Ulster would still be justified in resisting. They were the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of Argyle, both Liberal statesmen. I think it was the Duke of Argyle who said that they would be justified for this reason, that a community had a right to say to another community, "We do not wish you as part of us," that they had the right to turn them out, but that they had no right to say, "You must not only leave us, but you must submit to another Government." I do not say that. So far as I am concerned, if it is submitted to the people of this country as a clear issue, so long as I speak for the Unionist party, I shall do nothing to encourage them in resisting the law. What is the position? The Prime Minister, in trying to deal with this question, said, "I decline to consider the possibility of Ulster's resistance," and he gave us arguments why she could not resist. But in a case of this kind, if a man is a statesman, he does not deal with facts as he would like to have them, but with facts as they are, and I put it to him whether he has the right to trust in an incurable optimism about something which he thinks will not happen? He has the Chief Secretary there. Let him ask him whether he believes it will be accepted without resistance. Let him ask anyone who is capable of giving an opinion. I know something about these matters. It was what I saw of these people which made me regard the consequences, and from what I did see in regard to their resistance I am satisfied they will resist. What are you going to do then?
    An hon. Gentleman opposite, with childishness, as it seemed to me, asked in what way are they going to resist, because the taxes will be Imperial taxes. I really hope the Government are not laying any such foolish delusions in their own minds. If people have made up their minds to resist, they will find the means to do so. It was not, as the hon. Gentleman said, the tea in Boston. That was only the spark in the explosion which would have happened there, tea or no tea. And you may be sure of this, if these people believe they are unjustly treated, and if they believe they will be successful, then they will resist. I am not afraid to deal with that. In my opinion, if you like to call it
    470
    rebellion, no rebellion which has ever taken place in the world was better justified, and their success is certain. It is not problematical. They do not need to shoot a British soldier. If they are willing to risk their lives in this struggle, and they are, all that has to happen is that twenty or thirty of them are shot, and I am certain there is not a man opposite who does not know that if that happened there would be an outcry in this country which would drive this Government or any other Government out. What does the action of the right hon. Gentleman mean? He cannot deal with it in that way. He should realise the consequences of his acts, and if he means to enforce this Bill he should say so, and should not flatter himself that he will escape the responsibility of doing so. He is drifting, and we know what that means, and it was because my right hon. Friend and his colleagues realised what is in front of them that they wrote the letter to the Prime Minister, of which he read a part this afternoon. They wrote it because they know what the situation means, and they wish the House and the country clearly to understand that the responsibility for what happens rests, not on them, but on you.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had never in the course of this controversy used any language or advocated any doctrine calculated to embitter the feelings which prevailed in Ireland.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Between the parties in Ireland.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Between the parties in Ireland. He has certainly made this evening one very surprising statement, a statement which I think everyone in the House regarded as extraordinary, and as unprecedented in any responsible Member of Parliament, let alone the right hon. Gentleman in the position of great responsibility which he occupies. I am not referring to his observations that in certain circumstances he would himself as Leader of the Opposition go and assist rebellion in Ireland. He has made that statement before, or in almost similar terms. I refer to the statement which he quoted with approval that the loyalists of Ulster would rather be annexed to a foreign country—
    Sir E. CARSON: Than under moonlighters.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That Ulster would rather be annexed—[Interruption.] If you do not listen to me, it is a matter of total indifference.
    An HON. MEMBER: We listened to your Leader.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That Ulster would rather be annexed to a foreign country than continue in her allegiance to the Crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" "Withdraw." "Scandalous," and interruption.] This then is the latest Tory threat. Ulster will secede to Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why Germany?" and "Who said Germany?"]
    Earl WINTERTON: What will they say about that in Berlin?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the Noble Lord not to interrupt.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask, on a point of Order, if the reference to Germany by the right hon. Gentleman is not deliberately provocative, and calculated to cause ill-feeling between this country and Germany?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I felt bound to draw the attention of the House to a statement so remarkable coming from the Leader of the Conservative party, as indicating what he considered is proper conduct in the loyalist population of the North of Ireland.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has not accurately quoted what I said. He said I quoted that statement with approval. I deliberately and carefully stated I believed it to be the fact, but I quoted it neither with approval nor disapproval.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman believes that the persons in Ulster with whom he sympathises so much that he is prepared to go and assist them in rebellion, would, rather than accept the Constitution under the British Crown which this Bill gives-—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and interruption."] We on this side of the House are quite content—[Interruption.] Time is very short. We have listened to remarks very wounding to us from that side of the House. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I shall not be very vexed if I am not permitted to say what I have risen to say. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing to say."] I thought it right to draw the attention of the House and of the country to that statement which
    472
    is the latest step in Imperial statecraft on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We have had an interesting Debate this afternoon, conducted with liveliness on both sides, but still under the ordinary amenities of Parliamentary discussion, without insults being flung across the floor or interruptions of such a continuous nature that speakers could not make themselves heard. But I have noticed that throughout the whole of that Debate no one has said a single word in favour of the Amendment before the House. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last never said one word in favour of the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who interrupted me just now never said a word in favour of this Amendment. Something was said in favour of a plebiscite of the four Orange counties.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Nothing of the kind.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman does not agree, it is not necessary for him to interrupt in that way.
    Sir J. LONSDALEmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough a Member of the House to be accustomed to hearing statements with which he does not agree.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: But I have never heard a Minister of the Crown conduct himself in this fashion.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have heard nothing said, although I have listened to nearly all' the speeches—[An HON. MEMBER: "You have not!"]
    Captain CRAIG: Contemptible.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If I valued the hon. Gentleman S opinion I might get angry. Nothing has been said in favour of this Amendment. Arguments have been used in favour of excepting the four Orange counties that were the subject of a previous discussion. Arguments have been used in favour of a county plebiscite. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued for—a plebiscite by counties. The Noble Lord below the Gangway argued in favour as far as I could make out, of a plebiscite by parishes or local government areas. All these are propositions which it would no doubt be interesting to debate, but they are not the Amendment before the House. The Amendment before the House seeks the exclusion of Ulster as a whole. I should like to draw

