Sitting of 7 January 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kirkcaldy District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906 (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of the Motor Cars (Use and Construction) (Scotland) Order (No. 2), 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (MANUFACTURE AND DECORATION OF POTTERY).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by His Honour Judge Ruegg, K.C., on the draft Regulations for the manufacture and decoration of Pottery, or any process incidental thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 2nd January, 1913, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 79 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the manufacture and decoration of Pottery, or any process incidental thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether negotiations for an adequate loan to the
  974
  Persian Government, so as to enable it to restore order, are still in progress; and whether there is any prospect of restoring the Constitution, which was suspended a year ago, by again summoning the Mejliss?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): It is improbable that financiers will be willing to make advances in the absence of a strong and stable Persian Government, and therefore it is towards the formation of such a Government that the British and Russian Governments are mainly directing their attention. Till this has been-accomplished I can say nothing definite about the second question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not necessary to have some basis of public consent?
  Sir E. GREY: It may be, but it would not make the Government more stable.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information showing that the re-call to Persia of the exiled Saad-ed-Dowleh, which had the encouragement of His Majesty at Teheran, has produced or seems likely to produce the results, which were anticipated.; whether the return of Saad-ed-Dowleh has been followed by the return to Persia of the wife of Mohammed Ali, the ex-Shah, this being presumably intended to prepare the ground for the return of the ex-Shah himself; whether attempts are still being made, though at present without any prospect of success, to place Saad-ed-Dowleh in power; and whether these attempts have the encouragement of His Majesty's Minister at Teheran?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that the return of Saad-ed-Dowleh to Persia has not, up to the present, led to any marked improvement in the situation. I am not aware that the wife of the ex-Shah has returned to Persia. I am not aware that attempts are now being made with a view to the formation of a Government by Saad-ed-Dowleh, and if there are they are not being encouraged.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been drawn to the list lately published of 10 British subjects killed, 20 wounded, and 14 badly used, in Persia, in addition to the various minor outrages and acts of plunder of British property, and the damage that is constantly being done to the Indo-European telegraph line by the destruction of insulators, the smashing of poles, the

  975
  carrying away of wire, and the robbery and ill-treatment of the telegraph employés repairing the line; and whether he will now take steps to secure the formation of a strong body of Persian levies, under British and Indian officers, to assist the Swedish gendarmerie in the protection of the telegraph line and the safeguarding of travellers and merchandise along the trade routes?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen the statement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. I can only say that His Majesty's Government fully realise the unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I can assure him that they are considering what steps can be taken to remedy it, though there are difficulties, financial and otherwise, in adopting at this moment the particular method that he suggests.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any reason to doubt that the Swedish gendarmerie would be quite competent for the work if properly paid?
  Sir E. GREY: That only goes back to the hon. Member's first question.

  British Jews in Russia.
  Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Russian Government with a view to securing to Jews who are British subjects rights of travel and temporary residence within the Russian Empire equal to those enjoyed by other British subjects?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the North-Western Division of Manchester on the 17th October last to the effect that no steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government in the matter, as unless it can be shown that British subjects of the Jewish faith are treated less favourably than those of other countries, there is no right under treaty to intervene.

  Peace Conference (Great Powers).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the Great Powers of Europe have consulted and agreed as to a course of joint action to be pursued by them in the event of the Peace Conference failing to reach an agreement on which the Balkan war may be concluded?
  Sir E. GREY: The subject of the question is of course receiving the attention of the Great Powers, but I cannot make
  976
  public statements as to their views or decisions except when such can be made by common consent. Whenever this condition is satisfied I shall endeavour to give the House information at the earliest possible moment.

  Indian Police.
  Colonel YATEasked whether any orders have yet been passed on the petition of the officers of the Indian police to be granted the same pension rules as those granted to the Indian public works, telegraph, and' forest services; and, if so, what those orders were?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): In view of the appointment of the Public Service Commission, at whose disposal the memorials of the officers and connected papers are being placed, the Secretary of State has decided to pass no orders on the question at present.

  Archaeological Survey (India).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Government of India have undertaken, through the Archaeological Survey of India, to collect illustrations and statistics relative to the modern Indian architecture and buildings; and, if so, when the material so collected will be available?
  Mr. BAKER: Under Standing Orders issued in 1911 by the Government of India archaeological surveyors while on tour photograph any interesting types of modern Indian buildings and note the names, rates of remuneration, etc., of the principal craftsmen. Inquiry will be made as to when and in what form the material thus collected will be made available.
  Mr. KING: Have these photographs been published yet?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir. I am not sure the collection is yet complete.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the Government of India or the India Office has consulted Mr. J. Begg, the consulting architect of the Government of India, on the plan and architecture of the new Delhi, and, if so, whether any report by him will be published; and, if he has not been consulted, whether he- will be called on to report on the practice ability of employing Indian architects and craftsmen in constructing the new capital?
  Mr. BAKER: In the ordinary course of business the Government of India will take the opinion of their consulting architect on the proposed ground plan of the new capital, the designs for particular buildings, and the extent to which Indian craftsmen and designers can be employed. It is not usual to publish confidential reports of this kind, and the Secretary of State cannot say what course will be followed by the Indian Government in the present case.
  Mr. KING: May we take it Mr. Begg has not yet been consulted?
  Mr. BAKER: If he has not yet been consulted, he will be.

  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to the weekly circular issued by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, dated 22nd August, 1912, in which it is stated that silver was quoted at 29⅛d. for cash delivery (the highest cash price since 11th October, 1907); and will he state how much silver was actually purchased by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company for the Government at that price within a month from that date?
  Mr. BAKER: The amount bought at 291/8d. within a month from 22nd August was £600,000. It was all bought on 11th September, after about £1,250,000 had been obtained in the interval between the two dates at lower prices. As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to a question on 26th November last, the price of 29⅛d. included all costs up to delivery in India. Allowing for this, and for the fact that payment was made after delivery, the price paid corresponded to about 28 13–16d. for cash with delivery in Lundon.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does the Secretary of State still think that hundreds of thousands of pounds were saved by buying silver so cheaply through Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked whether minutes of the proceedings of the Finance Committee of the India Council are kept; and, if so, whether the business trans actions and reports of personal interviews between Sir Felix Schuster, acting on behalf of the Government, and Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company appear therein from time to time?
  Mr. BAKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The minutes record the Committee's recommendations as to the authority to be given from time to time by the Secretary of State in Council to the Chairman of the Committee to arrange for the purchase of silver; they do not record communications that passed between him, acting under such authority, and Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does not the India Office think it necessary to keep a careful note of all conversations, telephone messages, and interviews relating to business transactions, in case of dispute arising afterwards?
  Mr. BAKER: No.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is not this an ordinary precaution taken by business houses, which the India Office should have taken?
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to the weekly circular issued by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to the public, dated 22nd August, 1912, in which it is stated that the steamers to Bombay and Calcutta that week would take £750,000 in bar silver, on account of the Indian Government, that this would be followed by further shipments, the probable requirements for silver coinage in the immediate future having been anticipated by purchases effected at the lower prices ruling some time ago, and that a knowledge of these facts disposed of any necessity for counting the Indian Government a factor in the market, and that the situation was full of interest, and, furthermore, that on that day (Monday) abundance of cash and forward silver being forthcoming, it became evident that whatever purchases the Indian Government had made in the past months it had now ceased to be a buyer; whether immediately before the issue of this circular Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company had been purchasing large quantities of silver on behalf of the Government, and immediately after they proceeded to buy over £2,000,000 of silver for the Government; and whether it was with the consent and approval of the India Office that this statement was deliberately made?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State-knows nothing of these or any other trade circulars until they are issued. At the date of the particular circular mentioned,

  979
  the firm had completed all the orders that it had received, and had no reason to expect further orders.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. Member aware of the letter written on 4th August "by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to the India Office, in which they refer to future large purchases within the next month?
  Mr. BAKER: 22nd August is some time after 4th August.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Yes, but not a month, and as a fact were not large sums purchased very shortly after the issue of this weekly circular?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is stating an argument and not putting a question.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for India if he will furnish a statement showing the rate of interest per annum which it cost the Indian Government to carry forward contracts for the purchase of silver by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company at a loss, in some cases, of one-eighth of a penny per ounce plus one-eighth per cent. brokerage, and in other cases of three-sixteenths of a penny per ounce plus one-eighth per cent. brokerage, with the respective amounts so carried forward in each case?
  Mr. BAKER: I am circulating a statement with the Votes, from which it will be seen that the net immediate cost of the postponements would be represented by a percentage of about 1.68 per annum, against which must be set the advantage of secrecy and the effect of the postponements in counteracting the tendency to a rise in price.—[See Written Answers of this date.]
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the brokerage included in the figure given?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes; everything mentioned in the question is given, including the brokerage.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether Sir Felix Schuster reported his interviews and the receipt of the letter dated 8th January from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, suggesting they should purchase silver for the Government instead of the Bank of England, to the Finance Committee
  980
  of the India Council; and, if so, when and under what circumstances?
  Mr. BAKER: The letter in question was handed by the recipient to the Financial Department of the India Office and was brought to the notice of the Finance Committee at their weekly meeting on 10th January. There is no written record of interviews having been reported.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If the India Office were in possession of this letter, why was a copy of it not included in the correspondence which was asked for before Christmas on three different occasions?
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member did not ask for all the correspondence at first. He asked for the contract. All his requests have been met, as they have been made.
  Mr. GWYNNE: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my questions, he will find that I did ask for the complete correspondence on several occasions.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for India if he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex?
  Mr. BAKER: The Return asked for is apparently intended to show the hypothetical gain which would have been made if £5,000,000 worth of silver had been purchased in years when it was not required, and if the purchase had been made without affecting the price. The last assumption is quite improbable; and the proposed form of Return also neglects the loss that would have resulted from locking up for a long period so large a sum of money in a form in which there was no use for it at the time. The Return would therefore be misleading, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to grant it.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does not the Secretary of State think that it would be in the interest of the India Office to grant this Return, for if he is satisfied that the policy which has been followed is sound, this Return will be the means of proving it—I shall be quite willing to have another column inserted showing the loss of interest on the money tied up in purchasing the silver in advance of the requirements?
  Mr. BAKER: The information for which the hon. Member asks is public property. The Secretary of State will not be a party to the publication of misleading information.

  Lord Nicholson's Committee.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked when the Report of Lord Nicholson's Committee may be expected?
  Mr. BAKER: It is not yet known when the Report of the Committee will be presented.

  Army Officers (Pay and Expenses).
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the consideration which he is now giving to the whole question of the pay and expenses of Army officers will be completed in time to permit of provision being made to improve their position in next year's Budget?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this matter.
  Mr. PIRIE: How many years has this question of the reduction of officers' expenses been dangled before the country; and why is every suggestion that has been put forward for the practical reduction of officers' expenses put aside by the War Office as impracticable?
  Colonel SEELY: I believe the matter has been considered for a good many years. I think the time is rapidly approaching when something ought to be done.
  Mr. PIRIE: Does not this delay give the country proper reasons for thinking that the War Office are playing with the question, and show as little desire for real reform as they do over the question of increased commissions from the ranks, which is also one of the hypothetical reforms which they advocate?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the authorities charged by the right hon. Gentleman with the selection of officers have repeatedly reported to him the difficulty of finding officers owing to the insufficiency of the pay?
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first supplementary question, I should not like it to be considered that we are playing with this question and not considering it.
  Mr. PIRIE: In the past you have been.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know anything about the past. With regard to the second supplementary question, no doubt there has been in the past a distinct shortage of
  982
  officers of the right class. As the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) is aware, that shortage does not exist for the moment. I must not be taken as saying that we do not consider that the matter requires consideration without undue delay. We are considering it.

  Mounted Infantry.
  Major HOPEasked how many companies were trained at each course of instruction in 1912 at the Mounted Infantry School, Longmoor, and how many companies will in future be trained at each course, consequent on 450 cobs being handed over by the school as remounts for Cavalry regiments returning from South Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: During 1912 six companies were trained at each Mounted Infantry course at Longmoor, and three courses were held. During 1913 two companies will be trained at each course, and three courses will be held.
  Major HOPEasked if twelve companies of Mounted Infantry for the six divisions of the Expeditionary Force and three battalions or twelve companies of Mounted Infantry for the two mounted brigades of the Expeditionary Force, as laid down in War Establishments, 1911–12, are still required on mobilisation?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not in a position at present to make any statement upon this subject.
  Major HOPE: Does it not follow that either there has been a waste of money in training too many companies in the past, or that in the future there will not be a sufficient number of Mounted Infantry companies to take the field on mobilisation, owing to the reduction of from six to two companies of trained men?
  Colonel SEELY: That will depend upon the view the military authorities take upon the precise number of Mounted Infantry it is desirable to include in the expeditionary force.
  Colonel YATE: Has it been determined to retain Mounted Infantry permanently as units for the British Army?
  Colonel SEELY: We shall retain some for the next year, but I do not wish to anticipate the statement I shall presently make.

  Range-Finders.
  Captain MURRAYasked the cost of the one-man range-finder provided for Regular Infantry battalions?
  Colonel SEELY: The vocabulary rate for the Marindon range-finder is £81 8s. 6d., inclusive of the case; and for the Barr and Stroud range-finder is £59 16s. 6d., inclusive of the case.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the prices vary considerably according to the numbers of the order, and that if an order extending over a number of years were given the prices would be considerably reduced?
  Colonel SEELY: No doubt that would apply to all the articles with which we are furnished. It does not follow that we should be wise in binding ourselves to one particular type, to the exclusion of others, with a view to getting a reduction in price.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to order a considerable number at a time?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of range-finders is rather too large a question to be properly discussed in the limits of a question and answer. I shall be glad to answer any specific point the hon. Gentleman puts to me.
  Captain MURRAYasked the number of one-man range-finders that it is proposed to issue to each Regular Infantry battalion?
  Colonel SEELY: The number is five.
  Captain MURRAYasked the cost of a mekometer?
  Colonel SEELY: The vocabulary rate for the complete mekometer, including cases, is £8 7s. 7d.

  New Machine Guns.
  Captain MURRAYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed in the near future to issue a new pattern machine gun to the British Army; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give a description of the gun?
  Colonel SEELY: I have nothing at present to add to the information which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on this subject on Tuesday, 31st December.
  Captain MURRAY: Have any orders been placed for the new machine gun?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir.
  Captain MURRAYasked the names of the great Powers of Europe who have adopted in their armies the new Vickers rifle-calibre automatic gun?
  Colonel SEELY: There is no official information at my disposal which I can publish on this subject.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    STAMPS.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) at what offices health insurance stamps of the values of 7s. 7d. and 6s. 6d., respectively, can be obtained; and at what offices these stamps are now kept in stock; and (2) whether the forms of application for supplies of insurance stamps of 7s. 7d. and 6s. 6d., respectively, are now obtainable at all post offices at which these stamps are not kept in stock?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Stamps of the denominations mentioned will be on sale at all head and branch post offices in the first week of the quarter commencing on the 15th instant. At all other post offices they will be obtained on two or three days' notice being given. The forms of application for these stamps will be kept in stock at head and branch post offices, and will be forwarded to sub-post offices with any supply of stamps requisitioned by them.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman be able to carry out his promise, made last September, that the forms of application for these stamps should be available at all post offices?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will inquire and see if that is not possible.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Postmaster-General if, with a view to meeting the convenience of employers in some degree, he will arrange for the issue of books of insurance stamps?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am giving special consideration to this suggestion, and should be glad to receive evidence of any public demand for the sale of stamps, in this form.

    MEDICAL RELIEF.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the right of Ireland, under the equivalent grant arrangement of 1888, to 9 per cent. of the amount of the

    985
    additional charges for medical relief now proposed to be contributed under the National Insurance Act from the Imperial Exchequer; and whether he will consider the advisability, from the point of view of health and comfort of the poorest part of the Irish population, of applying the funds to which Ireland is thus entitled to contributing, in the same proportion as under the Irish Agricultural Labourers Acts, towards providing housing accommodation at 1s. a week for the labourers in the cities and towns of Ireland?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The question of making an Exchequer Grant in connection with the work to be performed by doctors in Ireland under the National Insurance Act is now under consideration. Pending a decision in this matter, it would, I fear, be impossible to express any opinion upon the suggestion contained in the second part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May we take it for granted that the representatives of Ireland will have some opportunity of discussing the matter before the £1,500,000 is voted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There will be representatives of every part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When may we hope for a statement in the present Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So far as I have the leave of the House.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked if any qualifications with regard to age, medical reputation, and proficiency are imposed in regard to doctors whose names are placed on the panels under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Section 15 (1) (6) of the National Insurance Act every duly qualified practitioner has a right to be included in a panel list if a panel is formed in his area. The power of removal, which is provided for in the same Section, is conditional upon subsequent inquiry showing that the continuance of a particular practitioner would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the medical service of the insured; and, in accordance with the request of the medical profession, the regulations with regard to such an inquiry require careful investigation by a specially constituted central body, including members of the profession.
    Mr. F. HALL: Have any professional gentlemen who have sent in their names to be included on the panels been refused?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. The committees have no right to refuse the names that are sent in to be on the panel, if a panel is formed.
    Mr. F. HALL: Are the public to understand that doctors will be placed on the panels, for whom they are paying, irrespective of whether or not they are competent to carry out the work?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I said in my reply, every duly qualified practitioner has a right to be included in the panel list when the panel is formed. That is no resolution of the Commissioners, but a Resolution of the House of Commons.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are plenty of duly qualified medical practitioners whom the insured persons will not be prepared to accept?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no reason why they should accept them if they do not want them. The hon. Gentleman is really criticising an action which is the almost unanimous action of the House of Commons.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that unanimous Resolution is not being carried out?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is being carried out, and in no case are the Commissioners doing anything but carrying it out.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the number of insured persons which it was originally intended to allocate to each doctor under the National Insurance Act; and what sum would have been earned yearly on the basis of the latest terms offered to the doctors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The National Insurance Act does not contemplate any fixed number of insured persons being allocated to a practitioner. On the contrary, the system of free choice by the insured person, subject to the consent of the practitioners, involves considerable variation in the numbers and a corresponding variation in the total remuneration. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    POST OFFICE MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked if the circular dated 31st December, 1912, issued to Post Office medical officers, is intended to imply that their services will be discontinued in the event of their not joining a panel under the National Insurance Act?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is in the negative. The great majority of Post Office employes are not liable to compulsory insurance, and these persons will in any case remain under the charge of the Post Office medical officers. In Ireland also no question arises on this head. With respect to those Post Office employes who are insurable for medical benefit under the Act, I understand that the Insurance Commissioners are prepared to approve the present Post Office medical system as applicable and its officers as eligible to attend these insured persons. This, of course, does not prejudice the right of the insured persons to the attendance of some other doctor who is on the panel if they should so prefer.
    Mr. HALL: Am I to understand clearly, because Post Office employes will be glad to know, that in the event of the doctors not being on the panel the employes will still be allowed to have the services of the same medical gentlemen?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Post Office medical officers who are not on the panel—yes, they would.

    ORKNEY AND SHETLAND ISLANDS,
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the Secretary to the Treasury has been furnished with the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Inverness on the special circumstances of the Highlands and Islands under the National Insurance Act, and when the said Report will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Report of this Committee was laid on the Table of the House yesterday.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: In view of the fact that none of the doctors in Orkney and Shetland have agreed to accept service will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give effect to this Report as soon as possible?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This is an important Report, and it will certainly be considered as soon as possible. I think the hon. Member is wrong, and that the doctors are willing to accept service under the Act.

    SICK AND MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. BECK: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the following question of which I have given him private notice: What is the earliest date on which an insured person can become entitled to maternity benefit under the Insurance Act; and can notice of the illness of an insured person be given before the 13th January, and if so, what will be the earliest date on which such insured person, if still ill, can become entitled to sickness benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Notice of illness of an insured person can be given before the 13th January. If he is ill on Thursday, 9th January, or is taken ill before doing any effective work on Friday, 10th January, he will be entitled to sickness benefit (if he continues to be incapable of work) as from Monday, 13th January, provided that he has at the latter date been in insurance for twenty-six weeks, and twenty-six full contributions have been paid in respect of him. An employed contributor is entitled to maternity benefit in respect of a child born after twelve midnight on Sunday, 12th January, if he has been in insurance twenty-six weeks, and if twenty-six full contributions have been paid.

    Mineral Rights Duty.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although the High Court has decided in the case of the Duke of Beaufort v. The Inland Revenue Commissioners that Mineral Rights Duty is payable on the amount of rent actually paid by a lessee to a lessor, and not upon the amount deducted in respect of Income Tax, the Inland Revenue Commissioners have claimed and received payments on the assumption that Mineral Rights Duty was payable on amounts deducted in respect of Income Tax; and, seeing that the Commissioners have declined to refund money paid on that assumption, will he state by what statutory or other authority the Commissioners disregard the decision of the High Court, and retain moneys to which they have been declared not to be legally entitled?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Since the date of the decision to which the hon. Member refers, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have only claimed payment of Mineral Eights Duty on the net amount of rent actually paid after deduction of Income Tax. The decision in question has been appealed against, and, while the Commissioners have intimated their willingness to make appropriate repayment should the final decision of the Courts be adverse to the Crown, they have declined to take that step until a final decision has been obtained.
    Mr. HARRIS: If any repayments are made, will they include interest?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The usual practice, whatever it is, will be followed. I am not sure what it is.

    Scottish Education Department.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any payment is made in respect of work done by the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department for reporting on and superintending higher education in secondary and intermediate schools apart from his salary on the Votes, and, if any, the amount paid in respect of such services in each of the last ten financial years?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): No such additional payment is made or has been made since the year 1904–5.

    Shops Act (Scottish Office Memorandum).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can so alter the terms of the Scottish Office Memorandum on the Shops Act, and especially the note on page 5, so as to enable fishmongers who have fixed upon Monday for the weekly holiday to sell dried fish on the Tuesday, when Tuesday is fixed by grocers for the holiday?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that the terms of the note referred to lead to the conclusion implied in my hon. Friend's question. The Memorandum is explanatory only, and opinions therein expressed as to the scope and meaning of provisions in the Act have, of course, no legislative effect. Consequently, no alteration in the terms of the Memorandum would vary the law, which must depend upon the words of the Statute, interpreted as they may be from time to time in the Courts of Law.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this note has been interpreted locally in a different way?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am, but I do not think the interpretation is correct.

    Oyster and Mussel Culture (Shetland).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has now considered the Report submitted to the Scottish Fishery Board on the prospects of developing oyster and mussel culture on the West Coast of Shetland; and if he can furnish the Zetland County Council with the result of the inquiry?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Fishery Board for Scotland are considering the Report referred to, together with reports regarding other areas in Scotland, but they are not yet in a position to furnish a full Report on the whole subject, or to make any communication to the local authority.

    Mental Deficiency Bill (Scotland).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the resolutions adopted at a large meeting of representatives of parish councils from all parts of Scotland, recently held in Glasgow, in favour of a separate Bill for Scotland dealing with the care and control of the feeble minded; and whether, having regard to the representations on this subject received from Scotland and to the fact that the Poor and Lunacy Laws of Scotland are essentially different from those of England, he will consider as to the introduction of a separate Scottish Bill dealing with the subject, instead of bringing Scotland within the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has been drawn to the resolutions in question. I cannot at present give any undertaking on the subject, but I expect shortly to receive the views of the parish councils in greater detail, and shall then be in a better position to come to a final decision.
    Mr. WHYTE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept in principle the statement made in the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think there is a good deal to be said for it.

    Women Prisoners (Aberdeen).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the Aberdeen police cells women prisoners, under arrest but unconvicted, are required to sleep on plank beds, and that in the same place women prisoners, although not allowed out of their cells for any purpose throughout the night, are under constant surveillance by male warders, these warders frequently making use of the spyhole in the door and also coining into the women's cells at frequent intervals during the night; and whether he will take steps to have women prisoners under such circumstances placed under the surveillance of female warders?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that wooden beds are as a rule provided for prisoners under detention in the Aberdeen police cells, but that in the cases to which my hon. Friend presumably refers the prisoners were allowed the use of blankets or rugs. It is not the case that they were under constant observation by male warders. A female attendant is in charge of the female block of cells, and all the cells are under the supervision of the male superintendent. In the course of the night to which the question seems to refer, the superintendent paid two visits of inspection to the cells, the female attendant being on duty close by on both occasions. Such visits, I understand, are in the ordinary routine; but I propose to make further inquiry into their necessity.

    Winterbourne Zelstone Estate.
    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?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am informed by the county council that the Winterbourne Zelstone estate prior to the purchase was assessed at £679 10s. (namely, land, £575 2s., and buildings, £104 8s.), and that the present assessment is £821 (namely, land, £600 10s., and buildings, £220 10s.). There is some doubt, however, whether the former assessment includes all the property included in the
    992
    latter, and I am making further inquiry on this point. Under the terms of their agreements the small holders are liable for the payment of rates. The Board have no power to order a revaluation, but it is open to the small holders to appeal against their assessments if they desire to do so.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these houses have been condemned by the medical officer of health?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that arises out of the question.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that manure from the quarantine sheds in Glasgow and Dundee is being sold or offered for sale; what is meant by disinfecting farmyard manure; whether he is aware that the directors of the Highland and Agricultural Society have unanimously expressed the opinion that it is not possible to disinfect manure so completely as to give adequate protection against its carrying the infection of foot-and-mouth disease; and why it is necessary that cattle should be isolated for three weeks after they have left the quarantine if the manure produced by them in quarantine is free from disease?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. Manure is not removed from the wharves until all the animals have been closely examined by a veterinary inspector of the Board and found to be free from foot-and-mouth disease. It is then thoroughly mixed with quicklime before removal. The cattle are isolated for three weeks as a safeguard against the spread of infection in case disease which may have been in the incubative stage during the period of quarantine should afterwards develop. Although there is no evidence to support the supposition that manure produced by animals in the incubative stage of the disease is infective, it is desirable as a precaution that the manure should be disinfected in the manner which I have described before it is removed from the wharves.
    Mr. STANIER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be very much better to alter the arrangements?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I do not think that is in the least necessary. I am advised by my experts that safeguards as to animals in Scotland are fully secured by these arrangements.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make a definite statement regarding the restrictions on store cattle from Munster 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?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Subject to the completion of arrangements with the Irish Department, the Regulations affecting the importation of Irish cattle into Great Britain will be varied as from Saturday next by an Order which will be issued to-morrow, reducing the period of detention at the ports of arrival from four days to twelve hours from the time of the landing of the cargo, during which they are to be rested, fed, watered, and inspected. These cattle will be permitted to be removed from the landing place either to a slaughter-house for slaughter or the farms to which they are consigned, where they will have to be under observation for a period of twenty-one days—provided, of course, that the whole of the animals forming part of the same cargo have been examined and certified free from foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is no distinction to be made in the case of cattle from Munster and from Connaught, where there has been no disease for thirty years, and cattle from countries where there has been disease within a month?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have explained several times that it is impossible to make this arrangement. The Irish Department find it quite impracticable in regard to the traffic of animals to and fro, and as it is impracticable I do not propose to embark upon it.
    Mr. T.M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Great Southern and Western Railway or with the Midland and Great Western Railway as to whether it is possible practically to insure that cattle shipped either from Connaught or from Munster ports should not in any way be commingled with the cattle from any other district?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. I have had no communication with these railway companies. It is not my business to do so. The Irish Department will do that. The main cattle traffic is not done from the ports in Munster. The main cattle traffic from Munster and Connaught, I am informed, is through Dublin.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who was it who gave the right hon. Gentleman the information that cattle from county Cork went through Dublin?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not say county Cork; I said Munster, and the information came from the Irish Department.
    Mr. FIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind as to the twelve hours' detention of all cattle, and will he hold out any hope of reducing the twelve hours' detention on this side?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In answer to a question last week, I pointed out that we must have some experience of the twelve hours' arrangement before I can make any promise as to the future.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to understand that when the new Regulations come into force, store cattle, after twelve hours' detention and inspection here, will not be allowed to be shown in markets and fairs in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, at the present stage I do not propose to throw open the markets in this way. I hope to do that at an early date. The change which I am making now is from four days to twelve hours—a considerable step in the right direction.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: At what likely date will store cattle be allowed to be shown in the markets and fairs in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey, as regards Munster and Connaught cattle, that the Irish Department and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) approve of his Regulations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not a question for the approval or disapproval of the right hon. Gentleman. I have to act on my own responsibility.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state

    995
    the number of pigs that died in transit between Irish ports and the English foreign wharfs since the embargo was placed on live pigs from Ireland; and is he aware that, for want of proper accommodation at the different lairages and the consequent exposure to cold, numbers died and exporters have suffered losses?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the last six months 273 pigs have died or been slaughtered in transit between Ireland and Great Britain, 487 have been slaughtered on arrival at Birkenhead and three at Glasgow on account of injuries or other causes. So far as the Board have been able to ascertain there have been no deaths on account of exposure at any British ports.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Now that it is quite clear that there is no foot-and-mouth disease among pigs in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman permit them to be sent over to England and Scotland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN:I have already stated that I cannot make any change in the arrangements.
    Mr. GUINEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, are taken by his Department to prevent hay and straw, which has been brought into this country as packing materials for goods imported from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists, being used for bedding or other purposes?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have under consideration the issue of a notice to the principal importers of foreign merchandise inviting them to co-operate in preventing foreign hay and straw imported as packing material from being used as bedding for animals or for other agricultural purposes.
    Mr. GUINEY: Are there any regulations in force at present?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no regulation in force at present.
    Mr. GUINEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is more chance of the disease being imported into England by foreign hay and straw than by hay and straw imported from Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This matter was fully inquired into by the Departmental Committee. I am prepared to abide by their findings.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can those who are keenly interested in the matter have a Committee to inquire into the whole subject?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if it is, proposed to adopt any, and, if any, which of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Barkston Ash Division on the 17th December last.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his expert veterinary advisers have on further investigation and inquiry been able to identify any of the cattle diseases known in Ireland as timber tongue, noninfectious foot-and-mouth disease, or dirty mouth, said to be now prevalent in county Armagh; whether any of such diseases are known in other parts of the United Kingdom; and, if so, under what names?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Timber tongue is known in Great Britain as actinomycosis. Non-infectious foot-and-mouth disease is, as I have already stated in answer to previous questions, unknown to the veterinary officers of the Board. The disease popularly known as dirty mouth has been found among cattle imported from Ireland, but, so far as the Board are aware, it is not prevalent in Great Britain.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that timber tongue was reported subsequently to the outbreak at Swords in Ireland, to have turned out to be foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to my recollection of the facts in the Swords case, timber tongue was the title given to the disease, not by a veterinery officer at all, but by some one not capable of giving a diagnosis of the disease.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether actinomycosis is not infectious?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I express no opinion whatever upon that.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture

    997
    (Ireland), whether restrictions on the export of pressed hay from Kilrush to English ports are still in force; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the area concerned is so remote from the localities where foot-and-mouth disease existed, and considering also the number of working men, farmers, and carriers, who depend on this trade, he can promise that the restrictions will be now removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department are informed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that they are not at present prepared to modify the terms of their Order which prohibits the landing in Great Britain of hay or straw from Ireland.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representation to his colleague in the English Board of Agriculture in regard to this matter with the object of inducing that Board to remove the restrictions?
    Mr. RUSSELL: We are in communication with the English Department, and draft Orders are being considered by both Departments.
    Mr. LYNCH: Does not it look like an absurdity to impose these restrictions in Clare, because you are dealing with a problem in another part of Ireland which is very remote from it?
    Mr. GUINEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps, if any, are taken by his Department to prevent hay and straw, which has been brought into Ireland as packing material for goods imported from foreign countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists, being used for bedding or other purposes where animals are liable to come into contact with them?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I shall be happy to hand the hon. Gentleman a copy of a Memorandum on this subject, which was widely circulated by the Department in October last.
    Mr. GUINEY: Are there any restrictions imposed with regard to this hay and straw packing?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No; we have no power to impose any such restrictions.
    Mr. GUINEY: Are we to understand that there are no restrictions on the admission of hay and straw into Ireland, and
    998
    there are restrictions on its going out of Ireland?
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman now satisfied that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Ballysax at the Curragh and Kildare was due to the fact that pigs were bedded with some straw packing from France, and also with straw bottle-envelopes from France, and is the Department in Ireland satisfied that the packing coming from France was the cause of the outbreak?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I stated more than a month ago that that was the opinion of the veterinary officers who superintended the work at Ballysax.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: What steps have you taken to prevent another outbreak from the same cause?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the British Government to keep us subject to outbreaks coming from France while the British Government will not allow our hay to be sent from places where there has been no disease for thirty years?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Immediately on the matter being investigated I communicated with the military authorities throughout the whole of Ireland and they undertook to see that all these materials would in future be burned.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why are they allowed in? Why do not you stop them as our hay is stopped coming into England?
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, any special efforts were made by the Department to discover the causes of the outbreak and to investigate thoroughly the etiology of the disease; whether, in the event of such investigations having been undertaken, the Department called in the co-operation of expert biologists outside the staff of the Department; whether any success was met with in the course of such labours, for instance, whether a specific microbe was identified as the immediate cause; and whether he will place upon the Table of the House a Paper giving details of such scientific work as is here indicated?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. For detailed information as to the steps taken by the Board to investigate the etiology and pathology of foot-

    999
    and-mouth disease I would refer the hon. Member to the Minutes of Evidence given before the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into foot-and-mouth disease (Cd. 6244 of 1912). The Annual Report of the Animals Division of the Board for the year 1911 (Cd. 6136 of 1912) also contains useful information on the subject. As I have already informed the House, a Committee of Inquiry is at the present time conducting further scientific investigations in India on behalf of the Board.
    Mr. LYNCH: In view of the importance of the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman prepare a Special Paper bringing the information together in one compendious form, and lay it on the Table of the House as soon as possible?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Up to the end of 1911 the whole of the information was drawn together by the Departmental Committee. Further information has been given in the Report of the Committee, and I will send the hon. Member copies of both.
    Mr. STANIER: Could we not have more up-to-date information than that contained in a Report eighteen months old?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Foot-and-mouth disease has not changed in the last eighteen months. Any further information obtained by the Committee will be made public as soon as possible.

