Sitting of 2 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 22nd October, 1912, in terms of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain classes of shops in the Burgh of Galashiels [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
Copy presented of the Postal Order (Foreign and Colonial Amendment (No. 7) Regulations, dated 30th November, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Sedition in Egypt.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to give the House further information as to the existence, nature, or extent of the sedition in Egypt which has recently made it necessary to suspend an important newspaper and to condemn a young Nationalist to ten years' imprisonment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have never suggested that extensive sedition exists in Egypt at the present time, and it is for the purpose of preventing sedition, rather than suppressing it, that it has been found necessary to take the action to which my hon. Friend refers. The conviction of Ahmed Mukhtar was due to his being discovered to be in possession of sixty copies of a seditious manifesto, containing a violent appeal to the memory of Wardani, the assassin of Boutros Pasha, and recommendations that secret terrorist societies should be formed to act against the authorities of the Egyptian Government. In these circumstances I see no reason for any intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government, especially as the case comes
  494
  just after a conspiracy against the lives of the Khedive, the Prime Minister, and Lord Kitchener.
  Sir W. BYLES: What I desire to know is whether these things are to go on without the House knowing anything about them, and whether it is the view of the Government that everything should be left to the man on the spot and to his dictatorship?
  Sir E. GREY: It is impossible to have these cases brought before the House before they are dealt with.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IRISH CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many Irish Civil servants were represented by the Civil Servants' Committee with whom he negotiated in respect of certain provisions in the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Civil Service Committee in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill consists of sixty-eight members representative of twenty-nine Departments. The total number of Civil servants represented by the Committee is 5,649.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Was the Committee elected by these Civil servants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I believe not; but I have not received any expression of dissatisfaction from any quarter. If the hon. Member has any, perhaps he might let me know about them.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether those members of the Customs and Excise Department in Ireland who are engaged in old age pension work are to be considered as Irish Civil servants within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if not, whether he can give some assurance that senior members of that Department stationed in Ireland will not be compulsorily removed to Great Britain in consequence of the transfer of the administration of old age pensions to the Irish Government, but will be offered the option of retiring on fair compensation terms if no employment be found for them in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member's question relates to certain officers of Customs and Excise who do not become officers of the Irish Government either on the passing of the Bill or at any subsequent date.

    495
    Such officers continue in the service of the United Kingdom Government, and I cannot see why this Bill should be made an occasion for improving their conditions of employment.

    LORD HIGH TREASURER OF IRELAND.
    Captain MURRAYasked the name of the gentleman who holds the appointment of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland, the nature of the duties and the amount of the emoluments attaching to his office, and the provisions made for him under the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The office of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland has ceased to exist, having been merged by Section 2 of the Act 56, George III., in the office of Lord High Treasurer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which office is now in commission under that Act. No provision under the Bill would, therefore, appear to be necessary.
    Captain MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the United Kingdom Commissioners?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir. They are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the four Junior Lords of the Treasury—Mr. Gulland, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Webb.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are all these Gentlemen responsible, after their degree, for the expenditure of the money of the Exchequer?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GILHOOLYasked whether Mrs. Anne Trinder, a tenant on the estate of Messrs. Henry B. Leech and G. A. Leech, situate in Aughadown, county Cork, signed a purchase agreement on 24th March, 1906; whether her holding has since been vested in Mrs. Trinder; and, if not, can he state the cause of delay in doing so?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. An agreement, dated 24th March, 1906, signed by Mrs. Trinder was lodged with the Estates Commissioners on the 11th May, 1906. The estate is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash) and has not yet been reached in order of
    496
    priority, but the Commissioners anticipate-that it will be reached at an early date.
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction and unrest existing amongst the tenantry on the Clanricarde estate, county Galway, especially the evicted tenants who were turned out of their homes more than twenty-five years ago, because of the fact that the Congested Districts Board will not put into operation the Act of Parliament applicable to-their cases which has been on the Statute-Book for over three years, nor give an-approximate date in the future when they might get the benefit of this legislation; and whether he will make provision for the appointment to the Board of a Gahvay man, who will take an interest in those tenants and the county generally, which-is the second largest in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware of the dissatisfaction existing amongst the evicted tenants on the Clanricarde estate. As regards the purchase of the estate by the Congested Districts Board, it is not the fact that the Board have been unwilling to put into operation their compulsory powers under the Act of 1909. Final offers for the several estates of the Marquess of Clanricarde were issued on 29th January, 1912, and on the non-acceptance of these offers a requisition was issued to the Estates Commissioners, calling upon them to take steps to acquire the several estates in question. Proceedings have been suspended by an application on the part of the Marquess of Clanricarde for an injunction to restrain proceedings against him for the compulsory acquisition of his estates. The Board are in the position of suitors, who must wait their turn, and no useful conjecture can be made as to when the tenants on this estate are likely to obtain the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts. As regards the final paragraph of the question, there is no reason to suppose that the interests of county Galway are neglected by the Board as at present constituted.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRTENasked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce that a Bill will be introduced next Session to give effect to the pledge to complete land purchase in Ireland at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Government are fully alive to the urgency of this matter, and it is their hope to introduce the necessary legislation next Session.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Do I understand it is absolutely essential a new Land Bill should be framed in order to carry on land purchase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; not a new Land Bill. The financial provisions will require legislation, but I hope it will be a very short measure.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Do I understand that the Government have found by experience that the operation of the Land Act of 1909 has been an absolute failure?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; nothing of the kind.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister try to bring about some agreement between landlords and tenants, and between both parties in this House, so as to make a settlement of this question possible.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is obviously a question which should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Ardfert old age pension committee has resigned owing to the dissatisfaction which they feel at the assessment of the income of applicants for pensions made by the pension officer and ratified by the Local Government Board for Ireland; will he explain what steps the Local Government Board take to find whether the figures as to means supplied by the pension officer are correct; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction prevailing and the effect upon qualified applicants of the estimates of incompetent officers, he will take steps to have a sworn inquiry into all the facts which caused the resignation of this committee?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the Ardfert pension sub-committee have resigned as stated. The Local Government Board form their own opinion on each case on its merits having regard to the report of the pension officer, and the representations made by or on behalf of the claimant. There does not appear to be, any necessity for a sworn inquiry in this case.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask what evidence the Local Government Board had before them when they came to their decision?
    Mr. BIRRELL: They can get the evidence. If the hon. Member likes I will
    498
    supply him with particulars of the cases-on which I believe the Ardfert sub-committee thought fit to retire.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will take any further steps to have the pension of 5s. weekly restored to Edward Prunty, of Aghaward, Ballinalee, county Longford,, seeing that this man is in poverty and much worse off by the withdrawal of the-pension than if he never got it; whether he is aware that he denies the correctness of the valuation of means made by the pension officer; and will he now direct that the Local Government Board inspector visits and specially reports on this case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As the pension has been disallowed, the Local Government Board have no power to reopen the case. It would appear that Prunty is making another claim, and if the case again comes before the Board on appeal they will be in a position to consider the advisability of sending one of their inspectors to investigate the matter locally.
    Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman send an inspector to report on this case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think the inspector's report may be relied upon.

    Labourers Acts (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether a scheme of the Mullingar Rural District Council under the Labourers Acts, which would have been in operation before now if the Acts had been administered as previously, stands suspended by the circular issued by the Irish Local Government Board in November, 1911, introducing a new consideration not contained in the Acts, with the result that labourers still occupy dwelling condemned by the sanitary authorities two years ago, while the additional million of public money provided in 1911 at low interest is being spent where there is no need of this pressing character; and whether he will have the policy of that circular discontinued, and that of the Acts resumed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, this scheme must await its turn having regard to the invariable principle of dealing first with those cases where the needs of the labouring classes in the matter of housing accommodation are greatest. The Local Government Board are not aware of any

    499
    foundation for the statement as regards the allocation of the additional million pounds provided by the Act of 1911. In the Mullingar Rural District seventeen schemes have already been sanctioned since 1883 for the erection of 854 cottages. If the entire five and a quarter millions provided by the Acts of 1906 and 1911 were allocated amongst the several rural districts in Ireland in proportion to their respective valuations, the amount which this particular district would have been entitled to would be less than it has actually received. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the policy of the Local Government Board is in any way antagonistic to the provisions of the Labourers Acts. The holding of these inquiries has always been a matter for the discretion of the Board.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that this money should be distributed proportionately and not according to necessity, as laid down in the Acts and as hitherto followed? And does he deny that it has hitherto been the practice under the Acts to allocate money in proportion to the actual needs as decided by the local sanitary authorities?
    Mr. BIRRELL: These are controversial questions. The general object of the extra million was that it should assist those parts of Ireland as far as possible where the Acts have not been put into operation, and there we have in a way done our best to secure that those hitherto not provided with cottages should proceed with their schemes.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that places where the Acts had not previously worked were places where the Acts were not required?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. Quite the contrary.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that persons for whom these schemes were intended are at present occupying houses condemned by the sanitary authorities two years ago?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, that might very well be so in other places besides this. We take into consideration the sanitary conditions of the cottages, and try to press forward schemes in those places, but the general view is that this extra million was intended to benefit different parts of Ire-
    500
    land where for different reasons the local authority has not performed its duty and availed themselves of these Acts.

    Rioting in Ireland.
    Mr. HORNERasked (1) why over two weeks were allowed to elapse between the alleged riot at Moy, county Tyrone, on 28th September last, and the arrest of the eleven young men who were tried for taking part in the riot and acquitted at the recent Londonderry Assizes; why ten of them were arrested in the early hours of the morning, and all hastily charged before a resident magistrate brought from another county, no local justices being asked to adjudicate; whether an adjournment of the cases was refused by the resident magistrate when the prisoners applied for same to enable them to bring evidence for their defence; whether the prosecution was ordered by the Dublin Castle authorities against the advice of the local constabulary; whether the whole of the prisoners were Unionist and Protestant; why no endeavour was made to arrest any of the crowd of Nationalists who, according to the police evidence, started the disturbance; and (2) whether he will recommend the payment of the expenses of the eleven men who were tried and acquitted at the recent Londonderry Assizes on a charge of riot at Moy, county Tyrone, on 28th September last, having regard to the fact that the resident magistrate, who was brought specially to Moy from another county to alone make the preliminary investigation on the morning of their arrest, refused to adjourn the hearing to enable them to bring the witnesses for their defence, a matter which was severely commented upon by the judge at the Assizes and which put them and their friends to heavy costs, inconvenience, and loss of time in having to attend the Assize Court?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police, before making any arrests, required some time to investigate these cases and to collect evidence. One of the police was so badly injured that he was unable to make any statement of his evidence for several days. The accused were arrested early in the morning in order to obviate the necessity of keeping them all night in custody, and to secure their arrest before they left their homes. The resident magistrate who dealt with the cases was not specially brought to Moy for the purpose. He was acting as locum tenens for the resident magistrate of the district, who was ill. I

    501
    am informed that no application for an adjournment to produce witnesses was made. The prosecution was not ordered against the advice of the police. All the accused were Unionists and Protestants. I am informed by the police that there was no retaliation on the part of the Nationalists who were attacked. I do not see any ground for recommending the repayment of the expenses incurred by the prisoners.
    Mr. HORNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given before the resident magistrate, because it is entirely contradictory of the official reply he has just given to the House; and having regard to this fact will he reconsider the question of expenses of those eleven men who were kept in attendance for five days awaiting the trial and had to pay their fares back and bear all the expenses and had to pay the expenses of several witnesses which were not paid by the Crown?
    Mr. BIRRELL: These questions with regard to expenses constantly arise in all parts of Ireland, and if I agreed to do what the hon. Member asks it would be very difficult for me to resist paying them on other occasions which I am not prepared to do. With regard to the evidence I have seen the only conflict of opinion between the newspapers and the statement made by Mr. Haldane Carson is with regard to the application to the magistrate for an adjournment, and I have from him the most positive statement that what was applied for was only an adjournment for half-an-hour to enable him to see his clients and it was at once acceded to. There was no request whatever made for an adjournment.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it correctly stated in the question that the Nationalists started the disturbance and will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question as to why no Nationalists were arrested?
    Mr. BIRRELL: All I can say is that the police inform me there was no retaliation on the part of the Nationalists at all, and they were in no way responsible.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that you can start a row without retaliating?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have no doubt that is so.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: Retaliation generally comes after something has preceded it.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. Justice Wright, in charging the jury at Londonderry on the 20th ultimo in the case of three and twenty men who were subsequently convicted of riot for the part they took on the occasion of the fracas at Castledawson, and were sentenced each to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, said that he was glad to know that the women and children were not struck by pikes; that he did not know whether newspapers headed their reports of this affair as an attack on women and children; and that it had been absolutely proved in this Court that no injuries were inflicted on any women or children; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding this exculpation by the learned judge of the prisoners, whom he called decent, respectable-looking men, of treating women and children with violence and inflicting serious injuries on them, these charges have been since the trial repeated and emphasised in certain quarters; and whether, having regard to the tendency of these statements to create resentment and prejudice against the prisoners and to injure them in their future careers, the Irish Executive will take any, and, if so, what steps to secure the refutation of these statements and the punishment of their inventors?
    Sir J. D. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order to recite selected extracts from a judge's statement and found a question upon them, because questions less definite and containing less recital have in many cases been declined?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Quotations are not permitted in questions, and I understand that what is contained in the question is a summary.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Yes, it is, and it is put on my own responsibility.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have referred to the Report of Mr. Justice Wright's charge, and any words I may employ are his own language and not mine. Mr. Justice Wright, in his charge to the jury, said that he was glad to know that women and children had not been struck by pikes, and at any rate what had been absolutely proved in that Court was that no injuries had been inflicted on any woman or child, and he was glad to hear that proved. It detracted very much from the seriousness of the charge, and he was glad to think that nothing so

    503
    dastardly or unmanly had taken place. The idea that decent, respectable-looking men like the prisoners would attack a woman or a child was a horrible idea. The learned judge added, "I am glad that the lie has been given to that." After the publication of the facts disclosed at the trial repetition of the allegation is most discreditable.
    Mr. MOORE: Now that the whitewashing is over, may I ask the Chief Secretary if there is any intention on the part of the Irish Government of letting these ruffians out of gaol?
    Mr. BIRRELL: These matters are decided by the opinion of the judge and not by anything else.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the judge be consulted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
    Mr. MOORE: Or will Lord Aberdeen act behind his back?
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is the hon. Member entitled to attack the Lord Lieutenant in that way?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: Was there any attack at all?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order to attack the right of clemency exercised by the Lord Lieutenant.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is the practice of Lord Aberdeen never in any case to do anything of that sort without referring to the judge.
    Mr. MOORE: Will that be followed in this case?

    National School Teachers, Ireland (Committee of Inquiry).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked if, in considering the terms of reference to the Committee of Inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman has taken in account the fact that teachers affected by the grievance known as paper promotion are not only denied the increase of salary pending vacancies but the satisfactory service given during the period of waiting for a vacancy in the standard numbers does not count in awarding the next increment, and this has the same effect upon their future financial prospects as if an inspector were unjustly to lower their reports; and if, in these circumstances, he will give these
    504
    teachers an opportunity of proving their case before the Committee of Inquiry.
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated in reply to a previous question asked by the hon. Baronet on the same subject, paper promotion is a Treasury question, and cannot, therefore, be directly included in the terms of reference to the Committee.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Irish cattle trade and especially with regard to the provinces of Munster and Connaught?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): This is a question which primarily concerns the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and will be answered by my right hon. Friend the President.
    Mr. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can lay upon the Table the reports of the inspectors of the Department and any communications which have passed between his Department and the Board of Agriculture in England with reference to the cases of suspected foot-and-mouth disease in county Armagh; the heads exported from Derry to Glasgow which were alleged to show lesions caused by foot-and-mouth disease; and the cases of alleged foot-and-mouth disease in store cattle from county Meath which were brought to the port of Dublin for shipment?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The investigations of the inspectors of the Department into all the matters referred to are complete. But I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone his question inasmuch as an inspector of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is now in Ireland pursuing inquiries. When his report has been received I shall confer with my right hon. Friend as to whether it will be possible to lay the Papers on the Table.
    Mr. DILLON: When the right hon. Gentleman is conferring with the President of the Board of Agriculture, will he bring his attention to the fact that there is a very large body of opinion in Ireland that there was no foot-and-mouth disease in any of these cases, and that there is a great demand in Ireland for the documents-which would enable one to form a judgment?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am quite aware there is great feeling on this matter in the North of Ireland, and indeed throughout the whole of Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that when I confer with my right hon. Friend the whole subject will be gone into thoroughly.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the report of the inspectors who are there making investigations does not warrant him in informing the House that not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease has been proved to have been found in the county of Armagh, and whether, having regard to that undoubted fact, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the restrictions under which Armagh has been placed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question hardly arises out of the answer.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of it.
    Mr. GILHOOLY: May I ask whether this embargo on the cattle trade of Ireland has not been imposed since last June, and also how many questions regarding it have been asked by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and others until the last few weeks?
    Mr. GINNELLasked what length of time is now held to be sufficient for maintenance of restrictions on the movement of animals after the latest case of foot-and-mouth disease in a district and the instructions on disinfection have been carried out; whether that time has elapsed in Westmeath; and when the restrictions still maintained there will be wholly removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The date of withdrawal of restrictions from any particular scheduled district depends on the circumstances of each case. Usually a couple of months are allowed to elapse after the date of the last outbreak. The last confirmed case in Mullingar district was on 7th November. The full restrictions originally imposed in consequence of the numerous outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease at or near Mullingar now apply only to a contracted scheduled district having a few miles radius from that town. Movement into and within the greater part of the county can freely take place, and movement out (except from the small scheduled district) is permissible on licence in the case of fat animals intended for slaughter in a slaughterhouse or bacon
    506
    factory or for direct shipment to Great Britain for slaughter in the approved landing places. It is hoped that if nothing unexpected occurs it may be possible further to relax the existing restrictions at an early date.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is aware that, in the opinion of the majority of Irish stock owners and exporters, the feeding and detention of cattle before shipment in Ireland is altogether unnecessary; and, if so, whether he proposes to give effect to this opinion?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I consider the detention for two hours for the purpose of resting, feeding, and inspecting the animals before going on board ship both necessary and wise.
    Mr. P. WHITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he consulted the opinion of exporters and owners of stock, or is he giving me his own opinion?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Before coming to a conclusion I met the Cattle Traders' Association and representatives of the large shipping and railway companies, and discussed the matter fully with them; and I came to the decision that two hours was a reasonable and a necessary period of detention.
    Mr. P. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the cattle exporters of Ireland told him that feeding at the port of shipment in Ireland was necessary?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The cattle exporters were divided in opinion. I could have got a perfectly unanimous finding if I had consented to one hour's detention, but unquestionably the cattle traders, as a whole, are against this regulation.
    Mr. P. WHITE: It is not a question of detention, but a question of feeding.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think that is sufficient reason for subjecting these animals to what in many instances is a species of torture.
    Mr. GUINEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware those cattle are always fed before being allowed to be exported?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am aware of nothing of the kind.
    Mr. H. BARRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if at this meeting he informed those present that it had been decided by the English Department to have a compulsory twelve hours' detention on this side?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It had not been so decided at the time.
    Captain MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the views of Scottish importers are very different from those of Irish exporters.
    Mr. GILHOOLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a resolution passed by the cattle traders of the South of Ireland to the effect that this detention would ruin the cattle trade, and that there was no necessity for feeding and watering the cattle on the other side?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have seen many such resolutions, but the regulation has been in force for some time without producing the slightest inconvenience to the cattle trade.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members had better put down any further questions.
    Mr. H. BARRIEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he intends summoning a special meeting of the Agricultural Council to consider the proposed permanent detention of Irish cattle at landing ports in England and Scotland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think any object would be served by a meeting of the Council of Agriculture which would justify the assembling of that body again so soon after the last meeting, which was held only within the past four weeks. For practical purposes the sort of people most useful to confer with on this point are the representatives of the cattle trade. The Department have had their views already, and their views on the whole will probably amount simply to opposition to the idea of a twelve hours' detention period, just as they were largely opposed to a two hours' detention period on this side.
    Mr. BARRIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the farmers of Ireland, of which the Agricultural Council is the most representative body, should have a voice in this matter before a decision is come to?
    Mr. RUSSELL: If the hon. Member presses for a meeting of the Council of Agriculture, and cannot show me a formal requisition, but prove that any substantial number desire it, I shall not stand in the way.
    Mr. H. LAWasked when the restrictions upon the cattle trade will be removed so far as concerns the county of Donegal?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The restrictions referred to apply only to a small portion of county Donegal. It is hoped that if nothing unexpected occurs in the meantime it may be found possible to remove these restrictions-within the next fortnight. No definite date can yet be given.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any hope they will be removed on or before 12th January?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I presume the hon. Member is thinking of the fair to be held on that day.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I will carefully consider the circumstances and the state of that part of Donegal before I come to a decision.
    Mr. BARRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the entire order has now been removed from the county of Londonderry?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the number of animals exported from Ireland during the period from the 30th of June to the end of 1912, and the number stopped on the ground of their being affected with foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The number of animals (excluding equine animals) exported from Ireland during the period from 30th June to 30th December was 686,696. No animals were stopped prior to shipment on the ground of their being affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Five cases of alleged foot-and-mouth disease were found at Birkenhead on 4th and 5th December among animals shipped from Newry on 3rd December. These cases are now the subject of investigation.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is now in a position to make an announcement regarding the relaxation of restrictions

    509
    imposed in the case of store cattle exported from Minister and Connaught?
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the importation of Irish store cattle into Scotland and England?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I have considered carefully, in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the practicability of differentiating as regards the period of quarantine between cattle for store purposes brought from Munster and Connaught and those brought from other non-scheduled districts in Ireland, but we have arrived at the conclusion that no arrangements which could, under existing circumstances, be made on this side would be of any substantial advantage to the traders concerned. With every desire to find a solution of the question on these lines, I have therefore been reluctantly obliged to adopt the view that such an arrangement is impracticable. I am, however, contemplating a general reduction of the period of quarantine from four days to twelve hours at an early date. A final decision cannot be come to until certain investigations respecting suspicious cases in cattle brought from counties Donegal and Fermanagh and county Armagh have been concluded. I hope that they will be completed within the next forty-eight hours, and if the question is repeated on Tuesday I shall then be able to give a definite reply. Any modification of the quarantine period will not, of course, affect districts in Ireland for the time being scheduled by Orders of the Department of my right hon. Friend.
    Captain MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with Aberdeen as to the regulations made for that port?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have had no formal communications with Aberdeen. I understand there is some accommodation available at Aberdeen.
    Mr. LYELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the suggestion made to him of buffer states?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am hoping that this will not be necessary, and seeing that a long period has elapsed since a case of foot-and-mouth disease has been con-
    510
    firmed in Ireland, that the change will apply to all Ireland.
    Mr. DILLONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, before sanctioning the proposal to detain Irish cattle for a period of twelve hours at English ports, he consulted men engaged in conducting the trade in Irish cattle; and, if not, whether he will now suspend the operation of this new regulation until he-has had a full opportunity of considering the views of those engaged in the Irish trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been kept informed of and have carefully considered the views held by men engaged in the carriage of animals into Great Britain by merchants who sell here, and by purchasers of both store and fat animals. Whatever objections have been urged' against inspection at the ports in Great Britain and the detention for this purpose and for watering, feeding, and resting are so greatly outweighed by the advantages which accrue that I am not prepared to-dispense with this necessary regulation of the trade.
    Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked whether he had consulted men engaged in the Irish trade—I mean men who deal in and are responsible for handling Irish cattle—and if not whether he will suspend the operation of the new regulations until he has a full opportunity of consulting them.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what the hon. Member means exactly by consultation, but I have had interviews with men who are engaged in the carriage of animals—Irish and English merchants who-deal in Irish cattle—and with the purchasers of both fat and store cattle in this country, and have carefully weighed the whole of their views.
    Mr. DILLON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that any body of Irish dealers and cattle traders approve of the twelve hours detention?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I believe no organised body of Irish breeders have approved of the twelve hours detention, but that does not induce me to alter the arrangements which I have made and for which there is a necessity.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's regulations is it

    511
    not a fact that the County Council of Meath has sent him and the Prime Minister a resolution in reference to these very regulations, suggesting that his sphere of duty ought to be changed, and has he made any reply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes, I have acknowledged the resolution.
    Mr. MOORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received resolutions of protest from the Nationalist Parliamentary party against these regulations?
    Mr. HAYDEN: Do the restrictions regarding foot-and-mouth disease extend as far as Athlone, and in view of the fact that for very many years there has been no case within many miles of that town could these restrictions be so contracted as to enable the great January fair of Athlone to be held as usual?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The fair at Athlone is on the 19th and 20th. I hope before that date if no new cases occur—there have been none for two months—to have removed the whole of the restrictions.
    Sir W. NUGENT: Is it not a fact that there has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease nor even a suspected case in South Westmeath, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only possible trade in cattle in that county is the store cattle trade, and, moreover, will he point out to the President of the Board of Agriculture in England that the town of Athlone—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which notice should be given.
    Mr. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what arrangements he proposes to make respecting the detention of Irish live stock, what is the period of time it is intended to detain the animals, and is this arrangement to be permanent, and, if so, what accommodation is to be provided so as to avoid overcrowding and delay to shipping?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Over and over again I have stated that the period of detention in Ireland is two hours. We have insisted on the railway and shipping companies providing adequate accommodation for the animals whilst they are under detention. In a great many cases the accommodation existed, and where it did not exist it had to be provided.
    Sir W. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the fact that Athlone is situated partly in Westmeath and partly in Roscommon it is utterly impossible to carry out restrictions?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am aware that part of Athlone is in Westmeath and part in Roscommon, and am well aware of the difficulty in drawing an Order to deal with it. I ask my hon. Friend to bear with us for two days longer. I have no doubt the restrictions will be removed long before the fair at Athlone.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state the result of investigations which have been made by the Department inspectors in the Mid-Division of Armagh, and can he give an assurance that the restrictions will be immediately withdrawn from that area?
    Mr. RUSSELL: This is a matter which has caused extraordinary interest in Ireland. The Department's investigations are complete, and the Board of Agriculture's inspector has been on the farm, and from what my right hon. Friend tells me I do not believe his report will be very different from that of the Department. Perhaps I may just say what has occurred in regard to this important case. The attention of the Department was called to Armagh by the seizure of five animals at Birkenhead landed by the ss. "Iveagh" from Newry. They were declared to be affected by foot-and-mouth disease. Upon inquiry the Department found that these anirnals came from Armagh. They were traced home to the farms from which they came, and on two or three of the farms—I think three, but I am quite certain of two—a state of affairs was found which, as I informed the hon. Gentleman one night, was a cause of very great anxiety. Inspectors were sent to these farms, and they found seven animals suffering from some mouth disease. The inspectors declined to confirm that it was foot-and-mouth disease; they rather inclined to a contrary opinion. I then asked Professor Mettam, Principal of the Veterinary College in Dublin, and President of the Royal Veterinary Society of the United King-dom, to be good enough to go to Armagh and investigate the matter and report to the Department, which he did. The proceeding taken on Professor Mettam's advice was this: Four healthy animals were taken, and they were inoculated by an

    513
    emulsion made from the tongues of animals affected on the farms. Four animals responded, but not with any symptom of foot-and-mouth disease. There was no fever, no rise in temperature, no salivation, and no vesicles. Four sheep were inoculated, and three responded with the same result. Four pigs were then taken with no result at all.
    I would remind the House that, in past days, pigs were more liable to this disease than other animals. Professor Mettam made his report, and I asked the question, "Well, if it is not foot-and-mouth disease, what is it?" We discovered that the local veterinary surgeons were as good authorities upon that as anyone could be, and I called to our aid three ordinary country practitioners. When they saw the animals they at once told us, and had no doubt about it, that it was not foot-and-mouth disease at all. They were familiar with the disease, and the peasantry were in the habit of calling it "dirty tongue." It is not mentioned in any veterinary book. That being the case, the only serious matter arising is that Professor Mettam, who examined the five heads at Birkenhead, stated in his report, in the most unqualified manner, that the animals received there were suffering from the same disease as the animals suffered from on the Armagh farms. That is the whole case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these facts having been established, the Board of Agriculture, having accepted our invitation to go and examine the facts, have practically arrived at the same conclusion regarding the animals. I do not think the Department will be justified in retaining the restrictions on Armagh longer than we can possibly help.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "longer than we can possibly help"? If there is no foot-and-mouth disease, I cannot understand why the restrictions should be retained for one hour.
    Mr. RUSSELL: They will be removed at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me copies of the official reports made to the Department?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I answered that in replying to the question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) earlier in the day.
    Mr. LARDNER: In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, am I right in assuming that the restriction will be removed in time to allow the monthly fair to be held in Monaghan on Monday next?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Well, I think I can promise that.