    473
    the attention of the House to what that involves. We are asked by hon. Gentlemen to sympathise with the hard case of the Protestants of Ulster, divorced from the Government which they care about, and placed under a Government which they detest. What is the treatment which, by this Amendment, they propose to mete out to the Catholic minority in Ulster, which is practically as large, almost as numerous, as the Protestant community whom hon. Members opposite propose to wrest away from the Home Rule Government which they desire—[HON. MEMBERS: '"No"]—and retain in what they consider captivity at Westminster. [An HON. MEMBER: "What captivity?"] That is your proposal. You propose to mete out to the Catholics of Ulster exactly the same treatment that you regard as cruel and unfair when meted out to Protestants. I say that such proposals, when they are put forward, stultify those who vote for them. I have not heard anyone say, and I do not believe there is a single Member of any party in the House who thinks, that this would be a good, reasonable, or workable Amendment. I quite agree that there are many other forms, variants of this Amendment—not this Amendment, but quite different from it—which might be argued in this quarter or in that; but for this particular Amendment upon which we have now to vote not a single speaker has risen to argue as far as I know.
    There are various explanations as to the purpose of this Amendment and the letter which preceded it. It has been said in Unionist papers that it is a tactical move. It has been thought by some that it was the first sincere step towards a settlement of this controversy. It has appeared to others that it might be only a kind of compromise between those who wish for an impossible compromise and those who wish for no compromise at all. These alternatives are not necessarily exclusive. Everyone knows the difficulties of a party. It is not difficult to see how many different interests and sections the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to consider. He has men behind him who, I quite agree, are prepared to go all lengths, even to the length of using lethal weapons against their fellow citizens. He has men behind him who are decidedly of the opinion that they do not want to go any further. HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Who are they?
    Captain CRAIG: Do not bluff.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He has also to think of the Unionists outside the Orange counties who have signed the Covenant, and of the Unionists scattered all over Ireland.
    Sir E. CARSON: I quite agree.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He has to bear all these points in mind. We quite recognise that it is possible that these difficulties and considerations have made the Amendment on the Paper unreal in its form and contradictory in its appearance. I, for my part, earnestly hoped, when I saw the Amendment and read the letter which accompanied it, that we should find that it constituted in some way an advance in the Home Rule controversy, a new fact, and that it implied a certain degree of recognition, however grudging, however guarded, of the main Irish claim. It was, therefore, with great regret that I, and I think others on this side of the House, heard the right hon. Gentleman assert, not in actual words, but by his argument, that it was simply a hostile Amendment to the Bill designed to ruin it.
    Sir E. CARSON: I never said any such thing. I stated clearly and distinctly that whatever took place upon the previous Amendment which was moved by an hon. Member below the Gangway, the sole reason why we had put this Amendment down was that we felt it our duty to warn the Government of the real circumstances in relation to Ulster.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am bound to say that I had hoped most earnestly that the right hon. Gentlemen's Amendment would have constituted a new fact in this long-drawn controversy. It is a disappointment, that I think everyone feels, that it has only raised over and over again issues which have already been settled on the First and Second Readings of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way, and the Noble Lord below the Gangway accompanied him, to make that clear. He told us in his letter, as well as in his speech, that even if we accepted the Amendment it would make no difference to his hostility. The Noble Lord below the Gangway, who also spoke earlier in the afternoon, told us that a verdict at the polls would make no difference to Ulster. He said it would make some difference to certain Unionists, amongst others, as we now know, the Leader of the Opposition. He has pointed out that if a breach of the peace really arose in Ulster, the feeling

