Sitting of 8 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,
Read the third time, and passed.

NEW WRIT.
For Flint Boroughs, in the room of James Woolley Summers, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Illingworth.]
FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL.
Petition from St. Pancras and other places, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 28th November, 1912, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Huntly [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Time Table of Examinations for Intermediate Education in Ireland for 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 7th January, 1913, made under Section 78 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, by the National Health Insurance Commission (England), entitled the National Health Insurance (Payments to Insurance Committees) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to Appeals and Disputes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 416.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    SEA SERVICE.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Regulations for drafting men for sea service in their turn are not adhered to; and will he take steps to ensure that, except for special reasons to be reported to the Admiralty, all men shall be drafted for sea service strictly in their turn?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): So far as the exigencies of the Service permit, men are drafted strictly in their turn. Drafting is carried out under the personal supervision of the officers concerned and the Regulations give them discretion to select men out of their turn for special reasons. It is not proposed that such cases should be reported to the Admiralty.

    ROYAL MARINE ESTABLISHMENT (CLERKS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that from March, 1905, to June, 1912, six clerks serving in the Royal Marine establishment in London have been promoted to the warrant rank of superintending clerk, and that during the like period only one has been promoted from the several divisions and depots; and whether he will consider if some step can be taken to ensure a larger share of promotion to those serving in divisions and depots?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The numbers are as stated, except that there were two promotions at the divisions during the period mentioned. The non-commissioned officers required for the General Staff, Royal Marines, at the Admiralty are selected from among the most capable and efficient non-commissioned officers of the several divisions of the corps, and their claims for advancement to warrant rank are carefully considered in common with others when vacancies occur, either in London or at the Royal

    1159
    Marine Divisions. On promotion to warrant rank they are usually retransferred to the divisions or to the Royal Marine Depot at Deal, as required.

    H.M.S."HEARTY"(COURT-MAKTIAL—H. C. DAY).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether Herbert Charles Day, of His Majesty's ship "Hearty," was tried on the 5th September, 1912, by court-martial for striking a lieutenant and sentenced to eight months' detention, and that his defence was that a private letter written to him by his mother had been opened by those in authority on the ship; will he say whether this was true; whether whilst under detention Day struck a chief petty officer, for which he was also tried and sentenced; whether, seeing that under the King's Regulations, Articles 761, the opening of the letter was wholly unauthorised, he will see his way to advise the remission of any part of the sentence remaining to be served, and in the circumstances of the case take steps to prevent the sentence recorded from militating against the man in regard to his pay and ultimate right to pension; and whether due steps have been taken to secure absolute privacy of all correspondence addressed to the men of His Majesty's Navy in the future?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Day was tried by Martial on the 5th September, 1912, on charges of: (1) and (2) improperly leaving ship; (3) willful disobedience of a lawful command of his superior officer; (4) striking his superior officer, a lieutenant. With regard to the third and fourth charges, the accused urged that a private letter written to him by his mother had been opened by the captain's order! The accused was found guilty on all four charges and was sentenced to eight months' detention. On the ground that the opening of the letter was not justifiable in the circumstances, the Admiralty directed that the sentence should be reduced to four months' detention. On the 1st October, Day was again tried by court-martial for striking a chief petty officer in the detention quarters at Chatham and was awarded nine months' detention, the two sentences to run consecutively. The Admiralty, however, directed that the second sentence should run concurrently with the first. The opening of the letter, though improper, cannot be accepted as a justification for striking
    1160
    a superior officer, and the Admiralty are not prepared to reduce still further the effect of the sentences awarded by the courts-martial. Steps are being taken to prevent the improper opening of private correspondence in future.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to allow private letters to be opened?
    Mr. HOHLER: Will the First Lord still consider whether something cannot be done to reduce the second sentence; and does he not think that the feeling of anger with which the man was probably possessed really accounted for the second offence which he committed while under detention?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to recommend any further exercise of clemency in this matter. Striking a superior officer is one of the gravest offences anyone can commit. Any complaint of improper treatment by an officer of a man can always be referred by the captain of a ship to the Admiralty. The man has a right to make such a complaint, and if he had made such a complaint it would have been investigated and the cause of it properly dealt with. There is no excuse whatever for behaving in such an extraordinary manner.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Is anything to be done to the man who opened the letter improperly?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That matter has been dealt with. I should like to have notice of any question on that.

    NAVAL CADETS' COLLEGE, OSBORNE.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the dormitories occupied by the cadets at Osborne, to the want of ventilation under the floors, absence of fireplace, large window space, and system of heating (with the result that the rooms are always either draughty or stuffy), and the construction of the walls; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to their sanitary condition?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Departmental Committee on the education and training of cadets, midshipmen, and junior officers, in the course of their inquiries, paid special attention to the sanitary condition

    1161
    of Osborne College, and their Report is at present under the consideration of the Board.

    FLEET IN HOME WATERS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked, in view of the fact that in the spring of 1915 we shall have in home waters, including Gibraltar, only thirty-one completed ships of the "Dreadnought" type to Germany's twenty-three, this being equivalent to a superiority of 34.8 per cent. only, what measures are being taken to increase our superiority to the 60 per cent. regarded by the Admiralty as essential?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have repeatedly stated that it is impossible to debate these matters by question and answer. It is much better to wait till the Estimates are presented in due course.
    Mr. LEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the question that Gibraltar is in home waters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that my general answer really covers that point, as well as all the others included in that and similar questions.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman call Gibraltar in home waters, when it has taken me, in a good ship, nearly five days to come from Gibraltar to Southampton?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The ships stationed at Gibraltar are available for the defence of home waters, and are considered among the resources we draw upon for that purpose.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state in his own speech that it was three and a half days' sailing from the North Sea to Gibraltar?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these questions of distances and the time it takes ships to traverse distances of sea water are very well-known, and can be verified by reference to any of the ordinary works.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact?

    PRE-"DREADNOUGHTS."
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many armoured ships of the pre "Dreadnought" era not launched more than fifteen years are now possessed by Great Britain and Germany, respectively, and what will be the corresponding figures in 1920?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures asked for by the hon. Member are as follows:—

    January, 1913.

    Great Britain—

    Battleships

    …

    …

    28

    Armoured cruisers

    …

    …

    34

    Total

    …

    …

    62

    Germany—

    Battleships

    …

    …

    18

    Armoured cruisers

    …

    …

    8

    Total

    …

    …

    26

    January, 1920.

    Great Britain—

    Battleships

    …

    …

    2

    Armoured cruisers

    …

    …

    7

    Total

    …

    …

    9

    Germany—

    Battleships

    …

    …

    4

    Armoured cruisers

    …

    …

    3

    Total

    …

    …

    7

    The "Lord Nelsons" are not included in these figures. If they are added, the totals are sixty-four and eleven, respectively. I know no reason why a fifteen years' age limit should be any accurate or reasonable measure of the strength and efficiency of warships

    PERSONNEL (BRITISH AND GERMAN NAVIES).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what was the total increase in the personnel of the German navy made or provided for between 1904–5 and 1912–13; what further addition is provided for in the estimates for 1913–14; what increase has been provided for in the personnel of the British Navy since 1904–5; and what addition is it proposed to make in 1913–14?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures asked for by the hon. Member are as follows:—

    Germany.

    Voted in 1904–5

    …

    …

    38,128

    Voted in 1912–13

    …

    …

    66,783

    Increase

    …

    …

    28,655

    A further increase of 6,366 is proposed in the Estimates for 1913–14.

    Voted in 1904–5

    …

    …

    131,100

    Voted in 1912–13

    …

    …

    137,500

    Increase

    …

    …

    6,400

    The increase for 1913–14 will be announced in due course.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory that Germany should have added four times the number of men as Great Britain?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I do not see any reason to doubt that the provision which we have made and are making for the manning of the Fleet is not adequate to our needs, having regard to the relative progress of foreign navies.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of men in the Navy last year was over 1,000?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understood that the view held on the opposite benches was that it was between 5,000 and 20,000.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the statement of the numbers borne upon the Estimates last year the shortage was over 1,000?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice. The question does not directly arise.

    DISMISSAL FOR DRUNKENNESS (CHATHAM DOCKYARD).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a labourer at Chatham Dockyard who has received instant dismissal, it being alleged that he presented himself for work under the influence of drink; whether the man was discharged without being given an opportunity of being heard; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to allowing the man an opportunity of defending himself against the charge, and, if the circumstances have not warranted dismissal, re-instating him in his employment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend no doubt refers to the case of a labourer who was refused admittance to the yard when going on night duty on 12th October last in consequence of being drunk. The case was subsequently investigated by the general foreman of works, and the man, who was present, made no request to see a superior officer. The man was given no opportunity of defending himself against the charge of drunkenness at the moment of his exclusion from the yard. I made inquiry when I was at Chatham at the end of October, and having regard to all
    1164
    the circumstances was satisfied that justice was done in this case.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Why was there a difference of treatment between the men who were concerned? One, I understand, is an engineer, and he was stopped temporarily, and this man was stopped altogether.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know about the other case. I understand my hon. Friend says that on account of being drunk he was suspended for a week. I assume that the officers who adjudicated upon the cases were guided by the circumstances and the previous record of the men.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: May I ask that the man who has been dismissed may have a chance to defend himself or to put his side of the case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The case was investigated.

    CONTRIBUTION OF INDIA.
    Mr. FELLasked if the contribution of India to the Navy for the maintenance of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters is now fixed at the round sum of £100,000 per annum; and, if so, what relation does this sum bear to the cost of the construction and upkeep of the Navy at the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government of India contribute a fixed sum of £100,000 annually for the maintenance of certain ships in Indian waters. The amount of this contribution is under consideration. A repayment is also received from Indian revenues for the services of ships temporarily employed in the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. The repayments for the latter service were £108,500 for 1911–12, and are estimated at £64,000 for 1912–13. As regards the latter part of the question, the contribution of £100,000 represents 221 per cent. of the net total of the Navy Estimates for 1912–13 (including the Supplementary Estimate), and 30–712 per cent. of the cost to the Admiralty of the East Indies Squadron.
    Mr. FELL: Is not the proportion now considerably less than it was ten years ago, therefore the contribution is proportionately less compared with the total vote for the Navy in the last ten years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I can go into that without proper notice. These

    1165
    things are considered from time to time, and, of course, we shall be very glad to receive money from any source.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Before any addition is made to the charge, will the people of India be consulted as would be the people of Canada or Australia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that question should be addressed to the representative of the India Office.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not the account as regards India far more than balanced by her enormous contribution to the Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is far from my wish to debate these general matters.

    COASTGUARD (PAY).
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the pay of a leading seaman when afloat is 3s. 3d. a day whilst a coastguard of the same rating only receives 3s. 2d. a day, and has to find his own food out of his 3s. 2d. whilst the seaman afloat has his food free; and if he will consider the advisability of raising the pay of the coastguards, which was fixed about forty years ago and has not been raised since then notwithstanding the increase in the cost of provisions and living generally?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay of a leading seaman afloat at the new rates is 2s. 2d. to 2s. 4d., and the cost of his ration 10d., a total cost of 3s. to 3s. 2d. The pay of a leading boatman in the coastguard is 1s. 9d. a day, in addition to provision allowance of 1s. 4d., a total of 3s. 1d. Leading seamen can earn, in addition, from 3d. to 11d., or in a few cases 1s. 7d., for specialist gunnery duties, which do not fall on the coastguard. All leading boatmen (coastguard) receive 1d. a day for gunnery duties, and in many cases can earn from 2d. to 5d. a day for specialist signalling and wireless telegraphy duties. The coastguard are provided with quarters on shore for their families, whereas a married man in the Service afloat has to pay house rent. Both the seaman afloat and the coastguard receive good conduct pay up to a maximum of 3d. a day. As previously stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, it is not proposed to increase the pay of the coastguard.
    Mr. FELL: Is it not a fact that the pay of coastguards was fixed about forty years ago, and that since then there has been
    1166
    no increase, whereas the price of food has greatly gone up?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say, but if a seaman afloat gets more than a coastguard he does special duties which the coastguard does not do. The coastguard, too, has a house and garden.

    NAVAL STANDARD.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what was the naval standard of the present Government before the introduction in March last of the 60 per cent. superiority in ships of the "Dreadnought" class?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to the full statement made in this House by the Prime Minister on the 26th May, 1909.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me a definite answer to a question so straightly put as this?

    NAVAL CONSTRUCTION (GERMANY AND GREAT BRITAIN).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked at what date the Government adopted the policy of putting an end to naval rivalry between Germany and this country by proving that we cannot be overtaken in our programme of naval construction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There does not appear to be any necessity for entering upon these general matters at Question Time.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman made the statement before a very large audience at the Guildhall only last November. Does he, under these circumstances, consider that he cannot give me a reply in the House of Commons?

    PROGRAMME (1909–10).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, having regard to the statement made in the memorandum on naval requirements, prepared by the Admiralty for the Government of Canada, that in the year 1909 eight capital ships were laid down in Great Britain, whereas only six capital ships were so laid down in that year, if he will take the necessary steps to correct this error?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The four contingent capital ships of the 1909–10 programme were all ordered on the 4th January, 1910,

    1167
    and work was begun on them at once, although their keel-plates were not actually laid until the new financial year had opened. The statement referred to means that in the financial year 1909–10 eight capital ships were sanctioned by Parliament, and their construction was begun. This is true and calls for no correction.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to a question put to him by an hon. Member opposite last week he made the statement that six ships only were laid down in the year 1909?

    H.M.S. "TORCH" AND "PROMETHEUS."
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement as to the condition in which His Majesty's ship "Torch" and His Majesty's ship "Prometheus" were sent to sea whilst in commission on the Australian station in 1911?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The "Torch" was first commissioned on 14th January, 1897, and remained continuously in commission until 31st December, 1905, when she was ordered to be laid up at Sydney Dockyard as available for subsidiary purposes of war. On 6th September, 1910, the Commander-in-Chief was asked to report the general condition of the hull and machinery, etc., of the "Torch," and whether the vessel could be commissioned for service without general refit; if not, to state the rough approximate cost of refit. The reply was to the effect that the general condition of the ship was good, and that she was ready for commission at three weeks' notice without general refit. The cost of docking and painting and refitting the rigging was stated to be £354. Orders were therefore given on 4th January, 1911, to employ the "Torch" on work connected with the duties of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific in place of the "Pegasus," which was being paid off in March, and Commander E. C. Carver was appointed to her command. This officer arrived in April, 1911, and the ship was commissioned on 4th May, 1911. Instead, however, of only spending £354 the sum of £1,080 was spent, the difference between the two amounts being accredited to the "recent discovery of additional defects."
    In the course of the repair the accessible parts of the hull and fittings were
    1168
    examined whilst the ship was in dock, and certain apparent defects were made good, and, according to the yard officers, all that was necessary for the ship's seaworthiness was done before she sailed in May, 1911. During the time which elapsed prior to the return of the "Torch" to Sydney in December, 1911, certain defects presented themselves, but nothing seriously affecting the seaworthiness of the ship made itself patent, and although the fracture of the main shaft and dropping of the screw-happened, it cannot be traced to any defect in the material. After the return of the "Torch" the Commander-in-Chief decided to have the ship thoroughly repaired, and she was accordingly docked in March, 1912, and a thorough examination of the hull was made by stripping off the sheathing outside and removing the cement inside. It was then found that the bottom plating under the boilers was badly worn, and it may be assumed that this state of things existed, at any rate partially, when the "Torch" was commissioned in May, 1911.
    The Regulations prescribed that an examination of the cement coating on the inside surface of the bottom plating should be made, so far as it is accessible, on every occasion when a ship comes under repair in the yard, and that the ordinarily inaccessible positions should be examined periodically or whenever the ship is recommissioned. This is prescribed both by King's Regulations and Foreign Yard instructions. No such survey was held on the "Torch" between December, 1905, and March, 1912, and as the ship was not in commission at the time she was brought forward for refit, it appears that the Regulations governing the supply of the certificate of completion of defects did not apply in this case.
    The state in which the "Torch" was found to be in March, 1912, showed that when she went to sea in May, 1911, she was not in a thoroughly seaworthy condition, and for this the captain in charge and officers of Sydney Dockyard were responsible. It is improbable that a Court of Inquiry would elicit more facts having an important bearing upon the case than the comprehensive report already furnished by the Commander-in-Chief, and I am advised after very full consideration that none of the officers concerned have actually committed such a breach of the regulations as would render them liable to disciplinary measures under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act.

    1169
    In the opinion of the Board the deficiencies which have been revealed were due to a lamentable want of judgment and common sense, as well as to a lack of businesslike capacity. The captain of the dockyard will receive the severe censure of the Board of Admiralty for the lax administration of the establishment in his charge and will be informed that but for his recent relief, he would have been superseded in his appointment. The officers of the yard immediately concerned will also be informed that they have incurred their Lordships' serious displeasure for the unsatisfactory manner in which they have discharged their duties.
    It may be added that the position of Sydney Dockyard is in a state of transition at the present time, and there is no reason to believe that similar laxity exists elsewhere. A full inquiry will be made into the manner in which the regulations are being carried out at the dockyards abroad with a view to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such an incident.
    In making the foregoing statement I have confined myself entirely to the case of the "Torch." The circumstances attending the breakdown of the "Prometheus" on the voyage to Hong Kong have been the subject of a separate inquiry, as explained in my answer of the 18th of December, and were mainly due to a lack of supervision and defective organisation in the engineers' department of the ship. In so far as this ship is concerned, the breakdown in the machinery did not have a bearing upon the administration of the
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: As this is a very serious matter I will take an early opportunity of raising it on the Motion for Adjournment.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask when the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing this instance of lax administration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All the regular opportunities will arise in the course of the year, and these will serve as vehicles for discussion.
    Mr. MOORE: Is that to be postponed in favour of Home Rule and the gerrymandering of the Register?

    Liberia (Export of Coolies).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will make friendly representations to the Liberian Govern-
    1170
    ment to the effect that risk to the health and prosperity of British possessions in the vicinity of Liberia, as well as to Liberia itself, is involved in the export of coolies to St. Thome and Principe, wherein sleeping sickness is believed to prevail?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Sleeping sickness is not believed to prevail at San Thome and, as the hon. Member was informed on 1st January, I have no reason to believe that Liberian natives are being recruited for Principe.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (PROMOTION).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War, if he will consider the advisability of giving promotion to subalterns in the Royal Garrison Artillery after eleven years' service, having regard to the fact that this is the limit of time for promotion in the Royal Engineers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a question put on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division of Leicestershire on Tuesday, 29th October.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the undertaking which he gave in July last, that lieutenants in the Royal Garrison Artillery should be promoted to captains after thirteen years' service, has yet been given effect to by publication in general orders?
    Colonel SEELY: I considered that sufficient publicity was given by the question put by the hon. Gentleman and the answer made to him. Steps were, of course, taken at once to ensure that the undertaking given should be carried into effect when the first opportunity for promotion arose. The first promotion under the new rule falls due early in May.
    Mr. LEE: Is there no intention to start to promote lieutenants before they have thirteen years' service?
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman knows that the block of promotion was caused by a very large batch of officers being selected at the time of the South African war. We have done something to alleviate that matter, but I cannot undertake to go further at the present time.
    Colonel YATE: What will be the length of service of the officers to be promoted in May?
    Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer, he will see that when they come to have thirteen years' service they are due for promotion.
    Colonel YATE: Will it be fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not put this branch of the Service on the same basis as the Royal Engineers?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir; there is a very real objection which I stated in the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

    MARRIED OFFICERS QUARTERS (TINWORTH).
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked when the quarters for married officers which are now under construction at Tidworth are likely to be ready for occupation; what rent it is proposed to charge for them; and what percentage this rent will bear to the original cost?
    Colonel SEELY: These quarters will be ready in April. The rent to be charged is still under consideration.

    SOUTH WALES INFANTRY BRIGADE.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the new machine gun mountings will be issued to the South Wales Infantry Brigade before the 1913 annual training?
    Colonel SEELY: This question is under consideration.

    MINATURE RANGE RIFLES.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether 22-bore rifles have been issued to Yeomanry regiments for miniature range work; whether these rifles have also been issued to Infantry regiments of the Territorial Force; and, if not, whether he will state why they have been issued to Yeomanry and not to Infantry regiments?
    Colonel SEELY: The Yeomanry have the 22 short rifle. The Territorial Infantry-have at present 22 tubes for use with 303 long rifles, but in due course will get 22 long rifles as the present tubes wear out. The Yeomanry were given the 22 rifles
    1172
    before the Infantry because the Yeomanry have short rifles and the stock of short 22 tubes for use with 303 short rifles had already been exhausted.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE ADJUTANTS.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to commanding officers of Territorial battalions by having their adjutants detailed to take the present horse census that is being made; whether he has considered how far the efficiency of the battalions suffers by the adjutants being repeatedly employed on this census instead of attending to their regimental duties, and how long he has so employed them; and whether he proposes to continue it?
    Colonel SEELY: Qualified adjutants of Territorial Force units, as well as a number of Regular officers, were employed last winter and are being employed this winter in making a census of horses suitable for military purposes in certain defined districts. The size of these districts has been left to the discretion of the general officers commanding. Instructions were given that the employment of adjutants should not interfere with the performance of their other military duties. Adjutants will be continued on these duties. It is not considered that the efficiency of battalions suffers there from.
    Mr. A. SYKES: Do these adjutants get any extra pay for this extra work?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, they do not get extra pay—at least I do not think there is any case where they get extra pay. Of course, we endeavour to see that they do not suffer financially in any way through performing the extra work.
    Mr. A. SYKES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that recruiting must suffer if adjutants are taken away at the period of the year when all the commanding officers are trying to do their best to promote recruiting.
    Colonel SEELY: In the instructions originally sent we impressed upon the general officers commanding-in-chief, that this duty should not interfere with the primary duty of the adjutants to battalions and regiments to which they are appointed. I believe that in all cases that is being carried out. If the hon. Gentleman has in his mind any particular case, I will be grateful to him if he will bring it to my notice.
    Colonel YATE: Were all travelling allowances paid to these adjutants?
    Colonel SEELY: All proper travelling allowances are, of course, paid, and if there is any case in which that has not been done, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will bring it to my notice.

    ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
    Captain KNIGHTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major E. M. Perry was gazetted to his majority in the Army Veterinary Department without having had any previous experience in that Department; whether this is contrary to Regulations; and whether he thereby became senior to many officers who have served longer in the Department than he has had experience as a veterinary surgeon?
    Colonel SEELY: This officer, who was formerly a major in the Royal Field Artillery of the Territorial Force, was appointed to the Veterinary Corps of that force, and was gazetted major in error. The error was brought to notice at once and steps taken to correct it.

    Hastings House, Calcutta.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Secretary of State for India has received a report regarding the fate of Hastings House, in Calcutta?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The Secretary of State has not yet received a report regarding the future use to be made of the house and grounds at Hastings House.

    Indian Commerce.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government of India has submitted to the Secretary of State for India proposals calculated to enable the Government of India to preserve touch with the centres of commerce, of which Calcutta is the most important, and as contemplated in the Government of India letter, Home Department, No. 1243, dated Simla, 24th October, 1912, to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce; and, if so, what has been the disposal of such proposals?
    Mr. BAKER: No proposals have as yet been received on the subject from the Government of India.

    Viceroy of India (Bomb Outrage).
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether the news of the bomb out rage on the Viceroy of India was known to a news or other telegraphic agency in London before it was received by the India Office; and, if this is so, what length of time elapsed between the first and the official receipt of the news?
    Mr. BAKER: The first intimation of the outrage reached the India Office at 10 a.m. on the 23rd December in the form of a cable from Reuter's representative in India addressed direct to the Secretary of State. The first official telegram reporting the occurrence in detail and communicating the medical report on the Viceroy's condition was received in London at 3.30 p.m. This telegram was sent on the authority of the Governor-General's Council. I would remind the Noble Lord that all the high officials of the Indian Government, including the Members of Council, were occupied for some time after the occurrence of the outrage in carrying through the Durbar and the programme of the day, in accordance with the order given by Lord Hardinge after he was wounded.

    Indian Princes (Offer of Battleships).
    Mr. FELLasked if the Indian Government has now ascertained the origin of the statements that were cabled from India about a month ago to the effect that certain Indian princes had met and were prepared to recommend that India should give to this country a number of battle ships and cruisers; and what steps they proposed to take to prevent such reports being cabled over as facts?
    Mr. BAKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second, the Secretary of State does not consider that any action is necessary.
    Mr. FELL: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it very unfortunate that exaggerated statements like this should be sent over and get a wide circulation and that no contradiction of them should appear?
    Mr. BAKER: It is not for me to express a mere opinion.

    Purchases of Silver (India).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will

    1175
    explain why the beginning and end of each letter published in the Return of the correspondence with the Bank of England, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, and the India Office is omitted; and will he supply a copy showing by whom and to whom each letter is addressed?
    Mr. BAKER: The Return has been presented in a form which economises space and printing, and is in accordance with various precedents. The letters are signed by and addressed to the parties concerned, or their authorised representatives, and the Secretary of State sees no reason why the expense of reprinting with the formal details asked for should be incurred.
    Mr. GWYNNE: As it is important to know who wrote these letters and to whom they were addressed, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will not go to the expense of printing them, to send me a copy personally?
    Mr. BAKER: The White Paper does state to whom the letters were addressed. If the hon. Member wishes to know the exact beginning and ending in any particular case, certainly he will be informed.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked why, if Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company thought on 28th May that the silver purchased on behalf of the Government could be deposited at the Bank of England without rousing any suspicion, they wrote on 16th April recommending the India Office to postpone their purchases, entailing a further brokerage fee to themselves in addition to 3 per cent. on the cost, in order, as they then said, to avoid any premature transaction with the Bank of England?
    Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Member will refer to the White Paper he will find that the firm did not on 16th April recommend the postponement of purchases, but wrote to the India Office expressing practically the same opinion as in the letter of 28th May, and asking for instructions. The Secretary of State decided on postponement, mainly in order to avoid making payments in May which, for the reason explained to the hon. Member on 3rd December, would have become widely known at an early date.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the proposal for postponement did not come from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company?
    Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Member looks again at the text of the letter he will see that they ask for instructions on the point.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the letter written on 24th May last by the India Office to Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, in which it is asked that all bars or boxes of silver to be shipped should bear distinguishing marks, which would enable them easily to be traced to the source of supply and so identify the seller in case it should be necessary to claim a refund, and to the reply of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company of 26th May stating that all the bars and dollar boxes they ship have identification marks; and, in view of this correspondence, will he explain the statement which appears in the letter dated 13th November from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to the India Office to the effect that, although the Department's orders had been large, they formed at times but a portion of their business (which involved a considerable number of clients), and that supposing they felt justified in divulging the names of those clients with whom they did business on the same days as with the Department it was impossible to disentangle from the list those which provided silver for the Department?
    Mr. BAKER: The first letter showed that each bar or box of silver shipped and found defective could, in case of need, be traced to the seller. The second letter was understood to mean that, owing to considerations of time and convenience, it is not practicable for a broker to deliver on each occasion to each buying client the particular bars or boxes bought under the contracts made to satisfy his requirements. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the latter statement, which is in no way inconsisent with the former, represents the recognised practice of the bullion trade.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not a fact that the second letter expressed an opinion, not of expediency, but of impossibility—that it-was as impossible to disentangle the firms who supplied silver for the Government of India as it was to distinguish the juice which came from any particular grape in wine?
    Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member again is not putting the matter quite correctly. They did not say "impossible." They said "not practicable."
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on 11th September last, the day on which Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company purchased £600,000 of silver for the Government at 29⅛d., the market price of silver in London was 28 13–16d., and the parity of silver in China, where the silver was purchased, at the rate of the exchange of the day on London was under 28d., thus making the price actually paid more than 1d. above market price; and whether, seeing that 1d. on £600,000 of silver is equal to about £24,000, out of which the cost of freight, insurance, and interest on shipping the silver from China to Bombay would not amount to more than £4,000, he will say to whom the £20,000 unaccounted for was paid?
    Mr. BAKER: I gave the hon. Member full information on this subject in reply to his question of 26th November. The Secretary of State has no information in support of the statement now made that the price of silver in China on the date mentioned was 28d., or 13–16d. less than the London price, nor does he understand how such a difference could exist.
    Mr. FLAVIN: How did the hon. Member arrive at the figure £24,000, seeing that the supposed loss is only £2,400?

    Agricultural Labourers (Wages).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the members of his unofficial Land Committee are drafting a scheme for providing a minimum wage for agricultural labourers?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I cannot undertake to state what action is being taken by a Committee which is purely unofficial.

    Census of Production.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the total value of goods manufactured in Great Britain in 1907, according to the Census of Production Act; the total value of net imports of manufactured goods for that year; and what percentage the total imports bear to the total value of goods manufactured in this country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The value, at the place of production, of the final products of the industries within the scope of the Census of Production, is calculated for 1907 at between 1,241 and 1,256 million
    1178
    pounds (exclusive of duties). The value of the net imports of manufactured food, drink and tobacco products in 1907 was £74,600,000, and that of net imports of completely manufactured goods, i.e., of goods other than those which were used in further processes of manufacture in the United Kingdom, was £49,700,000. These sums represent, respectively, about 6 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the value of the final products of industries in the United Kingdom just stated. For further particulars I may refer the hon. Member to pages 21 to 30 of the General Report on the Census of Production (Cd. 6320), in which the output of the United Kingdom, taken as a whole, is discussed.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman in his Department or can he secure information which would show what were the manufactured imports of Germany and of the United States, respectively, in relation to home manufactures.
    Mr. BUXTON: I should require notice of that question.

    Income Tax.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Income Tax now derived from real property and from other sources respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Income Tax identifiable as having been paid in respect of the ownership of lands and houses amounted in the year 1911–12 to £10,159,000 (net). The Income Tax from other sources amounted to £31,157,000. The last mentioned figure includes, however, a considerable amount of tax on lands and houses owned by railway, water, and mining concerns, which is covered by the general assessment on the profits of the undertaking.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the first mentioned figure include Income Tax under Schedule B which is paid by farmers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should doubt that. That would not be strictly a tax on land, but a tax on the profits of an industry. I will look into that matter.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    POST OFFICE CONTRIBUTORS.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked what was the number of Post Office contributors under the National Insurance Act on the 1st January of the present year; how

    1179
    many of them are of the male and how many of the female sex; how many are engaged in domestic service; whether any Post Office contributors have received sanatorium benefit; what arrangement has been made to supply this insured class with medical benefit when it becomes statutorily due; and what is the average amount standing to the credit of each Post Office contributor?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The number of deposit contributors on the date named was 480,000, including 320,000 men and 160,000 women. No distinction is made, or required, between persons engaged in domestic employment and those in other forms of employment. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the affirmative. The arrangements made with doctors in each district include provision for deposit contributors without distinction between them and members of approved societies. I am afraid I cannot give the information asked for in the last part of the question, as it is not required for any administrative purpose and would involve a calculation based upon 480,000 separate accounts.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked how many whole-time doctors will be required to complete the panels under the National Insurance Act; the total cost of the same; whether a special branch of the Commission will be required to direct and supervise their work; and, if so, what arrangements are proposed to be made in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The accession of doctors to the panels during the past few days has been so rapid as to make it impossible to state where, if at all, any opportunity for the establishment of a salaried service will occur. It is possible that such a service will be instituted in three or four districts, but no statement can be made at present.
    Mr. HALL: If the rush of doctors to join the panels has been so rapid, how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the large deficiency in the London area?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any deficiency in the London area.
    Mr. HALL: Is the number of doctors in the London area sufficient to carry out the duties under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not examined the numbers, but I should think from what I have seen that there will be more than sufficient.
    Mr. HALL: I will repeat the question on Monday.