    Dead Meat Trade (Ireland and England).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether and, if so, to what extent progress has been made with the establishment of a dead meat trade between Ireland and Great Britain?
    Mr. RUSSELL: A considerable trade in dead meat is being carried on between several centres in Ireland and large towns in Great Britain. It is not possible at the present stage to make a definite statement as to the progress made in this trade or to form an opinion as to the extent to which it will be maintained when the present crisis in the livestock trade has passed, but there is reason to believe that at some centres at least a permanent dead meat industry has been established.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that there is no attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to organise a dead meat trade?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not know about the word "organise," but we are in communication with those centres, and where they have have applied for assistance by way of loan for the erection of abattoirs or for expert assistance in the way of supplying men who know the trade that assistance has been cheerfully given.

    Tuberculous Cattle (Ireland).
    Mr. GUINEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his Department will take the necessary steps to ascertain the views of the county, rural, and urban councils in Ireland as to the advisability of extending to Ireland the proposals now made in England for payment for tuberculous cattle compulsorily slaughtered by order of the local authorities in Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The question of dealing with tuberculous cattle in Ireland on lines similar to those proposed to be adopted in England by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is under the consideration of the Department, who are in communication

    515
    with the Board on the subject. The Department are not at present in a position to make any further statement in the matter.

    Palm Oil Ordinance.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when the Papers concerning the Palm Oil Ordinance promised on 13th November will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I hope that the Papers will be in the hands of hon. Members on Monday next.

    Colonial Governors (Company Directorships).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for the Colonies what steps, if any, he has taken lately to prevent Governors and other Colonial Office officials from be coming directors or promoters of public companies after their retirement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have recently given much consideration to the question which my hon. Friend raises; it is one which is by no means free from difficulty, but I am taking steps to procure the Amendment of pension legislation in the various Crown Colonies and Protectorates so as to prevent any retiring officer from becoming a director or employé of any company operating in the Colony or Protectorate from which he has retired without permission in writing from the Governor of such Colony or Protectorate.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent round a circular or letter to the Governors indicating that such a course of action on their part is undesirable?
    Mr. HARCOURT: A circular is being prepared in connection with the legislation which will be necessary.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the Regulation is laid down, will it refer to the retiring Governors themselves?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Certainly; the words are intended to cover the case of retiring Governors as well as other officials.
    Sir J. D. REES: In framing the Regulations, will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that these retiring Governors are often men of large abilities but
    516
    small incomes, and that their activities should not therefore be too circumscribed in this respect?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The new rule is directed rather against their activities in the Colonies. Their activities in other places will not be interfered with.

    East African Protectorate.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked whether there has been any reduction during 1912 in the numbers of the King's African Rifles or the armed police employed in the East African Protectorate, and, if so, to what extent; what is the strength of the King's African Rifles now in the Protectorate and where they are stationed; if any reduction is contemplated; and whether any representations have been received from officials or settlers on the subject?
    Mr. HARCOURT: After discussion with the late Governor and the Inspector-General of the King's African Rifles, I decided in July last that the King's African Rifles employed in the East Africa Protectorate should be reduced by one company, but that this should be replaced by a company of armed constabulary, 120 strong, for service in the Northern Frontier district. The present strength of the King's African Rifles in the Protectorate is six companies with an establishment of 125 per company, and one company with an establishment of 100. No reduction is contemplated in this strength. There is also at the moment an additional company of 100 which has been temporarily lent by the Nyasaland Government for the purpose of carrying out a patrol in the Northern Frontier district. According to the latest information in my possession the troops are distributed among the following stations: Nairobi, Kulal, Ngabotok, Maragwet, Moyali, Serenli, Gobwen, and Yonti. I have received no representations from settlers on the subject. With regard to officials, the matter has been recently discussed in the Protectorate between the present Governor and the Inspector-General and a report is now on its way to me.
    Sir C. HUNTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any warnings of unrest among the natives of East Africa?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the unrest alleged to exist in East Africa and

    517
    the native dependencies, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the situation before sanctioning any decrease of the police forces in the Protectorate?
    Mr. HARCOURTAll material facts relating to our East African Colonies will be considered.

    Duke of York's Column.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether there is any special fund devoted to the maintenance and repair of the Duke of York's Column; and, if so, what is the origin of this fund?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): All charges in respect of the Column fall on the Vote for Public Buildings.

    Regent's Park.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether there has been a renewal of (he leases of any of the houses in Hanover Terrace or other houses facing the Regent's Park which, under the arrangement made in 1883, were entitled to the use of the enclosed part of Regent's Park pending the existing leases; and, if so, whether there is in such new leases any condition as to the continued use of such enclosures?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A new lease has recently been granted of No. 20, Hanover Terrace for a term expiring 10th October, 1912. Neither the new lease nor the old one grant any right to use the enclosed portions of Regent's Park in front of Hanover Terrace. That right is derived under a lease of the two enclosures, granted in 1885 (in pursuance of the arrangement made in 1883) for a term expiring 5th July, 1922, to trustees on behalf of the occupiers in certain terraces. The powers of the trustees under that lease have been delegated to, and are exercised by, the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, before any of these lands are alienated, that the House shall have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I have already stated that in the House, and I repeat now the promise. But we have no proposals whatever for alienating any of these Crown lands.
    Mr. CASSEL: By alienating I mean the granting of leases.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Anything which would interfere with the extent of Regent's Park I should certainly bring before the House before any final action is taken.

    India's Sea-borne Trade (Naval Protection).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the British Navy is represented between Aden and Singapore by five cruisers, only one of which exceeds 5,000 tons; whether India's seaborne trade in 1910–11 was valued at over £250,000,000; whether the recognition at The Hague Convention in 1907 of the right of Germany to transform 128 merchantmen specially suited for the purpose, forty-five of which are over 10,000 tons, into war ships has vastly increased the potential risks to British shipping; and what steps the Government proposes to take to make it safe from all possible risks?
    The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answers to the first two parts of the question are generally in the affirmative. The answer to the third and fourth parts is that the Admiralty recognise it as their duty to consider any possible risks to British shipping from the point of view suggested or any other, and to devise measures for its protection.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has not the right hon. Gentleman left out one important point? Are the Government taking such steps in respect of this particular British shipping?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It would be impossible for me, within the limits of an answer to a question, to adequately deal with this subject, but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the duty of the adequate defence of British shipping is fully realised by the Admiralty.

    H.M.SS. "Torch" and "Prometheus."
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he can now say when he will make a statement with reference to the condition in which His Majesty's ship "Torch," and His Majesty's ship "Prometheus" were sent to sea whilst in commission on the Australian station in the year 1911?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make the statement on Thursday next.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that so-called unskilled workers who register their names for work at the Swansea Labour Exchange are compelled to enter the Exchange for that purpose through a separate entrance of mean and shabby appearance, to differentiate them from skilled workmen; on whose instructions this distinction between workmen using the Swansea Labour Exchange has been made; whether similar invidious division is made between workmen in other Labour Exchanges; and, if so, which of them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): It is necessary to divide all Labour Exchanges of any considerable size into various departments, and it has usually been found in practice to be for the general convenience both of applicants and staff that a rough distinction should be made between skilled and unskilled occupations. I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion that the entrance to the unskilled department of the Swansea Exchange is not a proper one, but I will inquire into the whole matter.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the contract for altering the premises at 25A, Market Place, Nuneaton, for the purposes of a Labour Exchange has been let to a firm of builders who are not paying the standard rate of 8d. per hour to the joiners employed by them; that the firm say they never have paid that rate and that they do not intend to pay it; and whether, under these circumstances, he will cancel the contract and strike the firm off the list of Government contractors?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It had been ascertained that the contractor was paying less than 8d. an hour, but after the 13th December he has paid the correct rate so far as the contract in question is concerned. Steps are being taken for the balance due to be refunded to the workmen.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

    WELSH COMMISSIONERS.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the names of the Welsh Commissioners under the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative. I would point out that, if the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is accepted by the Committee, the names of the Commissioners will not be inserted in the Bill.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What is the reason for the change of policy in this matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think it would be more convenient if that question were asked to-morrow when I move my Amendment.

    PETITIONS.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the right hon. Member for Morpeth as Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, whether, having regard to the statement in the Special Report from the Select Committee on Public Petitions, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 18th ultimo, that many signatures in the case of the petition from Llanbadrig against the Established Church (Wales) Bill are in the handwriting of the same person, signed without authority and repudiated by those whose names have been used, any and, if so, what steps have been taken towards the discovery of the persons guilty of forgery and fraud in the preparation of this petition and in the signatures attached thereto, with a view to their punishment by this House for a breach of privilege in bringing discredit upon the right of petitioning the House of Commons?
    Mr. BURT: Most of the irregularities complained of in the Special Report of the Committee are due to the ignorance or carelessness of those who promote petitions, and there is seldom intentional fraud. Where names are written in the came handwriting the practice is to deduct the names from the petition. In the case of graver irregularities, such as the signing names without the authority of the signatories, these have been inquired into, and further investigation is being made. The Committee fully recognise the importance of strictly adhering to the rules relating to petitions, since violation of such rules tends still further to weaken and discredit the value of petitions generally.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Do I understand that it is the intention to take

    521
    proceedings in reference to the forgers of that petition being brought before the House?
    Mr. BURT: That will be a matter for the Committee to consider. On the last occasion, as far as I have been able to inquire, when a culprit was brought to the Bar of the House—it was twenty-six years ago—that was a case of gross forgery and fraud; indeed, I believe the culprit admitted that he spent the greater part of a Sunday in copying the names from a directory. I should not like myself to have to bring anyone to the Bar of the House, or make a Motion to that effect. I have all the more difficulty, because on that occasion the case was brought before the House about four times, and occupied a considerable proportion of the time of the House. I think everybody will agree that the present House is fully occupied, and it would have to be a very grave case indeed that would justify anyone in making a Motion to bring anyone to the Bar of the House to be admonished by Mr. Speaker, but if such a case arises, or anything approaching such a case, I will consider it.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the right hon. Member for Morpeth, as chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, whether he is aware that many signatories to petitions are under the misapprehension that Parliament must take action on the petition; and whether, with a view to the removal of that misapprehension, he will consider the advisability of the adoption of the precedent of the Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions of the 30th June, 1904, in reference to Indian petitions, in which it is stated, in order to put petitioners on their guard and in order that the limited result of petitioning may be better understood, that nothing follows beyond printing the petition in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee unless the subject of the petition is of such urgency and importance, which is scarcely ever the case, as to be formally brought before the House of Commons on the Motion of a Member?
    Mr. BURT. I do not think that there is any such general misapprehension as that referred to by my hon. Friend. Nearly all the petitions presented to the House are for or against particular Bills. As regards petitions from India, special information is sent to the petitioners whenever it is necessary.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister if he will state when he proposes to take the Committee stage of the Franchise and Registration Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: We hope to enter upon the Committee stage of the Franchise Bill during the week beginning 20th January.

    Steamship "Narrung."
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, on her last voyage from Australia, the "Narrung," which so narrowly escaped destruction last week, during one of the storms in the Indian Ocean fell over to an angle of 54 degrees, and was for a time in such danger that the officers were on the point of directing the boats to be lowered to save the passengers and crew; whether she is sister ship to the "Waratah," which it is believed capsized off the African coast owing to top-heaviness and bad building; and, in the circumstances, whether his Department proposes to allow such a vessel to be continued on the list of passenger boats on so long a voyage?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the owners and master of the "Narrung" that there is no foundation for the statement made in the first part of the question. The master states that he regards the vessel as a splendid sea boat. The "Narrung" is not a sister ship to the "Waratah." The vessel was surveyed last month and the passenger certificate was then renewed. As soon as the damage done to the vessel has been made good to the satisfaction of the Board's surveyors, there will be no reason, so far as the Board of Trade are concerned, why the vessel should not continue to carry passengers to Australia.
    Mr. FARRELL: If I send to the hon. Gentleman the confidential documents sent to me will he, while treating them as confidential, make further inquiries as to the matters mentioned in the first part of the question?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, any documents the hon. Member may forward will be considered.

    Imports from Dominions.
    Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked the total value of the imports from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, respectively, into the United Kingdom during the last

    523
    five years, and the proportion of raw material and food supplies to manufactured articles?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: With the hon. Member's permission, I will have a statement printed in the Votes giving the desired particulars for each of the years 1908 to 1911. Particulars for 1912 are not yet available.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by far the overwhelming majority of supplies from the Colonies are of raw material or foodstuffs, and, if that is the case, could any system of Colonial Preference be accepted without food taxes?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter we have often had argued before in this House.

    Lowestoft Fishermen.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has ever received any report from the collector of Customs at Lowestoft on the subject of complaints as to the amounts shared out to fishermen; and, if so, will he state the nature of the report?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In December, 1911, a report was obtained from the collector at Lowestoft on the subject of complaints as to the amounts paid to share fishermen. This report showed that complaints were occasionally brought before the collector, who stated that it was not as a rule found difficult to arrange an amicable settlement of a dispute at his office and that owners and men always accepted the decision there given. The collector further reported that neither the fishermen nor the owners were so reluctant then as formerly to refer disputes to his office for settlement. As my hon. Friend was informed in reply to his question of 10th December, the existing provisions of the law appear to give fishermen effective means to protect their interests in this matter.

    Exeter Post Office.
    Mr. DUKEasked the Postmaster-General whether for about twenty-five years arrangements have existed in the post office at Exeter for enabling employés whose conditions of labour require their presence in the office at meal times, to take their meals upon the premises, and that the refreshment club formed for this purpose now numbers about 320 members, is managed by a committee
    524
    of its members, costs no more to the Department than about 30s. weekly for necessary labour, and works to the advantage of the service and with entire satisfaction to the postal employés concerned; whether a like system is under consideration for some of the telephone offices lately taken over; whether he has decided to cancel the existing arrangements at Exeter, to withdraw the assistance now given by the Department, to substitute for the present elected committee a committee with a majority of members nominated by the Department, and to introduce an increased tariff of charges which will involve additional cost for food of 1s. or 1s. 6d. weekly to employés, many of whom earn less than 25s. per week; whether he is aware that the proposed changes are regarded with dissatisfaction by the members of the club; and whether the present arrangements will be allowed to continue?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The arrangements which existed at Exeter and at some of the National Telephone Company's exchanges differed from those which are the rule in the Post Office Service generally and which have worked quite satisfactorily. It has been decided to terminate these exceptional arrangements. At Exeter, in place of the present allowances for cooks an initial grant will be allowed for the purchase of plant with an annual subsidy for its upkeep on the scale authorised for such clubs. The amount of the grant and the annual subsidy which would be payable under the authorised scale would depend on the daily average number of meals served. The question whether any increases in the tariff would be necessary, would be one for the committee to consider. The committee would, as is usual in such cases, be partly nominated by myself.
    Mr. DUKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the financial result of the proposed new scheme is a saving of about £70 a year to the Treasury, and that the practical result will be the production of a state of dissatisfaction among 300 or 400 working people?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not prepared to accept the hon. and learned Member's figures without investigation, but hitherto Exeter has been in a privileged position compared with the other post offices of the country, and it is thought necessary to bring it into line with the rest.

    Week-End Cable Letters (Australasia).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the terms on which the cheap week-end cable letters are to be sent to Australasia; whether there is to be a minimum number of words or whether the charge will be in proportion to the number of words sent; and whether the charge will be the same from Australasia to the United Kingdom as from the United Kingdom to Australasia?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am glad that it was possible to introduce yesterday a system of week-end telegraph messages at greatly reduced rates between the United Kingdom and the greater part of the British Empire and the United States of America, together with reductions in the charges for other classes of cable messages. The charge for week-end cable letters to Australasia is 18s. for twenty-four words or less, and 9d. for each additional word. This charge applies also to week-end cable letters sent from Australasia to the United Kingdom.

    Elementary Schools.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the President of the Board of Education whether cookery is an elementary subject under the Elementary Education Acts, or can be included as such by virtue of a by law passed by the local education authority; if it is such a subject, whether it is accepted as a sufficient excuse for non-attendance that the absentee is receiving adequate instruction elsewhere; and whether a local education authority can compel a child to attend for instruction at a place other than the school at which such child is registered?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Education Acts do not define elementary subjects of instruction nor confer any power on local authorities to define them by by-law, but Article 2 of the Code states that the older girls should receive a practical training in cookery, and instruction in this subject is encouraged by the Board by special Grants. The second part of the question is one for the magistrates, who would have to consider in any case of prosecution whether there is a sufficient excuse for non-attendance. With reference to the third part of the question, I may point out that under Article 44 of the Code, the giving of secular instruction to scholars elsewhere than at the school is expressly authorised so far as concerns
    526
    compliance with the conditions of the Parliamentary Grant. I can express no opinion on the legal aspect of the question.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Has the opinion of the Law Officers been taken, and does it give any ground for the legal superstition, if I may so call it, that efficient elementary education can only be given by attending within a certain class at certain hours?
    Mr. PEASE: I cannot say what the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is. If the hon. Member desires me to consult them, and will put a question on the Paper, I shall be glad to consider it with a view to consulting my right hon. and learned Friends.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked (1) whether the Board propose to adopt forthwith all or any, and, if any, which, of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which has recently reported upon the subject of playgrounds of public elementary schools; and (2) whether, in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Elementary School Playgrounds, the statement that a school which, although its playground was small had an abundant supply of open spaces near at hand would receive exceptional treatment will be deemed to apply to all schools situate in the open country?
    Mr. PEASE: I am considering the Report referred to, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement in answer to these questions.

    School Cookery Classes (Non-Attendance).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case at petty sessions held on 1st November, 1912, at Ingleton, in Yorkshire, when William Sanderson was fined 20s. for the non-attendance of his daughter at a school cookery class; whether he is aware that this was a test case and that it was admitted by the prosecution that William Sanderson's daughter had only missed three attendances in four years, and that, nevertheless, the maximum penalty, usually only imposed in aggravated cases, was inflicted; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances with a view to having the fine remitted to a sum less disproportionate to the offence?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention had not previously been called to this case, but I am making inquiries.

    Death Sentences (Male Offenders).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the Home Office so frequently overrides the Law by refusing to execute a capital sentence pronounced by the Courts, almost invariably so in the case of female criminals, he will see his way to extend a like clemency to all male offenders under sentence of death who have not yet reached the age of manhood nor assumed the duties and responsibilities of citizenship?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative. Neither I nor my predecessors have thought it desirable to lay down a hard and fast rule such as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will the consideration which leads to clemency in the case of women also apply to immature youths like those mentioned in my question?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. In the great bulk of the cases in which clemency has been extended to women, the murder has been the murder of an infant child.

    Winterbourne Zelstone Estate, Dorset.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, in regard to the Winterbourne Zelstone estate, Dorset, if he can give the amount of the assessment prior to the purchase by the county council and the amount at the present date; upon whom do they fall; and can he see his way to ordering a revaluation of the land and adaptations, with a view of easing the burden of small holders?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am in communication with the county council with a view to ascertain the amount of the assessments to which my hon. Friend refers in the first part of the question. If he will be good enough to repeat the whole question on Tuesday next, I hope to be able to give a full answer.
    Mr. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman no information now as to the latter part of the question, where he is asked can he order a revaluation of the land and adaptations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that it lies within my power to order a revaluation. I am looking into the whole question and will give a fuller reply.
    Mr. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman no power at all to protect these poor tenants?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have considerable power vested in me and this I have exercised to the best of my ability. If anything could be done along the line of reassessment, I will confer with those authorities who have powers which I have not got myself.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what business will be taken next week?
  Mr. McKENNA: On Monday we propose to continue the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the business on Friday next week will be?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry I am unable to say, but if the Noble Lord will repeat the question on Monday he will receive an answer.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is there any intention to take any of the minor measures of the Government after the principal business has been disposed of next week?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to say whether or not some other business might be taken.

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

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Legislative Powers of Irish Parliament.)
  Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Irish Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland with the following limitations, namely, that they shall not have power to make laws except in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof, and (without prejudice to that general limitation) that they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular, or any of them, namely—

  (1) The Crown, or the succession to the Crown, or a Regency; or the Lord Lieutenant except as respects the exercise of his executive power in relation to Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act; or

  (2) The making of peace or war or matters arising from a state of war;
  546
  or the regulation of the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between Foreign States with which His Majesty is at peace, in relation to those hostilities; or

  (3) The Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force, or the defence of the Realm, or any other naval or military matter; or

  (4) Treaties, or any relations, with Foreign States, or relations with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions, or offences connected with any such treaties or relations, or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals under any treaty, or the return of fugitive offenders from or to any part of His Majesty's Dominions; or

  (5) Dignities or titles of honour; or

  (6) Treason, treason felony, alienage, naturalisation, or aliens as such; or

  (7) Trade with any place out of Ireland (except so far as trade may be affected by the exercise of the powers of taxation given to the Irish Parliament, or by the regulation of importation for the sole purpose of preventing contagious disease); quarantine; or navigation, including merchant shipping (except as respects inland waters and local health or harbour regulations); or

  (8) Lighthouses, buoys, or beacons (except so far as they can consistently with any general Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom be constructed or maintained by a local harbour authority); or

  (9) Coinage; legal tender; or any change in the standard of weights and measures; or

  (10) Trade marks, designs, merchandise marks, copyright, or patent rights; or

  (11) Any of the following matters (in this Act referred to as reserved matters), namely—

  (a) The general subject-matter of the Acts relating to Land Purchase in Ireland, the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911, the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909;

  (b) The collection of taxes;

  547

  (c) The Royal Irish Constabulary and the management and control of that force;

  (d) Post Office Savings Banks, Trustee Savings Banks, and Friendly Societies; and

  (e) Public loans made in Ireland before the passing of this Act:

  Provided that the limitation on the powers of the Irish Parliament under this Section shall cease as respects any such reserved matter if the corresponding reserved service is transferred to the Irish Government under the provisions of this Act.
  Any law made in contravention of the limitations imposed by this Section shall, so far as it contravenes those limitations, be void.
  Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, after the word "laws" ["that they shall not have power to make laws except in respect of"], to insert the words "or (without the previous approval of the Lord Lieutenant acting on the instructions of His Majesty) to discuss or pass any resolution or address."
  4.0 P.M.
  This Amendment has not been discussed in Committee on the present Bill, but when an Amendment similar in substance was presented in connection with the 1893 Bill it was described by the late Mr. Gladstone as one of the most important Amendments which had been discussed on that Bill. Such being the case, it might be expected that this Amendment will command the interest and attention of the House, but I have little hope that it will do so, because I think most of the interest has gone out of the discussion. It has gone because the soul has gone out of the Bill. Everybody knows, the supporters of the Bill as much as those who are opposed to it, that the Bill will not have a chance of being put into operation, and, therefore, the Amendments are regarded with little interest and receive little attention. Hon. Gentlemen opposite regard them as pieces of Parliamentary lumber, and they are only too glad to see them relegated to the lumber room in order that some more attractive pieces of Parliamentary furniture may be introduced in their place. Notwithstanding, I propose to argue this Amendment as if the Bill were going to pass. The object of the Amendment is to prevent the Irish Parliament from passing resolutions on subjects, except the subjects upon which they are permitted to legislate
  548
  by the Bill. It will not be denied, least of all by the Chief Secretary, that the resolutions of deliberative bodies are entitled to as much respect as the assembly itself commands, even where those resolutions have no binding effect. The late Sir Erskine May, in his reference to resolutions in his book on procedure, says that by its resolution the House declares its own opinion, and resolutions would have certainly considerable moral even if they had no practical effect. The first of the subjects on which the Irish Parliament is forbidden to legislate is, "The Crown or succession to the Crown, or a Regency, or the Lord Lieutenant, except as respects the exercise of his executive power in relation to Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act." Everyone knows that the Irish House of Commons could, if it chose at a time of crisis in this country, have a most mischievous effect on questions affecting both the Crown and the Regency. The question which above all others precipitated the Union was the interference of Grattan's Parliament on the question of the Regency. It is a matter of historical importance. I myself think that Mr. Pitt, that much maligned man, with Lord Castlereagh, for whom I have just as much admiration as I have a whole hearted detestation of the men he was fighting, the rebels, whose methods others would like to copy to-day if they dared, would have been justified, even if there were nothing else calling for the abolition of that Parliament and the establishment of the Union, in what they did, by the thoroughly mischievous and treasonable interference of the Irish Parliament with this question of the Regency.
  Everyone knows that at that time this country was passing through one of the greatest crises in its history, and that the resolutions which the Irish Parliament passed greatly increased the difficulties of the situation. There is little reason to-suppose fortunately that there will be any question of a Regency again for many years to come, but if there was any question affecting the Regency or the Crown, the Irish Parliament by passing a resolution: dealing with the subject might very gravely endanger the good government of this country. In the same Sub-clause the Irish Parliament is forbidden to make laws in reference to the Lord Lieutenant. I ask the Chief Secretary whether he is contemplating what the position of the Lord Lieutenant will be—that unfortunate man who, by other Clauses of the Bill, has

  549
  put upon his shoulders more than it is reasonable to expect any man to bear, if he is going to be subject in season and out of season, whenever this Legislature is in Session, to insulting resolutions proposed and passed by the Irish Parliament? The next Sub-clause deals with—
  "the making of peace or war or matters arising from a state of war; or the regulation of the conduct of any portion of His Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between Foreign States with which His Majesty is at peace, in relation to those hostilities."
  Everyone knows that the Parliament in Dublin might in a time of great crisis, when the question of peace or war between this and some other country was trembling in the balance, pass a resolution which might do great harm. Suppose that the question was actually decided, and this country was at war. What would be the position of the Imperial Government if the Irish Legislature, after hostilities had commenced, proposed a resolution expressing sympathy with the country with which this country was at war? I have no doubt whatever that in all these matters the hon. and learned Member for Waterford would be no party to such proceedings, but in the Bill, as it stands, the Irish Parliament is not prohibited from passing and it is not prohibited from discussing a resolution of the kind. How is the hon. and learned Member to prevent any irresponsible Member of the Irish Parliament in a time of crisis from proposing a resolution expressing sympathy with the enemies of this country? It is not suggested, when the new Parliament gets into full swing, that he will be able to control all sections in that House. No one supposes that he will be as omnipotent in that Parliament as he is over a certain section in this Parliament, and while all of us must admire the manner in which his followers have obeyed his orders during the last two years and the excellent way in which they are drilled, there is every reason to suppose when the Bill is passed that his authority over his followers will be very much less in the Irish Parliament than it is here in this House; and for this simple reason.
  While sitting here under his leadership they are working to obtain something which they want, and they are only human, and it is reasonable to suppose that a considerable section of them hope to obtain—I am informed that some of them have been promised—office in the new Government which is to come into operation in
  550
  Ireland. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to act as a sort of sergeant-major to his followers, but when the new Parliament meets some of the drummer-boys may be very anxious to obtain promotion. Under those circumstances they may take action which is opposed to the best interests of their party and of good government. There is nothing to prevent any individual or section of such persons, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman himself may have expressed disapproval of such resolution, putting down such a resolution and greatly endangering the interests of this country. By Sub-Clause (3) the Irish Parliament is prevented from dealing with the question of the Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force; but it is easy to see that harm might be done by the passing of resolutions or even the proposal of resolutions in the Irish Parliament on that question. The fourth and perhaps the most important of all matters dealt with is the question of making treaties. The Irish Parliament is prohibited from making treaties or entering into relation with foreign States or with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions and so forth. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament from sending an Ambassador, or whatever you like to call him, to some foreign State.
  This matter was referred to in the Debate on the 1893 Bill, and Mr. Gladstone asked how could the Irish Parliament send a representative to a foreign country when it would not have power to accredit such a representative. It was pointed out at that time, and during the nineteen years that have elapsed since then no answer has ever been given, that there is a very famous historical case of a representative being sent to a foreign country who was not recognised by that country at first, but was afterwards accredited, and when the country sending him had not itself the actual legal power to send any representative. Benjamin Franklin was sent to France by the United States of America before they were recognised by this country or before they were recognised internationally as a separate entity. It would be perfectly possible for a representative of Ireland to be sent to some foreign country, and conceive what the effect would be if the Irish Parliament, as I think is extremely likely, having regard to the relations between the