    Imperial Policy (Dominions).
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada that His Majesty's Ministers, as also the Leaders of the Opposition, have explicitly accepted the principle that, in view of recent developments, the great Overseas Dominions should necessarily be entitled to share in the responsibility for the direction of Imperial policy; and whether, in view of the desirability of obtaining a settlement by consent of the constitutional changes involved by the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Government will consider the possibility of summoning this year a Conference of representatives of all nationalities and political parties of the United Kingdom to reconsider the inseparable problems of Home Rule and the constitution and the powers of a Second Chamber, with the possibility of strengthening that
    1000
    Chamber in an Imperial sense by the admission of representatives of the Overseas Dominions duly elected by those Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Much as I should welcome a settlement of these matters by consent, I fear that the proposals made by my hon. Friend would not be practicable at the present moment.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the speech of Mr. Borden, from which this statement is an extract, concluded with these words: "This question of Imperial responsibility closely affects the future destinies of the Empire, and however difficult the task may be, it is not the part either of wisdom or statesmanship to evade it"?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I entirely agree with it.
    Mr. PIRIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the plain and clear duty before the Government is to undertake this work?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but not to take any particular step at any particular moment. The whole question requires most careful consideration.

    Oxford and Cambridge Universities.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state what steps the Government propose to hasten desired reforms in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are still considering what steps, if any, they can usefully take in regard to this matter.

    Retired Government Officials (Directorships).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether Sir William Smith, who recently retired from the position of Superintendent of Construction Accounts and Contract Work, and has now been appointed a director of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth has, for many years, had official business relations with this firm; and, seeing that, notwithstanding the high esteem in which Sir William Smith is held, this is a case where the public interest might be adversely affected, whether he will make a declaration that public servants should not, in the opinion of His

    1001
    Majesty's Government, accept paid offices with business firms with whom they have been associated while in the public service, unless specially sanctioned and approved by the Minister of each Department responsible to Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir William Smith, I am informed, has not been appointed a director of Messrs. Sir William G. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company or to any position of executive authority in the firm. He has simply been retained by the firm for the purpose of rendering it professional assistance on any point on which it may desire his services. This position was not offered to or held out to Sir William Smith in any way for some months after his retirement from the Admiralty; and during the time that he held the position of Superintendent of Construction Accounts and Contract Work he had simply charge of the technical matters relating to the construction of ships by private firms, and in no way was he officially concerned with the placing of contracts with private firms. As regards the last part of the question, the Treasury has no legal right under existing powers to prevent acceptance of such positions by public servants who have retired from the service. So far as I am aware, there is already a proper disposition on the part of public servants to communicate to the Minister concerned their intention to take up outside employment on their retirement from the public service.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Colonial Secretary made a statement to the House last week that, in his opinion, it is not desirable that Governors should accept directorships in companies associated with the Colonies in which they have held administration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite aware of that, and I quite agree.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is exactly the question I have on the Paper. I asked whether His Majesty's Government would make a declaration to the effect that it is undesirable that public servants should accept paid offices with business firms with whom they have been associated while in the public service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That must depend upon the particular case, and I think the case referred to by my hon. Friend shows that the mischief to which he refers has not in fact occurred.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I will put further questions on the Paper showing that a great number of officers who have been connected with the Admiralty have accepted directorships?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider them.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is in the power of the Admiralty to withhold contracts from firms indulging in this practice?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Admiralty have perfect freedom to give their contracts where they like in the public interest.

    Anthrax.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the United States Government have expressed themselves as satisfied that the formic-mercury process for the sterilisation of dry hides and skins against anthrax infection is likely to meet the requirements both of their port authorities and also of the American leather trade; and whether, in view of the reference to this subject in the Report of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Departmental Committee and of the prevalence of anthrax in this country, he proposes to advocate the adoption of this or any other process of hide sterilisation, or alternatively to institute a further and more specialised inquiry into the subject?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have received no official information as to any opinion expressed by the United States Government on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. The Board are considering whether it is practicable to give effect to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease with regard to the sterilisation of imported hides.

    Somaliland.
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the question of reoccupying Hargeisa, in British Somali-land with a view to checking the tribal raiding and looting that is now prevalent in that neighbourhood, and to giving greater security to life and property?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir, Hargeisa is in the interior of the Protectorate at a distance of some 100 miles from the

    1003
    Government headquarters, and its re-occupation would be a departure from the policy of withdrawal from the interior, which His Majesty's Government adopted after the most careful consideration.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the districts around Hargeisa are still parts of the British Somaliland Protectorate?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No change has been made in the Somaliland Protectorate.

    Malta.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to make any statement regarding the adoption or otherwise of any or all of the recommendations of the Malta Royal Commission?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has been in communication with the Maltese Government respecting the application by certain persons for a site upon which to erect a first-class hotel in the island to cater for the needs and to encourage the visits of tourists; and, if so, if he is able to communicate the results to the House?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have requested the Governor of Malta to furnish me with a report on the subject, but have not yet received his reply.

    Public Works Loans.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board on what grounds, from what quarter, and for what purpose he anticipated an expansion of demands for loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners when he suggested that an additional £1,000,000 should be authorised; have the circumstances which led him to anticipate an exceptional demand now altered; and have any special purposes then in his mind been abandoned?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): It seemed to me, in view of the increased activity of local authorities in the matter of housing of the working classes, and in other directions, that it would be a wise precaution to allow some extra latitude
    1004
    to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the sums which they might issue to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and I have no reason to think that the circumstances have in any way changed.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is not that because the Treasury have placed every possible obstacle in the way of the Commissioners giving Grants for workmen's houses?
    Mr. BURNS: So far as the building of houses for workmen is concerned, the ex-traordinary increase in the amount that was sanctioned for loans largely disposes of the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There has been no increase for England.

    Metropolitan Water Board (Finances).
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board Auditor has been consulted by the Metropolitan Water Board with reference to the existing deficit in the finances of that body; whether he is aware that this deficit now amounts to £210,000; and whether he can state what was the opinion of his Auditor as to the policy of the Metropolitan Water Board in the matter and the proposals made to meet the present state of affairs?
    Mr. BURNS: I may remark that it is not part of the functions of the District Auditor to advise the Water Board on questions of policy. I am informed by the District Auditor that he has not been formally consulted by the Water Board with reference to the matter referred to, but that it has been the subject of discussion between himself and officers and members of the Water Board. The Auditor, in reports to the Water Board on his audit, had drawn attention to the increasing deficiency and the failure to issue precepts to the rating authorities or to take other steps to remove it. I am informed that the revenue deficiency amounted to nearly £210,000 at the end of the last financial year, and that the Water Board have now decided to issue precepts for the amount of the deficiency to the local authorities liable to contribute the amount.

    Crown Jewels (Dublin).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay upon the Table of the House the

    1005
    full report made by Detective-Inspector Kane on his special business in Ireland in 1907?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No, Sir. The reports made to their superiors by police officers engaged in inquiries in criminal matters are strictly confidential and are never published.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent examination of that report?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Will he say, does the report implicate—and—.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take advantage of supplementary questions and of his position in this House to make charges against any persons outside.

    Vaccination (Liverpool).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is the practice, whilst boys are in detention in the Belmont Road Workhouse, Liverpool, on remand from the Bootle and Liverpool Police Courts, to subject such boys to the operation of vaccination without the consent either of the boys themselves or of their parents; whether it is the rule in any of His Majesty's prisons to vaccinate accused persons when on remand; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this practice?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the first part of the question. As regards the second part, it is not the practice in His Majesty's prisons to vaccinate accused persons when on remand.

    Execution at Chelmsford (William Beal).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in refusing to advise a respite in the case of the boy William Beal, who was executed at Chelmsford on 10th December ultimo for the murder of his sweetheart, after a strong recommendation to mercy on the part of the jury who tried him, he had placed before him an unsworn statement purporting to be made by a girl named Lily Bonner; whether he was aware that such statement was handed to the prosecution just as the trial was begin-
    1006
    ning, and that the girl was not called as a witness at the trial; and whether such statement contained a passage to the effect that it was made by Bonner for the purpose of making matters worse for Beal; and will he state whether it is the practice at the Home Office to receive statements of persons who might have been called as witnesses at the trial, and which are adverse to the prisoner, when considering the case with a view to advise the Crown whether the prerogative of mercy should or should not be exercised?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. My attention was called to this statement by the learned judge, but it did not affect my decision. The answer to the fourth part of the question is that the Home Secretary, in advising on the exercise of the prerogative, is not bound by any rules as to the admission or exclusion of evidence, and all statements for or against a prisoner that are submitted to him are considered for what they are worth. In the great majority of cases such statements tell in favour of the prisoner.

    Post Office Supernumeraries.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Post master-General what number of supernumerary assistants were employed in the General Post Office during the Christmas week; and by whom the employers' contributions during that week, under the National Insurance Act, were paid in respect of those persons?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member's question is intended to refer to the position at post offices throughout the country, information is not available. But if the question is intended to be limited to the General Post Office itself, the figures are as follows:—The number of additional men employed during Christmas week was 2,220. The employer's contribution under the National Health Insurance Act was paid by the Post Office in all but three of these cases, and in those three it was paid by the Army authorities.

    Dalkey Post Office.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the insanitary condition of the post office, Dalkey, county Dublin, and its immediate surroundings, and to the fact that many residents in the neighbourhood are obliged, in consequence, to transact their postal business in Kingstown,

    1007
    three miles away; and if he will consider the question of arranging for more suitable premises for the discharge of the postal service in this-locality?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received no representations that the condition of the Dalkey post office is insanitary; but I will have inquiry made and acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Hebrides (Mail Service).
    Sir G. YOUNGERasked the Post master-General the cause of the present irregularity in the daily delivery of mails in Harris and the Outer Hebrides; upon how many days since the 1st December last the mails have been undelivered; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of matters?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Between the 1st and the 19th December inclusive, intermediate calls had to be omitted on five days owing to bad weather, but otherwise the service was regularly performed. After the 19th December, however, and until the end of the month there was considerable irregularity, due partly to boisterous weather, and partly to the damage of the regular steamer and the substitution of a smaller steamer in her place. I am inquiring whether there has been any failure to perform the conditions of the contract.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the steamer Which has been substituted is a wholly inefficient boat, some sort of a coal boat that is not really suitable for the service at all?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is the point as to which I am inquiring, whether or not the substitute steamer fulfils the conditions of the contract. I have asked for a special report on that point.

    Bexhill Post Office.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Post master-General whether he has recently received communications from the council of the Borough of Bexhill requesting that the status of the Bexhill Post Office may be raised to that of a head office; and whether, in view of the growing postal business of this town, he can see his way to grant the council's request?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This question has been frequently considered, and has been reviewed in connection with a recent application from the Borough Council of
    1008
    Bexhill, but I regret that I do not see my way to meet the council's wishes. The change desired would not be advantageous from an administrative point of view, and would not carry with it any improvement in the facilities afforded to the public.

    Public Schools (Staffing).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education what has proved to be the total cost to the local education authorities and to the rates of carrying out the provisions of Circular 709, subsequently embodied in the Code for 1909, relating to the staffing of public elementary schools in England and Wales?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The local education authorities' returns do not enable me to say how far any increase in the cost of staffing public elementary schools is due to the requirements embodied in the Code for 1909, or to other causes, such as the increase of school population in the area or yearly increments in salary awarded to teachers.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not possible to give a Return showing the cost of the staffing involved by this circular?
    Mr. PEASE: It is quite impossible, because the accounts include various items and it is impossible to get from the local authorities detailed information which would be at all reliable from a statistical standpoint.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAVAL AIR STATIONS.
    Mr. MUNROasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement regarding the proposed construction of naval air stations in Scotland, and can indicate where they are to be erected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRAUTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

    Merchant Shipping (Certificates) Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can hold out any prospect of the Merchant Shipping (Certificates) Bill being brought to a successful conclusion during the present Parliamentary Session, and on what date he proposes to bring it forward for the further consideration of the House?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question as the right hon. Gentleman is detained upstairs, and the Parliamentary Secretary is not very well. I am anxious that the Certificates Bill should be proceeded with this Session, if possible, but I fear I am not in a position to name a day.

    Steamer "Thistledhu" (Deck Load).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been informed of the case of the steamer "Thistledhu," which arrived at Spithead on or about the 29th December last in a damaged condition owing to the carriage of a heavy deck load; and, if so, whether he will furnish the particulars relating to this casualty?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The "Thistledhu" left Immingham for Santos on 24th December. She was loaded with railway material and carried on deck three railway cars of a total weight of twelve tons. In a storm on 26th December the deck cargo broke adrift. The vessel was undamaged, but it was found necessary to put in to port to resecure the deck cargo.

    Salmon-Marking Grants.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether certain Grants for salmon-marking in Scotland sanctioned by the Development Commissioners have not been paid; whether he is aware that owing to this delay it is improbable that anything can now be done this season; and what is the reason for those dilatory proceedings?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Development Commissioners have recommended certain Grants for this purpose and the Treasury have sanctioned a Grant on their recommendation, but no money can be paid until it has been voted on the Estimates, and the experiments have accordingly been postponed for the current financial year.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Then am I to understand that this is postponed because the Treasury cannot find time to pass Supplementary Estimates owing to the whole time of the House being given to revolutionary measures?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; I am sorry to say that there will be Supplementary Estimates.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will this be included in them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That I cannot say. Sir G. YOUNGER: It ought to be.

    Inland Fisheries (Ireland).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the recommendations made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Inland Fisheries, he proposes to take any steps to place some limitation on drift-netting at sea, either in respect of the number of nets to be licensed or as regards the length of such nets?
    Mr. RUSSELL: In the absence of the Chief Secretary I have been asked to answer the question addressed to him. The Department propose, as occasion demands, to place restrictions on the use at sea of drift nets for salmon. By-laws proposing to impose such restrictions in the Ballyshannon, Letterkenny, Lundonderry, Coleraine and Ballycastle fishery districts have been made by the Department, and are now before the Lord Lieutenant in council for confirmation or rejection.
    Mr. HORNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these drift nets have a length of 1,600 yards, and that such nets effectually block up the mouths of the rivers?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The matter is for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. HAYDENasked whether the owner of the Hussey Walsh estate, near Athlone, county Roscommon, offered to sell to Christopher King, who occupies the largest holding on the estate, and whether the owner refused to subsequently sell because the tenant did not notify his acceptance of the owner's terms by a certain date; whether the tenant subsequently intimated his readiness to purchase at the landlord's terms, and has for the last three years frequently through his solicitors offered to sign the necessary purchase agreement; if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say if the owner has, and the Estates Commissioners, notwithstanding they have been aware for over two years of the tenant's willingness to purchase, have declined to include the tenant in the sale, and debarred the tenant from the advantages of a purchase; and whether

    1011
    it was within the power of the Estates Commissioners to refuse to declare the estate an estate and thus compel the owner to sell to the tenant at the owner's own terms?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners received communications on behalf of King stating he was willing to purchase at the terms originally offered by the owner. The holding occupied by King was not, however, included in the lands which were the subject of proceedings for sale before the Commissioners, and which the owner asked them to declare an estate for the purpose of sale. The powers of the Commissioners were limited to either declaring or refusing to declare these lands an "estate," and they did not feel justified in refusing to declare such lands an "estate" and thus deprive all the tenants "who had signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings of the advantages of those agreements. The said lands having been declared an "estate" the matter cannot be reopened.
    Mr. HAYDEN: Have the Commissioners exercised their discretion in several similar cases, in order to bring people left out of the sale into the sale with the effect desired?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am "only answering the questions on the Paper for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Knox estate, situate in Geevagh, county Sligo, Carrick-on-Shannon, has recently been purchased by the Congested Districts Board; whether the Board has sent out notices to widow Frazer and five other tenants occupying barren mountain holdings requiring payment of thirteen months' rent and arrears, dating back to 1904; and, if so, whether, seeing that these arrears are impossible of collection, steps will be taken to have them wiped out altogether?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The offer of the Congested Districts Board for this estate was accepted in August last, and demands for one year's rent (not for thirteen months' rent and arrears dating back to 1904, as suggested in the question) were subsequently issued in accordance with the usual custom of the estate. Until the estate is vested in the Board they cannot cancel any portion of the old arrears 6hown to be due by the tenants, but when the estate is vested in the Board these
    1012
    arrears will be liquidated by additions to the sale price of the holdings of sums not exceeding one year's rent in the worst cases.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Composition of Irish Senate.)
    (1) The Irish Senate shall consist of forty senators nominated as respects the first senators by the Lord Lieutenant subject to any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of the nomination, and afterwards elected by the four provinces of Ireland as separate constituencies in the number stated in the Third Part of the First Schedule to this Act.
    (2) The election of senators shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, the electors being the same electors as the electors of members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and each elector having one transferable vote.
    His Majesty may by Order in Council frame regulations prescribing the method of voting at an election of a senator and of transferring and counting votes at such an election and the mode of appointment and duties of returning officers in connection therewith, and any such regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
    (3) The term of office of every senator shall be five years, and shall not be affected by a dissolution; the senators, at the end of their term of office, shall retire all together, and their seats shall be filled by a new election.
    (4) If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of office, the Lord Lieutenant shall, unless the place becomes vacant not more than six months before the expiration of that term of office, cause a writ to be issued for electing a senator in the stead of the senator whose place is vacant, if that senator was an elected senator, and if he was a nominated senator nominate a senator in his place, but any senator so elected or nominated to fill a vacancy shall hold office only so long as the senator in whose stead he is elected or nominated would have held office.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "of"["shall consist of forty"], to leave out the word "forty," and to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred."
    1024
    The object of the Amendment, I think, is fairly obvious. It has one object, and one object alone, the protection of the minority. Under Clause 11 of the Bill provision is made for a Joint Session of the Irish House of Commons, Dublin, and the Irish Senate; and the figures which are provided in the Bill constitute no kind of protection for the minority. Hence the Amendment which has been put upon the Paper. The provision of forty members for the Senate is altogether and entirely inadequate. That number constitutes no sufficient body in order to ensure that the views and the interests and welfare of the minority in Ireland may be duly and properly protected and secured. If the House will bear in mind these facts, then the number which we propose to substitute for forty, namely, one hundred, becomes entirely a reasonable one, at the same time equally showing that the number of forty becomes ridiculous and really constitutes a farce. We are justified in submitting that protection for the minority is necessary. Although I do not wish in the least to elaborate the argument in support of that, yet at the same time I think no reasonable man can well deny that under the conditions in which the minoriy in Ireland is asked to live, move, and have its being in connection with this Legislature, there can be no doubt that it is very necessary indeed. Under the provisions of the Bill it is possible that some thirty-nine Unionist Members might find their way into the' Irish House of Commons. On the other hand, the conditions under which they are to do their work there and the provisions of the Bill generally make it extremely unlikely that such a number will ever find their way into that House because of the initial difficulty which obtains in the minds of Unionists of Ireland that they do not desire to co-operate in forwarding the provisions of this measure. Then, not only does the question arise as to whether protection is necessary for the minority, but the question also arises as to whether it is intended. I think anyone reading the Bill as it now stands would come to the conclusion it was not intended, and that there was no real desire on the part of the Government and those connected with them to secure any protection at all for the minority, and that they are practically indifferent as to what happens to the Unionist minority in Ireland. Realising that, I think it is doubly important that this proposed modification should take place. Speaking in the Committee stage

    1025
    the other day, the Prime Minister made some reference, at any rate, to one other legislative body, in order to maintain his contention that the figure in the Bill of forty for the Senate was an adequate number. I think it was little realised at the time and it would hardly be thought likely that the right hon. Gentleman would "bolster up his case by selecting, of all the legislative bodies in the Empire, the one legislative body alone which presents the lowest percentage for the Senate in a supposed Joint Session.
    I do not know whether the Prime Minister had them before him, but at any rate the percentages in the various Upper Houses in the case of supposed Joint Sessions were in the minds of Members of the House. I am perfectly well aware that a Joint Session is not provided in connection with the provincial Legislatures, but the numbers are not affected by that, and, that the Prime Minister should get up, and any statement he makes necessarily is looked upon by most parts of the House as a serious statement, and that he should quote Quebec of all provincial legislative bodies as a suitable one to support his case, is, I really do think, almost trifling with this House. He selected Quebec because the Upper House there has only 24 per cent. in a supposed Joint Session. I know the other figures were brought before the Committee, but I should like them to" be fresh in the minds of hon. Members and they run like this: Quebec, the very lowest of all, 24 per cent.; Nova Scotia, 35 per cent.; Queensland, 38; New South Wales, 29; Victoria, 34; South Australia, 31; Western Australia, 37; Tasmania, 37. And then in the Dominions: In Canada, when there is a Joint Session, 27 per cent.; Newfoundland, 29; in New Zealand there is an unlimited nomination for the Upper Chamber, so that no percentage can well be fixed. South Africa, the most recent, has 25 per cent., and in Australia, where there is a Joint Session as well as in South Africa, it is 32 per cent. In the Bill of 1886 there was a provision for 33 per cent., and in that of 1893 it was 31 per cent.; under our Amendment it will be 38 per cent., and in the Bill as it now stands it is 19½ per cent. I think it must be perfectly clear to the mind of any unbiassed person that the 19½ per cent. proposed in connection with this Bill is altogether inadequate, and that we are justified in asking for something more than at present obtains in those great Dominion Legislatures Oversea. We are justified in claiming that because of the character of the minority
    1026
    in Ireland, which is entirely diverse from the majority in that country. Such a minority so constituted, so homogeneous, and so different does not obtain in any of the Colonies or in any of the Dominions Overseas.
    Then, again, on another ground we are justified in asking for it, and that is that since the Bill of 1893, when Mr. Gladstone proposed 31 per cent., as compared with 33 per cent. in his 1886 Bill, Ulster has made immense progress. The Unionist population of Ireland has gone ahead by leaps and bounds since 1893, and has had a progress industrially and in every other way which cannot meet with the parallel in any other part of Ireland. Therefore, when the Bills of 1886 and 1893 proposed a total of 30 per cent. for the Senate in a Joint Session, we are certainly justified in pressing on the Government that the figure of 19½ per cent. should be replaced with one which would constitute a percentage to which I now refer. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, but I do think he should not have selected Quebec as a guide and illustration for the House in settling the proportion with regard to the Senate. In all those provincial Legislatures the Upper House has the power in the case of disagreement to force a Dissolution. That is an additional power, which, of course, is not given under this Bill, but it is most essential that a suitable numerical proportion should be settled, and should be settled now. I pass on to another observation of the Prime Minister, which is indeed an astounding statement. The attendance, I think, at the time was rather small, but I really think to have made it in the presence of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side was astounding. The Prime Minister stated seriously to the House that it was not possible to find more than forty men in Ireland suitable for the position. He actually went into the particulars of the qualifications required; he mentioned character and prestige and authority. I say that is a positive insult to Ireland, as I know it with the most superficial knowledge of it, and really almost amounts to a libellous statement on the character and efficiency of the people as most of us know them in Ireland. There is an abundance of men in Ireland—
    Mr. BOOTH: Give them a Parliament.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir H. CARLILE: I say there is an abundance of men in Ireland well qualified to take a seat in the Senate, and to

    1027
    say that the number cannot be increased because of the paucity of the supply of suitable men in Ireland is really to beg the question. That such a statement should have been made by the Prime Minister really condemns most of what he said upon the question. He must have been in a very tight corner to have made a statement of such an insulting character to those with whom he is accustomed to act, and under whose instructions he is so obedient. There are plenty of men in Ireland who have been trained for years now in connection with local government, and such men are well qualified to sit in a local Parliament of this kind. There is an abundance of men in or connected with Ireland who have been trained in Parliamentary politics, which doubtless would qualify them to act in this capacity. So that I think the Prime Minister destroyed his case or put it on a very low level when he brought forward that argument in support of the Bill as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the introduction of the principle of proportional representation. We are all glad to see that proportional representation is to obtain in connection with the Senate in Dublin. We are all interested in that. But the Prime Minister said that the introduction of proportional representation—
    "does not justify an increased Senate."
    That is the very thing it does justify. In fact, the introduction of proportional representation in connection with the Senate makes it absolutely necessary, if right is to be done, and the interests of the country safeguarded, that the number of the Senate should be increased. When the Bill was introduced it provided that one-fourth of the Senate should retire every two years. The reason for that is obvious. It was to secure continuity of policy in the Senate. It was in order that the Senate might do what it is intended to do, namely, act as a steadying power, in order that passing emotion, excitement, feeling, and thought should be controlled, and continuity of policy secured in connection with the Upper Chamber. All that was intended, I presume, by the Government. That is the object of all Upper Chambers. I know that the Prime Minister stated that the Senate was not intended to constitute an obstacle to legislation. I do not think it is likely that the Senate would bring about any such result. When the proportional representa-
    1028
    tion Amendment was accepted it was rendered impossible for the previous provision to be carried out, and it was decided that the whole of the Senate should retire at the same time. So that there is no security either for continuity of policy or that the Senate would be less subject than the House of Commons to the passing waves of feeling, sentiment, excitement, and opinion. Why the Prime Minister should say that the introduction of the principle of proportional representation does not justify an increase of the Senate I certainly cannot imagine. It clearly upsets a most important provision which constituted one of the safeguards for the minority which have been swept away in the course of the passage of the Bill. It is clearly necessary to make up for the removal of that safeguard by increasing the number of the Senate, so that with the principle of proportional representation it may still be possible to retain some of the Members of the House. That cannot be done if the number is only forty. The principle should be reinserted on Third Reading or in another place. By increasing the number as we suggest you could retain both principles, the principle of proportional representation and the principle of retaining a certain number of the Senate and in that way securing continuity of policy. If the Government do that they will take up a logical position and act in accordance with the dictates of common sense, honesty, and justice, so far as that is possible in connection with this Bill.
    Another ground upon which I think we are justified in putting forward this Amendment is that the Irish House of Commons will have very exceptional powers. It is not to have powers such as are delegated to provincial Legislatures in other parts of the Empire. For instance, it is to have absolute power over finance. There is only one other Lower House that has that power, namely, the House of Commons, which only has it for the present during the existence of the present bastard Constitution. The Irish House of Commons is to have complete power over finance. Not only so, but it will undoubtedly have great power over economic questions. I think it is very-undesirable in connection with economic questions that in a country like Ireland, or indeed in any other country, there should be much dissension and ill-will created. There is another ground on which I press the Amendment. No doubt

