Sitting of 9 January 1913

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into Law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Lord Alexander Thynne (51 petitions) from the City of Bath and the immediate vicinity containing upwards of 10,000 signatures.
Sir Philip Sassoon (13 petitions) containing upwards of 3,000 signatures.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (UNITED KINGDOM AND CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th December, 1912; Major Archer-Shee]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of List of Certified Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epilectic Children in England and Wales on 31st July, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Seventh Report of the Rural Education Conference on Manual Instruction in Rural Elementary Schools and the Individual Examination of Children in Rural Elementary Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 745 (Trinidad and Tobago, Report for 1911–12) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of the Unemployment Insurance (Supplementary) Regulations, dated 8th January, 1913, made by the Board of Trade under Part II. of The National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 418.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the city of Cardiff, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to certain classes of Shops within the whole of the city except the South Ward, and fixing the early closing day and the closing hours on the other days of the week for the same Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Thornaby-on-Tees, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to certain classes of Shops within the borough, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information regarding the conduct of the troops of the Allies toward the civil Moslem population of Albania and Macedonia, or that of Ottoman troops towards Christians in the Gallipoli peninsula or the Troad?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Various reports of this nature have reached me, but, as is only natural under the circumstances, they are not sufficiently substantiated to justify an official statement on the subject.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether there is any prospect of the Peace Conference

  1345
  being resumed; and, if not, what steps, if any, the Great Powers will take to prevent a renewal of the war?
  Sir E. GREY: I can add nothing about the Great Powers to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for North Somerset the day before yesterday.

  China (Loan).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the British Foreign Office has required, as a condition of its support of the six-Power group of financiers, a disclosure by the constituents of that group of their agreements with certain firms whereby the patronage and influence of the group in controlling the expenditure shall be exercised in obtaining contracts for their nominees for a secret consideration, to the detriment of China and of investors; and what condition, if any, has been imposed on the group to prevent that practice?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that the suggestion made by the hon. Member has any foundation in fact, and the answer to the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, as against independent financiers offering money to China on less onerous terms, his Majesty's Government support the six-Power group in extracting from the Chinese Government an agreement for a loan of £25,000,000, with a right to the group to deduct and appropriate six points, not from the face value but from the sale price of the bonds, an unfixed figure which the group itself has power to manipulate in its own interest; and, if so, whether before this power is conferred upon a group of cosmopolitan financiers he will, in the interest of manufacturers and of the investing public, obtain an in dependent opinion of its soundness?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no question of the six-Power group extracting any agreement from the Chinese Government. The latter have, as I have constantly stated, spontaneously approached the group, and they are in no way bound to conclude a financial arrangement which is distasteful or detrimental to their interests. I am not prepared to intervene in the way that the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese Government did not approach the group until they were prohibited from dealing with Mr. Crisp?
  Sir E. GREY: The Chinese Government spontaneously 'approached the group. They may have done so because they found it difficult to borrow elsewhere.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the security now offered by China to the six-Power group for a loan of £25,000,000 is the same as that given for the British loan of £10,000,000 negotiated by Mr. Crisp, with the difference for investors that it is weakened in value by the increase of the loan and that the expenditure will be under cosmopolitan instead of British control, and with the difference that Russia, which contributes none of the money and with which China is in conflict regarding territorial aggression, is joined in controlling this expenditure in Chinese domestic affairs; and if he can mention any advantage the cosmopolitan loan possesses over the British loan from the point of view of the investing public?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that the Crisp loan made any provision for British control of expenditure. The investing public must form their opinion from the papers laid before Parliament and from other information which is public as to the comparative advantages of different loans.

  Russia and Mongolia.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to say with what Government were made Russia's previous treaties relating to Mongolia which Russia was getting confirmed by a convention with Lamas at Urga?
  Sir E. GREY: The treaties, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, were concluded with the Chinese Government.

  Consular Service.
  Mr. FELLasked if it is proposed to increase the Consular service in Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, and other ports which are likely to have a great increase of business on the opening of the Panama Canal?
  Sir E. GREY: Should the interest of British trade require it, the question of strengthening British Consular representation in these countries will be carefully considered.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not the right hon. Baronet think that if the