  551
  Irish and American parties, endeavoured to send a representative from Ireland to Washington.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is that covered by the Amendment?
  Earl WINTERTON: Yes. This Amendment proposes to exclude from the entire purview of the Irish Parliament all those matters upon which it is not permitted to legislate by the Bill. The proposal is to prevent the Irish Parliament passing resolutions upon those subjects on which it cannot legislate. Under Sub-clause (4) it is not allowed to legislate upon treaties. I am attempting to show that under the Bill as it stands, unless some Amendment such as I propose is introduced, it would be competent, by the passing of a resolution in the Irish Parliament, for an envoy to be sent by the Irish Parliament to some foreign States.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would surely be the act of the Executive. An envoy would be sent by the Executive and no address or resolution would be required. I do not see how the Noble Lord's Amendment would stop one being sent.
  Earl WINTERTON: On the point of Order. In the case of Benjamin Franklin, to which I was referring, it was done by order of Congress representing the United States. When this question was debated on the 1893 Bill, when this same Motion was proposed, it was submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and others on this side, and I submit, that it would be competent for an Irish Parliament, without any resolution to accredit an ambassador. That was denied by Mr. Gladstone, and the Debate was allowed in exactly the same form as it has been to-day. However, I do not wish to emphasise that point further, if it does not arise here. I believe it would be perfectly competent for the Irish Parliament, even though the Executive might object, by resolution to send to some foreign nation a representative who would go to that nation with all the authority of that resolution.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On the point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether this may not arise: That the Irish Parliament may pass a resolution resolving that a Minister might be sent to the United
  552
  States. If they pass that resolution the Executive might send a man to the United States, and that man arriving in the United States upon the resolution passed by the Irish Parliament, is an indication that the Irish Parliament desires that he should represent them in the United States.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is very far fetched. It generally happens that the Executive send the representative and not the Legislative body.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Executive might send him?
  Mr. SPEAKER: But even supposing this Amendment were passed, there is still nothing to prevent the Executive from sending a representative. Therefore, I do not see how the mischief which the Noble Lord is seeking to cure is affected by the Amendment.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: On the point of Order. May I put forward this consideration? The Irish Executive, feeling perhaps that their action might be questioned in sending a representative to a foreign State, would seek to secure support and authority from their Legislature which would strengthen their hands, if there was any question whatever of their right, or of the legality of their action. It seems to me that we cannot discuss this question of addresses and resolutions at all, unless we have the power to refer to just such a situation as I have indicated—that the Executive, wishing to secure further authority, would go to its Legislature in order to obtain a resolution, if not empowering them, at any rate strengthening their hands.
  Mr. SPEAKER: How if the Executive sends its representative without consulting the legislative body at all?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This House passes resolutions, as it often does, on a variety of subjects, and those resolutions have no force as a matter of law, but they strengthen very much the hands of the Government in dealing with a subject, and they are made use of by the Government to deal with it. In the same way a resolution passed by the Irish House of Commons might strengthen, or encourage, or even compel the Irish Executive to take such action as that of sending a Minister or Ambassador to the United States, unless there was something in the Bill to prevent the taking of such a course.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There would be no provision under this Amendment preventing the Executive Government from sending their particular representative. If there is no such provision, I cannot see any force whatever in the argument of the Noble and learned Lord.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On the point of Order, Sir. While I quite agree that of course nothing can prevent the Executive from sending a representative, Still I think the effect of this Amendment, if inserted, would be to prevent the House of Commons of Ireland from accrediting such a representative.
  Earl WINTERTON: It seems to me there are two cases involved. The first case is when the Executive sends a representative without the permission of the Legislature, and on that I submit it is almost inconceivable that the Executive would send a representative if the Legislature by resolution objected. Therefore, by passing a resolution, I submit that it would be possible, in effect, for the Irish Parliament to prevent the Executive from sending a representative. The second case is that of the Irish Parliament passing a resolution sending an envoy to the United States, and that might be supported by the Executive. I would point out that we are not dealing with an Executive such as we have in this country—the Executive in Ireland will be double-headed—and the Irish Parliament might pass a resolution in favour of sending an envoy, even without the concurrence of the Executive.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Noble Lord confines what he is saying to the legislative body, I have no objection; but he was not doing that; he was confining his argument entirely to the sending of a representative. The effect of his Amendment would be to prevent the legislative body from disowning the representative which had been sent by the Government.
  Earl WINTERTON: Apparently I have not made my argument clear. What I wish to submit is that the Irish Parliament might by resolution invest with authority some person who would not necessarily be called an envoy, but who might be called a representative, or an agent-general, or by any other name that could be appropriately used, and such a person would be invested with all the authority that any man could be invested with who is sent under such conditions to some foreign country. I say there is the danger that such a man
  554
  might be sent to Washington, and I hope the Government will take it into consideration, because I think that if such a case did arise, the good feeling which has been increasing between this country and the United States might be affected, in view of the power of the Irish vote. Anybody who has studied American politics recognises the growing power of the Irish vote and the homogeneousness of the Irish as a unit in American politics, and also recognises that it is a power which is increasing every year. I say that circumstances might arise which would very largely destroy the progress of friendly feeling between the two countries, if some such proposal as that which I submit be not adopted. It may be said that the contingencies of which I speak are remote; but why not put in the Bill a provision which would make it clear that this House has in mind the possibility of such things occurring, and is determined that they shall not take place.
  There is another very important Subsection of this Clause to which I invite attention—Sub-section 6 dealing with "treason, treason felony, naturalisation, or aliens as such." It has frequently been said in the course of this Debate that what is most objected to by hon. Gentlemen who represent the Nationalist party in Ireland, and by their supporters, is the fact that the laws which are made by this House go to Ireland in "an alien guise"—that is the kind of phrase which is always used. Can anyone conceive any law which would have more an "alien guise" than the law of treason, or treason felony, and what is there to prevent the Irish Government from passing a resolution any time a man is convicted of treason. Such things have happened and are likely to happen again. I turn to another branch of this question which I think is most important. There is nothing in the Clause as it stands to prevent the Irish Legislature from passing resolutions on questions in regard to which it is not permitted to make laws. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament from passing a resolution on a question of the proceedings in this House. Circumstances might arise, and I believe very probably would arise under the new-Irish Parliament, under which an Irish Nationalist Member of this House had been suspended by Mr. Speaker, and what is to prevent the Irish Parliament, under the Bill, from passing a resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker of this House. There is nothing, and very con-

  555
  siderable friction might arise between the two Houses. There are many other questions which might be dealt with and in regard to which I submit it is undesirable for the Irish Parliament to have power to pass resolutions.
  I wish to anticipate a little what will be the probable line of argument adopted by the Chief Secretary in replying to this Amendment. Two arguments have been advanced on every Amendment brought forward by this side. The first, is as to the power placed in the Dominion House, or the Canadian, or the South African, or the Australian Legislatures to pass resolutions on any subject they desire. The answer to that is that they have not forty representatives in this House. I consider that the situation of the Irish Parliament is very different from that of the Dominion House, which has no representation in this House. The subordinate Legislature in Ireland will have forty Members from Ireland sitting in this House. It might be said that the effect of my Amendment would be to prevent the Irish Parliament from petitioning this House. I agree; I think it would. But surely it is not denied for a moment that the effect of the unanimous resolution of forty Irish Members, or say of thirty-two Irish Members, would have more effect upon the opinion of this House than a resolution passed by the Irish Parliament. Therefore, the Irish Parliament has the very right which is given to the Dominion House of Parliament, though in a different form it is true. In regard to the question of the Irish Parliament passing resolutions I do not for one moment deny the bona fides of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford or of his colleagues. I do not think it is likely that they would pass resolutions of the kind, certainly not often. But I should be more impressed to hear, not the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but the views of the Irish-American party who are responsible for the policy of hon. Members below the Gangway. It is a well-known fact that the Irish-American party is largely responsible for the financial stability of the Irish Parliamentary party; it is also a well-known fact that those who pay the piper call the tune; and I should like to hear the views of Patrick Ford, the two Sullivans, and others whose names are household words in Irish-American circles.
  The Chief Secretary, throughout these Debates has always appeared to believe
  556
  in many difficult things and many impossible things. That belief proceeds I think less from conviction than from the hard necessities of the case which, I have no doubt, convince him that he is justified in his views. After nine years experience of the House of Commons I have never seen a more convinced Mark Tapley than the right hon. Gentleman. He sits here day after day, and on each occasion when any safeguard is suggested he gets up and says that that safeguard is not in the least necessary. "We," he says, "trust the Irish, and we know from what they tell us, but not from their past record, that they intend to turn over a new leaf." I wish I could believe that was so. I wish we had a more concrete assurance that it would be so than what we have had from the speeches and writings from the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I have no doubt the argument will be used that after all you are only going to trust the new Legislature to make laws and pass resolutions in the same way as the people in South Africa, without hindrance of any kind. As it happens I am the Member who has been most recently in South Africa. I happen to have some interest out there. I can only say, and it is as well that it should be said, that while I believe myself that the enmity between Boer and Briton was decreasing in all the years after the close of the war until the grant of the Constitution, I do not believe that the grant of the Constitution itself had the wonderful result of healing racial differences. Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe so, but I do not think you will get a single South African, Unionist or Progressive, to say that racial differences have been finally healed. You have the case today of General Hertzog, and what is splitting the Progressive parly to-day—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is going a very long way from the question.
  Earl WINTERTON: I should not have used the argument had it not been used so frequently by hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question with, as I venture to say, as much relevance as it has been used by me. I will not say anything further on that subject, except to remark that it is untrue to say that the grant of the Constitution has as yet healed those racial differences which exist out there. No doubt there are a great number opposite who honestly believe that this Bill is going to heal all such differences in Ireland, and that there is going to be nothing with

  557
  which you may not entrust the Irish Legislature. I believe that those hon. Gentlemen, sincere as I know them to be, are looking in a mirage, and when they come to examine it they will find that it is nothing but dust and stone. No hardship will be involved by this Amendment on the Irish Legislature and it will save that Legislature and this country from many grave and obvious difficulties.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Noble Lord began by reminding the House that an Amendment of this kind was discussed in 1893, at very considerable length on, I think, two occasions. He referred also to the fact that Mr. Gladstone treated the Amendment as an important one and dealt with it at a great length. Having done that he dropped Mr. Gladstone, and I cannot help thinking that it would have been more useful for the discussion of this Amendment if the Noble Lord had answered some of the arguments which he had had the advantage of reading in "Hansard" and which Mr. Gladstone employed on that occasion, instead of treating at all events on a variety of other matters. I do not myself propose to quote Mr. Gladstone at any length to the House, or to attempt to repeat his arguments. If I did so I might expose myself to Goldsmith's criticism of a little fish trying to blow like a great whale. I will not set myself in competition with that very great man. I should like to ask the Noble Lord to consider what it is he is really trying to do. He stated that I believed in everything that was impossible, and he emphasised that with some force.
  Earl WINTERTON: Everything that is unlikely.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am bound to say that if indeed I did believe in what was impossible then I should be a supporter of this Amendment. This is an attempt, as Mr. Gladstone pointed out, to do the impossible, namely, to shut the mouth of an independent Parliamentary Assembly which is free to discuss all these matters, and he also pointed out what you are trying to do is to confine a deliberative Assembly to purely legislative acts, and he proceeded to show that that really is one of those impossible things in which the Noble Lord says I believe. If this Amendment were introduced into the Bill,
  558
  it would say that without the previous approval of the Lord Lieutenant, acting on the instruction of His Majesty, the Irish Parliament is not to be at liberty to discuss or to pass any resolution or address whatsoever upon any kind of subject that you like. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Yes, without the previous approval of the Lord Lieutenant it would prevent this Assembly from dealing with any of the matters which legislatively they cannot deal with. That is an attempt to close the mouth of an Assembly of this sort in a manner which I simply say is impossible. The thing cannot and ought not to be done. Mr. Gladstone pointed out:—
  "I would have no sympathy with the Irish Legislature if it should proceed to perform acts which were manifestly inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, and I would say 'if you can stop such acts without inconvenience stop them.' The difficulty which I feel, however, is that they could not stop them, and, what is more important, we might, in the attempt to stop them, be stopping that which we ought not to stop, and which we would have no executive means of stopping."
  I have had considerable experience of Irish resolutions, and I am very often compelled to remind a number of subordinate bodies in Ireland, such as boards of guardians that it is really no part of their duty to meet in the board chamber and to pass resolutions affecting things altogether outside their province, and over which they have no power of control whatsoever. I am bound to say it would be perfectly futile, idle and impossible on all occasions when boards of guardians or any other bodies did those things to put into operation a law or anything of that sort to stop them from doing anything of the kind. The only way in which you can deal with them, and it has been done very often successfully, is by appealing to their sense of their own dignity and their own importance, and to call their attention to the fact that their dignity and importance is not served or promoted by departing from those matters which are within their jurisdiction, and over which they have very considerable powers and control. I am very glad to think that, as time goes on, those bodies are exercising a certain amount of self-restraint in connection with matters of that sort. Here you are going to suggest to a Parliament in Dublin which may be moved at different times by different feelings that they are not in any sort of way to give expression to those feelings except within the very narrow limits of an Act of Parliament. In other words, you are to say to them you are to do nothing but legislate.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It does not say that.
  Mr. BIRRELL: In effect that is the result. At all events it is a limiting resolution which seeks to prevent them giving expression to their views by resolution or address on certain kinds of subjects. I think, therefore, it is absolutely open to all the objections which were made to it by Mr. Gladstone on the former occasion. With reference to the argument as to whether it was in order the Noble Lord was of opinion that it was within the power of the Irish Executive to send an envoy to America. If you read Clause 4 in conjunction with the Sub-section of Clause 2 which prevents anything being done in relation to foreign States or to other parts of His Majesty's Dominions, that is an excluded subject, and consequently does not come within Clause 4, which deals with the powers of the Irish Executive. Therefore, in the first place the sending of an envoy would not be an act of Parliament at all, or in pursuance of any resolution or address, but would be the result of an act of the Executive, which is not within the power of the Executive under the other provisions of the Bill.
  Sir G. PARKER: I would like to ask whether the Legislature would not have the power, independent of the Executive, to send its own envoy, and it could only send an envoy by virtue of a resolution passed by the House.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Legislature would have no power to send its own envoy. I assert that under Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 that would be dealing with the matter which is not within their power at all, and Clause 4 confines the powers of the Executive to those matters which are subject to and within the province of the Legislature. Therefore, the thing cannot really be done either way. It would not be by resolution, and therefore it is not within the terms of the Amendment, and it could not be done by act of the Executive as it is not within the powers of the Executive.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Did not Mr. Gladstone send Mr. Errington to the Court of Rome without a resolution?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. Errington did not occupy the position of an accredited agent at the Court of Rome. That was the advantage of Mr. Errington's position. Mr. Gladstone contended he went there as a gentleman of the Catholic persuasion interested in those things, and that he might
  560
  very usefully supply Mr. Gladstone with information, very useful information for a Government to have, as to the state of mind or feeling of the Pope. But Mr. Errington was not an accredited agent, or, at all events, Mr. Gladstone always asserted that he was not an accredited agent of the Government at all. You cannot prevent a person going to Rome and having interviews with His Holiness or with Cardinals dealing with Papal affairs throughout the world. The thing cannot be done. Mr. Gladstone got into trouble over it; but his trouble was that Mr. Errington was not an accredited agent. Therefore that case does not come in. If the hon. Baronet suggests that some day or another there may be somebody in the Court of Rome who will write a letter to the Irish Government informing them of the state of mind of His Holiness the Pope on any subject concerning Irish affairs, of course I cannot say that that would not be the case. But it will not be within the province of the Executive or Parliament established under this Bill to have any envoy or any accredited persons of their own with principalities, popes, or powers.
  Therefore I would ask the House gravely to consider whether it is desirable or necessary, whether it is likely to accomplish the purpose you have in view of preventing unseemly differences of opinion between the two Parliaments, to say that the Irish Parliament shall not have any power whatsoever in this matter of giving expression of their state of mind. The only example that has been put forward does not affect my mind very much. It is said that Members sometimes get into conflict with Mr. Speaker. That is the case on both sides of the House. It might very well be that some Mr. Speaker in the future would suspend one of the forty-two Irish Members—I do not know whether it would be an Ulster Member or a Member from some other part of Ireland—and that thereupon, inflamed by patriotism, the Dublin Parliament would pass a vote congratulating the suspended Member upon the courage he had displayed, and assuring him that he carried with him into suspension the feelings, hearts, aspirations, and passionate love of every honest Irishman. I hope that that would be some consolation to the hon. Member. I am quite sure that the last person to attach any importance to it would be the Speaker of this House. I ask the House to remember that the resolutions of an Assembly, I care not how dignified or how representative it may

  561
  be, relating to matters over which it has no power or control, matters altogether outside its province and jurisdiction, can only have force if they are supported by really strong and genuine feeling in the country itself; and if they are representative of that strong and genuine feeling you will not get rid of the feeling by preventing discussion or debate where differences of opinion will arise in a representative assembly of this character. It is far better to allow it to have overt action, and to be expressed in the form of resolutions which can be and certainly would be debated and disputed, than to suppress it and to deny to the new assembly one of those outlets of opinion which has always been of value, and which, although of no authority or legal effect, nevertheless is a right to speak which I do not think any representative assembly ought to be asked to forego.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am quite willing to admit that in the lines he has taken the Chief Secretary has considerable authority. I agree that he has the authority of Mr. Gladstone and his party in 1893, and he has the still higher authority of the experience of the Oversea Dominions, where I think every provincial Legislature has the power to pass resolutions upon subjects in regard to which it is not competent to legislate. They pass resolutions upon fiscal questions and upon matters affecting foreign relations. I would point out, however, that the practice has been productive of a great deal of ill-feeling in the Oversea Dominions themselves. The reason they have that power is that the Provinces or States had ii when they were given practically autonomous and independent government, and therefore when they came together it was thought undesirable to press the question of the prohibition of Resolutions of this kind. But we are in an entirely different position with regard to Ireland and Home Rule. The Prime Minister has said over and over again that he does not have regard to the Colonial analogy or approach the question of Ireland in the same way that any of the Oversea Dominions approach the provincial Governments within their orbit. We are, therefore, entitled to approach this question absolutely independently of any analogy or of any authority represented by Mr. Gladstone or anybody else. The considerations I wish to put before the House are sincere and practical. It has been thought desirable to exclude
  562
  from the purview of the Irish Legislature certain very grave questions affecting the welfare of the United Kingdom and of the whole Empire. My Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) has referred categorically to the separate questions—the Crown, treaties, trade, the Army, the Navy, and' so on. You are entering upon an experiment of an extremely grave and delicate kind. It is necessary that that experiment should be begun and carried on-with the least possible friction, ill-feeling, and passion.
  The Irish people have the idea that this Parliament of theirs is going to have far more power than it will actually have. They have been led to believe that they are going to have an enormous amount of power, and that this Parliament will be able to do practically anything. [An HON. MEMBERS: "It will not."] Of course it will not; but there are a great many ignorant people even in Ireland. I hope I am not saying things that are offensive; I want to argue the question. We want to avoid agitation and ill-feeling. When the Irish people come to realise that there are certain questions with which they cannot deal in their Legislature, hon. Members below the Gangway and their colleagues in that Parliament are going to encourage resolutions, the effect of which would be to create in the country a feeling in favour of a development of their constitutional privileges and opportunities. That is a very grave consideration, and I do not think the Government ought to reject the argument. If the Irish Executive desire to strengthen their influence-in any particular direction it will be very easy indeed for them to arrange for a-resolution to be passed upon one of the subjects excluded from their legislative power, thus creating in the country a passionate feeling upon which they can trade in order to induce an amendment of the Constitution or a development of their power. The right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) dropped a phrase in the course of his speech yesterday indicating that this Bill only half-satisfied the aspirations of the Irish people, that it was not final, and that he and others were looking forward to an increase of the powers of the Irish Legislature. Whatever the long future may do, I believe it to be an extremely dangerous thing, in this first delicate experiment of detaching from the Union one section only of the United Kingdom to perform legislative functions, to give into the hands of the Legislature this secondary power of

  563
  being able by resolutions, which in the eyes of the public will have a very powerful effect, to indicate policies which they cannot put into operation through Acts of Parliament.
  5.0 P.M.
  That is exactly the point. They are not to put policy into a legislative Act, but they are to be able to indicate their policy, which might be antagonistic to the Imperial policy of this country and this Parliament, As the Bill now stands, they -would be able on every one of the subjects upon which they are denied the right to legislate to incorporate in resolutions their policy, which might be diametrically opposed to that of the Imperial Parliament. There is, for instance, the question of the Territorial Army. That is a matter upon which it might be thought that they ought to be permitted to express an opinion. I say, and I think that most Members of the House will agree, that on the matter of principle it would be most inadvisable for the Irish Parliament to express any view of policy, incorporated in a resolution, on matters which this Imperial Parliament has decided were to be carried out by Acts passed by this Parliament. I hope the House will face that situation. We pass Acts here incorporating a policy represented by this Parliament. The Irish Legislature, by resolutions or an address, but particularly by a resolution, will be able to represent a different and opposing policy, which, at any rate in the first years of this experiment, would be extremely dangerous to the good feeling existing between the two countries. The Government are relying not upon any past precedent or upon the Debates of 1893, but upon the Debates in this House during the last few months, which have shown how extraordinary sensitive the feeling is both here, in Ulster, and in other parts of Ireland. You have no parallel anywhere in the Empire. In other parts of the Empire these Resolutions have sometimes been resented by the Central Government, but there you have had your provincial Constitutions granted, and your Union accomplished, by absolute good feeling and by agreement on the part of every section of the community. Here you will not have agreement with every section of the community, and the case is not on "all fours" at all. I beg the Chief Secretary, in spite of his rather relentless attitude towards this question, to reconsider the matter from
  564
  the standpoint of the view which my Noble Friend put forward and from the standpoint of the view which I now put forward. I believe these views are not only worthy of consideration, but ought to appeal to him. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway want peace, the smooth running of the legislative machine, and good relations between this country and Ireland, what I now present to the Committee ought to be supported by them and by hon. Members on the other side of the House as by Members on this side.
  Mr. DILLON: This is really an exceedingly absurd Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] I think I shall be able to show it. The proceedings are a singular instance, illustration, and commentary on the complaints made of the insufficient time given for the Debate on the Report stage of this Bill—that the Opposition should hand in a manuscript Amendment at the head of all the other Amendments they have put on the Paper, and so take up a very large portion of the time allocated, to the exclusion of a number of persons who are anxious to speak upon the Bill. If this Amendment were inserted it could have no possible effect except to irritate. I want, as a practical question, to assume that the Amendment is put in. Suppose the Irish Parliament passed a resolution in spite of this Amendment, what would you do?
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Hear, hear.
  Mr. DILLON: If the Irish Parliament passed legislation you can take effective action. Everybody knows perfectly well that you can take effective action in that case, or if the Executive oversteps its powers; but how can you take effective action supposing a resolution is passed, as suggested? What are you going to do? Are you going to prosecute or suspend the entire Irish Parliament because they pass a resolution? That is not all. Attempts have been tried in other spheres to prevent people expressing their opinions. They have never succeeded. The only possible effect has been to create irritation and to induce or irritate people into passing such resolutions, and so give vent to their feelings when they might otherwise not have attempted to do so. Supposing you were able to prevent the Irish Parliament passing a resolution, I maintain you have no power to prevent them expressing their opinion. Supposing you do accept the Amendment, we Irish, after all, are not without resource. What is to prevent

  565
  us moving the Speaker out of the Chair, and so bringing our proceedings to an end, putting another person in the Chair and expressing our opinion? It would be a resolution of the Members of the Irish Parliament assembled, though not at a legal sitting. It would have exactly the same weight and influence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—with our countrymen in Ireland, or in any other part of the world, as if the Speaker were in the Chair. Therefore I say, even if it were possible to prevent the Irish Parliament passing a resolution, a resolution could be passed by the Members of the Irish Parliament, and that for all practical purposes would have the same effect. I wish to show that all the time engaged in debating this matter is the purest waste of time. It is futile. It can have no possible object.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: It is not intentional waste of time.
  Mr. DILLON: I never said it was. But the Amendment is a futile one, and if passed it can have no effect whatever except to irritate, annoy, and insult. To take up the time of the House in debating such an Amendment is manifestly preposterous. As the Chief Secretary pointed out with irresistible force, such a resolution can never have any force and effect, for any attempt to suppress popular opinion and deny it exit or means of expression never served any useful purpose or had any useful result in any country in the world. Debate nearly always leads to difference of opinion, and I should have thought that debates on any subject of the kind in the Irish Parliament would be very much more preferable to debates outside Parliament, especially with the grievance that such subjects were not allowed to be debated in that House of Commons at all. Even if it were possible to take any conceivable action to prevent the Irish House of Commons passing a resolution it is futile.
  One word on the question of the envoy. I listened to the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is generally extremely acute, but he misses the mark when he speaks of the famous case of Sir George Errington. Does he really seriously think that any Amendment, or that any Veto put into this Bill, would prevent the Irish Government sending an envoy of the character of Sir George Errington? I do not envy the Irish Minister who would be responsible for it. What was Sir George Errington? He was in theory an
  566
  agent of the kind that go between the Ministers of this country and the Holy See. He got his friends or patrons in this country into a good deal of hot water, but who imagines that any Amendment of this character or any other Amendment in this Bill would prevent the Irish Government talking with some friend who might be at Washington, or the Vatican, which seems to be a great terror to many hon. Members on this side of the House? Anyone who chanced to be in those countries, after converse with the Irish Minister, could act as a "go-between" between that Minister and any other part of the world that it might be thought desirable to converse with. You cannot do what is suggested. The thing is absurd. The danger conjured up by the imagination of the Noble Lord and other Members is grotesque—absolutely grotesque. Of course, it really goes back to the question which lies at the root of this whole matter, and that is this: Is this policy of this Bill going to improve the feeling of the Irish people towards this country or not? If it is not, this Bill ought to be thrown out. We ought to waste no time over it. If it is, all these fears, these nightmares, are absurd and grotesque. I certainly think that the Noble Lord was singularly unhappy when he alluded to Irish agents at Washington. I think the more Irish agents in Washington and America after this Bill passes the better for the British Empire.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The hon. Gentleman called this an absurd Amendment. In 1893 Mr. Gladstone, in a similar instance, began his contribution to the Debates with these words:—
  "I confess that the Amendment appears to me to be one of great importance."
  He went on to ask Members to look at the matter temperately and apart from all party differences. I take Mr. Gladstone's opinion, not on the merits of the case, but on the importance of the issue as being more deserving of respect than that of the hon. Member for East Mayo. Clearly it is an important matter. Let me just reply to the answer that the Chief Secretary thought adequate. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he only put up two replies to the speech of my Noble Friend. The first was that if this Amendment were accepted the Irish Parliament would be debarred from talking about anything that was not in order upon the Bill, and the second answer that he thought adequate was even if the Amendment were accepted it would be impossible to enforce it. Let