    1029
    a small Senate is much more likely to be affected by wire-pulling. It is relatively easier to get at a small number of men and influence them for what is wrong or unjust than a larger number of men. If you can secure one just man you will be certain of the position. One will be enough. But it is too much to hope that you will get forty just men in one organisation such as this Senate all at once. But there is a chance of keeping the Senate right and relieving it from the outside pressure of the wire-puller if the numbers are increased.
    Another reason why we insist on this proposal is that whatever plan is now decided upon is likely to form the principle upon which any other provincial or federal Legislature in connection with the United Kingdom would be set up. I should be out of order in discussing the real seriousness of any such proposal, or in referring to it more than in passing, but that consideration certainly ought to influence the Government if they really intend to place any such proposals before the country later on. They have said that they are going to institute federal Legislatures all over the country. If that is the case, it is doubly important that upon the first occasion when they deal with any portion of the United Kingdom reasonable principles should be adopted, and the Senate should be such as to have a chance of really possessing some say in the important matters likely to be debated in that Legislature. On these grounds I ask the Government to consider the Amendment. I do not suppose that my Friends on this side are definitely pledged to any particular figure. I dare say they would modify the figure to meet the Government. I believe, as a matter of fact, we did suggest a rather smaller number in Committee. We are not tied to the number one hundred, but we feel very strongly that the proportion should be somewhere about that which we have named. If, under the Bill of 1886, the proportion laid down was 33 per cent., and under the Bill of 1893 31 per cent., we think that something in the neighbourhood of 38 per cent. would be a suitable proportion on the present occasion. I beg to move.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Whatever else has or has not been discussed in the Committee stage everybody will agree that the Senate
    1030
    has received, I will not say an undue, but certainly a fair amount of discussion and consideration.
    Mr. MOORE: No.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not suppose that anything would satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman. This very point has been discussed, and it has at various times received its full meed of Parliamentary criticism. I cannot say that it has at any time excited any remarkable amount of enthusiasm on either side, and I do not know that on the Report stage it is likely to do so more than it did in Committee. The fact is that Senates and Second Chambers are not altogether popular bodies. They are always open to a good deal of criticism. On the one side they are said to interfere with the popular Chamber and the representation of the people; while on the other side they are said never to have sufficient power to make them useful to any Constitution. However, I still remain faithful to the doctrine of a Second Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I am entitled to my opinion. I have always been an advocate of a Second Chamber, for reasons which have been stated over and over again. I certainly think that this part of the Irish Constitution is a very valuable part, and need not either on one side or the other be rejected as unnecessary or useless. Quite otherwise. Of course, in order to appreciate the merits of the Senate of the size which it is proposed to set up in this Bill, you must visualise the scene. You must consider your Constitution to be in working order. The hon. Baronet, who has just sat down, at one of the moments of his speech, indeed at a good many, advocated a Second Chamber of the larger size on the ground that it would be a proper protection to the minority. In another part of his speech he intimated that he did not suppose the minority would avail themselves of this protection or would cooperate to work this Constitution. If they will not come in and accept nomination to the Senate, if they will not stand for election for the period of five years, why, then, it matters very little whether the numbers of the Senate be forty, eighty, or one hundred. We are bound to assume—I think the hon. Baronet showed that he was quite willing to assume—to visualise the scene, to imagine its Constitution in fair working order.
    A Chamber of forty persons of repute and character, such as are very easily

    1031
    found in Ireland, persons of trained habits, of experience in local government, men accustomed to affairs, -whose judgment will carry weight with it—such a body separately constituted and forming the Senate of the House, having full opportunity of debate, of public report and of publicity, with certain legislative functions—would afford the very opportunity that is most needed in that country for forming and expressing public opinion. These men would have the opportunity of giving utterance to opinions which do not always, as things are at present, get full and fair opportunity of expression. Those opinions would be recorded; they would be read; they would be debated, discussed, and considered in Ireland with, I think, more readiness to give weight and effect to them if there was anything in them than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The notion that this Irish House, dealing with purely Irish affairs, Irish education, if you will, would always be unanimous is a mistake. I do not suppose you would ever find in Ireland, on a purely Irish question, a complete and overwhelming concord of opinion among all the representatives of the people, or of the senators in the Upper Chamber—so called. That these persons would all agree upon Irish questions, purely Irish questions, anybody who has any acquaintance with the administration of Irish affairs or who has had any opportunity of finding out what Irishmen think or think they think about different questions, will know will not be the case.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: That is not peculiar to Ireland.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I never contended that it was. Surely the hon. Baronet does not think that I am reflecting upon the character of Irishmen; far from it. It is a recognition of their intelligence. Whenever you get away from the Home Rule controversy and descend into particulars about other things, Irish people show a great interest, be the subject education, cattle, co-operation or anything you like, and you will find differences of opinion existing.
    Mr. MOORE: We are not cattle.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is a tremendous difference of opinion between persons who are otherwise, on Home Rule and Unionism, simply associated with one block or the other in that controversy. I think,
    1032
    therefore, that if hon. Members assume that forty is a totally inadequate number for the Second Chamber; that forty voting together and in conference in joint sitting in order to prevent deadlocks would be wholly insufficient, it is because they still allow their minds to be entirely dominated by the controversy which ex hypothesi ceases after this Bill is through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] As I have already said if hon. Members decline to contemplate the possibility of this Constitution coming into working order, what is the good of considering either forty, eighty, or a hundred. If the intelligent minority, the loyal minority—or any other name you choose to apply to them—will not play, will not come into the sitting of the Senate—
    Mr. MOORE: We will not play with loaded dice.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Those metaphors really do not facilitate argument. If Gentlemen will not come in then it is of no use talking about forty, or eighty, or one hundred.
    Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BIRRELL: If, on the other hand, they do come in, it is fitting to discuss the Amendment. Forty members of the Senate would play a very considerable part, and would be a great factor in determination, when it came to a deadlock. When it came to any voting in Joint Session, forty persons, or thirty, or twenty, or even a smaller number might very easily affect—in my judgment would affect—very materially these decisions of the two hundred members of the Irish House of Commons on purely Irish questions. Therefore, I do think that in that matter the hon. Baronet greatly exaggerates. When you come to consider the exact proportions between the two Chambers, you see at once that nobody can lay down any hard and fast rules as to the exact proportion that must commend itself to constitution makers or to those engaged in this particular task. There is not, I agree, any hard and fast rule for any fixed proportion to be determined beforehand which enables you to say whether it is right or wrong in a question of this sort. In one sense, I agree, it might be said we have made the numbers of the House of Commons—164—rather larger than the population demanded or required. In that I think we were quite wise not to be led by a consideration of distant Colonies, but by the facts of the case working in the minds

    1033
    of Irishmen When you set up a Parliament so near our own as the one in Dublin will be, you are very much affected by the feeling of the propinquity of this House. We felt, from historical considerations, that it would be undesirable in the interests of Ireland herself to reduce the number lower than 164. In fact, I, personally, would like to see even a larger House of Commons, because I think the larger the House the better the chance there is under the new scheme of getting men of all kinds of temperaments, and opinions, and of great authority, so that all the interests which exist in Ireland shall be properly and fairly represented.
    Ireland, I am satisfied, is a country where individual opinions will, under the new Constitution, play a very great part, and men will have a very good chance of being representatives, not merely because they can repeat like parrots the items of a programme, but because they can make themselves effective in debate, and in discussion, and the constituencies will feel that they have the honour to be represented by live business men. I think it will be a great mistake, therefore, to reduce the 164, and I say I would have been rather more content to have had an even larger number in the House of Commons, but we have begun at 164. We start with that figure. We have considered the number of the Senate. Hon. Members perhaps want us, when we are setting up a Senate, to set up one which is to control the Lower House—that is, to be equal in authority with the Lower House, and to be regarded as having power over that House. That is not our idea at all. That is not the sort of Senate we have in our minds. Hon. Members opposite may be quite right in thinking that a Second Chamber ought to have those powers, but we have said over and over again that in creating a Senate or creating a body of independent persons so far as you can get them, to be nominated by the original Constitution—and I agree subsequently after a period of five years elected on a proportional system—we have not contemplated that the Senate should have any other powers than those of imposing delay, of being an independent body capable of putting their views authoritatively before the country, and of obtaining that measure of support which views well expressed, in an authoritative assembly, and properly recorded are certain to have in a country.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me for a moment? The Prime Minister himself referred to the Senate and said that revision would be one of its functions.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not precluding that by any means in stating what are our views as to what the business of the Senate will be. I began with"delay"—with the opportunity of discussing and stating the opposition to the views of the Lower House in such a way as to direct public attention to the matter. Then comes the opportunity for revision. They will have, in refusing the legislation of the Lower House, to give their reasons why they consider, why in one way or another the measure of the Lower House that has come up to them should be altered and amended. Those are, I think, the main considerations which were put forward by the Prime Minister, and what we had in view: Therefore I agree it is no use hon. Members putting another theory and another Constitution before us. Having regard to the fact that the Irish House of Commons has 164 members, we consider that a Senate of forty will properly and fairly be able to discharge its duties of criticism and delay, and also to give publicity to and debate the matter concerned. I think it has been very fairly put by the hon. Baronet. It has been said that you could not find forty men in Ireland of high character and position. I was very glad to find that the hon. Baronet differed entirely from that sentiment. You have to bear in mind in these proportions which have to be observed—whether it is forty or fifty or sixty—we want to get persons who will have time to devote to this particular work. I am perfectly certain that you could find forty, eighty, or one hundred persons of this kind or description—though it is not always easy perhaps to find them to start with—
    Mr. MOOREHear, hear.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am quite sure, after all—
    Mr. MOORE: You are limited to Nationalists.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all.
    Mr. MOORE: Yes you are, by your bond.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Nonsense.
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the Unionists come into this Constitution, as I confidently

    1035
    expect they will, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that, so far from being all Nationalists, the senators of his native land will represent a different class of political opinion as it exists at the present time. If they are content to join, as I have already said, the numbers that we are discussing now are comparatively immaterial. If they are all one way, and if they always mean to remain of one way of thinking, after the five years, or indeed for all time, the reduplication of two sets of opinion which are identical in themselves is really unnecessary. We are most anxious to establish a Senate of reasonable proportion, which will be able to discharge these most important duties—duties the importance of which I for one cannot underrate. I think, therefore, for these reasons it will be found that 40—though I agree there is nothing magic about the number—in its relation to 164 is a fair proportion, whether there be forty Unionists or forty Nationalists. I decline altogether to associate these party distinctions, which I hope will be removed, with a Constitution going to work on purely Irish matters. You, cannot introduce Unionism or Nationalism into such questions as education or Poor Law, or labourers' cottages, or things of that sort. I do not see how that could possibly be done. I am sure any attempt to carry on business for any length of time in the new Irish Parliament under the old watchwords would be absolutely impossible. I think the number of the Senate is quite sufficient, and on these grounds the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying it was regrettable that there was a lack of enthusiasm for this Senate. I quite agree it is impossible for any unsympathetic person to get into any sort of enthusiasm for this small debating society. The right hon. Gentleman says Second Chambers are not popular. Evidently they are not with His Majesty's present Government and its supporters who differ in this respect with framers of Constitutions in most parts of the world. We hear that two Chambers serve a very useful purpose, not merely for the protection of the minorities, although the protection of the minority has frequently and at length been spoken of as one of the great functions of this Senate which we are now discussing; but we regard the usefulness of a Second Chamber as a protection to the community
    1036
    at large. It is not merely that it will give an opportunity for revision, for delay, for discussion and amendment, but it should in some form or other enable an appeal to be made to the people in matters of doubt and uncertainty, in order to ascertain the voice of the majority of the people of the country; and in that way a Second Chamber is as much a protection to the majority which may be misrepresented in the House of Commons or whatever you call it, and is entitled to have a voice in legislation of an important character before such legislation is passed without the possibility of reform. Now the value of the Second Chamber and of this Senate must depend to a great extent on its relation with the other House, and if you look a little further into this Bill you will see how important it is that the Senate should at any rate be enlarged so as to meet the other Chamber on something approaching equal terms. In this Bill the Senate is prohibited from dealing with finance in any form, either by rejection or amendment. And I may remark in passing, it is not stated in the Bill what is to happen if they do. If the Senate were to reject a Finance Bill, there is no such provision as there is in the Parliament Act, for the Bill immediately to receive the Royal Assent, or the assent of the Lord Lieutenant. I suppose, that then the Imperial Parliament with its inherent legislative power, however inconvenient the case may be in practice, would have to step in and pass the Finance Bill, which was either thrown out or rejected or amended by the Irish Senate. But when we come to legislation of a general character what is to happen? The Senate may reject or amend, and if no agreement is come to between the two Houses in one Session then the matter lapses for that Session. Another Session follows and if there is still disagreement the Lord Lieutenant summons a Joint Session and the matter is then settled.
    What is the prominent function of a Second Chamber upon which the Prime Minister has from time to time dilated. It is its value of giving time by its powers of delay for the public opnion of the country to be brought to bear upon the discussions and differences between the two Houses. If that is to prevail and to be effective, the time allowed ought to be ample. But this unfortunate Senate may differ in one Session and force delay for that Session; but there is no reason why the House should not then be prorogued and another

    1037
    Session commenced almost immediately. A month or so may intervene between the rejection of the Bill by the Senate and the prorogation. At the commencement of the new Session the Senate rejects the measure again and then the Houses would sit together and the Bill is finally passed. But what opportunity is given for public opinion to be brought to bear upon this measure as to which these forty brilliant men, of the eminent qualifications the right hon. Gentleman considers necessary, disagree, and for their opinion to be communicated to the- country, and for the public opinion of the country to be brought to bear upon the action of the two Houses. If this Joint Session is to be of any sort of value, the two Houses ought to meet on something approaching equal terms. I do not say that we should make them equal either in numbers or in power. I will not go through the proportion which every Second Chamber bears to the House of Representatives in every other Constitution. But I say this, that for any body of forty persons who differ with 160 to go and sit with them with any hope of influencing them is merely to invite the party of forty to assist in something in the nature of a farce.
    If this delay is to be of any value it ought to be delayed for an appreciable time, and if the Joint Session is to have anything like a fair interchange of opinion on rival questions you ought to alter the proportion of the numbers. And there is this other view which we take of the value of the Second Chamber to the community at large, and that is that it has power in some way or other to force an appeal to the country. This Senate has neither the powers of delay nor the power of bringing about a method of ascertaining the views of the country. It is quite possible that a Parliament elected on a wave of popular opinion may have ceased entirely during its tenure to represent the feelings of the country in the last years of its existence. The House of Commons may pass measures which are wholly unpalatable to the country at large, the Senate may reject them, and Parliament may be prorogued, and then the next Session convened and the Bill may be passed without the country in general having any opportunity of pronouncing any opinion upon it. Now it is said that the powers you give this Senate are the utmost you could allow in a democratic country to a Second Chamber. The curious aspect of modern
    1038
    democracy is that the liberty of appeal to the people is regarded as anti-democratic, and that a Parliament once selected is to have some form of inspiration which makes the elected Chamber infallible until the conclusion of its tenure of power. What would be the value of discussion in a Senate of that kind? What is the use of talking it over among forty persons when they know perfectly well they are powerless, and when they know perfectly well that if they are invited to discussion with the other House the mere fact of their appearance in the other House of 160 Members would be almost ridiculous, and that they would be borne down in argument, as happens in other assemblies, by the mere weight of numbers.
    What the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in discussions upon this subject last year is perfectly true, that a chamber was powerless in any way either to effect delay or to control public opinion, will be uninteresting to its own members, uninteresting to the public, that its debates would cease to be reported, and it would lapse into hopeless incapacity from lack of interest in itself and its incapacity to create interest in the public at large. We really find in the constitution of this Senate an exhibition of the attitude of this Government towards Parliamentary institutions. The Government obtained a majority, and having obtained it the supporters of the Government are expected to carry out its edicts in the form of legislation, and the Second Chamber, if it has any power of delay at all, has no power to appeal to the electorate against the decision of the Lower Chamber, and has no power to appeal to the electorate to ascertain whether they really approve of the legislation proposed. Although we, under our happy Constitution, have eighteen months or so during which public opinion may form its decision and in some form or otherwise express itself otherwise than at the polls, this Irish Senate will have no means whatever of ascertaining public opinion, because the time allowed is too short and its numbers too insignificant to make any impression whatever upon the legislation of the Irish Parliament of the future.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans called upon us Nationalist Members below the Gangway to resent the insult, as he called it, of the Prime Minister with regard to the difficulty of finding more than forty

    1039
    eminent men to form a Senate. I do not regard it as an insult, but I may say I felt more than flattered on the other hand by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. "Why," he said, "talk about forty capable men in Ireland for the Senate as well as 164 Members of the House of Commons. Ireland is full of capable men. Your difficulty in dealing with Ireland is not the paucity, but the embarrassing richness of the intellectual political material in that country." I am not only flattered, but rather surprised when I hear that observation from the hon. Gentleman, because it is somewhat in contrast with one of the main positions of some of his colleagues from Ireland above the Gangway, which main position is that Ireland is altogether devoid of anything like political capacity; that the materials for the good self-government of the country do not exist. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I thought I heard a faint "hear, hear," in the well-known voice of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh.
    Mr. MOORE: I did not speak, but I will presently.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: We live in hopes.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is one of the welcome incidents of our Debate upon this Bill; welcome, not merely because of the ability and geniality of the hon. and learned Member, but because also of that unconscious benefit he gives to our cause by his extreme opposition. I listened to the enumeration of the numbers of Second Chambers in different parts of the Empire with much interest, and I think forty is higher than most of them. So far as the argument of analogy is concerned, the number of the Senate rather confirms the argument drawn from the models in other parts of the Empire. A most important fact in connection with this argument, drawn from analogy, is that there are a great many of the States and provinces of the Empire in which there is no Second Chamber at all. For instance, British Columbia has only a single Chamber, and two or three more of the Western States are without a Second Chamber by their own deliberate choice. They were left to choose between the unicameral and a bicameral system. I hold an open mind on this question, but I cannot quite understand the attitude of hon. Members above the Gangway upon this question, because they are demanding Second Chamber powers, which are entirely irreconcilable
    1040
    with a democratic community. What is the House of Commons in Ireland? If the system be anything like a reasonable one, what is the House of Commons in England? It is the nation in microcosm. It is-the reflection, echo, and image of the nation, and, that being so, to distrust the popular Chamber over here or in Ireland is to distrust the nation itself and its-democratic institutions.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, whom we all recognise as a high authority on Constitutions, complained of this Second Chamber in Ireland and elsewhere, and said that they were deprived of one of the fundamental rights and duties of a Second Chamber, namely, the right of creating an appeal to the people. I cannot quite follow that argument. What does it mean? What would it mean in England? It would mean, if a 'Conservative Ministry were in power-that there would be no attempt to force an appeal to the people; but if a Liberal Ministry happened to be in power, the opportunity would be taken of wearing the country out by a constant and rapid succession of elections. Elections are necessary things, and they are good things; but you can have too much of them. I am sure I could appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's own experience and judicial view of these matters so long as he is a good university Tory when I say that in the United States and other democratic communities nothing has been found more prejudicial to good government and to good and honest politics and politicians than the multiplication of elections, and one of the necessary evils and consequences of that is a creation of a professional political class. Another result is that the elections excite very little interest among' the general community because of their frequency, and the decision generally falls into the hands of the great battalions of political force. The Mover of this Amendment demands as the rights and privileges of a. Second Chamber what no true democrat can assent to. I agree with what the Prime Minister said, namely, that the rights of a Second Chamber in Ireland and elsewhere should be absolutely confined to the right of delay and revision. Any proposal at this time of day to make two-Chambers of equal power, one of them popularly elected and the other nominated or representative of the minority, will, I think, be rejected by any modern democracy.

    1041
    As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, a Second Chamber has a tendency in most countries to represent one of two oligarchies, 'and I do not know which is the worst, the oligarchy of class or the oligarchy of wealth. The result is that in many parts of the world Second Chambers, instead of being a protection to the rights of the people, have been the bulwark behind which all kinds of selfishness and anti-popular interests have been shielded. In the Constitution of the United States I do not know anything that I detest more as a legislative Chamber than the Senate. Although I am an admirer of many things in the Constitution of France, I am not an admirer of their Second Chamber, and I would give to no Second Chamber the rights it has in France. The control of finance must belong exclusively to the popular Chamber, which is representative of the people whose money is being expended. Those being my views I apply them to the Second Chamber in Ireland. I am quite willing to accept the opinion of the Chief Secretary that a Second Chamber is a desirable thing in Ireland. The Irish democracy will not be free any more than any other democracy from sudden and perhaps irrational gusts of popular passion, or what is a greater danger in a democracy, popular gusts of rather impractical sentimentality. Therefore, it is desirable to have a Second Chamber to give the country time to carefully consider hasty proposals passed by the popular Chamber, and that is all the power I would give it. But I would not give it equal powers. The right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong path when he talks of the power of the Second Chamber in Ireland being destroyed by the fact of the smallness of its numbers in comparison with the number of the popular Chamber. The power and authority of the Second Chamber in Ireland will not depend so much upon its numbers as upon the influence of the men who form it.
    Here I must strongly dissent from the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore). He said that in fact the Government would be compelled by force to nominate the Senate entirely of Nationalists. I give the Chief Secretary fair warning that in my opinion he will act entirely against the spirit with which this Senate has been proposed by the Government and cordially accepted by us, if that Senate did not contain a very large proportion of men who did not hold Nationalist views.
    1042
    [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh laughs at that statement. I do not know whether he suggests that I am not talking in all sincerity, but I assure him that I am. Perhaps he thinks it is beyond the power of the Government to act according to the principles which I have laid down. All I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends on these benches is that we should certainly be disappointed, and regard the Government as not having acted according to the spirit of this Bill if there were not a large mixture of Unionists and representatives of the minority in that Senate. I would add that I do not think violent fanatical' political opinion is the kind of thing you should look for most when constituting a Second Chamber. I would like to see men there, not Nationalists or Unionists, solely-owing to their position in the world of science, education, commerce, and law who would be able to give to the Irish community the benefit of their judgment, impartiality and experience. I hope that such a Chamber will play a much larger part in the life of Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken anticipates.
    If we have there forty of the ablest-minds of Ireland examining every proposal in the light of their intelligence, knowledge and experience, they will produce-an impression upon the mind of Ireland, and when they come into the joint Assembly again the power with which they can state their case will influence the minds of the Second Chamber and the popular Chamber, and this may turn the division. I dissent altogether from the anticipation of some hon. Members above the Gangway as to what is likely to be the constitution of the future Irish House of Commons. I do not believe that you will have there the block system or the discipline and the rigid rules we have under the present state of things. At the present time we are joined together for a certain special definite and supreme national purpose, and therefore we should be mad if we did not insist on rules of stern discipline-and inflexible unity. But does anyone suppose that when we face the internal problems of Ireland, which do not raise the same issues, that this group will consist entirely of men of one way of thinking. There are hon. Friends of mine on these benches with whom I have acted for twenty or thirty years from whom I entirely differ-in opinion except on the national question. I daresay in an Irish Parliament those hon. Members would be on one side and I

    1043
    should be on the other side. It may there for be that a small body of men numbering forty might have a decisive vote in coming to a decision.
    5.0 P.M.
    Hon. Members above the Gangway are always telling us that forty-two Irish men coming from Ireland in a Parliament containing over 600 members will decide the fate of measures and the fate of Ministers. Their argument is that in the case of this Parliament forty-two Members are omnipotent amongst over 600, but in Ireland forty members are not omnipotent in a House of 164. I hope the Government will adhere to the present numbers of the Senate. Finally, let me say how much I welcome the temperate tone of the very interesting speech made by the hon. Member for St. Albans, and I also welcome the change in the tone of the whole Debate. I know that I am speaking before the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh has delivered his soul. I welcome the general tone of the Debate, including the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson), as marking the timid dawn of a better attitude towards this Bill and the acceptance of the fact that the Bill is going to pass into law, and they had better make the best of it.
    Mr. MOORE: The hon. Member who has just sat down thinks there is going to be a paradise in Ireland.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Oh, no.
    Mr. MOORE: Yes, that is his description.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: There is no such: thing as a paradise on earth.
    Mr. MOORE: At any rate, that is his description. Yet ho is going to live out of it for the rest of his life. He has taken good care of that. It is quite easy for him under those circumstances to prophesy that everything will go smoothly. On the other hand, I have got to live in Ireland and spend the rest of my life there, and I am convinced there will be anarchy or something worse. It is rather unfortunate we have to approach the consideration of the Bill from absolutely different standpoints. It is very easy for the hon. Member, who will be living out of Ireland, to prophesy these smooth things, but we are the people who will have to bear the brunt of things in Ireland. We have got to live
    1044
    in the country, and I think, therefore, when we have these sincere doubts and these grave apprehensions, we ought at least to be allowed to put our opinion before the House of Commons. I have heard the hon. Member and others since this Bill was introduced talk about the toleration which is always going to be shown for the minority in future. It really puts one at a disadvantage when he finds the enemy, if I may call them so, always talking about their toleration. It makes one who does not believe in it seem to be rather an unpleasant, stingy-minded, hardhearted sort of person. Yet, when I remember all this toleration is preached by a party who have been carrying on the most cruel propaganda for years past against Unionists and Protestants—
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Never!
    Mr. MOORE: I repeat it. When it is remembered this toleration is preached by a party who have been carrying on the most cruel propaganda for years past against Unionists and Protestants in the shape of cattle-driving, boycotting, and moonlighting, and every outrage of the propaganda of physical force, it seems rather late in the day for them to ask us to believe all these soft things about the good time the minority are going to have under them in future. When I hear hon. Gentlemen talk about the enormous representation, the disproportionate representation, Unionists are going to have in this new body, I cannot help thinking of what is commonplace in Ireland and of the meanness with which hon. Members, with exactly the same political machinery as they are going to have in the future, exclude every Unionist so far as is in their power from local government in the country, although the Unionists, small as their numbers may be in the South and West, pay very nearly half the rates. There are over 600 county councillors elected for the three Southern provinces of Ireland, and the manipulations of the United Irish League and the Ancient Order of Hibernians permit sixteen Unionists only in those three provinces. Those things are in the dry tree. Have we any reason to suppose the leopard will change his spots? Why should they abandon the machinery they have at their hands and the principles they have practised consistently up to this? Why should they not exclude Unionists from a share in this provincial Parliament in Dublin just as they have done from every body of local government

    1045
    within their control in the country? It is all very well for hon. Members to come into the House of Commons at the eleventh hour and say, "We are so tolerant." The facts of the past give them the lie. Their own past has been the exclusion of every Unionist and Protestant who does not see eye to eye with them. Now they say, "You may trust us in the future; we are going to turn our back on our past." They do not say so in Ireland.
    The Chief Secretary seems to imagine this is a pantomime we are performing, because he treats the whole thing as a joke. It annoys people whose whole future is at stake to hear him get up and make a speech in favour of forty members of the Senate when they know perfectly well he would have said exactly the same thing if the figure agreed upon between him and the hon. Members below the Gangway had been sixty or eighty. It is all an elaborate joke with him. He has got the rules of the game in his hand. It is a perfectly casual matter with him. This is merely a point he is put up to argue. After all, it is only in his brief; it may be popular or unpopular, but he is only doing his duty in a perfunctory way. What does it matter to him? He will have nothing to do with Ireland if Home Rule is passed, but we will have to play the game and grin and bear it. Why should we play the Chief Secretary's game when we know it means disaster to our own country? He is absolutely regardless, and he has shown it from start to finish, of giving the minority in Ireland the very least protection. I want to show what this safeguard is worth. He gets out of it by saying, "Oh, but you say you are not going to have Home Rule. You say you will not have it. You will not join the Irish party. If you are not going to play the game, what does it matter what happens?" Why should we assent to a game which we know means ruin? Yet, because we will not consent, and cannot consent, the Chief Secretary does not feel himself bound any longer to give any provision which will mean fair play for the minority in Ireland. He says, "You will not play the game on my lines, therefore your blood is on your own head." After all, however, the House of Commons is the trustee of the rights of the minority and the rights of everybody for whom they are legislating, and, if the House of Commons considers forty members would not be anything like a reasonable safeguard, then I think it ought to
    1046
    support the Amendment and see a fair provision is inserted in the Bill in case those who come after us should not be of our opinions.
    I differ entirely from the hon. Baronet in the illustration he gave of Quebec as the nearest analogy to the new Irish Parliament. I wonder whether hon. Members desire to set up another Quebec Parliament across the Irish Channel. What chance has the minority in Quebec? There is one powerful political Church which dominates the Senate of the Quebec Parliament, and, if the analogy is carried out, the Parliament in Dublin will be dominated in the same way. Quebec is the single exception in the British Dominions where you have a political Church in full political power and sway. That is the analogy the Prime Minister chose, and I think very appositely chose, for the Dublin Parliament. That is only another reason why the Unionist and Protestant minority in Ireland still more strongly object to this Bill. We say we want better safeguards across the Irish Channel than you gave in the case of Quebec, where your hands were fettered and bound by treaty obligations. This has been brought forward as a safeguard. It is just on a line with all the other safeguards. Let us, as the Chief Secretary says, visualise the situation. In the first place, the Chief Secretary says the use of a Second Chamber will be to inform public opinion. What chance have the people in agricultural Ireland of being informed of what is in the newspapers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: They read them.
    Mr. MOORE: What newspapers do they get? The ordinary farmer will go to the nearest country town once a week and bring the weekly newspaper back with him. Have hon. Gentlemen ever seen one of our weekly newspapers? There is a page which contains the entire summary of the things of the previous week. There is another page devoted to a novelette for the farmer's wife. There are four pages of farms to be let and advertisements. There is another page of agricultural news as to how many cows have had calves, and how many sheep have had triplets. I am speaking in the hearing of hon. Members below the Gangway, and I am saying nothing that will not be admitted. The ordinary country newspaper in Ireland has its entire political and social events on one little page. I am talking of the North of Ireland as well as of the South. That