  1347
  Consular service in the Putumayo district of Peru had been stronger much of these atrocities might have been avoided?
  Sir E. GREY: The Putumayo district is a very remote district, and since the atrocities took place we have strengthened the Consular representation. I am constantly having demands to increase the Consular representation for commercial purposes, and it is exceedingly difficult to combine with an increase of Consular representation in other districts where they are not primarily needed for commercial purposes simply because one fears that undesirable things may be going on there.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he proposes to appoint more Consuls at the great cities along the Siberian Railway, where business with Great Britain is increasing rapidly?
  Sir E. GREY: Certain proposals for more Consular posts in Russia, including Siberia, are now under consideration.
  Mr. FELL: Have they not been open to consideration for some considerable period?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not quite sure how long they have been under consideration. At the present moment we have put before the Treasury a scheme for improving the conditions of the consular service, and I expect a reply on that very soon, and then we shall be able, no doubt, to make further progress.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he will state the present amount of the benefit and reward branches, respectively, of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund; the purpose and trusts to which the latter is subject; the amount paid out of it to Sir A. Reed, and on what grounds; the amount paid out of it to French, who subsequently fled from justice, and on what grounds; the date at which the Comptroller and Auditor- General took charge of those accounts; whether an independent examination of the accounts of both branches prior to that date will be allowed; whether he is aware that contributors, no matter how long they have been contributing or what their need, never derive any benefit from the fund, and that widows and orphans, where
  1348
  such relatives survive, receive benefit only at half the rate paid in; whether he is aware that these terms are worse financially than those offered by any insurance company, and that the fund, if properly administered, would yield better terms; and, seeing that the contributors have never controlled its administration, and that all the survivors, whose property the fund is, now desire it to be wound up and distributed, will he say what reason, if any, there is against that course?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The amount of the benefit branch of the Constabulary Force Fund on 4th December last was, Consols £221,511, local loans stock £154,000, and cash £2,539. The invested capital of the reward branch of the fund is £12,500, and the balance on the current account at the beginning of the financial year was £3,916: The purpose of this branch is to pay such rewards and gratuities to members of the force for good police service as the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time approve. The trusts of the benefit branch of the fund are to provide gratuities for the widows and orphans (if any) of deceased subscribers, and not for the subscribers themselves. Families often receive in gratuities from three to nine times the amount contributed by the deceased subscriber. The benefits received from this fund are not properly comparable with those received under an ordinary insurance policy. As I have repeatedly stated, the fund is perfectly solvent, and is meeting all claims in full, paying out upwards of £17,000 per annum to widows and orphans of contributors, and I see no reason whatever for interfering with this normal and equitable process of winding up the fund. The other points raised in the question have already been, answered by me.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to answer how much has been paid out of this fund to Sir A. Reed and to French.
  Mr. BIRRELL: If I answer the questions of the hon. Member twice over there will be no end. I have already stated that no-grants were made to Sir A. Reed or to-French out of the benefit branch of the-funds.
  Mr. GINNELL: Out of other branches,. how much were they paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already answered that question.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary by whose authority the Inspector-General of the Irish Constabulary has issued a circular to the subscribers to and owners of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund dissuading them from demanding the winding up and distribution of their own money and accusing them of dishonesty and attempting to deprive widows and orphans of their right; whether such language for the head of the force to address to his subordinates has received his sanction; whether he will at once test its accuracy by taking a vote of those in whose interest it was ostensibly written; what amount the late Inspector-General, who was not a subscriber, obtained from the the unanimous request of the subscribers fund on retiring; what amount is earmarked for the present Inspector-General on retiring; and whether, before refusing to have the fund wound up and distributed, he will consult some more impartial person?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No such circular has been issued by the Inspector-General. No grant was made to the late Inspector-General, Sir A. Reed, from the benefit branch of the fund, but he received on his retirement a reward of £171 from the reward branch, which is derived from fines and penalties, and not from subscriptions. The present Inspector-General is not eligible for any grant from the fund. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to his previous question on this subject.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by whom this printed circular was issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know anything about the printed circular. It was not issued by the Inspector-General or the Central Office.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GUINEYasked the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the delay in issuing vesting orders to the tenants of the Hungerford and Cloran estate, situate at Lackanastoka and Mount Infant, near Kingwilliamstown, county Cork, agreements to purchase having been entered into six years since?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owners to the tenants and is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash). It has not yet been reached in order of
  1350
  priority, but the Estates Commissioners expect that it will be dealt with during the financial year commencing 1st April next.
  Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired any land in county Louth for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants; if so, how much and where is it situated; and when, and how, do they propose to deal with it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have purchased some 2,650 acres of untenanted land in county Louth, and have utilised it, amongst other purposes, in the provision of holdings for evicted tenants whose applications have been approved by the Commissioners. Proceedings for the purchase of a further area of over 600 acres of untenanted land in the same county are at present pending before the Commissioners, and these lands will be dealt with in order of priority. There is only one evicted tenant in the county whose name has been provisionally noted for consideration by the Commissioners who has not yet been provided with a holding, and his application will be further considered by the Commissioners in connection with the allotment of the above lands if acquired by them.
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary if the Estates Commissioners will purchase the town of Carrick-on-Shannon, county Leitrim, with the grass lands adjoining on the estate of Mrs. Petronella Whyte, particularly as the owner is willing to sell, she having notified the tenants through her agent; and, as the greater portion of the agricultural estate was sold about four years ago to the tenants who have signed purchase agreements, but as the purchase money has not as yet been advanced, whether it would be possible to include the town and the land adjoining in the original sale, considering that some of the town tenants already hold farms of land on the estate, and also that their business houses would be ample security for the money required to purchase the same?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of making advances for the purchase of the town holdings and other lands referred to will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when they are dealing with the estate in order of priority, but at this stage of the proceedings they are not in a position to state what advances (if any) they may be able to make in this matter.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Congested Districts Board contemplate putting into operation the compulsory Clauses of the Land Act of 1909 in the case of those landlords in the West of Ireland who refuse to negotiate for the sale of their estates with either the tenants or the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are acquiring by voluntary sale as many estates as they can deal with at present. Compulsory proceedings have been suspended by the Board in cases in which some landlords have refused to sell, pending the result of proceedings now before the Law Courts.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board have yet approached Mr. Charles Phibbs, J.P., Doobeg, Ballymote, county Sligo, with a view of purchasing his estate, situate in the east division of Kilturra, Tubbercurry Union; and, if so, can he state the result of the negotiations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board communicated with Mr. Charles Phibbs regarding the sale of his estate in county Sligo, and were informed that he had no land for sale outside his demesne.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Phibbs, J.P., of Doobeg, Bally mote, county Sligo, an extensive land lord, holds the grazing ranch of Leitrim Hill, on the Harlech estate, in the union of Tubbercurry, the rest of which estate has already been sold to the tenantry under the Act of 1903; and, if so, whether he will see that this farm be acquired by the Congested Districts Board, compulsorily or otherwise, for the relief of congestion in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The farm referred to has not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, nor have the Board considered the question of acquiring it compulsorily.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application for reinstatement of William M'Gowan, of Raheelan, an evicted tenant on the Wynne estate, Ballaghameehan, county Leitrim; and, if not, whether, previous to the estate being vested, his claim will be favourably considered and a free grant allowed under Section 6 of the Land Act of 1908?
  Mr. BIRRELL: From the particulars before the Estates Commissioners it would not appear that this case comes within the Evicted Tenants Act, but it will be inquired into when the estate is being dealt with in connection with the sale of the property under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners will consider the application of Patrick Skea, of Drumnarget, Ballaghameehan, for a grant under the Land Act of 1908 as an evicted tenant on the Wynne estate, county Leitrim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This application will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when they are dealing with the estate referred to which is the subject of proceedings for sale before them under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. MEEHANasked whether, previous to the estate of Lord Massey being vested the Estates Commissioners will consider the application of Mrs. Bridget M'Sharry, of Laureen, Kinlough (not Miss Bridget M'Sharry, of Aughavohill), for reinstatement in her farm on the said estate, as the reinstatement of all evicted tenants was one of the conditions of sale of the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have considered the case referred to, and will not take any action in regard to the reinstatement of Mrs. M'Sharry to whom they will make no advance to purchase any land under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary when the purchase agreements on the estate of Jones, E.C. 3476 were lodged; is this estate on the register of direct sales, all cash; how many registers of direct sales, all cash, are there, distinguishing same; when will the purchase money be advanced; and, if the date be uncertain, will he give an approximate date?
  Mr. BIRRELL: All the purchase agreements in this estate, with one exception, were lodged in January, 1906. The estate was on the principal register of direct sales (all cash), and the purchase money was advanced and the holdings vested in the purchasing tenants in September last. This is the only all cash register of direct sales pending under the Act of 1903.

  National School, Aughtercloney.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary what were the dates of any meetings of the Board of National Education during the year 1905 in the minutes whereof it is recorded that the trusteeship of Aughtercloney suspended national school (1223) was considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This case was submitted to the Board for consideration on the following dates in 1905:—31st January, 14th and 28th February, 14th March, 23rd May, 4th July, 29th August, and 12th September.