    ASSURANCE BUSINESS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether several assurance agents at Tod-morden, employed by the Prudential Assurance Company, have been discharged for publishing a protest against alleged irregularities and illegalities in the methods adopted by the supervisory staff of the company in the Todmorden district for obtaining assurance business; whether he is aware that complaints of this nature are not confined to Todmorden but are widespread; and whether, if sufficient evidence is placed before him as to the need, he is prepared to consider the advisability of setting up an inquiry into industrial assurance?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer this question. I have no information as to the facts stated in my hon. Friend's question, but if he will furnish me with evidence of the illegal acts referred to, I shall be pleased to consider whether the matter is one in which any action should be taken by the Board of Trade.

    Small Houses and Cottages.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the result of his inquiries into the cause of the increase in the number of small houses and cottages in Great Britain having fallen in the year 1910–11 to 10,651, as against increases in the year 1905–6 of 112,838, and in the four succeeding years of an annual average of over 80,000; and, in view of the urgency of the housing problem, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. Member's question of the 1st instant by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am investigating the matter and hope soon to be in a position to give an answer to the hon. Member.

    Surveyors of Customs and Excise.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to grant the petition of the surveyors

    1181
    of Customs and Excise of Excise origin for a reconsideration of their case, with a view to the Grant of the retrospective application of the new salary scale as from 1st April, 1909, when the two services were amalgamated, the right to such retrospective application having been conceded to other grades in the service by the amalgamation committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on this subject on the 11th ultimo.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the officer of Customs and Excise in charge of the Excise Station No. 11, Edinburgh collection, committed suicide on 6th December; if he was, from the date of entering the public service in 1907, attached to the Customs Department up to 25th July, 1912, when he was transferred to Edinburgh and put through a short course of instruction in Excise work; if, after a short experience on general Excise work, he was put in charge of the 11th Excise Station on 3rd December, which is an important brewery station; if the officer had ever before had charge of breweries; if he is aware that this station had been vacant for nine months, eight separate officers having had at times temporary charge of the station; that the work was in consequence much in arrear; and that the officer in question, though on the testimony of his superiors a thoroughly capable man at work in which he had had experience, was driven to despair by being put to work which it was impossible for a Customs' trained officer to perform; whether he is aware that there are many cases at present where officers, surveyors, and collectors without Excise training are in charge of Excise work, and that enormous mental worry is being suffered and the efficiency of administration being impaired in consequence; and, for the sake of the men and in the interest of the public service, will he instruct the Board of Customs and Excise to stop the practice of putting men to duties for which they are not equipped?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Mr. Williams, who committed suicide on 6th December, was an officer of Customs origin who entered the service in June, 1907. In July, 1912, he was transferred to Edinburgh and given instructions in Excise work, including the survey of breweries. After instruction he was employed in assisting or officiating in various stations until 24th November, when he went on private leave.
    1182
    On return to duty on 3rd December he was assigned to Edinburgh 11th Station, consisting of brewery and general business. He had not previously been in charge of brewery business. The 11th Station had been without a permanent officer for eight months, but temporary officers had been employed and there was no serious accumulation of arrears. I cannot accept the suggestion that the work was responsible for Mr. Williams' action. In reply to the latter part of his question I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on the 11th ultimo. I may add, however, that, speaking of the service as a whole, the Board of Customs and Excise are confident that where it is necessary to employ men, whether of Customs or Excise origin, on work hitherto assigned to the other branch of the service, the men so employed will prove competent to perform the new duties without detriment to the efficiency of the service or to themselves.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the work of the station was not in arrear, and it is reasonable to believe that a station which had been without a permanent officer for nine months, with eight temporary men in charge, could have the work up to date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am assured by the Customs and Excise authorities that there was no accumulation of work; and that that certainly was not responsible for the poor man's suicide.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If the officer did not commit suicide because he was overwhelmed with the work, why did he do it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only give the hon. Member the information I have got. I have made personal inquiries into the matter, and I was assured that there was no arrears of that kind at all, and that there was nothing out of the ordinary. He committed suicide within three days after he had entered upon his duties.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the Board of Customs and Excise had any report from Edinburgh in regard to the suicide?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say. I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the number of appointments to surveyor ships of Customs and Excise during the last nine months from officers late of Customs and late of Excise, respectively; and whether by such appointments the proportion of promotions to survey or ships of officers of

    1183
    Customs origin was increased far beyond the normal expectation under pre-amalgamation conditions to the detriment of the prospects of officers of Excise origin who otherwise would have succeeded to supervisorships?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There have been 104 officers of Customs origin actually appointed to surveyor ships during the last nine months. No such actual appointments of officers of Excise origin have been made. As regards the latter part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question which he put to me on the 5th ultimo.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing that it is admitted in that reply that 104 Customs officers have taken posts to which Excise officers were looking forward, and would have been promoted to if the amalgamation had not taken place, is not this a serious loss of prospects for the Excise service owing to the amalgamation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that is so, and it puts the Excise at a disadvantage at present, the disadvantage will be redressed in the future.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked how many first-class examining officers of Customs have been selected for appointment as un attached surveyors of Customs and Excise; how many Customs port clerks have been selected for a similar position after a competition limited to their own grade, at which only thirty-six men competed; and how many collectorships formerly Excise collections have been filled by officials of Customs origin and how many collector-ships formerly Customs have been filled by officials of Excise origin?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There have been 104 first-class examining officers selected and appointed, and twelve port clerks have been selected for appointment. Sixteen collections (eight Customs and eight Excise) have been combined or are in process of being combined into eight joint Customs and Excise collections. To these joint collections have been appointed five collectors and one assistant collector of Customs origin and three collectors and two assistant collectors of Excise origin.

    Shipping Lambs.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, under the proposed new regulations for the Irish cattle trade, shippers
    1184
    of lambs will be required to send the mothers along with the lambs, or during the detention period at the port of landing will the railway or shipping companies be required to provide milk and sucking bottles or other substitutes for the maternal supplies, or is the trade in Irish lambs for slaughter to be put an end to in favour of the New Zealand frozen variety?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I have no reason to suppose that the number of unweaned lambs conveyed from Ireland to Great Britain unaccompanied by their dams is such as to present any difficulty when the proposed Order is in operation.

    Sheep Disease.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked if the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture has been called to the pre valence in some parts of Devon of the disease in sheep called liver fluke or cawd; if he is aware that this disease prevails in wet seasons; and will he cause scientific research to be made into the character of the disease with a view of discovering a preventative or cure?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Liver fluke is a parasitic disease commonly found on damp pastures in various parts of the country, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a leaflet on the subject issued by the Board. Arrangements have been made for the scientific investigation of diseases of this character at Birmingham University with the assistance of a Grant from the Development Fund.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that the destruction of snails is the best preventative of this disease?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman asks me a question as to the remedy for the disease, he must give me notice.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. MUNROasked the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of the House in discussing the Franchise and Registration Bill, he will arrange for the issue of a statement containing all the provisions of previous Acts of Parliament relating to the registration of voters which are not repealed by the Bill but which assume a new form in virtue of its provisions?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The information desired is contained in a return to an order in my name, dated 15th July last, Parliamentary Paper No. 252, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    Marconi Company.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the letter from Mr. Gerald Montagu to the Postmaster-General as to the circum stances in which certain Marconi shares were purchased by the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company for their Amsterdam correspondents, Wertheim and Gompertz; and if he can state in what manner the attention of Wertheim and Gompertz was called to the advantage of this particular investment?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have seen the letter referred to in the Press, otherwise I have no knowledge of these matters.

    Irish Land Act, 1903.
    Mr. GINNELLasked, in view of Section 47 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and of the promises of the Unionist Government in the Debates on that Act and of the Liberal Government in the Debates on the Land Act of 1909, that while Ireland should be held liable for the price of the land sold under those Acts, with interest, the bonus in excess of price should for historical and economic reasons be treated as an Imperial and not as an Irish charge, if the Prime Minister will say whether that policy is to be adhered to or reversed under the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can only endorse the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member on Monday last, that the Government are not aware of any promise that in the event of the establishment of Irish Home Rule this charge should not be regarded as an item of Imperial expenditure in respect of Ireland; but any evidence to that effect, and any other relevant consideration, can and will be taken into account when the legislation on the question of land purchase, which the Government have promised to introduce, is being framed and discussed.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the Debates on the Irish Land Bill, 1903, every
    1186
    section of this House treated the bonus as a free Grant distinct from the price of the land for which Ireland alone would be answerable; that the Section to which I have referred is consistent with that, and that the right hon. Member for Dover, who was in charge of that Bill, still holds that the bonus was intended to be an Imperial charge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    Public Buildings (Edinburgh).
    Mr. WHYTEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state the reasons which led the Advisory Committee to sanction the proposal to leave the design of the new Government buildings in Scotland in the hands of the officials of his Department; and whether he will state by what process an independent architect of high standing is to be selected?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The existence of an Architectural Department in the Office of Works involves the general principle that designs and plans should be prepared, as a rule, within that Department. The Committee examined the designs and model of the proposed buildings, and decided to ask for the advice of an architectural assessor. Sir Robert Lorimer has kindly consented to act in that capacity, and the Committee are now waiting his report.
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the final decision rest with the Committee or with this House?
    Mr. W. BENN: The responsibility for the design will rest with the First Commissioner of the Board of Works.
    Mr. WHYTE: When the Works Depart-partment was constituted was it not intended or works of a comparatively minor character?
    Mr. W. BENN: I should not like to say that is so; perhaps the hon. Member will give notice.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Has the First Commissioner the necessary amount of knowledge and experience to enable him to decide?
    Mr. PIRIE: Has he ever been in Edinburgh, or docs ho know anything about Scottish building and architecture?
    Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner took every step to ensure that this building shall in every respect be one worthy of the position and in consonance with Scottish opinion.
    Mr. PIRIE: But has he been in Edinburgh?
    Mr. W. BENN: I cannot say.
    Mr. PIRIE: Find out, then!
    Lord BALCARRES: What is the size of the model on which the Committee has come to this conclusion?
    Mr. W. BENN: I cannot say the exact size, but it is a considerable model. Hon. Members have been invited to inspect it. Perhaps the Noble Lord will do so.
    Lord BALCARRES: Were any full-sized drawings of the details submitted to the Committee in amplification of a small model of that size?
    Mr. W. BENN: The small model was not of the size indicated by the Noble Lord, but no doubt drawings did exist in the office.
    Mr. WHYTE: Was the independent architect chosen by the First Commissioner himself or called in by the Committee?
    Mr. W. BENN: I think the name was approved by the Committee and by the general consensus of public opinion.
    Mr. WHYTE: Was the selection left to the Committee in the first instance?
    Mr. W. BENN: That I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Edinburgh University buildings, the M'Ewan Hall, the Usher Hall, the Art Galleries, and the Scott Monument were all the fruit of open competition, and that the King Edward VII. Memorial at Holy-rood is to be open to competition among architects; and whether, therefore, in view of the fact that the proposed Government buildings on the site of the Calton Gaol will be the most important public building in Scotland, he will accede to the desire of the entire architectural profession to throw the designs of these buildings in the first instance open to public competition: and will he say how the small committee of four arrived at their decision that an open competition would be unnecessary, in view of the fact that they neither saw nor considered any alternative designs?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No doubt the facts stated by my hon. Friend as to other buildings are correct. I have just replied to the remainder of the question in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how this Committee of four arrived at the decision that this was the best design when they had only one design before them?
    Mr. W. BENN: The Committee decided this would be a good and suitable design, subject to the advice and assistance of Sir Robert Lorimer.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the hon. Gentleman will give the name of the independent architect of high standing who has been called in to assist the Advisory Committee in their examination of the designs for new Government buildings in Scotland: whether a fee will be paid to the architect in question; and whether the First Commissioner of Works has received any representations on the subject from associations of Scottish architects?
    Mr. W. BENN: As I have already stated, Sir Robert Lorimer has, at the request of the First Commissioner, consented to act, and he will be paid a fee for so doing. The First Commissioner has received representations on the subject from association of Scottish architects.
    Mr. HOGGE: What attitude does the First Commissioner of Works take up with regard to these representations?
    Mr. W. BENN: In so far as they fall in with the course he intends to take he approves of them.
    Mr. WHYTE: May I ask whether he has not since this question was put down seen representations from other and more important sources'?
    Mr. W. BENN: I am not aware of any formal communication to the Office of Works since the question was put on the Paper.
    Mr. LYELL: May I ask whether Sir Robert Lorimer is to give his opinion at present, or is he to act in consultation with the Office of Works throughout?
    Mr. W. BENN: He is to be in constant and unintermittent consultation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the First Commissioner ever been in Calton Gaol?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is to be the amount of the fees?
    Mr. W. BENN: That matter has not yet been decided.

    School of Oriental Languages.
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in connection with the conversion of the London Institution into a School of Oriental Languages, he will consider the possibility of making a new road from Finsbury Circus to South Place; and whether the construction of such a road would afford a suitable site for the School of Oriental Languages and at the same time, by appreciating the value of the property, help to meet the necessary charges?
    Mr. W. BENN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will lay his suggestion before the City Corporation. The construction bf a new road in the city would not be a matter for the First Commissioner to carry out.

    Darfield Urban District Council (Housing).
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the Report of the sanitary inspector of the Darfield Urban District Council regarding a house-to-house visitation made by him in the district; whether he is aware that thirty four-roomed houses are each occupied by two families, and that in 102 cases a proper division of the sexes cannot take place; and whether he will bring pressure to bear upon the council to provide adequate accommodation?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): A copy of this Report was received by the Board yesterday in response to a request made by them on the 20th December last, and the matter is receiving attention.

    Vaccination Notices.
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that on various public buildings in the parish of St. Marylebone, notice boards are being exhibited by the board of guardians purporting to deal with vaccination and re-vaccination, and citing the exemption provision of the Vaccination Act, 1898, but without any reference to the Vaccination Act, 1907; and whether he will
    1190
    direct the guardians to remove them at once as he promised to do in answer to a question on 1st August, 1911?
    Mr. BURNS: I have been in communication with the board of guardians, and am informed that the notice boards which were affixed to certain churches in the parish prior to July, 1911, have been removed.

    School Accommodation (East Sussex).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the average attendance at each of the Church of England schools at Copthorno and Crawley Down, parish of Worth, East Sussex, is larger than the recognised accommodation; and what steps are proposed to remedy the overcrowding of children in the schools?
    Mr. PEASE: In both the schools referred to the recognised accommodation was in excess of the average attendance for the last completed school year, which ended on the 31st May, 1912. A rearrangement of the accommodation in the Copthorne schools was suggested by His Majesty's Inspector in a report dated the 28th February, 1912, and on the 4th March the local authority reported that his criticism had been met.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) (1) whether it is certain that the lesions found in the heads shipped from Derry to Glasgow were those of foot-and-mouth disease; is he advised that they were certainly so, and not caused by the same disease that was discovered in the Armagh case; were the feet found of the cattle to which the heads belonged; and, if so, were they examined and with what result; and is he now in a position to remove the restrictions from North Fermanagh, South Donegal, and Derry city; and (2) when and where was the last authentic case of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland; are his officials and he himself satisfied that the supposed outbreaks of which the animals stopped at Birkenhead and the heads found at Glasgow were held to be evidence were, in fact, false alarms caused by over-precaution at the ports; and will he state the evidence as to the Glasgow heads as he did in reference to the Birkenhead cases traced to county Armagh?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The last confirmed outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred on the 7th November at Lynn, near Mullingar, county West-meath. The cattle stopped at Birkenhead, which were shipped from Newry and the three heads sent from Derry to Glasgow, presented appearances such as called for investigation. The Department's veterinary advisers consider that the conditions seen in the Glasgow heads and in the animals stopped at Birkenhead are the same as those shown by the Armagh eases, which are not cases of foot-and-mouth disease.

    Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911.
    Mr. RICHARDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the provision in Section 57 (3) of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911, prohibiting the employment of colliery enginemen for more than eight hours in any one day, has been put into operation; and, if not, will he state the reason for the delay?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As I have already explained, the objections which were received to the Draft Regulations have in pursuance of the Act to be referred to a referee, whose appointment rests with the Reference Committee under Section 117 of the Act. The formation of the panel of referees and the framing of the rules for the hearing of references have necessarily required some time, but I am informed that the arrangements are now nearly complete, and that the announcement of the name of the referee appointed to hold the inquiry may be expected in the course of a few days.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state what the business will be for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We propose upon Monday to take the last day of the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill. Upon Tuesday, the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill; and upon Wednesday and Thursday, the Third Beading of the Government of Ireland Bill.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that only one day is to elapse between the last day of the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the Bill be printed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  REPORT.— [Fifth Allotted Day.]
  As amended, further considered.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Powers of Irish Parliament with Respect to Taxation.)
  (1) The Irish Parliament shall have power to carry (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland, and to impose in Ireland any independent tax not being in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board substantially the same in character as an Imperial tax, subject to the following limitations:—

  (a) The Irish Parliament shall not have power to impose or charge a Customs Duty, whether an Import or an Export Duty, on any article unless that article is for the time being liable to a Customs Duty levied as an Imperial tax, and shall not have power to vary, except by way of addition, any Customs Duty levied as an Imperial tax, or any Excise Duty so levied where there is a corresponding Customs Duty; and

  (b) The benefit to accrue to the Irish Exchequer from any addition to any Customs Duty levied as an
  1206
  Imperial tax (other than a Customs Duty on beer or spirits), or to any duty of Income Tax so levied, or to any Death Duty so levied, shall be limited as in this Act provided; and

  (c) The power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax, so far as Income Tax (not including Super-tax) is concerned, shall only be exercised so as to alter the conditions under which any exemption, abatement, or relief from the tax may be granted to persons resident in Ireland without varying the rate of the tax, and, so far as any Customs Duty or any Death Duty is concerned, shall only be exercised so as to vary the rate of the duty without otherwise altering the provisions with respect to the duty, or discriminating that variation between persons, articles, or property, and where the duty is one of two or more correlated duties, or is a duty levied at a varying rate, shall not be exercised without varying proportionately all the correlated duties or all the rates of duty:

  (d) The power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax shall not be exercised with respect to the Stamp Duties mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act; and

  (e) The Irish Parliament shall not, in the exercise of their powers of taxation under this provision, make any variation of Customs or Excise Duties the effect of which will be to cause the Customs Duty on an article of a class produced, prepared, or manufactured in Ireland, to exceed the Excise Duty by more than an amount reasonably sufficient to cover any expenses due to revenue restrictions, or any variation of Customs or Excise drawbacks or allowances which would cause the amount of drawback or allowance payable in respect of any article to be more than reasonably sufficient, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, to cover the duty paid thereon, and any expenses due to revenue restrictions;

  and the power of the Irish Parliament to make laws includes a power to make laws for the purpose of giving effect to their powers of taxation under this provision.

  (2) For the purposes of this Act—

  (a) The expression "Imperial tax" means any tax charged for the time

  1207
  being in Ireland under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and includes a tax which has been discontinued under the powers given by this section to the Irish Parliament, but which would have been so charged but for the discontinuance;

  (b) The expression "Irish tax" means any tax charged under the authority of the Irish Parliament either by way of an addition to an Imperial tax or as an independent tax.

  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to propose, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland and to."
  We are now on the Report stage of this very large and complex measure, and this is the first and the only opportunity which this House will have of considering what is, apart from the Ulster question, admittedly on both sides of the House quite the most important part of this very large Bill, and that is that portion of it which deals with the future financial relations between the new Parliament and this. If I wanted to emphasise the Amendment I could do it by saying that probably the Government would never have brought in this Bill, and certainly hon. Gentlemen opposite would never have become Home Rulers and supporters of this Bill but for the belief they entertained that they could by this measure put an end to the long course of conflict which has gone on in this House of Commons and outside of it between ourselves and the representatives of Ireland, and to make with the representatives of Ireland an eternal treaty of peace. If that is the aim, and that is the aim, and certainly not an ignoble aim, of the Government and their supporters, I believe the Government ought to make sure that their financial provisions are likely to bring about an arrangement which will bring peace between the two Exchequers and the two Houses and the representatives of the United Kingdom and the different portions, and that the financial arrangements of this Bill are of such a nature that they will remove from this House the eternal conflicts which have gone on in this House, and will satisfy at all events for a considerable time the aspirations of the Irish people in matters of finance. But the very contrary is the case under this Bill. This measure will satisfy nobody so far as
  1208
  its finance is concerned. Neither of the partners will be contented; both will remain thoroughly dissatisfied. Instead of ending the quarrel so far as finance is concerned, there are in this arrangement, the germs of further quarrels, aggravated by the very settlement which the Government are trying to bring about. Nobody stands to gain by this Bill, except perhaps that there will be more Members of Parliament, more nominees of Members of Parliament, more officials, who are so dear to the heart of the present Government. Millions will lose money; a few hundreds or possibly a few thousands may gain a little. This Bill, from every point of view, so far as its finance is concerned, is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I do not claim to be an authority on the question; but I will quote some words of Lord Mac-Donnell, who is a most stalwart Liberal, a great financier, a man closely associated with the government of Ireland, and an undoubtedly great authority on the matter. This was Lord MacDonnell's New Year's message to the"Times":—
  "I feel bound to say that if the onerous and inadequate financial provisions of this Bill are enforced against Ireland, she will not cease to be a source of anxiety and weakness to the Empire, even after the establishment of Home Rule."
  What chance is there, then, of clearing this House of discussions on Irish finance? What chance is there of putting an end to the quarrel and conflict, which is the aim of the party opposite in proposing this Bill? Lord MacDonnell said further:—
  "It is disheartening that after so many centuries of guardianship England should send her poor sister forth to dree her weird,' maimed and impoverished."
  That is what the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to do. I think we ought to give a little time to the consideration of a Bill, the finance of which is so adversely criticised by such a great authority on finance. Unfortunately this is the only occasion on which on Report we can criticise the finance of the Bill at all. I propose to move an Amendment which will take away from the Irish Government the power to vary Imperial taxation, whether by increasing, reducing, or discontinuing it. In order to indicate the force of the Amendment, I must take a survey of the general provisions of the Bill. It sets up two separate Parliaments and two separate Exchequers, and the United Kingdom says to the Irish people, "We will collect your taxes for you; we will give you a certain amount of money with which to run Irish services; we will hand over to you, when you take over the reserved services, the amount of money

  1209
  which it actually costs us to run them at the time of handing them over. In addition to that, we will give you £500,000 per annum to start with. If you want any more money; if you want to carry out the promises which from time to time have been made by Home Rule agitators and Home Rule orators; if you want to make Ireland a new Heaven, you must do one of two things: you must either impose new and independent taxation upon Ireland, or vary Imperial taxes within certain limits. "Do not let us forget one very important fact, namely, that we have had it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of the very few speeches which he has condescended to make on the finance of this Bill, that it is the intention of future British Chancellors of the Exchequer to exercise all their old powers of taxation over Ireland. That is to say, if we are at war, or if there is any national emergency, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer will still be able to impose new taxation in Ireland, either by way of new taxes or by way of increasing old taxes.
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever condescended to be present I would like to ask him a question; but perhaps the Postmaster-General will take note of it, because it is a point which wants clearing up. The deficit of £1,500,000 a year has played a very great part in the finance of this Bill. The Postmaster-General has held out the hope that the deficit will gradually be wiped out by the increased yield of the present taxation in Ireland. Supposing some national emergency arose, such as a war, and new taxation was imposed, which raised the amount of revenue from Ireland to such a height that the deficit was wiped out; does the Bill contemplate that in the event of the deficit being wiped out in that way, say by three years of war taxation, under Clause 26 a revision would take place, that all the consequences of the wiping out of the deficit would ensue, and that Irish members would be brought over here in increased numbers to effect some new financial arrangement? That is a question worth asking, because it is not by any means an impossible situation. If this Bill had been an Act of Parliament prior to the South African war and the finance which that war occasioned, in all probability the deficit in Ireland would have been wiped out by the war taxation which we have had to endure, and Ireland would have been enabled to send over here, not only forty-two representatives, but a great many
  1210
  more—we do not know how many—who would have invaded this House of Commons, and might have upset first one Government and then another, and produced chaos in the government of this country. Mr. Gladstone found his In-and-Out Clause uncommonly difficult to work; in fact, he found it impossible. I venture to say that the problem of Mr. Gladstone's In-and-Out Clause was really child's play, so far as its solution was concerned, compared with Clause 26 which the present Government have devised to deal with the time which they think is likely to arrive, but which I do not, unless there is war taxation.
  4.0 P.M.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said not only that British Chancellors of the Exchequer would in future be able to tax Ireland in the event of national emergency, but also that it was certainly contemplated that Chancellors of the Exchequer in this House would move Budgets in which Ireland would be taxed for social services, social reforms, and matters of that kind. That, to my mind, was an extraordinary statement. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to hang a rope around his neck if he adopts this attitude. Supposing in course of time there is a general desire in this country that some active measures should be taken to provide more houses, particularly for our rural population, and that at the same time it is found possible, by perfectly sound finance, to give some substantial aid from the Imperial Exchequer towards building such houses, either for the rural population or for the people who now inhabit the slum areas of our towns. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say, "Now, the fairest way of raising money is to put a penny or twopence on the Income Tax" is the British Chancellor of the Exchequer to be debarred from financing some social reform or housing operation because, if he attempts to raise the money on the Income Tax here, he will also have to put on an addition to the Income Tax of the people in Ireland, who perhaps do not want his money for housing or any similar purposes? That, I think, really presents a very great difficulty indeed. If we are to raise money in Ireland for social reform, possibly we may be hindered from raising it in the proper way, because, after all, it may be that only England or Scotland desires a certain measure of social reform, and that the money should be spent in that particular way and for that particular object. Ireland might be perfectly

  1211
  satisfied with her housing arrangements. She has already had a good deal of money spent on labourers' cottages and matters of that kind. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer might say to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer: "No, thank you; you are dislocating the whole of my finances. I want to tax that area: that is an area of taxation which I am thinking of invading for Irish purposes." I think under this system of finance there is going to be an eternal conflict between the Chancellor of the Exchequer of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland.
  To come to this particular Amendment, I desire to take away the power which is given under the Bill to vary Imperial taxation. First of all, I notice in the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have almost dropped the idea of the possibility of Irishmen ever being able to reduce taxation. They have placed certain Amendments down on the Paper which minimises the powers which Irishmen shall have of reducing any of their taxes; therefore, I suppose, by leaving the thing much in its present position, what has to be contemplated is that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will use to a very considerable extent his powers of adding to the Imperial taxes. If not, I do not know why all this complicated machinery is to be set up. For my own part I think that the Irish Chancellor will be almost bound to use the powers that he has to add to the Imperial taxes. I believe the temptation will be there, and that the necessity will be there. After all, where is the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his money from? Let us visualise—as we were told yesterday—the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland. He will be constantly told by his supporters, particularly those who come from the South and West of Ireland, that they have all been promised that Ireland will become a new heaven and a new earth after Home Rule has been given. We heard something of this the other day from one of the hon. Members who sits for the City of Cork. He said:—
  "Have greatly magnified the great and good things which will follow Home Rule. We are creating exaggerated expectations. The average Irishman, as a result of the long course of oratory is a flamboyant character, believing that Home Rule will create a sort of heaven."
  That is the position which the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself in. There will, I suppose, be a King's
  1212
  Speech, and the King's Speech will contain probably many things that cost money. There will undoubtedly be demands for a better educational system. There will be demands for money for drainage purposes; probably for new harbours, and money for agricultural developments. All these things will require money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, "I have only two powers, the power of imposing new taxation on Irishmen"—that would not be popular—"and I have the power of varying Imperial taxation." I think that in all probability the Irish Chancellor will use the power of varying Imperial taxation—I will presently say why. I think the Irish Government will undoubtedly be tempted to raise money. Again let me quote Lord MacDonnell. In the same letter he said:—
  "It is, we are certain, idle to expect any immediate expansion of Irish revenue by the enforcement of economies in administration or the imposition of fresh taxation. Remember the first of these methods will be impracticable…. The present finances of this Bill will lead to the moral and material stagnation of Ireland."
  Where can they economise? We have often heard from the Postmaster-General and others that the Irish Government can effect great economies. I have never heard that from any Member sitting on these benches below. I heard the Leader of the Irish party only a night or two ago say there can be no economies for another generation. Lord MacDonnell himself gives the weight of his authority against the idea that any economy in Irish services can be expected. Where, then, can we look for economies? The right hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out that there may be economies in the transferred services—that is to say, when a transferred service like old age pensions, or the Royal Irish Constabulary, is transferred he will credit Ireland with the cost of that service to the English Exchequer, and, if Ireland likes to run that service on the cheap, that they will be able to save money in that way. That is not put in the Bill. You may look from corner to corner of the Bill, and you will not find any warrant for this very curious kind of finance—that we are giving to Ireland the same money which we have spent for certain purposes; handing it over to her without any condition that she should spend it for that purpose. That, I think, is most unsound finance. I believe—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong in the supposition—that the Irish Government can at any time call upon the British Exchequer to hand over the amount of money for old age