    475
    would be so strong that, although there had been a verdict at the polls in this country in favour of Home Rule, probably a large number of Unionists would support their friends in Ulster. It conies to this, that we have not moved in any way—that is what I am anxious to show—from the old defined position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, and explained by him in detail on 11th October in Ireland.
    Sir E. CARSON: Hear, hear.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is so! I understand that the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to this:—
    "Let there be no mistake. Ulster will not accept Home Rule on any conditions whatsoever. You must not misunderstand the Ulster mind. Ulster asks for no separate Parliament, and never in all the long controversy has taken that course. If Ulster succeeded Home Rule was dead. Home Rule was impossible for Ireland if Belfast and the surrounding parts are against the scheme."
    That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman took up then. Has he withdrawn from it?
    Sir E. CARSON: No.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not a bit. Let me point out, if I may incidentally, that that is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who reproached me with being unwilling to accord a Home Rule Parliament to Ulster. If I am unwilling, if I were unwilling to do that, I have a supporter—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not Home Rule, not a Parliament, but to allow Ulster the right to settle how she is to be governed.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman twitted me with inconsistency when I put forward the views I did on extended local government and the setting up of subsidiary Parliaments. He said, if you hold those views, why do not you apply them to Ulster. That was his argument. There is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who will answer him. He has distinctly and clearly said that he asks no such separate treatment for Ulster; that Ulster does not desire it. We are then at the position that the minority in Ireland claim the right for all time and in all circumstances to bar the path of progress for the whole of the rest of Ireland, and to bar it not merely by constitutional means but, if necessary, by the use of armed force. I cannot believe that that is an attitude which will awaken either
    476
    sympathy or support amongst the mass of English electors. We repudiate threats. We do not deal in threats.
    Sir E. CARSON: You are going to coerce them.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating his own speeches—not ours. We never used the language of violence or of hostility. We are confronted with the same veto that we have had during all these discussions, and which has been held up to us when all other argument has failed. But it is no reason for denying for all time the satisfaction that the rest of Ireland claims. We heard from the Noble Lord strange theories as to what constitutes a nation. A nation, he said, is a belligerent unity. Nothing else is a nation. Why, that would deny to Hungary, Prussia, and Scotland the status of a nation which he would accord to the smallest Republic or Principality that exists in the world. He would deny them all that and apparently, if they are not to be denied all that, all they have to do is to become a belligerent unit. If Derry should make war upon the British Empire it would, ipso facto, according to the Noble Lord, become a belligerent unit and a nation. The Noble Lord denies absolutely that Ireland is a nation, but he offers to hon. Members below the Gangway an easy method of acquiring the status of a nation. They have only got to become a belligerent unit and solvitur pugnando the difficulty will disappear. Let me read what another leader of the Conservative party said upon that very question.
    HON MEMBERS: Lord Randolph Churchill?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Disraeli. I presume I may quote him without giving any offence—
    "I am not at all prepared—"
    said Mr. Disraeli, speaking on the Irish Church Bill—
    "to admit that there are two nations in Ireland. I look upon the Irish nation as one people for the last forty years they have been a homogeneous people. If we come to an analysis of the elements of a nation in the way which has been attempted in this Debate, I am not sure that we shall be able to prove that the English people are so homogeneous as political philosophy now requires people to be. I treat the Irish nation as one."
    But although we believe that this Amendment implies no alteration in the views which hon. Members opposite hold and consequently does not diminish their uncompromising hostility towards this Bill, we are bound to take note of a