  Marlborough Street Training College (Dublin).
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chief Secretary whether the professors and the full-time staff of the training college, Marlborough Street, Dublin, appointed since the year 1890, are included within the classes provided for by Clauses 33 to 36, and the Third Schedule of the Government of Ireland Bill; whether he will indicate under what words in the Bill those officers are secured full compensation on change of conditions of service or on retirement within the transitional period or dismissal from or abolition of office; and whether, if there is any doubt upon the subject, he will put down Amendments to the Bill to make good their position?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The officers referred to come within the provisions of Clause 33 (3), and the Third Schedule of the Bill. I have no doubt upon the subject, and an Amendment to the Bill is not necessary.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that these persons are within the scope of the Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means a personal guarantee in writing. I can only say that I am informed, and that I do believe, that they are perfectly secured under the Bill.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his guarantee does not stand for much in Ireland?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chief Secretary whether all payments of salaries and expenses of maintenance of the training college, Marlborough Street, Dublin, are made out of the college fund which is paid by the Treasury;
  1354
  whether, owing to the expenditure since 1890 in building and other improvements at the college, there is not sufficient money now available to provide pensions for the professor and full-time staff appointed since 1890; whether he has considered the position of such professors and staff in relation to the changes in Irish government if the Government of Ireland Bill passes into law, with a view to making adequate provision for carrying out the pension scheme; and, if so, what provision has he made for that purpose and for safeguarding the payment of pensions to such professors and staff under the Government of Ireland Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second and third parts of the question, I understand that the Commissioners of National Education have made a scheme for the superannuation of the full-time staff, and I have no doubt that if the funds at their disposal admit they will be ready to revise the present scheme with a view to improving the terms of superannuation; but, whatever those terms may be at the time of the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill, their continuance will be safeguarded by Subsections (1) and (5) of Clause 33 of the Bill.

  Primary Education Inquiry (Ireland).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary if, in connection with the coming inquiry into primary education, the Irish Government is prepared to give a guarantee that no teacher or official will, as the result of his action in giving evidence or supplying information, be subjected to annoyance or financial loss by the Commissioners of National Education or their officials?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Although I cannot think it likely that any witness at the coming inquiry would be exposed to the risk of annoyance or loss on account of any evidence given by Mm necessary for the purpose of enabling the inquiry to be carried on, I will see what can be done to give to witnesses the assurances they may properly require.
  Mr. CULLINAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be an undertaking that these teachers will not be unjustly treated if they come forward to give evidence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The National Board of Education are in a certain sense the em-

  1355
  ployers of these teachers, and any undertaking of that sort would have to be given by them. There is no Statute I am aware of which confers on me power to give that assurance, but I have little doubt that all proper and necessary assurances will be given.
  Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the National Commissioners to give that assurance? That is really the point.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think my hon. Friend grasps the point. I will do what I can, but one must act judiciously in the matter.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to the teachers that their future advancement will not be prejudiced by any evidence they may give?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, I am told that guarantees are not of much use, but I am most anxious that this inquiry should be properly conducted, and I can quite well understand that teachers will be rather sensitive on the subject. I am most anxious that they should receive from the proper quarter such assurances as will enable them to give evidence fully and freely.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the Committees holding inquiries upstairs, such as that into the Postal servants question, assurances are always given from the chair that all employés shall be free to give evidence without any fear of punishment by the Postal authorities? Why should a different course be followed in regard to the teachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no question of a different course. It is a question as to what power, statutory or otherwise, I have, or anybody has, to give a guarantee or promise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not aware of any Statute, Standing Order, or anything else, whereby a commission of this sort, which is simply instituted by warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, can give such an assurance.
  Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the loss and annoyance are not so likely to come to an independent teacher from the National Commissioners as from a Roman Catholic clerical manager?

  Jurisdiction of Magistrates (Ireland).
  Captain O'NEILLasked whether a magistrate, having changed his residence in the county, is entitled to vote at the election of a Petty Sessions clerk in a district other than that mentioned in his commission; and whether any justice of the peace can vote at a similar election in any district within his county, even though such district be remote from that stated in his commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The rule regulating the right of a magistrate to vote at an election for Petty Sessions clerk is that he must either reside in the Petty Sessions District in respect of which the clerk is to be elected or must have actually attended the Petty Sessions in that district. Either ground of qualification must be the subject of inquiry and determination in each case according to the circumstances.

  Rioting at Limerick.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary what steps the Attorney-General intends to take in respect of the persons charged at the Connaught Winter Assizes in connection with the Nationalist riots at Limerick on 10th October, 1912?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This matter is under the consideration of the Attorney-General.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether, on the early morning of Christmas Day, a large plate-glass window of the County Club at Limerick was smashed with stones; what is the estimated cost of the damage; and whether any persons have been arrested for the offence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A plate-glass window in the porch of the County Club at Limerick was broken in the early morning on Christmas Day. The estimated cost of the damage done is £10, and a claim for compensation has been lodged. One arrest has been made. The act was one of wanton street rowdyism.

  Country and Rural District Councils (Ireland).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary what were the total expenses in connection with the election of Irish county and rural district councillors in 1911; and will he say how this compares with the similar expenses for 1908?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Return, No. 361, presented in November last, from which it

  1357
  will be seen that the total expenses in connection with the election of county and rural district councillors in Ireland in 1911 was £28,232, being an increase of £245 upon the expenses of the elections of 1908.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CORK AND GALWAY COLLEGES.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked whether, under the Irish Universities Act, 1908, pro vision was made fixing the status and conditions of employment, including compensation for loss of office and superannuation on retirement, of professors holding office at the time of the passing of that Act in the colleges of Cork and Galway; whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill the money now voted to those colleges by the Imperial Parliament will be handed over to the Irish Government without any legal obligation upon that Government to appropriate such money to the service of those colleges and with freedom to use such funds for entirely different purposes; and whether it will be within the power of the Irish Parliament to repeal or alter any or all of the provisions of the Irish Universities Act, 1908?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first two paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. As to the third paragraph, it will be in the power of the Irish Parliament to repeal and alter some, but not all, of the provisions of the Irish Universities Act, 1908.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Chief Secretary whether he has further considered the position of existing professors at Cork and Galway Colleges under the Government of Ireland Bill; and whether he will propose Amendments to secure such professors from having their tenure of office and conditions of employment, including provisions as to pensions, altered to their disadvantage?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question by the hon. Member on this subject on the 6th instant.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that there is a strong feeling among the professors that their position is not a secure one under this Bill, and cannot he do something to alleviate that feeling?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. Really professorial anxiety is something which is altogether beyond me.