  567
  us deal with these two replies. The first was only a debating reply. I agree that this Amendment covers all the Sub-sections in Clause 2—that is to say, it covers every matter upon which the Irish Parliament is not to be allowed to legislate. If the Chief Secretary had said it is impossible or undesirable to say that the Irish Parliament shall never pass a resolution on any of these matters, I think one would have been prepared to continue the discussion on those lines. But it is not an adequate reply to say if you take the Amendment in its present form you debar the Irish Parliament from talking about anything. If the hon. Member for East Mayo wishes this Bill to go through with any chance of success, would not he and his Friends, upon their own premise, try to meet the Opposition on matters on which the Opposition clearly have a good case and in respect of a matter admitted by Mr. Gladstone to be worthy of consideration? I do not take all subjects. You might pick and choose and say in respect of the Crown or the Succession to the Crown you do not debar that because you will hurt their feelings, and we accept their feelings on all such matters.
  What then? But there are matters where through ill-feeling, ignorance, or other causes there is or has been great trouble. You would strengthen the hands of the Irish Government by saying that you are not to discuss such subjects as the Army. The right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me. I will take another matter. At the present moment there is a general tendency throughout the civilised world to tighten up the laws against foreign enlistment. It is felt to be a very dangerous thing to allow men, however exalted their motives may be, to go and fight for another State to which they are not subject: against a third State. We do not deal with these matters as light-heartedly as we did in the old days. The Chief Secretary has told us his opinion as to what Sir George Errington's capacity was and he has given Mr. Gladstone's version. It was sufficient then to say, "Oh, he was a gentleman who happened to be in Rome," and so forth. That did not go very well then. I am not talking of the question of the envoy, but of the question of foreign enlistment. We can no longer adopt in these days the light-hearted attitude of Lord Palmerston, when a number of Irishmen—and I respect them for it—went to Sicily to fight with Garibaldi
  568
  because they shared his opinions. When Lord Palmerston was severely cross-examined in this House, and asked what attitude the Government took towards them, he thought it sufficient to say, "I think they have gone to watch an eruption of Mount Etna."
  That would not be very well received by the Concert of Europe at a time when all the nations are trembling as to the terrible calamity of war that might fall upon European civilisation. It is not too much to ask that at such a time in which we are now living, with the recollection of a situation which called forth the historical speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if these hon. Gentlemen from Ireland are acting in good faith, and wish to give the people of this country some assurance that they accept this Bill in a loyal spirit, to ask them to accept a self-denying ordinance that they will not pass a resolution in their Parliament, and take up, say, the matter of foreign enlistment, or the question of one State against another, at a time similar to the present stage of acute tension in European matters. If only on that ground we cannot seriously accept their attitude towards this Bill. I have tried to answer the first part of the Chief Secretary's reply. My point was that it was not sufficient to say that if you accept this Amendment you bar the Irish Parliament from even passing a vote of condolence to the head of some neighbouring State. You utterly refuse to consider questions of which I only gave one example. There are grave questions which the Irish Parliament might themselves, without any humiliation, rightly and properly accept in order to say that they do not wish to embarrass this Parliament. The other answer of the Chief Secretary was, on the supposition of accepting the Amendment in whole or in part, that it would be impossible, in fact, to enforce it. It would not be impossible for the Irish representatives to say that they accept this Amendment in part, but if they say they will not accept this Amendment, if they have the presumption to tell us that these discussions are futile, and that we are wasting time upon a matter which we consider of such importance, then what is the value of the safeguards in this Bill when we are told that you cannot enforce any of them.
  Mr. DILLON: What I said was, I believe, this discussion was futile, because such an Amendment as this could not be enforced.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: It clearly could be enforced if the first Government of Ireland said we will bar ourselves from interfering in questions of diplomacy or questions of enlistment in the Army. Why do they not do that? The hon. Member for East Mayo says that from his point of view these discussions are futile, because he believes he has got the Government and that they are bound to pass the Bill, and he refuses to accept any Amendment, however reasonable. From that point of view it is futile, and the Government have once more departed, not for the first time, from the conditions they laid down. In the last Debate, when the Leader of the Opposition indicated that this Bill would not become law this year, he was taunted with the cry, "Oh, you know what the House of Lords is going to do," and that was considered fair debating. But the Prime Minister said over and over again that, in his conception of the Parliament Act, any Bill of magnitude would have to be two years before the country before it can be passed, and that these Debates in the House of Commons are for the purpose of moulding public opinion. If you abide by that then this discussion is not futile, and when we say it is a danger to multiply Parliaments which could interfere in an acute state of affairs, such as foreign enlistment, if we can prove that to be the case, then we believe that the country will become alive to the fact that these matters are of grave importance, and that they are now being treated with levity by the Government and its supporters of this House.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: The Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Mayo has put to the Opposition a question which has not yet been answered, namely, What machinery do you propose to establish in order to enforce this prohibition? Three speeches have already been made from the opposite benches, but we have not received any reply to that question, and I think we are entitled to receive a reply.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: My reply would be, if we are to attach any importance to the speeches of the Leaders of the Nationalist party and to the safeguards in the Bill, then they should accept this Amendment and do their best to carry it out.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: To that I think there are two replies. The first is that in no part of the House has it been more frequently stated than from the Unionist Benches that the present Leaders of the
  570
  Nationalist party cannot bind the future Irish Parliament. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the speech of the Mover of this Amendment. If he did he will recollect that it was upon that argument he based the greater part of his case. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to other safeguards in the Bill. I presume his argument there is that we could not carry into effect the prohibition the Bill contains upon the power of the Irish Parliament to pass Acts or certain measures. After all, the machinery for the prohibition upon Acts of Parliament is contained in the veto of the Lord Lieutenant. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not suggested even the slightest machinery by which it could be attempted to enforce the prohibition in this Amendment, and until they suggest some form of machinery we are justified in saying that this is not a serious Amendment. The Noble Lord who moved this Amendment argued that it was unnecessary to give these powers to the Irish Parliament because they would have forty-two Members to represent them and to express their views in this House. Why is it that hon. Members opposite always urge in the case of Ireland proposals which in the case of England, Scotland or Wales they would themselves admit to be grossly unfair? The arguments in support of this Amendment would equally entitle them to say that the London County Council shall be prevented from passing resolutions. It would equally entitle them to say that the ancient right of petitioning should be taken away from the inhabitants of this country. If you were to reason with regard to England as you are reasoning with regard to Ireland, then the right of petitioning is not necessary, because the views of the petitioners could be expressed by their representatives in this House.
  Hon. Members who have spoken opposite appear to me to attach very exaggerated importance to the power of the resolution. Of course a resolution expressing the views of four millions of people would naturally be entitled to due weight, but if it be the case that the Irish Parliament were to pass a resolution intended to embarrass this country during the progress of a war, then the people of this country and of foreign countries would give that resolution the value it deserved, namely, the value of a resolution passed by a subordinate assembly which has no military or naval forces. Of course it is evident there is not the remotest possi-

  571
  bility that a resolution intended to embarrass the Government would be passed by the Irish Parliament. Hon. Members have referred to speeches which have been made and to resolutions which have been passed by Irish local bodies in the past. These resolutions and these speeches prove nothing at all. People under conditions of freedom do not continue to act as they did under conditions of coercion. One point made by the hon. Member for East Mayo was that, if you did wish to goad any assembly into passing resolutions of this character, there is no better method of doing so than to issue a challenge to them and to impose upon them a prohibition, which would be a continual insult. Every town council, every board of guardians, even the humblest parish council, has a right to pass these resolutions. Out of the thousands of Parliaments and local assemblies throughout the British Empire you wish to tell the Irish Parliament and the Irish Parliament alone that it is not to have the right of expressing its opinion by resolution. That would be perpetual insult; it would be a standing stigma upon that Parliament. The view of hon. Members opposite that that is the way to prevent the Irish Parliament passing these resolutions is another of the many indications we have had in these Debates that they do not yet understand the proper method of legislating for a free people.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I think my Noble Friend who moved this Amendment has very good reason to congratulate himself that he did so, and that it has led to the Debate to which we have just listened. I cannot help thinking that the Debate has been very satisfactory from the point of view of those of us who oppose this Bill, and I think nothing could be more satisfactory than the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He began with a very pertinent question: What machinery do we propose to establish in order to enforce the prohibition in this Amendment. I think we may very well reply that we were not told what machinery the Government proposed to establish in order to enforce the veto of the Lord Lieutenant, and when we are told, then we shall be in a position to answer the question of the hon. Member. Allusion was made to the Debate in 1893, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to think he had entirely disposed of the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment when he suggested to him that he
  572
  might have read the answer of Mr. Gladstone. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself might have also read a little more deeply into the Debate at that time than he appears to have done, because then he would have realised that Mr. Gladstone was answered and answered very effectively. If he will turn to the passage of Mr. Gladstone in the Parliamentary Debates of 30th May, 1893, he will find this passage:—
  "I would like to put it this way: what would be the position of this House if the prohibitions we are now asked to impose were disregarded. Those prohibitions might be flourished in the face of this Parliament and disregarded by the Irish Parliament. This House would have no means of enforcing them. It would be out of the power of this House to interfere."
  That was what Mr. Gladstone said, and that was accurate to some considerable extent, but I should also like to read the answer given to that argument by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and I think it will be found that Mr. Gladstone was admirably answered. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The argument cuts both ways. It absolutely destroys the argument of my right hon. Friend, who can no more enforce the supremacy or restrictions, or safeguards, which he puts forward in his 15ill than he can enforce the prohibitions which we propose. If he says he has convinced himself that the safeguards in the Bill are insufficient to enable this House to exercise control over the Irish Parliament that admission applies equally to all the other safeguards—it applies to those which he has accepted just as much as to those which he has not accepted. The securities are insufficient by the admission of the Prime Minister himself…He tells us 'you cannot enforce your will upon the Irish Parliament.'"
  That is being said to day by the Chief Secretary and by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and we quite agree with it. He says that no Amendment and no human ingenuity which can be put into this Bill would prevent the Irish Parliament from sending an envoy to this country, and I quite agree. What is more, no Amendment or safeguard that human ingenuity can put into this Bill will make the supremacy of this Parliament effective if the Irish Parliament does not wish it. No Amendment or safeguard will make the veto of the Lord Lieutenant operative if that is not the wish of the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament. We have pointed that out over and over again in these Debates, but I do not think the opportunity of showing up this point so conclusively has ever arisen before as it has to-day. Every speech made by hon. Members opposite and by hon. Members below the Gangway against this Amendment are in support of the Amendments we have been constantly putting forward in the course of the Committee Debates. It

  573
  cannot for a moment be said that this Amendment has been futile, idle, or impossible. It may be that I have already argued on the assumption that it is impossible to enforce the safeguards, and I agree that that is the chief argument against the Amendment, in fact it is the only valid argument against it. I may point out, however, that it is no more valid against this Amendment than against a great many of the safeguards which are in the Bill already, which are always held up to hon. Members representing Ulster as safeguards on which they should rely and which should induce them to accept the Bill. If the Prime Minister attended the Debates more when we are discussing such details as these, perhaps he would refrain from making such observations as those in which he informed us, almost pathetically, that Ulster men have nothing to fear from the Irish people, and when he informed us if there were any more safeguards they demanded still even now he would be willing to admit them in the Bill.
  If the Prime Minister attended the Debates a little more he would realise that we do not care whether those safeguards are put in or not, because we do not think the Bill is ever going to become law, and because we know that those safeguards are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore that does not meet our arguments against this Bill as a whole. You admit in your own words, copying what Mr. Gladstone said, that this is an impossible safeguard to enforce. It rests upon hon. Gentlemen opposite to show that it is any more difficult to enforce this Amendment than to enforce the various safeguards already in the Bill. I do not believe it is possible, even with the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite, to show that it is impossible to enforce one safeguard and possible to enforce another. But supposing it could be enforced, there would be a great deal to be said for it. One of the greatest arguments against setting up a Parliament in Dublin, which we believe must sooner or later become as independent as the Colonial Parliaments, is that you will have that Parliament on occasions frequently hostile to this country and acting in opposition to the interests of this country. The case of a war has been referred to. The hon. Member who spoke last said that a resolution passed by the Irish Parliament in case of a war would not very much matter, and the belligerent nation with whom we were at war would be likely to say that that is the
  574
  resolution of a subordinate Parliament to which not much importance can be attached. I do not take the same view. If you had a resolution passed supporting; the enemies of this country by a Parliament nominally subordinate but in practice independent, that might have a very disastrous effect upon the operations in; which this country might be engaged. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It might be an invitation openly extended to a foreign power to use Ireland as a base. This has been done before in the course of Irish history, because a hostile Ireland has offered its shores as a base for the invasion of this country. I have no faith in hon. Memhers below the Gangway, and circumstances might arise in which the same-course of action might be taken by the-Irish Parliament.
  Mr. KEATING: How are they going to get there?
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The Irish Parliament will be certain to quarrel with the Imperial Parliament on a great many issues, and this Bill is full of opportunities for friction between the two Parliaments. I have very little faith in the assumption freely indulged in by hon. Members opposite, that because you set up this Parliament you are going to create a feeling of good will between the two countries which has not hitherto existed. I believe the feeling of hostility to this country which has animated so many Irish Nationalists in the past will animate them in the future, and they will use the Parliament you are setting up to get more and more power, and they will not be content with the extended form of government in the present Bill. Does the hon. Member for East Mayo accept this Bill as a final settlement of the question?
  Mr. DILLON: Yes. I have said so before, and I say it now.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Then at all events this Debate has not been futile.
  Mr. DILLON: Has the Noble Lord never heard of the Dublin Convention, where over 6,000 delegates accepted this Bill as a final settlement?
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Member for East Mayo has always been one of those who has gone further than his colleagues, and there are many of his speeches which show that his ultimate aim is complete independence for Ireland. He has been one who freely acknowledged? that he belonged to the Separatist group.
  Mr. DILLON: Never. It is absolutely untrue. I frankly admit I have said a great many things in the course of a rather stormy career which are very extreme, but I never belonged to the Separatist group, and even if I had done so I would not in the slightest degree consider it inconsistent with the attitude I am adopting to-day. But, as a matter of fact, I never did belong to that group, and from the day I entered politics thirty-five years ago I have always been an advocate of the constitutional policy of Home Rule.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Then the hon. Member has been exceedingly unfortunate in some of the expressions used in his public speeches.
  Mr. DILLON: I think we have all been.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: If words mean anything at all, the speeches made by the hon. Member for East Mayo show that there can be no doubt that the attitude of the hon. Member at the present moment is a new one, and not one which he has held very long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House will notice that even to-day the hon. Member has rather qualified his remarks by saying that if he had been a separatist he would see no inconsistency in his present attitude. What he means by that I rather fail to understand.
  Mr. DILLON: I will tell the Noble Lord frankly what I mean. In the ranks of the constitutional party, converted by our propaganda, there are tens of thousands of Irish separatists who are now quite willing to become loyal subjects of the Crown of England on the conditions of this Home Rule settlement.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be better if hon. Members would discuss the Amendment. A discussion of the opinions of the hon. Member is really not relevant to this Amendment.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I will not pursue the discussion of the opinions of the hon. Member for East Mayo any further, except to state that there are a great number of people, especially in America, who will not regard this Bill as a settlement, and whatever anybody else may say now I am sure the course of events themselves will lead to a further estrangement between the two Parliaments, and that will lead to the Irish Parliament acquiring more power. Therefore, to endeavour to
  576
  restrict the Irish Parliament and confine its action to the sphere of legislation would be a wise and politic step. If you say that you cannot enforce this safeguard, that is an argument against the Amendment, but it is no greater argument against this particular Amendment than it is against a great many lines contained in this Bill.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not intend to follow the Noble Lord in the last part of his speech, because that does not advance us in deciding whether or not this Amendment should be accepted. I propose to consider the earlier part of the Noble Lord's speech and to deal with the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham). I cannot help thinking that the statements which they have made to the House, and particularly those made by the Noble Lord, are due to a complete misunderstanding as to the position of this Bill. I cannot help thinking that they are giving an extraordinary illustration of their belief that the safeguards which have been introduced are merely waste paper, or as the Noble Lord suggested illusory. If they are illusory, then there is no point whatever in seeking to introduce a safeguard which from all points of view must be more illusory than the safeguards which are already in the Bill. This is really all the more remarkable if they believe in the suggestion that all these safeguards are of no avail. One of the arguments put forward is that my right hon. Friend refused to accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government because it could not be enforced. The Noble Lord says you cannot enforce it, and apparently to his own satisfaction, and, so far as I can judge, to the satisfaction of the Members of his party who are present in the House, he accepts the view that consequently you must conclude that the safeguards in the Bill are mere waste paper and illusory. The Noble Lord has quoted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) as having said that you could not possibly enforce any of these safeguards. With regard to the safeguards in the Bill I would remind the House that there is a provision to the effect that any legislation which is passed in contravention of the particular Clauses of the Bill is void. The Noble Lord asks what is the use of saying that? Is he unaware of the fact, and are those who support him unaware, that if a law is void it cannot be enforced and may

  577
  be broken with impunity, and there is no provision by which you can bring a man to account, because such a law is ultra vires.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am aware of that provision, but an Irish Government hold office, and it may not be able to get the support of an Irish Parliament until this Parliament is made to withdraw its voidance of that Act.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree with the Noble Lord, and if he is voicing the opinion of his party I say that the moving of this Amendment has not been futile if it has only produced that answer. Nothing can demonstrate more that the safeguards are not illusory than the admission the Noble Lord has just made. He admits in perfectly plain terms that what I said just now is quite correct. I am not professing to enunciate any new doctrine, but it is one which ought to be borne in mind and which must not be lost sight of when you say all the safeguards are illusory. The Noble Lord said that if the Prime Minister were here more often he would not give us these platitudinous expressions with regard to safeguards or say that if there were any further safeguards needed they would grant them. The Noble Lord asks what is the use of that when they are all perfectly illusory. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to distinguish between a safeguard which says if you pass a law that law shall be void and unenforceable and the safeguard which it is sought to introduce here, and which I say no power of legislation of this Parliament or of any Parliament in the world could' enforce upon any people who had any respect for themselves. If this Amendment were accepted it would prevent the expression of the opinion of the representatives of the people's Parliament of Ireland. It would prevent the expression of their opinion upon points which are, no doubt, of very great importance. It would prevent addresses of congratulation or of condolence, and the expression of their opinions on all matters of that description which come within the excluded matters in Clause 2.
  How can you possibly prevent the representatives in an Irish Parliament from expressing their opinion either in that Parliament or outside it? Even if you pass this Amendment, it is quite clear you cannot prevent somebody in debate, for example, from expressing an opinion, and, whether you assume the Speaker of
  578
  the Irish Parliament will be as vigilant as Speakers to whom we are accustomed here or as indulgent as sometimes the Speaker is willing to be here, you cannot prevent expressions of opinion; and, supposing you say you will not allow a discussion on a resolution in the Irish Parliament, what would prevent the party meeting and passing a resolution either in a committee room or in some public hall? Let me point out that all you are dealing with are expressions of opinion. Resolutions in this House are of importance in certain respects, because generally they precede legislation, but a resolution in a Parliament which is incapable of legislation is of no value. That is a very vital and material distinction between the two. We discuss matters in this House over and over again before a Bill is introduced. You have a resolution proposed and debated, and as the result of that resolution a Bill is framed. If a resolution of the Irish Parliament dealt with any of the excluded matters, that Parliament would be quite incapable of introducing a Bill, and the resolution would remain nothing else but the expression of a pious opinion. I cannot help thinking the Amendment would not only not do what hon. Members desire, but it would be impossible to enforce it. I will take the two instances which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) gave, enlistment and the Foreign Enlistment Act. He complained that my right hon. Friend might, at any rate, have dealt with these matters, and have made some exception, but at the time my right hon. Friend replied to the Noble Lord not one word had been said about them. The instance given by the Noble Lord was suspension by Mr. Speaker, upon which the Irish Parliament might wish to pass a resolution. The right hon. Gentleman's complaint was that my right hon. Friend did not deal with those instances, and my answer is that they had never been made a peg upon which this argument could be based. The instance which had been given was of a totally different kind.
  I propose now to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point. Does he think it would tend to popularise the Army in Ireland if you had a Clause in the Bill saying the Irish Parliament should never be entitled to express an opinion upon enlistment in the Army? Does he think that would help? He, of course, has had far greater experience than I have of what enlistment

  579
  means, and of all the difficulties surrounding the distinguished position which he has occupied. If you had enlistment as one of the points in respect of which a resolution could not be passed, do you think you would have made the Irish people anxious to enlist? Of course, you would not have done that at all. The only effect of this Amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo said, would be to annoy, irritate, and constantly keep before the Irish Parliament, and therefore the Irish people, the fact that they were not allowed freely to express their opinion upon various matters. The right hon. Gentleman used one other instance, and that was the Foreign Enlistment Act. I could understand preventing a resolution being passed if it could be followed up by legislation, but the Irish Parliament could in no way touch the Foreign Enlistment Act, and I cannot see what value any resolution would have. It proves what my right hon. Friend said in regard to this matter, that you can never effectively prevent expression of opinion. It will certainly never be effectively prevented by this particular means. Consequently, on every ground I submit this Amendment ought to be rejected.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is perfectly entitled, if anyone is, to take the line which he has taken, because he has always perfectly consistently held the idea, and said in public, that no amount of safeguards will be of any value. He is therefore, perfectly entitled to turn round upon us and say, "You cannot enforce this. Of what value is it?" I confess, however, I am very surprised that line should be taken by the Government. I do not want to refer at any length to the past career of the hon. Gentleman, but he has at all events in the past been a conspicuous prophet of more extreme measures in Ireland than he appears to be to-day. I want the House to listen to one extract from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who says now in the House of Commons when there is a question of the passing of an Home Rule Bill that he has never been a separatist. Speaking at Moville on 4th December, 1904, as reported in the "Freeman's Journal" on the following day, the hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I say deliberately I should never have dedicated my life as I have done to this great struggle if I did not see at the end of this great struggle the crowning and the consummation of our work."
  580
  What?
  "A free and an independent nation."
  And the hon. Gentleman thinks this Bill is finality. The hon. Gentleman may think so and the Liberal party may think so, but they must at least allow us to be free to hold our own opinion. I want to say a word on what the Attorney-General said with regard to the impossibility of enforcing an Amendment of this kind. If that is true, your safeguards are of no value. The Attorney-General, however, says this is quite different from anything else in the Bill. Will the House believe it, the identical words of this Amendment are in the Bill? Let the Attorney-General look at Clause 10, Sub-section (2).
  "(2)The Irish House of Commons shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation for any purpose of any part of the public revenue of Ireland, or of any tax, except in pursuance of a recommendation from the Lord Lieutenant in the Session in which the vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Hear, hear.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The effect of that, put shortly, is that the Irish House of Commons is, by the terms of your Bill, precluded from appropriating money by resolution, except in pursuance of a recommendation by the Lord Lieutenant, just as a resolution is allowed here on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant. That is the answer to the Attorney-General, who says the Irish House of Commons could not pass a resolution of condolence. They could, because, of course, that would be a case in which the Lord Lieutenant would recommend a resolution.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should have thought it is perfectly obvious Clause 10, Sub-section (2), refers to a money resolution which has to be followed by the Appropriation Act. If you cannot pass your Statute, your resolution, of course, is of no use whatsoever.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that these words were put into the Bill originally because the very hypothesis of a case in which the Irish Parliament might dispose of money by resolution without an Appropriation Act was taken. Supposing that case docs occur, what check have you upon it? Then the right hon. Gentleman said

  581
  that by this Amendment we are seeking to stifle tree discussion. I want to ask him of what use is free discussion on these prohibited subjects except for the purpose of embarrassment? What is the use of the Irish Parliament spending its time talking at large about subjects on which it can never, unless the terms of the Bill are altered, legislate? What possible effect can it have except to embarrass this country? One has to cross swords often enough with the Nationalist party, and I do not want to be needlessly offensive upon this occasion, so I will not take the case of this country being at war; I will take the case of a diflicult diplomatic situation. There is one thing on which everyone in this House will agree. It is this: that the Nationalist party in Ireland have always, and I do not mention it as being to their discredit, been the champions of little nationalities. Over and over again the Irish Nationalist party have come forward as the champions of some little nation which has been oppressed by a bigger one. But I want the House to observe that nearly all great European wars during the past two centuries have arisen exactly out of that state of things. They have been caused by the fact that a small nation is being oppressed, or it may be ill-treated, by a larger nation, and one can only liken the position to that of an open powder magazine ready to receive the spark. But in view of this tendency on the part of the Nationalist party in Ireland one can well imagine circumstances arising when it would be extremely criticial for the Parliament to pass a resolution which might precipitate a diplomatic crisis at the moment. I suggest quite seriously that there is a great deal more in that than has hitherto been considered by the Government. I believe there is a real danger. I recognise it will be a hardship to say that the Irish Parliament shall be prevented from discussing resolutions, and that is why my Noble Friend has been anxious, in framing this Amendment, to put in special words securing that, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant being obtained, certain resolutions may be discussed. Unless you are prepared to believe that the Lord Lieutenant is going to be an absolute tyrant it cannot be suggested that his approval will be withheld. Surely the Government do not wish us to believe that the Lord Lieutenant is going to act oppressively towards the Irish Parliament. If they do not wish us to believe that, then
  582
  what is the reason of their refusal to accept the Amendment allowing him to give his approval. I submit to the House that there are circumstances perfectly conceivable in which an Amendment of this kind might not only be important, but absolutely necessary, and I suggest that this is a matter on which the Government might well reconsider their position.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I think it must be very obvious to those who have studied the Amendment what is to be the machinery for obtaining power to discuss these resolutions in the Irish Parliament. It is obvious that the Lord Lieutenant, in giving his approval, will act on the instructions of His Majesty's Ministers, and if this Amendment is passed you will have the absurd position that any law passed by the Irish Parliament must be subject to the instructions of His Majesty's Ministers. Just imagine what an absurdity that is. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not believe in Home Rule, but having passed the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill it becomes necessary to do what we are now engaged in doing—to frame the Constitution. While we do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with Home Rule, I do suggest it would be absurd to lay it down that laws passed by the Irish Parliament shall be subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, acting on the instructions of His Majesty's Ministers. If this Amendment were adopted one result would be that Bills passed by the Irish Parliament would have to be debated over again in this House. Hon. Members opposite say they do not expect Home Rule to become law, although most of us on this side believe it will do so, and it is reducing the thing to an absurdity to spend our time in discussing a proposal of this nature. I do not think that up to the present the time has been badly spent. I have listened to some very interesting speeches on both sides of the House, but it cannot be made too clear that we are engaged in drawing up a Constitution. If there are any hon. Members who do not believe that it is possible to have Home Rule I can quite appreciate their idea of introducing safeguards into the Bill. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that that is their position. If they will turn to Clause 1, Subsection (2), they will find ample safeguards. There is admirable provision against the passing of disloyal resolutions by the Irish Parliament. What are the words of the Sub-section?

  583
  "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 within His Majesty's dominions."
  Those words have become part of the Bill. It is clearly laid down what the Irish Parliament may do. Could a more moderate measure be framed than this Bill? Seeing that the delegates at the
  great Convention in Dublin unanimously accepted this Bill, and bearing in mind, too, the moderate speeches we have had from Nationalist Members opposite—
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move: "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 279.

  Division No. 477]

  AYES.

  [6 12 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barrie, H. T.

  Grant, J. A.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bird, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Boyton, James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Stanier, Bevilie

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Swift, Rigby

  Carilie, Sir Edward Hildred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cautley, Henry strother

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cave, George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chambers, James

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Croft, H. P.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, Sir George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Moore, William

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Newman, John R. P.

  Winterton and Major Gastrell.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barton, William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Dowd, John

  Bentham, G. J.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Grady, James

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John Plus

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hodge, John

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pointer, Joseph

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hughes, S. L.

  Radford, G. H.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Clynes, John R.