    1047
    is the means by which the whole agricultural population of Ireland have to inform themselves. They cannot subscribe to the daily papers; it would cost two guineas a year. It is absurd to say you can mould public opinion by a little country newspaper, which is all they have in the rural districts of Ireland, and the rural districts will admittedly swamp the Parliament, because you will have over 120 rural members against some thirty-four members from the towns. Then it is said the Senate will have the power of delay. Those who wish to thrust a Bill through this Parliament under the Parliament Act at the highest possible speed must, nevertheless, have an interval of two years from the date of the Second Reading. There is no such limit imposed on the Irish Parliament, absolutely none. You can have your Bill rejected by the Senate in July. You can at once prorogue Parliament, have another Session, and send the Bill up again. You can put your Bill through in nine months. Where is the delay there? Then you come to the numbers. If things were equally balanced, you might have half the Senate against the Bill. You go down to the Lower Chamber, where they are all red-hot in favour of some particular measure. What are forty votes, of which twenty are against the measure, going to do thrown into a melting pot of 164 members? The thing as a safeguard is perfectly absurd.
    The Chief Secretary said he was a Second Chamber man. That is another of his jokes. Somebody has told him it is a respectable thing to have a Second Chamber, and accordingly, for the sake of appearances and perhaps to salve the consciences of some Liberals, he has put a Second Chamber in the Bill, but he has done his best in the draftsmanship from start to finish to whittle down every power given to the Second Chamber. We talk about the limited powers of the House of Lords in this country, but they are omnipotent compared to the Second Chamber under this Bill, because at the last moment they are to be brought down to be outvoted in an Assembly of 164, or in the proportion of four to one. It must be remembered that when the Chief Secretary talks about independence, beyond all doubt a man can be independent if he does not owe his seat to popular election. But it is a fact, whether he is an elected Member or not, he has to face his constituents. This is the body in which the Senate will
    1048
    have to face the same constituency of electors at the end of every five years. But what chance has you for an independent body? The whole position varies. You have an elected Senate elected by the same electors as the House of Commons. That would make a difference as showing what the safeguards are. I can see absolutely no practical working safeguard in these proposals. We are going to forbid this being put into force. When you are going to give a free country safeguards such as these we say we are entitled to claim that those safeguards shall not be a sham, but that they shall be a real safeguard in the interests of the minority.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: The hon. Member has referred to Colonial precedents. I believe, but I am not sure, he quoted twelve or fourteen cases of Second Chambers in the Empire and with the exception of two of these cases I cannot suggest what conceivable connection there can be between the size of the Colonial Second Chamber and the size of the Irish Senate. The hon. Member says the size of the Second Chamber is only of importance when there is to be a Joint Session. But the only Second Chambers with which comparison can be made are those in Australia and South Africa. If you take the proportions in South Africa they are very different to those proposed here.
    Sir H. CARLILE: It is 25 per cent. as compared with 19½ per cent.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: In the case of South Africa it was forty as compared with a Lower House of 121, and that is very different to the proposals contained in the Bill.
    Sir H. CARLILE: The percentages I give are the percentages of the Joint Session in the two Houses.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: The hon. Member held up the Australian Colonies as an example. He argued that the case of the institution of the Commonwealth was so new that it was unfair to draw any inference from it. This Amendment would actually confer on the Irish Senate powers greater than those possessed by the House of Lords. It could hold up all legislation, for the Session, and, unless the majority of the House of Commons was exceptionally strong, the Irish Senate will be a formidable rival to the Irish House of Commons. It could hold up all legislation for the Session unless the majority in the Irish House of Commons

    1049
    was exceptionally strong. It could force a General Election and still be free from all fear of a Dissolution itself. The Amendment appears to be more out of the question when one remembers that it proposes to confer these tremendous powers upon the two Chambers. Such powers ought not to be given to the Second Chamber even in an Imperial Parliament, and they are altogether disproportionate in the case of a Second Chamber. It raises, after all, a question of proportional representation, the result of which we cannot foresee. The hon. Member for Oxford University said that he and his party considered Ireland as a country which needed a Second Chamber stronger even than that of the House of Lords. Yet only a few weeks ago he and his party were insisting that Ireland was a country which needed no Second Chamber at all. What explanation can there be for that sudden variation of opinion unless, indeed, it is a question of tactics? In a country like Ireland a Second Chamber ought to derive its strength from its personal authority, and that authority would be weakened by this arrangement. With a Senate of forty we have every reason to believe the best men will be attracted, and Ireland will be free from the danger which has beset some Colonial institutions, the danger of the Second Chamber being filled by candidates rejected by the First Chamber.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Member has found fault with the figures of the hon. Member for St. Albans, but I think I can show that the figures he gave were, in the main, correct. I will only take the proportion of the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons in the Bills of 1886 and 1893 and those in the Bill introduced by the present Government. It will be impossible for the hon. Gentleman to deny that so far as there is any value in the safeguard attaching to the proportion of the numbers between the Senate and the House of Commons, so far this Bill is unfavourable to the minority as compared with the Bills of 1886 and 1893. Indeed, it is a singular thing that throughout all these Debates we have had far more enunciations of the view of the Prime Minister that minorities ought to be protected than ever came from Mr. Gladstone, while at the same time the safeguards put into the Bill for the protection of minorities are far less than were put in the Bills of 1886 and 1893. The Chief Secretary, earlier in this Debate, said that
    1050
    this question appeared to arouse no enthusiasm; that we had debated for some hours the questions whether the Senate should be elected or not; whether, if elected, it should be elected by proportional representation or by the present system, and whether it should consist of forty or 100 members. Yet, he said, it aroused no enthusiasm. We are all agreed that the Chief Secretary has many good qualities, but we have never detected enthusiasm as being particularly attributable to him as one of his best qualities. He cannot expect enthusiasm in discussing any portion of this Bill, because we do not believe that this Bill will ever come into practical operation in Ireland at all.
    Quite apart from that, even if we did believe the Bill would become law, and we did visualise—to use the word of the Chief Secretary—our belief that Irishmen would have to work this Bill, even so, no enthusiasm would attach to any discussion of the Bill, because the proposals of the Government utterly fail to carry out all the advantages which we think ought to be derived from the formation of a Second Chamber. Our views are probably very different from the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. My views on the Second Chamber are very different from the views expressed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in a very charming speech he made a little while ago. He told us that he had not quite made up his mind as to the utility or inutility of Second Chambers. He certainly had not much good to say about them. I noticed that he picked out several for censure, but not one for praise. He said he could almost lay down as an axiom that to distrust the popular Chamber was to distrust the nation, and that if we were ever guilty of distrusting the popular Chamber, we must also be guilty of distrusting the nation. That is an utter fallacy, and one of the greatest possible fallacies. One of the objects of the Second Chamber is to defend the population on those rare occasions when the popular Chamber goes in advance of or wholly against popular opinion. One of the powers that ought to be given to any well-regulated Second Chamber is to bring about such a condition of affairs that the nation's will must prevail against what is called the will of the popular Chamber. That is one of the conditions which I and many of those who think with me attach to all Second Chambers that are properly constructed with a view to the work for which they are created. When the hon.

    1051
    Member for the Scotland Division says that if we distrust the popular Chamber we distrust the nation, then almost every civilised country appears to have the same distrust of the nation, because most of them have given to their Second Chamber this power—I admit on rare occasions—of bringing about some kind of appeal to the people when they think the will of the popular Chamber is being exercised against the popular will. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not so."] The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking and showing that that is not so. I still maintain my proposition.
    The hon. Member for the Scotland Division himself went on to admit that even in Ireland itself there would be great gusts of passion sweeping over the popular Chamber, and that it would give way at times to impracticable sentimentality. If this popular Chamber is swept by these great gusts of passion, and from time to time gives way to impracticable sentimentality, what power on earth is there in the Senate as devised in this Bill, to prevent those gusts of popular passion enabling the popular Chamber to do something entirely contrary to the will of the people? None whatever. When the hon. Gentleman says that the power of any Second Chamber depends more upon the personnel, the character, and weight of the men who compose it than on anything else, while I do attach great importance to the personnel of the Second Chamber and to the character of those gentlemen who occupy positions in it, at the same time I say that what we have to look at is not only the personnel, character, and weight of these gentlemen, but at the powers that they can exercise if they are disposed to exercise them. When we look into the Bill we see that practically the Senate will have no power whatever to stop these gusts of popular passion or acts of impracticable sentimentality from having any force. I take no interest whatever in the question whether the Chamber shall consist of forty or a hundred members. That is to me an academic question to a very large extent. It is interesting because it is part of the whole of many discussions in which we have been engaged, and probably shall be engaged for years to come, as to the question on what principles Second Chambers shall be constructed, but so far as I am able to visualise Ireland, whether there be forty or a hundred members in this Chamber has little practical bearing from my own point of view.
    1052
    I will attempt to visualise Ireland. I will assume that the Bill is carried, that it comes into force, and that it has to be worked. For the first five years the forty members of the Senate will have to be nominated. The Prime Minister has again and again told us that he values a Second Chamber because the Senate will have the capability of adequately protecting the rights of the minority. Let us see how it will work out. First of all, if we are to believe hon. Gentlemen who represent the North of Ireland, and we are bound to believe them, they will be entirely unwilling to work this Bill; they will have nothing to do with it. From what class and from what portion of the minority can these forty gentlemen be drawn? I imagine that the nominations will rest with the Prime Minister of this country. Assume that the nominations will be in the hands of the present Prime Minister. Whom will he have to nominate? They must either be Nationalists or they will be those gentlemen who, in the guise of Protestants and in the guise of Unionists, a kind of hermaphrodites, who are always willing to do the will of the majority, providing there is some consideration attaching to it. They will be the persons the Prime Minister will have to choose, if the representatives of the minority in the North of Ireland stand aside. Let us pass away from that particular period. Let us assume that the Bill is passed, that it becomes an Act, and that it has been working in Ireland for five years. Then the Second Chamber is to be elected. The Prime Minister said he attached enormous importance to a Senate or Second Chamber, and the hon Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division said that he attached enormous importance to it in Ireland, because forty of the ablest men in Ireland would be elected to that Second Chamber. Will they? If the really able men in Ireland who are really wise and weighty, who really care for their country and want to serve it, want to serve in either of the Houses, will they not choose to serve in the House that has all the power rather than in the House that has no power at all?
    Whether they go into one House or the other they will have to face a popular election, and I imagine that they will have to pay for it. If the election is spread over a large area it will probably be more expensive than if spread over a smaller area. Perhaps somebody who follows me in this Debate will show whether in considering the position of this Senate—for I imagine it

    1053
    has been much considered at the hands of the Government—they have thought it would be wise and well that the Senate should consist of paid members, as we'll as that the House of Commons should consist of paid members. That would make a great deal of difference. I imagine that many of the ablest men in Ireland would be somewhat poor men, not able to afford large sums of money for electioneering, the maintenance of seats, and so on. If the members of that House are not paid, but the members of the other House were paid, and the members of the other House had all the power while the members of the Senate had practically no power, is it likely that the ablest men in Ireland are going to seek election to the Senate when by seeking election to the Irish House of Commons they there would be able to exercise their powers far more than they would be able to exercise them in the Senate? I do not believe that this Senate is going to effect either of the objects of the Prime Minister has in view—either that the Senate would be an adequate protective body for the minority, or that it would be drawn from the resources which could not otherwise be drawn upon, namely, a body of men who are not likely to face elections. I will quote the Chief Secertary himself during the Debate on the Committee stage. He, too, visualised and imagined what would happen under this system. He went very carefully into the numbers of those who would probably be elected to the Senate to represent the minority.
    He said that for Ulster he thought there probably might be ten: ho would give eight as a minimum and ten as a maximum for Leinster. The minority could rely on two and possibly on three. In Munster they could rely on one, and possibly on two. He took a very dismal view of Connaught, and said he could hold out no hopes at present that the minority could rely on any representatives being sent from Connaught. As a result of his arithmetical calculations he gave to the minority, as a maximum, fifteen, and, as a minimum, eleven out of forty senators. That is the House especially designed to protect minorities and their rights. In that House, according to the best calculations in the most sanguine mood of the Chief Secretary, all the minority can hope to have is at the utmost fifteen, and, if the sanguine estimates of the Chief Secretary are falsified, that fifteen will tumble down to eleven. Then these two Houses are to vote together. There will be fifteen representing the minority in the Senate, and,
    1054
    at the outside, forty representing the-minority in the Irish House of Commons. The Irish minority, for the first few years-at all events, will be able to rely upon fifty-five out of a total body of 204. From the point of view of the minority, what is the good of all this joint sitting They will be voted down time after time, of course they will be able to make their speeches, so far as we are aware, and to publish them in their own papers, and a mighty lot of good that will do.
    There will be the power in the Senate, we are told, of revision—I suppose correcting the grammatical mistakes of the other House, and matters of that kind—but there will be no real power given to the Senate at all, and when they come to vote together, those who represent the minority, particularly in the most difficult years, when this Parliament is started, would be voted down immediately by a heavy and swinging majority in the total Assembly. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy), who made a most chivalrous speech on this question, offering to the minority far better terms than the Government are offering them, was absolutely right when he said you are simply providing two Houses of exactly the same pattern, with a Nationalist majority in each. That, I believe, will be the real effect of this Bill if it ever comes into force. You will merely be setting up two-Houses of the same character and the same complexion, one not affording any more protection to the minority than the other, and both practically of the same pattern, with a Nationalist majority in each. If I were looking at it purely from the point of view of the minority, I should care very little as to whether there were forty or 100 members in this Chamber. If the Government had really wished to put in some fairly adequate safeguards for the minority, they would have looked rather to a later Clause, in which, when they come to consider the Clauses under which the two Houses are to vote together, they would have taken some means by which, on large questions at all events, there should have been some preponderating majority necessary to carry into law the proposals of the Irish House of Commons—that these proposals should be carried not by a small majority but by a two-thirds or a three-fourths majority or something of that kind. There are no real safeguards in this Clause at all, but it is interesting from quite another point of view. The Prime Minister, in introducing-

    1055
    this Bill, said, "All through our discussion we must continually keep in mind that this was a first step towards federalising the United Kingdom."
    We should like to know whether this is to be the model Second Chamber, not only for Ireland but also for England, for Scotland, and for Wales, when the present Government have time to complete their scheme of federalising the United Kingdom. Whenever we put a question to them they are silent, except that they give us their one and only answer, which is that when the time comes it does not naturally follow that what is given to one portion of the United Kingdom shall be given to another. I take some comfort from that, but I hope, when it is considered what kind of Constitution England shall have when it is made a unit of this federalised system, we may be treated in a very different way as regards our Second Chamber from that treatment which is accorded to Ireland under this particular Clause, which creates this Senate without any real power of protecting the minority at all. I should like to know whether the Government have thought it out at all, and whether they have come to any conclusion as to whether, when they federalise the United Kingdom, they are going to set up ten Houses or not within the United Kingdom, and whether the Second Chambers in the other portions of the United Kingdom are to be framed on the same kind of system as that which is adopted in the formation of the Second Chamber in this Clause. That would be an interesting question to discuss, but that is not a question which the present Government are ever willing to discuss. It is a question which they always avoid. While they tell us we ought always on this side to consider the whole of this Bill as only the beginning of federalising the United Kingdom, they themselves shrink from any mention of any argument in favour of any such scheme as that which they say they are one day going to bring forward. Whether who take them on the Customs or the Post Office or the Second Chamber, it is the same. We never get any answer as to whether England is to have these things—Customs, Post Office, and Second Chamber—or whether Scotland or Wales is to have them. They mean us to wait and see, and it is from that point of view only that the matter appears to be worth discussion, and not from the point of view of the minority, because there is no pro-
    1056
    tection whatever in this Clause for any minority in Ireland.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think this discussion is the greatest condemnation of the allocation of time adopted by the Government under the guillotine system. The Chief Secretary had to admit that no one took any interest whatever in this matter. Accordingly the one matter in which we take a vital interest, namely, the question of finance, is practically to have no time for discussion, and what is an utter unreality, though that is not due to any of the able speakers who have spoken, is given a number of hours in which it may disport itself. I took the trouble a few minutes ago to take a little census of the House. There were twenty-one Liberals in it, fifteen Tories, and seventeen Nationalists—total fifty-three. That exactly represents the amount of interest that is taken in this question. Therefore the few remarks I have to make will not quite follow upon the lines of the Amendment itself, but I ask to be allowed to take a somewhat larger line. In the first place, I quarrel with the Clause as proposed. There was introduced into it an Amendment, to which Amendment I gave a certain amount of support, but a phraseology has been used in it which is utterly non-legal and which is for the first time imported into any Irish Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) moved his Amendment on Thursday I took the opportunity of pointing out to you, Sir, that there was no such place in Ireland as Ulster and that there was no such entity as a province, and it is really astonishing, therefore, that an Amendment should have been accepted in this Bill which provides that the Irish Senate shall consist of forty senators, who are to be elected by the four provinces of Ireland. There is no such place as the four provinces of Ireland. Then when you turn to the Schedules you find out what are the four provinces of Ireland and you find that, like Mrs. Harris, "there is no such person," because you find out that the province of Ulster is to have fourteen Members, there being no such place, the province of Leinster is to have eleven, the province of Munster nine, and the province of Connaught six, total forty. There are Parliamentary units known as counties. They have statutory recognition and there is power in certain Statutes to alter their area. But search the Irish or the English Statutes and, excepting the Parliament of Tara 1,500 years ago, at which time Ireland

    1057
    had five provinces, for county Meath was one, there is no recognition, as far as I know, of a province in any such shape or form as this Bill gives it. I therefore say that the scheme of provincial proportional representation has had rather a bad start. I did think at one time, when an Amendment was accepted, it would be possible to work it under Sub-section (2)—"The election of senators shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, the electors being the same electors," and so on—
    "His Majesty may by Order in Council frame regulations prescribing the method of voting at an election of a senator and of transferring and counting votes at such an election and the mode of appointment and duties of returning officers in connection therewith, and any such regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act."
    But under that Clause there will be no power whatever to group counties. That is only dealing with an election for a given area and does not enable you to say that for the purpose of Section 8 of the Government of Ireland Act the counties which will be embraced in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught shall be definitive counties. Nothing of the kind. He would be a very daring lawyer who would say that that Sub-section had that meaning. I therefore say at the outset I think the Government in the matter of proportional representation have struck a snag, and that it will be very desirable, if this Clause is to have any legal effect, that some further consideration shall be given to this so-called preferential method of representation. So much upon that point.
    With regard to the effect of the Senate, which has occupied the attention of the hon. Member (Mr. Hayes Fisher), I listened with amazement to the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the popular Chamber in Ireland would be swept by great gusts of passion and that it would give way to impracticable sentimentality, and I asked myself, "Great gusts of passion about what?" Every possible subject upon which it is possible to feel any passion has been subtracted from the power of the popular Chamber, ending at last with the question of taxes—the Budget. You can have great popular gusts of passion about the Crown, about the Regency, the making of peace or war, relations with foreign States, hostilities, the Navy, the Army, the Territorial
    1058
    Forces, the Defence of the Realm, or any other naval or military matters, treaties or relations with foreign States, or relations with His Majesty's Dominions or offences in connection with such treaties, or the extradition of criminals or fugitive offenders, and even you might have great gusts of popular passion upon the distribution of dignities or titles of honour. You might have similar passion about treason, treason felony, alienage, naturalisation, quarantine—we have noticed at Question Time gusts of passion arise as to that—navigation, including merchant shipping in inland waters, local health or harbour regulations, lighthouses, buoys or beacons, coinage, legal tender, trade marks, designs, merchandise marks, land purchase in Ireland, the Old Age Pensions Act, the National Insurance Act, the Labour Exchanges Act, the collection of taxes, the Royal Irish Constabulary, Post Office Savings Banks, Trustee Savings Banks, friendly societies, and public loans. All these are withdrawn from the control of the popular Chamber. What is it to have great gusts of passion about? Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway want protection from the popular party in the Lower House. Protection about what? What will the Parliament of Ireland be doing? Is this House aware that in the great State of Texas, which is nearly as large as France and England put together, the Legislature is only allowed to meet once in four years, and our little island, 300 miles long by about 100 miles wide, is to have an annual sitting? Many States in the American Union only meet once in two years, and, therefore, to say that this Senate will be necessary to prevent great gusts of popular passion sweeping, like an Eolian harp, over the Lower Chamber, is really to marshal up an amount of imagination which I did not think even had yet taken refuge in the Scotland Division of Liverpool.
    6.0 P.M.
    Now I come to the question of the method of representation. The hon. Gentleman says that this Senate is going to attract to itself forty of the best brains in Ireland. Well, any man who stands for the Irish Senate must be a lunatic. Consider what it is to be. This is what is provided for out of your wisdom, and after taking many months to consider it. Each constituency, roughly speaking, will have a population of over one million. Taking Lundon with I suppose its 4,000,000, what is your constituency here? Even in this

    1059
    hive of industry and closely collected body of people, why! if you had a constituency with a population of 100,000 or 150,000, I suppose it would be a very large one, and yet you, the English Parliament, having withdrawn from us every possible subject of interest, including the Budget, suggest that forty of the best brains of Ireland will go on a canvass of a million people to be represented by proportional representation. Let us take the case of Munster The county Cork has in this House seven Members, and the City has two. To canvass that county alone would take about two months, and then you add on to it, for the purpose of the Senate, county Kerry, county Clare, county Tipperary, and county Waterford, and you suggest that forty of the best brains of Ireland will start out to canvass that constituency which would take something like twelve months to accomplish, even if the candidates did not kiss a single baby. That is supposed to be the wisdom that is brought to bear upon the construction of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said that on a former occasion I made a proposal which he was good enough to call chivalrous. I made no such thing. I made a proposal which was businesslike, namely, that instead of drawing your analogies from the Cape of Good Hope, Botany Bay, and other parts of the world of which we hear so much and know so little, you should take the country as it is, with its divisions, with its apprehensions expressed, with its dread of turmoil and disorder, and with the fact that for about two hundred years, from 1613 to 1800, there was practically a Protestant Government in Ireland from which every Catholic was excluded, and it is some comfort to me to think that it was Irish Protestants who sold their country and not Catholics. I said that with all these facts, and with the great dread expressed by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway with regard to Catholics, some measure should be taken to give the Protestants, as regards this Senate, not the thin and useless plan for this purpose of proportional representation, but ad hoc representation in the Senate.
    I say that is not chivalry; that is common sense, and accordingly when I hear hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway proposing to cut out Ulster, that is to say, to cut out the most historic part of Ireland, and leave us the English pale—the country which was really settled by the English,
    1060
    and which they worked at for 400 years before they got a foothold—we took it from them, naturally enough—and when I hear them saying that because in 150 years they have planted a few men around Belfast, we should give up the see of St. Patrick and the grave of Shane O'Neill, and be content with the area around Dublin Castle, I say that is really the most extraordinary proposal I have ever heard from any man in or out of Ireland. Have we no solution? We say that there is no real ground for your apprehension, but if you have that apprehension, take in this Senate any power you like, I care not what it is. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) said this pretty much himself, and I am only echoing his words. I am well aware that "soft words butter no parsnips, "but if the Opposition were really practical in this matter, they would fasten on the proposals the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has made, and say, "Come down to hard facts, and let us know what you mean in terms." My hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), if I may call him so, used a remarkable expression a moment ago. He said, 'We have put down no Amendment, but those who come after us may change their minds. "That is a funny expression. They will not change their minds at all. What he means is that they may not be of the same mind as himself, and I think that was a very honest and a very practical saying. I say that, so far as we are concerned, if the Conservative party above the Gangway want either in whole or in part either a full guarantee or a small guarantee, so far as this House of Legislature is concerned, if they will only let us know that such is their desire, I believe they would find the Catholics of Ireland of all classes only too anxious to shake hands with them and make a bargain on the subject.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) told us that he had taken the trouble to make a census of the House when this matter was under discussion, and he said, thinking perhaps that the statement would astonish hon. Members, that the total component elements of the House amounted to fifty-three. I think he has been a constant attender of the Debates on this Bill, and I would have expected him rather to say that number suggested an overflowing meeting, having regard to the attendance of hon. Members during the

    1061
    discussions. Nothing has been more remarkable, particularly in regard to the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite, than the extraordinary misapprehension that prevails among them regarding the Committee stage. But, after all, the explanation is perfectly simple. In the first place, we have it on authority of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—the statement has never been contradicted, and he was himself one of the parties who took part in the negotiations—that this Bill was an agreed matter even to its smaller details as early as 28th April last year. That was before the Committee stage was ever reached in this House. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were the only ones consulted. No. hon. Gentleman who had the misfortune to sit for a Unionist constituency in Ireland was ever consulted as to a line or comma in the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were not only consulted but took part in the framing of the Bill, and down to its most minute details this entire Bill, we were told, was an agreed matter between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and themselves. Therefore, does anyone wonder that there is no interest taken in this matter? Surely everyone knows that during all these weary nights and days we have been taking part in a humiliating farce. Surely they know—and they show it by their action—that all they have to do is to come in at half-past seven, and again at half-past ten, and march through the Division Lobby without taking the trouble to ask what they are voting about. When I have taken part in the discussions I have always done so with a sense of humiliation, but I have done so in the hope that some portion of what I said in expressing the Unionist opinion of Ulster—and this also was the feeling of Unionist Members from the North of Ireland when they spoke for those whom they represent—might permeate into the minds of the electors of Great Britain. Otherwise I would think that I was wasting: time in taking any part whatever in the Debates under the conditions that exist in connection with this matter.
    Let me also call attention to another illustration of the uselessness and the futility of these discussions. Within the last week I heard the Prime Minister himself say—I heard the hon. and learned Member for Waterford also say it—that there was no guarantee or safeguard that we would ask for, that he would not gladly concede,
    1062
    and yet I do not know at this eleventh hour of the discussions of the existence in the Bill of any practical or real safeguard whatsoever for the Unionist minority in Ireland. There have been safeguards introduced, but whether they will be effective or not I will not stop to discuss. There have been elaborate provisions made for the protection of the British taxpayer, but as to safeguards proposed from our side with the object of providing in this Constitution some real and working safeguard, no single one of these, as far as I know, has ever been accepted by the Government. What is their attitude upon this point? Uncompromising opposition. Let me analyse what they are pleased to describe as their reasons for this opposition. In the first place, the Government which prates so glibly about readiness to give us any safeguards we ask for has in regard to this Senate taken a more extreme course than was taken by their predecessors in the Bills of 1886 and 1893. There was some pretence at reality in 1886 and 1893 as regards the safeguards, because the number of the Senate and therefore its influence in Joint Sessions was much greater under those Bills than under the present Bill. But not only have they not given us the safeguard contained in those Bills but when they come to deal with this matter of the Senate they put it in a less favourable position than we were in under either of those Bills. They have gone one step further, because, although they admit that this is an experiment and they are proceeding not upon any actual experience as to how this new machinery in Ireland is going to work, but are simply trusting entirely to prophecies and promises which the very men who are making them will be themselves unable to fulfil if they wish to do so, yet when they are risking this terrible experiment, relying merely upon the fulfilment of these prophecies, they reduce the number of the Second Chamber to a lower figure than is to be found in any constituent part of the whole British Empire. Yet they say, "that is a safeguard and we have gone out of our way to show our anxiety to conciliate Unionist opinion in Ireland and to calm their fears."
    I say deliberately and with a full sense of responsibility that there has been nothing about the entire course of the last twelve months which has so excited and intensified the alarm and apprehension of my loyalist fellow countrymen in Ireland as the repeated failure on the part of His Majesty's Ministers to make good in any