    LAND PURCHASE AID FUND.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to allay the apprehension entertained in Ireland, he will definitely state whether the Cabinet regards the Land Purchase Aid Fund of £12,000,000 provided by the Land Purchase Act of 1903 as a free grant from the Imperial Exchequer; or whether, in the balance sheet between the two Parliaments, it will continue to be debited against Ireland?
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1903 undertook that the cost of the bonus provided in the Land Purchase Bill of that year would not be thrown upon Ireland, and that Parliament then legislated upon that basis; and whether this bonus charge has now been debited against Ireland in the calculation of the alleged deficit on which the Government are founding themselves in the present Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As stated by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, this charge has always been regarded as a charge to Imperial expenditure on Irish account, as appears from the Treasury White Paper and from the Report of the Primrose Committee. But, as I stated yesterday, the matter will be taken into careful consideration by the Government in framing their proposals in regard to land purchase.

    POST OFFICE WIRELESS STATIONS.
    Captain CRAIGasked whether Clause 33 of the Government of Ireland Bill applies to officers employed at the various Post Office wireless stations in Ireland; whether, in the event of the Bill becoming law, the conditions of service of these officers will in any respect become altered; whether these officers will retain their positions on the Imperial transfer list; and whether the present regulation which imposes a period of three years' service at one of the Irish stations will remain in force if, and after, the Act becomes operative?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The intention is to retain the existing wireless stations in Ireland, together with their staff, under the control of the Imperial Post Office; and the conditions of service will not therefore be affected by the Bill.

    Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
    Captain O'NEILLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), how much his Department cost for administrative purposes in the past year, excluding the cost of inspection, and will he distinguish that cost into expenditure on educational administration, expenditure on non-educational administration, and administrative expenditure common to both?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): If the hon. Gentleman will move for a Return setting out the various heads of expenditure upon which information is required I shall endeavour to supply it.

    Hay and Straw Exports (Ireland).
    Mr. GUINEYasked the number of tons of hay and straw exported from Ireland during the year ended 30th September last; and what percentage of the total amount was shipped from ports in Con-naught and Munster, respectively?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The information asked for is not yet available, as the Returns of exports received by the Department from harbour authorities, shipping companies, etc., at Irish ports for the year ended 30th September last are not yet complete.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that a considerable trade in the export of hay and straw was being done between the town of Longford and South Wales; whether this trade has been stopped by the embargo on Irish hay export; whether he is aware that to a number of small farmers in county Longford this trade was almost a necessity of existence; and whether he will represent to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries the justice of removing this embargo, particularly as no case of cattle disease occurred in county Longford?
    Mr. RUSSELL: There is a considerable trade of this kind between Ireland and South Wales, but the Department have no special information as to what proportion of it comes from the town of Longford. The admission into Great Britain of hay and straw from Ireland is at present prohibited. Communications as regards a modification of the embargo have been passing between the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department, and
    1360
    my right hon. Friend the President of the Board has recently stated in reply to questions in Parliament that in about a fortnight's time he hoped to be in a position to announce when a relaxation of the existing restrictions can take effect.
    Mr. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect of this embargo being removed in the near future?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member should put that question to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Having regard to the fact that no foot-and-mouth disease exists in the North of Ireland, and the great loss caused to farmers through the inability to export hay at the present juncture, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Agriculture and ask whether it is not possible to remove the restrictions which entail such serious loss?
    Mr. RUSSELL: That is a question for my right hon. Friend, with whom I am in consultation.
    Mr. LYNCH: Taking into account the fact that the chance of infection is very small as between the East and West of Ireland, in view of the fact that there is no traffic in cattle from the East to the West, and that these restrictions are very vexatious, will the right hon. Gentleman have them removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. DELANY: Will the President of the English Board of Agriculture remove this embargo?
    Mr. MOORE: He will, if you vote against him.

    Toddy Licences (Ceylon).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the issue of the "Ceylon Government Gazette "for 30th August, 1912, contained a list of eighty-seven toddy licences offered for resale, the original purchasers having failed to keep up their payments; and whether such licences will in future be discontinued and not offered for resale?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have observed that a large number of toddy licences were offered for resale by a notice in the issue of the" Ceylon Government

    1361
    Gazette" referred to. I understand that the district in question was formerly a centre of illicit consumption. If there is found by experience to be no real demand for toddy in the district the licences will not be renewed.
    Sir H. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Ceylon issued on 9th December, 1912, instructions to the provincial Government agents to the effect that the arrack and toddy rents for the year 1913–14 must be sold not later than the end of February; whether he is aware that the existing licences were sold in May and June in 1912 and continue until 30th June next; whether he will state the reason for this proposed early sale; and whether, in view of the promised establishment of advisory committees, he will issue instructions that licences for 1913–14 shall not be put up to auction before May next so that the advisory committees may have an opportunity of considering the proposals of the Government agents and of offering their opinions upon them before they take effect?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, and also to the second part so far as toddy is concerned. It has been the usual practice for arrack and toddy rents to be sold as early as possible in the year. I understand that the reason for the practice is that otherwise purchasers have not sufficient time to make necessary arrangements before the term of their rent begins, and I am afraid that the postponement of the sales until the establishment of the advisory committee, which must await the approval of regulations by the Legislative Council (not now in session) would lead to a serious dislocation of business, as the experience of last year abundantly proved. I may add that instructions have been given to the Government agents which will ensure that the expression of local public opinion is fully invited and considered before any licences are issued.
    Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Kukul Korale, Ceylon, fifteen of the new toddy licences were surrendered by the purchaser at the end of two months; whether the Government agent put them up for resale by public auction in one block, but failed to find a purchaser; whether, when they were
    1362
    subsequently offered for sale singly, only three were sold at a total of Rs.410; whether he is aware that in the Siyane Korale, Ceylon, seven toddy licences were, on 27th November, 1912, put up to auction for resale, but that only one was sold at the sum of Rs.85 for the seven months as against the original bid of Rs.900 for the twelve months; and whether he can issue instructions for the suppression of such toddy taverns as are surrendered on the ground that there is not a sufficient demand for them?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first three parts of my hon. Friend's question is, I believe, in the affirmative. There are grounds for suspecting that the difficulties which have been experienced in selling toddy rents are largely due to the opposition of persons interested in the sale of arrack and to the prevalence of illicit toddy consumption. I am not aware what are the facts with regard to the fourth part of the question. The Government of Ceylon have assured me that, if any licences are found to have been issued in districts where there is no genuine demand for liquor, they will not be renewed.

    Commercial Concessions (Africa).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any commercial concessions in African Crown Colonies or territories have been granted by the Government during the last two years or are under consideration; and, if so, if he will give particulars of the same?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will give the hon. Member the information as to concessions granted as soon as it has been collected, and will inform him when I am ready to answer a further question on the matter.