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Compton-Rickett. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richards, Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crean, Eugene

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cullinan, John

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowland, S. James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scanian, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sheehy, David

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Maclean, Donald

  Shortt, Edward

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Snowden, Philip

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Field, William

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Sutton, John E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Furness, Stephen

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thomas, James Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Molloy, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Thome, William (West Ham)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Glanville, H. J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morison, Hector

  Wadsworth, J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Muldoon, John

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Munro, R.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Neilson, Francis

  Waring, Walter

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale;

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Webb, H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  586

  587

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  William, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westheughton)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "laws" ["that they shall not have power to make laws"], to insert the words "or to vote any grant of public money."
  With this Amendment the Clause will read—
  "that they shall not have power to make laws or to vote or grant any public money in respect of the following matters—"
  and then follows a long list of subjects with regard to which they are not to be allowed to act. On the face of it this Clause has been drafted by the Government in order to prevent the Irish Parliament from passing laws in reference to certain matters, but so far as I can see, on the face of the Bill, there is nothing to prevent the Irish Government from granting money which might be paid out of the Irish Exchequer before the vote could be embodied in an Act of Parliament, and which might be utilised to further the very objects which Clause 2 is drafted to prevent. Without this Amendment the provisions in the Clause could easily be rendered a dead-letter. I should like to take one or two instances to show that. Paragraph (1) says that the Irish Parliament may not make any laws in respect to the Crown or the succession to the Crown, but as the Bill stands, on the face of it, I do not see anything to prevent the Irish Parliament, if they wanted to do so, subsidising a movement which practically was a revolutionary movement against monarchical institutions or subsidising some political association with avowed republican ends in view. Paragraph (2) says that the Irish Parliament may not make laws with respect to war or the conduct of His Majesty's subjects during hostilities between foreign States. Again, on the face of the Bill, there does not seem to be anything to stop them granting subsidies to an independent body of His Majesty's subjects fighting under a foreign flag, or, perhaps, granting pensions to their widows and orphans. I have no doubt hon. Members below the Gangway will repudiate these suggestions as entirely outside the range of all possibility, but I think there are some eventualities which even they in their hearts will admit are quite probable.
  588
  Paragraph (3) says that the Irish Parliament may not make laws in respect to the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other military force, but as the Bill stands there does not seem to be anything in it to prevent the Irish Parliament from making a grant to a non-statutory body of volunteers which, with the Royal Irish Constabulary as a nucleus, might be turned into a very formidable weapon in certain contingencies. Hon. Members will agree that it has always been one of Ireland's grievances that she has never had, in recent years at all events, a body of Volunteers, and I have no doubt that under Home Rule that feeling will tend very much to increase. I think we are almost certain to see in the future, under an Irish Parliament, an organisation very much in the nature of a Volunteer force, whose spirit will probably be no more friendly to the Imperial connection than that of the so-called National Boy Scouts, who, I believe I am right in saying, have taken an oath never to enlist or serve in the British Army. I see the Attorney-General smiling. I think I know why he is smiling; he is thinking of Clauses 21 and 10, to which I am coming in a moment. Under Clause 2 the Irish Parliament is not to be permitted to make laws in respect of any matters arising from a state of war, but as the Bill stands there is nothing to prevent them, if they want to do it, making grants for entertaining or harbouring the King's enemies. I do not say that these things will be done, but, if they may be done, I do not see why these safeguards should not be put into the Bill, to prevent them from dealing with them in any shape or form. Hon. Members below the Gangway will recollect, it was mentioned in the Debate yesterday, that an Irishman, Major McBride—whom they repudiate as a representative Nationalist, but who is a man of considerable importance as a public official—did organise an Irish brigade, which fought on the side of the Boers in South Africa, and they will also recollect quite well how he was subsequently rewarded by being given the post of inspector of markets under the Nationalist Corporation of Dublin. This gentleman is still a public official, and I think I am right in saying that he has

  589
  been given a new post during the last year or two, with an additional salary attached to it. Only last year, in a speech in St. Mary's Minor Hall, he said:—
  "He personally laid no claim to gifts of oratorical rhetoric. The rhetoric he would like to hear would be the crack of the rifle, and the rattle of the machine gun when directed against the power of England."
  Hon. Members below the Gangway—I say this in no spirit of bitterness, but you have to face facts as you find them—will remember the incident of the visit of the Hibernian Order of America, which is closely affiliated to the Ancient Order of Hibernians of Ireland, who came to Ireland no longer ago than 1909. The spokesman of those gentlemen was a certain Mr. Cummings.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask you whether these references to speeches which may be called in question was not thoroughly gone into earlier this week on the Clause relating to military control, and whether under a mere money Amendment, the House can again review the same kind of speech.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I can hardly stop the hon. Member. He brings this forward, I suppose, as showing the possibility of the Irish Parliament voting sums of money for certain purposes we should not consider legitimate. I cannot prevent him using these speeches, but I think I may say we have had quite enough of them.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will certainly adopt your suggestion, Sir, and will not follow up the quotations I proposed to make. I have certain quotations here, but I refrain from using them. I will take another instance, that of harbour regulations, which are expressly excluded under paragraph (7). "Harbour regulations" is a very wide term indeed, and the Irish Parliament might easily decide to remit or repay harbour dues in respect of Irish-built or Irish-owned ships, and by these means could easily build up a preferential tariff trade with foreign countries. It may be said that the Irish Parliament, with the very many calls that will be made upon them, will not be able to afford to make these various Grants or subsidies, and that, in the words of the Chief Secretary, Irish finance will prove to be a very tight fit. There is no doubt that it will prove to be a very tight fit, even with Ulster thrown in as a milch cow. But, after all, people in this world generally manage to afford what they want and what they are determined to have, and it
  590
  will always be possible under the new regime in Ireland to starve one Department in order to feed another. For instance, Irish traders who have a great deal of very strong Nationalist backing, will not be unlikely to starve Irish education in the future for their own purposes; and, in fact, it seems to me if the present form of this Clause is adhered to it is more than probable that the history of Irish finance in the future will be one long story of robbing Peter to pay Paul The examples I have given show that it is quite possible that unless a restriction is placed upon the Irish Parliament making grants of money, the safeguard in Clause 2 will be rendered entirely nugatory and of no avail.
  To come to what I know is going to be the reply of the Attorney-General, he will probably say that the matter is already provided for in Clause 21, and under which all votes of money have to be included in the Appropriation Act, and that therefore the Appropriation Act will be void if it includes any votes for those subjects which are forbidden to be touched legislatively by the Irish Parliament in Clause 2. How is this going to be worked out in practice? How do we know, for instance, what financial procedure the Irish House of Commons is going to set up in the future? How do we know that emergency or provisional issues and issues by intermediate ways and means may not be made long before the Appropriation Act gives legal effect to them? Supposing these issues were made in order to subsidise these various forbidden subjects under Clause 2, would the Appropriation Act be wholly void in such a case, or would it merely be void in respect of this particular vote? Again, who is to raise the question whether this Irish Appropriation Act is void or not? Is the Paymaster-General to refuse to pay the money out of the Irish Consolidated Fund, and is he to be prosecuted by the Irish Attorney-General, who himself would be the servant of the Irish Government, if the payment turned out to be illegal in the last instance? Supposing a private person chooses to try and prosecute the Paymaster-General for issuing money, what is to prevent the Irish Attorney-General from stopping the prosecution? Or would it be the duty of the Irish Comptroller and Auditor-General to raise the whole question of legality? Under Clause 21 the Comptroller and Auditor-General is to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but

  591
  there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to show whether he is going to be appointed on the advice of the Irish Ministers or of the Imperial Government, This is a very important matter, and I do not think it ought to be left in this state of uncertainty. After all, you are not going to have any Insurance Commissioners in this case to clear up the muddle, and if the Bill is allowed to pass through in its present sloppy condition there will be inextricable confusion in the future. Sub-section (2) of Clause 21 merely says that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but if he is going to be the servant of the Irish Government he will practically exercise no control at all. I mean that the control that, as a servant of the Irish Government, he exercises in regard to Imperial interest will really be not worth having. It will be a dead-letter.
  Suppose, for instance, that the Irish Parliament grants subsidies for gradually building up a carrying trade with foreign countries in conflict with the spirit of Clause 2, is it likely that the Irish Comptroller and Auditor-General will question the payment out of the Irish Consolidated Fund for such an eminently desirable national object? Of course, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will have the whole sentiment and feeling of the Irish people behind him, and it would be as much as his place was worth to question the disbursement of the necessary funds. It will not only be merely a question of the Appropriation Act. There will presumably be intermediate issues of money just as there are at present in this House. This takes place at the present day by means of a Royal Order, without which no issue can be made, but under the Bill the Royal Order will merely be an Order by the Lord Lieutenant, acting, as I presume he will be acting, under the advice of his Irish Executive, and the Executive Government in Ireland, at any rate in the near future, will be the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), and others. This Amendment might have been necessary even if Clause 10 were clear. Clause 10 says the Irish House of Commons shall not pass any resolution for appropriating any revenue except in pursuance of a recommendation from the Lord Lieutenant. But just as in the case of Clause 21, I should like to know on whose advice will this recommendation be made. Will it be on
  592
  the advice of the Irish Ministers or of the Imperial Government? It certainly looks, when one reads the Bill, as if he was going to act on the advice of his Irish Cabinet, and really the point is of very great importance. If the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy us that he is really going to act on the advice of the Imperial Government this Amendment would certainly not be nearly as necessary as it is at present; but if, as it seems to me, he is going to act, not on the advice of the Imperial Government, but on the advice of his Irish Cabinet, the safeguards in Clause 2 in regard to all these subjects are perfectly illusory and of no avail at all. I take it for granted that the Government want to abide by the spirit as well as by the letter of the Clause they are proposing, and if they really have that intention I cannot help feeling that they ought to put these safeguards into the Bill and make it quite certain that the Irish Government shall not be able to go behind the back of the Clause and really do by a Money Resolution what they are forbidden to do by an Irish Act of Parliament.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not rise in order to refute the prophesy of the hon. Gentleman that the Attorney-General was going to deal with this question, but by prearrangement, with which I cannot interfere, and if anything I say does not give satisfaction to the hon. Member he can put my right hon. Friend further to the torture. I have some difficulty in understanding my hon. Friend quite as well as usual. He said for example that Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 does not provide against harbouring the King's enemies, and suggested that in Sub-section (7) harbours were not properly defined. That pointed to Amendments in those particular Sub-sections rather than to the Amendment which he now moves. If we have not sufficiently defined the services which are outside the scope of the Irish Parliament, of course in that respect the Bill is open to criticism, but my hon. Friend does not propose any Amendment of that character, therefore we have for the moment to proceed upon the assumption that the excluded subject matter is properly defined in the various Sub-sections of Clause 2. Then, says the hon. Gentleman, what is there to prevent the Irish Parliament from proceeding to vote sums of money for purposes which are outside the scope and purport of this Clause. He -was inconsistent to dwell so much as he did on my expression of the

  593
  tight fit, and then to suggest that it was quite likely that the Irish House of Commons would seek by vote to support the widows and orphans of foreign fighting Powers. However, as he said widows and orphans, probably they were widows and orphans of gallant Irishmen, fighting in extraneous battles. I do not think that is likely to happen. At the same time in another part of his speech he referred almost in terms of reprobation to the exceedingly hard financial terms which had been imposed upon Irishmen by the financial provisions of this Bill. But the hon. Member was quite right in anticipating that, when the Attorney-General rose to reply he would call attenton particularly to the provisions of Clause 21, and incidentally to the provisions of Clause 10 and Clause 29. Clause 21 rigorously imposes a scheme of action upon the Irish Parliament corresponding to that in our own. A vote of the Irish House of Commons by itself has no more effect than a resolution. The hon. Baronet knows what little effect resolutions of this House have unless followed up by legislation, and any little inaccuracies and errors which in the past we have attributed to resolutions, have now been finally decided by the Courts, and we are all placed upon our good behaviour in the future. We all recognise that a resolution, unless followed up by an Appropriation Act, counts for nothing. Therefore, we have inserted in this Clause 21 a provision which makes that matter perfectly plain—
  "All sums paid into the Irish Exchequer shall form a Consolidated Fund and be appropriated to the public service of Ireland by Irish Act, and shall not be applied for any purpose for which they are not so appropriated."
  Consequently if the Irish Act were to seek to appropriate them to a purpose outside the provisions of the Bill, it would be illegal, void, and of null effect. On the other hand, they could not be appropriated to any purpose except a legal purpose. Therefore the vote to which the Amendment refers would have no effect whatsoever as a disposition of public money until such time as it had been subsequently appropriated by an Act of Parliament. Then Clause 21 goes on in the same way:—
  "Save as may be otherwise provided by Irish Act, the existing law relating to the Exchequer and Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall apply with the necessary modifications to the Irish Exchequer and the Irish Consolidated
  594
  Fund, and an officer shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to be the Irish Comptroller and Auditor-General."
  That is the officer in Ireland corresponding to the officer who keeps us right in this country. He is to be appointed independent of all party consideration. The Comptroller and Auditor-General occupies the proudest position of anybody in this country, namely, that of having the duty of determining whether moneys voted in this House have been appropriated to their particular and proper purposes. The Sub-section provides that the corresponding officer in Ireland is to act in the same way. The hon. Gentleman is very suspicious as to the independence of this Comptroller and Auditor-General. He thinks that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is to be subject to Clause 10, Sub-section (2) of which: provides:—
  "The Irish House of Commons shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation for any purpose of any part of the public-revenue of Ireland or of any tax, except in pursuance of a recommendation from the Lord Lieutenant in the Session in which the vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed."
  That, of course, refers to a money resolution. The hon. Gentleman says that the-Lord Lieutenant is to make a recommendation, and he wants to know in what capacity the Lord Lieutenant is acting. He is acting in his capacity as head of the Irish Executive. There is no doubt at all of that, I think. If that wipes away, in the opinion of the hon. Member, all the financial arrangements and the code established by this Bill—if that is to be swept away by the officer who recommends a money resolution, and who is the officer at the head of the Irish Executive, then, of course, I am open to the criticism which the hon. Member has passed, namely, that the whole of the arrangements become illusory, waste paper, worth absolutely nothing, and is all sheer nonsense; because the Lord Lieutenant who recommends a resolution in the ordinary way to the House of Commons is notoriously a creature of the Government, and that they may devote their own money to some purpose outside of the scheme and the restrictive scope of this Bill. I really cannot attach any importance to that. The hon. Member has pointed out what is to happen if there is a case where it is doubtful whether it is legal or not. All law, it may

  595
  be said, is a matter of doubt, and I am far from saying that some cases may not be on the line. Clause 29, Sub-section (1), on which there was a great deal of discussion and Amendment in Committee, runs in this way:—
  "If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Irish Act or any provision thereof, or any Irish Bill or any provision thereof, is beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament, or whether any service is an Irish service within the meaning of this Act or not, or if the Joint Exchequer Board, in the execution of their duties under this Act, are desirous of obtaining the decision of any question of the interpretation of this Act, or other question of law, which arises in connection with those duties, the Lord Lieutenant, Secretary of State, or Board, as the case may be, may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs, the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, constituted as if hearing an appeal from a Court in Ireland."
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is -after the money has been paid out.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I dare say. It might be or might not be. It is to be before the Appropriation Bill is passed. The question cannot arise until there has been an attempt to deal with public money in a way which, in the opinion of some person or another, offends against the restrictive provisions of this Bill. If that is so, complaint can be made and brought into Court, and it can be decided then whether the appropriation was ultra vires, and a remedy will have to be provided. I cannot provide for the hon. Member opposite a hypothetical world in which no wrong will ever be done, and where everything will be considered and decided by a Court of Law before any overt act takes place. There must be irregularity before any Court of Law can determine that there was irregularity. We have gone a great length, because we allow the thing to be taken before a Court before it is an Act of Parliament and while it is merely a Bill. The Bill was subjected to a great deal of criticism in that matter, and I had a little difficulty in supporting it as it stood. I
  596
  thought we should go into Court on this matter at the earliest possible moment. If the hon. Member will give his mind more to the subject, I think he will see that we have done all that can be done in the way of applying to Ireland all the safeguards which our own historical Constitution has afforded us that no public money shall be dealt with except by resolution, and then by appropriation in an Act of Parliament. We have also provided in the best possible way a method whereby anybody or any Secretary of State, as well as the Lord Lieutenant, may take the opinion of a final Court of Appeal on the subject. I think the hon. Member will agree that the point he has raised is rather too nice and too fine for this workaday world.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I have always a high regard for the Attorney-General, notwithstanding the company he keeps, but I am afraid that my respect for him cannot prevent me discharging a public duty in asking whether he will give the same exposition of the Bill as has just been given by the Chief Secretary. Clause 21, Subsection (1), says:—
  "All sums paid into the Irish Exchequer shall form a Consolidated Fund, and be appropriated to the public service of Ireland by Irish Act, and shall not be applied for any purpose for which they are not so appropriated."
  The first point I take upon that is that it will not necessarily follow that moneys levied under the authority of the Irish Parliament will be paid into the Irish Exchequer at all. It will be within the competence of the Irish Parliament to switch them off into a special fund for any purpose to which the Irish Parliament choose to devote them. Sub-section (2) of the Clause says:—
  "Save as may be otherwise provided by Irish Act, the existing law relating to the Exchequer and Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall apply with the necessary modifications to the Irish Exchequer and the Irish Consolidated Fund, and an officer shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to be the Irish Comptroller and Auditor-General."
  Before the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866 was passed it was often found that there were great evasions of the intention of Parliament in regard to the application of moneys voted, and therefore that Act was regarded by Mr. Gladstone as

  597
  the perfection and crown of our financial system, and as absolutely necessary to prevent the abuses that formerly prevailed. But when you are applying this to Ireland you are at the same time giving power to the Irish Parliament utterly to cut away the whole of that system if you say—
  "Save as may be otherwise provided by Irish Act.…"
  You give power to the Irish Parliament to do away with the office of Comptroller and Auditor-General. These are not integral parts of the Irish Constitution. They are only provisions which may be reversed by the Irish Government at any time. The Irish Government may destroy the whole structure built up mainly by Mr. Gladstone and other great financial authorities in the past. Therefore, if the Irish Government choose to repeal the Exchequer and Audit Act in so far as it applies to them, and to modify the status of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, there is nothing to prevent them, provided they get the assent of the Lord Lieutenant. They might proceed to apply money not by Act, but by resolution, and the officers would be instructed to pay out the moneys, and no Act of Parliament would be necessary. There would be no one to challenge their action at all. So far as I understand Clause 29, that applies to Acts which are passed, but it would not apply to Executive action on a resolution. So far as I can see, whatever may be the intention of the Government as regards these provisions, it is perfectly open to the Irish Government to knock down the whole protection this Bill professes to afford, and to apply money in any way the Irish Government think fit, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 2. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with these points.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: It may not be that the process of destroying the office of Comptroller and Auditor-General, which is contemplated by my hon. Friend will be carried out, but even supposing the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues to exist in Ireland as he does in England, is the right hon. Gentleman not quite aware that the Treasury now claims, and not only claims, but repeatedly exercises, dispensing power over and above the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Is not that in ordinary official administrative matters an almost everyday occurrence? If that is the case in regard to the Treasury in England, might not the same be done by
  598
  the Executive in Ireland? Might they not by the exercise of this dispensing power overrule their own Comptroller and Auditor-General? I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that I am right as regards the practice in this country. I wish to know what he thinks as to the possibility of such action in the case of the Irish Executive.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I only rise to deal very shortly with the subject which has already been dealt with by the Chief Secretary. I agree entirely with the observations which were made by my right hon. Friend in respect to the interpretation of these Clauses and their effect in relation to the Amendment we are now considering. The hon. Gentleman said that the provisions of Clause 21, which deals with the sums paid into the Exchequer and their appropriation, will only apply to those sums. He is quite right in regard to Sub-section (1) of Clause 21. If the money comes out of the Consolidated Fund, it goes into the Irish Exchequer, and the proceeds of all the taxes will go into the Irish Exchequer. It is only from the Irish Exchequer you can get money to pay. If you are dealing with a Vote of public money, you want to prevent in this case the Irish Parliament and people from using money for purposes which are not legal.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is there anything in the Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament opening up, say, a Local Taxation Account which will not form part of the Exchequer at all?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If you are going to assume that the Irish Parliament is going to divert the money from the Exchequer, the proceeds of taxes, to some other account, or is going to invent an account for that purpose, there is nothing you could possibly do in an Act of Parliament which would prevent that kind of thing. If you assume that that is going to be done you never can prevent it. All you can do is to say, this is the legal form in which it shall be done. I do not think there can be any difficulty in carrying this out, more especially when you remember Clause 29, which is very valuable in this connection. I am not quite sure that the House appreciated the importance of the insertion of the words giving the power of applying to the Privy Council in reference to any Bill before it becomes an Act, until we had this discussion. It certainly shows it is a very

  599
  useful provision indeed, because here you must have an appropriation in order to legalise the expenditure of the money. You cannot get an Appropriation Bill if it appropriates money to purposes which are declared to be unlawful by this Bill. If the Lord Lieutenant has any doubt about it then the door is open for him. He need not remain in doubt. He need not even take the Law Officers' opinion. If any question arises he has at once the opportunities afforded him by the provisions of this Bill, which have been so much criticised, enabling him to go direct to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and get what is the highest judicial interpretation in the land. I should have thought that that was the best safeguard you could devise to meet this kind of thing.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: You might have a resolution without a Bill.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If that is the case this Amendment will not assist you in the slightest degree. I do think that this answer is complete to the hon. Gentleman. If you postulate for this purpose that the Irish Parliament is going to use the money, notwithstanding that it is an unlawful purpose, if it is once voted, and is not going to proceed to appropriation, no safeguards you can have introduced will have any effect, but they can, if they choose to vote this public money, notwithstanding that the Bill does not legalise it, and draw the money from the Exchequer and spend it, notwithstanding that they know that they cannot lawfully spend it and that they are going to put their hands into the till illegally. It does not matter what you say, you cannot prevent those who have got the right to draw the money from the Exchequer doing it, whatever Acts of Parliament you have. All your Acts of Parliament in this country are equally useless if you assume that; all the safeguards we have here as regards public expenditure would be equally illusory if you choose to assume that state of things. All we are attempting to do for this is to provide that kind of safeguard which will prevent the money being used for illegal purposes.
  Mr. MOORE: In the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put an appeal to the Privy Council is what he relies on. There is no suggestion of stay on any legislative action. Now suppose the case arises that he puts, and there is a contested appropriation. The Irish Parliament passes the Bill. The fact that there
  600
  is an appeal pending does not prevent them doing it, and does not prevent the Bill being acted on. These things may take place. In addition to that, suppose an Appropriation Bill passes at the end of the Session when you have the legal vacation and so on, it is not an extravagant way of putting it that it may be nine months before you get a decision from the Privy Council. In the meantime the Bill is a perfectly valid Bill, and the money has been spent, when the ultimate decision of the Privy Council is given, on an improper object. Will you provide that money so spent shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum? That will be a guarantee.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Surely the answer-to the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is clear enough if you look at the provisions of the Bill. He is assuming that you have got to wait until the Bill has become an Act before you proceed to the Privy Council. But he has omitted to give effect to the insertion in the Bill of the provision to which I have referred that the Lord-Lieutenant can proceed, as soon as it is a Bill, and that he has not to wait, but can proceed to take the advice if he likes, if he has any doubt on the question.
  Mr. MOORE: The Appropriation Bill in the ordinary course does not come on until the very end of the Session, that is towards the end of July. There are preliminaries and pleadings, and you will not get the Privy Council to sit then. If the Parliament want to commit an illegality you will not get a decision for nine months. If the money is misapplied, is there any machinery for getting it back once the Privy Council has condemned the misappropriation?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I cannot agree with that assumption. It is quite inconceivable that in a matter of this kind affecting the appropriation of public-money you should have to wail nine months to get a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  Mr. MOORE: They do not sit in the long vacation.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The long vacation does not last nine months. There is not the slightest difficulty with regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Anyone acquainted with the way in which work is done by that body knows that if a constitutional question arises for their

  601
  determination as to whether a Bill is within this Act or not the matter would be heard at once. There is no question of pleading. There are no parties in this case. What you have to do is to put the question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to decide, and the idea that it would take nine months in order to do that would defeat the object of these provisions.
  Mr. MOORE: One month might.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: When you get to one month it is possible I agree, but first of all we do not know that it will be the practice in the Irish Parliament to take the Appropriation Bill at the end of the Session. But suppose this question has arisen and there is a doubt as to its legality. Is it really suggested that the money would be used—not voted: I am assuming that it has been voted—but would be used, taken out of the Exchequer by those who have the power to take it out of the Exchequer, notwithstanding that the point is to be sent to the Privy Council for determination whether the Bill proposed to be passed would be valid or not?
  Mr. MOORE: What is to stop it?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is no more to stop that than what I put just now. If we choose to assume that it is impossible to provide any safeguard which would prevent a person putting his hand into the till, if you choose to put it in that way, notwithstanding that it is an illegal thing to do, or that there is an objection to it, I can conceive nothing more improper, and I cannot imagine, however extreme you may think your Parliament would be, that it would deliberately take the money and use it, notwithstanding that the question is to be raised and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to whether you can use it for this purpose or not. Dealing with the point before us, this Amendment would be absolutely useless if it is devised to prevent a thing of this kind. If the hon. and learned Member wanted to introduce some other safeguard he might have had the opportunity of moving an Amendment, but that is not the Amendment we are dealing with. The Amendment we are dealing with is one which says they must not vote public money. If we assume all these things which the hon. Member has assumed, sup pose you got that in your Bill and then they did vote public money; then assume again, as is done for the purpose of the
  602
  argument, that notwithstanding that they cannot vote public money they have done it, and notwithstanding that they cannot pass an Act of Parliament which will properly legally appropriate that money they have chosen to vote it and have voted it, they have chosen to take the money out and spend it, that is the kind of thing which you may assume with regard to this Parliament. What safeguard have you here? What is there in this Parliament to prevent it? Why are we to assume that the Irish Parliament and the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer are to be more dishonest than the Ministers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Parliament? I am quite aware that the hon and learned Member takes a very strong view and a very earnest and very sincere view upon this Bill and opposes it, but I should imagine that he is not going to suggest, with regard to Ireland and Irish Ministers, that he will assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be a more dishonest Minister than Ministers here.
  Mr. MOORE: I am assuming that they will act upon the principles of Tammany Hall.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the hon. and learned Member is assuming that Ministers in Ireland and the representatives who are elected to Parliament are going to be dishonest, then there is no use in talking about safeguards. I agree with him. If that is the view he takes of his countrymen, nothing then but prisons will be of any avail. But whatever he may say, I do not think that that is really his view. I mean he does not really suggest that they would be so dishonest as to do the thing I have mentioned. Neither do I mean that this House or the Unionist party could assume or can assume that such a state of things will exist. It is only if you so assume that it is necessary to introduce this particular safeguard. There might just as well be the same question raised with regard to what happens in our Parliament, and if it is assumed that all of us are going to be guilty of the same dishonesty, no Act of Parliament can prevent a fraud or dishonesty. Surely there is here an ample provision, and a better provision than there is in this country, and I should have thought that that would satisfy him.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question I have raised as to the dispensing power of the Treasury

  603
  to set aside the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The same observation applies as I have just made. The money can only be used in a certain way-according to an Appropriation Act, and the Treasury cannot do anything which would not be authorised by the Bill.
  Sir H. CRAIK: But the Treasury constantly issue a dispensing power setting aside the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in England. Why cannot that be done here?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We are dealing with the specific provision of this Bill which says that the money can only be used in a certain way. If you say that it can only be used according to the Appropriation Act the Treasury cannot dispense in any way with that. Whatever it may do here it cannot do that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt at all fully with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. It is perfectly true that you never can have complete protection against dishonesty in the public service; but when you say that safeguards cannot do that, safeguards are unnecessary unless they are to protect you from at least irregularities, and if we are to assume, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to do, that everything is going to be regular then we want no safeguards at all. The object of a safeguard is to prevent irregularities. I do not say dishonesty. Let us see what might happen quite conceivably under the Bill as it stands; that is to say, the Appropriation Bill is brought in in the month of July, but the Lord Lieutenant is advised that it may be ultra vires, and therefore he intervenes before it has become law and while it is still a Bill. The Irish House of Commons despises its intervention; they think they are quite right, and that the Bill is intra vires; they go on with it, and before, by any conceivable dispatch of business, the Judicial Committee can arrive at a decision, or before they conceivably can have time to decide it, the Bill becomes law. Then the Judicial Committee decide that the application of this money has been ultra vires, and all we want to know is what machinery there is in the Bill by which that money can be brought back. The right hon. Gentleman assumes, quite contrary to experience, that this point of
  604
  grave constitutional importance can be decided in a few days. That has not been the experience of the public as to the operations of the Judicial Committee, even under the most favourable conditions, no matter how anxious that body may be to facilitate the dispatch of its business. They must have the documents before them; there must be an application, and the whole proceeding must take time. Therefore we want to know—after the Lord Lieutenant has intervened, and before the Judicial Committee can give a decision—how the money that has been spent is to be brought back. If this Amendment will not meet the case, surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to be in a position to say that he will put in a provision in such a case as that, whereby the amount could be deducted from the Transferred Sum. I think that would be a complete protection. Otherwise I do-not see how you are going to get the money back.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: How would that be a protection?
  Mr. CAMPBELLIt would be a protection at least for the public and the taxpayer.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that a deduction should be made from the Transferred Sum. That sum has to be paid by this country to Ireland. How is that to help Ireland to get the money which on this hypothesis it has improperly spent?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: If they knew that money improperly spent would be deducted from the Transferred Sum, that would be a check on improper expenditure, and they would wait until they had got a decision from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Why should there not be some way of ensuring that they cannot, in anticipation of a decision of the Judicial Committee, force on their legislation? It would be a very simple thing to say that in the event of their proceeding to spend money which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council afterwards say has been applied to purposes ultra vires, there should be some means either of indemnifying the Exchequer against that expenditure or getting back the money improperly spent. I see no way of doing it except in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the purpose of this Amendment would be

  605
  covered if the right hon. Gentleman said that he recognised the danger. I do not say it is a probable danger, but it is a possible danger, and if it is a possible danger there should be some undertaking that it will be met.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: This Amendment is a very simple one, but we have travelled away from it to a certain extent. I am quite prepared to admit that the Irish Government will be an honest Government, and as honest as the present Government.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I hope not so bad as that.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What can be the possible objection to these words. You have at all events words which provide that the Irish Parliament is not to have power to make laws in respect of certain matters, among other things foreign trade, harbour regulations, and other matters. All the Amendment simply suggests is that the Irish Parliament is not to spend public money in respect of those objects. What possible harm is there in that? No possible harm could be done. No suggestion has been made from the Front Bench opposite that any harm would be done by the insertion of these words. The Attorney-General referred to the case of dishonesty, against which, of course, there is no possible safeguard. Is it absolutely clear that "they shall not have powers to make laws in respect of the following matters" does necessarily exclude the power to make payments in respect of them? Is it anything illegal, under the new Act, for the Dublin Parliament to make grants under the Appropriation Act as secret service money? Once they are granted that power, then it is absolutely in the discretion of the Executive to spend that money on anything it likes—on any one of those excluded matters. In regard to the object of this Amendment we have not had one word from the Front Bench opposite which deals with the point. The Attorney-General said that there are safeguards. No doubt there are safeguards, but the point we are dealing with comes long before the safeguards. There is nothing in the world to prevent these things being carried out and money being spent unless you put these words in. My point is that no possible harm is done by the Government inserting this Amendment. Doubts certainly arise, and I do submit that no
  606
  harm can be done by the adoption of this Amendment, for which a substantial case has been made out. Perfectly honest people may make mistakes, and the money might be used for purposes to which nobody suggests it ought to be applied.
  Mr. CASSEL: The point we desire to take on this side of the House, and which has not been met by the Government, is that the money may have been spent long before the safeguards are reached. The Attorney-General referred to the Appropriation Bill, but money may have been spent in the majority of cases before the Appropriation Bill has been introduced at all. Let us take a case which will be in the memory of all of us, that is the granting of our own salaries, which was done by a mere Resolution of the House. I think we all received our first cheque before the Appropriation Bill was introduced into this House at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] My recollection is that it was so, but whether it was so or not in that case I do not think any right hon. Gentleman opposite will deny that in a great many cases money is perfectly legitimately and properly spent before the Appropriation Bill is ever introduced. Therefore the safeguards to which the right hon. Gentleman refers of Clause 29 comes in at too' late a period. On that ground we asked for a further safeguard by making it perfectly clear that it shall be illegal to pass a resolution. The result of putting in these words would be that the Paymaster-General would then have the discretion of refusing to give his authority in the first instance for the money being paid over on the ground that the resolution was an illegal resolution. What reasonable objection can the Government have to this proposal? Nobody suggests that it is an insult to the Irish Parliament. There is a provision that the Irish Parliament shall not make laws in regard to certain subjects, and if that is not an insult, surely it is not an insult to say that they shall not spend money upon them. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member below the Gangway finds his susceptibilities offended by this proposal. The only thing which astonishes me is the determination with which the Government resist these reasonable words. With regard to the suggestion of the Attorney-General that the Appropriation Bill is going to be submitted to the Privy Council, I think it shows the absurdity of submitting these

  607
  Bills to a Court of Law. Fancy the Appropriation Bill of the year having to be submitted to the Privy Council for its consideration! Can anything more absurd than that be imagined? What a safeguard that, is to prevent the expenditure of money upon purposes for which it ought not to be spent, and with reference to which there may be bond fide differences as to whether those are legitimate or illegitimate purposes. I should have thought the
  safeguard to which the right hon. Gentleman might have referred is Clause 10, Sub-section (2), but upon that the Chief Secretary completely gave the case away, because he said the Lord Lieutenant took the advice of the Executive. If he takes that view it destroys the only safeguard which does exist.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 294.