    477
    certain admission which the Amendment inevitably and irresistibly makes. We are told that the adoption of this Amendment, though it would not remove their hostility to the Bill, would obviate the danger of civil war. Now that is the first time that we have had any differentiation on the part of Irish Unionists as to the degrees of opposition with which they would meet the Home Rule problem. As far as I can understand the position, and I am trying not to mistake it, they would propose to meet Home Rule which affects Ulster with unconstitutional opposition, but they would look after the Unionists of the rest of Ireland by a process simply of constitutional opposition. That is very interesting.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: It arises from the very nature of the case.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should have thought that if it were true that the Unionists and Protestants in Ireland were going to be so maltreated under Home Rule as hon. Gentlemen profess to believe, those upon whom it would fall the heaviest would not be the strong, the mighty and the aggressive in Ulster, but the isolated elements over the rest of Ireland. I should have thought, if it were justifiable to take up arms in a free State and levy war and fight at all, it would obviously not be in the self-centred cause of defending the interests of the strong in Ulster, but in the disinterested cause of protecting the weak and the scattered in the rest of Ireland. The truth is that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe that the Unionists in Ireland are going to be ill-treated under Home Rule even if they leave them to shift for themselves.
    Captain CRAIG: We have hostages in Ulster.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I strongly urge the House to consider whether there is any real justification for this language of violence at the present time? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, there is."]. May I just put it to the hon. Member that the Bill has got to be passed through Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?" and "Never !"]—unless there is a settlement by agreement, which I am told is unthinkable, before anything can happen? It has to be passed three times; it has then to be brought into operation, and after that the Irish Parliament has to meet in Dublin and pass a law to oppress and ill-treat the women and children. All that has to happen
    478
    before any real oppression or injury could in any circumstances come. Long before that happens there will be a General Election; long before any injury, however improper, can be inflicted upon the people of Ulster, even if you are right, there must be an appeal to the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition: never loses an opportunity of telling us that he will sweep us away. He is confident that the nation will dismiss us from power and instal him. May I say that at least it is necessary to have a really united party. If that be true, what conceivable risk do the people of Ulster run of any actual injury being done them? What risk, I ask, do they run which your can say is even insanely in proportion be the threats of violence and disorder which they fling at us? They run no risk whatever, and they have a perfectly clear constitutional remedy. You may say that Home Rule once passed is irrevocable. I agree. No men have gone about to break up Parliaments but that Parliaments have broken them, but the exclusion of Ulster is a measure which any Conservative-Prime Minister possessed of a majority of the House of Commons, possessed of Executive power, could carry out with the-greatest ease and facility. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why cannot you do it?"] There is; not the slightest justification in the situation as it is, and as it will be in the next two-years, for any of this language of rebellion, violence, and threats of lawlessness, which are the stock-in-trade of the party opposite. We shall not be found wanting if an opportunity occurs to grasp the prize-of a settlement by assent and agreement. We recognise that such a settlement would involve real sacrifices from both-parties.
    Captain CRAIG: You want us all to-become cattle-drivers.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We can find no such opportunity in an Amendment which is in itself unworkable and impracticable, and which is accompanied by assertions of inveterate and implacable hostility towards the Irish policy which we have carried so long through so many struggles to the threshold of success.
    It being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and 30th December, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already-proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 294.