  1213
  pensions which it is costing our Exchequer at the time, and that they will take over the rights of the present possessors of old age pensions, and that they in future years will be able, as these old age pensioners die off, to apply that money for any other purposes which they consider of greater advantage to Ireland than the use of the money for old age pensions. I think that is so?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): That is right.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman says I am right. Again I must say that that is unsound finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quarrelling with the doctors of this country because ho says they want to make private arrangements with patients at the cost of the public. "I object," he says, "to your using the money in that way because there will be no control of the British Exchequer." The right hon. Gentleman has now, for the first time, become the champion of control by the British Exchequer of British money. But that is what it is proposed to do in this Bill. It is proposed to hand over a sum of money equivalent to that amount which we are paying for old age pensions, or which we spend on the Royal Irish Constabulary, to hand it over as a free sum to the Irish Exchequer; not to follow it at all, and not in the least to ask any questions as to the use of it; to hand over that sum without any control although it may mainly be drawn out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. I consider that a very great blemish indeed upon this Bill.
  The Irish Government will be driven to one of three courses. They will find themselves in want of money, and unable to fulfil any of those great expectations which have been held out to them by the Irish Leaders on many a platform. They will find they want money for social reform and other matters which we all desire to see done. They will be driven to one of three courses. They will send their forty-two representatives over here when parties are evenly balanced in this House, and they will bring up their forty-two-ton gun to bear on the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say, "Look here, it is quite impossible to go on under this financial arrangement; we are really starved, and all these great matters which we think ought to be developed in our country are starved for want of money. We hold the balance of power in this House, and unless you put into your Budget some new Grant
  1214
  for us, then most certainly we shall vote against you and turn you out." There will be no division of purpose in that case amongst the Irish Members. From whatever part the Irishmen will come they will all take the same view on that point. They will be unanimous in that case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, that may be very comforting for hon. Members below the Gangway on this side, but it is not very comforting for hon. Members who represent English constituencies. Again and again Irish Members will be in the position in which they will be able to extort from the British Chancellor of Exchequer more money for these purposes. I confess that to a certain extent they have my sympathy, for they will be worse off under this Bill than if they had stayed within the four corners of the Union. That is one course they may take.
  The second course is for them to impose new taxation. That power is in the Bill. They will be able to vary the taxation, and when I say vary I mean increase the Imperial taxation of Ireland. In what part of Ireland can they increase the Imperial taxes? There is only one part in Ireland, and that is Ulster. Quite apart from religious questions—as I have said more than once—if I were an Ulsterman I should be afraid of a measure of this kind, because I should feel that the Chancellor of Exchequer would find that there was really only Ulster to tax, and that places like Belfast, Londonderry, and flourishing cities of that kind were really the only possible sources out of which the Irish Chancellor could find the income necessary to satisfy the demands of the electors of the South and West of Ireland. That is what I think is very likely to happen. I object entirely to the Irish Government having this power of varying Imperial taxation. I object to it on very broad grounds. I object to it, first of all, because it strikes at the very roots of Imperial federal finance. There never was an instance, there is no instance, where a subordinate government of this kind—practically a provincial Government—can operate on Imperial and federal finance. That is the position in which the Irish Chancellor will be placed. He will be able to operate adversely to the Chancellor of Exchequer of the United Kingdom in the matter of Imperial taxation. Again, it will cause, as I say, a very great disturbance and a very great conflict between the two Treasuries. They will be always quarrelling, and these quarrels will be

  1215
  reflected constantly in this House of Commons. Surely—and this is perhaps the greatest objection of all—the Bill sets up a Customs barrier between these two countries.
  I think it was the learned Solicitor-General who said if the power were taken away from the Irish Chancellor of reducing taxation there would be no need for Customs barriers to be set up on this side of the Channel. I do not agree with that. I believe if there is any power given to vary at all, that Customs barriers must be set up on both sides of the Channel. To my mind that is one of the greatest blots in this Bill—the setting up of separate Customs barriers between England and Ireland. There is no instance, I believe, anywhere in the world of this, and I think the Postmaster-General has himself admitted as much. As to Customs and Excise, again, there is a whole provision in this Bill setting up the most extraordinary and elaborate machinery for carrying out this idea of Customs and Excise. I will say that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have improved Clauses of this Bill, that they have met us to a certain extent, that they have minimised objections which we made, but, after all, the very fact that the Irish Chancellor can vary taxation in this way, can add to it or reduce it, is bad. These powers, I say, have necessitated the most elaborate and complex machinery which has ever been framed; the machinery which is embraced in Clauses 16 and 17, and let me say that this House has never had any opportunity whatever, and never will have an opportunity of discussing the whole of the machinery which is so very complex and fantastic by which these powers over Customs and Excise may be carried out. Not five minutes has been spent in discussing these Clauses, and not five minutes are likely to be spent. But passing by for the moment the power this Clause as it stands gives, over Customs and Excise, let me impress upon the House the very grave importance of the powers that are given to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer under this Clause unless this Amendment is accepted. There will be power to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to vary the Super-tax, to add to the Super-tax in such a degree as would take away the whole of a man's income. Then again the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will have power, although he cannot vary the rate of the
  1216
  Income Tax, to vary the conditions of exemption and abatement attaching to Income Tax, and he can inflict enormous injury upon individuals in this class, and he can make the whole position of Irish citizens far more onerous in respect to Income Tax than the position of English or Scotch citizens.
  Here again, I think the minority have much to fear in that way, not because there is any rooted idea of doing them injustice, but because they will be the only people in Ireland who will find the money for the various development schemes, and most of the social reforms that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will demand. All these powers of dealing with Super-tax and of dealing with the variation in exemption and abatement, are not to be given to any other Chancellor; I do not believe they will be given to the Chancellor for England or for Scotland. We are beginning in a very bad way to build up a general, federal financial system, and we are starting federalism upon an unsound and an almost rotten basis. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, and those responsible for this Bill, are really exposing the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to temptation to commit those acts of injustice as is shown by the fact that they actually put into the Bill Amendments which prevent the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer from dealing with Death Duties unfairly as between different classes and different sources of income. They do insert a guard against that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, even if he had the will, will not be able to deal with the Death Duties in the way that will prejudice any particular class or that would prejudice those who draw their income from particular sources, but the Government will not give the same defence as regards Income Tax.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me as to what Amendment he refers?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: They are in the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer is prevented from differentiating in the case of Death Duties between different classes of persons and individuals who draw their income from one source of revenue or another.
  Mr. BUTCHER: It will be found in Subsection (c) of Clause 15.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes; here it is:—
  "The power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax, so far as Income Tax (not including Super-tax) is concerned, shall only be exercised so as to alter the conditions under which any exemption, abatement, or relief from the tax may be granted to persons resident in Ireland without varying the rate of the tax, and, so far as any Customs Duty or any Death Duty is concerned, shall only be exercised so as to vary the rate of the duty without otherwise altering the provisions with respect to the duty, or discriminating in that variation between persons, articles, or property."
  And there is a new Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, which says:—
  "The Irish Parliament shall not so vary a Death Duty as to impose the duty on the personal property (not being a leaseholder's or tenant's interest inland) of any person domiciled in Great Britain."
  There you have another protective Amendment. We have never been able to see why if it is necessary to guard the interest of people after death, why it is not equally necessary to guard them during their lives. If there is to be a disposition on the part of the Irish Chancellor to treat people's property unfairly after death, why should there not be likely to be the same temptation and disposition to treat different individuals unfairly during their life? I say that these powers are given by the Clause as it stands, but if my Amendment is carried they will be taken away from the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the minority in Ireland would, at all events, have one less fear and dread in connection with this Bill. One of the hon. Members for the City of Cork said the other day that this Bill will make an Irish Parliament a very costly luxury for Ireland. Yes, but it will make it not only a very costly luxury for Ireland but a very costly luxury for England and Scotland as well. To my mind not only are there risks of grave disorder in Ireland which will affect the credit of Ireland for a very long time, but the finances of this Bill lower the credit of Ireland and will put a stop to land purchase on the same favourable terms as land purchase has been carried out between landlord and tenant up to the present. It will arrest land purchase altogether; it will stop social and material reform, and for my part I do not believe
  1218
  it will for one moment do anything to relieve this House from any of the congestion of business by bringing about that peace and amity and good relations between the two parties. Quite the contrary; I believe that Debate after Debate of the most stormy character will take place in this House because the Irish Parliament will be dissatisfied with the arrangement of its financial conditions. In addition to all this Ireland will be stigmatised as the only country and as the only part of the United Kingdom that contributes nothing to Imperial taxation. This Bill will not produce amity, but will produce discord between the two Exchequers and the two Parliaments. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Redmond) the Leader of the Nationalist party said the other day, that if there was no Ulster question this Bill would go through by agreement. I tell him that if there had been no Ulster question this Bill would have been bitterly opposed, if only on account of its absolutely hopeless finances, and of the unsound character of the finances in the Bill viewed from every possible point of view, and from none more so than that it strikes at the root of federal finance and violates every single principle ever laid down in any country for the financial relations between two portions of the United Kingdom or Empire. For my part I would oppose this Bill if only on the ground of finance, because I believe its financial scheme is the most unsound of the financial schemes of any of the Home Rule Bills ever submitted to this House.
  Mr. AMERY: I wish to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, because I entirely agree with him in thinking that this scheme of finance is one which is bound to lead to friction and cannot possibly satisfy anyone. It is a system of finance that cannot possibly work because it bears no relation whatever to any conceivable constitutional scheme apart from this Bill. After all, finance is the framework, the skeleton of politics; a constitution can no more work with a financial scheme which does not correspond with it than the body of a living creature could work without its own skeleton. If the most skilful vivisectionist were to put the bony structure of a bulldog into the fleshy integument of a greyhound, does anyone suppose it would either fight or run, and the same applies to this miserable, bastard framework of finance. It is not federal finance; there is no scheme

  1219
  of finance such as this in any Federal scheme in the world. It certainly is not national; no nation would tolerate for a moment to be tied up with the red tape of this Bill. It is a finance of odds and ends; it is jumble sale finance; it is marine store finance. Let me take this very principle of variation that this Amendment seeks to get rid of. Here you have two Governments with ill-defined responsibilities, with interests that are bound to conflict ranging at will over the whole field of taxation. Here and there each Government is brought up either against the other by some absurd restriction, or against a new power set up above them both in the shape of the Joint Exchequer Board. The right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, in the optimism of his early speeches, assured us that this was a system of finance in which each side was absolutely unfettered and uninterfered with by the other. He said, "the action of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer will not in any way affect the action of the Home Rule Chancellor," and again, he said, "the Irish Chancellor's finance will not be swung round by the movement of Imperial finance, a consideration which I think is of prime importance."
  Just let us look at any single item in this Bill. Take a single item like tea; if we have a 5d. duty here, Ireland may have a halfpenny; if we have a 3d. duty here they cannot have a half-penny. If we have a 3d. duty, obviously Ireland is more capable of bearing them a 2d. duty, but if we have an Imperial duty of 5d. in Ireland, obviously it will be a very useful source of revenue to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not allowed to impose it. Take another item. Supposing the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes some new tax, what is to be the situation if that proves to be a useful tax and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to impose it, has the British Chancellor of the Exchequer to refrain from imposing it in Ireland? In other words, has he to limit the scope of his finance, to limit the hope of ever putting an end to that deficit of which we have had so many doubtful optimistic promises? Or, if not, is he going to impose it regardless of what the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer has done? If he does, there is first of all the question, whose tax comes first? If the Irish Chancellor has taxed that article up to the limit it will bear, then if the Irish Chancellor comes first British revenue can get
  1220
  nothing out of it, but if British revenue gets priority then the tax becomes useless and valueless to the Irish Chancellor. He is knocked out of his tax, and he has got to find a new source of revenue.
  This question of priority is very important, and to that again we have never had an answer. Are we to understand that United Kingdom taxation is to be always prior to Irish taxation, and is always to get the first cut off the joint as it were, and the Irish taxation is simply to be a surplus after we have ascertained what the British tax brings in? Or is priority to depend on time? If so is it a question of who puts on the tax first or who first gives notice as to whether the tax is to be put on? Are we going to have both Chancellors of the Exchequer putting down blocking notices of taxes in order to prevent the other putting them on? It is an extraordinarily difficult question as to what really is the yield of an Irish or a British tax. We have had it made clear more than once that we must first calculate what would be the yield if the tax were imposed in Ireland as in Great Britain, and then the remainder is differentiated. That is difficult enough in one year, but take the case where the Irish Government has remitted a tax for many years. In that case how can you calculate what would be the yield to-day in Ireland of an Imperial tax taken off ten years ago. All the circumstances may change, and the very taking off of the tax might alter the habits of the Irish people.
  Supposing the Irish Government considers the Excise Duties are much too high and decides to reduce them, and after a time the Excise Duties yield actually increases. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer may point with pride to the result of his wise finance and claim the increase as his, whereas the Joint Exchequer Board might say, "No, that tax was temporarily hit by bad trade and by the first imposition of the greater duties. Gradually, in any case, there would have been a very greatly increased yield owing to good trade to-day, and the Irish people, getting accustomed to these duties, and so far from having increased the yield of these duties, you have diminished them, and that money we shall have to take off the Transferred Sum." Is that a sort of proceeding likely to lead to harmony when you are working on such a hypothetical basis? This is no new finance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is very like the sort of land valuation finance we have had,

  1221
  based on certain imaginary values in the year 1909, and twenty years hence different portions of the Joint Exchequer Board will be wrangling over the imaginary yield of the taxes of 1913 or 1915, which may all have disappeared in the interval. That is one consideration which compels us to believe that this Bill cannot work with regard to its financial provisions, and can only lead to friction. Since this financial scheme has been introduced it has been very considerably modified by the declarations of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The scheme of the Postmaster-General, as he first expounded it, had a certain superficial attractiveness, and it was a scheme under which the Irish Government, starting with a fixed sum, were to make economies out of that fixed sum for its own profit, and it could add to that sum by taxation in Ireland. Meanwhile the revenue of the United Kingdom was to go on unaffected. If we raised more revenue out of Ireland, it was to go to the reduction of the deficit. To use his own words, "It is the very central point of the scheme that all normal increases in revenue should go into the Imperial Exchequer." That is the scheme as first expounded. At a later stage my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out as an objection which would at once be raised in Ireland, that to the extent, that you impose new revenue for the sake of some domestic expenditure in Great Britain, you will be taxing the Irish taxpayer. For example, if you spend more money on education in England, Ireland will have to pay more. If you increase the wages of postmen in England, Ireland is told to make economies by reducing its postmen's wages is to help to pay for it. That is the objection suggested by my right hon. Friend. I do not know what answer the Postmaster-General might have given to that argument if he had been on the spot. He might argue that as long as there is an Irish deficit, the Irish have no business to raise questions of this kind. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, on this point, rose and cheerfully said that of course it would be a gross injustice to levy a duty in Ireland for the specific- purpose of domestic reform in England. I fancy that at once put the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's financial scheme in the soup, and it was at once made clear that, after all, our taxation is not levied definitely for this or that purpose. Therefore it is not possible to remit a specific tax in Ireland
  1222
  or reduce a specific tax because its product is ear-marked for domestic reform in England. The right hon. Gentleman, seeing that difficulty, went on to suggest that it would not be necessary to alter the uniform taxation of the United Kingdom but that it might be done in some other form of equivalent Grant might be made to Ireland, and so we have as a kind of new embroidery for this system of equivalent Grants. In the case of every new expenditure of Great Britain in the future we have got to have some equivalent Grant made to Ireland.
  Then comes the question of the authority which has to settle this matter as to what is domestic expenditure. That is by no means easy to define. Are shipping subsidies domestic expenditure or United Kingdom expenditure? I venture to say that every Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will hold that subsidies in the case of shipping lines from Southampton to Australia are an expenditure which benefit England and do not benefit Ireland. Take, as another example, the case of land purchase in Ireland. We have incurred vast responsibilities in regard to land purchase in Ireland. If we incur any responsibilities for land purchase in England in the future, will that be treated as a purely English expenditure, and will any allowance be taken for the fact that we have done so much in this respect for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that all such questions as these should be left to the House. I wish to know who is to decide what is an Imperial expenditure or a domestic expenditure, and who is to decide the amount of the equivalent Grant. The right hon. Gentleman said the House can decide, and of course it can. Would it not have been better for him to have said, "There is no financial scheme for Ireland, and (he House can from time to time decide what money it likes to pass over." I think it is treating this House with contempt to leave great financial questions of that sort to the temporary decision of any chance-majority actuated by the influences of the moment. I would like to ask if you are going to keep on raising the revenue in Ireland and not use it for extinguishing the deficit, but for giving equivalent Grants to Ireland in this way, when are we likely to come to the end of this period of deficit? That is one change which the right hon. Gentleman has been forced to accept. There is another question which has been attracting attention

  1223
  from the very first, and it is the extraordinary provision under which the Irish Government is allowed to modify Customs and Excise Duties. The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that this provision required defending, and what was his defence of it? He said:—
  "I think it is essential, if the Irish Parliament is able to effect economies, that it should be free to reduce whatever taxes they choose, and especially that they should be in a position to reduce those taxes which press most heavily upon the poor classes, namely, the Customs and Excise."
  He went on to say:—
  "It is a contingency which ought to be avoided, that this Parliament should deliberately say to the Irish Parliament, 'Govern your country as economically as you can; make whatever sacrifices you choose, but you shall never be allowed to raise taxes which press most heavily on your poor people."
  On the 17th of October the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "It was an impossible proposition to tell the Irish Government that it might not reduce the burdens on their people."
  He was referring specifically to tea and sugar. Under pressure from certain hon. Gentlemen behind, the right hon. Gentleman dropped the idea that Customs Duties might be reduced. The Irish can now only increase them, and he has to find an entirely new justification and excuse for his policy. The point I should like particularly to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the attention of the House to is, What is the effect of these two concessions taken jointly? You got rid of what the right hon. Gentleman at one time considered quite essential, namely, the power of the Irish Government to reduce the taxes on the poor, and you also embark upon a system by means of which you force upon the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer additional equivalent Grants for the taxation imposed in Ireland by this Parliament. Practically you give the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer money which he does not want, and which he may not know how to spend, and you do not allow him to reduce the only tax that is really in the interests of the people of Ireland to reduce. This is a system which by an extraordinary flight of humourous eloquence the right hon. Gentleman describes as "a Bill adjusting Irish finance to Irish needs." This is a system which is to get rid of the evils which the Prime Minister described as "a system under which it is to no one's interests to be economical." Is it to the interests of the Irish Government under this new system to be economical? I fancy it is not. I think under this new system
  1224
  you will have more extravagance and more waste than hon. Gentlemen opposite have ever anticipated from the existing system. This is a system which, as my right hon. Friend reminded the House, is utterly opposed to the fiscal unity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues again and again in general language ask us to point to a Clause which specifically gives protection. I think, taking the whole Bill, it is possible for the Irish Government to introduce protection against this country, and, what is more, the Bill makes it practically imperative upon the Irish Government, in view of all the other restrictions imposed upon them, to try and do something to protect their interests against this country. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Unionist party pointed out as regards drawbacks that the Irish Government is capable of giving considerable protection. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) pointed out the differentiation between the duties on raw materials and finished goods, in which he showed that there is room for great protection. More than one Member has pointed out that the combination of the power to vary Customs and Excise and the power to grant bounties does, in fact, give a power of protection, unlimited protection almost, to Ireland against this country. The right hon. Gentleman says this power to give a bounty has no relation whatever to the power of dealing with Customs and Excise. He says the two have no connection whatever. I do not know what he means. The two have a close connection, and the combination of the two does invest the Irish Government with very formidable powers. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee pointed out that the Irish Government's finances are limited. For instance, they could not impose bounties in favour of the boot trade, because they would not have the money. That is quite true. If the Irish Government had only its surplus revenue to rely upon for bounties, the effect of any bounty might not be very great, but it is the very fact that the Irish Government can use bounties in combination with an increase of Customs and Excise Duties that gives a real and even a drastic form of Protection.
  I gave an instance to which the right hon. Gentleman attempted no reply whatever, and which I feel bound to give again. It is a concrete instance, taken from the present state of the tariff. It will be within the power of the Irish Parliament, under

  1225
  this Bill, to add 6d. to the Customs and Excise Duty on tobacco, raising it from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 2d. They would By that raise a sum of revenue approximating to £200,000, of which, under the 10 per cent. rule, they would, I think, be able to retain £170,000. I dare say they could afford to add £30,000 out of their own pocket, making £200,000, which would enable them to give a shilling bounty to 2,000,000 lbs. of Irish-grown tobacco. What would be the position of the Irish tobacco manufacturer? He would nominally pay an Excise Duty of 4s. 2d., but he would get a bounty of Is., and in effect he would be paying an Excise Duty of 3s. 2d., while his British and foreign competitor would have to pay a Customs Duty of 4s. 2d. on getting into Ireland. If that is not Protection, I do not know what is. What is the position of that same Irish manufacturer when he exports his protected tobacco into England? He gets a drawback on the nominal Excise Duty. He therefore gets a drawback, not on 3s. 8d., but on 4s 2d.—having, in fact, paid an Excise Duty of 3s. 2d., he gets a drawback on the higher scale. In practice, his tobacco will only have paid 2s. 8d. when it comes into the British market, whereas raw tobacco and English-grown tobacco will have to pay 3s. 8d. That is enough not only to give protection to Ireland, but to dislocate the tobacco industry of this country and to compel this country, if there were no other reason, to impose a tariff against Irish tobacco. When we suggested that possibility, the right hon. Gentleman said that after all there were means of retaliation open to this country. In other words, he thinks, as the obvious result of his financial scheme, we shall be bound to put up a Customs barrier on this side of St. George's Channel, as well as on the other side.
  That is an article where there is both Customs and Excise, but what about articles where there is a Customs Duty and no Excise Duty, as at present in the solitary case of sugar? There is a provision, paragraph (e) I believe, which says the Irish Government cannot take any action which would cause the Customs Duty to exceed the Excise Duty. But where there is no Excise Duty you cannot say the variation of the Customs Duty causes the Customs Duty to exceed the Excise Duty. If the Irish Government were to lower the Customs on sugar or to increase the Customs on sugar, could anyone say they caused it to exceed the Excise, when there never
  1226
  was any Excise? The effect of this will be infinitely greater when the time comes, as it is bound to come, when the United Kingdom has a tariff on a great many articles without a corresponding Excise. Will not every article give the Irish Government power to protect their own industries and vary the whole Customs of the United Kingdom, and will not that fact be a constant inducement to Irish Members in this House to press for such a change? We on this side may welcome that, but, at any rate, it will be to the interest of Ireland if this measure goes through to see we get some sort of tariff which taxes as many articles as possible, because that will give the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer the greatest amount of freedom with regard to his own revenue. I wish most seriously to call attention to another omission in the Bill. It is a point which has never been answered. This Bill undoubtedly does not allow a differential Excise on articles where there is a Customs Duty. But where there is no Customs Duty there is nothing whatever to prevent the Irish Government from imposing an Excise Duty on the sale of goods. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Irish Government constructing a complete Protectionist system by imposing Excise Duties on the sale of British manufactured goods. It can trace those goods easily enough through the Customs House, which, thanks to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), is going to be so effective. The only attempt the right hon. Gentleman made to answer me was that the Irish people would not be so foolish as to tax the woollen cloth worn by the poor people of Ireland in order to protect the Irish industry. That may be his notion of folly. It is the notion of good sense of every other country in the world, and I do not credit the Irish people with a double dose of original virtue or a double dose of original wisdom. I think they are intelligent enough, if they have an industry they value, to use any means they can to protect it.
  This is to be the starting point of a federal system ! We are to have a United Kingdom Budget which is to be merely the hypothetical basis on which the four Chancellors of the different Governments are going to work for the framing of their own tariffs and their own revenue. It is a truly inconceivable system. What is the alternative? Are you going to have this system in Ireland and a normal federal system as between England, Scotland, and

  1227
  Wales? You might then, for instance, have the Income Tax a provincial or State source of revenue. Are you going to have the United Kingdom Parliament imposing a United Kingdom Income Tax in Ireland which will not be imposed in England, Scotland, and Wales, where they have a provincial Income Tax? On the other hand, will you have the Irish members voting to settle the United Kingdom tariff which the Scotch and Welsh members cannot change, but which they can change as much as they like? The whole scheme is absolutely preposterous and unworkable, because no honest attempt has ever been made to adapt it and to fit it in to any constitutional idea whatever. It is not federal finance, and still less is it national or separatist finance. I have a great deal of sympathy, though I do not agree, with people like Mr. Childers and the Select Committee the right hon. Gentleman appointed, who say Ireland is suffering from a real want of responsibility and of independence, and that if you only threw Ireland on her own resources, though she might have to pass through difficulties, she would come out of them strengthened with new fibre which would bring new prosperity in its train. That is not the finance of this Bill, and none of the arguments in favour of Home Rule which rest on that idea of strengthening the fibre of Irishmen can be urged to justify this scheme. This is a scheme which can only destroy the independence and the good sense both of English and of Irish financiers and of English and Irish people. It is not federal finance or separatist finance or Unionist finance; it is just jumble-sale finance.
  Mr. LOUGH: The Government made great efforts in Committee to satisfy some criticisms of this kind, and one would have thought they would have received a little gratitude, but we have had the most bitter, and I might say the most venomous attack on the finance of the Rill. I mention that as a warning to my right hon. Friend. The scheme has not all its original merits, but I hope at least it will be preserved to us in its present state and that no further concessions will be made in answer to the demands to which we have been listening. One would think to hear hon. Members opposite that everything was going on nicely with regard to Irish finance, that this House has no cause of complaint, and that a wicked Irish Government was coming in to carry desolation
  1228
  into a fair and prosperous scene. Take the cases mentioned by the hon. Member who has just sat down. He instanced the case of sugar, and said there could be no Excise Duty and therefore it could not be said the Irish Government could cause the Customs Duty to exceed the Excise Duty. The Government have already provided for that. Where a Customs Duty is levelled there must be a corresponding Excise Duty. The hon. Member is prejudiced by a superficial knowledge of affairs in Great Britain. I mention this matter of sugar because it is such a plain and elementary case. Every child is getting familiar with the great example that is going on before our eyes to-day. The manufacture of beet sugar has commenced in England, and it is being made without any Excise Duty being paid upon it. That is a defect in our law. The people round about Norwich engaged in the industry are having a grand time until the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets his eye upon them. It is an anomaly we have got in Great Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes in and prevents any leakage of that sort in Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman instead of showing the least gratitude makes it a ground of still further attack upon the sound system embodied in the Bill. Take his example of tobacco. He proved that all sorts of wicked things would be done in Ireland. He said a bounty would be given on Irish grown tobacco. Who would have thought that under the British Parliament anything of that sort had been tried? That last Conservative Government gave a direct cash bounty of something like 1s. a pound on tobacco. My right hon. Friend found himself unable to deal with it, and it has been given by this Parliament. One would think hon. Members opposite would be ashamed to mention these cases. They are mere illustrations of bad finance under the British Parliament. Take another case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hayes Fisher), because I must accuse him of being just as bitter as the hon. Member who seconded. He did not thank my right hon. Friend for what he had done.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I did give him just a little thanks.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGH: He gave him just one little teaspoonful of thanks for something which I think it would have been better if he had left undone. Generally speaking, the

  1229
  right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly irritable. Take the point he made just before he sat down. He said, Ireland will make no Imperial contributions. The aim of the Bill is to get back to the contribution period. But I would ask, is there any period of contribution, or any prospect of one in Ireland, unless this Bill comes into operation? Of course not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham has laid elaborate arguments before this House. The Amendment he proposed will go far, I think, to destroy the usefulness of this financial scheme, which, I would venture to remind the House, is a complete scheme as it stands now, and it would wreck it. The scheme has been most carefully built up, and I think if it had been carried through the House in the form in which it was originally presented, without yielding to Amendments which have evoked very little gratitude, it would have been a credit to those who drafted it. The Amendment proposes to strike out the words, "The Irish Parliament shall have power," to add to, or reduce, or discontinue any Imperial tax. That is how the Bill stood. I wish that the Irish Parliament had full power to do as it liked with taxation as long as the affairs of Great Britain were treated with fairness by them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham thought that the finances here might be affected by the changes made in Ireland. It is not so. They cannot be affected. The revenue of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be touched by any reduction made in Ireland. Any such reduction must be made purely at the expense of Ireland herself. That is provided for most strictly in the Bill. Yet the hon. Member does not recognise it. He said that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer of the future might give away things at the expense of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is quite contrary to the idea of the Bill.
  This particular provision in the Bill, that the Irish Parliament should have power either to abolish or raise or reduce any tax, has already been dealt with. It has been taken up, not only by hon. Members opposite, but by some misguided hon. Members on this side of the House. The Irish Parliament is not to have power to reduce the Customs Duties. I deplore that very much. I do not believe there is a people in the world who love taxes being reduced more than the Irish. Nothing
  1230
  would make the Irish Parliament so popular as a reduction of taxation, and I believe very strongly that when Irishmen get control of their own affairs they will find means of doing that. What harm would it have been to this House if it had left the scheme perfect in that respect, as long as it provided that the reduction should be made only at the expense of Ireland? From that point of view I cannot see why the Bill should not have been left in its original shape. It comes into work at once, but only provisionally. You can better the scheme after a certain period, when equilibrium is restored, in three years. If Irishmen have any sense they will do that a great deal sooner than hon. Gentlemen opposite think. Every inducement is given by the Bill to the Irish Parliament to establish the equilibrium, and that will be hastened by the provision that the Irish cannot reduce taxation. It will bring nearer the day when the equilibrium will be restored between the two countries. The provision clearly indicates that when that day comes and proper provision is made Irishmen will have full power over their own affairs. That goes far to mitigate my hostility to the concession made by my right hon. Friend. I think I may say that the Bill remains, as far as principle goes, very much in the shape in which it was first presented to this House. It is a most excellent scheme from that point of view. I believe if my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, who has a certain, a considerable, amount of financial ability, would give particular attention to the principles on which this scheme is founded instead of picking out details in it, he would recognise that it has very considerable merit.
  The first principle is that accounts shall be taken between the two countries. Is not that just? This Parliament has been trying for twenty years to do that, and this Bill will make it possible for an account to be taken. The second principle is that Ireland shall get, as was given in this Clause, limited rights to alter her taxation. They are very limited rights, but she has the right. Anyone who has listened to the long arguments we have had in this House for years on financial relations, must know that that is the least any Home Rule Bill could give. The third principle is that Ireland will gain by any economy she can make, and eventually she will gain full control over her financial affairs. The fourth principle is that in due time Ireland will gain complete fiscal autonomy. But she can only do so by