  Division No. 478.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nield, Herbert

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon John Edward (Brighton)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Randies, Sir John S.

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

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

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

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bird, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Blair, Reginald

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyton, James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Swift, Rigby

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cave, George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chambers, James

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts. Watford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Willoughhy, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Croft, H. P.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Moore, William

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Duke Henry Edward

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Faher, George Denison (Clapham)

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Cassel.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Alden, Percy

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Muldoon, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, R.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hackett, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Barton, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Nellson, Francis

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Bentham, G. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Boland, John Plus

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  O'Dowd, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holme Sir Norval Watson

  O'Grady, James

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  O'Malley, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hobnouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Hudson, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Clynes, John R.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Johnson, W.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swn'sea)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Redntond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Cullinan, John

  Kehaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Delany, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Robinson, Sidney

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Leach, Charles

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Doris, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rowlands, James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sheehy, David

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Shortt, Edward

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Field, William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Snowden, Philip

  Furness, Stephen

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Martin, Joseph

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Gilhooly, James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Ginnell, Laurance

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molloy, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thorne, G. R. Wolverhampton)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morgan, George Hay

  Thome, William (West Ham)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Morison, Hector

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Morton, Alpheut Cleophas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  610

  611

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Webb, H.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Waring, Walter

  Wiles, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wilkie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and 30th December last, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Government Amendments made: In Paragraph (1), after the word "Regency" insert the words "or the property of the Crown (including foreshore)."
  In Paragraph (4), after the word "Dominions" ["His Majesty's Dominions"], insert the words "or matters involving the contravention of treaties or agreements with foreign States or any part of His Majesty's Dominions."
  In Paragraph (6), after the word "such," insert the words "or domicile."
  In Paragraph (7), after the word "disease" ["contagious disease"], insert the words "or by steps taken, by means of inquiries or agencies out of Ireland, for the improvement of Irish trade or for the protection of Irish traders from fraud; the granting of bounties on the export of goods."
  In the same Paragraph, after the word "waters" ["inland waters"], insert the words "the regulation of harbours."
  Leave out the words "or harbour" ["or harbour regulations."]—[Mr. Birrell.]
  After Paragraph (7), insert the words,
  (8) Any postal services and the rates of charge therefor (except postal communication between one place in Ireland and another such place, and any other postal service which is executed completely in Ireland); designs for stamps, whether for postal or revenue purposes; or.—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

  CLAUSE 3.—(Prohibition of Laws Interfering with Religious Equality, etc.)
  In the exercise of their power to make laws under this Act the Irish Parliament
  612
  shall not make a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof, or give a preference, privilege, or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief or religious or ecclesiastical status, or make any religious belief or religious ceremony a condition of the validity of any marriage, or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at that school.
  Any law made in contravention of the restrictions imposed by this Section shall, so far as it contravenes those restrictions, be void.
  Government Amendment made: After the word "school" ["religious instruction at that school"] insert the words "or alter the constitution of any religious body except where the alteration is approved on behalf of the religious body by the governing body thereof, or divert from any religious denomination the fabric of cathedral churches or, except for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water, or drainage works, or other works of public utility upon payment of compensation, any other property."—[Mr. Birrell.]

EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Executive Power in Ireland.)
  (1) The Executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in His Majesty the King, and nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power except as respects Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act.
  (2) As respects those Irish services the Lord Lieutenant or other chief Executive officer or officers for the time being appointed in his place, on behalf of His Majesty, shall exercise any prerogative or other Executive power of His Majesty the exercise of which may be delegated to him by His Majesty.
  (3) The power so delegated shall be exercised through such Irish Departments

  613
  as may be established by Irish Act or, subject thereto, by the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant may appoint officers to administer those Departments, and those officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant.
  (4) The persons who are for the time being heads of such Irish Departments as may be determined by Irish Act or, in the absence of any such determination, by the Lord Lieutenant, and such other persons (if any) as the Lord Lieutenant may appoint, shall be the Irish Ministers.
  Provided that—

  (a) No such person shall be an Irish Minister unless he is a member of the Privy Council of Ireland; and

  (b) No such person shall hold office as an Irish Minister for a longer period than six months, unless he is or becomes a member of one of the Houses of the. Irish Parliament; and

  (c) Any such person not being the head of an Irish Department shall hold office as an Irish Minister during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant in the same manner as the head of an Irish Department holds his office.

  (5) The persons who are Irish Ministers for the time being shall be an Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland (in this Act referred to as the "Executive Committee"), to aid and advise the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his Executive power in relation to Irish services.
  (6) For the purposes of this Act, "Irish services" are all public services in connection with the administration of the civil government of Ireland except the administration of matters with respect to which the Irish Parliament have no power to make laws, including in the exception all public services in connection with the administration of the reserved matters (in this Act referred to as "reserved services").
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  As the Clause now stands in the Bill it sets up an Executive Government in Ireland, and deals with the functions of the Lord Lieutenant as the head of the Constitutional Executive in Ireland. In my humble judgment, and I think my opinion is shared by many on this side, of all the
  614
  bad Clauses of the Bill this is the worst. We believe that, bad as it may be to establish a separate Legislature in Ireland, an Executive, I will not say any Executive, but an Executive such as is proposed in the Bill, is more mischievous still. Of course the Clause and the Executive which it establishes must be considered in relation to the Bill as a whole. The purpose of the Bill is to confer upon the Irish native Parliament the responsibility of maintaining peace, order, and good government in Ireland, and upon that general phrase is grafted the extraordinary medley which we find in the Bill, of prohibited services, reserved services which may become transferred services, and reserved services which cannot become transferred services, and the Executive which has to administer all those various classifications has, I think, to be considered in relation to them all. In addition to those various classes of services, there is also what the Government propose about concurrent legislation by the Imperial Parliament, and it is not unnatural to find that a single Executive is naturally endowed, must be endowed, under those circumstances with divided responsibility, and I will not say merely dual control, but mixed control of the various administrative services in Ireland. When this subject was being debated in Committee, my right hon. Friend the senior Member for Dublin University declared that, so far as he was concerned—and in this I entirely agree with him—he would prefer, to such a system as is set up in this Bill, that Ireland should be given the much larger powers, the completer freedom or liberty enjoyed by the self-governing Colonies. For saying that he was greeted with a certain amount of jeering on the other side of the House from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, who are disposed to say that we on this side are inconsistent in this matter because at one moment we cry out that too much and at another that not sufficient power is given under the new Constitution. But I do not think there is really any inconsistency at all. The reason we take that view is that, bad as we think it would be both for this country and for Ireland that the same Constitution should be conferred upon Ireland as the self-governing Dominions have, we think anything would be better than chaos and confusion such as must result from this Bill, and that anything is better than the make-believe and sham which we find embodied in this measure.

  615
  Why is it that the Government in framing this Constitution have not thought it right to confer those larger powers? We are sometimes led to believe 1hat it is out of consideration for the feelings of my hon. Friends from Ulster, or, at any rate for the views entertained on this side of the House. It is nothing of the sort. The Attorney-General quite candidly told us on a former occasion that the reason why those larger powers have not been conferred is a financial reason. It is because Ireland desires to have her Executive Government and her legislative powers, to have all the autonomy she can get, but she wants this country to pay for it. That is the reason why these restrictions, so far as they are restrictions, are imposed. Let us, then, get rid of the make-believe that it is done out of any consideration for the feelings of the Opposition. I wish to refer for a moment to the confusion which must result from this Bill. The machinery of Civil government may be said to consist of three main divisions: first, the Legislature, which makes the laws under which the country has to live; secondly, the judiciary, which administers and interprets those laws; and, thirdly, the police, using the word in its largest sense, which supplies the machinery for carrying out the laws which have been interpreted by the judges. Those three branches of civil administration necessarily depend closely upon each other. You cannot have one without the others, and the efficiency of one depends upon the efficiency of the others. Using a very apt, though common and threadbare metaphor, we often talk of the machinery of Government. Probably every Member at some time or another has admired the working of a complicated machine in which there are a great number of different co-ordinated parts, and one sees some extremely small and delicate pieces of apparatus working in co-operation with a ponderous piece of machinery. In the machinery of this Bill it appears to me that one of the most important cog-wheels in the machine has absolutely no other piece of apparatus correlated to it with which it engages; because the machinery of the Executive, as I hope to show, is entirely out of engagement, to continue the metaphor, with the judiciary and the Legislature.
  To begin with, the legislative power in Ireland is to be duplicated. You have the legislative power in the Irish Parliament, and the concurrent power of legislation
  616
  which is to remain in this Imperial Parliament. If that is so, it is essential that in some way or other the correlated parts of the administrative machine should also be duplicated. You must have a duplication in some form or other of the judiciary and of the police. When Mr. Gladstone proposed his Home Rule Bill some years ago, he, at all events to this extent, recognised the principle which I am pressing upon the House, by establishing Exchequer judges in Ireland, who were to be not Irish judges, but Imperial judges for the administration of the Imperial law. I should be out of order in referring in detail on this Amendment to the question of the judiciary, but I may be allowed to do so so far as it is part and parcel of the general Executive machinery of the country. Under this Clause the judges will be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, who in this respect derives his prerogative by delegation from the King. I should like to read a few words which will be recognised by Members opposite as of authority, from Mr. Bryce, describing what they have done in this respect in America. I am not quoting our own Colonial Dominions, because we have had so much dispute as to whether or not they are to supply an analogy on this occasion; and also because it will be generally admitted that in a matter of this kind the United States, with their larger constitutional experience and their larger and more complicated society, supply a much better analogy to what we are doing here than such countries as the newly-federated Australia, or even the older federation of Canada. Mr. Bryce, dealing with the history and the development of the Federal Constitution in America, said:—
  "Now that a federal legislature had been established, whose laws were to bind directly the individual citizen, a federal judicature was evidently needed to interpret and apply those laws and to compel obedience to them. The alternative would have been to entrust the enforcement of the laws to the State Courts."
  If the analogy holds, and I think it does, that is being done by this Bill.
  "But they could not be trusted—"
  I venture to emphasise that expression in view of the reiteration of the reproach by Members on the other side that we are not willing to trust the Irish.
  "But they could not be trusted to do justice between their own citizens and those of another State—"
  the analogy there being litigation between an Irishman and an Englishman or a Scotchman, which is not uncommon.
  "Being under the control of their own State Governments, they migbt be forced to disregard any federal

  617
  law which the State disapproved, or, even if they admitted its authority, might tail in zeal or power to give due effect to it."
  These Federal Courts, Mr. Bryce tells us, have jurisdiction in every cause in which either party to a suit relies upon a federal enactment. I take that example from the wisdom of the American Constitution to show that where you have concurrent legislation, as we have here, the State Courts are not to be trusted, that they may fail in zeal or power to give effect to the decrees of the Federal Parliament, and that, consequently, wherever any citizen has to rely upon a federal enactment—that is, in this case, wherever any citizen of Ireland had or wished to rely upon a Statute passed by the Imperial Parliament—it has been recognised in America that you must have federal judges, because the State Courts will probably lack zeal or power to carry out those federal enactments. The Lord Lieutenant will appoint the judges upon the advice of Irish Ministers. I do not wish to say anything in this connection with regard to distrust of the future Irish Parliament or of the Irish people. I am content to rely upon the analogy of America. Why should it not be found, as Mr. Bryce says it was found in America, that the Irish Courts would lack zeal or power to give due effect to Imperial Acts? After all, if we attempt to analyse how the working of these institutions is carried on, do we not find, in point of fact, that the efficiency of the whole administrative system really depends upon the sense of obligation on the part of various officials to perform the special duties which have been laid upon them? What is that sense of obligation? From what is it derived? I maintain with great confidence that it is closely related to the source from which Imperial and Civil officers derive their authority. In this country it has become second nature on the part of judges and Civil servants to do their public duty, because they have never had any doubt that the source of their authority was the Crown and, under the Crown, the Imperial Parliament. If you try to get at the idea underlying that sense of obligation I think you will find that in the last resort it really depends, although it may sound not a very high ideal, upon the power of removal. If judges neglect to do their duty they know-that the Imperial Parliament can remove them.
  8.0 P.M.
  But here we are setting up a system under which the judges and other Executive officers will be expected to do their
  618
  duty to this Parliament although they do not derive their authority from it, and this Parliament will exercise no sort of control over them. The judges will be removable by the Irish Parliament. What would happen in Ireland so far as the carrying out of the administration of the law is concerned, supposing that in the case of concurrent legislation the Irish judges—and here, again, I wish the House to remember the American experience—were to refuse to take judicial cognisance of an Act of the Imperial Parliament which had not been passed by the Irish Parliament? I suppose one of the learned Gentlemen opposite to me may perhaps answer: "Well, if they do anything so outrageous, or foolish, or so unheard of in this country—though not unheard of elsewhere—there is the appeal to the Privy Council. In the last resort we must rely upon the ultimate Court of Appeal to give a decision which will take cognisance of Imperial legislation and will give effect to it." If that is so, if that is the reply, we come to the third of the important parts of the administrative machinery which I referred to at the outset. We are driven back to the police. It is no use having interpreters of the law laying down the law unless you have the legal sanction which is necessary to give effect to it—that is, to put it shortly, the police. We come to the police. To continue the analogy of the United States, their experience has prompted them to supply not merely Federal Courts in all the States, but federal officers to carry out (he decrees of those Courts. In other words, they have done exactly what I said a moment or two ago we have failed to do in this Bill. Having got concurrent legislation the same as we have—that is to say, duplicated legislation in the various States—they have also duplicated the judiciary and the police; consequently, whether their system is cumbrous or not, at all events it is a logical and coherent system.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): In the United States?
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: In the United States, I believe they are called marshals. How do we stand? I have been supposing—because I do not think it is unthinkable or improbable as the years go by—that the Irish Courts refuse to recognise the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. I am supposing the Privy Council give a decree reversing the judgment of the Irish Courts. How are they going to

  619
  give effect to that judgment? First of all, consider it after six years. The police, and the only police in Ireland, will be in the hands of the Irish Parliament, and ex hypothesi, if my case is accepted as an illustration, it follows that the Irish Parliament will be of the same mind as the Irish Judiciary, and the Irish Parliament, and the Irish Executive, which we are setting up are not in the least likely to put the police at the disposal of the Privy Council to carry out a judgment in conflict with the Irish Courts which is recognising Irish legislation to the exclusion of Imperial legislation. If there is—and I think it can hardly be maintained that there is not—a certain amount of force in what I am saying—if it is true, it proves two things. It proves that the two safeguards which are constantly being emphasised from the other side of the House for our satisfaction are perfectly nugatory—the safeguard of concurrent legislation and the safeguard of the asserted supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Those two safeguards stand, of course, in the Clauses of the Bill, but unless there is some way whereby the Executive of the country can carry them out they are perfectly nugatory.
  The condition of affairs is quite as bad during the six years before the police are to be transferred to the Irish Parliament. The only difference is that the conditions are reversed. Instead of the Imperial Parliament and Imperial legislation having no method of making itself effective in Ireland, it is the other way round. The Irish Parliament during those six years will have no way of discharging the responsibility which is thrown upon them by this Bill of safeguarding the peace, order, and good government of the country. They have no means of doing it. Let me take an example to prove what might happen—not by any means an impossible case. I will try to place myself for the moment in the position of hon. Members opposite, or of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side, who are sincerely anxious that this legislation should be carried out with efficiency, hopeful that it will reconcile hostile interests in Ireland, and that it will prove for the good of the country. No doubt there are a good many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who will hope that. Let me suppose this state of facts within the next six years. Suppose that the two parties in this House were to change sides after this Bill had
  620
  become law. We will suppose the Government in office consists of, amongst others, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool. At the same time we will suppose that, contrary to the expectation of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is some little trouble in Ulster over the administration of this Act. What is going to happen? We will say that there is—I will not say civil war; I do not want to be controversial, for I dare say there are a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are entirely incredulous as regards civil war—but they may be inclined to admit that there might possibly be some serious rioting in the North of Ireland before this Act settles down. What is going to happen? The Irish Government will be responsible for the peace, order, and good government of Ulster. Ulster people are resisting the administration of this Act. The Irish Government, whom it is not extraordinary to suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford will be the head of, finds itself entirely without any means of coercing the people of Ulster. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the Government of this country, to the Imperial Parliament who have control of the police. He goes to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose speech last night will be in the recollection of the House, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University.
  The hon. and learned Member for Waterford says to my right hon. Friend, "I find that, contrary to our prophecies and in accordance with yours, there is a good deal of trouble going on in Ulster: we require the use of the Royal Irish Constabulary to put it down: we call upon you to give orders for putting it down." If things become a little more serious, possibly the Irish Government might go further, and say, "Not only do we require the Royal Irish Constabulary, but we require the use of the military." That is a consideration which will not be limited by six years! At any time it may be necessary to have the use of the military for such a purpose, and to come for the sanction of this House or the administrative Government of this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford will have to go to my right hon. Friends, and say, in effect, "It is quite

  621
  true that for years past I and my friends have reviled the British Army; we have insulted their uniform; we have degraded them so far as we could; we have held them up to obliquy amongst our people, but will you now be good enough to lend us soldiers, or give us the use of the military forces in order that we may coerce, and, if necessary, shoot down the only people in Ireland who have ever done them honour." Can anyone imagine a state of administrative chaos greater than that? Does anybody suppose that a Government such as I have supposed to be in power in this country would for a moment listen to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. What would be the result so far as the administration of peace, order, and good government in Ireland was concerned? In this connection I should like to refer to a speech which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University made earlier in these Debates. It is very relevant to this question of the Executive. My right hon. and learned Friend said:—
  "That the apprehensions which I and many of my friends who know Ireland well hold in regard to the future is not that the Irish Parliament will by legislative enactment carry out the persecution of Protestants in Ireland."
  I humbly expressed my entire agreement at the time with that opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend. I noticed not very many days ago that this opinion was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as if it were something very novel, and carried with it some very far-reaching admission. I believe that opinion has been general amongst those with whom I generally act, general, though perhaps not universal, amongst the Protestants of Ireland themselves. But even if they are not prepared to go quite so far as my right hon. and learned Friend, if they are not prepared to say that there is no fear whatever of persecution or unfairness by legislation, I think they would all say that, at all events, the greatest danger they apprehend is not from legislation but from Executive action. It is for that reason that we want to change the whole proposal of this Bill as far as the Executive is concerned. There are many other considerations which might very well be urged in this connection. There is the whole question of the Lord Lieutenant's veto, which is also one of the safeguards offered to hon. Members on this side, and particularly to hon. Members from Ulster, as supplying some security for their safety in the future. The proposals in regard to
  622
  the veto of the Lord Lieutenant which are embodied both in this Clause and in a later Clause, are only another example of the absolutely hopeless chaos, so far as I can understand it, which this Bill must introduce.
  The Lord Lieutenant under this Clause is sometimes an Imperial officer and sometimes an Irish officer. There are, I agree, precedents or analogies elsewhere for Governors who have double duties—not always quite easily distinguishable. I do not think there is any example where the double capacity in which a great Imperial officer is to act is so patent as it is in the case of the Lord Lieutenant under this Bill. Sometimes he is called upon to give his veto as an Imperial officer acting upon the advice of the Ministry in this Imperial Parliament. At other times he will be an officer who is bound to follow the constitutional advice of the Irish Ministers. The difficulty is that there are, or at all events might be, so many cases where it would be very difficult indeed for him to judge, or to judge with any certainty, as to whether the matter in dispute is or is not one of those services which are exclusively Irish, or one of those services which are Imperial in character. When the Lord Lieutenant has any doubt upon this matter he will, if a constitutional officer, be obliged himself to take advice from somebody. Who is he to take advice from? Is he to go to the Irish Ministers and say, "This service appears to me to be an Imperial matter," or, "It appears to me to be an Irish matter: what is your opinion?" Or is he on the other hand to disregard the constitutional advice of the Irish Prime Minister, and to come, or send, over here to London for instructions, and to take the opinion of, and his instructions from, the Imperial Government? There is one matter, though a smaller one to which I will call the attention of the House, because it appears to me to be of some importance, although not very far-reaching. Sub-section (1) of this Clause says:—
  "nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power—"
  that is the King's power—
  "except as respects Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act."
  I think, apart from all further questions, it appears to me that that is exceedingly objectionable on the ground that it is a definite statutory limitation of the Royal prerogative. The Royal prerogative ought not to be touched by a specific enactment

  623
  in this way. The Royal prerogative has never been defined by Statute, and although it would be true to say it was limited by Statute in the past it has not been the custom definitely to say that with regard to certain matters in delegating his authority His Majesty parts with his prerogative altogether. His Majesty, with the advice of His Ministers, has inherent power to delegate his authority by Commission to various Governors, such as India or the Dominions or Ireland, but I know no other example where Parliament laid it down that with regard to certain specific matters the Royal prerogative shall be limited in this way.
  It may be said that in endeavouring to delete this Clause from the Bill I am proposing that the Irish Parliament shall have no Executive powers at all. I do not know from some points of view that there would be anything very inconsistent if we were to take that course. We have been constantly told by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway from Ireland that what they are seeking is the restoration of Grattan's Parliament. We heard it in the last few days in an eloquent speech from the hon. Member for South Donegal, in which he referred in glowing terms to the history of Grattan's Parliament, and used the expression, I think, that we were seeking by this legislation to restore it. It has been the boast, and it is to-day the boast of the Nationalist party, that they are carrying out the same movement as O'Connell. O'Connell's movement was a movement for simple repeal, and therefore if a responsible Executive were deleted from this Bill, by that means, if we are to trust the statement to which I have referred, we should be granting the specific demand of the Irish Nationalist party. But I am not taking that ground. I quite agree with the opinion given on a former stage of our Debates by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), when he said that to set up in these days a legislative body without an executive of some sort would be a proposition to which we could not pledge ourselves. I therefore do not propose that, but what I do say is that, considering the confusion of the administrative functions to which I have referred, we ought to have an Executive which would answer more accurately to the duplicate legislative powers and be better suited also to the judicial powers given by this Bill.
  624
  I do not think that hon. Members can say that this Amendment is proposed for the purpose of wrecking the Bill. Certainly I am not going to pretend that I would not be as glad as anyone in this House to wreck the Bill. But it is perfectly compatible with the desire to wreck the Bill to move and support an Amendment that may not wreck the Bill but make it less mischievous, and it is for that purpose I press this Amendment upon the favourable consideration of the House and the Government. If the Clause was deleted it would not, so far as I have been able to see, and I have examined the matter from that point of view, cut so deeply into the structure of the other Clauses as to require the complete remodelling of the measure. It would, of course, I admit, leave a blank, but if the Government were to accept the Amendment and delete this Clause it would be perfectly easy, by a Supplementary Bill, to introduce an Executive more in accordance with the requirements of the case I have ventured to outline to the House, and I hope therefore the House will be willing to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: In seconding this Amendment, I feel I can safely begin with one remark which will have the cordial approval of Members upon both sides of the House now present, and that is that it is with great regret we heard such a masterly analysis of this particular Clause of the Bill and its operation in such an unfortunately thin House. There is no doubt I am placed in great difficulty in following the hon. Member, because he has put the case against divided authority in the clearest possible manner. He has shown without the slightest exaggeration, without calling upon his undoubted gift of imagination to the slightest extent, that here are real and absolutely insurmountable difficulties in the way of carrying out this Bill, if it ever becomes law, with this Clause 4 in it. I am in another difficulty. On the 24th October we had a Debate in Committee on an Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield to omit certain words from this Clause which would have had practically the same effect as this Amendment. The hon. Member then moved to omit from Sub-section (1) the words:—
  "Except as respects Irish services defined for the purposes of this Act."
  In the Debate on that Amendment we have the advantage of speeches from most

  625
  of the Members on the Front Benches on both sides, which threw the greatest amount of light upon the subject. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, at the very outset of his speech, negatived the whole proposition in these words. He said:—
  "In my judgment it would be much better to leave things entirely as they are than have a Parliament without an Executive responsible to it."
  In my view, to a large extent, that begs the whole question. Although we do complain about the setting up of a Parliament with an Executive responsible to it, what we are complaining of here is that you are really not doing that at all. You are setting up another Parliament within the United Kingdom which is to have an Executive responsible to it in certain matters, and certain matters only, and these matters inevitably overlap matters excluded from its Executive powers, and the consequence will be undoubted confusion in the carrying into effect of the Act, and the people to be governed under it will be placed in a position of hopeless difficulty in respect to it. I do not think I could possibly sum up the position better than did the senior Member for the City of London when he said:—
  "Really out of Bedlam was there ever such a method of devising a new Constitution tried?"
  That I believe to be a fact. In that Debate to which I have referred, as well as in the speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, the question of difficulty was very fully dealt with. Questions of how you are going to deal with the Post Office, with the railway services, whether nationalised or not, were dealt with, and also the difficult and impossible position of the Lord Lieutenant, who is master in one sense in respect to one authority and servant in respect to another, never knowing whom he ought rightly to consult, with no definition as to where his absolute authority ends, and dependent upon the Government of this country in respect of the other of his administrative duties. All these matters were very fully dealt with, and what I want to do is to bring before the House another aspect of the case altogether. I want to deal with the question which I think is absolutely at the basis of the whole of this Home Rule Bill. We have heard a great deal about the Legislature which is to be set up in Ireland. I believe that the attention of the people is mainly concentrated upon the question of the laws they will pass. The aspect of the case put before them from the Government point of view,
  626
  is that Legislature is to be set up having legislative authority to deal only with purely Irish affairs. That is a very specious proposition, but what is infinitely more important to the people who will be goverened is the Executive authority. What I am convinced is of infinitely greater importance than the legislative power of the new Parliament is the divided Executive which will be set up under this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, that it would have been perfectly possible to maintain undivided Executive authority. It-would also be possible to arrange the application of Executive authority infinitely more in accordance with the good government of the various parts of the United Kingdom than that which is proposed under this Bill. There is another thing in which I think the people of this country, who may be sometime asked to give an opinion on the question of this Home Rule Bill, are likely to be misguided. When you consult Clause 4, you find in the first three Sub-sections a great deal of reference to the authority of His Majesty's Government and the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, but it is not until you arrive at Sub-section (4) that you find out what is the real authority behind this new Executive which is to be set up in Ireland. In the last lines of that Sub-section we find the words—
  "and such other persons (if any) as the Lord Lieutenant may appoint, shall be the Irish Ministers."
  The Irish Ministers are the real power, and it is useless to put in all these words, which I cannot but regard as verbiage to a great extent, intended to deceive the people who may read them about the Executive authority and its real and original constitutional fountain head. What we have to consider under this Bill with regard to all Irish matters which really concern the daily details of the lives of the people to be governed is that they are going to be under the sole exclusive control of Irish Ministers responsible to an Irish Parliament. If there were any racial affinity between the people of North-East Ireland and the rest of that country, if there were not these grave differences which cut far deeper than political differences, this might seem a reasonable arrangement. The majority in the new House of Parliament will be the authority which will appoint the Irish Ministers, and no one can doubt for a moment, at any rate, that in the earlier Parliaments, whatever the anticipation of hon. Members opposite may be,