    Division No. 476.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Altken, Sir William Max

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K,

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

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Parker, sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, J. L

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barnston, Harry

    Guinness, Hon. WE. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Quilter, sir William Eley C.

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    ambro, Angus Vademar

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bird, A.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Blair, Reginald

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyton, James

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Butcher, John George

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cave, George

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Law, Rt. Hon. Bonar (Bootle)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chambers, J.

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    M'Mordie, Robert

    Winterton, Earl

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mills, Hon Charles Thomas

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Moore, William

    Younger, Sir George

    Fi er, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Eyres-Monsell and Major Henderson.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Beauchamp Sir Edward

    Adamson, William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Barnes, G. N.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Barton, William

    Boland, John Plus

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Grady, James

    Bowerman, Charles W.

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

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo. North)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Brace, William

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Malley, William

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Hodge, John

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hogge, James Myles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Clough, William

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Collins, Stenhen (Lambeth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, William S. (Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Joyce, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Crean, Eugene

    Keating, Matthew

    Richards, Thomas

    Crooks, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cullman, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    King, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Eilis William (Eifion)

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dawes, J. A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Delany, William

    Leach, Charles

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Dillon, John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Don lan, Captain A.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rowlands, James

    Doris, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Falconer, James

    M'Kean, John

    Shortt, Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton

    Field, William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Martin, Joseph

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Furness, Stephen

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Ginnell, L.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Goddard Sir Daniel Ford

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Thomas, James Henry

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morrell, Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morison, Hector

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Trevlevan, Charles Philips

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

    Muldoon, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Guiney, Patrick

    Munro, Robert

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wadsworth, John

    Hackett, J.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Neilson, Francis

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wardle, G. J.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Waring, Walter

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Webb, H.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Dowd, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    482

    483

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

    Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Whyte, A. F.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Ilingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Thursday).
    The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I desire, in the first instance, to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) for removing the Blocking Motion. which enables me to say a few words with regard to the present position under the Insurance Act. I desire further to express on my own behalf and on behalf of the whole House our great regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to be present this evening through indisposition. We were very desirous indeed of securing a statement from him on a very important point, but I understand that the Secretary to the Treasury is authorised to speak on his behalf, and to give a definite reply to a question which at the close of my observations I shall put to him. What I am desirous of knowing is the exact meaning which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attaches to Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Insurance Act, and what action he proposes to take with regard to it. In order that the House may see exactly what that Section is, I will read part of it:—
  "The Regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall authorise the insurance committee by which medical benefit is administered to require any persons whose income exceeds a limit to be fixed by the Committee,"
  This is the important part:—
  "and to allow any other persons, in lieu of receiving medical benefit under such arrangements as aforesaid, to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment (including medicines and appliances)."
  484
  This matter is one of very great importance to the millions of persons who, I understand, are now insured, and to the thousands of doctors, affecting as it does their position in relation to the Insurance Act. I must remind the House that on the Thursday before we separated, on 19th December, I put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I asked:—
  "Whether in the event of the doctors refusing to- Accept service under the National Insurance Act on the terms recently offered to them the Government intend as the only alternative open to them to propose a great extension of the system by which the societies employ their own doctors on a whole-time service."
  The answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me in writing, because my question was not reached, and I was therefore unable to put any supplemental I question, was:—
  "As practitioners who desire to have their names placed on the first panel lists may make application up to 31st December it will be premature to make any statement of the sort suggested."
  I think the House will realise that that was no answer whatever to the question I put, and to the question on which the insured people and the doctors required information. That was so much the case that on the following day, the very last day before the short recess which we enjoyed, I sent in another question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I received a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury begging me to postpone the question. The difficulty was that the answer to that question was urgently needed before the great meeting of the representative doctors which was to take place on the next day. What was the answer which the Financial Secretary gave in the letter? Speaking for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said:—
  He is sorry but it would lie impossible for him to make any further statement on this subject during the winter."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer happened to be present at the meeting on Friday and I put to him the question to which I have referred, and the answer which the Chancellor then gave me was—
  "I understand that several Members wish to raise this question and discuss it in the afternoon. It is obviously impossible to give an answer to the question in the course of the minute or two at my disposal now."
  I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer was genuinely desirous of giving a full answer to the question, but he was pre-