  1231
  making an Imperial contribution. These are the principles embodied in the Bill. The financial scheme runs through fifteen Clauses in the Bill, and I have never heard one of these principles attacked.
  Sir E. CARSON: We have attacked every one of them in Ireland.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am not making any complaint of the non-attendance of the right hon. Gentleman generally in these Debates—
  Sir E. CARSON: Of course, I have only strolled in occasionally.
  Mr. LOUGH: But if the right hon. Gentleman had been here this afternoon he would have heard something with regard to the particular principles on which are based the financial scheme; he would have learned that they were attacked on all sorts of inaccurate details, such, for instance, as the sugar illustration which was put before the House this afternoon, and he would have realised that the principles of the Bill had been untouched. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham mentioned a letter by Lord MacDonnell, who, he said, is a great financial authority, attacking the scheme. I have the same fault to find with the letters from Lord MacDonnell as I had with the speech of my right hon. Friend. Lord MacDonnell keeps finding fault with Government schemes, but he does not propose on his side any complete or watertight scheme which could be put in its place. The only thing I can understand from his letters is that evidently the large Grants are not given under it. Lord MacDonnell wants Grants, and some Irishmen, no doubt, are content to take Grants. In this matter great sums are being given by the House to Ireland. The Bill may be effective in respect of land purchase. I do not think the scheme does full justice to the necessities of Ireland in that respect. But we had an answer to-day from the Prime Minister which shows that that point will be considered in due time by the Government. As far as the land is concerned, that is a reserved service. We have heard from the Prime Minister it is one of the questions that will come up to be dealt with at some future time, and then will be the opportunity for considering—the right hon. Gentleman used very wide words—any proposals that may be put forward for more liberal treatment towards Ireland. We have looked at the
  1232
  scheme of the Bill as drafted. That scheme of Grants means a mere continuation of the bad system of the past. It would never lead Ireland to effect economies or take grip of her own affairs or realise the dignity and strength of a nation. The Bill endeavours to bring order out of chaos. It endeavours to take up a scheme to deal with a system which is as bad as it can possibly be, and to apply the principles I have mentioned to it, and, on the whole, I believe the effect will be excellent both for Ireland and for Great Britain. I do not think there was very much in the long speech we heard from the right hon. Gentleman that needs any answer. He spoke about forty-two hungry Irish Members claiming better financial treatment for Ireland. What matters forty-two Irishmen? Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of them? Are there not 103 here now? Have they ever succeeded in getting even fair financial treatment? My object in speaking tonight is to appeal to my right hon. Friend not to make this Clause any worse than it is at present. The right hon. Gentleman with great ingenuity has pounced on certain words. I want as much liberty as possible to be left to the Irish Parliament. We have this vital word at the end, "Provided"(a), (b), and (c), etc. These are the limitations already existing in the Bill. I would beg my right hon. Friend not to go any further. I appeal to him to stick to the framework of the Bill as originally produced, a framework which I believe will be of great use to Ireland.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), but I am not quite certain that I thoroughly understand all the arguments he advanced. I understood him to commence his speech by saying that all the principles in the Bill with regard to finance were excellent. He then enumerated the principles, all of which he described as being good. Then, to my astonishment, in the last words he used, which I took down, he appealed to his right hon. Friend not to make the Clause any worse. He alluded to the word "provided," which he said was a fatal word. How does he reconcile that with his previous statement that this particular Clause and the Financial Clauses in general were excellent. He seemed to think that my hon. Friends on this side who disagree with the Clause and are supporting the Amendment, and who have some little

  1233
  knowledge of finance, really did not know as much as himself, that their opinion was not worth considering, and that his misguided Friends behind him, who had caused alterations to be made in the Bill, were even worse than my hon. Friends on this side of the House. He talked about my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) having the effrontery to do certain things; but he himself had the effrontery to say that he hoped, the Clause would not be made worse, and that certain fatal words would not be added. I suppose that, like the postscript of a lady's letter, the real meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was in the end, and that what he really believes is that the Amendment is right, that the Clause is bad, but that he does not like to say so too openly to his right hon. Friend and his fellow Members on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said the finance is going to be all right, because in a certain time equilibrium is going to be established. When does the right hon. Gentleman think that equilibrium is coming? From my knowledge of the party below the Gangway, and I have sat in the House a great number of years with them, although, no doubt, they have many excellent qualities, they have not financial wisdom to any great degree. My belief is that the finances of Ireland, which are not in a very good state at the present moment, will be far worse when hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have control over them. Consequently, the sanguine spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman looks forward to the establishment of an equilibrium is not likely to be rewarded in the near future.
  I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that there was to be an Imperial contribution, which he seemed to think an excellent thing. I suppose he was alluding to the £2,000,000 which Great Britain will have to pay to Ireland. I do not think that is an excellent thing. If we are to give Home Rule to Ireland we should not be called upon to put our hands in our pockets for what we on this side of the House regard as a wrong policy. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we need not be afraid of forty-two Irish Members in this House. He asked, "What are forty-two Irish Members? Have we not had 103 Irish Members in this House for a great many years, and what have they done?" The right hon. Gentleman must be laughing at us. What have
  1234
  the Irish Members done? They have captured the Radical party, of which the right hon. Gentleman is such an ornament, and they have told him and his leaders on the Front Bench what they are to do; they have led the Radical party for the last four or five years, and have initiated the whole of their policy. Is that nothing? The right hon. Gentleman knows that forty-two Members can do a very great deal, and that it is not necessary to have a very large number of Members in this House provided they are united and are capable of making speeches on necessary occasions and voting together in the Lobby. No one can deny that hon. Members below the Gangway are quite capable in that direction. I will endeavour now to approach the Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman, if he will excuse me for saying so, did not seem to approach at all. He gave us a disquisition on the principles of the Bill which had nothing to do with the Amendment, and ventured to suggest that no one had contradicted them. I should be perfectly willing to respond to that challenge if I thought it would be in order to do so, but I prefer to limit my few remarks to the actual Amendment before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think it is time to do that. The only hon. Member of the party opposite who has spoken certainly did not devote his remarks to the Amendment.
  The Amendment is designed to prevent the Irish Parliament from varying any Imperial tax. I ask hon. Members below the Gangway whether they attach much importance to these words? According to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Clause has been made worse since the Bill was introduced. The effect of the Clause as it now stands is to prevent the Irish Parliament reducing taxation, except possibly in the case of the Super-tax and Death Duties. So far as the Super-tax is concerned, the reduction can only be made if the Super-tax is not part of the Income Tax. I am not a lawyer, but my recollection is that the Super-tax has been held to be part of the Income Tax. I am not sure that that was not done in the case of Mr. Bowles. If that is so, then the Super-Tax cannot be reduced. I am not quite sure whether I am right, but in any event the Super-Tax does not amount to much in Ireland, so it does not very much matter. Therefore, the only tax which can be reduced if these words are left in is the Death Duties. The Death Duties in Ireland do not yield a very large amount. Therefore, I do not quite see what value

  1235
  the retention of these words has for the party below the Gangway. I suppose they desire that the words shall be in in order to draw attention to the fact under Home Rule they may increase Imperial taxes, but cannot reduce them. So far as British Members are concerned, surely it is better that the control of Imperial taxes in Ireland should remain in our own hands. I do not know what opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds upon this point. I should like to ask him on what ground he thinks he will gain, if he keeps control of the Imperial taxes in Ireland, by the retention of these words?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): To what words does the hon. Baronet refer?
  Sir F. BANBURY: To the words proposed by the Amendment to be left out—
  "To vary either by way of addition, reduction or discontinuance and Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland."
  If those words are left out, the only power of reduction will be in regard to the Death Duties. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a supporter of the Bill, if the Exchequer Board are to administer the Imperial taxes in Ireland, what does he think he is going to gain by the inclusion of these words? Would it not be much easier for him if the whole of the administration and the levying of Imperial taxes in Ireland were under his own control? What advantage is there for Ireland or for England in retaining these words? I cannot see what advantage there is for Ireland. The only advantage they will get is by way of reduction. I presume that one of the advantages of a Home Rule Bill is to give Ireland powers of levying taxation. We have always been told that Ireland is too heavily taxed. I have endeavoured to point out that under this Clause the only taxation they can reduce is the Death Duties. Therefore, in fact, all that these words do is to give the Irish Parliament power to raise the taxes, and not to decrease them. I want to know, first of all, what Ireland is going to gain; and, secondly, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to gain by the inclusion of these words in the Bill. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington is not in the House, because he might say I had some little knowledge of finance. I do not want to claim
  1236
  even so much as that, but I have found during my business experience that if you are going to manage a thing, you had better manage it yourself, and not have somebody else in who also has a finger in the pie. What we are doing now is to put a considerable amount of power in the hands of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer Board, while we are allowing hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to put their finger into the pie in such a way, that while it cannot help them, it may injure us. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inform us whether he really thinks it is necessary to adhere to these words.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Baronet referred to the very able speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), and said he had criticised the Clause as being made worse by Amendments which have been made. It is quite clear to hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope to hon. Members on the other side, that what my right hon. Friend meant was that he supported the financial proposals of the Government, but that he was sorry that owing to certain exceptions taken on this side of the House that sonic of the liberties and powers which were granted to Ireland in the Bill, as originally introduced, have now been circumscribed. I think he was perfectly consistent when he said that he hoped that the Clause would not be made still worse by this Amendment being carried, and by these powers being still further circumscribed. I am sorry the hon. Baronet did not understand that, and I hope I have made the matter quite clear. My right hon. Friend supports most loyally and enthusiastically the financial proposals of the Government, and, in fact, would go even further, and would not circumscribe them, as has been done. I, like my right hon. Friend, was very much disappointed with the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. There was nothing of a constructive character in their proposals. Their criticism was largely composed of strong epithets. The only tangible proposal, as far as I have been able to gather, which has been suggested, was made, I think, a week or two ago when the united support of the Opposition was given to the proposal to cut Ulster out of this Bill. Some reference has been made by the Mover of the Amendment to the effect on Irish credit of this measure of Home Rule. I appeal to

  1237
  the hon. Baronet. Surely, if this proposal that Ulster should be out out of the Bill had been carried, he -would much rather lend money to a united Ireland than to a separate province, like Ulster, or to the rest of Ireland if Ulster were cut out. When you come forward with such a proposal which is of a destructive character, when you criticise this Bill as likely to damage Irish credit, if you are to cut Ulster out of the Bill, if you were to have a disunited Ireland, you would neither benefit Ulster, a small province which would be quite unable to borrow and therefore quite unable properly to develop her resources as if she were united to the rest of Ireland, and certainly you would prejudice the rest of Ireland if you cut Ulster out.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member think that if Ulster is united against her will to the rest of Ireland she can borrow money more cheaply?
  Mr. D. MASON: That is hardly a fair question. What I am suggesting is that if you were to cut Ulster out, as was suggested, the hon. Baronet knows very well that Ulster would not be in a position to borrow as well as if she were a part of a united Ireland. That is surely a self-evident proposition. The Mover of the Amendment devoted considerable length to this question of credit and the effect which this Bill would have upon the credit of Ireland. May I offer an illustration? It is not quite a parallel case, but, for instance, when Cuba was severed from Spain that did not have an adverse effect upon the credit of Cuba. On the contrary, it benefited both Cuban and Spanish credit.
  Sir G. PARKER: American support.
  Mr. D. MASON: There is nothing except a moral support from the United States, Cuba is, to all intents and purposes, quite disunited from the United States. In this case Ireland will certainly not be disunited from Great Britain. She will not only have the moral support of Great Britain behind her, but a very close connection under this Bill, because forty-three Members are to come here. This Bill does not mean the separation of Ireland. On the contrary you will have the advantages of both worlds. You will have Ireland with full powers for self-government and yet part and parcel of the Imperial connection, enjoying good credit and improving credit. I believe the hon. Baronet himself would much rather lend money to a prosperous Ireland than to an
  1238
  Ireland whose population was gradually declining. Under this Bill we hope that prosperity will come to Ireland, and that capital will flow towards Ireland.
  Another point I should like to refer to is this. The right hon. Gentleman, the mover of this Amendment, laid great stress on the fact that there would be no possibility of the Irish Exchequer raising any money. He ruled out any possibilities from economy, and he referred to some remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond). I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely ruled out any advantages to be derived from economy in the future. If I remember rightly he very cautiously said that certainly nothing very great might be anticipated from immediate economies; but anyone who studies, for example, this Report of the Primrose Committee and gives any close attention to the advantages which we hope may be derived from Home Rule undoubtedly looks forward to a very great income being derived from economies. Let me quote what the Primrose Committee say on this very point. They speak of the disadvantages of the existing system in Ireland, being in such close relationship to the United Kingdom, and they go on to say, instancing the Post Office, which is a transferred service, that:
  "With a falling population in Ireland and with no very marked enhancement in the general activities of the country, an increase of nearly 74 per cent. in fifteen years in the cost of running the business of the Post Office certainly requires explanation; and from the evidence of the Accountant-General of the Post Office we gather that it must be attributed in great measure to the fact that enlarged postal facilities entailing extra expense and augmentations of pay, both of which were considered to be required in Great Britain, had, under the unified system of administration, to be extended to Ireland, notwithstanding that the circumstances of Ireland taken by themselves would not under either head have justified such large addition to the cost of the establishment there."
  An increase of 74 per cent, in fifteen years when the population of Ireland has been declining, and therefore the facilities demanded must also be declining co-incident-ally with the falling of the population! We know, on the other hand, that trade and commerce have been going forward in this country under Free Trade by leaps and bounds, and that there has been an increased demand for these facilities, and yet the increased expenditure which has been entailed by the enlarging commerce in England under the present system must have been automatically applied to Ireland. Therefore, I submit that under this new system of handing to Ireland the control of

  1239
  these transferred services, we may reasonably anticipate considerable economies as the result of the increased saving and surplus accruing be Ireland. I hope and believe that this Bill then will lead to this happy state of affairs. I should like to read a further quotation from the Primrose Committee's own Report. It is not a political report, and I hope it may appeal to all sides as a fair and impartial resume of the financial conditions. They say:—
  "On these facts we hold that the experience of the last few years amply confirms the theory that a financial partnership with Great Britain does lead in Ireland to a scale of expenditure which is beyond the requirements and beyond the natural resources of the country itself, and the matter seems to us of such great and such increasing importance that we must be excused if we dwell on it at some further length."
  They go on to quote authorities such as Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, Mr. Bertram Currie, a well-known and respected name in the City of London which will appeal to the hon. Baronet, and they add:—
  "Quite apart from any question of a change in the political relations between Great Britain and Ireland, some radical change in the financial relations is imperatively required in the interest of both countries alike, of Great Britain no less than of Ireland."
  I hope that to such authorities as these, if our arguments make no impression on hon. Members opposite, they will give a certain measure of credit and a certain charitableness. I quote these authorities, who are unbiassed, and therefore, unless hon. Members have an alternative scheme to propose to this House, we are justified in giving, as I hope and believe we shall on this side of the House, our hearty support to the financial proposals of the Government.
  Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: I do not propose to enter on the maze of financial ideals with which the hon. Member has put before the House. I really cannot possibly agree with him that Ulster, if left alone, would not be able to borrow on a better financial status than if she still remained with the rest of Ireland. Surely it must stand to reason that Ulster at present is the only part of Ireland which really and truly has behind her any possibility of financial credit, and she could not be anything but hampered if she were still attached to the South and South-West of Ireland. I do not know whether I personally approach this Amendment from a point of view different from anyone else in the House. I do not think I could possibly take that to myself, but at the same time, although one hears continually the case of Ireland, and the ideas
  1240
  only of what the benefit to Ireland might be, and what the hurt to Ireland might be under this and other Amendments, still surely the whole of the case of the taxpayers of Great Britain should at the same time be considered, and if this Amendment was not carried, is it not possible that in the future some Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country might endeavour to carry out some great social reform, some difficult scheme for the benefit of the people, not only of England and Scotland and Wales, but also of Ireland, even under the Home Rule Bill, something like the Insurance Act, something intricate and difficult and requiring support from the whole country in order to make it an entire success, and the Irish Government might immediately turn round and say, "Certainly not. We are not going to have anything whatever to do with your proposal. We are not going to help you in the least in any of the financial arrangements which you propose to be carried out for this great social reform, as we do not think we are going to have an adequate return in Ireland"? That would not only spoil the whole scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but would at the same time stultify in the face, not only of Ireland, but of the taxpayers of Great Britain, but in the face of the whole world, the Imperial House of Commons and the Imperial Treasury. It appears to me that is a point of view which certainly ought to be considered by the people of this country.
  During the Committee stage, when this Amendment was being considered, the question of precedents was brought up. Not only, surely, is it a question of precedent entirely as to whether this is new or not, whether there was any previous reason for it or not, surely it is a question entirely of expediency in itself. If you give power to the Irish Parliament to vary, to add, to reduce, or discontinue any of the financial arrangements or propositions of the Imperial Exchequer, how is the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer ever going to know what the result of the tax is going to be, or how is he going to know at any time whether his proposition will be able to be fulfilled? It strikes me as being entirely impossible, because there may be a section in the Irish House of Commons who, although the public may think that the Irish House of Commons is in entire agreement with the Imperial House of Commons, may let things go on up to a certain point and then turn round for the sole

  1241
  reason of attempting to destroy the power of the Imperial House of Commons, or the power of any particular Government which is in power at the time. I think that, without this Amendment, the Bill will go a great way further towards one of the pitfalls—the greatest pitfall in my personal opinion—there is in the whole of Home Rule, and that is the question of the separation of Ireland from England. It appears to me that as soon as you give power to the Irish Parliament to do what this Amendment seeks to cut away from the Bill, you allow one of the main and most easy lines of cleavage to get its greatest power. If you are to have no power to retain the control of the Imperial Parliament over those parts of taxation still left with the Exchequer in this country so far as Ireland is concerned, then you are going to cut away the whole relation between the monetary position there and any monetary position in this country. I do think that this would lead to the stultification of the whole of the Exchequer in this country. That would be entirely stopped, or rather it could not take place, if this Amendment were carried. It ought to be given the most careful consideration. I associate myself with hon. Members in protesting against the disgraceful shortness of the time given for the consideration of this matter.
  Mr. CASSEL: I propose to confine my observations strictly to the Amendment. What the Amendment proposes is to deprive the Irish Parliament of all power of varying Imperial taxes. But the kernel of that, and the most important feature of the varying of Imperial taxes, is the power of increasing Customs Duties. So long as the Irish Parliament was still to have the power of reducing Customs Duties, I could see the reasonableness of the arguments of those who urged that it should have that power. After all, the Duties on tea and sugar are very high for a poor country, and it was very necessary to give power to reduce these duties. But now it is simply and solely a question of increasing Customs Duties, and I ask whether a sufficient case has been made out for giving to the Irish Parliament a power which no State Legislature in any federation in the world can exercise. It is an absolutely unique power which is to be found nowhere, destroying the system of Free Trade within the United Kingdom itself, and setting up a Customs barrier within the United Kingdom,
  1242
  simply for the purpose of enabling the Irish Parliament to increase Customs Duties, the power of reducing them having been taken away. Is it so vital to the Irish Parliament that they should have that power? In the first place, let me remind the House that under the Bill of 1886 they were not to have that power, nor were they to have it under the Bill of 1893. Mr. Gladstone constantly attached the greatest importance to the fact that for Customs purposes the unity of the United Kingdom would be preserved. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) made a speech in which he stated that he was willing to allow the power of levying Customs Duties to be left entirely in the hands of the Imperial Parliament.
  I think we are entitled to know what are the strong and urgent reasons which have arisen since that time to necessitate such a power on the part of the Irish Parliament. So far as increasing the Super-tax on income is concerned, for my part I do not care very much whether they have the power or not. I do not think it is of much importance. They can only increase it 10 per cent., and as it produces only a small sum, that percentage is not likely to make much difference one way or the other. Nor do I attach much importance to the increasing of the Death Duties. If they increased the Death Duties, I do not know that I would have very much objection to that. You were at first willing to give the Irish Parliament power to reduce Customs Duties, but now the proposal has narrowed itself down to the question of increasing these duties, and I do not think any case has been made out for giving to the Irish Parliament a power which does not exist in any other federal State in the civilised world.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give an instance of any federation where there is not Free Trade?
  Mr. CASSEL: I think the hon. Gentleman has not followed the trend of my argument. What I say is that you will find there is Free Trade within the limits of the federation itself. If you take Australia, you will find no State has power to set up a Customs barrier against any other State within the limits of the federation itself. But here it is proposed to set up a Customs barrier in one part of the United Kingdom as against another part. I challenge the hon. Member to give an

  1243
  instance of any country where that system does exist. I say you have not made out any sufficient case for departing from that universal principle. I may remind the hon. and learned Member of the arguments used to induce us to assent to the principle of Home Rule at all. The argument always used was that Ireland is a comparatively poor country, that England is a rich country, and that Ireland cannot live on the same scale as England. It was stated also that the effect of Ireland being associated with England was that the cost of governing the country is too high. Let me give one or two quotations from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in which he said that the expenditure on the government of Ireland could probably be reduced to about a half if they had Home Rule. Speaking in Dublin on 26th January, 1905, he said:—
  "There is no reason why the government of Ireland should cost more than half the present expenditure. The whole scale of expenditure is excessive."
  Again at Drumkeerin on 27th October, 1907, the hon. Member said:—
  "Ireland is a poor country, and our government should he run on modest and economical lines."
  He also said:—
  If Ireland were self-governed, she could easily be governed as cheaply as Belgium or any of the small nations of Europe. She could easily be governed at one-half of the present expenditure."
  What is the proposal of the Bill? It is to give Ireland the full amount it costs to govern the country at present under this extravagant system, which, according to the hon. and learned Member, is double what it ought to be. Not only do you give the full amount as ascertained by the Exchequer Board, but you give £500,000 a year in addition, and the Irish Parliament are to have the power of imposing independent taxes over and above that. In addition to all that, if they cannot get on without raising the duties on tea, sugar, beer, and spirits in Ireland, they can increase these duties. No proposal more inconsistent with everything which has been said to us in order to commend Home Rule could be brought forward than that of insisting upon the necessity of the Irish Parliament being able to increase Customs Duties over and above what they are in this country. I wish to know whether it is so vital to Ireland to have the power of increasing the duties on tea, sugar, beer, and spirits that we, the Imperial Parliament, should depart from the principle of having one Customs barrier for the whole of the United Kingdom. What
  1244
  is now proposed is absolutely inconsistent with the declarations of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
  Mr. CLANCY: The expenditure cannot be decreased by one-half all at once.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member says the expenditure cannot be reduced to one-half at once. But what is proposed is to give Ireland the total of the present expenditure, and £500,000 in addition, together with full power of levying independent taxes. I think the proposal is absolutely contrary to every argument which has been urged as a reason for granting Home Rule to Ireland. No sufficient case has been made out for doing something detrimental to the United Kingdom as a whole, for we shall have the inconvenience of Customs barriers set up between England and Ireland, and we shall have to pay the expense of these barriers, which may be an amount out of proportion to the revenue raised by the duties themselves. If they put a penny on tea, the result will be that we shall have to set up Custom Houses not only in Ireland, but in Great Britain, and the whole expense of this will have to be borne by the Imperial taxpayer, and not the Irish taxpayer. The expense of working this out may be altogether out of proportion to the revenue of Ireland, and I think this Parliament ought not to assent to any such course. I think there will be the greatest possible difficulty in ascertaining the proceeds of an Imperial tax and the proceeds of an Irish tax. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the effect of Sub-section (4), Clause 16, so far as Customs Duties are concerned? As I read the Sub-section, the effect of it will be that if the Irish Parliament were to increase, say, the duty on spirits or beer 10 per cent., the full proceeds of the duty actually collected, quite irrespective of whether the yield was affected by the increased duty, would have to go to the Irish Exchequer, and the balance only to the Imperial Exchequer. That appears to me to be the true construction of the Subsection, but if the right hon. Gentleman can place any other construction upon it, of course I shall be very glad to hear what he has to say. It appears to me altogether inconsistent with the Government Amendment which has been put on the Paper with respect to Clause 17, under which an entirely different procedure is set up of at first assessing what the duties would have produced if they had not been increased and

  1245
  only giving Ireland any excess over that, which seems to me to be quite in conflict with Sub-section (4) of Section 16. I mention that now as we shall not have an opportunity of discussing the later Amendment, and it does appear to me to be relevant to this Amendment, with regard to the difficulty of determining what are the proceeds of the Imperial taxes and what are the proceeds of the Irish taxes.
  To whom have we left the settlement of that? Absolutely to the Exchequer Board. They must define and determine how far the diminution in yield of a tax is due to the tax having been increased, and how far it is due to a change in the habits of the people. It is all a matter of pure estimate You cannot have any degree of certainty with regard to it. You are going to leave that to the Exchequer Board, four Treasury officials with the chairman, to determine this simply as a matter of guesswork and estimate, and this House will have no opportunity of exercising control but will be bound by that estimate and guess-work. It is quite true the Treasury officials make estimates now for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says whether he will accept those estimates or not, and in the next place this House has the opportunity of saying whether it will accept the estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or not. My hon. Friend reminds me that they are often wrong to a large extent. Under this Bill we have placed in the hands of two Treasury officials of Ireland and two of Great Britain the work of settling these matters which are very difficult of ascertainment, and are pure guess-work and this House has no opportunity whatever of saying whether it agrees with these estimates or not. It is absolutely bound by them. Upon the estimates of those Treasury officials depends the proportion to go to Ireland or to go to Great Britain. I submit that the two grounds urged against giving this power to Ireland, in the first place, that we should be breaking up the fiscal union of the United Kingdom; and, in the second place, that we should be giving the power of finally settling the estimates to Treasury officials without any control on the part of this House, are very serious objections to giving to the Irish Parliament the power of increasing Customs Duty and that no sufficient case has been shown of any real vital necessity of the Irish Parliament having that power.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Debate to-day began with the speeches of the right
  1246
  hon. Gentlemen the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) and the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery), which made a considerable draft upon their stock of epithets of denunciation. I have, at least, the consolation of thinking that we may rest quite sure on this side of the House that whatever scheme had been proposed by the Government under this Bill with respect to its finance would have been denounced in similar terms as the worst possible that the perverse incompetence of man could ever have imagined. When Mr. Gladstone introduced his first Home Rule Bill in 1886 he was told that the financial scheme of it was bad. When he introduced the second scheme in 1893 he was told that the finance of the Bill was, if possible, even worse. When he remodelled his financial scheme in 1893 and substituted for it a different principle he was told that there at last he had succeeded in finding a yet worse scheme. When this financial scheme was introduced the Opposition said that while Mr. Gladstone's three separate schemes of finance had many virtues ours had none; and now the hon. Member for South Birmingham tells us since the Bill has been modified in some particulars that as it was introduced it did have some attractive features, but that now it has none at all. What was our problem? It was to deal with a case where you had to set up a system of self-government in a country where at present the revenue falls short of the-Imperial expenditure by about one-and-a-half million pounds per annum. We had to find means of providing for the reduction of that deficit instead of leaving the burden permanently upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer. We had to supply the newly constituted Legislature and Executive with adequate funds to defray the cost of the services which they were called upon to administer, and at the same time we had to give them reasonable and sufficient powers to increase their revenue if they found it necessary with the approval of their constituents to do so.
  We had also to give them some inducement to economise, for it would have been futile to tell the new Parliament that whatever economies they were able to make we should get the advantage of others for the Imperial Exchequer and they should have nothing from them. We had to reserve in the Imperial Exchequer adequate resources of taxation both in normal times and in abnormal times. We had to provide so far as we could that the two systems of

  1247
  finance in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, which quite necessarily would have to be to some extent interdependent, should not interfere with one another in the sense that the action of the Imperial Exchequer should not hamper the finance of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer and that the action of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer should not upset the finances here at Westminster, and we had to lay the basis of a future contribution to the common expenses of the United Kingdom, which is not now being paid from Ireland and which never will be paid from Ireland if this Bill does not pass. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We had to provide that future contributions shall in the course of time, when circumstances allow, be payable. Hon. Members have spoken of inadequate discussion This is the ninth day devoted to the consideration of the financial scheme of this Bill. The result of those discussions leaves the fundamental principles of this Bill as regards its finance in our view unimpaired, while at the same time the long discussions have not elicited from any quarter any attempt even at proposing an alternative and a better plan. One change, however, has occurred during these long discussions. At first our system of finance was attacked, as Mr. Gladstone's was attacked in 1893, by the Opposition on the ground that it cast an undue burden upon the British Exchequer, that the British Exchequer was to be called upon to vote large sums of money year after year, now and in the future, for the benefit of the Irish Nationalists to be expended without any control from here. An attempt was made to present this scheme as imposing new, heavy, and permanent burdens upon the British taxpayer.
  All that has to a large extent disappeared and that line of attack has been repelled—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—not so much—we are too modest to make such a claim—owing to any effect of speeches on this side of the House on Hon. Members opposite, as by the powerful and earnest speeches of the Leader of the Unionist party in Ireland the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). We all remember the speech to which we listened one evening, late in the evening, a lengthy, powerful, and obviously sincere, indeed an impassioned speech, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose argument was, "See what Ulster is giving up in the matter of
  1248
  finance! Look at the sacrifice we are called upon to make! Here we are part of a wealthy United Kingdom. Let us remain so. We will have Grants for this, Grants for that, Grants for the other thing. You are now going to stop, to a great extent at the source, this flow of gold into our country, and you are asking us in Ulster to make this immense sacrifice for the sake of a cause with which we do not sympathise"; and I saw the countenances of hon. Members who had been using the opposite argument in the course of the Debate gradually become more and more demure and unhappy. It is impossible for the Opposition to ride those two horses at the same time; and so great is the influence of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University that by his eloquence and force and weight he has reduced to silence those Members of his own party who at first set out with the object of proving to the British taxpayer that he was being heavily burdened by this Bill and stood in danger of serious financial loss.
  Now the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment calls in aid of his Amendment and quotes in support of his claim, not the words of anyone who can tell that the British taxpayer is hard hit by this Bill, but Lord MacDonnell, who writes interesting letters to the Press, in which he points out that Ireland is being, in his view, badly treated and that the British taxpayer ought to pay very much more, and that Ireland is not getting as much money as is her due; and the right hon. Gentleman endeavours to quote this expression of opinion as a condemnation of our scheme on behalf of, as he says, the British taxpayer. What is, after all, Lord MacDonnell's position? I confess that on reference to his most recent pronouncement—and whatever he says in this matter is, of course, entitled to respect from all quarters of this House—I cannot quite follow where he quarrels fundamentally with the Bill. He says that if a new financial arrangement is now to be made with Ireland—
  "the only fair basis of such a settlement is the basis of existing tax which the Government of the United Kingdom created."
  That is precisely the basis on which we are proceeding, and that basis he says shows that—
  "between the expenditure now being incurred in Ireland (£12,381,500) and the revenue said to be recoverable from Ireland (£10,850.000) there is a difference of £1,531,500."