    Ex-Civil Servants (Directorships).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has taken steps to prevent governors and officers in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates accepting directorships from any companies with whom they have had business relations while in the public service, he will say whether he has sanctioned this action of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and whether he will take steps to secure that this precedent shall be followed in other Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The statement of the Secretary of State has a more

    1363
    limited scope than my hon. Friend attributes to it. It was to prevent any retiring officer from becoming a director or employé of any company operating in the Colony or Protectorate from which he has retired without permission in writing from the governor of such Colony or Protectorate. As I stated on Tuesday last, I quite agree with this step. With regard to the general question, I think it desirable that public servants who have retired from the service should, before accepting such positions, communicate with the Minister of the Department in which they have served; but, as I also stated on Tuesday, the Treasury have no legal right under existing powers to prevent the acceptance of these positions by retired public servants.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can my right hon. Friend say or ascertain whether the officials of the Board of Trade who transferred their services to the General Omnibus Company first communicated to their chief the fact that they intended to transfer their services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would require notice of that, but no such regulation has hitherto been laid down. I am suggesting that it would be desirable.

    Board of Agriculture (Secretary).
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked what particular qualifications Sir Sydney Olivier possesses for appointment as secretary to the Board of Agriculture; whether he has spent his whole Civil service in the Colonial Office and under Colonial Office administration; and whether there are no officials now under the Board of Agriculture who are considered competent to undertake the office of Secretary to the Board?
    Mr. STANIERasked whether Sir Sydney Olivier, K.C.M.G., has had any previous knowledge of or experience in agriculture in the British Isles; and "whether, in his previous British appointments, he has had any practical experience in the Board of Agriculture work?
    Mr. REMNANTasked what experience in agriculture Sir Sydney Olivier has which warrants his appointment as permanent secretary to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if Sir Sydney Olivier, the newly appointed permanent Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, has any agricultural, in addition to his high administrative, qualifications for his new post?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Sir Sydney Olivier comes to his new work with a fresh mind and with a reputation for ability and energy displayed in every post held by him at home and abroad. I considered the merits and qualifications of many gentlemen, both inside and outside the Civil Service, and I am satisfied that in obtaining Sir Sydney Olivier's acceptance of the offer which I made to him I have secured the man best fitted to perform the varied duties of this important post. With regard to the last paragraph of the question asked by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, the agricultural community may rest assured that the new Secretary of the Board of Agriculture will continue, as in the past, to observe faithfully the tradition of the Civil Service, of which he has been a member for more than thirty years.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Without in any way finding fault with the appointment, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask Sir Sydney Olivier, as Ireland is so greatly interested in an appointment of the kind, to spend a little time in that country before taking up his office?
    Mr. REMNANT: Is it a fact that Sir Sydney Olivier is a Vice-President of the Fabian Society, which advocates nationalisation and confiscation of all private property?
    Mr. CROOKS: Is it a fact that Sir Sydney Olivier owes his present appointment to the recommendation of the late Colonial Secretary, the Member for West Birmingham?
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Have questions of this kind ever been raised before in the case of the transfer of distinguished public servants from one position to another?
    Mr. REMNANT: What about the Master of the Mint?
    Mr. STANIER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recreations of this gentleman are loafing and dilettantism—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow that question. It might just as well be asked what are the recreations of the hon. Member?

    St. Paul's Cathedral.
    Mr. MORRELLasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the statements contained in Sir Francis Fox's Report as to the damage that has already been done to the structure of St. Paul's by the heavy motor omnibus traffic passing round it; and whether, in view of the extreme danger of delay, the Government will take immediate steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked if the Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral have expressed the opinion that damage is being done to the building by the motor omnibus traffic, and that they propose to invoke the aid of the City Corporation with a view to divert omnibus traffic from St. Paul's Churchyard; and whether the Government intend to take any action?
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked if the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the paragraph in the Report of Sir Francis Fox on the condition of St. Paul's Cathedral, which states that the introduction of the heavy type of motor omnibus, with its consequently increased vibration, in close proximity to the building is a serious evil, and ought to demand and secure protection on the part of the authorities; and whether he will say if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am fully aware of the importance of the matter, and am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is considering what action, if any, can be taken.

    Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked when the remaining stages of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Straits Settlements.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Secretary for the Colonies has yet made his promised inquiry into the complaints of the Eastern Shipping Company regarding the action of the
    1366
    Governor of the Straits Settlements; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of the ill-treatment which they continue to receive, this English company has already placed one of its ships under the Siamese flag and is taking steps to place a further number under the same flag?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have now completed the inquiry and hope to communicate my decision to the company's representatives in a few days. I have no information as to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Hong Kong.
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWARTasked whether Dr. Johnson has been appointed to the office of principal civil medical officer of the Colony of Hong Kong and given thereby seniority over Dr. Bell, who has acted upon four occasions for long periods as principal civil medical officer to the satisfaction of the whole Colony; and, if so, why has Dr. Bell, who is senior to Dr. Johnson in the Colonial service, been passed over; and will his pension be thereby considerably less than it would have been had he been given an appointment to which he has reasonably felt himself entitled after his many years of efficient service?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. The recent vacancy in the headship of the Medical Department of Hong Kong was not filled up by promotion in the Colony because the Governor did not recommend that course. Seniority by itself gives no claim to such a post, nor does the fact that an officer has acted in the post. Pensions in Hong Kong, as elsewhere, depend upon the length of an officer's service and the amount of salary he is receiving at the time he quits the service.
    Mr. STEWART: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some further consideration to a very deserving Colonial officer who has been severely superseded at a time when his career is drawing towards an end?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not say anything in the nature of criticism, but I think it very undesirable that this House should discuss the personal merits as between two or three candidates for a post. Of course, I have considered very carefully the merits of the different candidates for the post, and have come to my decision accordingly.

    Public Trustee (Provision of Officers).
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the last two reports of the Public Trustee, declaring the necessity of permanent offices for his Department; and whether it is intended, in connection with the preparation of the Estimates for 1913–14, to make provision of suitable premises for the Public Trustee's increasing business?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): A sum of £10,000 was taken in the Estimates for the current year for this service. The building is actively in progress, and a further amount will be taken in the Estimates for 1913–14.