  485
  vented from doing so by the Blocking Motion on the Paper. So far., therefore, we had no answer whatever to that important question. Now it so happened that only on Monday last my hon. Friend (Mr. Worthington-Evans) asked the following supplemental question dealing with the same matter:—
  "May I ask whether any objection will he made by the Insurance Commissioners to allowing Insurance committees to permit private practitioners in counties to continue for individual patients under Section 15, Sub-section (3). of the Act?"
  and the answer was—
  "I think that would depend entirely upon circumstances."
  So far, therefore, it will be seen that no attempt has yet been made to give any answer to the important question which I have put down. Indirectly all these questions have reference to a matter on which I have every reason to believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always felt very keenly, and that is that there should be a choice of doctors given to every patient. I might quote numerous passages from the many eloquent speeches delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer showing how desirous he was at that time that every insured person should have a free choice of doctors, and I need scarcely say that the whole success of this Bill depends upon the insured persons being able to choose their own medical attendants. I do not wish to trouble the House with numerous quotations which I might make from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches, but I cannot refrain from making this one. He said, after having spoken of medical benefit:—
  "Free choice of doctors also will, to some extent. increase the charge. I, personally, have always been in favour of that. After all, confidence in your doctor is essential. No man who can afford to do otherwise would have a doctor prescribed for him by any club or society. He wants his own doctor to doctor him, a doctor in whom he has confidence."
  According to the answer which the Financial Secretary will be able to give to the question I am about to put to him depends entirely the question whether insured persons will have any opportunity whatever of selecting their own doctors, or whether the doctors who have rushed into the panel as we have been told will be forced upon them. I might ask the Financial Secretary in his reply to state whether in the case of these doctors who have been admitted to the panel any inquiry has been made as to their qualifications, age, experience, or even their character. Owing to the extremely unsatisfactory character
  486
  of the replies to which I have referred I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday evening telling him that I proposed on the following day to put to him a question a copy of which I enclosed. I stated in my letter that I thought it only right and proper to give him full notice of the question in order that he might, if necessary, seek the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown with the view to the answer he was proposing to give. From his replies it will be seen that he considered it was very difficult indeed to give a reply in a few words, although I personally should have thought that in one or two minutes a definite answer might have been given. At any rate, I will now ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to give me a clear and definite reply to the question which I am going to address to him. The question is, whether under Section 15, Sub-section (3), of the National Insurance Act, a local insurance committee is not required to allow any insured person to have the option of making his own arrangements for receiving medical attendance, including medicines and appliances, from the medical practitioner of his own choice? Surely there can be no difficulty in dealing with that question in the course of a verbal reply. As I desire to give the opportunity of speaking to other persons who wish to take part in this discussion I hope the reply given to me by the Secretary to the Treasury will be as brief and concise as possible.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I propose to answer the question which was addressed by the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: It was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer originally, but the hon. Gentleman desired him to ascertain the views of the Law Officers. Consequently, I propose to answer the question put to the Secretary to the Treasury now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer being unfortunately indisposed this evening. The answer to the question is very simple. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act does not require the Insurance Committee to allow such arrangements to be made. What the Sub-section does is to require the Insurance Commissioners to