    1063
    real degree or any effective sense these constant suggestions about safeguards. The hon. Gentleman who spoke on this. Amendment from the opposite side of the House, who has shown not only constant attention to these Debates but has intervened with great industry and fairness, said, "You should not increase the number of this Senate because it is an experiment." Is the Lower House not an experiment? And if the fact that you were trying an experiment in the Senate is any reason at all in connection with this question, surely it is a reason for extending this safeguard instead of diminishing it and making it a less effective safeguard than the Second Chamber in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool said he disliked Second Chambers. He even went so far as to express a great dislike to the Second Chamber of the United States, and he mentioned Second Chambers in other countries, showing plainly that he has no love for them. But he was quite prepared to support this Second Chamber. Could you have, or desire to have, a better illustration or proof of the fact that this Second Chamber is going to be a sham than the fact that it has the support of the hon. Member, who detests Second Chambers of all kinds? But we are told, and the argument was repeated to-day by the hon. Member, that it is a mistake to imagine that such safeguards would be wanted in connection with the Irish House of Commons, because by indulging in prophecy, which is very cheap, there will be a lot of Unionist representation in this new House of Commons. Where is it going to come from? Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are always telling English audiences that this is only a mere measure of local government. The hon. Member told them that in Canada. He made light of it. But if it was only going to be an extension of local self-government, surely we are entitled to rely on our experience of what has already happened under local self-government, rather than to trust our future fate and fortunes to the prophecies and promises of what is going to happen, when we find that these things that they prophesy are entirely falsified by experience similar to the experience which we met with a few years ago.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Armagh reminded the House what happened in 1898. I want to develop that a little. In that year the Local
    1064
    Government Act for Ireland was passed practically on lines identical with those adopted for England in 1888. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, not only in this House, but upon the platform in Ireland, implored the Irish electorate in the three provinces outside of Ulster to find room upon these new boards for Unionists and for leading men wholly regardless of politics and religion, and he went so far as to say that the extent to which that would be done would be an indication and a test of the fitness of the Irish people for Home Rule; and he declared his belief, which he re-echoed in this House, that room would be found on these bodies, under the Local Government Act, for these leading men who were prepared and able to give their time and attention to the management of their own county affairs. We got that pledge and these prophecies repeated ad nauseam. In the result, in actual experience—and remember we are now asked to take even a further risk on the strength of prophecies given by the very same Gentleman, and in relation to the very same subject-matter: that is, local self-government—what happened in 1898? The hon. and learned Member has reminded the House that outside Ulster, out of some 600 county councillors altogether, there were only sixteen Unionists. But he overstated the case, because those sixteen include the Corporation of Dublin, and in the Corporation of Dublin—a city in which, by the way, Unionists pay nearly three-fourths of the entire rates—there are eight Unionist representatives out of something over sixty members, and those eight are included in the sixteen out of the entire 600 for the three provinces outside of Ulster. In the province of Connaught there is only one Unionist on the county councils, and in Munster there are two.
    The point I wish to make on that is it shows how futile it is to ask men who have so much to risk) where the stakes are so tremendous, and its issues are so momentous, to stake all upon prophecies of this kind in the face of the non-fulfilment of prophecies made under precisely similar circumstances. But what I complain of most in regard to this is that although in 1898, and ever since, these prophecies and promises of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford have failed in fulfilment, he never from that year to this, so far as I know, has by any act, word, or deed attempted to carry them out or use his influence to have them carried out. That is

    1065
    what fills me with graver apprehension and alarm even than the fact that these prophecies have failed in the performance. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Cork, asked, "What do you want any protection in the Senate for? What do you seek protection against? It cannot be against this House of Commons, which is emasculated. They have taken everything from us which is likely to excite passion or controversy or differences of opinion." I agree with him to a large extent that while this co-called Constitution—which it is pretended is going to satisfy the aspirations of those who for half a century have proclaimed that nothing will satisfy their aspirations except complete separation and independence—this crippled and maimed article is never going to satisfy any national sentiment in Ireland. At the same time I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member that it does not contain within it so far as it goes the seeds of a certain harvest of controversy and friction and trouble. Take, for example, one illustration, the question of education. That is, as I understand, entirely within the control and management of this new Irish House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the country as well as or perhaps a great deal better than I, and he knows that that is one of the great burning questions in Ireland, not merely as between the various creeds, but as between the members of the various religions amongst themselves, and that it is certain to form a subject matter of great bitterness of feeling and very wide and divergent views.
    Where, then, is the protection provided by this safeguard? What is to be the nature and kind of body which is going to attract forty of the most brilliant intellects amongst the Irish people? The conditions under which this Assembly will sit admittedly are so degrading that no man of any spirit in Ireland would cross its threshold for an hour. It is purely ornamental; it is a mere debating society, without one particle of administrative power, organisation, or capacity. It consists of forty members. I care not how they are elected. It is not a question of their election, though, of course, the preliminary difficulties pointed out by the hon. Gentleman in the way of extra expense and wide area which will have to be canvassed, and all that, will be in itself a deterrent to men of great ability, but
    1066
    who shrink from the unpleasant campaigning and canvassing; but I could understand even that being done by ambitious men with plenty of money, and although we have many ambitious men in Ireland yet we have not many with plenty of money, at least not as many as we would like to have. But assume you have enough ambitious wealthy men in Ireland to form an Assembly of forty, what is to attract them to this House? They will be, on the very first occasion they find themselves in conflict with the Lower House, in a degrading position. They will number forty. Suppose they are Unionists which is a very violent assumption on the figures given by the Chief Secretary, namely, that Unionists could only have a representation of fifteen which leaves twenty-five of the other way of thinking; but suppose there are twenty-five of the other way of thinking and a permanent majority of twenty-five, why, they never will differ from the others. And that will make their position all the more ludicrous, degrading, and humiliating, because they will have nothing to do except register the decrees of the others.
    Mr. BIRRELL: You assume the other House will always be unanimous.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I assume the other House will always have a permanent majority of one way of thinking. No man who knows the realities of Irish life, or understands his fellow countrymen, or who has lived amongst them, can have the slightest doubt that at least for years to come—I hope and believe it will not always be so—the minority in the present generation will be affected. It is poor satisfaction to speak of those born afterwards as living under altered conditions; the safeguard for which we ask is for those who have to live out their lives, and no one who knows the conditions of Irish life can entertain the slightest doubt that for years to come, certainly for a full generation, there will be a permanent majority of one way of thinking in the Irish House of Commons. Look at the degrading and miserable position of this wretched body which you seek to glorify and make something out of it by calling it a Senate. There will be there, also, a permanent majority, who will agree with and act on the lines of the permanent majority in the Lower House, and under these conditions they will remain absolutely a worthless body, simply registering the decree of the other. But assume the contrary—why, then its position becomes still more

    1067
    degraded. Assume that it differs from the Lower House, and assume that the Senate is unanimous in its disagreement—see the position you are placing it in; you send forty men to mix with 164, and to vote with them on equal terms; that is to say, one vote for each member of the forty is to have no more weight in the Joint Session than the vote of each member of the majority of 164. That you call a safeguard, and in framing it, as I have shown, you put it on a lower level, and with less power and efficiency for protection, than any other similar body in any constituent part of our great Empire. It is only one more proof of what I honestly believe, that this Bill has been framed, and deliberately framed, with less protection in it, less security in it, for the Unionist minority in Ireland, than in either of its predecessors, in 1886 and 1893; and any advance of any sort or kind that has been made towards us in the way of affording security or safeguard has only been to replace small fragments of the securities and safeguards that are to be found in the Bills of 1886 and 1893. It makes, as I have said, the duty of attempting to take part in this discusion, to say something in defence of those whose fears are as real as is their determination to save themselves from the consequences of those fears, and of putting their case before this House, even more irksome and more difficult than it would be under ordinary conditions.
    Mr. LOUGH: I cannot listen to these Debates without regretting the spirit of bitterness with which these matters are always approached by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. Undoubtedly, if the Amendment on which he was speaking lends itself to the argument that he has been addressing to the House, he might have been said to have put forward a strong plea. But the House will remember that the Amendment is simply to increase the number from forty to a hundred. How will that give the minority protection? If it rests on the people of Ireland to elect forty, and if they proceed to discharge that duty in such a bitter way, with so much antagonism to the opinion of the minorty throughout the country, what protection will there be in increasing the number to a hundred? According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, there would be no improvement effected in the scheme at all. One has only to weigh for a moment the
    1068
    arguments addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to see that it is they who have introduced the touch of unreality, the strong spirit of unreality into these Debates. Will one hon. Member opposite get up and say that if one of these Amendments were accepted, and especially this Amendment, the Bill would be made more agreeable to them than it is at this moment? Those Amendments are all practically wrecking Amendments, brought forward in the spirit of general opposition to the Bill. Take one or two of the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As he goes along, there is scarcely anything he can say which will appeal to this British Assembly but is bitter and has not got much foundation in it, as far as Ireland is concerned; there is scarcely a point of that kind he does not make. He said, "You will have very bitter debates in Ireland about education." How does he know that? There never are any bitter debates in Ireland about education. I see no reason why there should be; both sides in Ireland take the same view about education, so far as I know.
    Both sides have settled the whole question, and have worked peacefully together for half a century. It is in this House that the bitter debates about education arise; it is among the British people that you get it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in Scotland."] If that be so, Scotland owes it to Ireland, and she has got all those ideas which make her so prosperous from Ireland, and she cannot be sufficiently grateful for it. Take this question of education—I say there is not a scrap of foundation for saying that there would be any quarrel or difficulty in Ireland in connection with it. It will be settled, and amicably settled, and so far as difficulty has been dragged into it it has been done in this House. One might build up a very strong argument in favour of the general principle of this Bill if one chose to go into that question, which it would not be quite relevant for me to do now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did undoubtedly mention a matter which touched me very strongly, namely, the way in which county councils are elected in Ireland. The county of Cavan is a bad illustration of the way in which the minority is treated. On a county council of forty members, though there is a very substantial Protestant minority in the county, yet never a Protestant has been elected to the council. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite

    1069
    apparently blame the Irish for it, but it was this House which narrowed the electoral area, and which invented every means by which the minority in Ireland has been debarred from getting any expression of its opinion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that perhaps on some future day—when he is dead—there will be less bitter feeling in Ireland, and that Irishmen will love one another. The difference between us is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes such a melancholy view, while I am more hopeful. Why should not Ireland begin to reform in this respect? Why should not the advent of this Bill be the great occasion in Ireland for one side to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the other? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to believe that there will be something of the kind among Irishmen—well, in centuries to come. Why should they not begin at once?
    Since this House changed its attitude towards Ireland some fifteen or twenty years ago, in consequence of these Debates and this demand for a constituent Assembly in Ireland, at the time of 1886 and again in 1893, it has been felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite that something must be done, and they supported a great many good things, including county councils in Ireland. To every experiment that has been made both sides in Ireland have responded excellently; both have tried as far as they could to correct the faults of measures which this House framed. I do not pretend or believe for one moment that this Bill is at present in a perfect state. But I have a strong feeling of complaint against the right hon. and learned Member and his fellow Member for Trinity College, and other hon. Members opposite, that they do not come forward with some constructive proposal which they mean to be seriously considered by the House, and say, "On these grounds we will be satisfied with your Constitution, on these grounds we will work in a national and patriotic spirit." They have been invited by my right hon. Friend in this House and out of it to do that. They will have to do it some day. Would it not be better to introduce less bitterness into these Debates—sometimes to bring forward constructive proposals? I can tell them, for one, that any influence I may have I shall use in support of what I under-
    stand to be the general argument, that the minority in Ireland is not? adequately represented as the Bill now stands. I have constantly said that I am not very much in love with the Senate. It has not been spoken of with very great respect this afternoon. It is small in number and somewhat limited in power. I am convinced if they in an honest spirit brought forward a proposal for putting these matters right it would not fall on deaf ears so far as the Government is concerned.
    I confess, however, that I do not see how this Amendment is to effect much improvement. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, agrees with that. Everybody agrees with that. If the Amendment would do nothing towards curing the evils described in their speeches, why should we bother about it? Why should we pretend to be serious about it? With great respect, I think it is greatly to be deplored that we are not able, working under great limitations of time, to turn our opportunities to better account. If I could see some good constructive Amendment brought forward in a proper spirit from the Front Opposition Bench I should have hope; and it is the duty of the Opposition to do that sort of thing. They are failing in their duty when they always raise the whole principle of the Bill and make Second Beading speeches on every Amendment. They ought to bring forward some constructive Amendment in a fair spirit, and I think if they did so they would win support in the House, and might perhaps cause it to make its way to the minds of the Ministry. It must be admitted by hon. Members opposite that if this Bill is allowed to pass as it is it will be left to Ireland to amend it. Some day the Irish leaders may do it, and perhaps sooner than is expected, and I hope that the minority who are associated with the majority in Great Britain and other parts of Ireland will then be given some sort of fair play and recognition, to which they are entitled. I heartily hope at some stage in the discussion that some spirit of this kind will be introduced into this Debate, and I believe if a proposal were made in that spirit that it would be met.
    Question put, "That the word ' forty' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 170.

    Division No. 490.]

    AYES.

    [6.45 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Alden,percy

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Allen,Arthur A.(Dumbarton)

    Adamton, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Allen,Rt.Hon.Charles p.(stroud)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Muldoon, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Munro, R.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Guiney, P.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon R. C.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hackett, J.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Barton, W.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Neilson, Francis

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Boland, John Pius

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Brace, William

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

    O'Grady, James

    Brady, P. J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

    O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hinds, John

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon, John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shee, James John

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwick)

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pollard. Sir George H.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Radford, G. H.

    Crean, Eugene

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Crooks, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, M.

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal. West)

    Richards, Thomas

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice'

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Doris, W.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McGhee, Richard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Maclean, Donald

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Russell. Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Falconer, J.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy. David

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Field, William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Snowden. Philip

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Furness, Stephen

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilhooly, James

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gill, A. H.

    Molloy, M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Ginnell, L.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tennant, Harold John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Thomas, J. H.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    1072

    1073

    Verney, Sip Harry

    Webb, H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Wadsworth, J.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Winfrey, Richard

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Wardle, George J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Waring, Walter

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    NOES.

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Moore, William

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Baird, J. L.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

    Balcarres. Lord

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, south)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Grant, J. A.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Blair, Reginald

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boies, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sandys, G. J.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanler, Beville

    Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cator, John

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches.,Knutsford)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

    Chambers, J.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanetl

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Cralk, Sir Henry

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Macmaster, Donald

    Younger, Sir George

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    H. Carlile and Col. Yate.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, after the word "and"["in respect of the nomination, and"], to insert the words, "If a resolution in favour of electing the Senate be passed by either House of the Irish Parliament within five years from the appointed day."
    1074
    The effect of the Amendment, together with the consequential Amendments, would be to ensure that if the system of nominated Senate was found during the-first five years to be working well, and, if no desire were expressed on any side for any change, the Irish Parliament and the-

    1075
    Irish people should not be forced to leave a system which was found to be a success and to embark on a system of which we have had no previous experience in these Islands, and which might possibly be a considerable change for the worse. By this Amendment, if a resolution were to be passed during the first five years by cither House of the Irish Parliament calling for an elected Senate, then the second scheme of the Government, and I say advisedly second scheme, as the first scheme was a scheme for a nominated Senate, then the second scheme which appears in the Bill as it stands would be adopted. That is a considerable prejudice in favour of this proportional representation scheme. It means to say if there is the slightest desire, real desire, expressed by the new Parliament in favour of a scheme for an elected Senate, elected by proportional representation, then that scheme shall hold the field. On the other hand, it does leave a loop-hope by which the Irish Parliament shall be enabled, if they find the nominated Senate a success, to continue the system of nomination. I do urge the Government to leave this loophole for the new Parliament. After all this system of proportional representation, which is now being adopted in the Bill, was somewhat sprung upon us. It is conceivable that from experience of the nominated Senate, and from reflection on the difficulties attendant upon the system of proportional representation, it might appear to the new Parliament better to cling to the system which is working well rather than to change to a novel system about which a good many people have certain misgivings, misgivings which I think were voiced most eloquently quite recently by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) when he pointed out the extreme difficulty which would be attendant on any attempt to canvass the huge constituencies which the provinces of Ireland would form.
    I would ask the Government not to imagine because the advocates of proportional representation seem to be rather more numerous than its opponents, and speak perhaps with louder voice, that there is really no opposition to proportional representation, and the way is perfectly smooth for those who are in favour of that scheme. There are a great many, I believe, who have a clear apprehension of what proportional representation does
    1076
    mean and who oppose that scheme. Probably the whole idea is too new to this country and to most of us for any considerable body of opposition yet to have developed. You will always hear more of a scheme from its supporters at the beginning until reflection upon the scheme amongst those who have not yet thought about it has had time to develop a body of opposition. I might perhaps claim to be one of those who understand the system of proportional representation and could even conduct an election, and yet one who does not sympathise with the system, who does not believe that it is in the interests of our democracy or in harmony with our ideas in these Islands, and for this reason oppose its introduction. When there has been more time for reflection over the practical difficulties of the scheme, and when a certain amount of experience has been gained of the nominated system, it may still prove that the Irish Parliament will prefer to abide by the original intention of the Government—a nominated Senate.
    7.0 P.M.
    The change in the Bill is vast and fundamental. In the first place, it is the introduction of a system of election for the Second Chamber; and, in the second place, it declares that system to be the novel and untried system of proportional representation. It sets a precedent which may have rather far-reaching results. Under the circumstances I am not quite sure that this House has sufficiently considered and thought out what is meant by these vast and far-reaching changes. We are deciding, first of all, that an elected Second Chamber is desirable; and, secondly, that the system of proportional representation is the best for an elected Second Chamber. To declare that an elected Second Chamber is desirable is to decide precisely the point that we shall have to decide when we come to consider the reform of the House of Lords in this country, and to my mind we are considerably prejudging the issue in that most momentous discussion. Is it wise in an Amendment, after an hour or two of discussion—for that is all we, had on this particular point—to make such a far-reaching decision? There are many, of whom I am one, who consider that an elected Second Chamber is not desirable in the interests of democracy. We find from precedents set all over the Empire that elected Second Chambers have a habit of encroaching on the privileges and rights of

    1077
    the First Chamber, that they very often exceed their true functions, and obtain powers which are not really pertinent to a Second Chamber. We find that in many Colonies the Second Chamber, because of its being an elected Second Chamber, has interfered with and defied the decisions of the First Chamber. We find that because of its election or elective character it has arrogated to itself power over finance, and has ended very often by becoming, if not actually the paramount Chamber, at all events one which is a serious menace to the supremacy of the First Chamber.
    Therefore, I think it may be perfectly legitimate to say that, in the interests of democracy, although it may not seem so at first, it is more desirable to have a nominated than an elected Second Chamber. All this is, at all events, worthy of considerable thought and discussion. To my mind, the system should not be definitely and inexorably entered upon in a light-hearted manner. Then, again, we are committing ourselves definitely to the system of proportional representation as the most suitable method of electing the Second Chamber. We are committing ourselves to that system in a country where in these large constituencies the conditions are peculiarly ill-adapted to proportional representation. I would prefer the Amendment, which I understand is to be discussed later, applying proportional representation in certain cases to the large towns, rather than a scheme which applies the system to large country areas over Ireland. I do not think that the Amendment which we are to discuss is in itself a good one, but I would prefer it to the system by which proportional representation is applied to the election of the Senate. You would, at all events, have small areas, whereas in the present scheme, as applied to the Senate, you have vast areas extremly difficult to cover, and giving a great advantage to a type of candidate who may not be considered in all respects the best fitted to represent the Irish people. There are many other grounds to which I do not wish to refer in detail, because they were gone into in Committee, but which many of us hold in opposing proportional representation. We believe it would be in the interests of plutocratic government; we think it will make for less personal representation.
    There is, however, one point worth mentioning more particularly. The question of by-elections is an absolutely insuperable difficulty in the way of such a scheme.
    1078
    In the Bill, as it stands, we have the system of proportional representation applied to the provinces of Ireland. Imagine that in one of the provinces, whichever one you like to take, one of the minority representatives dies and another member has to be elected in his stead. Take the province of Ulster, where there are to be fourteen members. Let us say that six of the members are Nationalists, and that one Nationalist dies. What will happen? You have to poll the whole of that great province to fill his place. Were a Nationalist to die, it is absolutely and inexorably certain that a Unionist would be returned. There is no way out of this difficulty. No one has ever propounded a way out of it where you have proportional representation. The same applies to towns as to country areas. The same will apply to Belfast as to Ulster. The same would apply in the other direction with the opposite result to the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. If in one of those provinces a Unionist died, it is absolutely certain that a Nationalist would be returned in his place. There has never been propounded, to my knowledge, any real and logical way out of this difficulty. At all events, the Government have not propounded any way out of the difficulty, and I should like to hear what solution they have for it.
    Let us visualise, if I may use the Chief Secretary's word, what will happen with regard to the Second Chamber when this new Irish Parliament comes into being. For the first five years you will have men qualified for their work nominated to the Senate. These men will get into their work and serve for five years. At the end of the five years the whole of the edifice which has been built up will by law have to be torn down, and the men who have been nominated, who may not—very probably and properly in the case of a Second Chamber—be precisely the men who would be elected by a popular vote, but who may yet do their particular work exceedingly well, will have to go out on a pilgrimage canvassing these huge electoral areas. At the same time, it may have been proved to the satisfaction of every one in Ireland that the system of a nominated Senate has succeeded remarkably well. In spite of this inexorable fate will say that these men must go to the country or go out of the Assembly altogether, and that a new and untried system, about which we may have found out many practical difficulties by then, must be set

    1079
    up in its stead. Under these circumstances I ask that the Government should leave a loophole of escape. I can understand the Government saying that Ireland must not have an absolutely free hand in this matter; that a Second Chamber is one of the safeguards with which we are endeavouring to please and placate the Ulster faction. I can understand their saying we must settle the scheme under which the Second Chamber shall come into being. But the Government have settled the scheme of nomination as well as the scheme of election. The first scheme put forward by the Government was the scheme of nomination, and if you leave that scheme available to the Irish Parliament you will not be in any way transgressing the rule which you lay down that this country and this Government must prescribe the form which the Second Chamber shall take. All I ask is, that if the first scheme is found to be good, if there are no objections to a nominated Senate, if everything is working smoothly under it, the new Irish Parliament shall be allowed to retain that system, instead of being wantonly forced to throw away what they have tried and found successful, and to adopt what is untried and may lead to very unsatisfactory results in every way. I beg to move.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): What my hon. Friend proposes is to a very large extent that this House should now go back upon a decision arrived at in the Committee stage. The first proposal of the Government was that the Second Chamber should be a nominated body. It was found that that proposal had few friends and very many critics in every quarter of the House. Apart from my hon. Friend himself and one or two others, it received very little support from any Members on these benches. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly complained that, while we suggested that the Senate was put forward as in some degree a safeguard and protection for the interests of the minority, we were proposing that after the period of the first five years the members of that Senate should be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, on the recommendation of his Irish Ministers, and that, therefore, the future members of the Senate would, in fact, be appointed on the recommendation of the leader of the majority of
    1080
    the Irish House of Commons. They urged with great vehemence that this could not be regarded as in any way a protection of the interests of those on whose behalf they were speaking. It was very largely in response to that plea that the Clause was remodelled and given the shape which it now has. Yet we find to-day the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Trinity College declaring that he took part in these Debates with a sense of humiliation because of their futility; that every detail of the Bill had been settled between the Government and the leaders of the Nationalist party before it was introduced; that no Amendments could or would be made in it, and that he regarded the whole discussion as a waste of time.
    But we had the Leader of the Opposition only a few days ago using exactly the-opposite argument. He dwelt upon the number of Amendments that had been made by the Government during the Committee stage, stating that they were no fewer than eighty-four in number. He emphasised also the fact that we had put down no fewer than fifty-nine Amendments upon Report. Yet we have the right hon. and learned Gentleman declaring that our discussions are a farce, that the Bill is cut and dried, and that no alterations of any kind could be the outcome of our Debates. The very Clause which we are now discussing is in itself a proof of the falsity of that argument, and provides one of the best illustrations of the desire which the Government and the House have shown to meet reasonable proposals from the Opposition Benches for the protection of the minority in Ireland. That is the chief reason, amongst others, why we cannot accept the Amendment which is now proposed by my hon. Friend. This House decided in the Committee stage, and decided even without a Division being-challenged—though my hon. Friend spoke against the Amendment, he did not carry his views into the Lobby—that the Senate in Ireland should not be nominated, but that it should be elected on the principle of proportional representation. The Senate, in our view, must be regarded as the creation of this Parliament. We give no powers to the Irish Parliament to redistribute its seats, to alter the qualification of its members, or in any way to affect the composition of the Senate. It is as much regulated by Imperial Act as the representation of Ireland in this Parliament.

    1081
    To that we adhere. Perhaps in this connection I might give a very brief answer to the comparatively minor point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, who protested against these members being elected by provinces on the ground that "province" was not a term of art, was unknown in law, that if we had included such a term in our Bill it ought to have been denned. I would like to call attention to the fact that in the Act relating to the setting up of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, passed, I think, in 1898, the basis of representation in the Agricultural Council is by provinces. That term "province" appears frequently in that Act undefined, and no inconvenience has been found to arise; indeed, I am told that the provinces of Ireland are older than the counties, and that there can be no possibility of misunderstanding the meaning of Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That is no answer whatever.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that the term was unknown in law, to quote from an Act of Parliament in which it is. The hon. and learned Member said that the omission of this word must give rise to infinite difficulties in working, and I pointed out to him that an Act of Parliament contains it, and has done for a considerable number of years, and there has been no difficulty at all. I submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) that at all events that is prima facie some answer to the argument which his colleague addressed to the House. I am not debating on its comparative merits, or demerits, the system of proportional representation. I can only say that after very prolonged consideration, the Government whatever inconvenience may attach to the matter in certain respects, much less the inconvenience of feelings which may exist in this particular case to any other proposal, certainly would not assent to such a proposal as that now made by the hon. Member that either House of Parliament in Ireland should by some resolution determine what is to be for all future time the method of election of the Irish Senate. That proposal would give into the hands of forty nominated gentlemen, elected by no one, the power of saying by fiat of their own what shall be the Constitution for all the years to come
    1082
    of this body. We consider that this House must take upon itself the responsibility of that determination. Therefore I ask the House to adhere to the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The words of the right hon. Gentleman indicate to me that he has no expectation whatever of his proposal ever passing into law, and certainly no expectation that it will ever work.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Government Amendment made: In Subsection (2), leave out the words "an election of a senator" and insert instead thereof the words "election of senators."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Mr. MILDMAY: On point of Order, Sir. May I ask if you have passed over the Amendment standing in my name of set purpose?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member is covered by what is in the Bill.
    Mr. MILDMAY: With all due deference to your ruling, may I put it that you misapprehended my point?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that is not so.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to add the following as a new Sub-section:—
    "(5) Before any Order in Council is made under this Section, a draft thereof shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom during the Session of that Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken upon the draft, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft,"
    I had so little expectation that this Amendment would be reached that I had not fortified myself for its discussion. However, I think I can present a very sufficient case for the adoption of this Amendment. Let us consider the difficulties in which the system of proportional representation—which, personally, I am inclined to support—will involve the Government, when it carries it out by an Order in Council, contemplated by Clause 8, Sub-section (2). If hon. Members will turn to that Section they will see:—
    "The election of senators shall be according to the principle of propor-

    1083
    tional representation, the electors being the same electors as the electors of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and each elector having one transferable vote."
    A great deal of argument has been used in regard to the transferable vote. Certain test elections, toy elections, have taken place to illustrate it, but I do not believe the House, as a whole, and much less the electors, as a whole, have fully grasped its working. The Government may by Order in Council—
    "Frame regulations prescribing the method of voting at an election of a senator and of transferring and counting votes at such an election …"
    I think that gives a rather dangerous power to the Government. I imagine, when they set out their Order in Council a great many people will say, "That is not at all what we understood by the, transferable vote; they are not carrying out in their purity the true principles of the transferable vote." I think that is another instance where too wide powers are given to the Government by the Order in Council. Therefore, I suggest, at any rate, before this becomes law that this House shall have the opportunity of revising the consequences in this respect of its own work. I suggest that a draft Order should be laid before both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that if an Address is passed by either House that that Order in Council shall not work. I object to give these powers of subordinate lawmaking to the Government. I think that there should be some check upon its operations. Otherwise we may find a method of election being set up is not that which the House intended or desired. In the hope that at any rate the Government will make some concession in this matter I beg to move.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ' second the Motion, and I would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that in the Amendment is that the Order in Council is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is the constitutional way.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion dwelt upon the importance of sound
    1084
    constitutional principles. I do not know that he will find anything stated in the provision that the draft Order in Council shall be laid upon the Table of the House to be considered by this House. There are provisions, of course, in the Statutes, and there is a provision in this Bill that Orders in Council shall be laid, and having been laid by His Majesty, shall be laid upon the Table of this House or both Houses, and if an Address is passed by the one House or another certain consequences will follow. There has never been a proposal such as that which is inserted in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman that the Order in Council, not passed by His Majesty, merely apparently drafted by some Minister—
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment if I alter it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is rather late in the day to cut the Amendment about, and considering the time at our disposal. But I was going to say that in itself this Amendment is unnecessary, because the matter with which it deals is a pure question of machinery of the kind which is always left to the Orders in Council, and which is in no degree a legislative matter. All the principles on which this method of election is to be founded are contained in the Bill. It is merely detail, and the execution of those principles which are to be left to the Order in Council. Should an improper Order be made, or some question be raised, hon. Members will have their remedy in this House. The Order in Council is made on the responsibility of the Government of the day, without any statutory provision being inserted in this Bill that the Order itself should be laid upon the Table of the House. Hon. Members, if they think fit, and if occasion arises on some real point of substance, will be able to ask for opportunities of debate, and will be able to take the opportunity of debate on the many occasions during the course of the Session when administrative action comes under review. I have no doubt the Government of the day would give proper respect to any representations that were made of that kind. I do not think the hon. Member attaches very much importance to this; certainly the Government do not think the Amendment is one that is really necessary.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 313.

    Division No. 491.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baird, J. L.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Newman, John R. P.

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nield, Herbert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, South)

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

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barnston, H.

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barrie, Hugh T.

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

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Bathurst, Charles Wilton

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bird, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, J. W.

    Royds, Edmund

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, G. F.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fltzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sandys, George John

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

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Campion, W. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cator, John

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stanler, Beville

    Cautley, H. S.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jackson, Sir John

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chambers, James

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cory. Sir Clifford John

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

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

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Falle, B. G.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Younger, Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Fleming, Valentine

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr-

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    S. Roberts and Mr. J. Lyttelton.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Adamson, William

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Boland, John Pius

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Bowerman. Charles W.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barton, William

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Alden, Percy

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brace, William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Brady, P. J.