  1249
  That is precisely the fundamental fact on which the whole of our structure is built. He proceeds to say:—
  "We believe that the inquiry into the true revenue of Ireland which the Exchequer Board should lose no time in making will prove the difference to he less."
  If that is so, and the Exchequer Board discovers that the difference is less, then the Bill provides for that, and it is not £1,530,000 as calculated by the Treasury that is to be the basis of this financial adjustment, but whatever sum the Joint Exchequer Board, on which two representatives of the Irish Treasury are to sit, may find to be the actual deficit which will be taken as the deficit for the purpose of this Bill, and he says:—
  "But whatever the difference may be, Ireland has been in the enjoyment of it, and we maintain that as she will not cease to be an integral part of the United Kingdom if the Home Rule Bill becomes law, nor free from liability to fresh Imperial taxation in the future, she should continue to enjoy the difference until Irish revenue shall have so far expanded as to reach the existing estimate of Irish expenditure."
  That is precisely our scheme. We shall not throw upon the shoulders of the Irish people the burden of making good this deficit at once, but in our view the deficit should be gradually filled up as the Irish revenues expand. Then he proceeds to say:—
  "But while we claim that provision for Ireland, we take no exception to the temporary reservation of part of it for the Irish services to be administered during the transition period, by the Imperial Government."
  He does not object to our retaining certain services and certain Irish revenues. He says:—
  "We admit our liability to contribute our fair share to the common purposes of the Empire, only stipulating that this share should be determined after due consideration of Ireland's circumstance at the time"
  That, again, is precisely the proposal which we make, that while we think that it is right that Ireland, when she gets self-government, should contribute towards the common expenditure of the Kingdom and of the Empire, we cannot now expect her, with her revenue insufficient for her expenditure, suddenly to make good the deficit, and suddenly to pay a contribution to Imperial purposes which she has not hitherto been paying; but we say, when the time comes that she is in a position to do so, then she can justly be asked to make the contribution which Lord MacDonnell himself deems to be right and proper. Then he proceeds to say:—
  "A financial settlement framed on those lines would, we believe, be acceptable to all moderate men in Ireland. It would be free from the complexity which attached to the plan proposed in the Bill—"
  That I do not admit—
  "and, by securing to Ireland, year by year, the normal increase in her revenue for which the ' surplus' of the
  1250
  Bill is a most inadequate substitute, it would stimulate the development of the country's resources and save her from stagnation which must attend on any administration whose resources are stereotyped at a fixed sum for an indefinite period of time."
  That is the only difference between the proposals of Lord MacDonnell, speaking on behalf of a certain body of public opinion in Ireland, and those which find a place in the Bill. The only difference is that he would have the Irish Parliament enjoying all the normal increases of her revenue year by year until such time as her total revenues equal the total expenditure, and that then suddenly she is to make up the deficit, and afterwards, apparently, pay a contribution gradually towards Imperial expenditure. I do not think that is a good plan; in fact, I venture to say it is open to grave objection. His suggestion is that year by year the Irish Exchequer should receive the normal growth of Irish revenues in order that they may be spent; that is, that Ireland should not make colonies or look for fresh sources of revenue. She is to enjoy all the normal increases of revenue year by year from her taxes, and spend them. Those increases of taxes have been spent; nevertheless, according to him, the day is to come when she is to be required to hand over a certain sum of money to the Imperial Exchequer, or refrain from asking the Imperial Exchequer for the Grant of any sum in order to end the deficit. That day could not arrive. It would never come, because the normal increase of expenditure would be spent as it accrued. Nevertheless, if such a day was to arrive, what would be the position of the Irish Government? Having spent year by year, as he contemplates, these normal increases of revenue, having a very small surplus in hand, nevertheless, some year or other, Ireland is to be told. "Now the time has come when you can make up the million and a half which hitherto the Imperial Exchequer has been paying." What would be the position of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer? There would be a sudden alteration made in his finance, and he would be required to impose heavy burdens upon his own people, or else we should have to consent to forego our claim, and the deficit, even after Home Rule, would be permitted to continue for all future time.
  Therefore, it appears to me that it would be far better, not only in the interests of Ireland but in the interests of Great Britain, that we should say, "Automatically as your revenues go above what they now are, this deficit should be paid off. Meantime, we have provided for you and

  1251
  guaranteed to you, whether your revenue increases or whether it falls off"—and that is the important advantage to Ireland—"the present expenditure upon Irish Services, with a margin over and above to enable you to meet future increased expenditure until you are able to economise." The right hon. Gentleman, having on the one hand claimed to speak for the British taxpayer, and on the other hand having quoted Lord MacDonnell, who says that the Irish Parliament is to be maimed and impoverished by this Bill, proposes by the Amendment now before the House to deprive the Irish Parliament of any power of finance except by inventing and levying entirely new taxes. He would leave the Irish Parliament, as far as finance is concerned, bound hand and foot, and gagged and blindfold, as well as utterly paralysed and unable to take any step in any direction which would lead to any fruitful result. He would say to the Irish Parliament, "We confer upon you these large duties of administration and legislation; we make you responsible for the domestic welfare of your people, yet, so far as finance is concerned, you are to have no power of raising money by Customs, by Excise, by Income Tax, by Death Duties, or by stamps of any kind hitherto known, and your sole power of finance is to invent some new tax upon bicycles or advertisements, or whatever it may be, that may bring you in a few thousand pounds here and there." That is a proposal which, with our views as to the duties and implications of self-government, it is, of course, impossible for us on this side of the House to accept. The Noble Lord the Member for Cardiff, a few minutes ago, said that our scheme was, in fact, a separatist scheme; that it led to so great a division between the two countries that it would inevitably bring about complete separation between the two islands. If we had set out merely with the object in view of devising a scheme which should intimately bind the two countries together, I do not think it would have been conceivable to have framed any proposals more calculated to achieve that end than those which we have embodied in the Bill. The whole collection of revenue is left in the hands of the Imperial officers, and almost the whole of the Irish revenue is paid across the counter, so to speak, of the Imperial Exchequer.
  There are certain alterations made in relation to the parts of the Bill which are now directly and which have been under
  1252
  discussion of the House during the time that the Bill has been before Parliament, which perhaps I may be allowed very briefly to summarise and to recall to the House. In Committee we decided that the Irish Parliament should not have power to alter the main rate of Income Tax. They may have power to alter abatements and the Super-tax, and receive the profits of any increased revenue and bearing the loss of any reduction of revenue they themselves make. We have made it clear in the Bill that they must not vary the main rate of Income Tax. That, of course, is because, for one reason, the power which was ostensibly conferred by the Bill was not a real power. I pointed out on the First Reading of the Bill that the Irish Parliament would not, in fact, alter the main rate of the Income Tax, because the tax is collected at source, and if the Irish taxpayer had to pay 1s. 3d. and the British taxpayer Is. 2d., it would cause so much confusion in deducting the tax at source that it would be the cause of more expense, irritation, and trouble than the small increase is worth. It is made quite clear that this power will not, in fact, be used, and will not be in the competence of the Irish Parliament. After long debate, we have determined that the Irish Parliament shall not reduce Customs Duties, and shall not have a lower rate of taxes in respect of Customs in the British Islands, while, at the same time, we here were still bearing part of the cost of Irish Government. I confess, for my own part, it was with much reluctance that I assented to the views which were pressed upon us by many of my hon. Friends behind me, and I cannot refrain from saying that I think something has been sacrificed by limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament in that way. However, the opinion of the Government was that in all the circumstances the balance of argument was in favour of making this change.
  The third change, or rather group of Amendments, are of a minor character, and intended to make quite clear what we contended, and still contend, was the purpose and the effect of the Bill, namely, to secure that no element of Protection with regard to the alterations of Customs and Excise can possibly creep in. So far as Customs and Excise are concerned, I have not heard any expression of opinions to-day from the Opposition similar to those which we heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Committee stage, that every loophole for Protection had not been

  1253
  blocked up. The Amendments which are down in my name on the Report stage deal with some criticisms made by hon. Members opposite. For example, during the Committee stage a good deal was made of the difficulty in which the Joint Exchequer Board might be put in determining what were the proceeds of Irish additions to Imperial taxes. Supposing, they said, the Tea Duty was increased by 10 per cent, in Ireland, and suppose that the 10 per cent, increase in the rate did not produce a 10 per cent, increase in the yield, and there was an 8 per cent, increase in the yield, as might very possibly be the case, were the Joint Exchequer Board to say that the proceeds of the Irish tax were at the rate of 10 per cent, as a whole or 8 per cent.? If they said 10 per cent., then the Imperial Exchequer would suffer to the extent of 2 per cent., because while the actual increase was 8 per cent., the Irish Exchequer would receive the whole 10 per cent. We have always held the view that the Joint Exchequer Board—and the provision is in the Bill—should say that the proceeds of the Irish tax was the actual amount which that tax had in fact brought in. Hon. Members opposite do not accept that, and suggest that the Joint Exchequer Board might be in a difficulty and might come to a different conclusion. We have, however, made it quite clear and beyond possibility of doubt in an Amendment which I have put down to the proper Clause of the Bill. The point raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras is covered by Clause 14 (c)—"a sum equal to the pioceeds as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board."
  Mr. CASSEL: My point has reference to Clause 16, Sub-section (4), which seems to provide something contrary to the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think it is inconsistent. The proceeds are the proceeds determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, and the Amendment I have put down indicates to the Joint Exchequer Board on what basis they are to calculate those proceeds. There cannot be any inconsistensy in the two provisions. Another point was raised in the course of the Debate in Committee. It was said, "Suppose the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed an increase of Customs Duty, say, of 10 per cent., on spirits, and that the result was not merely that there was no increase, but that there was an actual diminution in the total yield of the
  1254
  tax, the consequence of that might be that the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer would find in the following year that his revenue was reduced, and that while the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer got nothing, he must get less, not through any action of this Parliament, but through some action of the Irish Parliament. That is a contingency which we regard as very remote, so remote as to make it not necessary to provide for it; but there can be no harm in making provision, for obviously our intention has been from the beginning whatever is the effect on the yield of a tax through any action taken by the Irish Parliament, the Irish Parliament should gain the benefit or suffer the loss of that effect. If by increasing the duty the consequence of their action is to diminsh the yield, it is right and proper that the Irish Exchequer, and not the Imperial Exchequer, should bear the burden of that loss. That also is provided for in an Amendment which will shortly be before the House. There was one last point, even more remote but still, I cannot deny, it would be a possibility, and that is that the Irish Parliament might impose a tax of a new kind, the cost of collection of which might be unduly heavy in proportion to the yield. The scheme of the Bill is that the cost of collection should be defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer, and that, in the main, is right, because we control the method of collection, and the Irish Parliament does not control the method of collection, and where there is control there ought to be the obligation to pay.
  But still it was suggested that there might be an exceptional case, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, in which the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer was offered some tax, as Chancellors of the Exchequer here frequently are, which in itself was attractive, but which would not be acceptable because the cost of collection would be out of proportion to the yield, and, it was said, the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer might be tempted to say, "After all we shall get the yield for the Irish Exchequer, and the Imperial Exchequer will have to pay the cost of collection, and I will adopt this tax." I do not think, as a matter of fact, any Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer would deliberately take such a course as that, and of set purpose impose a burden of that kind which would impose a considerable burden on the Imperial Exchequer for the sake of a

  1255
  small advantage for the Irish Exchequer; but still the point was one which, having been raised, ought properly to be met. I have always-held the view that it was not reasonable or proper to charge the cost of collecting Irish taxes upon the Irish Government, and the reason for that is two-fold. One I have already mentioned, and that is we control the method, and therefore should bear the cost of the collection of these taxes. Secondly, and this is a very important point, the Irish additions to Imperial taxes are small, and if we were to say, for instance, that the Imperial Exchequer was to pay the cost of collecting the Tea Duty in Ireland in respect of the 5d., but, if the Irish Exchequer added a halfpenny, that then the cost of collecting that extra halfpenny must be defrayed from Irish funds, then you would have a series of most minute and troublesome accounting arrangements to make, and you would have elaborate calculations of a very trivial kind not in the least worth doing in order to secure from the Irish Transferred Sum a comparatively small deduction each year.
  Already one of the drawbacks of administration of Government, as distinct from enterprise carried on by private companies, is the very heavy cost of accounting in all kinds of Government business. It is necessary that that cost should be borne in order to prevent the possibility of peculation, and in order that the financial arrangements should be in every respect water-tight; but the cost of doing so is heavy. I think the House would be making a great mistake if, for the sake of recovering some small petty sum, they imposed on the Board of Customs and Excise and on the Board of Inland Revenue the duty of calculating those minute proportions of expenditure as to how much of an officer's time in Ireland was spent in collecting Imperial taxes, and how much was to be regarded as proper to the Irish addition to that tax. Therefore, it is right that the whole cost of collection should be thrown on the Imperial Exchequer. We are dealing with the particular point I have mentioned in terms which hon. Members can see. Those Amendments we propose to make in order to meet objections that have been raised. I think that most of them, with one exception, which I have mentioned, are clear and obvious improvements in the Bill, though some of them were not really very necessary, but I can assure my right hon.
  1256
  Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), who looks with some suspicion as a patriotic son of Ireland on any alterations in the finance of the Bill, for which he entertained at its initiation so high and I will not say undeserved opinion, that there are no further Amendments of this kind which the Government regard as being necessary.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the exact object of the Government Amendment in line 11, providing that the Irish Parliament shall not have the power to impose a duty unless they are to be subject to a Customs Duty'?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That was merely a drafting Amendment, to make it clear if there is an Import Duty in one case it must be an Import Duty in the other, and if it is an Export Duty in one case it must be an Export Duty in the other.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It could not apply toad valorem duties.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. I propose now to deal with some of the specific points raised in the course of the Debate, and to answer some of the questions which have been put to me. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hayes Fisher) asked what would occur if there is abnormal taxation for war purposes for three years, and if there was ostensible equilibrium which was not permanent, and in that case would Clause 26 operate? We took a period of three years as being long enough to cover in all probability any abnormal period, but if, nevertheless, the case was so exceptional that those taxes lasted for more than three years, then Parliament would have to consider whether the readjustment contemplated by Clause 26 should then take place, or whether on the ground of the abnormality of the circumstances it should not be postponed. As a matter of course it would be in the hands of Parliament to determine, because Clause 26 says the Report of the Joint Exchequer Board as to equilibrium for three years "shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by Parliament." It is imposible, of course, for this House to bind its successors. The right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member who seconded raised the point as to what would occur suppose the Income Tax were increased by the Imperial Chancellor of

  1257
  the Exchequer to defray some expenditure which was not common to the whole United Kingdom, but which was limited in its benefit to Great Britain, and what would be the position of the financial relations between the two countries?
  The hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) represented that there had been some great change in the scheme of the Bill in this respect. There is, I can assure him, no change that I, at all events, am conscious of at all, but it has always been regarded that if it should occur that some increase of expenditure, though, of course, one cannot pledge the future or bind Governments that may follow, but it is, at all events, in my mind and in the minds of others who have had to do with this matter, that if at some future time there were variations in taxation for a purpose which was purely British that it would be a wrong thing to call upon Ireland to pay that new tax and to get no benefit, direct or indirect, from its yield. And it was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the purpose was limited to Great Britain, and that if it was necessary to impose a tax which covered Ireland as well as Great Britain, as it might be in the Income Tax, for example, that the justice of the case could always be met by a Grant to Ireland of an equivalent amount which Ireland could either use for her own purposes or use in reducing taxes that fell on the Irish people in one direction or another. The hon. Member for South Birmingham said that we should be forcing upon the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer money which he did not want and which he would not know how to use. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very different from all the other members of his tribe if he found himself ever at any time in the position of having money which he did not want and which he did not know how to use.
  Mr. AMERY: I did not say he would not know how to use it. What I said was that "he would not be allowed to use it in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggested himself—that is, in the reduction of the burdens of the poor.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He would not be allowed to reduce Customs and Excise, but I did not understand the hon. Member to make that qualification. But he could make Grants to the local authorities to reduce rates and in other ways he could spend the money for the benefit of
  1258
  the working classes. That raises the old point which we have discussed so often;-namely, as to the power of reducing Customs and Excise.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Do I understand that the tax would have to be levied in Ireland, and the proceeds would be colilected in Ireland, and that a Grant would have to be made afterwards to the Irish taxpayer,
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am taking the case put by hon. Members, in which that much followed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, of course, very possibly might say, as we say with regard to the Inhabited House Duty, let this tax be levied in Great Britain and not in Ireland, but if he took a tax such as the Income Tax, or if he took a tax such, for example, as a Customs Duty, which would be under the scheme of this Bill leviable in Ireland as well as in Great Britain, then, of course, the whole circumstances would have to be dealt with at the time when the new tax was imposed and the new expenditure made. I am only answering the question as to whether it would be possible to do substantial justice to Ireland in the circumstances which were supposed by hon. Members who made the point.
  Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the means by which it is proposed to decide to what extent expenditure is Great Britain's domestic expenditure, and when that is so, how it is proposed to decide how the equivalent Grant is to be assessed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already answered that, though I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not accept my answer as satisfactory. It was that that matter must necessarily be left to the judgment of the House of Commons of the day. It is perfectly impossible now, beforehand, to have a schedule of what is to be regarded as Irish concerns and what are not to be regarded as Irish concerns in matters of expenditure.
  Mr. AMERY: It is in federal schemes.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would have to be left to the Imperial Parliament of the day, and if they thought that in justice to Ireland a particular tax for a particular purpose ought not to be levied, then not to levy it, and it would be for them, if a tax were levied in Ireland from which they got no benefit the same as Great

  1259
  Britain, to secure that Ireland should get some other equivalent in that particular connection. An hon. Member opposite asked why we forbade the Irish Parliament to discriminate between persons with respect to Death Duties and not with respect to Income Tax and other taxes. The reason why the words to which he referred were put in was to secure that, if the Irish Parliament raised an additional 10 per cent. on the Death Duties, they should take the scale as a whole. That is, that they should not levy an additional 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. on parts of the scale, while leaving other parts unchanged, with the result that, though they would be, in fact, using up the whole reserve of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's field with regard to the persons who were subjected to the 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. addition, they would be still fulfilling the letter of the provision that the total increase should not be more than 10 per cent. The scale must be taken as a whole, and a larger amount than 10 per cent. must not be levied on any one part of the scale, with the consequence that a lower amount is levied on another part. The hon. Member for South Birmingham again made his point in respect to the financial provision in regard to bounties. He still declares that the Irish Parliament could by means of bounties introduce a protective element in combination with the Customs and Excise powers which are allowed. He gave the concrete instance of tobacco. His case was that the Irish Parliament might increase the Customs and correspondingly increase the Excise Duties on tobacco, and then give back to the producers of tobacco in Ireland more than the amount levied from them in the form of additional Excise Duties, so that they could then send their tobacco over here at a much cheaper rate.
  Mr. AMERY: The same rate.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Or the same rate. There are two answers to that. If the bounty is a bounty on export, it is, of course, prohibited by the Bill. Therefore, if the scheme were to work at all, it would involve that all tobacco grown in Ireland should receive this amount. If that were done, it would be an evasion of the provision in the Bill to the effect that any variation of Customs Duties must be accompanied by a corresponding variation of Excise. There can be no doubt that the Court would hold it to be ultra vires on
  1260
  the part of the Irish Parliament if, while ostensibly increasing the Excise Duties on tobacco in order to countervail the increased Customs Duty, they were to defeat the purpose of that increase by handing back the increase and something more. There can be no doubt that that would be held to be a contravention of the provision that where a Customs Duty is increased the Excise Duty must be increased in a corresponding degree. The hon. Member quoted a case where there is neither Customs nor Excise Duty at all, as, for example, in regard to boot manufacture. He said that in this matter I myself have admitted that it might be necessary for us to take retaliatory measures, and that therefore I agree that the Irish people would have power to give bounties for the protection of their own interests. The remark that I made did not relate to any case such as that of tobacco at all. I was dealing with an entirely supposititious case, in which the Irish Parliament suddenly said, "We wish to encourage the boot industry in Ireland. We cannot give a bounty on the export of boots, because that is prohibited; but we will give a bounty on every pair of boots manufactured in Ireland. We will give it out of our own revenues. It is true that it will cost us a great deal of money, but perhaps we shall be able to capture the British boot market, and that will be worth doing." My answer was that in the first place the contingency is so remote and the improbability so great that we need not take it into account. But if such an impossible thing were in fact to occur, the Imperial Parliament would not be without remedy, supposing it wished to take a remedy. Even without vetoing the Bill, which it would have power to do, it could, if it so desired, impose a duty to counteract the action taken by the Irish Parliament. But the whole thing is absolutely in the air. I do not treat it as in any degree a serious proposition, and I must protest when the hon. Member for South Birmingham says that, because I made that remark, I agree that the obvious result of our financial scheme is the establishment of Customs barriers and the imposition of countervailing duties here. The hon. Member also spoke of the case in which there is no Excise Duty on goods. He instanced the case of sugar. He asked, if the Irish Parliament increases the Customs Duty on sugar, how is it to increase the Excise Duty to a corresponding extent if there is no Excise Duty? I think that is his point.
  Mr. AMERY: Not quite. If there is no Excise Duty, the Irish Government in increasing the Customs Duty cannot be said to cause the Customs Duty to exceed the Excise, to quote the words of the Clause.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Why is there no Excise Duty imposed by this Parliament? The reason is that there is no sugar grown. There has been no sugar grown in the past, and therefore there has been no Excise Duty upon sugar. Obviously, it makes no difference whether or not the Irish Parliament imposes an Excise Duty upon sugar if no sugar is grown. But suppose sugar is grown. My point is that the matter will rest with the Imperial Parliament to decide whether or not there should be an equivalent Excise Duty. If the Imperial Parliament says that there need not be an equivalent Excise Duty, while at the same time it maintains the Customs Duty on sugar, the Imperial Parliament itself, by its own action or inaction, will have made a difference in the treatment of that particular commodity in the matter of Customs and Excise. If the Irish Parliament increases by 10 per cent. the Sugar Duty, it will be making only a small addition to a differentiation which already exists with the sanction of the Imperial Parliament. If, on the other hand, the Imperial Parliament thinks it necessary and proper that when there is a Customs Duty on sugar there should also be an Excise, when the Irish Parliament increases the Customs Duty it must to an equivalent extent increase the Excise Duty.
  Mr. AMERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman never contemplate the possibility of a system of duties in this country with no corresponding Excise?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If that is so, the Parliament which enacts that system of duties can alter this provision if it likes. My point is that the question whether or not there should be an equivalent Excise Duty put upon sugar rests with this Parliament, and whatever action is taken by this Parliament must be followed by the Irish Parliament if it proposes to alter the Customs Duty. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) said that the Irish Parliament had power to increase by 10 per cent. certain Customs Duties, and to increase to whatever extent it chose the Customs Duties on beer and spirits. He said that that was an end to the system of Free Trade. Why is it an end to the
  1262
  system of Free Trade? I took down his words. He said it was an end to the system of Free Trade, and that for the first time we were limiting Free Trade within the limits of a federation.
  Mr. CASSEL: Free Trade within the United Kingdom itself.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: But Free Trade has never prohibited the imposition of duties for the purpose of revenue. Taxes for revenue are entirely consistent with Free Trade. In every Free Trade country at any time in the world's history there have been taxes on commodities. The only condition that the principles of Free Trade impose, is that there shall be a corresponding Excise, and that the duties should not be of a protective character. When the hon. and learned Member says that here for the first time we are impairing the effect of Free Trade principles within a federation, my answer is that we are doing nothing of the kind, because we are not allowing the Irish Parliament to protect Irish goods against British goods by means of a Customs Duty. The hon. and learned Member speaks about federation. He asks: "Can you give an instance where Free Trade in other federations is not insisted upon?" My answer is that the Customs unions of other federations have always had as their object the prevention of one member of the federation taxing, for its own profit or for its supposed profit, the goods of another member of the federation; that is to say, protecting the commodities of one member of the federation against the competition of other members of the federation. That is made absolutely impossible by this Bill, so far as Customs are concerned.
  Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that is made impossible so far as the Customs are concerned where there is not an equivalent Excise? Is it not perfectly possible, if there is a system of Customs without Excise, for the Irish Government to protect itself for its own profit?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is the very point I have dealt with. My answer is that if the Imperial Parliament itself, by its own action or inaction, allow such a system to grow up, then indeed the Irish Parliament, to the extent of the small addition which it may make to those duties, will be able to intensify them.
  Mr. AMERY: Small addition?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They will be small additions. The Irish Parliament would not be likely to raise to a large extent the price of sugar for all the consumers in Ireland when it itself could only get the benefit of a 10 per cent. increase.
  Mr. AMERY: They may wish to prohibit its import.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it likely that the Irish Parliament would wish to prohibit the import of sugar? I am afraid that this is another instance of Tariff Reformers' imaginative humour.
  Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which set of taxes is to have priority? The Imperial or the Irish taxes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I thought the answer to that was really obvious. If the Irish Parliament invents a new tax which has not existed in this country before, of course it will have the benefit of the yield of that tax. If the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to copy that tax, he could follow one of two courses: either he would limit the tax to Great Britain and reserve the yield to Great Britain, or he would impose the tax also in Ireland, with the effect that the tax might be greatly increased or even doubled there. Probably he would not lake the latter course.
  Mr. AMERY: Would he get the smaller or the bigger yield?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I really do not think that that arises.
  Mr. AMERY: It is vital.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of the 10 per cent. increase only relates to Irish additions to Imperial taxes.
  Mr. AMERY: A tax may be imposed in Ireland up to the limit of profitable yield. If the same tax were imposed, possibly doubled, by the action of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, would the British Chancellor of the Exchequer get the whole yield and the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer get practically nothing; or would it be the British Chancellor of the Exchequer who would get practically nothing?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I imagine that our Chancellors of the Exchequer will be sane, and that this Parliament will be
  1264
  reasonable. If this Parliament saw in existence in Ireland a new tax, which no one had ever thought of before, which was yielding its maximum and could not be increased without diminishing the yield, of course the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer would leave it alone.
  Mr. AMERY: That is not the effect in the least of what the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer does.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer invents an entirely new form of tax, really think it would be very wrong, and obviously an improper thing, for this Parliament suddenly to come down and say to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, "We will sweep you off the sea, and take the whole produce of your tax as an Imperial charge." Such a thing will not, in fact, occur. The Amendment now before the House will, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, deprive the Irish Parliament of any power of raising revenue or of modifying their revenue at all except in respect of new taxes. For our part we cannot be a party to enact any measure which would impose upon the new Irish Parliament large administrative obligations without at the same time giving them adequate financial powers.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not, unfortunately, been able to listen to previous parts of this Debate, but one or two remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has made since I came in has made me desirous of calling attention to one or two matters. The first point is this, that anyone I think who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading will realise how far we have travelled since then. The right hon. Gentleman then told us that the essence of any system of finance between two countries related as Ireland and Great Britain are must be that the one Chancellor of the Exchequer would not in any way interfere with the other. Can anyone, after listening to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, do so without seeing that at every turn everything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does must be influenced and guided by what is done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland under similar circumstances'? Take, for instance, the very point raised last, and which the right hon. Gentleman treated with silent contempt—I do not know whether on his own

  1265
  part or on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, no.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer tries a form of taxation not previously tried in this country. It is found to give a good yield in Ireland, without giving disadvantages. The English Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "That is a good thing; that is a tax which it will pay me to put on here too." What happens? Obviously the English Chancellor cannot make it apply both to England and to Ireland if it has already reached the limit of profitable yield in Ireland. He must do one of two things. He must do something which he presumably does not want to do, put on a tax that will apply to England only. He must leave Ireland out. His action is dictated solely by what has previously been done by the Irish House of Commons. There was another illustration given by my hon. Friend, which the right hon. Gentleman treated somewhat cavalierly: take the industry of beet sugar in Ireland or in the United Kingdom. I have said this before, and the Prime Minister showed some sympathy with the idea. I have said and thought for many years that if we were to conduct the business of this country in the same way in which any man would conduct his own business, considering the need we have of industries connected with the land, and considering the need of encouraging anything which keeps people on the land, the first thing which a sensible man would do would be to take steps to establish beet sugar in this country. That is common sense. I think even Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite would like to do that. What happens? They decide upon a small duty. I presume that even this Free Trade Government might go to that length—though what they mean by Free Trade I have never been able to discover.
  Possibly they might go that length. They might say, "The present duty on sugar is so small that to enable this industry to get a start we will not in the meantime put on an Excise Duty." That is conceivable under even the present Government. What happens? Ireland, too, wishes to establish a beet industry, but it thinks that a small duty is not really enough to enable it to be established. It puts on an increased duty. Having the power to put it on, it would
  1266
  not at all be limited to 10 per cent., but to an additional yield of 10 per cent., which is a very different thing. They put on a very heavy protective arrangement for the creation of this beet sugar industry. According to what the right hon. Gentleman said, what happens? In order to stop that excessive protection, we have got to do away with the moderate encouragement which this country is willing to give, because the only way we can do that is by making the same way apply to both countries. Here, again, everything we do is hampered by the action of I he Irish House of Commons. The whole question of finance, from beginning to end, to anyone who has followed it, has shown us that there must be constant friction and constant interference with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. The right hon. Gentleman was asked, "Suppose we have to put on additional taxation in this country, how are you to decide whether it applies to Ireland or to the United Kingdom as a whole, or how much of it only applied to the United Kingdom, and not to Ireland?"
  Take an instance of what may very likely happen this year. We shall very likely need additional revenue for defence. We shall certainly need additional revenue for the Insurance Act. That is a certainty. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer here going to put on two different taxes, one for the Imperial necessities of defence, and the other for the Insurance Act, or any social reform which has to apply solely to Great Britain? Is he going to do that? It is utterly impossible that he can distinguish in that way. What happens? The right hon. Gentleman says it will be for this House to decide whether or not a tax applies to Great Britain alone or partly, in addition, to Ireland. It is, he says, for this House to decide, and the Irish Parliament will agree with that decision. Is it not obvious that there will be room for the widest divergence of opinion? How in the world will the Irish Parliament in a matter that is to be decided absolutely by this Bill have a voice? But if they have a voice, there, again, we are hampered inour financial arrangements by what is going on in the Parliament on the other side. I am not going at length into what is the protection possible under this Bill. We discussed that at some length before, and it was pointed out that as the Bill stood protection by Excise arrangement was possible, and would be certain. The Government, met that by

  1267
  putting in an Amendment. My hon. Friend pointed out another case, the case of tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out that if, obviously, too great a difference was made between the Excise and the Customs this House would step in. There is the letter of Sir Thomas Pitter. The right hon Gentleman has looked into it, and he knows now that great protection in a case of that kind can be secured by diversity of regulations. Nobody doubts that. The right hon. Gentleman has met that point by telling us that the regulations will be entirely in the hands of this Government, and that all the officials will be in the hands of this Government. He has said that, but there is nothing in the Bill to show it! Under the Bill this Government, without consulting this House, has the right of transferring any reserved service to the Irish Parliament. If they choose to do that with regard to the Customs—and there is nothing to prevent them doing it if these choose to do it—the Irish Parliament can give excessive protection in every case where Excise comes in, and you have nothing to say.
  If the Government really mean to prevent any protection of that kind then they are bound to introduce into their Bill an Amendment to the effect that the regulations must be precisely the same in Ireland as they are in England or Scotland. Nobody doubts, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman, that so long as you allow bounties—and the Government refused to accept an Amendment permitting bounties—so long as they allow bounties protection of a most extreme kind is permitted in regard to every industry which rises in Ireland. It is the worst kind of protection. It has been tried in many countries, and as those countries became more advanced in their economic views they abandoned bounties in favour of tariffs. The right hon. Gentleman said, in regard to an industry which I myself suggested as an illustration, that the idea of giving a bounty for production in that case was so absurd that we did not need to consider it. Why, Mr. Speaker, the thing happened the other day in a country which is under our own flag. Canada gave a bounty on every ton of iron produced in Canada in order to encourage production. They did not think they were insane. The result of that insanity was that a great iron industry has grown up. Does anyone suggest that if the Irish people wish to encourage their
  1268
  industries in the same way that they would not adopt the same course? Of course they would. It is utterly idle for the Government to pretend, so long as it is possible to give bounties, that the Irish Parliament cannot if it chose set up a complete system of Protection against the industries of Great Britain in favour of those of Ireland.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General commenced his remarks by saying that he supposed that whatever financial scheme had been adopted by the Government it would have been denounced from this side of the House. I have no doubt that that would be the case, but I really do not think that it would have been done with anything like the same good reason as now. The right hon. Gentleman said that in framing this financial scheme the Government found themselves in the difficulty of having to provide for the position in which Irish finances showed a deficit. That condition was not sufficient to justify the Government in setting up a scheme of finance which has so many objections to it, and which, above all, makes further proposals of federation or of federal schemes—which after all is one hon. Gentlemen on the other side are constantly referring to—absolutely impossible. Surely the sort of scheme which sets up Customs barriers of a most complicated kind is a scheme which makes not only possible, but certain, divergencies in the amount of certain taxes in the different countries, and, above all, is a scheme which provides for one part of the federation having no share whatever in the Imperial burdens which fall upon every part, and is a scheme which, of course, will not under any circumstances fall into a proposal of federation. But I have risen to review the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the question of Protection. The right hon. Gentleman said that great care had been taken by the Government to avoid anything in the nature of Protection, in the hands of the Irish Government against this or any other country, and he then went on to point out that in his opinion the arrangements which were made as between Customs and Excise Duties being equivalent was sufficient to prevent anything in the nature of Protection from arising. I cannot help thinking that even if that were the case, which I am far from admitting, because I am convinced that the case put forward by my right hon. Friend as regards the possible imposition of bounties, and the equivalent