  487
  make regulations authorising the insurance committee to allow such arrangements. In other words, what the Insurance Commissioners have to do under these Regulations is to vest discretion in the insurance committee, and the insurance committee can then exercise that discretion subject to Regulations which will be made by the Insurance Commissioners. The insurance committee can then contribute out of the funds which are there for the purpose in order to provide the money necessary for medical benefit. That, I think, is a plain and direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. His query, as I followed it, was whether they were not required. My answer is, no. The Insurance Commissioners are required to issue regulations to vest this discretion in the committee, but the committee are certainly not required to allow these arrangements to be made, but simply exercise their discretion in the matter.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I confess I have nothing to complain of in the Attorney-General's interpretation of the Act. He said the Insurance Commissioners were required to make regulations. They have in fact made them, and under them the County Committee have got it in their discretion to give effect to Section 15, Sub-section (3) of the Act. I will only note in passing that the question of my hon. Friend was not merely on the construction of the Act; it was also directed to the administration of the Act by the Government. While the Attorney-General has, in my humble opinion, correctly described the actual legal position under the Act, I shall submit to the House that for purposes which are fairly obvious the name of the Insurance Commissioners has been taken to issue Press notices which are quite contrary not only to the Act itself but to the statement the Attorney-General has made to-night. I am, of course, extremely sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is indisposed, but I notice his assistant, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is looking in the most robust health, and I could have wished he also had answered this question, because it is not merely a legal question, indeed, it is not primarily a legal question; on the other hand, it is a question of administration.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am quite prepared to give a reply if I have time.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will do my best to give the right hon. Gentleman time. It is, in my view, quite desirable the public should understand the matter, because it is not, in my opinion, a doctor's question at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad there is assent to that observation. It is not, in my view, a doctor's question at all; it is, in fact, this one simple point: Are the insured people to have the free choice of doctor which has been promised them for their money or are they to have that choice limited by the action of the Government?
  Mr. BOOTH: Limited by the doctors.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then I start with the assumption that the Government admits that under the Act the Insurance Commissioners are bound to make regulations which do give the insurance committees the right to allow the private individual, the insured person, to choose his own doctor, whether that doctor is on the panel or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not think that the Attorney-General is going to dissent from that. He will admit, I fancy, that Subsection (3) applies to doctors whether they are on the panel or not. That is important. I do not want to speak to the House under a misapprehension. Is that admitted or not—whether doctors are on the panel or not the insurance committees may, if they choose, in their discretion permit of private arrangements?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have already stated, subject to regulations which the Insurance Commissioners make.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have got to this stage that private arrangements may be made either with doctors on the panel or doctors not on the panel, subject only to the Insurance Commissioners regulations. [HON-. MEMBERS: "No."] These arrangements may not be made compulsorily, but it is in the discretion of the insurance committees to allow this arrangement, subject to the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners. That simplifies the question very much indeed; for the Insurance Commissioners have made a provision which is contained in regulation 14, the words of which are these:—
  "The committee may allow any insured person in lieu of receiving medical benefits under the arrangements made by the committee, to make his own arrangements for receiving treatment, including medicine and appliances."