    Steamship "Narrung."
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the class to which the Peninsular and Oriental boat "Narrung" belongs; whether she was a cargo tramp steamer, bought from the Blue Anchor Line to be used for the transport of emigrants to Australia on assisted passages; how many tons of cargo and how many tons of coal she carried on her last voyage; what was the height of her main deck above water and load line; and whether, with reference to the complaint as to nearly capsizing on her last voyage from Australia, he has called for a copy of the ship's log or intends doing so?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these questions in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs. The "Narrung" has held a foreign-going passenger certificate from the Board of Trade continuously since she was built in 1896 for the Australian passenger service. Previous to 1910 she belonged to the Blue Anchor Line, but was not a cargo tramp steamer. On her last voyage she carried 3,500 tons measurement and 2,026 tons weight of cargo and also 1,500 tons of coal. The upper deck was 7 feet 1 inch above the water line. My right hon. Friend has not called for the ship's log-book as it is not usual to enter in that book the vessel's angle of heel. The owners and the master informs me that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the ship nearly capsized on her last voyage to Australia.
    Mr. FARRELL: Will the President of the Board of Trade send one of the in-
    1368
    spectors of the Marine Department to make inquiries of some other officials besides the master and owner?
    Mr. GULLAND: I will convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has asked.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it customary to survey and inspect a ship after she has been loaded and before she sets out on her voyage?
    Mr. GULLAND: I cannot give the hon. member an answer, but I will bring his question to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the President of the Board of Trade has made or intends to make any inquiry into the manning of the emigrant ship "Narrung" on her last outward trip to Australia; whether a number of the stewards were really assisted emigrants who were to be paid £1 each for their services at the end of the voyage; whether these men had any experience at all of seamanship; and, if not, why the Board of Trade allowed such a class of persons to be employed by the Peninsular and Oriental Line?
    Mr. GULLAND: As the "Narrung" was an emigrant ship, inquiry was made as to the manning before the vessel started on her last voyage, and the manning, both on deck and in the engine-room, complied with the Board of Trade requirements. The number of stewards exceeded the requirements by over twenty, and there were also five men who agreed to work as general servants in return for their passage out and a sum of 10s. on arrival. One of the five had previous sea experience.

    Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
    Mr. FRED HALLasked how many counsel, in addition to the Law Officers, were engaged on behalf of the Government in connection with the inquiry into the "Titanic" disaster, their names, and the amounts received by them in respect of their services?
    Mr. GULLAND: The information desired by the hon. Member is contained in the Statement of Expenses of the "Titanic" Inquiry printed in the Votes in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Sutherland on 17th December last, of which my right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Were the whole of the amounts paid on behalf of the "Titanic" included in that?
    Mr. GULLAND: I am sorry I cannot say.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the American Congress appropriated funds to allow a Grant of 2,000 dollars each to be made to the relatives and survivors of American sea-going postal officials drowned in the "Titanic;" that the British Treasury only granted a sum of £165 for the loss of James B. Williamson to his widowed mother and sisters depending on her at Dublin; whether the right hon. Gentleman has supported a claim for a further amount equal at least to the American sum to this poor woman; and, if not, will he now do so?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret that it is not possible to take any further steps in this matter such as the hon. Member suggests. I understand that an award from the "Titanic" Relief Fund has been made to Mrs. Williamson of 10s. a week for life.

    Wheat (Prices).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked what was the average price of wheat in London, Paris, and Berlin during 1912?
    Mr. GULLAND: In 1912 the "Gazette" average price of British wheat in London was 36s. and the average price of wheat imported into London was 35s. 10d. In Paris and Berlin the average official prices of wheat—quoted irrespective of origin—were 50s. 4d. and 46s. 6d. respectively. In all cases these prices relate to an imperial quarter.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the state of things revealed by these figures explains the alleged death of the food taxes?

    Port of London Authority (Casual Labour).
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked if the President of the Board of Trade has received any further correspondence from the Port of London Authority with regard to their proposed scheme for dealing with casual labour which was forwarded to the Board of Trade in April, 1911; and whether there is any probability of a decision being arrived at in the matter?
    Mr. GULLAND: There has been no recent formal correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Authority on this
    1370
    subject, but the importance of the matter is not being overlooked. The special difficulties of the Port of London are very great, but the matter is receiving my close attention.

    Linen Trade (North of Ireland).
    Mr. DEVLINasked what steps, if any, have been taken by the Board of Trade to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into the conditions of employment in the linen and other making-up trades of the North of Ireland?
    Captain CRAIG: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Committee of Inquiry was a perfect farce; that they knew nothing whatever about the industry in Belfast, and nobody paid the slightest attention to them; and whether he thinks it fair that the Board over which the right hon. Gentleman presides should take any notice whatever of the recommendations of such a Committee?
    Mr. GULLAND: I can only answer the question on the Paper. Preliminary inquiries are being made as to the trades which may most suitably be included in the contemplated Provisional Order extending the scope of the Trade Boards Act. In this connection careful consideration is being given to the recommendations of the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Captain CRAIG: I think the hon. Gentleman said he could only answer the question on the Paper. Why is he paying such attention to the Report, when the Committee was of the nature I described?
    Mr. GULLAND: If a Committee makes a Report it should have that Report at-tended to.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Postmaster- General if his Department gave a positive promise to Mrs. Robinson, of 18, Pembury Road, Westcliffe-on-Sea, in September last, that a telephone, for which a contract was signed on the 12th of that month, would be ready for use at Coventry House, Hadleigh Road, Leigh-on-Sea, by the end of September; if he is aware that Mrs. Robinson, relying on this promise, prepared and staffed the house in question as a branch nursing home, a purpose for which it was entirely useless without a telephone; that on 1st October, after having repeatedly appealed to the officials of his Department

    1371
    and receiving only evasive replies, the local manager informed Mrs. Robinson for the first time that he had then known for two weeks there would be difficulty with the Leigh Council about wayleaves; whether he is aware that if his Department had informed Mrs. Robinson at once of this she would have been spared the loss she has sustained in renting and furnishing premises which were entirely useless for her purpose without a telephone and which she has to abandon for that reason; and whether he intends to make any allowance to Mrs. Robinson for the loss she has suffered through the action of his Department?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When Mrs. Robinson signed the contract for a telephone service there was no reason to suppose that anything would occur to hinder the completion of the engineering work, but I am assured that no definite promise was given that the service would be installed by the end of September. As the hon. Member is aware, the delay which occurred was due to causes beyond my control. I regret that Mrs. Robinson should have sustained loss and inconvenience in consequence of the delay, but there is no fund at my disposal out of which any compensation could be paid to her. The circuit was completed and handed over on the 7th instant.
    Mr. CLYNESasked with reference to the low wages and bad working conditions of night telephone operators, whether, in the event of their terms of service not being improved early by the action of any Inquiry Committee, the Postmaster-General can assure higher rates of pay to men, many of whom are now employed fifty-four hours for 20s. per week?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Select Committee on Post Office Servants has not yet heard the night telephone operators, and I cannot anticipate any recommendations it may make.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that in this branch of the public service, men are being paid only 20s, for fifty-four hours work, and does he not think in view of those facts that he ought to act without waiting further the finding of the Committee?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The matter has already had my attention on many occasions, but in view of the fact that the
    1372
    Select Committee is now sitting, I am afraid it would be useless to approach the Treasury.
    Mr. CLYNES: If the Select Committee report in favour of the men, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that effect will be given to the recommendation as from the time when the representations were made?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; I cannot say that the recommendation would take effect retrospectively.