  1269
  in not exacting the Excise from the manufacturer would make it possible to create Protection in that way, there is the possibility of another form of Protection not mentioned at all in this Bill. It is a matter I raised on a previous occasion and to which I have never received a reply as to whether it is intended or not to create it under the Bill, and that is by way of monopoly. I pointed out before that the use of monopoly is so obvious a source of revenue to be seized upon by the Irish Parliament that I cannot believe they would ignore it. This system of monopoly is in use in a very great number of countries on the Continent of Europe, and so successful is it for the raising of revenue that in Spain something like 20 per cent. of the whole Spanish revenue is raised by that means. If that is the case it seems obvious that the Irish Parliament in considering the nature of the revenue required would give very careful attention to the question of monopoly. I have endeavoured on more than one occasion to elicit from the Government whether in their view it will be in the power of the Irish Parliament to raise money in this way.
  I know it will be said that any attempt to impose monopolies of this kind would be frustrated, because under Section 7 of Clause 2, there are words which prevent the Irish Parliament from carrying out any measures in restriction of trade. But I am not at all convinced that the imposition of monopolies so long as it is done in the way it is done by some countries on the Continent, in such a way as to be absolutely prohibited, that is to say, making the importation of certain commodities a misdemeanour, that that could not be done without contravening the Subsection. It is true that in certain cases where commodities are now imported into Ireland, to make a prohibitive monopoly of that kind might be taken as a breach of the Sub-section I have mentioned, but I cannot help thinking that there are other cases, where there is practically no importation at the present time, where such proceedings will not be open to that objection. Let me take as an instance the case of Guinness's brewery, which practically at the present time is a monopoly. It is quite obvious that it is a monopoly only so long as the prices which the brewery charge remain equal. It is obvious that if they chose to raise their prices beyond a certain point they would be subject, if not immediately at any rate in time, to serious competition, but
  1270
  supposing that the Irish Government were to make the importation of certain goods prohibitive they would then enable the producers of those goods to raise their prices very much higher than could be done in the case of competitive importation, and the Irish Government would get the advantage of being able, in the face of these much higher prices, to charge very large duties upon those imports. It seems to me that would be an inducement which would probably be very attractive to the Irish Government, and would certainly be a way of gaining a monopoly in particular cases which would not be open to the objection of infringing the Subsection (7) of Clause 2.
  Of course we in this country are interested, inasmuch as this monopoly would give protection in favour of Ireland as against this country, and also for the other reason that England would always remain, so long as the present fiscal system is maintained, a dumping ground for the manufactures of Ireland; but whether this proposal of allowing this freedom to the Irish Government is right or wrong, I think it is one upon which we should at any rate have some information, and that we should know whether or not the Irish Parliament would have that power under the Bill. One of the great difficulties and objections which seems to me to arise under the whole system of taxation which this Bill sets up is the difference between the incidence of certain taxes in Great Britain and Ireland, and which seems to me to be growing wider and wider, and throwing greater difficulties in the way. It is, of course, as has already been stated, fairly certain that where taxation is imposed for the purpose of carrying out social reforms in one part of the country, such as for England, which social reform is not to be accepted in Ireland—and I believe that that is one of the advantages claimed for Home Rule that they do not want our social reforms extended to Ireland—in that case where the money can be sufficiently ear-marked that that taxation could not be applied to Ireland, and would be applied only to Great Britain, and to that extent we should have gradually growing up a certain amount of taxation which would apply on this side to Great Britain, while at the other end we have, of course, Irish taxation that would apply only to Ireland. But surely there is a tendency in this country, which I think is very strongly favoured on the other side of the House, to gradually change the

  1271
  proportion of direct to indirect taxation. We have no reason to suppose that the Irish Parliament will necessarily follow that course. And it seems to me that if we gradually in this country increase the amount of direct taxation, whilst we decrease the amount of indirect taxation, we shall find that Ireland will be more and more subjected to indirect taxes, and the present food taxes which are imposed on all alike at the present moment, and that that must surely be a source of very considerable irritation and annoyance to the Irish people, and certainly not conducive to more favourable relations between the two Governments.
  One of the other details which strikes me as being distinctly unfair, in so far as British taxpayers in this country go, is that in these matters, which it is open to the Irish Parliament to claim to have transferred at a later period, you are taking as the basic line the cost of the particular services in the year in which they are transferred. Now the cost of old age pensions during the first years in Ireland was higher than it is likely to be in the future. The number of old people in Ireland is decreasing, and has already decreased, and therefore it seems to me that in a case like that, where, as we know, the cost was abnormal in the first year, and where the working of the old age pension was not so strictly carried out as in this country, you should not take that year as the basis line for the supposed cost of that service which we know in the future is likely to decline. But I think one of the most serious of the whole of the questions of finance in the Bill is the enormous responsibility and burden which the Parliament of this country is going to take upon its shoulders in allowing the Irish Parliament to borrow money, not only upon the Transferred Sum as it now stands, but upon the increased amount of the Transferred Sum which it may call upon this country to hand over in time to come. We all know that the Irish Parliament in borrowing upon that Transferred Sum has it in its power to let the services for which
  that money is given to it go by default, and we also know perfectly well that this country's credit is tied up with Ireland in such a way that by no means can we allow her default, and therefore we are ultimately responsible for all the loans which she may contract, and I think it is made; far worse by the insertion of the Sub-section in the Bill by which we allow these loans raised by the Irish Parliament to be made trustees' security, thereby throwing upon us not only an actual, but a moral burden.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Postmaster-General has time to reply to the question put by my hon. Friend as to whether it would be possible for the Irish Government to create monopolies. I would ask him one further question. He admits the Customs Duties may be raised by the Irish Government to any extent, subject only that any decrease in revenue accruing is to be deducted from the Transferred Sum. He says if they gave a bounty that would be abolished by the provision which provides that Customs and Excise must correspond. Supposing they relieved an industry from local taxation, would the Courts hold that to be a breach of this particular provision? I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would answer these two questions.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question about monopolies does not arise at all, because on no Financial Clauses would it be done by any adjustment of taxation or anything else. There is no restriction in the Bill as it stands, and if any such attempt were made it would be necessary to have special legislation. With respect to the other point, you cannot prevent any free assembly from relieving industry of local taxation.
  Question put, "That the words ' vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland and to,'" stand part of the Bill.
  The House divided: Ayes. 312; Noes, 183.

  Division No. 497.]

  AYES.

  [7.29 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Bethell, Sir J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Alden, Percy

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Barton, William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brace, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Hinds, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hodge, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Grady, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Clough, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clynes, John R.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shee, James John

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cullinan, John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Dawes, J. A.

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Radford, G. H.

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Reddy, M.

  Doris, William

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macdonald, M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Falconer, James

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robinson, Sidney

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Field, William

  M'Kean, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Rowlands, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Manfield, Harry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Martin, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Hackett, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Snowden, Philip

  Hancock, J. G.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hardle, J. Keir

  Morison, Hector

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  1274

  1275

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Webb, H.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Wadsworth, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Waring, Walter

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Moore, William

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Newman, John R. P.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Grant, J. A.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bird, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Blair, Reginald

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Royds, Edmund

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwon)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Hills, John Waller

  Sandys, G. J.

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cator, John

  Hunter, Sir Charles Redk.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cave, George

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Keswick, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Chambers, James

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Touche, George Alexander

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Stanier and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and 30th December last, to put forthwith the Question on any Amend-
  1276
  ments moved by the Government of which notice had been given necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (d), after the word "duty"["liable to a Customs Duty"], insert the words "of a like character."
  At end of paragraph (c), insert the words "and (d) the Irish Parliament shall not so vary a Death Duty as to impose the duty on the personal property (not being a leaseholder's or tenant's interest in land) of any person domiciled in Great Britain."
  In paragraph (e), after the word "be"["be to cause the Customs Duty"], insert the words "in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board."
  At end of paragraph (e) leave out the word "provision" and insert the word"Act."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel]

  CLAUSE 16.—(Relations between Great Britain and Ireland as Respects Customs and Excise Duties.)
  (1) Any articles which are brought into Great Britain from Ireland or into Ireland from Great Britain shall be deemed to be articles exported or imported for the purposes of information to be furnished under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and Section 4 of the Revenue Act, 1909, and for the purpose of any duty or drawback payable in the circumstances for which provision is made under this Section, but not for any other purpose.

  (2) Where a Customs Duty is levied in one country and not in the other, or is levied in both countries but at a higher rate in the one country than in the other, duty shall be charged and drawback allowed in respect of articles being articles produced, prepared, or manufactured abroad as follows:—

  (a) The Customs Duty shall be charged on any such articles brought into the one country from the other country as if they were articles imported from abroad, except that in the case of articles produced abroad but manufactured or prepared in the country from which they are sent, the Customs Duty charged shall, if the drawback which would be allowed on the exportation of similar articles from the country into which the articles are brought is less than the duty payable on importation, be a duty equal to the drawback, and if the duty is payable in respect of any such articles on delivery from
  1278
  bond, after manufacture or preparation in bond, a duty equal to that which would have been paid under similar circumstances in respect of the same article in the country into which the article is brought; and

  (b) A drawback shall be allowed on any such articles sent from the one country into the other equal to the drawback which would be allowed upon the exportation of the articles from the country from which they are sent.

  (3) Where an Excise Duty is levied in one country and not in the other, or is levied in both countries but at a higher rate in the one country than in the other, duty shall be charged and drawback allowed in respect of articles being articles produced, prepared, or manufactured in either country as follows:—

  (a) A Customs Duty shall be charged on any such articles brought into the one country from the other country as if they were articles imported from abroad, equal to the amount of the Excise Duty levied in the country into which they are brought, or if there is no such Excise Duty in the country from which the articles are sent, a duty equal to the drawback allowed on the exportation of similar articles manufactured or prepared in the country into which the article is brought or, if there is on such drawback, equal to the Customs Duty payable on the importation of a similar article into the country into which the article is brought; and

  (b) A drawback shall be allowed on any such articles sent from the one country into the other equal to the amount of the Excise Duty levied in the country from which they are sent in cases where a drawback would be allowed on the exportation of the articles from that country or, if no Excise Duty is levied in the country into which the articles are sent, equal to the drawback allowed on exportation.

  The Excise Duty on a licence granted to a manufacturer of any article, the amount of which varies, either directly or indirectly according to the amount of the article manufactured, shall be treated for the purposes of this Sub-section as an Excise Duty on the article manufactured.

  1279

  (4) The proceeds of any Customs Duty charged under this Section in Ireland on any article, shall to the extent to which they exceed the proceeds of the Customs or Excise Duty which would have been charged on the article in Great Britain be deemed to be the proceeds of a Customs Duty levied as an Irish tax, if the duty is charged in respect of a difference of Customs Duties, and be deemed to be the proceeds of an Excise Duty levied as an Irish tax if the duty is charged in respect of a difference of Excise Duties, and as to the balance be deemed to be the proceeds of an Imperial tax.

  (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect any enactment under which articles deposited in a bonded warehouse without payment of duty may be transferred from one country to the other country.

  Government Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "of"["for the purposes of"], insert the words "the forms to be used and the."
  In Sub-section (3), paragraph (a), after the word "levied"["Excise Duty levied"], insert the words "on similar articles."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

  CLAUSE 17.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Transferred Sum and Irish Revenue.)
  (1) The Transferred Sum shall be paid to the Irish Exchequer at such times and in such manner and according to such regulations as the Joint Exchequer Board may direct.

  (2) In the event of the reduction or discontinuance of any Imperial tax by the Irish Parliament, the Transferred Sum shall be reduced in each year by such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board to represent the amount by which the proceeds of the tax are diminished in that year in consequence of the reduction or discontinuance.

  (3) If in any financial year the proceeds of any Irish tax imposed as an addition to any Customs Duty levied as an Imperial tax (other than a Customs Duty on beer or spirits), or to any duty of Income Tax so levied, or to any Death Duty so levied, exceed one-tenth of the proceeds in Ireland of that duty as levied as an Imperial tax for the same period, the amount of the excess shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as part of the proceeds of the Irish tax, and the amount payable to the Irish Exchequer in respect of the
  1280
  proceeds of the Irish tax shall be reduced accordingly:
  Provided that—

  (a) For the purposes of this provision, the proceeds of any tax shall be deemed to be the proceeds as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board; and

  (b) The foregoing provision shall not apply in cases where the excess is solely due to the reduction of the rate of the Imperial tax.

  (4) When any reserved service is transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Ireland, the Transferred Sum shall be increased by such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board to represent the equivalent of any saving to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom by reason of the transfer, and in determining that equivalent regard shall be had to the prospect of any increase or decrease in the cost of that service which may be expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration.

  The sum by which the Transferred Sum is to be increased in pursuance of this provision may be fixed by the Joint Exchequer Board so as to vary during the first ten years after the transfer, but subject thereto shall be a definite sum.
  Government Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), paragraph (6), to leave out the words "in cases where," and insert instead thereof the words "so far as."
  Government Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (3), at end of paragraph (b), insert the following new Sub-sections:
  "(4) When an Imperial tax has been varied by the Irish Parliament, the Joint Exchequer Board, in determining for the purposes of this Act the proceeds in Ireland of the Irish tax in the case of a variation by way of addition, or the amount by which the proceeds of the Imperial tax are diminished in the case of a variation by way of reduction or discontinuance, shall consider what the amount of the proceeds in Ireland of the Imperial tax would have been if the variation had not been made, and in the case of a variation by way of addition shall treat any excess over that amount as the proceeds of the Irish tax, and in the case of a variation by way of reduction or discontinuance shall treat any deficiency below that amount as the amount by which the proceeds of the

  1281
  Imperial tax have been diminished by reason of the reduction or discontinuance.
  If in a case of variation by way of addition it is found that there is a deficiency below instead of an excess over the amount "which would have been, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, the proceeds in Ireland of the Imperial tax if the variation had not been made, the amount of that deficiency shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (5) Where an independent tax is imposed by the Irish Parliament the Joint Exchequer Board shall in each year lay before the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom a report as
  to the yield and cost of collection of the tax, and if that House pass a Resolution declaring that the additional expense caused to the United Kingdom Exchequer by the cost of the collection of the tax is excessive compared with the yield of the tax, and that the whole or any specified part of the cost of collection of the tax should be deducted from the Transferred Sum, an amount equal to the whole or the specified part of the cost of collection shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum accordingly in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: Ayes, 311; Noes, 183.

  Division No. 498.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cullinan, John

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hayward, Evan

  Alden, Percy

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Alten, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Arnold, Sydney

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Delany, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hinds, John

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Doris, W.

  Hodge, John

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Barton, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Esmende, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Black, Arthur W.

  Falconer, J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brace, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Field, William

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Brocklehurst. William B.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Kellaway. Frederick George

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Glanville, Harold James

  King, J

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Clough, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Clynes, John R.

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

  Leach, Charles

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hackett, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hancock, John George

  Lundon, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cotton, William Francis

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Crawshay - Williams, Eliot

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  McGhee, Richard

  Crooks, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harvey, T. E. (Leesd, West)

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  M'Kean, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Snowden, Philip

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Manfield, Harry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Martin, Joseph

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Thomas, James Henry

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

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

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Radlord, G. H.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Middlebrook, William

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Wadsworth, John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Molloy, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Reddy, M.

  Walton. Sir Joseph

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wardle, G. J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Waring, Walter

  Morison, Hector

  Richards, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Muldoon, John

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wason. John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Munro, Robert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Webb, H.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J Dundas (Tradeston)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Neilson, Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare)

  Rowlands, James

  Williamson, Sir A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Dowd, John

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

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

  O'Grady, James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Butcher, John George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Amery, L C. M. S.

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

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Ashley, W. W.

  Campion, W. R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Astor, Waldorf

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Balcarres, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cator, John

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Bamston, Harry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Barrie, H. T.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Chambers, James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Grant, James Augustus

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Bird, Alfred

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Haddock George Bahr

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Boyton, James

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Brassey. H. Leonard Campbell

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  1284

  1285

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Malcolm, Ian

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Meysey-Thompson, E.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Hills, John Waller

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Stanier, Beville

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Moore, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Morrison-Bell E. F. (Ashburton)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

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

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Mount, William Arthur

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Newman, John R. P.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Redk.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

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

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Peel, Capt. R. F.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

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

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

  Remnant, James Faruharson

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Yate. Col. C. E.

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

  Royds. Edmund

  Younger, Sir George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Colonel

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

  Salter, Arthur Cravell

  Rawson and Mr. M. Barlow.

  CLAUSE 22.—(Joint Exchequer Board.)
  (1) For the purposes of the financial provisions of this Act there shall be established a Board to be called the Joint Exchequer Board, consisting of two members appointed by the Treasury and two members appointed by the Irish Treasury and a Chairman appointed by His Majesty.

  (2) It shall be the duty of the Joint Exchequer Board to determine any matter which is to be determined by the Board under this Act, and also to determine any other matter in connection with the Transferred Sum, or Irish revenue or expenditure, or the cost of any reserved service, which may be referred to them for determination by the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, and the decision of the Board on any matter which is to be determined by them shall be final and conclusive.

  (3) Any vacancy arising in the office of a member of the Board, owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of any member of the Board, shall be filled by the authority by whom the member whose place is vacant was appointed.

  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
  "(2) The term of office of a member of the Joint Exchequer Board shall be ten years, but any member may at any time resign and any member may be removed by His Majesty for incapacity or misconduct.
  1286
  (3) The Joint Exchequer Board may act by three of their number and, subject to the approval of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, may regulate their own procedure.
  (4) The Joint Exchequer Board may, with the consent of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, appoint and employ such officers and servants as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servants so appointed and employed."
  I think no apology is owed to the House for again bringing up the question of the Joint Exchequer Board in very much the same form as the Amendment I moved in Committee, because the discussion we had then showed the position was even worse than we had expected. Under the Bill as it stands the details as to the tenure and constitution of the Joint Exchequer Board are to be laid down by Order in Council under Clause 45. The Amendment which has been made to the Bill shows this procedure would be even more dangerous than we had expected. It is admitted on all hands that the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board are very many and very varied. I have made out a list of them; it totals to nearly twenty; and, as if these powers were not enough, the next Amend-men which stands on the Paper in the name of the Postmaster-General is to the effect that the Joint Exchequer Board are also to determine any matters referred to them in pursuance of any Irish Transfer

  1287
  Order in Council made under this Act. The Joint Exchequer Board is not only to deal with finance, but probably with other miscellaneous matters as well. They are to deal with extremely important and highly contentious matters without this new provision, and, as was pointed out on the previous stage of the Bill, they will be able, if they wish, with these powers to make hay of the best considered Budgets. No Chancellor of Exchequer, either in England or in Ireland, could possibly foresee what decision would be come to by the Joint Exchequer Board carrying out the absolutely inconsistent and mutually contradictory instructions which are laid down for their guidance in the Bill.
  8.0 P.M.
  I will only take one example. The Board, among its other duties, will have to decide what amount of the proceeds of any Customs Duty is to be allotted to each Exchequer in those cases where, in addition to the British Customs Duty, there is a surtax charged in Ireland. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, the Irish Parliament decides to put a surtax of a halfpenny per pound on tea, raising the duty from 5d. to 5½d., an increase of 10 per cent., and let us assume that surtax does not affect the yield. It is quite conceivable such an increase would diminish consumption and bring in no more money. Under the Bill neither Exchequer could foretell the result of the apportionment between the two Exchequers. At first glance, under Clause 16, Sub-section (4), it would appear that each Exchequer would receive the same proportion of the total yield as the duties imposed by each Exchequer bore to the total tax, but it would not be safe for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to reckon on the Joint Exchequer Board being guided by that provision in the Bill, because the last Amendment on which we divided is entirely inconsistent with that which is laid down in Clause 16, Subsection (4). I know it has been suggested that Amendment deals only with general taxation as opposed to Customs and Excise Duties, but there is nothing whatever in the Amendment itself to say so. It deals with Imperial taxes, and apparently it would be within the competence of the Joint Exchequer Board to take their choice between those two contradictory and different instructions. They are instructed by that Amendment to consider the amount of the proceeds of the Imperial tax in
  1288
  Ireland as if the variation had not been made, and to treat only the excess over that figure as the proceed of the Irish tax. I must say it seems to me that these two instructions are flatly irreconcilable. But owing to the action of the guillotine they stand on the face of the Bill without a single word of discussion having taken place on the subject. I suppose I am hardly in order in dealing with this question, which is one of great inconsistency, except as an example of the fact that the Joint Exchequer Board will, by its unfore-seeing action, make a scientific Budget absolutely impossible. They will be bound to accept the Estimates of one or the other. Let me, ask the House to picture what will happen. The Budgets in both countries will probably be decided upon at the beginning of the financial year, before the full figures on which their decisions must be based are before the Joint Exchequer Board. How on earth is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a case to know in what way the Joint Exchequer Board will decide the operation and yield of taxes under Clause 16, Sub-section (4)? Will he throw the loss on England or not? It is obvious that under this new Sub-section (4) of Clause 17 he may give the whole proceeds of the tax to England, and thereby do nothing to fulfil the expectations of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whatever decision may be arrived at by the Joint Exchequer Board, one or other of the Treasuries must be very much aggrieved, and the decision must lead to very great discontent and friction—friction which will make the work of the Exchequer Board extremely difficult.
  What is this Board which is to arrive at this decision? In effect it is not a Board of five—it is merely a Board of one. When I moved an Amendment on very much the same lines in Committee, the learned Attorney-General stated there was no necessity for a fixed term of service on the Joint Exchequer Board. He said that what was contemplated was that certain members would be appointed while they are Treasury officials, and that they did not want the term to be either five or ten years, because it might be that the official might cease to be an official of the Treasury after a number of years and it might be required that persons in that particular office in the Treasury should sit on the Board. That is to say, the Joint Exchequer Board, as regards two of its members, is to be merely

  1289
  a Department of the Treasury interested in either country. That makes it clear that it will only be an independent Board in name. In fact, it will be a combination of two Departments—of representatives of each Treasury, presided over by an independent chairman. The representatives of the English and Irish Treasuries, respectively, will naturally act on definite instructions from the heads of their particular Department. They will be bound to take the official view on matters which come before them, and they will therefore counteract the power of each other: the chairman will be the Joint Exchequer Board and will have all the power. No doubt the Treasury officials will carry out the instructions of the Treasury, but on the chairman will rest the burden of the work and responsibility of this absolutely fantastic Board. Surely, instead of having a dummy Board set up in this fashion, it would be much better to have a real one commanding confidence for its impartiality in both countries.
  Take the case of Canada. There you have a precedent for deciding disputes between the federal and provincial authorities although not in matters of finance. The framers of the Act in Canada, in their wisdom, restricted the powers of each body so that there could be no possible dispute over finance. Where disputes did arise they were to be referred to the Supreme Court in the case of the subordinate Legislatures, except in the case of the province of Quebec, where any dispute would go straight to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In Canada these difficulties arise very rarely. But when they do arise, the decision of the Judicial Committee is deemed to be impartial, and no exception is taken to it by either side. Surely that precedent is a very valuable one. Matters which are to be left to be decided by the Joint Exchequer Board will be very numerous; far more numerous indeed than those which have to be decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They will be very much more contentious, and so it will be even more necessary than in the case of the North American Constitution to submit them to a body which commands absolute and complete confidence. I do not think that the body which is proposed under this Bill will command that confidence. For one thing, the members will be removable at the will of the heads of the Treasury. It will be known that they are absolutely dependent on their Depart-
  1290
  mental chiefs, and it will be felt that the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board will, in fact, be the decision of a single man. I have the greatest admiration for the administrative ability of the Treasury. But I think it is most desirable that in the case of the Joint Exchequer Board this feeling to which I have referred should be avoided. The public should not be induced to believe that the members are merely taking a Departmental view. Therefore, it is that I am proposing this Amendment. No doubt the respective Exchequers will have to give the materials upon which their decisions are based, and I would suggest that it would be to the advantage of the Joint Exchequer Board that when these materials are obtained from the Treasury they should be checked and reconciled under the instruction of the Joint Exchequer Board. The present idea seems to be that the figures will be compiled from the divergent standpoints of the two Treasuries and that they will be thrown at the head of the Chairman, whose duty it will be to reconcile them.
  Even if the Government do accept my Amendment, I do not say it will make the Joint Exchequer Board a satisfactory body. In my opinion the setting up of a standing arbitrator between two Parliaments is in itself a vicious proceeding. The Joint Exchequer Board will spring from a tainted and bad source. There are difficulties essential to any scheme which tries to reconcile the irreconcilable. Wherever these difficulties have arisen, wherever financial tangles have cropped up, and the Government method has throughout been to try to shuffle out of it by transferring it to the Joint Exchequer Board. It is, in fact, to be the scapegoat for the Government's shortcomings. In the interests, however, of the smooth working of the Bill, if it ever does become law, and to avoid unnecessary difficulties between two Governments, I urge that as the Joint Exchequer Board is to do work which will be largely judicial in its character the members should be secure in their office, so that, however unpopular their decisions may be, no doubt can arise in the minds of the parties interested as to their complete independence and absolute impartiality.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I beg to second the Amendment. One of the strangest facts in regard to this Bill is the casual way in which the Government have made provision for the setting up of the Joint Exchequer Board. The Bill states that it is

  1291
  to be a Board which is to be given enormous power, but it has very little to say in regard to the status or constitution of this new body. This Board itself is a gigantic constitutional innovation. There is nothing in the least resembling it in any Constitution in the British Empire, and, so far as I am aware, there is nothing like it in any Constitution in the world. This Board of five members, as the Prime Minister has said, is to be an independent body, acting independently. That is really all we know about it. It is not only independent of any effective control by the Imperial Parliament, but it is placed in a position of actual superiority over this House. Its decision on the most important questions of finance will undoubtedly limit the operations of both Parliaments—in fact, the key of the Kingdom's finances is to be handed over to these five gentlemen. Let us see what are the powers of this autocratic body. In the first place, it will assess the amount of the Transferred Sum on which Ireland is to pay her way; it will determine what is the yield of any tax imposed by the Irish Parliament, either by way of addition to an Imperial Tax or as an independent tax; it will determine to what extent the proceeds of any Customs or Excise Duty levied by the Irish Parliament are to be deemed the proceeds of an Irish Tax or of an Imperial Tax; it is to determine how much is to be deducted from the Transferred Sum in the event of the Irish Parliament reducing or discontinuing any Irish Tax; it is to determine whether the yield of any additional Irish Income Tax, or Death Duty, or Customs Tax, imposed as an addition to the British Duty, exceeds the British Tax yield in regard to Ireland by 10 per cent.; and it is to direct—and this is an important point—as a consequence that any excess so ascertained shall not be paid to the Irish Exchequer, but be kept by the British Exchequer.
  Towards the end of the Clause it is provided that the Board is further to determine, in the event of the Irish Government taking over any Reserved Service, what is the equivalent of any saving to the British Exchequer by the transfer of such service to Ireland, and it is to decide whether the expenses of such service would be likely to increase or decrease. In addition to all that, it can direct that the Transferred Sum should vary during the ten years after the transfer. It can determine any
  1292
  matter connected with the Transferred Sum, or with Irish revenue or expenditure, or the cost of any Reserved Services which may be referred to it by the Imperial Treasury and the Treasury of Ireland jointly. It has powers to control the imposition by the Parliament of Ireland of any independent tax, by declaring that such tax is substantially the same as the Imperial tax. If loans are raised by the Irish Government on the credit of the Transferred Sum, the Exchequer Board can undertake the issue and management of the loan and the sum necessary for meeting the charges on the loan, and these sums are to be paid to the Exchequer Board instead of to the Irish Exchequer, The Board is to decide what is, from time to time, the true revenue of Ireland, as distinguished from the true revenue of Great Britain. In the last place, it is upon a report of the Joint Exchequer Board that the procedure of Clause 26 will be brought into operation, and the Imperial Parliament will be called upon to remodel its Constitution and revise the financial arrangements of the Home Rule Bill. I think it will be admitted that the bare enumeration of the powers and duties which are to be entrusted to this new body is sufficient to show that its construction is of vital importance. When one realises the importance of this financial body it does seem most remarkable that the constitution of the Board should be allowed to remain in a nebulous condition.
  The impression I have gathered from the explanations which were given by the Attorney-General during the Committee stage, is that the Irish Exchequer Board will meet two or three times a year to deal with all these important matters which are to be committed to their care. The work will apparently be in the nature of a holiday task—something which the Treasury officials can perform in the intervals of their ordinary duties at the Treasury. They are really to come over to Ireland to enjoy themselves. That was the impression which was produced by the light and airy manner adopted by the Attorney-General. Of course, when we examine what the Board will be called upon to do, we see at once the absurdity of that idea. Their duties in respect to loans, to name no other duty, will necessitate the Board having a permanent and settled constitution, with a considerable staff working under them. It does seem strange, therefore, that up to the present time the status and constitution of the