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Bryce, John Annan

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Buxton, P.t. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H,

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hodge, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Clough, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clynes, J. R,

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Shee, James John

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon, Sir J,

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Palmer. Godfrey Mark

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crooks, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cullinan, John

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

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

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, G. H.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    De Forest, Baron

    King, J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Delany, William

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Donelan. Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richards, Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Eiverston, Sir Harold

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roberts, Sir J. H (Denbighs)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roch, Walter F.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Maclean, Donald

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Falconer, James

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

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Roe, Sir Thomsa

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Field, William

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Kean, John

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Furness, Stephen

    Manfield, Harry

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Scott, A. MacCalium (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gilhooly. James

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Gill. Alfred Henry

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sheehy, David

    Ginnell, L.

    Martin, J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Snowden, Philip

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molloy, Michael

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Griffith. Ellis Jones

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Guiney, P.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hackett, J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Tennant, Harold John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morisen, Hector

    Thomas, James Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

    Munro, Robert

    Tievelyan, Chorles philips

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Neilson, Francis

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Hayden. John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walton. Sir Joseph

    Havward, Evan

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Norton, Caotain Cecil William

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wardle, George J.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Waring, Walter

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    1088

    1089

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Winfrey, Richard

    Webb, H.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E-R.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland,

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    CLAUSE 9.—(Composition of Irish House of Commons.)
    (1) The Irish House of Commons shall consist of one hundred and sixty-four members, returned by the constituencies in Ireland named in the First Part of the First Schedule to this Act in accordance with that Schedule, and elected by the same electors and in the same manner as members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
    (2) The Irish House of Commons when summoned shall, unless sooner dissolved, have continuance for five years from the day on which the summons directs the House to meet and no longer.
    (3) After three years from the passing of this Act, the Irish Parliament may alter, as respects the Irish House of Commons, the qualification of the electors, the mode of election, the constituencies, and the distribution of the members of the House among the constituencies, provided that in any new distribution the number of the members of the House shall not be altered, and due regard shall be had to the population on the constituencies other than university constituencies.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: I beg to move at end of Sub-section (1), to add the words (2)"In any constituency which returns three or more members, the election shall be held on the principle of proportional representation."
    I do not propose to move the last Section of the Amendment now, because I am informed, if the first Section of my Amendment was carried, the second part of it would more properly come in on Clause 42 of the Bill. This is not the first time that this question has been discussed in this House on this Bill. As a matter of fact, the principle of proportional representation was discussed at considerable length on the Committee stage of this Bill, so far as the Senate is concerned, and so far as the House of Commons is concerned, yet in spite of these discussions one feels that the objects and methods of proportional representation appears so little understood, and the machinery so little realised by many Members of this
    1090
    House, that I propose, very shortly, to devote the first part of my speech in endeavouring once more roughly to go over the principle which underlies proportional representation before I apply it to the Amendment in question. Indeed, the object of proportional representation, as it is called, is that members should be elected in proportion to the votes cast for the various candidates. That is to say, whereas, under the present system, a candidate is elected by a majority, however small over his opponent, and all the minority votes are left entirely unrepresented, under proportional representation, the votes of the minority would be utilised in obtaining for its party a fair share of the representation. I have been asked by some Members in the course of these discussions what is the method of carrying out proportional representation, and what is the method which the Select Committee inquired into, among other matters. I should like quite shortly to illustrate how the principle involved would work in practice.
    If you take a constituency in which 30,000 electors vote under our present system any candidate who obtains 15,001 votes which is one over half the total number of the people voting, is elected, and his opponent who obtains 14,999 votes is defeated, the latter large portion of the electors being thus deprived of any further voice in the government of their country. Let us assume that on the principle of proportional representation a constituency of this size has perhaps two members. Take now a constituency returning three members. If you divide the 30,000 electors by three, any candidate who obtains one-third of the 30,000 plus one, that is to say 10,001 votes, will be duly elected, that figure of 10,001 being what is properly called the quota. Supposing there are six candidates nominated, three by one party and three by the other, it is obvious that any three candidates, each of whom obtains one-fourth of the votes plus one would be elected, for only three candidates can each poll a quota of 7,501 out of a total poll of 30,000. How is the single transferable vote applicable to the case I have stated? Every voter has only

    1091
    one effective vote, but he can give this vote in an order of preference to as many candidates as stand. The object of this is that if the first or second candidate obtain more than the necessary votes, the surplus votes are not wasted, but are transferred to the candidates next in order of preference. This is repeated until all the electors' votes are utilised and all the seats are filled. It is obvious that by this method you must obtain a much closer approximation of the wishes of the electorate. I have been very much surprised to hear people say that this system is very difficult either to understand or work. I cannot understand why, if the voter goes to the poll with sufficient intelligence to comprehend the numerous and manifold political issues put from the platform, he is supposed to be so unintelligent that he cannot mark a ballot paper 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Wherever a model election has been held it has been extraordinary how few spoiled papers there have been. At the last election held in Lundon by the society there were 48,000 voting papers and only seventy-one were spoiled. When the ordinary person is given plain and simple directions there is no difficulty whatever in carrying out those instructions. Another objection that has been raised is that the counting is very complicated. I am not going to trouble the House with questions of detail in regard to the counting. It is not really very difficult and moreover it in no way concerns the elector, who need no more trouble himself about the method of counting than the user of a telephone need trouble about a knowledge of electricity, or no more than the man who-turns on the electric light need be an electrician. Anyone who has seen the counting done recognises that it presents no particular difficulty. The system is simple and by no means complicated, and as it is to be applied in Ireland to the election of the Senate the Irish elecors will have to learn it, and if they learn it for one purpose, there is no reason why that knowledge should not be applied to another purpose.
    It is only fair to say on behalf of the Irish Proportional Representation Society that they would have preferred the previous Amendment covering the whole House of Commons should have been accepted by this House. It would not be in order for me now to open out the whole of this subject as far as the whole House of Commons is concerned. My Amendment limits the application of this principle to a small number of block constituencies, and it must
    1092
    not be implied that the Irish Proportional Representation Society and those who support them in Ireland are satisfied with this limitation and would not sooner have seen the entire scheme carried out.
    One of the objections we have been asked to meet is that made on the score of the advantage which is supposed to be given to wealth by this system. That objection is based on an entirely illusory idea drawn from our present system. We all know that practically the bulk of the expenses of all modern elections is incurred to induce certain small fragments of undecided voters to vote for one candidate or the other. The agents of both parties can indicate within 500 how the bulk of their own people will vote, and it is only on account of a few wobblers that money is spent in motor cars, posters, and the other incidental expenses of elections. These would all become useless under proportional representation. [An HOST. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because under this system you are much more certain of having your quota. If you know that out of 30,000 electors you can poll 10,002, it does not matter whether you poll another 500 or more, because there is no object in increasing your election expenses in order to pile up a perfectly useless majority which will only be transferred to other people. In most constituencies the candidates know pretty well what their electoral strength is and how many members they can return, and they will not put up candidates far in excess of their electoral powers.
    Wherever this system has been tried it has very largely tended to reduce the election expenses. At one place, where for the first time the Labour party returned two Members, the cost amounted to £52. They simply went for the Labour vote, and it was quite sufficient. A further point will arise of considerable value, more especially so far as Ireland is concerned, and it is that the surplus or second vote, or it may be the third vote, in those areas where one party is too small to return more than one member, will have a largely determining effect on the persons who are elected by the other parties. I will illustrate what I mean. Supposing you have a division with three members in which the Nationalists return two and the Unionists one. The Unionists will be able to give their surplus votes either to their quota or to such Nationalists candidates whose character or other qualities appeal to them, and in this way they will be able to exer-

    1093
    cise an indirect but a very strong influence in the choice and selection of candidates for the other side. Under the present system nothing of the kind would occur, because the Unionists could only vote for the Unionist candidates, and all their votes would be wasted, and they would not be able to exercise any kind of indirect influence on the kind of man the other side would select. For a minority, I think, that is of considerable importance—much more importance than has been generally recognised.
    To come more closely to the Amendment, I would like the House to realise the position under the Bill, as proposed by this Amendment. My Amendment refers to the following constituencies in Ireland: Dublin—College Green, Harbour Division, St. Patrick's Division; Dublin County—North and South, Cork, and East, South, and North Belfast. As the Bill stands, College Green is to have three; Harbour, three; St. Patrick's, three; Dublin County North, three; Dublin County South, three; and Cork, four. Those are all constituencies of three and four Members each, a state of things which does not exist in this country at all. The total number of Members in those Divisions is nineteen. If I turn to Belfast constituencies, Belfast East, under the Bill, has five members; Belfast South, three; and Belfast North, four members—or a total of twelve. As far as I have been able to gather as the Bill stands, under the system of a block vote the result would be that you would have in Dublin, Dublin County and Cork nineteen Nationalist representatives, while Belfast East, South, and North would return a solid twelve Unionists to the Irish Chamber, because they would have an absolute majority there. I must confess that it appears to me and to a good many who have gone into this question that the present system is a disastrous one to Ireland. May I give the House the figures under the system of proportional representation? Under my estimate in College Green the Nationalists will have two and the Unionists one member; in the Harbour Division the Nationalists two and the Unionists one; in the St. Patrick's Division the Nationalists two and the Unionists one; in Dublin County North the Nationalists two and the Unionists one; in Dublin County South the Nationalists either two or one and the Unionists either one or two; and in Cork the Nationalists three and the
    1094
    Unionists one. Thus Dublin and the southern constituencies, instead of having a solid block of representatives of one shade of political opinion, would have a proportion of thirteen or twelve of one party or six to seven of the other.
    Take the case of Ulster. Under the estimate I have given in Belfast East the Nationalists will have one and the Unionists four members; in Belfast South the Nationalists one and the Unionists two; in Belfast North the Nationalists one and the Unionists three. The result for Ulster would be three Nationalists and nine Unionists as against a solid block of twelve Unionists under the majority system. What would be the upshot of all this. Instead of a proportion of nineteen to twelve you would have sixteen Nationalists to fifteen Unionists. Does this not show how completely false and misleading the present system of electioneering is, and what an absolute misrepresentation it brings about. But bad as it is in single-member constituencies can you imagine anything more unfair than that constituencies with five members with majorities of ten or twenty should return the whole representation and leave the whole mass of the rest of the electors without any representation. Under the modest proposals we have made you get a fair representation of opinion between the two parties.
    8.0 P.M.
    I would like to draw the attention of the House to a, very similar case to that of Ireland on the Continent. Those who have followed Belgian politics know that in the early days it was absolutely ruled by the Catholic party, and the Protestant element had very little chance either of governing or of being represented. The politics of the Belgians drifted from bad to worse; the Catholic majority got more extravagant and in order to rectify this state of things, Belgium adopted the system of proportional representation on this point I do not want to mislead the House, and I do not allege that the Belgian system is the one which we should adopt. The Belgian method is a different one. It has some advantages with a good many disadvantages, but on the whole the Select Committee which went into this question rejected the Belgian system in favour of the one we are now proposing. On the 18th December last there was a very large banquet held in Paris, which was attended by men of all parties to celebrate the

    1095
    passage of the proportional representation Bill through the French House of Deputies. Speaking on behalf of the Catholics, the Socialists, the Independent and Liberal parties, as well as for himself, on the subject of proportional representation, that is what the Belgian Radical Deputy, M. Georges Lorand, said:—
    "In Belgium the question was not a party one, all parties being equally satisfied with the system. If it still had some impenitent opponents, none of them dared to combat it openly. The Opposition parties demanded its more complete application, its inclusion in the Constitution, and its extension to provincial elections. Thanks to it. all parties were represented by their most eminent Members, thus enhancing the authority of Parliament. Before its application political activity was extinct in half the Belgium constituencies in which the results of elections were known in advance."
    There is an exactly parallel case in Ireland. You have constituencies in Ireland to-day where there is no real electioneering and in which the constituents get no kind of political education worth talking about, simply because everybody knows the result in advance. The same holds good in a large part of England.
    "To-day all parties fought in all constituencies, and it may be said that in nearly all of them all parties were represented. The struggle had changed in character—it was no longer one of persons, but of ideas. Far from causing the Opposition parties to fall to pieces, it had concentrated them. Electoral struggles had lost none of their vigour, but had become more courteous and more dignified."
    Instead of having two men scrambling by all possible means to secure a few wobblers, wandering, as we have to do, from door to door begging for votes or setting other people to do it for us, you have a large constituency and a large number of people to appeal to, 'and naturally in a case of that sort political ideas take the place of these back-door methods.
    "It had unquestionably raised the moral level of Parliament and had enabled the Government to deal with problems which it would not have dared to undertake when obliged to reckon with the hostility of the representatives of a large and powerful constituency opposed to a reform."
    This is the most important part of his speech—
    "Speaking in the name of all the political parties in Belgium, I declare the results of proportional representation to be excellent. It has rendered our political life wholesome, it has strengthened our Parliament, and it has fortified the existence of our parties. No effort will be made in Belgium to touch the system except with the object of rendering it more complete and perfect."
    That is an extraordinary testimonial, and it was repeated in an interview they had the next day with the French Prime Minister. In the old days religious hatred existed in Belgium, but difficulties similar to those that you have in Ulster and the rest of Ireland have been broken down by this system of proportional representation.
    1096
    I think the House should follow this excellent example in the similar problem which faces it in Ireland. I admit the machinery is slightly different, but I do not think that difference is of importance. All I can say is the Belgium system is a party system whilst ours is a transferable vote system, and I think ours is the very much superior system, and so did the Select Committee.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: Will the hon. Baronet say what is the cause of the general strike in Belgium?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not know where the hon. and gallant Members gets his information. Leaders of Belgian opinion appeared in Paris on December 8th on a formal occasion and said all parties were satisfied with the system.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: It is in the paper of the Labour party that they, do not agree with the system.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The strike is not to abolish proportional representation, but to give universal suffrage.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not think there can be any doubt about the matter. It would take me too long and too far to go into the differences of the systems, and I think it is really unnecessary because I have got here the Report of the Royal Commission. They examined all these systems, and they said the transferable vote system was more perfect than the other.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: They say the Belgian system is from the practical point of view the best, and the transferable vote system the least satisfactory.
    Sir A. MOND: That merely deals with the question of by-elections.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: No, read on.
    Sir A. MOND: I am not going to read the whole Report, but I may say the Royal Commission arrived at most contradictory conclusions in its Report, and nothing was more contradictory than having demonstrated to everybody that proportional representation was the right thing, they should suddenly come to a volte face and say it would not apply to a House of Commons but only to a Second Chamber. I want to quote one paragraph which has a direct bearing upon the matter. Lord Lochee, in his Report, says:—
    "I would refer more particularly to the Belgian system, but I think the transferable vote is the simplest and the best."

    1097
    I would like also to quote paragraph 136:
    "Lastly, we may observe that we have carefully considered the question of trying an experiment with the transferable vote by applying it first to a few constituencies. Such a step would no doubt be advisable as a final test before committing the whole country to so radical a change."
    They also point out that the Belgian example is a very striking one in our favour. I do not want to enter into the whole discussion as far as this country is concerned. I do not think it is relevant, and I do not think anyone who would not like to see proportional representation introduced into England, Scotland, or Wales is thereby debarred from supporting this Amendment so far as these few constituencies in Ireland are concerned. You have to deal with nine constituencies, and every one admits the block system would crush out minority representation in practically North, East, and Southern Ireland to a very large extent. We propose to apply this system to these nine constituencies, and, if the Irish people do not like it, they can in three years' time change it. If they do like it, they can extend it to the rest of the country. I know it will be said, "Why not wait those three years?" You would then have created a vested interest of a new lot of members in these constituencies. We are practical men. We are creating new constituencies, and, if gentlemen sat for those constituencies for three years, you would never get them to agree to a change which would jeopardise their seats without a great deal of difficulty. The best thing is to make the change right away before creating these vested interests. This question arouses passionate interest among many people in Ireland. It has been the subject of approval of unanimous resolutions by the two Liberal organisations in Ireland—the Belfast Liberal Council and the Dublin Liberal Council—and it has been supported by men of all political parties and distinguished men of all kinds, and I feel quite sure, if the Government could see their way to meet this very small point, they would do a great deal to help those men in Ireland, who, while not liking Home Rule, want to live under Home Rule in Ireland, and would like to feel that something at any rate was being done to give them more representation and to show them they are not altogether disregarded in the heat and battle of party strife.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    On 4th November I had the opportunity of bringing forward an Amendment to the
    1098
    effect that the Irish House of Commons should be elected upon a system of proportional representation. That; of course, went a great deal further than the present Amendment. I admit I was defeated in a thin House, but, although I was defeated, I was able to carry with me into the "Aye" Lobby nearly twenty Members of the Coalition forces. I admit your justice in calling not upon myself who had the first Amendment upon the Paper, but upon the hon. Baronet who moved his Amendment. If you had called upon me it might have seemed that proportional representationists were enthusiastically engaged in the harmless pastime of flogging a dead horse. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet, of course, represents to those of the Irish minority who are anxious for proportional representation something in the nature of a crust. We want the whole loaf, and this is something in the nature of a crust. I confess I am very sorry I have not had the opportunity of moving my Amendment. There are a great many people in Ireland who, like myself, will be deeply disappointed that this Amendment, which I call the whole hog Amendment, has not been moved. It will disappoint thousands of moderate men in Ireland, and it will be a bitter disappointment to the great number of men of all shades of opinion who are members of the Irish Proportional Representation Society. An Irishman does not know when he is beaten, and from the day of that defeat the Irish Proportional Representation Society has been at work and has increased its membership. It has held nonparty meetings which have been attended by both avowed Nationalists and Unionists. May I, in order to show the interest this particular question is arousing at present in Ireland, just quote a few lines from a leading article in the" "Irish Times" of the 4th of this month. It puts in a very few words what we feel in regard to this matter. It says:—
    "The block vote system is an instrument for crushing minorities. The rejection of this Amendment means the disfranchisement of every Southern Unionist under a Home Rule Parliament. It means more than this—the uncontrolled will of the party 'machine' Proportional representation, on the other hand, besides giving a real 'safeguard,' instead of a host of illusory ones for the minority, opens the door for men of moderate opinions. In the face of such men the door of an Irish Parliament is to-day banged and barred. The proportional system affords the only possible entry to that saving element in our national life. On that ground we insist upon the full extension of the principle, and reject the partial, and comparatively useless, Amendment which would only affect constituencies in the cities of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork, and in the County of Dublin."

    1099
    That is the deliberate opinion of an Irish newspaper which voices the opinion of Unionists in the South of Ireland. I do not say I reject it as altogether useless. But there is one remark the hon. Baronet made which is perfectly true, and that is that hon. Members who are talking about proportional representation always speak of Ireland as if it were England. Let us suppose that the policy of the First Lord of the Admiralty of twelve separate Parliaments was adopted by the Government. What would have been the result of that? What would have happened, say, if you had taken the cases of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Hampshire? With their electoral Divisions they would send three or four or more Members under the block vote. Under this Irish system one single Liberal or Labour Member. By this blocking system they would have been crushed out for all time. After a certain number of years the local Liberal and Labour organisations would fall to pieces, they would die. Local Liberal opinion would disappear. But take another example—take the case of the county of Middlesex. There, in one Division they hold a seat by 500 votes, and it is as certain as anything can be that at the next General Election the representation of that seat will pass over to this side, and then you will have the county of Middlesex without a single Liberal representative in this House, and thousands of Liberals and Labour men will be debarred from representation here. I think that would be absolutely unfair. But that is what we in the South of Ireland are asked to submit to. We are asked to tolerate what the Liberal and Labour voters of Middlesex would not tolerate; yet you are endeavouring to force it on the minority in the South, West and East of Ireland. I am leaving Ulster out altogether. Ulster is able to speak for itself. I am here to speak for the minority in the three Southern provinces. Take the Schedule. We find under this Bill as amended in Committee that North-East Cork, North Cork, and East Cork are to return two members each. There the Unionists have no show at all. For thirty years we have been disfranchised; indeed, in one division we have not had a contested election. But take the Schedule which I suggest. How would it work out? In that you would have North, North-East Cork, and East Cork grouped together. At the present time they re-
    1100
    turned five members. Under my Schedule we should have a very fair fighting chance of returning at least one member, out of the five members for the three grouped divisions. But I am sorry to say we cannot expect to get that. What we are asking to get is of course that where a division returns more than two members there should be proportional representation. The hon. Baronet who moved this Resolution has developed that part of the proposal very well, and I do not think I need add anything to what he has said. It is rather galling to gentlemen who reside in the South of Ireland that we should have these safeguards thrown at us; that we should be told here is something you can take or leave. What we want is justice. We want to have a chance in a very small way of being represented in the Parliament of Ireland should it ever be established. The hon. Baronet has told the Committee how small that representation will be, but at any rate we should like to have an opportunity of securing that share of representation, however small it may be. At any rate that would be something. It will mean giving us once more an interest in Parliamentary and civil life, and of setting our organisations going. Take the great city of the county from which I come—Cork. We have not contested Cork City since the famous election when Mr. Pike stood against Mr. Parnell. We have no organisation at all, no registration agents, and we do nothing whatever. When elections come along the seats are divided between hon. Members who follow the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien) and hon. Members who follow the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), but we Conservatives stand by idly looking on. Supposing the Amendment is accepted by the Government, we shall at once set our organisation going again and have a chance of getting one Member up to the Dublin House of Commons. That will be a good thing for Unionist life in Cork. What is true of Cork is true of Dublin, and to a certain extent will be true of Labour interests in Belfast, supposing Belfast chooses to come in. It is but a small thing, but it will lead to great results. It will lead to a quickening of civic and Parliamentary life. Hon. Members below the Gangway have said that they want in the first few years of this Irish Parliament to have every Irishman of every shade of opinion doing his level best to make Parliamentary life in Ireland a success, and

    1101
    the new scheme of government a success. Therefore I ask the Government to grant to us this small boon. It is something in the nature of a crust to hungry men. We, the minority, who are hungry men, want the full loaf, but I understand we cannot get it, so I ask the Government to give us this crust and send us away, if not happy, at all events not altogether starving.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I cannot help thinking that if the Government accept this Amendment they will be going back on a great deal they have said, if not actually revoking what practically amounted to a pledge. In order to substantiate that statement, I should like to quote a passage or two from speeches that were made in Committee on this point. During the Debate the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien) interrupted the speech of the Prime Minister by saying—
    "Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is to apply to the Irish Senate and to the Irish House of Commons as well?
    "The Prime Minister: I am speaking only of the Senate. When we come to the House of Commons, the popular body, I think there different considerations -apply. It must be understood that what I say applies to the Senate and to the Senate alone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1912. col. 506, Vol. XLIII]
    Now the Solicitor-General:—
    "We must accept this responsibility here and now for the Senate, while for the Irish House of Commons they may very well decide the matter for themselves, subject to certain limitations in point of numbers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1912, col. 697, Vol. XLIIL]
    Next, the Attorney-General, who was very specifie:—
    "After the lapse of three years the Irish Parliament is entitled to deal with those questions and decide them for itself, according to the views of the Irish people as manifested by the representatives of the Irish Parliament.
    "According to this Bill, our view is that they shall then decide, if so minded, to adopt proportional representation. It may be that they would like to do it after a lapse of three years in advance of what is done in this country. That is a course which is open to them, and which they are free to adopt, but it must be determined by them, and not by this Parliament for the Irish Parliament only."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November. 1912, col. 911, Vol. XLIIL]
    The Attorney-General went on to say:—
    "The conclusion we have come to with regard to Ireland is the same we came to with regard to Dominions in which we have given a Parliament, for we have always left them to decide these questions for themselves, leaving them free, and we refuse to fetter the Irish Parliament in regard to a matter which we have declined to fetter other subordinate Parliaments. So far we have refrained from adopting proportional representation in this country, and we ought not to press it upon the Irish Parliament. That is the view we ask the Committee to adopt, and I think that is the only sensible view which can be adopted when you are creating a new Parliament. When you recollect that we have had no experience of any kind in regard to this principle, when you realise that in such an old Parliament as this we have not
    1102
    adopted it, then I say it would be a very serious thing if we were to come to the conclusion that it should be adopted for the Irish House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1912, col. 912, Vol. XLIII]
    Last of all, a very short quotation from the Chief Secretary:—
    "This great question of proportional representation, with its obligations and its difficulties, which we have not tested for ourselves, and which we are in no way likely to test for ourselves, ought not to be forced on the Irish people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1912, col. 942, Vol. XLIII]
    The impression left in my mind, at all events, by these words was that the Government was in no way going to interfere with the liberty of the Irish after three years, to themselves adopt a system of proportional representation if they chose to do so. I think every word of these quotations expresses exactly what I feel. We are here face to face with a very difficult and novel proposition. It is novel in this sense, that as the Royal Commission's Report said, we have really absolutely no guide from experience or precedent to teach us in this matter. We have Tasmania, but, as the Royal Commission pointed out, Tasmania cannot be taken as a real precedent, although the elections there are conducted on the same system as is now proposed. We have Belgium, but the Belgian system is an entirely different system. I should like to quote from the Report of the Royal Commission. The hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) quoted a few words, and then shied at what he saw was coming:—
    "All three systems are feasible, though none of them provides a solution of the problem of by-elections, which is both fitted to English ideas and practically satisfactory. It would be impossible, we believe, to avoid the necessity of polling the whole of a constituency normally returning several members for each contested by-election. In other particulars the Belgian system is from the practical point of view the best, and the transferable vote the least satisfactory, because the processes by which the results are arrived at are the most complicated, and who are unable to satisfy ourselves that some element of chance is not involved which would not excite prejudice, perhaps unreasonable, in the minds of a section of the electorate."
    It is the transferable vote, and not the Belgian system, which is proposed in this Amendment.
    Sir A. MOND: Will the hon. Member read paragraph 139 of the final conclusions?
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I will read it with the greatest pleasure; in fact, I had intended to do so without the invitation of the hon. Baronet.
    "We recommend the adoption of the alternative vote—"
    which, I need hardly explain, applies only to the single-member constituencies, and

    1103
    of which I am in favour, and for which I have introduced a Bill in this House—
    "in cases where more than two candidates stood for one seat. We do not recommend its application to two-member constituencies, but we submit that the question of the retention of such constituencies, which are anomalous, should be reconsidered as soon as opportunity offers."
    Hon. Members will notice that the Royal Commission's Report, so far from advocating larger constituencies, actually advocates the splitting up of the present two-member constituencies into two single-member constituencies; another method of which I am in favour. The Report goes on:—
    "Of schemes for producing proportional representation, we think that the transferable vote would have the best chance of ultimate acceptance, but we are unable to recommend its adoption in existing circumstances for elections to the House of Commons."
    I think that all the satisfaction the hon. Baronet can get out of that is rather set at nought by the final conclusion of the Commission, that it does not recommend its adoption for elections to the House of Commons. That Commission's Report, which, carefully read, would, I think, really dispose most people to think that proportional representation was not a desirable departure in this country, was, with the single exception of Lord Lochie, really adverse to proportional representation and in favour of the alternative vote, and I, personally, am perfectly ready to abide by the Commission's Report and to found myself upon it. I want no better authority and no better support than is afforded by the only Report we have had on the: subject—the Report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, which reported only a few years ago, and which specially sat to investigate this difficult and complicated problem. I am far from admitting, as most people, I think, are inclined to, that proportional representation is very accurate in theory but would break down in practice. I not only think it is difficult to apply in practice, but I also do not agree with the theory which it involves, and I should like to deal for a moment with that theory. What is the ideal of the proportional representationist? His ideal is a small scale map of this Kingdom in the House of Commons. That is not really what is obtained. You could obtain that if you polled the whole of this Kingdom and gave each man a vote. Then the enthusiastic Liberal would vote for the Liberal party; the enthusiastic anti-vivisectionist would vote for the anti-vivisectionist cause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I hardly think we should discuss the whole matter as applied to the United Kingdom in this Amendment, which deals specifically with a limited number of constituencies in Ireland.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I will endeavour to apply it to the Amendment. Let us take the city of Belfast. Under the terms of this Amendment you would hope to get a small scale map of the city of Belfast, and if there was a strong anti-vivisectionist feeling in Belfast you would expect to get an anti-vivisectionist member returned. But if he were returned under proportional representation, he would not be returned by the first vote of enthusiastic anti-vivisectionists, but by the third, fourth, or tenth, or fifteenth vote—because this is a transferable vote—of enthusiastic Ulstermen or enthusiastic Nationalists, and so, even in theory, you would not get. under proportional representation in Belfast or in any town or in any country, that small scale map which is the ideal, and in some ways the excellent ideal, of the supporters of proportional representation. Then, again, they say in a place like Ireland, let us have these special representations.
    Sir A. MOND: Of minorities.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: They are not, as I pointed out, true minority representations, but they are aspects of the majority. They are representatives of another aspect of the majority and not of the true minority. But I dispute altogether this specialist idea. The ideal of the proportional representationist is that in this Kingdom there are soldiers, sailors, tinkers, tailors, rich men, poor men, ' beggar men. Let us have the rich men, poor men, beggar men, and tailors as such in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thieves."] That is not an excellent theory for the government of the Kingdom. What most people would want to see would be broad party representation in this House. There are plenty of cranks who get in already. There is no lack of them on any occasion. The idea that special representation is lacking in this House is an utterly fallacious one. There is a representation of almost every specialist theory in being. Then they say, lastly, that the present system in Ireland and elsewhere does not give a fair proportion to parties in the State. They say in Ireland, under the present system of electing the House of Commons, you