  627
  the majority will be that which is represented here in this House by the majority of the representatives of Ireland. It will be a majority of the South and West of Ireland, mainly agriculture, a purely Roman Catholic majority, differing in every respect from the views, ideals, and even from the past history of the people of the North-East of Ireland. They will have no say in the appointment of this Executive which is to govern them. We may fairly suppose that the Executive which will be set up in Ireland will not be behind the present Government from whom they will trace their origin, and they will not be bashful in making an infinity of appointments of minor officials of all kinds to carry out the government of the country in its every detail, with respect to Irish services, at any rate, and they will naturally appoint people who hold the same political, social, racial and religious view as they hold themselves. Therefore, I say as far as the earliest Parliaments are concerned, the anticipation on which hon. Members opposite largely base their support of this Bill will not be realised. That is undoubtedly true of the early Parliaments. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said yesterday:—
  "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 to-morrow as an agreed Bill."
  A little earlier the hon. and learned Member said:—
  "The Prime Minister expressed the hope that they will, as good citizens, fall in with this legislation."
  If it is in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the duty of good citizens to fall in with this legislation, I would like to ask whether it is his conception of the duty of good citizens that they should necessarily gladly accept the rule in all matters of daily life of a horde of officials appointed by an Executive in whose appointment they have no voice whatever, and who would be entirely alien to all their ideas of the Government they desire. I ask the House to consider whether it is likely that where there are these racial differences it will make for the good and smooth working of the new Constitution which it is proposed to set up, that you should have an Executive which is appointed by one part only of the people by virtue of the majority which they will undoubtedly have. Would it not be infinitely better, by way of an experiment, that at first, at any rate for a time at least—if you
  628
  are really anxious to give a separate Legislature to Ireland, while it is admitted by everyone that these differences and this strong opposition exists—that as long as they do exist, even if they are going to be obliterated, there should be an Executive appointed by the same impartial authority, that is the authority of this House which has appointed the Executive in the past, and which I think has governed Ireland with an increasing measure of success. The confusion that will arise under this Clause of the Bill has been very ably dealt with in the previous Debate, and also by the Mover of this Amendment. Perhaps it is only necessary for me to refer in a little detail to what I said just now. Not only will the Lord Lieutenant be the servant of two masters, but it is not using too Irish an expression to say that he will be the master in the one case and the servant in the other.
  I will tell the House what I mean. Supposing he has to act in respect of the Irish services; he has to deal with the Executive in Ireland, and if he disagrees with that Executive he possesses the delegated authority of His Majesty, and if agreement with the Ministers is hopeless he can dismiss them, and to that extent he is entirely master of the situation. But when he is dealing with the reserved services so long as they are reserved, and when he is dealing with Imperial matters which are reserved under this Bill, for all time he is undoubtedly completely in a position of subordination to the Executive and to the Cabinet of this country. It puts him in an even more impossible position and in a light which makes it more impossible for him to carry out his duties than was indicated by the Mover of the Amendment. It is really a position of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is first one thing and then another, and I cannot see in the Bill how he is ever to know when one of the characters he is supposed to impersonate ceases and he is called upon to play the other part. I want next to call attention to a question which has been already asked and which has never been answered. I want to know, and I think we have a right before we leave this Clause to know, who is going to be the responsible Minister in this House in respect of the reserved services? I want to know who the representatives of the North-East portion of Ireland, probably eight in number, are going to have to answer them if they have any questions to put in this House with respect to those

  629
  reserved services? Various suggestions, more or less playful, have been thrown out in the course of the Debate, but there has been no attempt on the part of the Government to give us a definite answer to that question. That leads me to what I regard as an infinitely more important question. I want to know whether there is going to be any Minister in this House after this Home Rule Parliament has been set up to answer questions with regard to the Irish services? It may be said that the whole purpose of the Bill is to transfer the control of the Irish services to the new Parliament, and that they will no longer be any concern of this House. I want to know if that is going to be the position?
  The hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. Ronald M'Neill), indicated in his concluding remarks that this Bill makes a new departure. It calls upon His Majesty to give up a part of his authority, not to delegate it, but to give it up definitely and entirely. I want to know also whether under this Bill this House is to be called upon, not only to give up all control over, but all power of dealing with, or even of asking questions with regard to the Irish services? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, and if we are to have no further concern with those services, then what becomes of the safeguard to which the Prime Minister specially referred last night in this House? Speaking on the Amendment then before the House, and with regard to an individual Member of the minority in the North-East of Ireland, he said:—
  "He will still be represented unlike any of our Dominions outside the United 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st January, 1913, cols. 392–8.]
  I do not think the sentence is very well reported, but what the Prime Minister indicated clearly to those who heard him was that one of the safeguards of the Irish minority would be their representation still in this House. I ask: What is the value of that if there is no Member of the Government to whom questions can be addressed on subjects which obviously concern the constituents of a Member for North-East Ireland? He may think his constituents are being unfairly dealt with in respect of the administration of Irish services. Those powers are exceedingly
  630
  wide; they go into all the details of the whole life of the people, they concern their prosperity, their trade, and almost everything they value; and, if there is to be no Member here of the Government who is concerned with and in charge of those affairs, what is the value of that safeguard which is represented by their representation here? I think we have a right to ask for definite answers to those two questions. Who is to be responsible in this House for questions relating to reserved services so long as they are reserved services and Imperial questions for all time, and who, if anybody, is going to be responsible in this House for the Irish services? If on the other hand we are to have some one responsible in this House, some one who can answer questions, and if the Members for the North-East portion of Ulster are to have the right of raising any question in this House with regard to those services, what becomes of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) which he used last night? Perhaps I had better read his words:—
  "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 to-morrow as an agreed Bill. [Hon. Members: 'No, no.'] In my opinion it would be welcomed in their hearts by Members of the Unionist party as leading to the 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st January, 1918, cols. 400–1.]
  Everybody knows the gist of the hon. and learned Member's argument. It is the old argument: If only we will pass this Home Rule Bill, we can get rid of the Irish question, and none of these difficulties and inconveniences, party inconveniences, will occur in this House. We have got in this dilemma: We have either got to admit that the safeguard represented by the representation of Members from the North-East of Ireland is absolutely illusory, because their mouths will be closed in this House on every question that really concerns them and their constituents, or else we have got to admit we do not get rid of the perennial Irish difficulty, and that we do not minimise that difficulty even if you regard it from the mean and sordid view of party convenience, as the hon. and learned Member asked us to regard it. I will ask the attention of hon. Members to this fact. There is no doubt there will be questions in the future which it will be impossible to say are purely Irish questions because at the present time we choose to say they are so. There

  631
  is the whole question of Irish finance. I have been informed on the very best authority this afternoon that, taking the decade beginning in 1900, the cost, not, of the reserve services, but of the Irish services over which the Parliament in Dublin would have control, has increased by no less than 26 per cent., and when the additional sum of half a million a year has been reduced, as is proposed in the process of this Bill, to £200,000 a year, when that is in operation, then there can be no further increase in the cost of the Irish services beyond, not 26 per cent., but 16s. per cent. or less, or else there must be additional taxation. If that is the position, and I believe it is, of the finances of this Bill, I suggest there will immediately arise questions concerning the Executive control of the Irish services which will have to be raised in this House, if the people who are mainly affected are to be safeguarded in any way. I believe that these questions must mainly affect the North-East part of Ireland. The moment you come to any question of finance, and the administration of legislation that may impose additional taxation, although it is an Imperial concern to collect that taxation, if you admit, as you must admit under this Bill, officials will be appointed by the Irish Executive, then I say that is a question which mainly concerns the North-East part of Ireland, because the people there will be the biggest contributors to any additional taxation that may have to be imposed. I believe that, as the Bill is drafted, with this divided authority, quite apart from the graver question—and I entirely disagree with the dictum of the Postmaster-General the other night—quite apart from the graver question of what would happen from a national point of view in the case of a national crisis—I believe that in the daily life of the people you are not making arrangement that is likely to or can possibly work smoothly, and which can secure the cohesion of the minority in the North-East of Ireland, which is essential to the smooth working of your Bill.
  Hon. Members have made it perfectly clear in the course of these Debates what they are betting on, if I may use the phrase—on what they really depend in giving this Bill their support. They believe that once it is passed into law all present differences of opinion will vanish, and that ordinary political conditions will spring up; that the people will at last
  632
  become a united people and be glad to have a Parliament of their own. If the idea on which this Bill is based is that you are going to weld these two absolutely divergent peoples into one, then I say the worst way to bring that into operation is by putting the people in the minority under the monstrous hardship of being governed from day to day, not only by an Executive, but by minor officials, over whose appointment they have no control and no voice whatever. If you keep the Executive in the hands of a just and impartial outside power, if you give at the same time the Parliament that you propose—though I need hardly disclaim, being an advocate of that course—if you do that, then I say there might be some hope of these varied peoples, these two opposing elements, flowing together. But you will never beat them into one by appointing a horde of officials and an antagonistic Executive for that purpose. I believe that this part of the Bill is of infinitely greater importance than the question of the legislative authority we set up in Ireland. The people will in their daily life come into contact with the Executive almost hourly, and I say that under this Clause 4 you are instituting a perpetual reminder to the people who object to Home Rule that they are under the Government of an alien power which is interfering with their everyday life.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Let the House consider, in the first place, at what stage we have arrived in the consideration of this Bill. We have passed the Second Reading. We have decided that an Irish Parliament shall be set up, and in the Committee stage and on the Report stage we have passed Clauses establishing that Parliament. Now we have reached a Clause which provides for the creation of an Executive Government, and this is the Clause which the hon. and learned Member, who spoke in a very interesting manner in moving this Amendment, proposes to omit. The suggestion before the House is that if we pass a Home Rule Bill at all it is to be a Bill to set up an Irish Parliament, but not to set up an Irish Executive—in other words there should be established a body of the nature of Grattan's Parliament. I cannot conceive that that is an Amendment which is likely to meet with acceptance at the hands of the British House of Commons. It is obviously contrary to any precedent established in other parts of our Empire. It would give to Ireland a Constitution in

  633
  some degree resembling that of Germany and the United States, where the Executive is not directly responsible to Parliament, and that is a feature in those Constitutions which is usually regarded by British constitutionalists as being inferior as compared with the distinguishing feature of the British Constitution. It would differ from them in that the Executive apparently would be nominated from here at Westminster, while in Dublin there would be a Legislature which would be supposed to work with that Executive elected by the Irish people. Is it possible to imagine any arrangement which would involve a greater degree of friction than that suggested in this Amendment?
  The hon. Member who has just spoken has said that that is what he desires as a temporary arrangement, and he paid a most welcome compliment to the Chief Secretary when he said that the Unionists of Ireland would be very ready to continue the present system, which he called an impartial system, and which was year by year achieving a greater and greater measure of success. But the hon. Member is quite at variance with the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment. The Proposer and Seconder, in fact, hold diametrically opposite positions. The hon. Member who moved declared that the proposal which was subsequently made by the Seconder was a totally impossible proposal. He said we got far beyond that, and that a Parliament of the nature of Grattan's Parliament was inconceivable nowadays. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself completely answered, in advance, the speech of the hon. Member who was to second his proposal. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment was that the Government should look about them and see if they could not improve their measure here and there and introduce, sooner or later, a supplementary Bill which would set up another Executive of another kind. But he made no suggestion as to any difference in constitution which that Executive should show compared with the one proposed by this Bill, and he made no suggestion, too, of any description that the kind of Executive we are setting up, namely, a Ministry chosen by the Lord Lieutenant but responsibe to the Parliament of Ireland—was an objectionable proposal. The form of Executive, of course, follows the precedent adopted in all British Constitutions. His objection was not to the constitution
  634
  of the Executive, but rather to its power, and he moved his Amendment less in order to secure the omission of this Clause and the destruction in any form of the Irish Executive, and less in order to suggest an Executive of a different kind,, than for the purpose of taking the opportunity, to which, of course, he was fully entitled, and in respect to which I do not wish to raise any objection, of complaining that the powers to be conferred upon this. Executive were not the right powers, and he asserted that our Executive was not properly co-ordinated with the judiciary and the police. He also took occasion to criticise, in very strong terms, what he described as the medley of reserved and unreserved services that are included in this Bill—some functions to be conferred on the Executive in Ireland, some functions to be reserved to the Executive here, and some functions which may at first be reserved and ultimately be transferred.
  9.0 P.M.
  I can only repeat an argument it has been my duty to advance in this House, I am afraid with almost wearisome iteration, during the course of these Debates, that in every federal system of the world there are services which are reserved to the central authority, and there are services which are transferred to the local authority. In every federal system in the world—I use the word "federal" to mean a system in which there is a central Parliament and local subordinate Parliament; here there is only one local subordinate Parliament, but, none the less, the system has the characteristics of a Federal Constitution—in every one there are two Executives covering the same area, each with its own powers, each with its own Executive machinery, or, more usually, one Executive machinery acting for both. There are about 220,000,000 people living under Constitutions such as this. Half the white races of the world live under Constitutions under which, in every area, the whole population is subject to two Executives at one and the same time, the local State Executive and the central or federal Executive, and in all these great and prospering countries of the world we find that there is what the hon. and learned Member has called a medley of services, some of which are reserved to the central authority and some delegated to the local authority. Therefore there is no reason for us to apologise for a system which is working happily and prosperously among so many great and important

  635
  nations. I now come to the hon. Member's specific points. He says that where you have this, you have at all events a corresponding judiciary and a corresponding system of police. He gave as an instance with regard to the judiciary and the police the United States of America. There, he says, it has been found essential, since many functions are reserved to the Federal Government, to establish also Federal Courts, and that it would be absurd, in the case of Ireland, to leave in the hands of the Imperial Government certain functions, and yet if any case of law arises with regard to those functions it will have to be decided by Courts appointed by the Irish Government. He gave the answer to his own contention. He said no doubt the answer that would be given is that we do reserve supreme judicial power to the Privy Council, which is in the nature of a Federal Court. He did not say that was a bad answer, but merely gave the answer and said, "If that answer is given, let us turn to the question of the police." Therefore by the lack of objection I assume he thinks it is a good answer.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I suggested that that would be the answer given, but obviously it does not satisfy me to have only a Court of Appeal which is a Federal Court.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first place, the hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Irish Government will appoint perverse judges. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If they are judges who will do justice, who will carry out the law, who will conform to their oaths of office, they will administer the law properly and equitably, whether it is a law passed by the Imperial Parliament or whether it is a law passed by the Irish Parliament. I have no desire to cast any reflection upon the judicial system of any other country in the world. I know that American judges are appointed by popular election, but our Irish judges will be appointed under a different system. That is a matter which has to be taken into account. If the hon. Member says that it will be essential in Ireland to have all Imperial matters tried by Imperial judges in the first instance, he is assuming that the Irish judges will be incompetent to try them, which is an assumption we do not make.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Mr. Gladstone made it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think it is fair to say that, because Mr. Gladstone proposed to establish Exchequer judges for certain purposes.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that in future Irish judges will not be appointed by popular election?
  Captain CRAIG: Or out of the "Freeman's Journal" office.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That will require legislation which will have to receive the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, subject to the control by overriding legislation that we think proper, of this House. Furthermore, if any alteration of that kind was made in the judicial system in Ireland, we might here make other provisions to establish a separate judiciary if we thought it necessary in Ireland. But these are matters for the future. In any case we do reserve this and other matters, and an appeal to the federal Court—that is to the Privy Council—which will have the supreme power over the judiciary, and be able to enforce by its decrees the laws passed by the Imperial Parliament on all matters relating to Imperial Services.
  Mr. BUTCHER: How will the Privy Council enforce its orders'! Has it any officers to enforce is own decrees?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am coming now to the question of police, which was the other point the hon. Member (Mr. R. M'Neill) made. He took the United States again as his example, and gave as a reason that the United States is a federation long established, and he refrained from taking as an example the federations existing within our own Empire—Australia, Canada, and South Africa—because he said they have been established a shorter time.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: And because you also said these are no precedents.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I would suggest a third reason. The United States gives some support to his contention, but if he had taken the case of the federations within the British Empire they would have given none. There may possibly have been a dominant reason in his mind. There are, it is true, officers of the Supreme Court of the United States in the various federal court districts—the marshals—who are, of course, court officers, who have certain powers of enlisting a force, who call

  637
  upon sheriff's posses, I believe, in the case of necessity. How far, in fact, these powers are exercised I am not myself aware. But if from the United States he turns to the practice of British Dominions, he will find that in Australia, for example, the police is a State police, that the Commonwealth of Australia depends upon the States for the use of such force as may be necessary to carry on all the functions, and they are many, which are reserved to the Commonwealth Parliament and Executive; that in the provinces of Canada on the other hand—some of the new provinces—there is only a central police and no provincial police; and you may get examples both ways from various parts of the British Empire and from foreign countries of the police force being in the hands of the central executive or of the local executive. But it is only in the United States, so far as I am aware, that you have this system of marshals where you have something in the nature of a police force, both for the central Government and for the local government. In Germany, for example, of course the police is a State police, although such questions as Customs and Excise are reserved to the Imperial Government. They have to depend upon the goodwill of the State for carrying out any measures which may be necessary, and it is found that these provisions give rise to no difficulty, whatever system be adopted.
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Executive that we are setting up with these dual characteristics was an impossible one, that the Lord Lieutenant would never know to whom to turn or by whom to be advised, when he was acting on behalf of the Imperial Government and when he was acting on behalf of the local Government. Which are Irish services and which are not Irish services? Who is to tell him? Here, of course, we are dealing with the Clauses of a Bill on a piece of paper, and we are dealing with phrases in a discussion, but the Lord Lieutenant will be dealing with Irish services in being. It will be quite obvious to him what services are in fact being carried out by officers of the Irish Government and what services are in fact being carried out by Departments which have their headquarters in Westminster. And, of course, if there is any case of doubt, there is provision for determining what is an Irish service and what is not in the Bill, The Courts may decide if it is a case of law, or he may discuss it with
  638
  the Irish Ministers, and also he can receive advice from the Imperial Government. But the picture which has been conjured up of an unfortunate Lord Lieutenant never knowing when he gets up in the morning whether he is going to deal with any particular thing as head of the Irish Government or as an officer of the Imperial Government is an exercise of those powers of imagination which the Seconder of the Amendment very properly attributed to the Mover but which he had suggested he refrained from exercising.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I did not say anything of the sort.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps it was the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) who said that.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I did not say it was a frequent occurrence but it might occur, and the right hon. Gentleman has entirely supported me, because he has said that in such cases he would have to take the advice of the Irish Ministers and of the English Ministers. Therefore he has not really carried it any further because he shows that the confusion exists, and he does not show any way out of it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Indeed I have. There is a way out of it, because questions of what are and what are not Irish services would be questions of interpretation of the Act, and would, if necessary, come before the Courts. But no doubt it would be the duty of those entrusted with the working of the Act to provide for its smooth working, and conference and discussion would, no doubt, be better than deciding them, as they are very often decided in Canada and other federations, by reference to the Privy Council. Two specific questions were raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto). He asked again a question which has been asked five or six times at Question Time and has been answered by the Prime Minister on many occasions, as to who would be responsible for answering questions relating to reserved services in this House. The Prime Minister has said again and again that a Member of the Government would be responsible specially for Irish business in this House, but that it was premature at present to determine precisely what his designation would be. The designation surely is a matter of very little importance. The point of the substance is that there should be someone who is a Member of the Government of the day, and who speaks

  639
  with Government responsibility and weight in this House, who should respond with respect to the Irish services.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Can such a Minister as that be appointed without an Act of Parliament? That is a question which we have often asked and have never had an answer to it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Oh, yes, I think so. If an Act of Parliament is necessary a Bill might be introduced, but as at present advised I do not know that there is any necessity for an Act of Parliament for the purpose. I think the Prime Minister has already stated that.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will he have the status of a Secretary of State?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He will not necessarily be a new Secretary of State. The hon. Member, however, asked who would be responsible in respect of Irish services in this House. Of course, the House will not be charged with the direct administration of Irish services at all, and the whole purpose of the Bill is to relieve this House of the burden of attending to these multifarious details of local administration which ought properly to be controlled by an Irish Parliament; and, indeed, the Irish people would be in a sad way if they were governed by a Parliament of four Houses, two of them in Ireland and two in Westminster, in any one of which any current matter of administration could be raised. But undoubtedly if grave and exceptional circumstances arose in which there had been some serious case of maladministration in Ireland, with regard to which an appeal was made to this Parliament to override the action of the Irish Executive, whoever was responsible for the reserved service would also probably speak in this House, unless it was a matter of such great importance that the Prime Minister himself took charge of the question.
  Mr. PETO: Who would be the authority to decide when these grave matters occurred? And if it were decided by Mr. Speaker that it was not a grave matter, would it be ruled out of order?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would be decided of course by the common sense of the House and by ordinary Parliamentary procedure. Who decides now that a matter is of sufficient importance to come
  640
  before the House or not, and whether a day should be given for the discussion of any question. If it was asked for formally by the Opposition for a Vote of Censure, a day would be granted. If it were merely some individual who took up a little trumpery grievance of his own, it might well be that the opinion of the House would be that such a matter was not worthy of delaying its attention.
  There is one final point to which I would refer, namely, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ronald M'Neill), that by Statute we are for the first time limiting the prerogative of the Crown, and that that is a thing which is improper to be done. We are not in any degree limiting the prerogative of the Crown. We are only determining on whose advice that prerogative shall be exercised. The Clause we are now discussing says:—
  "The Executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in His Majesty the King, and nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power except as respects Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act."
  And then it goes on to say:—
  "As respects those Irish services the Lord Lieutenant or other chief executive officer or officers for the time being appointed in his place, on behalf of His Majesty, shall exercise any prerogative or other executive power of His Majesty the exercise of which may be delegated to him by His Majesty."
  It is perfectly clear there is no limitation by Statute of the prerogative of His Majesty, but simply a provision as to the agency through which it will be exercised. Precisely the same is provided when a new constitution is set up in our self-governing Colonies with respect to the individual on whose advice the prerogative is to be exercised. For these reasons I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I do not feel that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has thrown much light on this vexed question. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment made clear and eloquent speeches in which they asked a great many specific questions, and I do not think we can say that the right hon. Gentleman has answered them in any shape or form. I have always felt very great difficulty in discussing this measure. I can understand the system as it is at the present moment, and I had great hope that that

  641
  system would go on, and that the prosperity which it is now bringing about in Ireland would have been allowed to continue, but the Government have thought otherwise. If they had gone further and said, "We are really going to trust the Irish people and give them control of their own affairs. We are giving to Ireland an independent Parliament and an independent Executive. In fact, we are going to give the Irish people colonial Government." I could have understood that. I would say that sooner than give the kind of Government they are now giving, I would much rather that they were given complete independence. But the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench think differently. They say, in answer to any difficult question, "We are anxious to trust the Irish people," but in this Bill they do not trust them. The fact that there are reserved services contradicts that absolutely. Here we are faced with an independent Executive, and yet there are a number of reserved services. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that my hon. Friend proposes to omit the important Clause dealing with the Executive while he puts nothing in its place. It is quite true that if Clause 4 were omitted there should be something put in its place, but I did hope that we should hear some convincing argument from the front bench, as to the relation between the independent Executive and the reserved services which are taken away from the Executive.
  Let me ask a question about the collection of taxes. The Imperial Government are to be called upon to collect the taxes, and the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, did not refer to this point at all. I am completely at a loss to understand how it will be possible for the Government of this country to collect the taxes in Ireland if the Executive is hostile to the collection of those taxes. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why."] The hon. Gentleman asks why it should be if you trust the Irish people. He believes there is absolutely no reason why they should be hostile, and consequently they will not be hostile. The great reason why we are giving Home Rule to Ireland is because that country is different in a great many respects from this country. If Ireland has a separate Government of its own, there are a great many questions with respect to which that Government are bound to differ from the Government of this country. The conditions existing in Ireland and in this
  642
  country are of such a different character that it is almost obvious that differences must arise between the Governments in the future. It is quite possible that the Government of Ireland may take an entirely different view from the Government in this country, and we may have a hostile Executive in Ireland. To collect the taxes in that case, the Imperial Government will have to employ the police, which they will have under their control for the next six years. The Government will say to the Lord Lieutenant that he is responsible for law and order in the country. But after six years, how do the Government propose to carry out the collection of taxes in the face of a hostile Executive, when neither the police nor the constabulary are under their jurisdiction?
  Then I come to the question of law and order. Who is to be responsible for law and order in Ireland? It is true that the Imperial Government have control of the police and constabulary for the next six years, but even then, how are they to carry out law and order in Ireland when there is an Executive in Ireland holding totally different views? The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave a very good example of what might occur in Ulster. It is quite possible that some of the disorder which has been prophesied from this side of the House will take place. In Ulster the police will be in the hands of the Imperial Government, and the Executive will call upon the Imperial Government to preserve law and order. I come to the position of the Post Office. That is a case where there is dual control. There are Imperial services which are reserved to the Imperial Government, and there are also the remaining duties which are controlled by the Executive in Ireland. The officers of the Post Office will be Irish, and they will be called upon by the Imperial Government to carry out the Imperial services. There will be no greater illustration that a man cannot serve two masters. I cannot understand how Irish officers can be called upon to carry out Irish services and also Imperial services.
  There is another question in respect to railways. At the present moment the Imperial Government have control of the railways in the United Kingdom. Whether they are nationalised or continue to belong to companies as at the present moment, in the event of war breaking out the Government can control the railways. But when you have the railways in Ireland

  643
  under the control of the Executive in that country, which may be hostile to this country, I should like to know how the Government propose to carry on the services in Ireland under those circumstances. There is another question which I think is one of the most important of all, namely, the resignation of the Executive. I want to know exactly what would be the situation in the event of the Executive in Ireland resigning. The Imperial Government supports the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant may have to veto some provision which has been carried in the Irish Parliament. The Executive resigns. It is impossible for the Government to be carried on because there is no one to undertake it. The Government will say, "There is a majority supporting us, but we cannot continue because the Imperial Parliament is opposed to us." What is the position of this country in such a case? The Colonial analogy is no answer, because it is obvious we have no control whatever over the Colonies. It is a purely sentimental tie which binds us to the Colonies. If they bring forward a suggestion to which we are opposed the Imperial Government has to give way, but when it comes to a country which we are called upon under this Bill to look upon as a portion of the United Kingdom, a situation cannot be ignored which we could afford to ignore in the case of Colonial Governments. These are considerations which all affect an independent Executive and to which the Government have given no answer.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I add one word of explanation to what I have said? In the course of my remarks I was referred to the fact that many of the judges of the United States were elected, and the hon. and learned Member asked what would happen if the Irish Parliament determined that judges in Ireland should be elected also. I said that that was a matter which would have to be taken into consideration by this Parliament as to the steps to be taken. I overlooked for the moment the fact that under Clause 27 the Irish Parliament had no power to cause the judges to be elected. The Act says that the judges shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall hold office by the same tenure as it is held at the time of the passing of the Act. Therefore legislation affecting the subject will be ultra vires.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish to say one or two words from a national point of view in reference to the statements
  644
  made by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. The Noble Lord who last spoke, as indeed all the speakers from his point of view, have based their argument entirely upon a deep distrust of the Irish people. Of course, if it is true, as he assumes, that the Irish people from the very commencement will take every opportunity to be hostile to this country and make things difficult, there will be no end of trouble; but there is nothing at all to warrant the statement that the Irish people would do anything of the kind. Any trouble that there has been in Ireland has been due to the fact that the Irish people have felt that they have not had on their own shoulders the responsibility for the government and regulation of their own affairs, and directly they feel they have that responsibility it will be found, as we all fully expect, and as is believed by everybody who knows Ireland, that the Government of the country will be animated by the strongest possible desire to work smoothly and avoid all cause of friction with this Government and this House. To any reasonable Englishman it will come as an absurd proposition that the Irish people, directly they have a Government of their own with legislative power, are to commence to prove that they are utterly incapable of exercising the power of government. Within the last few minutes we have heard that for some extraordinary reason taxes would not be collected in Ireland, and the Imperial Government would have no power to enforce the collection of taxes in Ireland. How does any reasonable man suppose for a single moment that the Irish people or the representatives under this Bill would object to the collection of taxes? Under this Bill the Irish people will have the control and the expenditure of an enormous amount of those taxes. Yet we are asked to believe that for some extraordinary reason, because of some double dose of original sin, the Irish people directly they get their own Parliament will object to the collection of those taxes without which the Parliament could not exist for a single week. There is no warrant for any such absurdity as that.
  The Noble Lord asked what would happen in time of war if the Imperial Government had not the power of controlling the railway traffic in Ireland. He said in time of war the Government have now the power of controlling the railways of the United Kingdom and putting them to any use which they think fit in view of the

  645
  necessities of war. His question is based on the assumption that when the Irish people get the privilege and the right to manage their own affairs they will be so hostile that any power the Irish Government has over the railways will be exercised against the interests of this country, and I suppose in favour of some enemy that may be at war with this country. I say here, as I have often said before, that the interests of Ireland are bound up to an enormous extent with the interests of this country. The disaffection which has existed in Ireland has existed despite the natural inclination of the people to be on terms of friendship and good will with the people of this country; and to assume that, when the people of this country bestow on the Irish people the rights of government which they had at one time the Irish people will be so hostile that the Irish Government will dispose of the railways and other matters for the benefit of some enemy of this country is to assume what is perfectly absurd. It was only yesterday we had in this House anxious inquiries and some discussion as to the position created in Ireland and this country by an unfortunate outbreak of cattle disease. That outbreak has proved not only to the Irish people, because they always appreciated it, but to the people of this country, how closely Ireland's interests are bound up with this country. The prevention, even for a short time, of the export of cattle from Ireland into this country so deranged the affairs of Ireland and created such loss that the masses of the people were almost in a panic in that country. Eighty per cent. of the produce of Ireland is marketed in this country, and there would be every possible incentive to continue to strengthen the links of friendship and unity with the people of this country, and yet we heard these absurd statements made by Gentlemen like the Noble Lord, who ought to know a great deal better, that if the Irish people be granted a measure of self-government, and therefore have their century-old claim recognised they will be so hostile that they will do all they can to promote the interests of some possible enemies of this country.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: They were hostile even when they had a Government of their own.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I suppose the Noble Lord refers to the Parliament which a Noble Lord, an ancestor of his, took such a great part in abolishing. He says they were hostile.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Which you want to perpetuate.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I say, with great respect to the Noble Lord, that an inspection of the history of the period when the Irish people had their own Parliament would show on the contrary that so far from being hostile to the interests of this country the Irish Parliament voted large sums of money and supplies and men and in every possible way assisted this country in its warlike operations. That the Irish party did that nobody can deny. The open page of history proves that to be true, and I fail to understand how the Noble Lord can make the extraordinary statement that when we had an Irish Parliament that Parliament was hostile to the interests of this country, or lent its aid to any enemy of this country. Such was not the case for a single moment. The Noble Lord said he could trace no analogy at all between the position of Ireland and the Colonies in this matter. Of course, the Colonies differ considerably from Ireland. The claim of the Colonies for national self-government in some respects is not so strong as that of Ireland. In many of the Colonies the establishment of absolutely free institutions was no doubt necessary, but at the same time it was more or less in the way of experiment. These were large new countries which were sparsely populated, and which had no experience in the past. We in Ireland are asking for no experiment to be made whatever; we ask for the re-establishment of that which we had for centuries, and held with success. But there is this analogy between the Colonies and Ireland in considering this matter: Let us consider what is the attitude and position of Irish Nationalists who hold positions in the Colonies. Within the last few minutes we heard the suggestion thrown out that the judges in Ireland would be incapable if they were not absolutely corrupt, at any rate, that they would be men who for one reason or another would not do their duty.
  We can look to the Colonies to some extent in refutation of this suggestion. Take the Colonial judges. Two of the five judges of the Highest Court of Australia are Irish Nationalists like ourselves. One is an Irish Nationalist and Catholic in religion; the other is an Irish Nationalist Protestant, and a distinguished graduate of Trinity College, Dublin. These two men are fair representatives of the national life in Ireland, both Catholic and