  1293
  Board have not been defined. I am glad to admit that the Government have put down Amendments, which to some extent meet some of the points mentioned in the Amendment, but there are many shortcomings. There is no limitation as to the term of office for which the members shall serve. There is no provision for employment of officers. There is no provision in regard to salaries, and there is no provision for a quorum. I think the reasons which have been advanced by the representatives of the Government for leaving matters in that undefined state are wholly inconclusive. If the Joint Exchequer Board is to be established at all, it should be given a well-defined constitution, and Parliament should settle the limits of its powers, and ought also to have some control over its operations. There is one point with reference to the Joint Exchequer Board which is of great importance—it is to be called into existence for the purpose of arbitrating between the Irish Parliament and the Imperial Parliament. The two Parliaments are to have equal representation upon it, with an independent chairman as umpire. That indicates to my mind the idea that the two Parliaments are co-equal, and it disposes, once and for all, of the contention that the Irish Parliament is subordinate to this Parliament. That is the contention upheld by hon. Gentlemen opposite during the whole discussion of this Bill. For these reasons I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Mr. GINNELL: I have an Amendment on the Paper, and I understand the few words I intended to say in support of it will be in order now. I entirely agree "with the two hon. Gentlemen who have proposed and seconded this Amendment in emphasising the importance of the Joint Exchequer Board commanding general confidence. I have no doubt that the Amendment they propose, if embodied in the Bill, would confer upon the Board general confidence in this country; but this is a bilateral Board, and it is necessary for its success and smooth working that it should command general confidence in the two countries concerned. To make all the members of the Board removable by the King would amount to making them removable by the British Ministry—that is, removable by one side in a joint transaction and not by the other. That would be manifestly unfair, and could not command general confidence on the other side of the Channel. The only proper
  1294
  authority, in my opinion, to remove a member of the Joint Exchequer Board is the authority by which he was appointed. The power of removal vested elsewhere might be, and probably would be, exercised when we in Ireland did not want it, and not exercised when we did want it, and want it with very good reason. I object on principle to letting the Clause pass in its present state without any express power of removal, because that would amount to a life tenure of office for the Irish members of the Board, but not for the British members. You here would have ample means of removing any member of the Board who from any cause became objectionable, while we in Ireland would have no such power. Members of this Board, as of any other Board, would have no respect for an authority possessing no power to remove them. The result would be that Ireland would have nominal representatives on this Board, and no real representatives; and that for practical purposes the Board would be, not joint, but one-sided. I would therefore urge as strongly as I may upon the Postmaster-General to accept the suggestion to make each member of this Board removable by the authority by which he was appointed, and by no other. That is all I have to say on this aspect of the Amendment. But I would ask you, Sir, whether the fact of the latter part of this Amendment suggesting a quorum will preclude me from moving my later Amendment on the paper with reference to a quorum. If it would I would say on that subject now what I desire to say.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr.Whitley): I understand the hon. Member refers to an Amendment which he has on the Paper to the Postmaster-General's Amendment later on. I do not think the decision on this Amendment would preclude him from moving, if we reach it in time, the Amendment to the Postmaster-General's Amendment later on.
  Mr. GORDON: I do not like one bit of this Bill from beginning to end. I do not conceal that. But when we are dealing with it here, and as long as it is under the control of the House, there ought to be at least some attempt made to make it appear to be a reasonable and workable measure even in the eyes of those who approve the principle of Home Rule. What are you doing? You are creating here not merely a novel body but a body with the greatest powers that you could

  1295
  confer upon any persons with reference in finance between this country and Ireland, and novel to the Irish people themselves. The body which above all others it will be calling into existence ought to be above suspicion, and ought to be above the influence of any party outside either the Government here or the Government in Ireland. When the Land Act of 1903 was passing through this House and when the Commissioners were being created for the purpose of working that Land Act, which only dealt with the sale and purchase of land in Ireland, great care was taken to give security of tenure and great care was taken also to have the names placed before the Committee of the House of Commons before that Bill became law, and one of the things which I remember well was most eagerly discussed and anxiously considered was not merely who the men were, and what were their qualification for discharging the duties, but to see that they were placed in a position where they could not be supposed to be subject to any influence or any prejudice in favour of one side or the other. Here you are appointing men to determine between the two countries in reference to the entire revenue that Ireland is to have and you are appointing them not merely to determine now what is to be the course in future, but you are appointing them to determine day by day, year by year, Session of Parliament after Session of Parliament, how important matters in reference to finance are to be decided; and yet this Bill, contrary I think to almost every precedent on any Bill setting up an important Board to discharge important functions, has neither determined the length of time for which they are to be appointed nor has it determined anything in reference to how they are to be paid, who they are to be, or any security for their remaining in office at all. It is not necessary to assume that either party affected in this matter will act unreasonably or dishonestly. That is not always necessary to assume when you are dealing with and making provision for the carrying out of the work of a great Board like this, but you cannot leave out of consideration the possibility of unfairness, the possibility of an attempt being made to influence one or other of the members of this Board, and therefore this House—I say this House designedly, apart from Ministers who are carrying through this measure, and apart from those who are directly considering what is to be done in
  1296
  reference to the position of Nationalist Ireland—this House ought to see that a body like this, about to be set up to discharge great and important duties, should be in a position which would be secure, which would render them above suspicion, and would prevent any attempt to interfere unduly with the discharge of their duties.
  What is asked for by this Amendment? The Government have not attempted to show whether the members of the Board are to be appointed for the job when the occasion arises, or for a year, or for a session, or for life. Nor does the Clause say anything with reference to giving them salaries, which would show that they are officers to discharge important work, and not merely journeymen sent off to do this work. I suppose the Postmaster-General considers that this is only a small matter of figures. We have heard from time to time that the greatest difficulties have been encountered in trying to determine questions of revenue as between England and Ireland. This Clause involves the whole of these matters. They will require grave consideration. They will require very great skill, and probably a great deal of time, to work out accurately. One can hardly see why the Government will not put the provisions of the Amendment into this Bill if by oversight they have left them out. The first is that the office of member shall be held for ten years, but that any member may resign or be removed by His Majesty for incapacity or misconduct. I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member say—for I know the feeling of hon. Members below the Gangway—that because His Majesty is to have power to remove a member that is regarded as a one-sided bargain, as the Irish representatives would be there permanently, the King not having to remove them. I understand that one of the great points with the Nationalist party is that they are still loyal to the King, and that when the words "His Majesty" are used in an Act of Parliament they mean that the King will be Sovereign in Ireland as well as in England. Therefore, I think that argument carries no weight whatever. It is a slight indication of the position which hon. Members below the Gangway will occupy in their Parliament with reference to the Sovereign. I think it is an indication that they will have a very different view of their position in Ireland after the passing of the Bill from what it is now with reference to the Sovereign.

  1297
  As to the power of removal for incapacity or misconduct, these are well-known grounds for removal, and it is not to be assumed that they would be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. If you want an honest Board with reasonable security that it will be above suspicion in carrying out these enormous and important duties, I think they should at least be appointed for a period of ten years, and that they should only be removable by His Majesty for incapacity or misconduct. That is a reasonable thing to suggest, and I cannot understand why the Government should refuse to accept it. It may be said that it is a small matter, but I would remind the House that every company created with a capital of £5,000 has to appoint directors, and that so many of them form a quorum. What is to be a quorum here? If two meet, can they decide all those important questions? If only one is present, can he decide them? Surely, as a matter of procedure, it is necessary to have a quorum. The Clause provides that the Exchequer Board may, with the consent of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury, appoint such officers as are required. I suppose if they do appoint people they will have to be paid. When you provide for appointing people who are to be paid out of Imperial funds or Irish funds, there ought to be some provision made showing how and by whom the appointments are to be made. There is an Amendment standing in the name of the Postmaster-General with reference to the question of appeals from the Joint Exchequer Board. He wants to insert the words
  "subject to the provisions of this Act as to appeals from decisions of the Board."
  Let there be no mistake. There is no appeal from the decision of the Board on questions of fact, and they are far and away the most important. The only matters that will be carried to appeal are questions of law.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must not discuss that Amendment until we reach it.
  Mr. GORDON: It was not for the purpose of discussing the Amendment I mentioned it, but for the purpose of calling attention to the enormous powers this Board will have. There is no right of appeal from them on questions of fact. On all matters of fact dealing with finance they are absolutely masters of the situation. When this Amendment was before the Committee the Attorney-General stated the position perfectly clearly, when
  1298
  he said that matters of fact are left entirely to the Board, and that the Government did not intend to interfere with their decisions or opinions on matters of fact, I think, as Members of the House of Commons, we ought to see that things are dealt with in a reasonable way, and that proposals in the Bill are not allowed to slip through without explanation.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot refrain from suggesting to the House that hon. Members who have spoken have enlarged unduly the importance of the functions which are to be attributed to this Board. One hon. Member said it is to determine the entire revenue which each country is to have, and another that its decisions might upset the best calculated Budget; but as the last hon. Member has said, it merely has to determine questions of fact. It has to decide how much money is in fact being spent on certain Irish services when the Bill comes into operation, and it has to decide how much money has come into the till, so to speak, owing to the increase of an Irish tax, or how much has failed to be collected owing to the reduction of an Irish tax, and questions of that kind. There is only one large question of finance which is referred to it. That is the decision of the point whether or not a new Irish tax is an independent tax, substantially different from an Imperial tax; but on that point there is an appeal to the Privy Council in case any dispute arises. For the rest its functions are of a much more modest kind than the speeches of hon. Members would lead us to suppose, although I do not deny that some of the functions which it is called upon to fulfil are difficult functions, for it may have to make careful calculations in certain respects, but only with regard to any margin of doubt that may exist. With regard to the great bulk of the subject referred to for consideration, that is not so. If there is a tax of £100,000, for instance, to be divided between the Imperial and the Irish Exchequers according to the yield of the respective rates of the tax, it will not have to decide any question as to whether one Exchequer or the other would have the £100,000. The question it has to decide will be whether the proportion handed over to the Irish Parliament is £10,000, or £10,400, or £10,700.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of inconsistency between Section 16 (4) and Section 17. I wished to raise this as a point of Order on the Amendment, and Mr.

  1299
  Speaker allowed me, as it was so very complicated, to ask for a decision with regard to it on this Amendment, instead of raising it as a point of Order.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to admit that I never try to evade a question asked me, and I had it on my notes to deal with this question next. The point I am at present on is that although the sums with which the Board will be concerned will be large, and although some of the points it will have to settle are nice points, the margin of doubt with which it "will have to deal will be small, and its decisions one way or another, though it is important to get them as accurately as possible, will not make any very serious difference financially, either to one country or the other. The important thing is to have some machinery that will command more or less the confidence of the two parties concerned which will solve any points of difference which may, in fact, arise. Hon. Members who have spoken have discovered an alleged inconsistency between 16 (4) and the new paragraph 17 (4). They may have overlooked a point in Clause 16 (4) which deals with the proceeds of Customs Duties imposed under this Section and that Section 16 merely deals with the Customs Duties that are imposed in Ireland or Great Britain, as the case may be, on goods passing between those two countries, where the Customs Duties may have to be altered owing to some action on the part of the Irish Parliament; and Clause 16 (4) says that so far as any such Customs Duty is altered by the Irish Parliament it is to be regarded as an Irish tax, and so far as it is the precise duty previously imposed by the Imperial Parliament it is to be regarded as an Imperial tax. But it does not deal with the question as to how the proceeds of the tax are to be calculated. It merely says that the proceeds of the difference between the two are to be regarded as the proceeds of an Irish tax as distinct from an Imperial tax. That certainly is so. Then a later Clause, 17 (4), deals with all Customs Duties, whether on goods passing between these two countries or not, and it decides, in ascertaining what are to be regarded as the proceeds of an additional Customs Duty, that what are to be taken as the proceeds is the sum actually received over and above the money that would have been received otherwise, and not merely an arithmetical amount calculated as the
  1300
  ratio of the new Irish tax compared with the old Imperial tax.
  The later Clause certainly covers the Customs Duty that may be imposed to go with the corresponding Excise Duty on goods passing between the two countries. But it does not deal with the same subject matter. One determines what is an Imperial and what is an Irish tax, and the other how you are to calculate what are to be regarded as the proceeds of a particular Irish tax. Now, coming to the particular proposals of this Amendment before the House, the first is that the term of office for these gentlemen who are to serve on the Joint Exchequer Board is to be fixed at a period of ten years, subject to dismissal on certain grounds. That would entirely defeat the whole purpose of this Clause, and completely alter the character of the Joint Exchequer Board. These questions which are to be decided should be decided in the ordinary course by the Treasury, but as there are two Exchequers concerned we ought to have representatives of both those Treasuries sitting on the tribunal which is to decide these matters. The idea always has been that these two gentlemen on each side would be the representatives of the Treasuries of the two countries, acting in accordance with instruction from those Treasuries, and representing the views of the Treasuries of the United Kingdom and of Ireland, respectively, and, as has already been stated, that is the reason for not tying ourselves to particular persons to constitute this Board. The intention is that they should be officials of capacity and standing, who should be well qualified to represent their respective Treasuries.
  If you fix a time of ten years you entirely destroy the whole basis of the plan of the Joint Exchequer Board being a conference of the members of the two Treasuries sitting under the presidency of a chairman, because these five gentlemen would remain in office for ten years, and consequently they might continue sitting on the Joint Exchequer Board long after they may have left the Civil Service of the country to which they belong. The hon. Member has suggested that we ought to have in the Bill the salaries which we are to be paid. It is not in his Amendment partly because it would be out of order at this stage, but we discussed the matter at great length in Committee. Salaries may be quite unnecessary, very likely will be unnecessary in the case of officials, if officials are appointed. A salary for the

  1301
  chairman may or may not be necessary. It depends on the individual; but it is best not to indicate in the Bill the salaries to be paid. If salaries are required they will be put on the estimate, and so far as they are payable by the Imperial Exchequer, they will be entirely under the control and discretion of this House. Another point is as to the number of members to form a quorum. These very small points were left out of the Bill. They would be settled by Order in Council and Regulations made under the Bill. They are very minute to demand attention at such length from this Parliament, which is supposed to have very inadequate time for the discussion of this Bill, but since the point was raised we have put down an Amendment providing that three shall be the quorum. The hon. Member for West Meath (Mr. Ginnell) has an Amendment to provide that at least one of the three must be a representative of the Irish Treasury, but the effect of that would be that the Irish Treasury, if it wished would bring the whole proceedings of the Board to a deadlock and prevent any business of any kind being transacted, by instructing their representatives not to attend. That, of course, is a contingency which ought not to be made possible by the Act.
  Personally, I do not for a moment suggest that it will occur, but if the hon. Member thinks it necessary to move his Amendment in order to provide that the Irish Treasury should be a liberty to bring the proceedings to a standstill if it thinks fit, all I can say is that it would be my duty to resist an Amendment in order to prevent anything of the kind, because if the proceedings of the Board were to come to a standstill, and as the decisions of the Board are essential for a number of things that have to be done under the Act, it would mean that the Act would not work. Therefore I must ask the hon. Member to put what confidence his convictions will allow him to do in the impartiality of the chairman who will be appointed to preside over the Board.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman condemns this Board to work with a quorum of British members.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; I do not contemplate that it will in fact do so. I do not for a moment expect such a division of opinion as would be indicated by the withdrawal of Irish members; I do not contemplate that anything of that-kind will happen at all. I only say that
  1302
  it ought not to be possible for it to happen. The next point of the Amendment is that the Joint Exchequer Board, subject to the approval of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, may regulate their own procedure. Our Amendment provides that the Board may regulate their own procedure. It would be a very unwise provision to insert in the Bill that their procedure should be subject to the approval of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly. Surely it is better to leave the matter to the Board itself, which consists of representatives of the Treasury and of the Irish Treasury, to provide a method of solution in case of difference of opinion between the two. The last point in the Amendment is that the Joint Exchequer Board "may, with the consent of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, appoint and employ such officers and servants as they think necessary, and may remove any officer and servant so appointed and employed." Of course they will have inherent powers to employ officers if they think fit, and if this House votes the salaries necessary. It is not our view, however, that the Joint Exchequer Board should be erected into anything in the nature of a large Government Department. The idea is that there should be five gentlemen sitting round a table, from time to time, and settling points put before them by the two Treasuries. The hon. Gentleman said that they would meet two or three times a year. It is not at all so. They will have to meet much oftener than that when the Bill first comes into operation, but when the machinery of the Bill has been once set going, their duties would not be arduous, and certainly would not require the services of a large staff. If they had to manage any loans, no doubt it could be done through the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland, or any large bank. I think it would be a pity to insert any provision in the Bill which would imply that hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to increase the number of officials and the number of salaries to be paid to public servants.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General and that made by the Attorney-General in Committee both show internal evidence that the Government never meant this Bill to pass, or never hoped that this Bill would pass, or they would not have submitted a skeleton Clause of

  1303
  this nature, which provides no constitution for one of the most important bodies set up under this measure. The right hon. Gentleman takes the same view as the Attorney-General took a few weeks ago, that, after all, the powers of this body are really of no importance whatever, or of very little importance, and that the work could be discharged by a few Treasury clerks, who could very well conduct the business that is to be conducted by the Joint Exchequer Board. It would appear that it does not very much matter whether they are offered salaries or not, or how long they will stay, and they may come and go, and be replaced from time to time. We take a very different view of the Joint Exchequer Board from that which is apparently held by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We look through the Bill, and we find that most important duties are assigned to this Board. The learned Attorney-General on a previous occasion said all the Joint Exchequer Board will have to decide will really be matters of account, and a few accountants would be sufficient for the purpose. The Postmaster-General said that they will have to decide questions of fact, and that what would depend on their decision would be whether a small margin of expenditure was for the Irish Exchequer or the British Exchequer, and questions of that kind. The Postmaster-General, in a speech which he made earlier in the afternoon, answered some criticisms by Lord MacDonnell on the finance of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that Lord MacDonnell stated that under this Bill it will be found that Ireland is very unfairly treated because when they come to make up the real account of what is the true Irish revenue it will be found to have been very much understated by the Government acting on the advice of His Majesty's Treasury. Thereupon, the Postmaster-General said that that will be a matter which will afterwards be decided by the Joint Exchequer Board and that if the Joint Exchequer Board proves Lord MacDonnell's view to be right, and that the true Irish revenue has been understated, then, of course, more money will have to be paid to Ireland.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not at all. It will not be as to the statement of the true Irish revenue. It does not affect at all what will be the true Irish revenue under the Bill. It only affects the date
  1304
  at which the deficit will be ended under Clause 26.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Lord MacDonnell said more money would be due to Ireland, because the true revenue of Ireland had been understated, and if the account were taken between the British Exchequr and the Irish Exchequer his view was that Ire-land would be better off than she would under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. My argument is this: Who will have to ascertain the true revenue of Ireland, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself? It is the Treasury officials—the Joint Exchequer Board, acting on whose instructions?—acting as the right hon. Gentleman said, on the instructions of the Treasury. What are the instructions of the Treasury? They are the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who presides over the Treasury. Whose servants are these Gentlemen going to be? Who pays them? Are they going to be independent of salaries? We are told not. They are to be salaried officials acting under the Chancellor of the Exchequer and taking their instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I think we ought to have on this Board are men of independent opinion, not salaried officials taking their instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not the sort of Board we ought to have to decide these questions. The Postmaster-General said that this body will have to decide questions of fact, and the Attorney-General the other day said they would not have to give their opinion, and they would deal merely with questions of fact. The right hon. Gentleman takes the same view. I wish to call the attention of the House to one of the duties of the Joint Exchequer Board; here is one of the questions we have to decide:—
  "When any reserved services is transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Ireland, the Transferred Sum shall be increased by such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board to represent the equivalent of any saving to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom by reason of the transfer."
  The right hon. Gentleman would say that is a matter of fact. Let him read what follows:—
  "And in determining that equivalent, regard shall be had to the prospect of any increase or decrease in the cost of

  1305
  that service which may be expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration."
  Let us apply that. Supposing that the Irish Government want to take Over old age pensions. This Joint Exchequer Board will not only have to go into the finance and find out what is the equivalent of the sum which the British Exchequer has to pass for old age pensions, but will also have to decide what is the prospect of an increase or a decrease in the cost of old age pensions which may be expected to arise, not being matters of administration. What must those causes be? They must be matters of policy.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, no.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: How is anybody going to determine what is going to be the prospective cost of old age pensions unless he takes into consideration that a Government may be in power actually pledged to lower the age at which pensions are given or to increase the amount of the pensions? Suppose the Joint Exchequer Board know that a Government is in power the great bulk of whose supporters are in favour of reducing the age, or of increasing the amount from five shillings per week to seven shillings per week, are they not to take that into consideration? I say they will be bound to do so if these words have any meaning at all.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The case the words have in mind is precisely the case of old age pensions, where the cost will be dropping from year to year owing to the fact that (he population of Ireland has declined, and the number of people who reach the age of seventy in any particular year is known to be gradually decreasing from year to year. It would not be right to give to the Irish Parliament, if they took over old age pensions, the sum which they cost at the moment, when it is known actuarily that in the course of the next so many years the cost is going gradually to decline.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Are we to understand that the Joint Exchequer Board is always to take into account any single thing they see which in the future is likely to lead to a decrease in the cost of the service, but that it is not to take into account things which are likely to lead to an increase?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the words he will see that that is covered.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Regard is to be had to any increase in the cost of the service.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Or decrease.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Which may be anticipated from causes which are administrative. A Government may have been actually elected the great majority of whom are pledged to a very large increase in the cost of old age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that that is quite possible. Is the Board to take that into consideration? That is not an increase due to matters of administration, but it is a matter due entirely to, and the outcome of, a change of policy through the desire on the part of the electors to decrease the age at which old age pensions shall be payable, or to increase the cost. I am perfectly certain I am right in my construction of this, and under these words the Board will be bound to take that matter into consideration in saying what amount of money ought to be surrendered if the transferred service was handed over to the Irish Exchequer. I do not think he will say my second case is a mere matter of fact, and is not a matter of policy. The Attorney-General was almost denunciatory of any of those who spoke. I did not do so, and who suggested that the Joint Exchequer Board would have to decide matters of policy? When the Attorney-General and the right hon. Gentleman take that view they must have entirely forgotten Clause 23, which provides:—
  "If provision is made by Irish Act for securing any loan raised by the Government of Ireland upon the Transferred Sum and for the payment of such part of the Transferred Sum as in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board may be required for the services of the loan in each year direct to that Board, the Board may undertake on behalf of the Irish Government the issue and management of the loan and the application of the money paid to them for the services of the loan."
  That is an enormous power to give to any Board whatever. They are to be the sole arbiters as to whether or not an Irish loan shall be floated on the authority of the Joint Exchequer Board, the majority of whom are actually chosen as representatives of the British Treasury. I have always said, in case the Board were to give their sanction to the issue of a loan of this kind, it would be impossible for the

  1307
  British Exchequer to repudiate responsibility for the success of that loan. If by a majority of the Board the Board came to the conclusion that they would practically father this loan, there is a matter of the most serious import to the British Exchequer. It has been said by the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, that this is to be an entirely independent body, acting independently because it performs a statutory duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General contradicts the Prime Minister to-night and tells us it is not to be an independent body, but a body acting on the instructions of the Treasury, which is acting on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it acts on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it must be responsible to this House because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible to this House. Certainly I cannot imagine that any Government of any kind would give powers of this kind to a few Treasury clerks to issue loans for which the British Exchequer would ultimately be responsible without having it in their minds that that matter must be a matter for the House of Commons itself, to be reviewed or criticised by the House and perhaps endorsed or perhaps refused by the House.
  I think I have shown that many of these powers are not, as the right hon. Gentleman says, mere expressions of opinion on accounts on which there may be a little margin here or there, but that they are really vital questions largely affecting the Exchequer of the two countries, and embracing matters not only of opinion but matters of policy. I say if that be true, and I claim I have proved the truth of it, this Joint Exchequer Board will have enormous powers affecting the welfare of the British Exchequer and of the Irish Exchequer. I have mentioned the instance of the authority to issue a loan which is a matter of enormous importance. Suppose that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it was unfair to make the present generation pay out of revenue for some money to be expended, possibly in nationalising the Irish railways, or possibly in large works for redeeming the harbours of Ireland, or for drainage, and that he came to the conclusion that the money ought to be raised by loan on the Transferred Sum, and that these two British clerks of the British Exchequer, acting on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer here say, "No, you shall not do it; we have a majority of one
  1308
  here and there will be no loan;" the decision of such an important question as that ought not to be in the hands of those chance Treasury clerks. They are not even to be appointed for the purpose; they are clerks who happen to be at the Treasury at the time. All Treasury clerks are able, in my opinion, but at the same time they are generally fairly busy; I do not know men who are harder worked as a rule; but just in their leisure hours any two Treasury clerks are to be called together and to have these enormous powers. This is a skeleton Bill, which has never been properly clothed at all, and-which ought to be taken back for reconsideration on this and many other points. We are told that we need not trouble about salaries for these Treasury clerks because they have their salaries already. Yes, but not for this work. Their salaries are for work of a very different kind, and if these clerks are drawn from that work you will probably have to find other clerks to take their place in the Treasury to do the work which these particular clerks would have done if they had not been put on the Joint Exchequer Board. If the right hon. Gentleman had to work this particular Clause he would probably find that a very considerable staff was necessary at times if the Joint Exchequer Board was properly to fulfil its duties. Unless there are salaries attached to these positions, and at least one of those salaries is on the Estimates, I do not see how the British House of Commons will be able to review the proceedings of the Joint Exchequer Board. I am quite certain that no British House of Commons will ever forego the right to review decisions of a character which may be almost vital in regard to the finances of this country. The decisions will be of the greatest possible importance to the taxpayers not only of this country but of Ireland. Therefore, some salary must be put on the Estimates in order that this House of Commons may be able to review the decisions and to have some control over the action of the Joint Exchequer Board.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Act," to insert the words "or in pursuance of any Irish Transfer Order in Council made under this Act."
  Mr. MOORE: This is apparently a very harmless Amendment, although it covers

  1309
  a great deal of ground. On the last Amendment an attempt was made by the Government, as is always the case when it suits them, to minimise the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board. We were told that my hon. Friend had altogether overstated the extent of their duties. Certainly up to the present the intention has been that their duties should be defined by the Act. I do not think we have discussed that portion of the Bill; certainly we can have no opportunity of discussing the additional duties that may be put upon the Board by Order in Council. Since the Bill was first introduced we have had an altogether new scheme of legislation, which this House will never have an opportunity of discussing until an Order in Council is allowed to lie on the Table for forty days. It seems to me that anything may be done by an Order in Council, which is referred to as an Irish Transfer Order. Clause 45 contains a large number of heads under which this machinery of Irish Transfer Orders in Council is to operate. Apparently it is intended by this Amendment that an Irish Transfer Order in Council may contain in its own terms additional duties for the Joint Exchequer Board. On the last Amendment the Postmaster-General said that the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board were strictly limited and defined by the Bill. Immediately this Amendment is passed there will no longer be any limitation, as an Irish Transfer Order in Council may put any duties whatsoever upon the Board. I am not sure whether I should be in order in discussing the absence of control on the part of this House over Irish Transfer Orders in Council, as compared with the provisions of a Bill which has to go through Committee and Report stages. In the Bill the Government go through the form of saying that the House will still have some control over an Irish Transfer Order. It is all very well for the public to be told that the Order will lie on the Table for forty days, and that if either House petitions His Majesty against it the Order will forthwith become void. But we who have to work in this House know what an absolute farce that is. If an Order in Council dealing with I do not care what subject were challenged in the present Session, what opportunity would any Member have, unless he happened to be a Nationalist, of saying one word about it or taking the opinion of the House upon it?
  That is the machinery now being invoked to create now duties for the Joint
  1310
  Exchequer Board, who, we are told in one breath are to settle the destinies of Ireland, while in the next we are assured that it is to be only a mere matter of a couple of Treasury clerks from each Treasury meeting around a table and deciding matters which really do not concern anybody but themselves. I protest, when important issues like this are at stake, against their not being limited by the Bill itself-Unlimited powers may be vested in this Board, of which we do not even know the names of the members. If the Postmaster-General is right, we shall never know their names, because they will simply be Treasury clerks sent in from time to time. By this Amendment we are giving up all real control over the jurisdiction and functions of this body. These matters ought to be settled within the four corners of the Act, and not by Orders in Council drawn up upon the instructions of the Government of the day. The Government say that this Home Rule Bill is to be the Charter of the future Government of Ireland; but they are careful to slip in a provision by which possibly, as the result of some new compact between the Government and their Friends below the Gangway, a party majority can get an Order in Council giving further powers which have never been discussed at all. It is a bad principle, and may contain the germs of a great deal of unfairness. In the event of there being in power a weak Radical Government under the control of a Nationalist majority, there will be no question of impartiality. The Government will simply minister to the needs of an exigent majority across the Channel or of the forty-two Members here, and there will be no real power of criticism on the part of those in this House who, in the interests of fair play, would object to any such transaction. Therefore, I hope that the House will see its way to object to this Amendment.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: As the House is aware, I was not present when the Amendment was moved, but if I understand it aright from my reading of it and from which my hon. and learned Friend beside me has said, I think it is a most extraordinary Amendment. I assure the Postmaster-General that I am not saying this simply from the standpoint of party opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] From the first I have tried to argue from the standpoint of the question as a whole, and what would be the effect of the Clauses or the Amendments. It may be

  1311
  that I do not understand the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and there may be others in the same position who do not understand the significance of this Amendment. After all it is a matter of procedure, and we have not had a calculation of what the effect of that procedure would be. The Joint Exchequer Board was established in order to inquire into the financial arrangements made, and the effect of the finances of the Imperial Government and of the Irish Government, as to how far the finance put forward by the Irish Government was in keeping and on the line of the purpose and intent of the Bill. If we accept the Joint Exchequer Board as the authority to determine without appeal to the Privy Council, what I want to know is: what is the authority of this Order in Council?
  It is, I think, this: that without a reasoned decision, determined only by the Joint Exchequer Board itself, there may be by a Transfer Order in Council by the officials of the Joint Exchequer Board, and not by the Exchequer Board itself, and a conclusion come to under that Order in Council which will affect and seriously affect the relations of the Irish Government and the Imperial Government financially. An Order in Council has always been considered by constitutionalists as a last resource of a Government placed in a difficulty in regard to procedure. I do not say improperly so. But not being able to go to Parliament to secure the operation of a certain Act, which might well receive the approval of Parliament, they issue an Order in Council for that which may be right and just. The Executive takes the responsibility for that. The Act may be one in perfect keeping with good policy and good practice, but Orders in Council belong to a certain well understood scheme of constitutional government, and should only be resorted to, and are only resorted to, in cases where the Government cannot meet Parliament, or where there is merely, as it may be called, a mechanical exercise of authority. Here I think hon. Members will agree the position is rather different. You are making an experiment with an entirely new body. That body has to decide certain questions in relation to Irish finance and its relation to Imperial finance. If I understand aright this Transfer Order in Council it enables the Government to make an Act which though legal constitutionally if this is passed, may be in one sense an overt act, may be an act
  1312
  which will relieve the Irish Government of immediate difficulties, and will be used for that purpose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet misapprehends the scope of the Amendment now before the House, which does not raise the point which I think he is raising.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: If I have misunderstood the purport of the Amendment I must apologise to the House, but I judged from my reading of the Amendment and the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend that this Transfer Order in Council will enable the Irish Government to do something which ought to be done only by the authority and by the determination of the Joint Exchequer Board. I imagine that there will be nothing between the action of the Joint Exchequer Board and the effect of their act. It seems to me that the Transfer Order in Council does add new machinery to that already established which will give an undue advantage to the Irish Executive.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have noticed, as other Members of the House have possibly noticed, that all through the Debates on this Bill, wherever the Government were placed in a position of acting on, or determining, or saying how a method in the Bill was to be worked, they have had recourse either to the Joint Exchequer Board, to the Civil Service Committee, or an Order in Council; sometimes it is one, sometimes it is the other. In this particular instance it is both the Joint Exchequer Board and the provisions of an Order in Council. So I venture to think that this Amendment suggested by the Government combines about all the vices which it is possible to combine in one single Amendment. Not only is this tribunal, the Joint Exchequer Board, to have a decision on these various matters, but under this Amendment, if I understand it rightly, a new class of matters altogether is to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Joint Exchequer Board. I would have the Committee observe that, as the Bill stands, matters which the Joint Exechequer Board has to determine are—and, indeed, the Government have confessed that they are—primarily, if not solely, financial matters.
  I remember well on one occasion during our debates in Committee—and I think I was the Member who pointed it out—that it was pointed out that there was no provision for the payment of the salaries of