    1105
    would not perhaps get an absolutely accurate division by representation between the Nationalists and the Ulster vote according to its true strength in the country. The present system never has pretended to do anything of the kind. It does not want to do anything of the kind. It says what we want is to have a working majority. Each side has its turn. One is over-represented at one time and gets into power, and another is over-represented at another time and gets into power.
    Mr. NEWMAN: When does the Southern Unionist have a chance?
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member means that the Northern Unionist does not and cannot represent the Southern Unionist—
    Mr. NEWMAN: I do most emphatically.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: Then I cannot agree with him.
    Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: The Labour people.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: The Labour people seem to get a chance now.
    Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: Not in Ireland.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: The hon. Member in pointing out from his place that the Labour party gets no chance now seems to me to be in a rather Gilbertian situation.
    Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: I was using the argument in application to Ireland.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: The Labour party in Ireland will find itself in very much the same position as the Labour party finds itself in this Parliament before very long. If I remember rightly the remarks of my Friend and colleague in the representation of Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) one of the reasons he is supporting Home Rule so vigorously is that he hopes to see a vigorous Labour party springing up in the new Parliament. There, again, without any assistance from proportional representation we may very probably see the Labour party get a share of power under the new system. Imagine the difficulties of an Irish Parliament which may be called upon to transact its Parliamentary business under a system where there is always bound to be a comparatively large fluid mass of opinion having no settled convictions on some of the greatest subjects of Parliamentary life, because under systems of proportional
    1106
    representation you will always get some men whose only object is to get in upon one idea. They will be elected perhaps on that idea—you may say anti-vivisection or anti-vaccination—but when it comes to a great question of Irish life—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be delivering a speech which was prepared for an Amendment that was not called. It applies to the whole Parliament. We are now discussing a limited Amendment.
    Captain CRAIG: Does it matter very much really when we are receiving a lecure of this sort what it is on?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot administer the Rules for the hon. Member's pleasure. I have to administer them as they stand.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I may reassure you, Sir, that the notes I have made on these points were made during the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mond), and sprang directly out of his remarks. Therefore I plead guiltless of the charge of having come down with a set speech on an Amendment which was not called. To pass to the Amendment in question and to deal specifically with it and not, as the Mover of the Amendment did, with the general question of proportional representation, I would say I frankly admit that the Government Bill as it stands is very sadly defective in this-matter. No one who has read the Bill and looked at the Schedule could think, I imagine, that the simple block vote in question would be a very satisfactory method of dealing with the election of the new Irish Parliament. But there seems to be an idea abroad that because the proposal in the Bill is bad the hon. Member's Amendment must be good. That is by no means the case. I do not like the proposal in the Bill as it stands, and still less the hon. Member's Amendment. The true way out would be an alteration of the Schedule. If you alter it, and give a number of single-member constituencies instead of the large constituencies now proposed, you would get rid of the necessity for this proportional representation scheme, and, to my mind, you would vastly improve the Bill. I conclude by pressing the Government not to accede to this Amendment, but to devise some method of altering the Schedule so as to bring it into conformity with the recommendation of the Royal Commission. As to proportional representation, you should not prejudge

    1107
    the matter for the Irish in this Bill. You should follow the Chief Secretary's advice and not force proportional representation on the Irish, but leave them in their own good time to decide the matter for themselves.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I would like to preface the very few remarks I have to make on this matter by saying that I appreciate very much the whole tone and purport of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment (Mr. Newman). He has told us that those for whom he speaks, the Southern Unionists, are not represented by the Ulster Unionists, and that was evident from his speech. What was the whole meaning of it? He came with an appeal which it is very difficult to reject. I will not attempt to push it too far. He did not say that he is in favour of Home Rule, or that he was going to abate his opposition to Home Rule at all; but he took up the position of a man who looks at the situation that may, and probably will, arise when this Bill passes into law. He says that Irish Southern Unionists, under those circumstances, desire to have the opportunity of coming in and sharing in the duty of doing all that is possible inside the Irish Legislature to advance Irish interests. I sympathise with the tone of that speech, and I confess that he makes in that way an appeal to me "which I find it very difficult indeed to answer. Let us consider for a moment what exactly it is that this Amendment proposes. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Crawshay-Williams) has delivered an able and powerful argument against proportional representation. This Amendment does not establish proportional representation. It makes an experiment strictly limited in the area it touches, and strictly limited in time. It does not apply to the whole of Ireland. It applies only to nine constituencies in Ireland. It is not the adoption, after careful consdeiration by a convinced House of Commons, of the principle of proportional representation. It is a proposal to make a limited experiment, because at the end of three years the Irish Parliament can do as it likes in this matter by the simple expedient, not of repealing it, but of creating, as I feel myself is certain to happen, single-member constituencies in those cases, and automatically the proportional representation proposed in this Amendment would disappear.
    1108
    Therefore you ask us not to accept proportional representation, but to make a small experiment limited in area, and limited in time. Why should we do that? Why should any man like myself, who entertains very grave misgivings and doubts on the question of proportional representation, accede to that appeal? You must argue this question in view of the special circumstances of Ireland. The first years of this new Irish Parliament will be the most critical years in its existence. After it has survived the first few years, and after, as I feel convinced, the experience of those years will be successful, you will have no trouble whatever. The Southern Unionists will have no trouble whatever in getting representation in the Irish House of Commons under the present system. I would look with dismay at the future of Ireland if I thought the present Divisions were to continue after Home Rule as they are now. But as sensible men we must admit that that change, while it will come very rapidly, must in its nature be a gradual change, and you cannot expect it just after this Bill becomes law. When the first elections are held for the Irish House of Commons, you cannot expect, as if some magic had been exercised, that the old dividing lines will at once disappear. I feel that at the first election of the Irish House of Commons, if the Bill remains as it is, in all probability what the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment predicts will come true, and surely it would be a very great misfortune for our country if that first election resulted in not a single Unionist member of Parliament being elected for the three southern provinces, except for Trinity College, which I do not take into account.
    If Parliament came together, and if from the whole of Munster, Leinster, and Con-naught there was not a single Unionist representative, I think that would be a bad thing for Ireland, and for my part I would look with great dismay at such a result. In two or three years' time it would not happen, for things would have changed. But at the first election it very likely would happen, and therefore I say, as a man who has grave misgivings as to the general principle underlying this system of proportional representation, I am justified in making this narrow and limited experiment in it. If it brings about the result which the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment predicts, and if it brings into the Irish Parliament a

    1109
    fair representation of Irish Unionist opinion—which will not be Unionist very-long, because the name Unionist will soon disappear—if it will bring into the Irish Parliament representation of those in the South and West who are now Unionists, and if these representatives come in to join with their Nationalist fellow countrymen to work for the good of their country, I welcome the Amendment. I do not know what answer the Government are going to give in this matter. I put it that way from the Irish point of view, and as to the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newman) I say, speaking for myself and my colleagues, we find it irresistible.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have listened with great attention to the speeches which have been made on both sides of the House, and certainly I have listened to them with a mind not in any way prepossessed in favour of the system of proportional representation as applicable either to our own or to most electoral systems Some of the arguments against it have been dealt with by my hon. Friend. (Mr. Crawshay-Williams) in his able speech. Having regard to the narrow nature of the Amendment he was not able to develop his case so fully as he otherwise would have done. Some of the difficulties which have been mentioned have not, I think, been satisfactorily solved. Therefore, as I say, I do not speak in the few observations I am going to make as a disciple of that creed, or as one prepared to advocate the adoption of it, either as regards our own electoral system in Great Britain, or as regards its application to the electoral system, at any rate in its inception, of the Irish House of Commons. The quotation which my hon. Friend behind me read from the speeches made, I think by myself, and others by my colleagues sitting on this bench, in discussing the question of the Constitution of the Senate, are enunciative propositions to which I entirely adhere. I do think that the adoption of proportional representation as the basis of the electoral system is a matter which ought to be left to the unfettered judgment of the Irish Parliament. But that is not the Amendment before us. If the Amendment were that which stood first on the Paper, and which was passed over, I should certainly have offered my unqualified opposition, but in regard to this much more restricted Amendment I
    1110
    confess that I have kept an open mind. I do not think that it in any way commits us or the Irish Parliament to adopt proportional representation as a system in itself, but taking the specified number, nine I think altogether, out of the constituencies in Ireland in which under existing conditions we have been obliged to abandon what prevails for the most part in this country, namely, single-member areas, and aggregating the constituencies in such a way that they return three or four members dealing with those specific cases, and those specific cases alone, the Amendment, as I understand its purpose, seeks to get rid of what, if passed, might have been a very serious infringement, I will not say of the rights, but of the interests of the minorities in these areas.
    There is no doubt whatever that as the Bill stands in these places where every elector has three, four, or five votes, the effect would be to produce a solid, homogeneous representation on the part of the majority, and the minority, however large it might me, and however deserving of representation, would not, to use a vulgar expression, have a look in, and the evils which to some extent are very largely counteracted under our system of single-member constituencies, and which it is possible might even there be counteracted to an even greater extent by the adoption of the Royal Commission proposal of the alternative vote, would be forcibly aggravated and emphasised in those constituencies. Therefore I look on it as did the hon. and learned Member did who has just sat down as an attempt to deal with a particular case for a particular purpose, and to deal with it as we must do now only as regards the inception of the Irish Parliament; for as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite truly pointed out under the general powers which the Irish Parliament has under the Bill it would be quite open to it, if this experiment is unsuccessful, or if some alternative or substituted method of dealing with the same problem appears to be preferable in the light of Irish experience and condition, it would lie within their constitution to make the change. This House would have nothing to do with it. We propose deliberately to confer that power upon them. As the hon. Member quite truly pointed out this Amendment proposes in the first instance on the election of this first Parliament in regard to specific constituencies, where the evils of undue majority representation in reference

    1111
    to the numbers of members returned are likely to be peculiarly injurious and even oppressive to the minority that we should by a system of transferable votes give this minority a chance of representation.
    9.0 P.M.
    I find it very difficult as did the hon. and learned Gentleman to resist that appeal. I think it of the utmost importance that in these constituencies the minority should have this chance of securing representation. I will not mention again the case of Belfast, but take Dublin, or take the City of Cork itself where there is a substantial minority of Protestants and Unionists who at present are entirely unrepresented and who, under the new proposal here—remembering the City of Cork has no fewer than four members—would remain unrepresented in the Irish Parliament, I feel that it is a very strong case which has been so well put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who seconded the Amendment and who speaks with knowledge of the conditions under which Unionists live and have their social and political being in the Southern parts of Ireland, in the provinces outside Ulster. It is very difficult, indeed, having regard to those special exceptional conditions to refuse any reasonable experiment which might have the effect, I think probably would have the effect, of securing to a community so situated representation which under the Bill, as it stands, I am afraid they cannot possibly obtain. On those grounds, stated shortly to the House, as far as the Government are concerned, we shall be prepared to accept this Amendment. I wish to reiterate all that I have previously said and that my colleagues have previously said in regard to the general application of the principle, and to confine the ground of our acceptance of it here to the absolutely special and exceptional circumstances and particular issues to which the hon. Member referred.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I listened with great satisfaction to the acceptance of this Amendment by the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not propose to inflict upon the House a discussion of proportional representation again; but I would like to point out why I think that this very modest proposal is particularly suitable and practicable in the present case. In the first place, the constituencies with which the hon. Baronet dealt are just the sort of constituencies with which Parliament endeavoured to deal some thirty years ago in its
    1112
    efforts to provide for minority representation in the large towns. These are the sort of constituencies which were formerly known as three-corner constituencies, and the efforts to secure representation of the minority, which were certainly not altogether successful, were followed by the single-member constituencies which Mr. Gladstone, somewhat to my surprise, maintained would secure as minority representation. There is one reason why I think this Amendment is peculiarly applicable to the circumstances of the present case. The Royal Commission which reported on minority representation, in referring to the system of proportional representation and its possible effect on the balance of parties, pointed out that in the system which we recommend personal qualifications might outweigh the main advantage of party, and their view evidently was that it was important that the Government should have a strong majority. That may very well be so in the case of a Government which has to transact Imperial affairs and which needs the backing of a large majority in this House to secure respect in its dealings at home and abroad, but it is different in the case of the Irish Parliament where the business will be mainly local and where the requirements of a constant, uniform, overwhelming majority is not so necessary, and therefore that consideration may be left out of count. The most important reason why this Amendment should be accepted is this. We do not wish to fix the Irish Parliament of the future with any method of representation of our own choice. That I understand to be the view of the Government—as a matter of fact they are doing it when they put the block system into the Bill—and no Government would ever risk a majority through introducing a new system by which that majority might become less. Therefore, we are now enabling the Irish Parliament to judge for itself during the next three years by a comparison of the two systems, that of proportional representation in these large towns and the block system for the rest of Ireland. We are enabling them to judge for themselves which system they prefer. Many of us hope—and I share the hope of my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Amendment—many of us very much hope that the view to a system of proportional representation in being at their doors in those great towns may convince the Irish Parliament of the future, if it ever comes into existence, of the merits of the system

    1113
    for the whole country. At any rate, we give them that chance. They had not the choice before, but they will have it now, and for that reason I rejoice that the Government have accepted the Amendment, even on this limited scale, and introduced this system of proportional representation in those constituencies where it is urgently needed, and where it can be exercised with advantage.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I desire in a sentence to join in the chorus of gratification which has been expressed at the Government's acceptance of this Amendment. I recognise that the whole question of proportional representation is not involved, although I think, if it had been, I would have been prepared to offer a few observations in its support, if I had been sure that it would not have prejudiced the Home Rule Bill. I desire to speak on behalf of the organised labour movement in Ireland. Representations have been conveyed to us asking members of the Labour party to give support to this Amendment. The Labour party of Belfast and also of Dublin entertained some apprehension that under the block system they would have no chance of getting representation at all. In fact, every speech delivered here to-night proves beyond contradiction that the block system does place in the hands of the smallest majority an absolute monopoly of seats in a district; and any democrat certainly cannot advocate such a system. Under the proposal of the Amendment minorities will certainly have a fair chance of securing representation. If a minority has not a quota sufficient to entitle it to representation, then it has no right to it. I am one of those who believe that this House of Commons ought to reflect the actual opinions of the people of the country, and if the Labour party or any other party have not sufficient support in the country to entitle them to representation here, well then they should not have representation on sufferance. Nevertheless, in the Irish case, we have at least a reasonable prospect under this Amendment that the minority will obtain a share of representation in the House. I am glad that the hon. Member for Waterford so readily stated his acceptance of it. I believe that not only does it do him personal credit, but that at any rate his acceptance of it is a most expedient thing in the interests of Home Rule itself. Undoubtedly, as he has admitted, peculiar difficulties will assail
    1114
    the early stages of the new Constitution. We know that the feeling amongst the Labour section in Belfast runs very high, but if they have a reasonable prospect of getting representation in the Irish House of Commons we may rely upon it they will be among the heartiest co-operators to make the very best they can of the new Constitution.
    On the other hand, with the retention of the block system, and with the inevitability under that system of their never having a chance of representation in the House, they would feel like many other sections, that they were forced into methods not quite so commendable as the constitutional method of securing representation of their opinions in the House. As the hon. and learned Gentleman observed, under the Home Rule Bill, Ireland will have the opportunity at. the end of three years to revise its whole view of the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply, to my mind, that the Irish people would be so dissatisfied with this experiment that they would revert to the single-member system. For my own part, I hope that will not happen, and I gladly welcome this experiment because it is in accord, I believe, with the finding of the Royal Commission. I believe the Royal Commissioners expressed a desire that some experiment should be conducted in this country morder to see how far the system would answer, and in Ireland we will have an experiment conducted of which I am convinced in my own mind the result will be so acceptable to the Irish people that there will be no desire to depart from it, but rather an imperative demand for an extension of the principle. I do not think that there is any need for lengthened discussion of the matter, but I thought that on behalf of those for whom we have been requested to speak, I should express the gratification of those with whom I am associated at the action of the Government in accepting this Amendment.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I do not pretend to agree with the last speaker as to the feeling which animates the House in regard to the acceptance by the Prime Minister of this Amendment. I cannot help thinking that it has been accepted rather hastily, in fact, just as hastily as the whole scheme of proportional representation was accepted by the Government a few months since. Indeed, if the Prime Minister had been present, though perhaps it would have been futile, I

    1115
    should have asked him to reconsider his decision, even if, on second thoughts, he could not do so, after having expressed such a distinct view. The hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment has been successful in getting his proposal accepted, but I do not know that I can altogether congratulate him, because I confess I am sorry that it has been accepted. The hon. Gentleman raised one or two points on the question of proportional representation. I do not intend to travel over everything that he has said, but I shall, I hope, be allowed to deal with one aspect of the subject which is applicable to this Amendment, and to proportional representation wherever it has been adopted. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment told the House, and I am perfectly certain he means what he says, that he will be ready to accept this Amendment as a crust, purely as a crust, hoping to get the whole loaf later on. I believe if proportional representation is pursued with the energetic propaganda which it has at present, we will have proportional representation for the whole House of Commons before another six months have passed.
    The most extraordinary thing about this proposal is that hardly one per cent. of the House can explain what proportional representation is. It has been adopted really blindfold by the Government. I do not know whether they have gone into the question, but certainly two months' ago not a single right hon. Gentleman on that Bench attempted to explain what proportional representation was, and yet the House of Commons accepted it blindfold. I hope I may be allowed to explain why I think it is so undesirable that it should have been accepted in this limited form, because I submit that before very long there will be a strong agitation to accept it for the whole of Ireland, and once you accept it for the whole of Ireland you will be asked to accept it for England. May I say, therefore, why I think this would be a disastrous attempt. Proportional representation in theory and on paper is apparently the most excellent thing you can have for an elected House of Commons, and it has not lost any of its strength and attraction by the way in which the hon. Baronet put it before the House. What is the system going to do to the elector? Let us bring it right down to the elector going to the poll, and see how it will affect the majority of the people in this country. You may at the
    1116
    next election have 11,000,000 voters, and suppose that this system grows and that it is adopted for the whole country—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue as to the whole general question, but must apply himself to this particular case in Ireland.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I will try to keep within the limits of your ruling, but it is very difficult to argue the matter and explain one's objection to the adoption of this system without general reference. Suppose, then, that this system is applied to these elections, what will the electors have to do? They will have to deal with the ballot papers on which there may be any number of names. The hon. Baronet said that there would not be more than half a dozen, but there might be any number, because the very essence of this system is that there shall be absolutely free choice to the elector. There is going to be no way of adopting party candidates. It is going to do away with all that, and you are going to have as many candidates as like to come forward. I would like any member of the Proportional Representation Society to explain why that should not be so. If they are not free to come forward, then they are at the mercy of the party caucus; but the whole point of the system, if it is to work, is that anybody can be a candidate. Therefore we come back to the fact that the elector will be faced with a ballot paper with perhaps a dozen names. Take the case of Dublin County, for which there are three Members, and in which you might have a dozen names, as there is absolutely no limit.
    Sir A. MOND: What is there to prevent a thousand people being nominated in any constituency at present?
    Major MORRISON-BELL: There is nothing at all to prevent them. It is very difficult to argue the matter without referring to it generally. I would have welcomed the opportunity of a discussion on the whole question, as we have never really gone into the question of proportional representation generally. In the case of Dublin County you might have a dozen candidates, and how is that going to improve the membership of the House? Do you suppose that the electors will know every one of those candidates or their qualifications? They will probably not have heard the names of more than two. What will they do? I know exactly what the hon. Baronet would do or a great many other educated people. They would

    1117
    look seriously at the paper and would take the trouble to put the names in the order of their preference according to the qualifications of those gentlemen. But the ordinary elector is not going to take the trouble to do that. The ordinary elector would ask the agent, "Who shall we vote for?" so that the whole thing will go into the hands of the caucus, and the more candidates you have the more will it result in the necessity of having somebody to advise the elector. It must be so. It is folly to think that the ordinary elector will take the time to study the qualifications of the different candidates, whose names they would hardly know. Thus everybody who was a candidate would have to have party agents to whom the electors would go to find out for whom they should vote. [An HON. MEMBER: "That happens now."] It does happen, but only between two men, except on very rare occasions when the Labour party intervenes, and it is in single-area seats.
    I say that the right solution would be to make the single-area seats as equal as possible, and let the elector choose as between two or three candidates with the alternative vote. In the election in Dublin County, which I have instanced, for three seats, with possibly seven or ten candidates, every one of the candidates would want to be one of the three. Nobody stands for fun, and none of them would like to be in the "also ran" list. What will they do? Every man would have to have an election agent, or a dozen, or as many as he could afford, in every village. He would have to send out posters with his name on top, with appeals to vote for him first. The law of competition would drive each candidate to do that. The hon. Baronet said that agents could tell how many votes they had got, and that they would not bother about the others. He gave a case of 10,000 and 2,000, but nobody knows within a thousand or five hundred, except in Lundonderry, and the candidates would be obliged to have agents to secure the first vote for them. That would put the election in the hands of the party agents, and the cost of the whole elaborate machinery would be intensified beyond what it is now, when you have only two men fighting for one seat. You will then have twenty or thirty candidates for six or ten places.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears now to be arguing the general question.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I meant that you will have ten candidates for three seats. Let Members think out what that means. Would the people do what the Proportional Representation Society think they would? Would they sit down and work the matter out for themselves? Take what happens in this House. If it applies here, it will apply in the country. Here we are, 670 Members, voting on certain subjects. Do we in the morning study the Order Paper and all the Amendments? Do we listen to the Debates? Do we really decide matters as we hear them? Or do we wait until the Division bell rings, and then have an elaborate machinery of Whips and every other kind of apparatus to tell us into which Lobby to go? That is what really happens. But we are paid £400 a year to think these matters out. We are politicians; we are Members of Parliament; we are told that it is our business in life to do it. But we do not. We have an elaborate machinery of Whips, newspapers, and everything else to tell us what to do. Yet the Proportional Representation Society deliberately think that the electors of the country, who work for their living, have time to work out who is the best man in a list of ten candidates. It is perfectly ridiculous. They will not do it. That is the real danger of this proportional representation system. It is not that it is difficult. The difficulties are really nil. You would have a body of people to work the matter out for you. It does not matter whether you understand how the vote will come out. The real objection is that the elector will be faced with a long list of names, of which he would know very few, and he would have to get the assistance of the party agent to enable him to decide for whom to vote and for whom his preference should be given.
    I regret that the Government have accepted the Amendment, because I am perfectly certain that my hon. Friend, having got the Government to accept his proposal on two occasions, will go on from victory to victory. At any rate, I am afraid he will do so, although I shall do my best to stop him. I regret that, after stating they could not apply the system to the House of Commons, the Government have accepted the proposal with regard to these three cities. It is a dangerous line to take, particularly when the Prime Minister has said that he does not believe proportional representation to be suited to the House of Commons. He said something about this being

    1119
    an exceptional case. If he said to some very educated lady, "You are an exceptional case; you are so clever I will give the vote to you but to nobody else"; having got the vote for one lady they would go on to ten, and before we knew where we were we should have 12.000,000 women voters. This society will take courage by the two victories they have won. Nobody will take the trouble to understand what it really means, and before we know where we are we shall have this House elected by proportional representation. Though that might help the Tory party, I think it would be a grave mistake. It would lead to the multiplication of political machinery. You have it now for single Members. If there were three Members, you would have three times as much machinery. It is no use making an appeal to the Government now to change their minds, but when the Proportional Representation Society come to the Government, as they surely will, and say, "You have adopted proportional representation for these three cases; adopt it now for the rest of Ireland," I hope the Government will set a very flinty face against the proposal, and tell the hon. Baronet that he has secured quite enough for one year, and that he must wait until the country is really desirous of this change.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken expressed a fear that the Prime Minister had accepted this Amendment with his eyes shut. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman saw quite clearly that the advantages entirely countervailed the possible disadvantages detailed by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Crawshay-Williams). Even if it were true that the Prime Minister accepted the Amendment with his eyes only half open, I can assure the House that many of his followers are accepting it with their eyes wide open, and are not at all alarmed at the prospect of the principle of proportional representation extending far beyond the constituencies with which this Amendment specially deals. I should be out of order in going into the general question of what may happen hereafter. I will confine myself to the effect upon the existing constituencies to which it is now proposed that the principle should be applied. I followed carefully the hon. and gallant Member's objections, and I think they are particularly easy to answer. He was afraid
    1120
    that there would be multiplicity of candidates. He seemed to see disadvantages in that which I confess I cannot see. But I do not believe that there would be such a multiplicity of candidates, because gentlemen would not come forward with such readiness to share election expenses with a very small chance of success. Even if they did, I should see no particular danger in it. The hon. and gallant Member imagined that the effect of there being a large number of candidates would be to prevent electors using their own judgment and that they would rush off to agents to ascertain for whom they should vote. But they do that now. A candidate would not want more than one agent any more than he does now. The machinery for each individual candidate would be the same.
    The hon. and gallant Member further said that each candidate would have to send out cards soliciting votes and explaining to the electors how to mark the cards. Most of them do so now. I am inclined to think that in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency matters are more under the domination of the agent and the caucus than they are in many Scottish constituencies. However that may be, I do not see that the condition which he anticipates can possibly be worse than it is at the present time. The general objection seems to be that the system of proportional representation will open the door to the greater employment of agents. As a matter of fact, the agents do not think so. They think it would rather shut the door against them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman appealed to us to look into the matter. I can assure him that many of us have done so. I have carefully gone into the, matter and tried to understand it ever since the time when our great leader in this matter (Lord Courtney) introduced what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—whose absence we all regret—used to call his Patent Machinery for Political Thought-Reading. The proposal excited a good deal of criticism. To many of us it was very difficult to accept at the time. But I can assure those hon. Gentlemen who are still hesitating about it that they cannot do better than follow the advice of the last speaker and look further into it for themselves. Instead of talking in general terms about caucassing, the power of money, and all those general objections it would be well if they would look into detail and see how, and in what way, it would be possible to work

    1121
    the system, bearing in mind the foundation principle of proportional representation. I can assure them that, in my opinion, they will be of our opinion, and that if the consequences of introducing the system here are good, obviously if it works here, it is only in somebody's imagination that it will be out of place if extended in other directions.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: May I express from the point of view of the ordinary English Member how grateful I am to the Government for their acceptance of this Amendment. Putting aside entirely the theory as to whether proportional representation is best for a General Election to a House like this or a House like the Irish House of Commons, I do hope that this House to-night will unanimously agree with the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Member for Swansea. The real answer in regard to this Amendment to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has made himself so thoroughly a master of the details affecting the problem is that it is scarcely possible to conceive that the first election in Ireland after the passing of the Home Rule Bill will be an election in which Irishmen will not know perfectly well—that he will not know how, or have the several degrees of loyalty perfectly clear in his own mind—what the issues or the candidates are. Of all elections that we can possibly conceive that first one must be one that will excite the greatest amount of local interest, and there will be the less danger of anybody being confused or of not taking adequate trouble to vote. If that be the case it entirely disposes of those reiterated objections which may or may not have weight when they apply to a long scries of elections, none of them held under circumstances as stimulating as the first General Election in Ireland after the Home Rule Bill has become law. May I point out as regards this Amendment and the matters to which it refers that there is really no alternative. If the maximum of fairness is to be obtained in Ireland with regard to that first election you either have to have the block vote as originally proposed—and no one can doubt that that means the due exclusion of minorities like those in Cork, Dublin, and Belfast—you have to take the Amendment now before the House, or you have to do what has not been done in this Bill at all in regard to the Irish House of Commons, you have to go in for redistribution and the alteration of electoral areas, a matter which
    1122
    some of us believe ought to be left to Ireland to settle for itself and ought not to be brought into this Bill. This therefore is the only alternative. When we have heard, as we have to-night, from Members of this House in very different positions that they are agreed as to the effect that his Amendment will have in helping the representation of minorities, and what has intensified the importance of the system, the representation of minorities in different geographical parts of the country, if we are agreed, as we surely are—for it is undoubtedly true—what possible objection can there be to this being unanimously agreed upon? We can leave to the theorists in the future to try and persuade their fellow citizens as to the advantage or beauty of their comparative views as to the method of voting. Even the Royal Commission, which has been quoted by my hon. Friend, the Member for Leicester, which was over-whelmingly against this method, has in its Report a paragraph which, to some of us, at any rate, explains that anxiety we have that this Amendment should be adopted. It says:—
    "That the condition Which gives proportional representation the peculiar advantages is a mixture of races or religion in the country, for the power which the system confers on minorities remains the truer coincidence of political, racial, and religious boundaries."
    We believe that the minority representation secured by this Amendment in Belfast will be a valuable variety of Nationalist opinion as compared with that from other parts of Ireland. We believe that that conferred upon the so-called Unionist minority in Cork and Dublin would be a different variety from that of the Unionism in the North of Ireland. The experience of Belgium goes not only, as the hon. Gentleman for Swansea says, but it goes to efface largely the great geographical boundary which used to exist there between the Flemings and the Walloons, with all Parliamentary representation either on the one side of Catholicism or on the other side of Liberalism. This Amendment, applied as it is only to constituencies in Ireland where there are more than two members, will, we believe, do something to make the line of demarkation less coincident with geographical areas than it is today. In so far as it does that, it is surely doing something which every Member of this House, in whatever part he sits, would desire to see done at once and as much as possible.
    Mr. KING: I think a word or two of congratulation ought to be spoken to the