  647
  Protestant. They have proved themselves neither unreasonable, incapable or corrupt. They have carried out their work with great distinction; they are looked up to with respect and with confidence by the whole population, of all classes and creeds, in Australia. I might go through the States, where you will find Irish judges of the same standing and character. Only the other day I was in Canada, and I attended a Home Rule meeting which was presided over by a gentleman who for years has been one of the most distinguished judges in the Dominion, and who at the present time occupies a very high position in the Dominion Government. All through Canada, all through Australia, and in South Africa, too, you get men of the same blood, the same fibre, the same temperament as the men in Ireland, who will be called upon to administer justice and carry out the provisions of this Act of Parliament. May we not with perfect reason point to the attitude and action of these men as at least some guide to what their fellow countrymen will do at home, in their own country, when they have got the power. Ireland certainly will be quite as ready to administer justice and to see that fair play is given in their own country as they are in every portion of our Dominions. The fact of the matter is the suggestion to leave out this Clause is made on the basis which is at the bottom of the whole of the opposition to this measure, that the Irish people cannot be trusted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I really do not see that there is any other reason for the opposition which is forthcoming.
  Nobody can deny that there has been friction, disaffection, suspicion, and misunderstanding in the past. We claim that that is entirely due to the fact that instead of allowing us to manage our own internal affairs according to our own ideas and as we think best for our country, you have insisted upon sending gentlemen from this country to rule us who are not responsible to us. The result has been distrust, and to create in the minds of the Irish people from generation to generation, all through the last century, the feeling that they are not trusted, and that they are governed by people who are not responsible to them. I am not going to attack the gentlemen who have been sent over from time to time. I think, myself—it is my own personal opinion—that almost without exception every single statesman that has been sent over to Ireland, whether as Chief Secre-
  648
  tary or Lord Lieutenant, went to that country with the intention of doing, according to his lights, what was fair and just. I do not deny that in the circumstances of Ireland they found a population naturally and instinctively suspicious, and that their task, was made almost an impossibility. We believe that all the trouble in the past is to be found in that refusal of years to trust in the Irish people as you trust the people of every other portion of the Empire. We believe that under the provisions of this Bill you will restore to Ireland that self-respect which can only come when the people feel that they are allowed to govern themselves as are people in every other portion of the Empire. We believe that everybody in this House and in this country will be delighted to find that Home Rule has been justified, and that before very many years have passed there will not be a single Member of this House, on any side, or of any party, who will feel justified in getting up and saying that it was not a wise and satisfactory policy to trust the Irish people in their own local affairs; that it did not benefit Ireland; that it did not relieve and benefit this Legislature at the same time, and, above all, that it did not unite the people of the British Empire as they never could have been united until the Irish people were allowed to manage their own affairs.
  Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member who has just sat down said that the basis of our opposition is that we are not prepared to trust the Irish people or their representatives in this House. It would be quite an easy retort for me to make to say that we do trust all they have said in recent years, and we do trust the evidence they have given by their action down even to yesterday. What was it they did? They voted not on a claim of local self-government by those who want it, but in resistance to the claim of a million people who do not want to be included in that Government. And they call the people of Ulster rebels unless they are prepared to be included. The whole claim of the Nationalists, the whole cause of their disaffection, is due to the fact that they have not had on their shoulders the responsibility of their own Government. But under this Bill they do not get control of their own affairs, and therefore I think we can very rightly say that the Irish Nationalists, not in view of any double dose of original sin, but in view of Nationalist sentiment will strive to get rid of every restriction in the Bill

  649
  which interferes with the exercise of Nationalist self-government. That is a very intelligible point of view. I think we are entitled to object to this Bill because it is above all bound to be worked for Nationalist objects. I think we could understand a federal system under which purely local affairs and provincial affairs are given to certain districts. We could also understand a clear scheme such as that suggested by this Amendment, where legislative powers are given to a certain area but the Executive retained in the hands of the Central Parliament. The Postmaster-General answered that suggestion by saying that it was contrary to the experience of the Dominions and of half the white world, 220,000,000 of people who live under federal constitutions. It is curious that throughout the Committee stage whenever we appealed to the experience of the Dominions and of every federal Constitution we were always told that there was no precedent for the Irish case.
  The Postmaster-General is never so pleased with himself as when he is posing in the rôle of a federalist. He was even less fortunate than usual in that rôle tonight. What is his case? It is that, after all, you do have different Executives in the same area in federal Constitutions. That is perfectly true, but what you have in every federal Constitution, and the main principle governing it, is that the Executive functions correspond to the legislative functions whether in a province or a State, and that you have an Executive power to carry out those functions, while you have a federal Legislature with federal powers and a federal Executive. Minor points, like the State police in Australia, do not affect that issue. Under this scheme you have nothing of the sort. Your Irish Parliament makes the law, and the Imperial police has to carry out that law and preserve order. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer frames the financial scheme, but you have Imperial tax-gatherers who collect the money and make regulations under which the scheme is to be carried out. You have no clear division anywhere between Executive and legislative functions. If you are not prepared to give a rational federal system, then you might consider another rational and intelligible alternative, namely, that of one Executive in Ireland under the Imperial Parliament carrying out the legislation of the Imperial Parliament where it is Imperial legislation, and of the legisla-
  650
  tion of the Irish Parliament where it is Irish legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General says that that would provoke friction. That is an astonishing argument to come from one who is reputed to be the framer of the extraordinary financial scheme of this Bill. Why should there be friction in the general conduct of the Executive any more than in the carrying out by Imperial officers and by an Exchequer Board with an Imperial majority of the financial scheme.
  I wish to support this Amendment on other grounds as well. I wish to support it because I hold that this Clause, especially in the opening important words of it, is misleading in fact and also actually inconsistent with other parts of the Bilk This Clause, this eye-wash Clause, declares that—
  "The Executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in His Majesty the King, and nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power except as respects Irish services."
  I will say something later about one part of this Bill which does affect the exercise of that power. Whatever may be in the Bill, in practice the result will most undoubtedly affect the exercise of the powers of His Majesty the King and this Parliament. Let me take any of those services which are reserved as Imperial services, such as treaties or relations with foreign Powers. It has been pointed out in Committee that if you give the Irish Government the power, as you do, and as you certainly will give them after the revision of the Financial Clauses, of altering their tariffs, you do in effect, in practice, give them the power of making treaties and negotiations with foreign States, and thus diminishing the exercise of the power of His Majesty the King. The same applies to trade. The moment you give the Irish Government power over its tariff and of imposing Excise Duty then in practice, whatever the Bill may say, you do affect the prerogative and exercise of the power of His Majesty the King. Take the case of treason. Who is to judge of treason? Who is to deal with traitors in Ireland, if such there should be? Will there be officers directly under His Majesty the King and under this Parliament to deal with this question? Of course not. So, in effect, whatever the law may be, you are again diminishing the exercise of the King's power in that respect. Take another point, that of aliens. Who is

  651
  actually in practice going to deal with aliens there? It will be some officer of the Irish Government, certainly after the constabulary are transferred. There, again, you are, in effect, diminishing the exercise of the sovereignty of this Parliament. I will go further and say that actually under this Act the exercise of His Majesty's power in Ireland is affected. In Clause 40 there are provisions under which any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom may arrange for the exercise and performance on behalf of that Department of any powers or duties of that Department by officers of an Irish Department—
  "Provided that no such arrangement shall diminish in any respect the responsibility of the Department by which the arrangement is made."
  By that the exercise of the power reserved under Clause 2 to His Majesty the King and to this Parliament can by Clause 40, in fact, be transferred to the Irish Government and the Irish Executive. Therefore the first sentence of this Clause is not a true statement of the facts. It is not true that nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of this power, because under Clause 40 it is directly affected. Let me give an instance. There was the case of the Amendment with regard to the Post Office, introduced yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman and which we have never had the opportunity of properly discussing. Under that Amendment the postal service and the rates of charge therefor, excepting purely local services and designs of stamps, remain in the power of the Imperial Government. If this Clause 4 were true nothing in this Act could affect the exercise of that power by His Majesty. In other words, the service would remain under the King and under this Parliament, and, certainly, as far as the wording of the Act, apart from Clause 40 goes, it is obvious that the result of that Amendment would be that the whole postal service in Ireland would remain an Imperial service, and that the officials would be Imperial, and that if the Irish Government like to set up a local service it might do so at its own expense or by arrangement with the Imperial postal service. We know from admissions by the Postmaster-General and the Attorney-General that as a matter of fact the intention of the Government is to transfer the Post Office and the staff and the whole Postal service in Ireland to the
  652
  Irish Executive, and to do so under Clause 40. In other words, it is their intention in fact, in respect to that matter, to diminish or to do away with the exercise of the King's power in Ireland, while maintaining a purely nominal and utterly ineffective responsibility to this Parliament. They will be responsible for the exercise of the censorship in critical times. How will they be able in effect to exercise that censorship if they place under the Irish Government the Post Office and practically every other reserved or Imperial service scheduled in Clause 2; The Chief Secretary admitted, in answer to a question, that there is nothing in this Act, as long as Clause 40 stands, which would make it impossible for the Government of this country in close alliance with the Irish Executive and dependent upon the Nationalist contingent for its votes, to transfer the actual exercise of any and every Imperial power, including the control of the troops, to the Irish Government. Therefore, I submit that Clause 4, as it stands, is misleading, inaccurate, and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill, and on these grounds, as well as on the grounds so ably put forward by my hon. Friends, I support the Amendment.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: The Mover of this Amendment made a speech which all those who heard it were sorry was not listened to by a larger House. I followed his argument carefully, and I wish to address myself to what I think was the central point in his reasoning. His argument was that he could understand a federal system of Government in which you had a federal Executive to enforce federal legislation, and a State Executive to enforce State legislation, but that this Bill was setting up a system in which you would have a State Executive to enforce federal legislation, and vice versa. This, he said, would lead to hopeless friction, which would eventuate in the collapse of the system. The difficulty which I see in his argument is that it is flatly contradicted by the experience of almost every federal country in the world, and particularly by the experience of that federal Constitution which is the nearest to us, and perhaps the most successful in the world—the federal Constitution of Germany. The leading characteristic of the federal Constitution of Germany is the extent to which federal legislation is dependent for its enforcement upon State officials. The Imperial legislation of Germany interferes with the domestic concerns of the different German

  653
  States to a degree with which there is nothing in this Bill to compare. Imperial legislation in Germany embraces railways, roads, canals, press laws, civil and criminal legislation. If, therefore, there is any real danger that there will be in Ireland resentment against Imperial legislation, in Germany where the area of Imperial legislation is so much wider the danger would certainly be more serious still. Yet all this legislation is enforced in Germany by State officials.
  10.0 P.M.
  If hon. Members opposite had ever had to debate the German Constitution, I can well imagine how thoroughly they would have proved to their own satisfaction that it was bound to collapse, and how thoroughly they would have proved that Bismarck was a very clumsy and second-rate statesman. Possibly the mistake they would have made is the mistake that they make throughout the discussions on this Bill. They never can believe that if you give a people rational powers they will use those powers for rational purposes in a rational manner. Hon. Members opposite have said that this is one point which marks the difference between the two sides of the House. It does mark a difference. We on this side believe that Irishmen are as unlikely to push their views to extremes, that they are as willing to compromise on these questions, that they are as able to operate a difficult form of government, as Prussians or Bavarians or Boers. There is one other point to which I wish to refer. It has been stated in this Debate and during the Committee stage that the power of Imperial interference in the legislation of the self-governing Colonies is obsolete. From that it has been argued that our power of interference in Ireland would soon become obsolete. I do not think that that statement is true, and it seems to me a very undesirable doctrine continually to emphasise. So far as the legislation of the Colonies affects themselves and themselves alone, the Imperial authority certainly would not interfere. So far as the legislation of the Colonies affects Imperial interests, so far, for example, as it might influence or affect our relationship with a foreign Power, we still are bound to claim the right to interfere.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: And you do so.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Amery), of whose writings I am to some extent a student, has been
  654
  one of the foremost advocates of an ultimate scheme of Imperial federation. But when you consider it, it is impossible to conceive of any scheme of Imperial federation in which it will not be necessary that the decisions of the Imperial authority should be enforced by the various State or Dominion officials. If, therefore, the arrangements on which hon. Members opposite are relying this evening were correct, we should now have to conclude that a scheme of Imperial federation was bound to lead to such friction that it would collapse and have forthwith to be abandoned. As a matter of fact, when it has occurred—as it has sometimes occurred—that the Imperial Parliament has had to intervene in Dominion legislation—as did occur, for example, in the case of the Immigration Restriction Acts of Australia—the common sense of the authorities on both sides has been strong enough to overturn and to confute the arguments on which hon. Members are relying. What has occurred in those cases, I see no reason to believe will not occur in the case of Ireland.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member who has just sat down has shown to what straits hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side are reduced in opposing this Amendment. He is driven to Germany, the most autocratic Government left in Europe, for an illustration on which to base his approval of the democratic lines of this Bill! It is a very extraordinary refuge for him to take, and I sympathise with him. But he might at least have remembered that there are one or two important distinctions in this respect between Germany and Great Britain. In these federal States in Germany there is not one subject who is not a German first. You will never find an internationalist there who will preach the general strike. You will never find a Socialist who will stand against the German Empire and the Fatherland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare said, "Why does this House distrust the Irish people?" Is not that the genesis of this Bill? Was not this Bill based upon the fact that the Irish do not trust Great Britain; otherwise where is the case for this Bill? "Why," says the hon. Member, "distrust the Irish people?" The origin of this difficulty is not distrust by Great Britain of the Irish, but by the Irish of Great Britain. The whole of the hon. Member's arguments, I submit, falls entirely to the ground, and if he had not been driven to desperate straits he would never have gone to autocratic Germany, with its

  655
  patriotic citizens, to find a case on which to base opposition to this Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Clare said—and I very much agree with him in his instance—that in other countries you have Irish judges most distinguished, most respected, and most impartial. I could have endorsed all that from my own personal experience. I have spent the greater part of my life in a country where a large proportion of these judges were Irish. They are impartial and most impartial; most capable, and in all respects an honour to the position they occupy. But in those countries they are cut off from the Irish atmosphere. There is no reason there to believe that there is anything to prevent them exercising their great ability in the most complete and absolute independence and impartiality. I cannot share the feeling of the hon. Member for Clare. The men are not necessarily at all the same individuals capable of impartially exercising their functions in Ireland as they are outside its narrow limits; for everywhere else they shed lustre upon their country! The Postmaster-General dealt with the position in which Ireland would be left if this Clause were omitted under this Amendment. He said, "You would have a Parliament without a Government." He overlooked, I submit, the evidence before his own eyes in the case. That is exactly the position Ireland is in now. This Parliament has governing powers, but it does not govern. The Executive Government docs not enforce the law which ought to be enforced in Ireland. In point of fact while Ireland has a Parliament it is not governed. There is cattle driving, and as everybody will admit, even the right hon. Gentleman, that the most powerful man in Ireland is the hon. Member for West Belfast, and the hon. Gentleman who sits beside him, the hon. Member for East Mayo, claims himself to be not a separatist. I submit that while the Postmaster-General—I am a great admirer of his abilities, therefore he will excuse me if I say he did it in a somewhat superior manner—laughed at the effect of this Amendment, he overlooked the beam in his own eye. Ireland is bereft of an Executive Government, and people have to look to other influences and powers, than those the Executive Government provides. The consequence is that the Front Bench really are unable to take up that supremely superior attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General as to what the result would be if this Amendment is
  656
  carried. I do not disguise from myself the fact that if we carry this Amendment, and omit this Clause, it would leave the new Government of Ireland in a truncated and miserable condition; but I maintain that she is in that position now, and that the Executive law does not really run, except in outward forms, throughout the Island. The Postmaster-General also said that half the white races in the world are now under a federal Constitution. He overlooked the fact that these federal Constitutions govern, and that the people who break the law are punished; that there is no special list for those who are possessed of some influence or are members of powerful societies, that they shall be exempt from the operation of the law. The atmosphere is an entirely different one. I submit the state of things which will be introduced into Ireland under this Bill will be of the character described by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for good and sufficient reasons, who moved this Amendment. Of course the omission of this Section would have to be replaced by something else, because it is perfectly obvious, if carried, that there must be some Executive Government. That I admit. This state of things existing in Ireland has been for a long time semi-anarchy. It has not necessarily been confined to right hon. Gentlemen's administration. There have been many of his predecessors who in the same way have not really administered the law in Ireland because of that fear of the Irish people, and from that very want of trust which the hon. Member for Clare referred to in his speech, and from the existence of which I deduce a wholly different moral.
  It has been urged that under this Bill the powers of the King are not immediately affected. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Peto) said that under this Bill the Lord Lieutenant would serve two masters. It was the only statement made by my hon. Friend with which I did not agree. The Lord Lieutenant will not be under two masters. He will be under one master, and that will be the Irish Executive. The authority of His Majesty the King will only be a minus quantity. It is difficult to see what powers are really left to His Majesty, which, I presume, in that behalf will be the Home Government, because the Home Cabinet are by this Bill so far as they may be, transferring their authority to the Irish Cabinet. It is obvious that under this Bill as it stands, under this Section above all others which

  657
  remains in the Bill, there will be a complete want of co-ordination between the different services, between the reserved and the unreserved services, and I am unreservedly associating myself with what the hon. Gentleman said in opposing the Bill. Why, supposing that this measure becomes law, is Ireland not to have a Minister of the rank of a Secretary of State? The Postmaster-General fenced with that question. Therein he followed the Prime Minister who also fenced with it. But it is a question of the utmost importance. In dealing with the Bill one minute the Irish Government is a small matter—not more than a gas or water business—in another minute it is a great federal Government, as near independence as can be—just the argument which the moment requires. But in any case, if there is to be an Irish Parliament surely it will be necessary for the dignity of Ireland and of its Parliament that a Minister of the status of the Secretary of State, and nothing less, should be in this House? I believe and understand that an office of principal Secretary of State cannot be created, and that the number cannot be increased without special legislation. Why is this necessary information upon this point withheld from the House? Effort after effort has been made to get such information without result. Then it is said that North-East Ulster will still be represented in this House. What will be the value of that representation after the case of North-East Ulster has been completely given away, as it was last night. What advantage will it be to North-East Ulster to have but a very small percentage of the forty Members from Ireland in this House to secure for the loyal subjects of Ireland that representation which they deserve? I appeal to the Government to take this matter into their consideration.
  I wish to refer to another matter now. I understand that the Executive Government under this Bill will have power under Clause 2 to give a bounty for the encouragement of manufactures in Ireland. One such manufacture is lace making. It is quite true that it is a hand industry. There is a law in force in Ireland, which is renewed every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, which enables the Irish Executive to give advances to home manufacturers out of the public Exchequer. I understand under this Bill it will be competent for the Irish Government to give not only this advance for the manufacture of home-made lace, but also to
  658
  give a bounty or encouragement in various ways for machine-made lace. And the persons who will be appointed under Clause 4 will be able to superintend that manufacture, to encourage and to stimulate in every respect a trade which would directly compete with Buckinghamshire and Nottingham and other centres in which lace is made now. If that is so, and I am assured it is, that is an additional reason, and a very strong one, in the minds of those interested in a trade which is not one of the most unimportant in the United Kingdom, why this Amendment should be accepted. I shall be glad to have an answer upon that point. I do not want to raise any points which have already been discussed upon the whole Clause, and it has been very fully discussed, but I should like to urge, as other speakers have done, that I view the appointments to be made under this Section with the utmost distrust. Hon. Gentlemen have appealed to the House and asked why is an Irish Minister or an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer not entitled to as much trust as a British Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we might give them all that, and yet have great distrust of them. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, in spite of all the safeguards provided in the British Constitution, has collected taxes without authority, and has given salaries to Members of Parliament without the sanction of the electorate, and any of the officers appointed under this Clause may at least be guilty of equal irregularity. There is every reason for believing that they may be guilty of even greater irregularities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ask us to trust everybody in the future. The best method to adopt in this matter is to judge by the past. It is the case that in the past there has been great hostility to this country in Ireland while enjoying every privilege enjoyed by this country, and what guarantee is there that that hostility will not be continued in the future? I have mentioned one matter peculiar to my Constituents, and I will now sit down in the hope that the Chief Secretary will give me some reply as regards the manner in which Irish moneys may be expended under this Bill for the encouragement of an industry which will directly compete with one of those industries upon Which the prosperity of these Islands is founded.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: The hon. Member opposite based his argument very cleverly upon one side of the question

  659
  only, and he referred to the federal system of Germany. There is not time to dwell upon that, but the hon. Member knows just as well as I do that there is no possible parallel between the German federal system and any system within our own Empire or within the bounds of the English-speaking world. The Executive of Germany is not dependent upon the will of the democracy, as every Executive within our Empire is dependent. The hon. Member also knows perfectly well that every one of the German States was an ancient zollverein and the federal system is a monarchial Bund, and not a federation or union such as exists within our Oversea Dominions. It has been pointed out that this central Imperial Government reserves for itself the right to interfere with the acts of autonomous States, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, when they cross the line of our Imperial policy. That is perfectly true, but his reasoning was based upon the assumption that we were giving to Ireland a dominion and autonomous Government instead, as we are told, of a provincial Government.
  The hon. Member dealt with one side of the question. Let me put the other. Can the hon. Member point to a single instance in our Empire where a provincial Government in a federal system has the power to revise the Acts of the central Government? We are giving to Ireland, we are told, a provincial Government. The provincial Government will have the power to revise the Acts of this Imperial Government in the matter of Customs. Not in any one of our Oversea Dominions has a province in a federal system control of the Post Office, and not in any case in a provincial system has a provincial Government the power to take over, with the assent of the Imperial or Federal Government, a Department of State which deals with Imperial affairs. This Bill does those three things. It gives the power to a Provincial Government to revise the acts of the Imperial Government; it gives the

  Division No. 479.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnes, G. N.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Barton, William

  Brace, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Bentham, G. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Boland, John Plus

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  right to control the Post Office, which is I always considered an Imperial service; and, finally, it gives the right to administer an Imperial Department with the assent of the Imperial Government; and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a time may come when a Government in power in this country is dependent upon the forty votes of the Irish Members, and, influenced by public opinion in Ireland and the desire of an Irish legislature, they may demand in return for their votes that they shall have the right to administer some Department of Imperial affairs in Ireland. That is the kind of thing that is absolutely antagonistic to every principle of Imperial Government, and to every principle of Federal Government as it has existed within the British Empire. In every federal system that has been granted you have had one great general principle to which every province and every State has had to conform as it came into the federation. Does any hon. Member on that side of the House suggest that England, Scotland, or Wales would come into a federal system upon the basis of the Constitution which is being given to Ireland? We know perfectly well that neither England, Scotland, nor Wales would do so, and the analogy breaks down in every particular when you draw upon the experience of the Empire and the experience of all constitutional powers granted by this Government to any oversea Dominions. The argument put forward by the hon. Member and by those on the back benches and also those on the front benches in connection with this Bill, and the principles contained in this Clause are fallacious, unreasonable, lacking in all historical precedent, and, when put into operation, will only result in breaking down every principle the Empire has ever known for the proper working of democratic government throughout the Empire.
  Question put, "That the words of the Clause to line 39"—[end of Sub-section (2)]—"stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 2S2; Noes, 162.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon, Sir Rufus

  Radford, G. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clough, William

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cotton, William Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Keating, Matthew

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Crean, Eugene

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kilbride, Dennis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cullinan, John

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, Ellis 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, W.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon, Thomas W.

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Scanian, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Sheehy, David

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Maclean, Donald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)

  Falconer, James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Kean, John

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Field, William

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Sutton, John E.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Martin, Joseph

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Furness, Stephen

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gilhooly, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomas, James Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Molloy, Michael

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morison, Hector

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cieophas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gulney, Patrick

  Munro, R.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Waring, Walter

  Hackett, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Neilson, Francis

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Webb, H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon Sir Thomas P.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  O'Grady, James

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

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

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

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

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hinds, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  662

  663

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Golding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmunds

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Bird, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Blair, Reginald

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanier, Beville

  Butcher, John George

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Swift, Rigby

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cator, John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chambers, James

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Croft, H. P.

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Winterton, Earl

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Moore, William

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Younger, Sir George

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newman, John R. P.

  Ronald M'Neill and Mr. Peto.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  It being after half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December last, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Government Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the word "thereto" ["subject thereto, by the Lord Lieutenant"], and insert the words, "to any alteration by Irish Act."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Government Amendment proposed: After Sub-section (5) insert—
  (6) In the exercise of powers delegated to the Lord Lieutenant in pursuance of this Section no preference, privilege, or advantage shall be given to, nor shall any disability or disadvantage be imposed on, any person on account of religious belief, except where the nature of the case in which the power is exercised itself involves the giving of such a preference, privilege, or advantage, or the imposing of such a disability or disadvantage.—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 162.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Future Transfer of Certain Reserved Services.)
  (1) The public services in connection with the administration of the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary
  668
  and the management and control of that force, shall by virtue of this Act be transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government on the expiration of a period of six years from

  669
  the appointed day and those public services shall then cease to be reserved services and become Irish services.
  (2) If a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Irish Parliament providing for the transfer from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government of the following reserved services, namely—

  (a) All public services in connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911; or

  (b) All public services in connection with the administration of Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911; or

  (c) All public services in connection with the administration of Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909; or

  (d) All public services in connection with the administration of the Post Office Savings Banks, Trustee Savings Banks, and Friendly Societies;

  the public services to which the resolution relates shall be transferred accordingly as from a date fixed by the resolution, being a date not less than a year after the date on which the resolution is passed, and shall on the transfer taking effect cease to be reserved services and become Irish services:
  Provided that this provision shall not take effect as respects the transfer of the
  670
  services in connection with Post Office Savings Banks, Trustee Savings Banks, and Friendly Societies until the expiration of ten years from the appointed day.
  (3) On any transfer under or by virtue of this Section, the transitory provisions of this Act (so far as applicable) and the provisions of this Act as to existing Irish officers shall apply with respect to the transfer, with the substitution of the date of the transfer for the appointed day, and of a period of five years from that date for the transitional period.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "transitory" and insert instead thereof the word "general."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Leave out the words "and of a period of five years from that date for the transitional period," and insert instead thereof the words "or the date of the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  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."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes before Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  TABLE OF BENEFITS.
  TABLE OF BENEFITS.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Police Protection.
  Police Protection.
  Ballinakilla Graveyard.
  Ballinakilla Graveyard.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Fund.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Convent Schools (Building Grants).
  Convent Schools (Building Grants).
  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Employment for Old Soldiers.
  Employment for Old Soldiers.
  Army Officers (Uniform).
  Army Officers (Uniform).
  Territorial Force (Recruiting).
  Territorial Force (Recruiting).
  Church Parades.
  Church Parades.
  Medical Treatment (School Children).
  Medical Treatment (School Children).
  Midnapore Case.
  Midnapore Case.
  Government Departments (Salaries).
  Government Departments (Salaries).
  Water Supplies.
  Water Supplies.
  Crown Foreshore Rights (Sea View, Isle of Wight).
  Crown Foreshore Rights (Sea View, Isle of Wight).
  Engine Drivers.
  Engine Drivers.
  Imports from Dominions.
  Imports from Dominions.
  Postal Rates (Italy and United Kingdom).
  Postal Rates (Italy and United Kingdom).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  South Villa.
  South Villa.
  Cattle Quarantine.
  Cattle Quarantine.