  1313
  the members of the Joint Exchequer Board. Somebody on the Front Opposition Bench—I think it was the Attorney-General—replied that there was no necessity for making any such provision for payment by this House, because he thought that the work to be done by the members would be accountants' work, and would probably be done by Treasury clerks. That was, at all events, an intelligible proposition. But that is not the proposition now, if the House passes this Amendment. If the House will consider the Amendment for a moment they will find it necessary to say what are the sort of methods which may be transferred to the determination of the Joint Exchequer Board. If this Amendment passes, what are the matters with which the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Order in Council may deal? I would point out to the House that if we pass words in Committee dealing with the Irish Transfer Order in Council we shall never again be able in this House to have a full and complete discussion on the subjects of these Irish Transfer Orders in Council; just as owing to the fact when we had in Clause 14, I think it was, passed words in connection with the Joint Exchequer Board merely importing a reference to the Joint Exchequer Board, we were prevented from having that wide and absolutely unfettered discussion on the Joint Exchequer Board which we otherwise could have done. If we pass these words here we shall be unable to have a wider discussion which we might have on a later Clause in regard to these Irish Transfer Orders in Council. I do invite the House to look at the class of new duties which are being thrown upon the shoulders of the Joint Exchequer Board. Let me take the first of the non-financial duties. They can transfer by Order in Council any adaptation of any enactment they think proper to the Joint Exchequer Board. That is not an inconsiderable power to give a Government by Order in Council. It has hitherto been reserved to the House of Commons and the House of Lords acting in conjunction, and even under the Parliament Act it is reserved to the House of Commons. Under this Bill it is seriously proposed, and no one appears to attach importance to it which I think it deserves that the Government for their own purposes should be able by Order in Council to make any enactment they like. Having passed that Order in Council, they may turn round to the Joint Exchequer Board and say, "We
  1314
  have taken power by Order in Council to make these adaptations, will you proceed to make them." I do not think that is the work the Joint Exchequer Board was designed to carry out, and I shall be very much surprised to hear if the right hon. Gentleman has any proper defence to offer for that. We never heard a word about it before, and it seems to me to be a very dangerous and a very novel power. Not only do they do that with regard to some non-financial classes of subject by Order in Council, but they make provision for the carrying out of these Executive functions in Clause 45.
  The Postmaster-General will remember that on Clause 4 we had some discussion in Committee as to the transfer of various powers from an Imperial Department to the Irish Department, and it was more or less agreed, as I understood by the Government, that such transfers should not apply to powers over Customs or Excise. I confess I am rather surprised that no Amendment has yet appeared on the Paper on behalf of the Government to give effect to that undertaking. Of course, that is a matter which we shall be able to discuss on Clause 45, and I do not propose to go into it now. I say it is quite clear that such transfer of power from one Department to another could come in under the provisions of Clause 45 and be properly made by an Irish Transfer Order in Council. Are we to understand that that is also a matter about which the Government are to pass responsibility off on the shoulders of the Joint Exchequer Board, because that is a very serious invasion upon the privileges of this House I When you come to ordinary financial matters, even in matters of finance in which the Government may properly say we will turn to the Joint Exchequer Board for assistance, there are some very new and grave matters that can be transferred to the Joint Exchequer Board. There is the security for the payment of old age pensions in Ireland; that may be transferred. There is the whole question of Post Offices or trustees' savings banks in Ireland and the security for depositors therein; that may be transferred. There is the question of apportioning the capital liability of the Post Offices—a matter not without some importance I venture to say—and the question of apportioning the capital liabilities between one Post Office and another, will, I understand, also come under the Joint Exchequer Board under Clause 45. There is the question of the property

  1315
  rights and liabilities in connection with different Irish services; these may be transferred. I cannot really imagine a more important category of subjects, and I can assure the House that I could have gone into the matter at much greater length.
  I do wish to insist upon the importance of this Amendment, which, under a very innocent guise, has been presented to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. What he is doing in effect is this. He enables the Government to make Orders in Council which, no doubt, have to lie upon the Table of the House, but then, as my hon. and learned Friend stated perfectly accurately, that is an illusory safeguard in those days, as anyone, in whatever quarter of the House he sits, knows perfectly well. It is very difficult to get the time to object to any Order in Council, and even if you do get the time, the matter comes on after eleven o'clock and it is very difficult to get up interest in connection with it. I suggest, therefore, that the very fact that the Government have taken power to do things by Order in Council is an invasion of the rights of the House, and it is very serious because they are transferring these powers to the Joint Exchequer Board which is a body not responsible as a body to Parliament. This body may have to determine matters affecting old age pensions, post office savings banks, and all the other various matters I have mentioned concerning Parliament in the most grave manner, and for which Parliament has assumed the most grave responsibility to the various people affected—to the old age pensioners, the depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks, and others—and they refer their rights and privileges to those people, and those people are to be at the mercy of a tribunal not responsible to the House of Commons, although the House of Commons has assumed, and rightly assumed, the responsibility for the maintenance of those rights and privileges. I say that is a matter more serious than it appears at first sight, and I think my hon. and learned Friend has done well to call the attention of the House to this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot help feeling somewhat surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should attach so much importance to this Amendment which is a very small matter of pure machinery. An Order in Council providing for matters in the later Clauses of the Bill is the usual
  1316
  method in all important Acts of Parliament for setting at work a new piece of constitutional or administrative machinery. There are, of course, a vast number of extremely small points which it is never the custom of the House of Commons to deal with in the Bill, but which need attention when a new machinery comes into operation, and there is consequently an administrative order dealing with those minor points. Clause 45 has very numerous precedents in other Acts of Parliament. Then the question of this proposal to enable any of the matters dealt with by the Government by this Order in Council to be refered to the Joint Exchequer Board for their opinion is in no way open to objection. What will occur will, of course, be, that if there was some financial matter—the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned one for example, the revenues of the two Post Offices—which would have to be decided as to what items of revenue are proper to the Imperial Parliament, and what items are proper to the Irish Parliament seeing their functions are very closely connected with each other, it would seem to be very natural instead of the Order in Council clearly endeavouring to state the actual revenues which are to be regarded as proper to the one or to the other, to set out in general terms the principle which may be followed and leaving the details to be worked out, instead of by the Treasury, by the Joint Exchequer Board which would represent both Treasuries. The only matters which will be referred to the Joint Exchequer Board in the Order in Council would be ejusdem generis as the matters referred to the Joint Exchequer Board in the Bill, and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will see it is a very far-fetched proposal to imagine that the Order in Council would refer to the Joint Exchequer Board as to what adaptations of Acts of Parliament are necessary in order to set the machinery of the new Irish Parliament going. The hon. and learned Member said that we should be leaving entirely uncontrolled to the Government of the day and the Joint Exchequer Board the decision of what might be large and important questions. May I point out that before an Order in Council can be made it has to lie on the Table of both Houses, and there might be a prayer to the House to reject any of its provisions, and that would have to be taken into consideration by the Government. The present Amendment does not in any degree transfer to the Joint Exchequer Board any matter which is reserved to the

  1317
  House of Commons itself. It only gives power to transfer to the Joint Exchequer Board the decision of matters which would otherwise be left to the Executive Government here to do by Order in Council. If the Government wish to take some of the matters which are referred to, and which are proper to be transferred in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, they are empowered to do so, subject to the provision of Parliament through the procedure I have mentioned, namely, that the Order in Council shall lie upon the Table of the House, and if there is anything improper in it an Address may be moved.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: During previous discussions, when we pointed out various negligences in the text of the Bill, we were always assured that under Clause 44 there existed an unlimited power of rectifying shortcomings by the power of passing an Order in Council. Now we see that the learning and skill of the draughtsman has forced the Government to admit that this power under Clause 44, which is now Clause 45, was limited to transitory matters, but now we learn that even in this restricted class of case we shall not get the relief we were told was open to us. Before the Privy Council can arrive at a final decision they will be able to escape from effective control by shunting off the responsibility for coming to a decision upon this most unsatisfactory body, whose responsibility to Parliament is so ineffectually secured as to be totally nonexistent.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: When this Amendment was moved I regarded it as a matter of regret that the Postmaster-General, when introducing it, did not give the House the benefit of his advice. After listening to the somewhat cursory remarks he has made that regret has vanished, because I do not think his speech has helped us in the least, and he has left us to arrive at our own conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this is a small matter of pure machinery. I really think that is making light of what is really a very serious matter. I expected that some explanation would be given to the House as to why this small matter of pure machinery is only being moved by the Government at this stage of the Bill. We have had no explanation as to why it was not proposed in the first place, or whether the conclusion has just now been arrived at that it ought to be put in at this point. I agree with the hon. Member for North
  1318
  Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), that this cannot be accurately described as a small matter of pure machinery. It seems to me that we are being asked to part with a right that this House has always held very dear—that is, the right to criticise and keep in close touch, at any rate, with some Minister responsible in this House for Irish matters. I believe we are now being asked to part with that right, and we are parting with it in a manner which I do not think we ought to do in a House which is very thin and does not appreciate the importance of the point which we are discussing.
  The Postmaster-General attempted to justify his proposal by quoting numerous precedents for Clause 45. May I point out that we are not objecting to Clause 45? No doubt that Clause is a very proper one in itself, with ample precedents; but what we are objecting to is the power you are investing in the Joint Exchequer Board under this Amendment. You are handing over to the Joint Exchequer Board the power to make Orders in Council, and when you consider Clause 45, you see how extensive those powers are, and this Clause 45 becomes really a serious question. I really think that the Postmaster-General did not in any way answer the very serious objection which the hon. Member for North Down put forth. He placed before the House direct suggestions as to what would be the result of this Amendment, and what would be the power placed in the hands of the Joint Exchequer Board, and I did not hear from the Postmaster-General any attempt to answer that argument. He told us there were numerous precedents, and then he said my hon. Friend was making suggestions which were very far-fetched, and very unlikely to be given effect to by the Joint Exchequer Board. I confess that I am a little tired of these constant disclaimers on the part of the Government as to what will be done under this Act, and I desire that we should be protected by the Act itself, and should not have recourse to the optimism of the Government. I think if you are handing over those powers you are parting with a very great right which this House has always regarded as very dear.
  Within forty days these nebulous Orders in Council may be made by the Joint Exchequer Board, and we have only the right to pray that such Orders may be annulled. I can imagine myself or any of my hon. Friends, in a Session such as we are now going through, praying the Prime

  1319
  Minister that such and such an Order in Council may be annulled, but we should get no further—in fact, we might pray for forty days and get no further, because in these days there is no opportunity for a private Member to obtain any assistance from the Prime Minister when he asks for the removal of what he considers a grievance. That makes this proposal all the more serious. I am indeed surprised that the Postmaster-General did not give us a very much longer explanation and justification of proposals which really seem to me to be very far-reaching, and which, in my opinion, are very serious indeed. The Postmaster-General told us that all these proposals did was to transfer to the Joint Exchequer Board powers to make Orders in Council which this House would otherwise have. That is the whole point in a nutshell. We do not want to part with those powers. We do not want to hand over the powers this House has to the Joint Exchequer Board. We desire to retain them, and we particularly desire to retain them because we know there is not the slightest chance of our ever successfully appealing to a Prime Minister to have these Orders annulled within forty days. For these reasons and for many others I do think the House would be very ill-advised in adopting this Amendment, and I do respectfully resent the very cursory and inadequate explanations given to us by the Postmaster-General.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This Amendment, which seems to be an extremely innocent one, is not only very dangerous but is also typical of the methods of the present Government. The Postmaster-General told us there were many precedents for this practice, but he was careful not to give us a single instance of a similar Clause in another Bill. I was reminded of the National Insurance Act, which contains a Clause giving power to the Insurance Commissioners to remove any difficulties which may arise. There have been a great many difficulties, and the necessity of that Clause is now apparent to everyone; but, when we questioned in the House whether or not it was right to part with the power the electors had given us over legislation and to transfer that power to a Department of the Government, we were told exactly as the Postmaster-General now tells us that there was a precedent for that Clause. When we looked up the precedent, we found that in some Bill
  1320
  introduced by the party to which I had the honour to belong some years ago there was a Clause giving power to a Department for a limited period, some two years I think, to take steps to remove certain technical difficulties of administration. That was the only precedent the right hon. Gentleman in charge of that Bill could bring forward. The Postmaster-General, warned by that experience, has contented himself by saying there are numerous precedents without giving the House a single one which they might check and investigate. The safeguard, I understand, is that an Address to the Crown may be presented by either House of Parliament after eleven o'clock. I remember my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), some two or three years ago thinking in some specific instance he had that safeguard, but when he came to examine the Act he found it had been so worded that he could not bring in his particular Motion to the Crown after eleven o'clock. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is a safeguard. One knows perfectly well what happens. One is told, "Do not go away at eleven o'clock, because someone is going to bring on an Address to the Crown." The majority of Members cither go away or go to the Smoking Booms, and the Whips of the Government arrange that there shall be a House. Two or three of us, devoted friends to the liberties of the House of Commons, endeavour to interest hon. Members opposite in the question before the House. There are possibly three Members on the Labour benches, two or three on the Irish benches, and half-a-dozen for the sake of appearances behind the Government, but there are plenty who will come in at the sound of the Division bell. That is the safeguard which the right hon. Gentleman told us would prevent anything wrong being carried out. I think I was justified in saying it is an extremely innocent Amendment to look at, but in effect it will be one of the most dangerous Amendments which have been introduced into the Bill. The Joint Exchequer Board is going to be a very powerful body, and it is going to do a very great number of things which will reflect very much upon the life and interests, not only of English people, but of Irish people too. I am reminded of a description I heard the other day of England and what England would certainly be if we passed this Amendment. I was told:—
  "England was an island in the German Ocean governed by Scotland, coerced by Irishmen, and plundered by the Welsh."

  1321
  This Amendment will certainly give power to the Joint Exchequer Board to do practically anything they like. The interests of England will be entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite and of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. John Redmond). I therefore hope hon. Members on that side of the House will pause before they go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment. They are by their professions great economists who do not desire to part with the control of the purse, but by this Amendment we shall be giving power to the Joint Exchequer Board to do anything they like under the Act and anything which the Privy Council may say they may do. It is an extremely long Clause. It occupies two clear pages and it empowers the Exchequer Board, by an Order in Council, to make regulations with respect to the relations between the Irish and the British Post Offices. That is very important. But does the House really desire to part with the whole control of everything under this Bill? Is this House to be a mere cypher; to meet at stated intervals to register the decrees of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? Are we only to have the opportunity of attending at half-past Ten o'clock to say "Yea," or "Nay." I remember it was in the days of Queen Elizabeth, when there was some foolish Member of the House of Commons, possibly occupying very much the same position as I do myself, who was desirous of protesting against the tyranny of the Crown at that moment, and Queen Elizabeth sent down to the then Speaker and declared that our privilege was merely the privilege of saying "Yea," or "Nay," and that we had nothing more to do. That is the position the Government appears to have taken up at the present moment. They allow us to vote "Aye" or "No," but nothing more.
  Mr. BOOTH: Does the hon. Baronet suggest that he gets no opportunity of addressing this House?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know that I actually go to that length, but I am prepared to say that the opportunities are not so great as I should desire, and, possibly, in the interests of the country it would be well if other hon. Members had greater opportunities of addressing the House, for then they might influence Members like the hon. Member who has just interrupted me and who really does, I think sometimes endeavour to judge the merits
  1322
  of the case and give a vote, not according to order, but, as his conscience directs. In such an event the old idea that the House of Commons is a governing factor in the country might be revived. Here is another point in connection with Clause 45 which is well worthy of attention, for it shows that the Clause is not, after all so simple a thing. Orders may be made, I presume, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with public services, such as the administration of the old age pensions or the Post Office Savings Bank, and power is given to close the Trustees Savings Bank in Ireland. I wonder if the hon. and learned Member for Waterford really intends to close those banks. It is rather a large order, and I think we should be careful before we give power to do a thing of that kind. In fact, the gist of the whole matter is this: Rightly or wrongly, the Government say to themselves, "We are the Government. Whatever we choose to do is law, and we are not going to be bothered to come down to the House of Commons and ask for this, that, or the other. But we cannot actually say so, because it might not be understood in the country, and it might have the effect of losing us a certain number of votes. Therefore we put in safeguards which are perfectly illusory, but which will enable us to say on the platform, if the subject is alluded to, that the charge is a pure lie." Those who have studied the proceedings in this House are well aware that there are no safeguards at all. We know perfectly well, once we pass this Amendment, we tie our hands and are absolutely bound by the Joint Exchequer Board. I forget what is the constitution of that Board, but I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place and is laughing. I suppose he did not hear my observations with regard to himself just now, and with regard to the Welsh nation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was laughing because my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was repeating them to me.
  Sir F. BANBURY: All I can add is that the right hon. Gentleman, if this Amendment is passed, will be in a position to call a member of the Joint Board to his room and tell him to do certain things. The reply will be, "I shall be pleased to do so, but what about the House of Commons? What about the Order which has to lie on the Table for forty days"? The right hon. Gentleman will answer to that, "That is no matter to you; the

  1323
  Whips will see to it," and the member of the Joint Exchequer Board will thereupon go away to do his bidding.
  Captain CRAIG: I do not think hon. Members quite appreciate the difficulty they will be placed in if this Amendment is carried. No one knows more about the intricacies of Orders in Council than possibly the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, but I would like to point out that there is an even greater difficulty than any he has suggested. If the wording as drafted by the Postmaster-General is accepted, no one knows what may result. One cannot foreshadow what Orders in Council may be necessary, but I should think that in connection with the Post Office such Orders may be frequently required. The right hon. Gentleman must have had a good deal of experience recently of difficulties in the Post Office in connecti6n with this Bill. He must have had an extraordinary number of representations from Civil servants in that particular Department, seeking to protect their interests for the future in regard to wages, terms of service, and pensions. Under this simple-looking Amendment this House may absolutely lose all control over such matters, and the only protection it will have will be the privilege of going into the Library to discover, if possible, whether and when an Order in Council has been made. We are told that the Order is to lie on the Table for forty days. But let the House remember how those forty days may be interpreted. If the House rises for a recess of two or three weeks everyone of those days will count in the forty days. Again, the Order may lie on the Table without any Member becoming aware of it, although it may have effects of a very serious nature. My hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) informs me that the Government are reducing the forty days to twenty-one.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Twenty days on which the House is sitting.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It always means while the House is sitting.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not the forty days.
  Captain CRAIG: I was certainly under the impression that if the House adjourned for a day or two, those days were absorbed in the forty. Even if it is to be twenty-one days, it sometimes happens, as happened in the case of the Irish
  1324
  University Bill, that an Order in Council is made and is not discovered by those interested. It was done in that case in such a way that those interested should know nothing about it. It is possible to have these Orders in Council smuggled on to the Table, and those interested know nothing of them except by accident. One has to correspond with people all over the country to see how they are affected, and when their replies are received, the days have passed, or, perhaps, it is impossible; owing to the stress of business, to raise the question, except at a very late hour. I assure hon. Members that they are dealing with a very substantial part of private Member's powers of criticism by allowing the Government to keep from the House knowledge of what takes place in the Post Office and the relations in regard to it between England and Ireland under this Bill. Many difficulties crop up while the Post Office is under one administration. Those will be indefinitely increased when you have dual control, when part of the service is reserved to the central office in London and a separate Post Office is established in Dublin. There are bound to be conflicting interests when men are asked to serve two masters, one of them the Postmaster-General here and the other the Nationalists Postmaster in the Nationalist Parliament. You quadruple all the complaints with regard to the service and take away the ability of hon. Members to remedy any grievances. Another point is that with regard to the regulations which will of necessity have to be made by Orders in Council in connection with this Bill, this House will lose all control of policy, let alone of details. Therefore this House and the other House will have no control, and it will be possible for the Government to institute a policy in regard to a large Department which may be in direct opposition to the wishes of Members of this House. How are they to be influenced supposing this House desires to do if? Only by pressure brought to bear by a Government Department, and a Government Department bringing pressure to bear on men who have been appointed, presumably in the first instance because of their impartiality and because they represent all sides of political opinion or else no political opinion at all. First of all you treat these men as an impartial tribunal and in the second the only machinery by which you can bring pressure to bear on them is by one of the Ministers—I do not know how that would

  1325
  work out—going to them and saying: "Unless you do so and so we who appointed you must remove you, you lose your job because this policy which you are carrying out is not consistent with the wishes of a small caucus inside the Cabinet." I think nothing would be more dangerous than to allow that to take place and to take away from the House the freedom of criticism where anything of the sort was to be done. Therefore, I certainly shall support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: This matter is one of such importance that we ought to have some exposition of the mind of the Government from the senior Cabinet Minister present. We have constantly criticised the Joint Exchequer Board upon the arbitrary powers which have been given to it. The defence that has always been made is that they were simply a body of experts who had to give an authoritative opinion on certain financial questions under the Bill, to determine what was Imperial, what was Irish, and what was British revenue, and similar questions. Under this Amendment we find that they are to be given duties which are not financial in the least. This is quite in conflict with the spirit of the Clause, because Clause 22 begins, "For the purposes of the financial provisions of this Act." Now under this Amendment they are to be given a discretion by Order in Council to determine matters, under Clause 45, which absolutely in many cases has nothing to do with finance at all. They are to be given general powers of interpretation and decision on many matters of most vital importance, including, for instance, the status of the Post Office in time of war.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELdissented.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: It is no good the Postmaster-General shaking his head. It is so. They are to determine any matter which is referred to them by Order in Council, but such Order in Council may refer to them the peculiar dispositions and the peculiar rights and respective functions of the Imperial and the Irish Post
  Office in times of war. That is a matter of the greatest importance on which a very inadequate reply was given the other day, but it is only one example of many. Now the whole status and position of this Board is to be transformed by this Amendment, by giving them general powers of interpretation. Is that really in the mind of the Government that they are to occupy with regard to the Government of Ireland Bill the same kind of position as the Insurance Commissioners have with regard to the Insurance Act? It is a matter of considerable constitutional importance. We have been told again and again that hitherto the Board was only to fulfil the functions of inferior Treasury officials, to ascertain and record facts. Now they have the power of legal interpretation, and if that is so the whole structure of the Bill is altered, because if you look at the terms of Clause 45 they are wide to the last degree. They do not refer merely to Transfer Orders in the first instance, but they refer to—
  "any other matter which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision for the purpose of bringing this Act into full operation or for giving full effect to any provisions of this Act."
  Therefore, if some hitch occurs in the working of this Act, all the Government have to do is to issue an Order empowering the Joint Exchequer Board to give effect to the provisions of this Act, and the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board will be final. This was never explained in the first instance, and it has never been appreciated until to-night, and if the Govern-men really mean to constitute this Board of Treasury official legal interpreters and people who are able to decide on points of policy their motives in this matter ought to be explained. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether I have put the proper construction on the Amendment or not.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 173.

  Division No. 499.]

  AYES.

  [10.28 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Acland. Francis Dyke

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Alden, Percy

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.W.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Arnold, Sydney

  Barton, William

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Brace, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Buxton, Noel {Norfolk. N.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Malley, William

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Outhwaite, K. L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, John R.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pollard. Sir George H.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crooks, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Cullinan, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  De Forest, Baron

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Reddy, Michael

  Delany, William

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

  Redmond, john E. (Waterford)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richards, Thomas

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Kean, John

  Rowlands, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Field, William

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Manfield, Harry

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Furness, Stephen

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Scanlan, Thomas

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Martin, Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ginnell, L.

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

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Glanville, Harold James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Middlebrook, William

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Molloy, Michael

  Snowden, Philip

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Gulland, John W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hackett, J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hancock, John George

  Morison, Hector

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Muldoon, John

  Thomas, James Henry

  Hardle, J. Keir

  Munro, Robert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wadsworth, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wardle, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Waring, Walter

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  1328

  1329

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Guest and Mr. Webb.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Newman, John R. P.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Forster, Henry William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baird, J. L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bird, A.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blair, Reginald

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyton, James

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sandys, G. J.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.>

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr)

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Campion, W. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunter, Sir Charles Redk.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cator, John

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cave, George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Chambers, J.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Law, Rt. Hon. Bonar (Bootle)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, captain James (Down, E.)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

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

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Middlemore, John (Throgmorton)

  James Mason and Mr. Stanley.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  It being after half-past Ten of the clock, "Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December last, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Government Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "and"[and after the decision of the Board"], insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act as to appeals from decisions of the Board."
  In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of any member of the Board."
  In the same Sub-section, at the end, add the words:—
  "(4) The Board may act by a majority the quorum at any meeting of the Board shall be three; subject to the provisions of this Act the Board may regulate their own procedure.".—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]

  CLAUSE 26.—(Revision of Financial Arrangements in Certain Events.)
  (1) If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that during any three successive years after the passing of this Act, the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services as so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled, exceeded in each of those years the total cost of Irish services, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services, the Board shall present a report to that effect to the Treasury and to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Treasury and the Lord Lieutenant shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Irish Parliament respectively.

  (2) The presentation of such a report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act, with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom and extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes.

  (3) For the purpose of revising the financial provisions of this Act in pursuance

  of this Section, there shall be summoned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom such number of members of the Irish House of Commons as will make the representation of Ireland in the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom equivalent to the representation of Great Britain on the basis of population; and the members of the Irish House of Commons so summoned shall be deemed to be members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of any such revision.
  His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision for so summoning the members of the Irish House of Commons as His Majesty may think necessary or proper, and any provisions contained in any such Order in Council shall have the same effect as if they had been enacted in this Act.
  Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1), after the word "taxes"["Imperial taxes levied"], leave out the word "levied."
  In the same Sub-section, after the word "other"["any other revenue"], leave out the word "revenue," and insert instead thereof the word "money."
  After the word "available"["available for the payment"], insert the words "in the year."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Government Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (3), after the word "for"["provision for so summoning"], leave out the words "so summoning," and insert instead thereof the words "summoning and selecting in pursuance of this provision."
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 175.

  Division No. 500.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Arnold, Sydney

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clough, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Clynes, John R.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cotton, William Francis

  Barton, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crooks, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Cullinan, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  De Forest, Baron

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'd, Cockerm'th)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Richards, Thomas

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, Augustine, (Louth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Kean, John

  Rowlands, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Field, William

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Manfield, Harry

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Furness, Stephen

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Scanlan, Thomas

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Martin, Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Gill, A. H.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ginnell, Laurence

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

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Glanville, H. J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Goldstone, Frank

  Middlebrook, William

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Molloy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gulland, John William

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hackett, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Worrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morison, Hector

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifte)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Muldoon, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Munro, R.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wardle, George J.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Waring, Walter

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradesfon)

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Malley, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Williamson, Sir Archibaid

  Hughes, S. L.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Guest and Mr. Webb.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  1334

  1335

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Moore, William

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, John R. P.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, J. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Barrie. H. T.

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, Arthur Shirley

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bird, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sandys, G. J.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Butcher, John George

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Redk. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gershom

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cator, John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cave, George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Chambers, James

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lee. Arthur Hamilton

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

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

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Younger, Sir George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Mount and Mr. Pollock.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Government Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause to add the words:—
  "An Order in Council made under this provision shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom within forty days next after it is made if that House is then sitting, or, if not, within forty days after the commencement of the then next ensuing Session; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by that House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the
  1336
  Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the Order."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Question put, "That the. Amendment be made."
  The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 173.

  Division No. 501.]

  AYES.

  [10.52 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Alden, Percy

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Martin, Joseph

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Gulland, John William

  Molloy, Michael

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Hackett, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Barton, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morison, Hector

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muldoon, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Munro, R.

  Black, Arthur W.

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

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Brace, William

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Neilson, Francis

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henry. Sir Charles

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Dowd, John

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Grady, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Clough, William

  Hudson, Waiter

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Crooks, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cullinan, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pointer, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dawes, J. A.

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

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

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Radford, G. H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Doris, William

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Esmond. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch. A. A.

  Richards, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Falconer, James

  MeGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Field, William

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Kean, John

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  1338

  1339

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas, James Henry

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wadsworth, J.

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

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sheehy, David

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wardle, George J.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lanc, Clitheroe)

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  White, Patrick (Month, North)

  Guest and Mr. K. Webb.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Moore, William

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, 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)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Blair, Reginald

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Boyton, James

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, John Waller

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Campion, W. R.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Charles Redk. (Bath)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cator, John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cave, George

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Chambers, James

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. Bonar (Bootle)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Francis Lowe and Mr. Bigland.

PROVISIONS AS TO JUDICIAL POWER.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Tenure of Office by Judges.)
  A judge of the Supreme Court or other superior Court in Ireland, or of any County Court or other Court with a like jurisdiction in Ireland, appointed after the passing of this Act, shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall hold his office by the same tenure as that by which the office is held at the time of the passing of this Act, with the substitution of an Address from both Houses of the Irish Parliament for an Address from both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and during his continuance in office his salary shall not be diminished or his right to pension altered without his consent.
  Government Amendment made: Leave out the words "passing of this Act,"
  1342
  and insert instead thereof the words "appointed day."
  Ordered, That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow (Thursday.)
  The Orders for 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 Four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
  Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  CONTRIBUTION GARDS (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  CONTRIBUTION GARDS (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  INSURED WORKMEN.
  INSURED WORKMEN.
  Purchases of Silver.
  Purchases of Silver.
  German High Sea Fleet.
  German High Sea Fleet.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  School Accommodation.
  School Accommodation.
  Pit Horses and Ponies (Appointment of Inspectors).
  Pit Horses and Ponies (Appointment of Inspectors).
  African Protectorates.
  African Protectorates.
  Persons of Independent Means.
  Persons of Independent Means.
  Devon and Cornish Coast (Harbonr of Refuge).
  Devon and Cornish Coast (Harbonr of Refuge).
  Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia.
  Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia.
  National Provincial Insurance Corporation.
  National Provincial Insurance Corporation.
  Law Integrity Insurance Company.
  Law Integrity Insurance Company.
  Tube Railways.
  Tube Railways.
  Post Office (Engineering Department).
  Post Office (Engineering Department).
  Army Discharge (Staff Quartermaster-Sergeant Stickney).
  Army Discharge (Staff Quartermaster-Sergeant Stickney).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Wireless Stations.
  Wireless Stations.
  Movement of Cattle (Ireland).
  Movement of Cattle (Ireland).
  Regent's Park Leases.
  Regent's Park Leases.