  489
  And in the next regulation it is provided that in such a case a cash payment would be made on account of that form of treatment equivalent to what would have been made had the man been treated by a panel doctor. If there had been the slightest dispute about that I could have referred to the memorandum 136 C and E—which I believe means "Customs" and "Excise," to which is added an explanatory memorandum which clearly sets out, for the purpose of insured persons, that the insured persons may receive medical benefit in one of several ways; first, on the panel system; second, through approved institutions; and, third, by private arrangement. I will read the paragraph relating to private arrangements—
  "The third method by which insured persons may obtain medical benefit is under their own private arrangements. Any insured person can make application to the insurance committee on the appropriate form to be obtained from the committee; to be allowed to make his own arrangements for receiving treatment, and, if allowed will receive a contribution from the committee towards the cost of that treatment."
  It seems to be quite clear, then, that whether the doctor is on the panel or not, a private arrangement can be made with him, or with the insurance committee—that is, the local county committee. That seems to me to be a matter of extreme importance. There is a large number of doctors who are willing and desirous of treating their old friends and patients. They may be elderly men, who are not prepared to run the risk of going on the panel, because if they go on the panel they may have apportioned to them the residue of patients. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I would like to refer hon. Members who say, "No," to the Act. Let them read the Act. It is so under the Act. I have not had time to refer to it in detail, but I assert with confidence that under the Act this will happen, that the residue of patients in any county or insurance district who are not allotted to a doctor, who have not chosen a doctor, or who have not, also, been chosen by a doctor, will be apportioned either amongst the doctors on the panel or will otherwise be provided for by whole-time service or in some other way by the Insurance Committee. In one of those ways those patients have got to be dealt with, and the doctor who is willing to treat his own patients is not willing to run the risk—and it is a risk; no one can deny it—of having patients apportioned to him who have been rejected by the whole of the doctors on the panel. That is only one case. There is
  490
  another case, that of the domestic servants, who in the past have been accustomed to receive treatment from the family doctor. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO, no."] They have had exactly the same treatment, but, if hon. Members like, let them say that is only so in one case in ten that they will be deprived of that class of treatment in future, but that is the risk, because the family doctor may be quite likely not to go on the panel; and unless the doctors not on the panel are also able to be chosen by the insured person, then those domestic servants, however few or however numerous, cannot get the same treatment that they have got in the past. That is a matter of some importance. Hon. Members have some doubt about that. If they were really questioning it I would refer them to the report which appears in the "Times" to-day of exactly the same fear as I am now voicing that was expressed by some doctors who were present at a meeting of doctors yesterday who had agreed to serve on the London panel. It will be found in that report that sortie doctors immediately said that they would withdraw from the panel if they were to run the risk of having persons not chosen by themselves apportioned to them. The real point I want to get at in the short time at my disposal is, firstly, as to the action which has been taken by the Commissioners—or in their name, for at present I am not? satisfied that they themselves have taken it. I believe the Attorney-General has stated the effect of the Regulation correctly, and, if that is the case, how can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury justify the statement which has been issued to the Press, on the 26th December, which states this—and this is from the "Times' "report of the Insurance Commissioners' Circular?—
  "The point is that in places where a panel of doctors is formed, in accordance with the Act and regulations, it is open to the Insurance Committee of that area, if it chooses, to permit individuals to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment. including medicines and appliances."
  The Insurance Commissioners have issued to the Press a statement which is absolutely misleading. It is not in places where a panel has been formed, it is in all places, whether a panel has been formed or has not been formed; and the deliberate intention of that statement is to stampede the doctors to make them go on panels from fear of losing their practice, or fear of having to desert their old patients, whom they are perfectly willing to consider and whom they wish to

  491
  serve in the future. They have been told by the Insurance Commissioners, quite contrary to the view of the Attorney-General, that if the private patient is to be allowed to continue any private arrangement with his doctor, that the doctor has got to be on the panel. I say that is false, and it has been stated in the Press for the very purpose—
  Mr. MASTER MAN: If you will give me a moment I will reply.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not the slightest doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be to the point when he replied, but he has already had his opportunity, and he will have a further opportunity to-morrow night if he can persuade his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield to withdraw his Blocking Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your fairness?"] The next Press notice issued by the Insurance Commissioners on 30th December contained an equally in-
  492
  accurate statement—that individual arrangements can only be made where they are allowed by the Insurance Committee, subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners? That statement is absolutely incorrect. There is no question of the approval of the Insurance Commissioners. As the Attorney-General correctly said, the only thing the Insurance Commissioners have to do is to make regulations.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said that the statement is not incorrect as the hon. Member says, because the Insurance Commissioners must make regulations which provide for the contributions.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Attorney-General is quite right.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Elementary Schools.
  Elementary Schools.
  Copyright in Music (Canada).
  Copyright in Music (Canada).
  East African Protectorate (Rupees).
  East African Protectorate (Rupees).
  Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company.
  Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company.