    1123
    supporters of proportional representation who have worked so very hard and so very long, and have at the last gained so small a victory. I am not quite sure whether the House realises that this is only really a very small gain that they have made. How many members are there to be in the Irish House of Commons? One hundred and sixty-four. How many are to be elected by this new system? Only thirty-one—not quite one in four; therefore it is quite obvious that we are very far from setting up in the Irish House of Commons a complete system of proportional representation. I think that ought to be fairly understood by the House. Though it has begun perhaps on the right lines, yet after all it is a mere experiment which is being made. For my own part I do not like experiments being made on such new, and—well, I will not call it the corpus vile—of the Irish House of Commons. I am not at all sure whether an experiment like this is worth making at all. Either let it be made over the whole of the area of the field of operations, or else let us wait until some more convenient season. However, I shall support the Prime Minister, partly because, so far as I can see, nobody is going to divide against it. The hon. Member for Honiton made a very able speech, and reiterated his arguments very forcibly, that he did not say he would have the courage to divide against the Prime Minister. I do not want to make a boast of independence in this matter, and I shall support the Amendment. One point more; that is, the contention which is so frequently put about by people who do not understand the system that neither they nor anybody else do understand proportional representation. The hon. Member for Honiton ventured to say that not 1 per cent. of the House understood the principle of proportional representation. If he really means that he is greatly mistaken.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: If I said 1 per cent., that was really somewhat of a slip. I did not mean it to be taken literally. I think that few Members outside the hon. Member and a few others understood it.
    Mr. KING: I thought so. When anybody speaks very forcibly and is then brought to book, he tells us he was only speaking metaphorically, and that is what I should expect from the genial and
    1124
    rather imaginative hon. Gentleman opposite. The experience of foreign countries where proportional representation is in force shows us that it works more simply, more cheaply and with less friction and less difficulty than almost any other system. Under proportional representation you are not obliged to fight for your own hand only. You are obliged to fight with others, and when you have, say, five members to be elected, it is absurd for each alone of the candidates to fight merely for himself. Each must work in close co-operation with the other. That has been realised in all countries where proportional representation has been introduced, and I am quite sure that in his forecast of the great difficulties and absurdities that would ensue the hon. Member was speaking without really any experience and merely from his imagination, which I am sure will prove to be all wrong. In conclusion, I want again to congratulate those who have worked so hard for this cause. I do not know whether we shall live to see proportional representation introduced in the elections for this House, but I am perfectly certain that the step we are taking to-night cannot be regarded as a precedent in that matter.
    Mr. T M. HEALY: I am glad the Prime Minister has accepted this Amendment, and I congratulate the Government on having taken a step to rectify somewhat a condition which would have been to the minority perhaps bordering on an injustice. I am glad the Conservative party in Ireland—it is very hard in Ireland to say who is a Liberal and who is a Tory—have got this additional concession. It is a very small addition. My reckoning is that it will only give them three more seats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Less."] I am approving of it because I believe it will give them three. I believe they are entitled to more and if I had the framing of this Bill I would take means to give the Conservative party in Ireland more. Nay, I would go further, I would give them more than their due on a count of skulls. I mean if you count heads I think they are entitled upon many grounds, historical and others, to more than they have got. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said to-night that under the scheme of Local Government nothing had been done to recognise the position of what he calld the propertied classes, and he was especially strong about the case of

    1125
    Dublin. Now I wish to show the House that the views we are now expressing are not nascent or new, and I want to show the House to what really the present position in Ireland is owing. I take the case of Dublin. Something like fifteen years ago, Dublin promoted a Water Bill in this House, and I incorporated upon it a minority representation Clause. It was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Lundon (Mr. Balfour) and all his party in this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College complained that his party had only got eight Members in the whole Corporation of Dublin. I do not say I recognise the figure as exact. I gave them a three-corner representation providing even for the grouping of the Aldermanic seats whereby they would have at least twenty-one seats out of sixty, and that passed through this House unanimously. Where was it rejected? It was rejected in the House of Lords and if the Conservative party of Dublin to-day are in the minority which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College says they are, and probably says justly, the fact is owing to the action of the House of Lords, which said that a Water Bill was not a place for such a thing as proportional representation or minority representation.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON (Lundonderry, S.): May I call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that it was in Committee that it was struck out and not in the House of Lords itself?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think my hon. and learned Friend knows me too well not to know that an interruption against me is of very little use. What are the facts? It passed through this House, through Committee upstairs, through this House on Report, and on Third Reading unanimously. Look at the records, and you will find it was in the House of Lords it was rejected, and it was by the action of the House of Lords it was rejected. My recollection is that it was in 1896, and the records will show that when complaint is made that we have not been careful of the interests of property or of the interests of Conservatism in our capital city of Dublin, I answer that by the action we took this House unanimously passed that provision and it was rejected, and rejected only by the House of Lords. So much, therefore, upon that point. May I make one other observation. I think I have
    1126
    done so already to some extent to-night. I think this Debate shows the monstrosity of the guillotine proceedings. We had tonight first to carry Clauses, and now we are to take at 10.30 Clauses 9 to 14.
    Clause 14 has no more to say to this question of representation than New Zealand has to say to Connemara. Clause 14 deals with finance, and I am quite sure the Government are determined that not a word shall be said upon finance to-night. We have debated all these trumpery things, because they are trumpery when compared with finance. Finance is the one thing necessary. It is the one thing of importance, it is the life-blood of this Bill, and if we have not a proper system of finance, all these questions of the Senate and of proportional representation are merely leather and prunella. What have the Government done? They have so managed as to yoke this Clause 14 with five others—six in one bunch—to-night, whereas if they had omitted Clause 14 from this group we would start to-morrow with Clause 14. I do not know what Clause we shall start with, but Clause 14 is the most important Clause in the Bill, and here we are to-night at the tail-end of all this back-wash about the Senate and proportional representation and all these other questions that are of no moment. I hear a great deal of the connection of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) with this Bill; but I think he has had very little connection with any part of it except the trickery. The other night I thought all this had been done by a mere accident, but I am now convinced that it is the other way, and therefore I am equally convinced that all this Debate has gone forward with a view to smother and conceal from the Irish electors the effect of these other Clauses. While I am convinced that the Bill is in the main so far as the Government is concerned an honest attempt to try to grapple with a great evil, I do think that these petty manoeuvres which have prevented honest discussions upon this Bill, throttled discussion in Ireland when it arose, and when one of the Ministers made a protest, he was told that he ought to shut up. In the same way Clause 14 has been stuck in the middle of all these Clauses dealing with finance with no other object than that of concealing from the Irish people that this is a Bill which in the main as regards any real reform they will be unable through its finance to stir either hand or foot.
    Mr. MARTINI hope this Motion will not be carried unanimously. I feel quite certain that a large majority of this House are opposed to the principle of proportional representation. I agree with all the arguments which have been delivered in regard to that question, and I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Honiton Division that this Amendment, if it were carried unanimously, would be put forward by the Proportional Representation Committee as an example of the manner in which their theories had obtained possession of the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, since the statement was made three or four hon. Members have pushed the matter exactly in that way. I hope, without attempting to take part in the Debate, and without giving reasons one way or the
    other, that this Amendment will not be carried unanimously, because if it is it certainly will have a very bad effect with regard to the question of proportional representation in future with regard to the House of Commons. I consider proportional representation is a pure freak, and there is nothing in it whatever. I therefore wish to support very heartily the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, and I urge him and other hon. Members of this House who agree with us to see that this Amendment is not carried unanimously.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 311; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 492.]

    AYES.

    [10.I p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hackett, J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    A damson, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Alden, Percy

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Crean, Eugene

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Crooks, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hayward, Evan

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cullinan, J.

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Astor, Waldorf

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

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

    Henderson, Major H (Berks, Abingdon)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dawes, James Arthur

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Delany, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kill, Sir Clement L.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hodge, John

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Bentham, G. J.

    Doris, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Doughty, Sir George

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bethell, Sir J H.

    Duffy, William J.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Bird, A.

    Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Black, Arthur W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hudson, Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Falconer, J.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brady, P. J.

    Fell, Arthur

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, Leit Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Brocklehurst. W. B.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Field, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Furness, Stephen

    Keating, Matthew

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Gilhooly, James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gill, A. H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Carr-Gomm. H. W.

    Ginnell, L.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Cassel, Felix

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    King, J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Glanvllie, Harold James

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Clough, William

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

    Leach, Charles

    Clynes, John R.

    Guiney, P,

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Sheehy, David

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Lyell. Charles Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

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

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Macdonad, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    McGhee, Richard

    O'Shee, James John

    Snowden, Philip

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Macpherson. James Ian

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Stanier, Beville

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Parker, Jamis (Halifax)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Stewart, Gershom

    M'Kean, John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddintgon, North)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon C. F. G.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Meagher, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    . Middiemore. John Throgmorton

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    Millar, James Duncin

    Primrose, Hon. Neill James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Molloy, M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon -Trent)

    Molteno, Percy Alpo t

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E,

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Radford, G. H.

    Wardle, George J.

    Money, L. G. Chioza

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Waring, Walter

    Morgan, George Hay

    Reddy, M.

    Webb, H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Redmond. William (Clare, E.)

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

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Munro, R.

    Richards, Thomas

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Needham. Christopher T.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Roberts, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan. East)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    O'Connor, John (kildare, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Younger, Sir George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Scanlan, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    O'Dowd, John

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

    NOES.

    Age-Gardner. James Tynte

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, South)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gordon. Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nield, Herbert

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Grant, J. A.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Horner, Andrew Long

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Butcher. J. G.

    ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Jackson, Sir John

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Cator, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keswick, Henry

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craig, Captain James (Down. E.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Croft, H. P.

    Lee, Arthur H.

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

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownies

    Fleming. Valentine

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Forster, Henry William

    Martin, Joseph

    Crawshay-Williams and Mr. Morrison-

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Bell.

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    The object of the Amendment is to reserve to the English House of Commons the powers which it is proposed by this Sub-section to bestow upon the Irish House of Commons. The Irish House of Commons is to continue for five years before it is dissolved, and at the end of three years it is to have the powers which are conferred upon it by this Sub-section. It may first of all alter the qualification of the electors. It may therefore alter the whole of the franchise. It may give female suffrage; although opinion in the Government of this country may remain in the disordered condition in which it is at the present time. Then it is to have the power of altering the mode of elections. It may do away with the secrecy of the ballot. It may alter the whole procedure which it has taken us centuries to evolve in this House as a safeguard for the secrecy of the electorate. It may alter the constituencies. That is one thing I think the Irish Parliament might retain the power to alter, because it is a question we have not had an opportunity of considering in this House at all. Under the guillotine proposal the constituencies set out in the Schedules, so far as I know, have never been considered by any human being except perhaps the Government of the day, with the aid of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). We in this House have had no opportunity at all, and shall have no opportunity, of considering what the constituencies in Ireland are doing. All we can say is that it is not wholly unreasonable that somebody should be left the power of saying what the constituencies are to be when you are setting up the new Parliament. They are to have the power of altering the distribution of the members of the House. At the present time the agricultural constituencies have no less than 128 representatives out of 164. It is quite possible, if the Irish Parliament does not achieve the brilliant success which hon. Members opposite suppose may be achieved, that it will be thought desirable to increase the agricultural constituencies to the disadvantage of the industrial constituencies of the North. The Bill provides that there shall not be any increase of members, but at the same time it gives power to alter the whole composition of the House. Why there should be that limitation I cannot say. Then comes this extraordinary provision at the end which
    1132
    I hope hon. Members may be able to understand:—
    "Due regard shall be had to the population of constituencies other than University constituencies."
    Who is to be the judge of what is "due regard?" You are not setting up in this Bill a proportion between population and representation. You are leaving it vague. It is proposed to take power to entirely alter the whole composition of the House. The whole thing is illusory. It is an illusory safeguard. You are to have "due regard to the population" of the constituency. You are not even to have due regard to the industrial interests, or the tax-paying value, you are simply to have regard to the population. Under the Redistribution Bill as it-emanated from this House the Commission was directed to have regard, not merely to population, but to the interests in the Government of the country possessed by the old franchise, and instructions were given to the Boundary Commissioners in 1885 to take into consideration, not only the populations, but the industries and pursuits of the population. In this new Bill you propose to give power at the expiration of three years, not five years, to have due regard, not to the industries, not to the stake in the country possessed by those whose franchise you are going to alter, but you are merely to have due regard to population of the constituencies other than University constituencies. If the intention of this Bill is to set up in Ireland an independent Parliament, with the right to settle how its representation is to be fixed, what the franchise is to be, what the system of electing the Members of Parliament is to be, and you are going to make them an independent Parliament with power to alter their Constitution, and with power to be practically a sovereign Parliament, then by all means let this Clause stand; but if you desire, and you state the object of the Bill is to set up in Ireland a purely subordinate Parliament and to leave the representation of the United Kingdom—because it will still be the representation of the United Kingdom in this House—the power to settle not only what the powers of the Irish Parliament are to be, but its Constitution, then you should reserve to yourself the right to settle now, once and for all, what the Parliament is not to do, how it is to be constituted, and what it is to be. In the hope that the Government will take this view and will allow this House to settle

    1133
    once and for all what the Constitution of the Irish Partliament is to be, I move this Amendment. In conclusion, it will be said that all the powers that are now conferred upon the Irish Parliament are possessed by this House. Yes, Sir, but the circumstances are absolutely different. You admit that you are giving, for the first time in the history of the world, self-government to Ireland, to a people a great part of whom are passionately opposed to having it imposed upon them at all. You admit that safeguards are required; you introduce them into the Bill at every turn, and you admit that the circumstances are peculiar. If safeguards are required, if the supremacy of this Parliament requires to be carefully safeguarded, let us settle, once and for all, for this Irish Parliament what its composition is to be, what its powers are to be, and what its relations to this Parliament are to be. In the hope that the Government will take that view, I beg to move.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I should like to ask the Government one question. We had some little confusion about this matter in Committee, and I want to be quite clear about one phase of it. I understand that this Sub-section allows the Irish House of Commons to deal with the qualification of electors, the registration of electors, and various other matters as regards the House of Commons, but I understand they are still precluded from doing that with regard to the Senate. Am I correct in that?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELindicated assent.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then I understand that the effect will be that if the Irish House of Commons, after three years, exercises its power to vary the franchise laws in Ireland, you are going to have two separate registers in Ireland, one register for the Senate and one for the House of Commons, and two separate sets of electors, two separate sets of qualifications, and it may be two separate sets of election laws, and to that to-night this House, by the vote it has just taken, has added the third obligation, that as regards Dublin, Cork, and Belfast, there is going to be a third set of electors. I should really like to know from the Government, whether that really is, the case, that the effect of the provisions of the Bill is that if the Irish House of Commons do exercise the powers which are
    1134
    given them by this Sub-section at all, then there will have to be two separate registers and two separate sets of electors, one for the Irish Senate, and one for the Irish House of Commons. I do not suppose there is the slightest idea that the House would regard the insertion of this. Clause as constituting any safeguard for the minority in Ireland. It does the very reverse. You have been labouring to-night to put in a tiny shred of proportional representation in the Bill as giving a greater safeguard to the minority in Ireland. In this Subsection you are going to say, we have given you this proportional representaion for these nine seats in Ireland. It shall only last three years, and at the end of three years the majority in the Irish Parliament may take it away. We have given you the protection of the English franchise laws, we have given you the protection of the Ballot Act and all the rest of it, but at the end of three years the Irish House of Commons may take it away from you, and the only thing which restrains them is that in jerrymandering the franchise in Ireland they must have due regard to population. And who are the judges of due regard? The Nationalist majority themselves. If any Member of the House thinks that any Irish Unionist will regard that as a due safeguard, I hope that is not a policy which he will cherish any longer.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to submit to you, Sir, a point of Order. We are ap proaching half-past ten o'clock, and the Clauses that you will put from the Chair are grouped in this way:—(9) Composition of Irish House of Commons. (10) Money Bills. (11) Disagreement between two Houses of Irish Parliament. (12) Privileges, qualifications, etc., of members of Irish Parliament. (13) Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Then, in italics, is "Finance," and Clause 14 is Irish Revenue and Expenditure. So that you will see this revenue and expenditure has been interpolated quite out of its place into the group dealing with the Irish Parliament and Irish representation. There are many Members of the House who desire to enter a protest against this system of grouping and against the provisions of Clause 14. I want to ask whether there is any possibility—I do not ask you to start a new precedent—of putting Clause 14 as a separate Clause, so that we might have an opportunity of voting against it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member will remember that I do not put the Clauses. I only put the Amendments as they appear. I am afraid it is not possible for me to put any question which would give him the opportunity of voting in the sense which he desires. Of course, the proper time to raise his objections was when we were discussing the so-called guillotine Motion. If I remember aright I think he did then raise that point and took a division upon it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member (Mr. W. O'Brien) did. I was only wondering whether you could enable us to do it now, because the circumstances are so special.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid it is not within my power or else I should be very glad to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government regard this Amendment as imposing a very undue limitation on the powers of the Irish Parliament, and hold that it is right that in these matters the Irish people should have an opportunity of expressing their own ideas as to the way in which they wish their people to be represented in the Irish Lower House. This Parliament should not endeavour to
    enforce its own ideas upon the nation. In regard to the specific question of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, it is the case that the electorate, both for this Parliament—for electing Irish Members to serve in this House—and also for the election of the Irish Senate is a matter for Imperial legislation, and the register cannot be altered by the Irish Parliament. If the Irish Parliament were to alter the register for their own House of Commons they would have two registers. If there be any inconvenience in that, that would be their doing, and it would be for them to do it if they so desired. There are frequently two different registers for local elections and Parliamentary elections, and similar inconvenience might possibly occur in the case of Irish local elections.
    It being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words 'After three years from the' [at beginning of Sub-section (3)] stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 187.

    Division No. 493.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Adamson, William

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

    Edwards. John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Alden, Percy

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Falconer, James

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

    Clough, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Arnold, Sydney

    Clynes, John R.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Field, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Furness, Stephen

    Barton, William

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Crean, Eugene

    Gilhooly. James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crooks, William

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crumley, Patrick

    Ginnell, L.

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Bentham, G. J.

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

    Glanville, H. J.

    Bethel!, Sir John Henry

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Bowerman, C. W.

    De Forest, Baron

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Delany, William

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

    Brace, William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Guiney, Patrick

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Dewar, sir J. A.

    Hackett, J.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Doris, W.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Duffy. William J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hay ward, Evan

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Rowlands, James

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    Morison, Hector

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Munro, R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Hinds, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sheehy, David

    Hodge, John

    Needham, Christopher

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hogge, James Myles

    Neilson, Francis

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Snowden, Philip

    Hudson, Walter

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, Leil Stratten (Rushcllffe)

    O'Dowd, John

    Thomas J. H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Grady, James

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Shee, James John

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    King, J.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Merk

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wardle, George J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Waring, Walter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Leach, Charles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Webb, H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pointer, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    McGhee, Richard

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Radford, George Heynes

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    M'Kean, John

    Reddy, Michael

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Winfrey, Richard

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Manfield, Harry

    Richards, Thomas

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Martin, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Barrie, H. T.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Bull, Sir William James

    Astor, Waldorf

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Baird, J. L.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Butcher, John George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bigland, Alfred

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bird A.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Cassel, Felix

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, south)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

    Cator, John

    Barnston, H.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cautley, H. S.

    1138

    1139

    Cecil, Evelyn (Alton Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hltchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Chambers, J.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rawson, Col. H. R.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Cooper, Richard Ash mole

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Jackson, Sir John '

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Royds, Edmund

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Croft, H. P.

    Keswick, Henry

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Falle, B. G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Stanier, Beville

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Fleming, Valentine

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sykes. Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Sykes. Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Lord E

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, South)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Grant, J. A.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Moore, William

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Morrison Bell, Capt E. F. (Ashburton)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wills. Sir Gilbert

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Winterton, Earl of

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nield, Herbert

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Wortlinton-Evans, L.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Younger, Sir George

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Hills, John Waller

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Hume-Williams and Mr. Fred Hall.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given as necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Government Amendments made: In Subsection (3), after the word "the"["three years from the"], leave out the words "passing of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "day of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament."
    In the same Sub-section, after the word "qualification"["The qualification of the electors"], insert the words, "and registration."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Government Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (3), after the word "the"["and registration the"], leave out the words "mode of election," and insert instead thereof the words "law relating to elections and the questioning of elections."—[Mr. Birred.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 189.

    Division No. 494.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Adkins. Sir W. Ryland D.

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Arnold, Sydney

    Adamson, William

    Alden, Percy

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Baker H. T. (Accrington)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Guiney, Patrick

    Morgan, George Hay

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Gulland, John William

    Morrell, Philip

    Barton, William

    Hackett, John

    Morrison, Hector

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Muldoon, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro, R.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Neilson, Francis

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hodge, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clough, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Shee, James John

    Clynes, John R.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Parker, James (Haliax)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Ruus

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, Lelf Straiten (Notts, Rusbcliffe)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Crooks, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jowett, F. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cullinan, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford,)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dawes, J. A.

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Radford, G. H.

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

    ' Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Doris, William

    Lough Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Richards, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Elverston. Sir Harold

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Robertson, Sir Scott (Bradford)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Falconer, James

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, Augstine (Louth)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Kean, John

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ffrench, Peter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Field, William

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

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

    Furness, Stephen

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gill, A. H.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Martin, Joseph

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Sheehy, David

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Goldstone, Frank

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough;

    Millar, James Duncan

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molloy, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrlm)

    1142

    1143

    Snowden, Philip

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Waring, Walter

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Webb, H.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Wadsworth, J.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, South)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nield, Herbert

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

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

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Balcarres. Lord

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

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Parkes, Ehenezer

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bathurst Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broad ley, H. B.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Blair, Reginald

    Hills, John Waller

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sandys. G. J.

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

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Jackson, Sir John

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cator, John

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerr-Smiley. Peter Kerr

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W,

    Keswick, Henry

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chambers, James

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Forster, Henry William

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Gardner, Ernest

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

    Baring and Major Morrison-Bell.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Money Bills.)
    (1) Bills appropriating revenue or money, or imposing taxation shall originate only in the Irish House of Commons, but a Bill shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or money, or to impose taxation by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the payment or appropriation of fees for licences or fees for services under the Bill.
    (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.
    (3) The Irish Senate may not reject any Bill which deals only with the imposition of taxation or appropriation of revenue or money for the services of the Irish Govern-
    ment, and may not amend any Bill so far as the Bill imposes taxation or appropriates revenue or money for the services of the Irish Government, and the Irish Senate may not amend any Bill so as to increase any proposed charges or burden on the people.
    (4) Any Bill which appropriates revenue or money for the ordinary annual services of the Irish Government shall deal only with that appropriation.
    Government Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (3), add the words,
    "This provision shall apply to the failure in any Session to pass a Money Bill which has been sent up to the Irish Senate at least one month before the end of the Session as it applies to the actual rejection of such a Bill."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 188.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Disagreement between Two Houses of Irish Parliament.)
    (1) If the Irish House of Commons pass any public Bill which is sent up to the Irish Senate at least one month before the end of the Session and the Irish Senate reject or fail to pass it, or pass it with Amendments to which the Irish House of Commons will not agree, and if the Irish House of Commons in the next Session again pass the Bill with or without any Amendments which have been made or agreed to by the Irish Senate, and the Irish Senate reject or fail to pass it, or pass it with Amendments to which the Irish House of Commons will not agree, the Lord Lieutenant may during that Session convene a joint sitting of the Members of the two Houses.
    (2) The members present at any such joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the Irish House of Commons, and upon the Amendments (if any) which have been made therein by the one House and not agreed to by the other; and any such Amendments which are affirmed by a majority of the total number of members
    1150
    of the two Houses present at the sitting shall be taken to have been carried.
    (3) If the Bill with the Amendments (if any) so taken to have been carried is affirmed by a majority of the total number of members of the two Houses present at any such sitting, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses.
    Government Amendment proposed: At end of Sub-section (3), to add the following new Sub-section:—
    (4) This Section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in the case of the failure of the Irish Senate to pass a Resolution providing for a transfer from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government of a reserved service when the Irish House of Commons have passed such a Resolution, as it applies to the failure of the Irish Senate to pass a Bill which has been passed by the Irish House of Commons.—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 300: Noes. 185.

    Division No. 495.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 P.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Adamson, William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Alnsworth, John Stirling

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Alden, Percy

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Crean, Eugene

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crooks, William

    Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Crumley, Patrick

    Guiney, Patrick

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cullinan, John

    Gulland, John William

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury)

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

    Hackett, John

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Barlow, Sir John Emrrott (Somerset)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Barton, William

    De Forest, Baron

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Delany, William

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Devlin, Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bentham, G. J.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hayward, Evan

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Black, Arthur W.

    Doris, William

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duffy, William J.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Henry, sir Charles

    Brace, William

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Eiverston, Sir Harold

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hinds, John

    Brunner, John F. L,

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hodge, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Falconer, James

    Hogge, James Myles

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Field, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Hughes, S. L.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Illingworth, Percy H,

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Furness, Stephen

    John, Edward Thomas

    Clough, William

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Clynes, John R.

    Gill, A. H.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Scanian. Thomas

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Jowett, Frederick W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    O'Grady, James

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

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

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

    Snowden, Philip

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Maltey, William

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    O'Shaughnessy, p. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Leach, Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Outhwaite, R L.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thomas, James Henry

    Lundon, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    McGhee, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

    Pointer, Joseph

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Wardle, George J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Waring, Walter

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Manfield, Harry

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Webb, H.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Reddy, M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Martin, Joseph

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Wiles, Thomas

    Millar, James Duncan

    Richards, Thomas

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Molloy, Michael

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Morison, Hector

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Muldoon, John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Munro, R.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Nannettl, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Neilson, Francis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Blair, Reginald

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cricnton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Croft, H. P.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Butcher, John George

    Dennis, E. R. B.

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Carlile, Sir Hildred

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cator, John

    Fell, Arthur

    Barnston, Harry

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godrey

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Fleming, valentine

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Beckett, Hon Gervase

    Chambers, James

    Forster, Henry William

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Bigland, Alfred

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Bird, Alfred

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    1148

    1149

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, South)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Sandys, G. J.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stanier, Seville

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Middlemore, John (Throgmorton)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Moore, William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hills, John Waller

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honito)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Neville, Reginald, J. N.

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Terrell, Henry Gloucester

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Nield, Herbert

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ward, A. S. (Watford)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Jackson, Sir John

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    peto, Basil Edward

    Winterton, Earl

    Kerr-Smlley, Peter Kerr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    pretyman, Ernest George

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Keswick, Henry

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Younger, sir George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Orde-Powlett and Col. Burn.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Division No. 496.]

    AYES.

    [11.5 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Furness, Stephen

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gill, A. H.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Alden, Percy

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Martin, Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Millar, James Duncan

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Molloy, Michael

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Barton, William

    Gulney, Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Beale, Sir William Phlpson

    Gulland, John William

    Morison, Hector

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Munro, R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt Hon. R. C.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harmsworth, R, L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

    Neilson, Francis

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Havelock-AIIan, Sir Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hayward, Evan

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burke, E. Havlland-

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hodge, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Holmes, Daniel Turnes

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clough, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Shee, James John

    Clynes, John R.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillips, J. (Longford, S.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Crooks, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cullinan, John

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, G. H.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    De Forest, Baron

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Delany, William

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, M.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richards, Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Robinson, Sidney

    Esslemont, George Birnle

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Falconer, James

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rowlands, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Kean, John

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    1152

    1153

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

    , Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Sheehy, David

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Smith, H. B. L, (Northampton)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Splcer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Waring, Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Winfrey, Richard

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wason, John (Cathcart (Orkney)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Webb, H.

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Thomas, J. H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gordon, John (Lundonderry, South)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nield, Herbert

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Grant, J. A.

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

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

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

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

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Remnant, James Farquharton

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bird, Alfred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Blair, Reginald

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Royds, Edmund

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Butcher, John George

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward HI Hired

    Jackson, Sir John

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cassel, Felix

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cator, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanler, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsklrk)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chambers, James

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Coates, Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Touche, George Alexander

    Croft, H, P.

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J, C (Droltwich)

    Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Macmaster, Donald

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mag'nus, Sir Philip

    Winterton, Earl

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Younger, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Moore, William

    Forster, Henry William

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

    Cautley and Mr. Hohler.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    CLAUSE 13.—(Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.)
    Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

    (1) After the appointed day the number of members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in the second Part of the First Schedule to this Act, and no University in Ireland shall return a member to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

    (2) The election laws and the laws relating to the qualification of Parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to elections of members returned by constituencies in Ireland serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Irish Parliament, but this enactment shall not prevent the Irish Parliament from dealing with any officers concerned with the issue of writs of election, and if any officers are so dealt with, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to arrange for the issue of any such writs, and the writs issued in pursuance of the Order shall be of the same effect as if issued in manner heretofore accustomed.

    Government Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "appointed day," and insert instead thereof the words "day of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament."
    After the word "members"["number of members"], insert the words "to be."

    CLAUSE 14.—(Irish Revenue and Expenditure.)
    (1) There shall be an Irish Exchequer and an Irish Consolidated Fund separate from those of the United Kingdom.
    (2) The proceeds of all taxes levied in Ireland, whether under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Irish Parliament, shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, but subject as hereinafter provided, there shall "be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the
    1156
    growing produce thereof in each year to the Irish Exchequer a sum (in this Act referred to as "the Transferred Sum") consisting of—

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

    (b) a sum of £500,000, diminishing in each year after the third year of payment by the sum of £50,000 until it is reduced to the sum of £200,000; and

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

    (3) Provision shall be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost of Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any Grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom so far as made for those services shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund.
    Government Amendment made: In Subsection (3), after the word "and"["meaning of this Act and"], insert the words "except as provided by this Act."
    Ordered, that the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow (Wednesday).
    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 Eighteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  INSURANCE COMMITTEES (EXPENSES).
  INSURANCE COMMITTEES (EXPENSES).
  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  UNEMPLOYED BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYED BENEFIT.
  INSPECTION OF DRUGS.
  INSPECTION OF DRUGS.
  Reinstatement Application (County Kerry).
  Reinstatement Application (County Kerry).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  COASTGUARD (DIVISIONAL OFFICER).
  COASTGUARD (DIVISIONAL OFFICER).
  OVERCOATS FOR BOYS.
  OVERCOATS FOR BOYS.
  FOREIGN WAR SHIPS BUILDING IN ENGLAND.
  FOREIGN WAR SHIPS BUILDING IN ENGLAND.
  Welsh Church (Life Interests).
  Welsh Church (Life Interests).
  Duration of Parliament.
  Duration of Parliament.
  Agricultural Credit Banks.
  Agricultural Credit Banks.
  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Smallholders Act (Scotland).
  Smallholders Act (Scotland).
  Teaching in Gaelic.
  Teaching in Gaelic.
  Vaccination (Kirkcaldy).
  Vaccination (Kirkcaldy).
  Secondary and Intermediate Schools (Expenses).
  Secondary and Intermediate Schools (Expenses).