    Leeds Post Office (Casual Workers' Christmas Pay).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether the casual workers employed in Leeds during the Christmas pressure have been paid at a lower rate per hour than in previous years, in that no overtime rate has been paid in respect of work of over eight hours per day; and what is the reason of the change of conditions of employment?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The casual men employed at Leeds and elsewhere throughout the country on postal work during the past Christmas season were paid for all week-day duty at uniform rates, irrespective of the number of hours worked each day. It is the case that this plan, which was introduced for the purpose of simplifying the complicated procedure previously in force, involved reduction of pay at Leeds, where special overtime rates had been allowed in other years. Taking the country as a whole the revised rates have allowed increased remuneration.

    Tiree Mail Service.
    Mr. AINSWORTHasked whether the Postmaster-General's attention has been called to the fact that the service of the mails to the island of Tiree has recently been irregular and insufficient; whether he is aware that this is due to the substitution for the usual mail boat by Messrs. MacBrayne, the contractors, of a vessel incapable of carrying out the service satisfactorily, especially during the winter season; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My inquiries in this matter are not yet completed, but I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Oldham Post Office.
    Mr. CLYNESasked whether a large percentage of the male sorting clerks and telegraphists employed at the Oldham Post Office have in the past two years applied to be transferred elsewhere; and whether he can ascertain if this is due to the local conditions of working, and, if so, take some steps to establish greater contentment amongst the staff?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will make inquiry, and communicate with the hon. Member.

    Londonderry Post Office.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether the Londonderry Post Office has been for some time very much under-staffed, with the result that there has been an abnormal proportion of sickness amongst the officials during the past year; whether the overtime worked during the past six months has on an average exceeded ten hours per week for each official; and whether he will make arrangements for increasing the regular staff?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made into these matters, and if it appears that any additional force is required it will be provided. An addition to the staff of three male sorting clerks and telegraphists was sanctioned in May of last year.

    Teachers' Superannuation Funds.
    Captain O'NEILLasked how much the administration of the English, Scottish, and Irish teachers' superannuation funds, respectively, cost during the past year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The cost of the Irish Teachers' Pension Office in 1912–13 was estimated at £1,249. In addition there is expenditure from other votes which cannot be ear-marked specifically to work in connection with teachers' pensions. In England and Scotland the work is performed by various Departments as part of their ordinary duties, and it is not, I fear, possible to ear-mark any definite amount for this particular service. In all three cases the cost is borne by Votes of Parliament and not by the superannuation funds.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that any
    1374
    additional grant out of public moneys should be made towards medical benefit in respect of the first three months from the 15th January, 1913; and, if so, when it is proposed to obtain the sanction of the House thereto?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. The whole cost of the provision of medical benefit for the period referred to in the question will be met out of funds available under the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked how many doctors per thousand of insured persons have the Insurance Commissioners decided to be necessary to secure an adequate medical service in rural and urban areas, respectively, in order to set up a panel in such areas; and on what day was the decision of the Insurance Commissioners on this point taken?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have previously stated, the number of insured persons for whom a doctor on the panel can properly be responsible must necessarily vary according to the circumstances of each particular case, and it is therefore impracticable to fix any maximum number either for all areas or for urban and rural areas respectively. In deciding in each case whether adequate medical service has been secured the Commissioners have regard to all the circumstances, and they are, of course, guided to a great extent by the advice and recommendation of the local Insurance Committee. According to the experience of contract practice of a similar character in the past every 1,000 persons on a list would involve on the average thirteen attendances a day, of which eight or nine would be surgery calls and four or five visits at the patient's home for 300 days' work in the year.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that a panel would be adequate with one doctor for 5,000 people, or would he give some general idea of what would be considered adequate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not give any general statement; but certainly I do not anticipate one doctor will have to have 5,000 patients in any case.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of a doctor who has only consented to join a

    1375
    panel on the understanding that he would be required to treat a small and strictly limited number of insured persons; and whether the Commissioners propose to allow such a bargain to be made with a local insurance committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As, however, the hon. Member is aware, every practitioner on the panel has a right to select the insured persons whom he undertakes to treat, subject, of course, to the distribution amongst, and so far as practicable, under arrangements made by, the several practitioners on the panel, of the insured persons who have failed to make any selection, or who have been refused by the practitioner whom they have selected.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he intends to give medical benefit considering the small number of people who have come in under the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I know that the vast majority of the doctors in this country are prepared to work under the panel system.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how many beds for sanatorium benefit have been provided under the National Insurance Act in hospitals for infectious diseases or in isolation wards connected therewith?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The number of beds in isolation hospitals which have been approved by the Local Government Board under the National Insurance Act for the treatment of tuberculosis is 1,732.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take supposing an epidemic breaks out and those beds are wanted?
    Mr. BURNS: In that case we have beds for both classes of disease.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what is the position of a domestic servant under the National Health Insurance Act, who after having been an insured person for some years marries an alien employed in
    1376
    this country, and would she forfeit all future benefits for which she had paid for years?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A domestic servant, in the circumstances stated, would not forfeit all future benefits under the National Insurance Act. If she continued to be employed after marriage she would continue to be insured as an employed contributor and would be entitled to an employed contributor's benefits, though at rates somewhat lower than those applicable to the case of a British subject. If she did not continue to be employed she could either, if she was a member of an approved society, become a special voluntary contributor paying 3d. a week and becoming entitled to medical benefit, and to sickness and disablement benefits at special reduced rates, or she could cease to pay any contributions, in which case she would, whether she were a member of an approved society or a deposit contributor, be entitled to receive certain special benefits until the amount available for the purpose under the Act was exhausted. In any case a sum is reserved to help her to return into insurance, if she becomes employed again after her husband's death, when she is again treated as a British subject for the purposes of the National Insurance Act.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked when and why Mr. W. J. Braithwaite resigned his position as secretary to the National Health Insurance Committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. W. J. Braithwaite vacated the position of secretary to the National Health Insurance Joint Committee on appointment to that of special commissioner of Income Tax on 1st January, 1913.

    HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFIT.
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked what amount has been received in contributions and is now available for the payment of health insurance benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The amounts received through the sale of health insurance stamps, etc., now amount to about £8,000,000. As the State proportion is added as payment of benefit is made, this would represent a sum available for payments as required under the health insurance provisions of the Act of over

    1377
    £10,000,000, apart from any additional sum which Parliament may vote for medical remuneration.

    OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked (1) whether a complete set of all orders, regulations, forms, circulars, explanatory leaflets, and memoranda issued up to date by the Insurance Commission since the passing of the National Insurance Act will be given to any Member of this House who applies for it; and (2) why omissions are continually being made by the National Insurance Commission in sending circulars, orders, regulations, etc., to hon. Members of this House who originally asked that all such documents should be sent to them; and whether such omissions are deliberate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I propose to take Questions 89 and 90 together. The Commission has endeavoured to send as far as possible, to such Members of Parliament as have asked for this, all circulars, orders, regulations, etc., which are not supplied through the Vote Office and which seem of sufficient general interest. But there are a large number of printed documents issued or used by the Commission which would have no interest or value to Members, and the Commissioners have endeavoured to avoid troubling them needlessly with these. If, however, any Member desires a complete collection of all the documents which have been issued either of general or special application, the Commissioners will endeavour to supply him if he will be good enough to allow sufficient time for the purpose.

    Income Tax Collector (Trim, County Neath).
    Mr. MOOREasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Mr. J. Thomas Hewitt, president of the Trim branch, county Meath, of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, has been appointed an Income Tax collector, and that dissatisfaction exists in the district that this man should, as head of an extreme political association, be placed in a position which enables him to supervise the private affairs of his political opponents and others; and will he say what previous experience Mr. Hewitt had to qualify him for the position, and on whose recommendation was he appointed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. J. T. Hewitt has been an Income Tax collector since
    1378
    1902, when he was appointed on the nomination of the then Patronage Secretary to the Treasury. I am not aware of the connection suggested by the hon. Member or that any dissatisfaction exists in the districts for which he acts as collector on the ground suggested in the question. I am informed that Mr. Hewitt is a capable officer, and performs his duties as collector most satisfactorily.
    Mr. MOORE: Is it permissible for an Income Tax collector to be president of a local branch of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, as this gentleman is?
    Mr. REDDY: Why not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there is any rule of the service against it.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this officer signed the Covenant this question would not have been asked?

    Queensferry Prosecution.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into consideration the circumstances of the theft from a co-operative society- stores at Queensferry, the conviction of the thief and his discharge by the magistrates at Mold, consisting of two private traders of the district; and if ho can take steps to get representation of co-operators on the bench?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): From the newspaper report furnished me by the hon. Friend it appears that the magistrates, having regard to the extenuating circumstances of the case and the fact that this was the defendant's first offence, thought it could be adequately dealt with by binding him over to come up for judgment if called on within three years. The answer to the last part of the question is that I have no power to take the steps suggested.

    Hire-Purchase System.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the hard ships inflicted upon poor people by the furniture hire-purchase system, as evidenced by the cases of recent dates in the Law Courts, he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into this method of business with a view to recommending future legislation on the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid it is too late in the Session to appoint a Select Committee on this important subject, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will repeat his question early next Session.

    Metropolitan Police (Weekly Rest-Day).
    Mr. REMNANTasked how many members of the Metropolitan Police force are now enjoying one day's rest in every seven, and how long it will be before the whole force is in receipt of this necessary rest-day?
    Mr. McKENNA: All members of the Metropolitan Police are now enjoying forty-four rest-days in the year. It is hoped that after 1st April they will be in full enjoyment of the weekly rest-day.

    Swansea District Spelter Works.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he has now received a copy of the Report submitted to the Swansea Rural District Council by Dr. E. Rice Morgan, in which complaint was made that two horses had died from lead, arsenic, and zinc poisoning after eating grass impregnated with fumes from the Llansamlet Spelter Works; whether he realises the danger to human life from the consumption of vegetables grown in the district; and whether he can render assistance to this district council in enforcing such alterations in the plant as will prevent this evil in the future?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have obtained a copy of this report from the local authority, but it does not disclose any conditions affecting the health of the persons employed in the works, with which alone I have power to deal under the Factory Act. It was pointed out, in the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on 17th December, that the local authority has power under the Public Health Act to take action with regard to any nuisance caused by the works, and I am informed by the local authority that it is proposed to do so if the nuisance alleged is continued.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the risk of lead poisoning by the speltermen in the Swansea district owing to the poisonous fumes given off in smelting operations; whether he is aware that this is the only dangerous trade in this country where the workpeople are employed on the average for seventy hours per week without any
    1380
    break whatever the whole year round; and whether he will consider the possibility of having a special examination of all the men so employed by Home Office experts in lead poisoning, as owing to the present dispute every facility exists for a thorough inspection, with a view to the issue of such regulations as will prevent the dangers now only too prevalent, and thus prevent the risk to health and life now being experienced by these men?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave him on this subject on the 9th and 16th December. The conditions in this industry have recently been made the subject of careful inquiry, and, as a result, new regulations were brought into force as recently as October, 1911, for the purpose of safeguarding the workers against the dangers incident to the industry. No evidence has since been brought to my notice to show that the regulations are inadequate for the purpose of securing the workpeople from the danger of lead poisoning. The subject of the number of hours worked and the distribution of the shifts from week to week is not a matter on which I have any direct powers of intervention; but the matter is not being lost sight of.

    Middlesex Sessions (Conviction of Joseph Wilson).
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a burglar, named Joseph Wilson, aged thirty-six, was sent to penal servitude at the Middlesex Sessions on Monday; that it was given in evidence that he had nineteen previous convictions against him, and that he was first sent to prison when twelve years of age; and whether some effort will be made by the Home Office authorities to prevent juvenile offenders being transformed into habitual criminals by our prison system?
    Mr. McKENNA: The prevention of crime by means of the reformation of the criminal is an aim which is constantly in the mind of the prison authorities, and persistent efforts have been made and are now being made by them to achieve it. I would deprecate in the strongest possible way the suggestion that because such efforts are in some cases ineffectual, the prison authorities are indifferent to the object in view; and I cannot think that because imprisonment has failed to correct a boy or a man's dishonest tendencies, it is therefore to be regarded as having "transformed him into an habitual

    1381
    criminal." The public expression of such a view appears to me unduly discouraging to those actually engaged in prison administration. With regard to the treatment of youthful offenders, I would point out that under the existing law no offender of less than fourteen years of age can be sentenced TO imprisonment at all, and no one under sixteen can be so sentenced unless he is certified to be of a specially depraved or unruly character. Probation and detention in a reformatory or an industrial school or in one of the places of detention provided under the Children Act, are the substitutes for imprisonment in the case of offenders under sixteen; and as regards offenders between sixteen and twenty-one, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reformatory work done in Borstal institutions and by the Borstal Association and also by the Borstal Committee established at the different prisons.
    Sir W. BYLES: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I make no insinuation against the prison authorities. May I ask whether this is not one of the many pieces of evidence that must come before the Home Office that our present prison methods tend to make criminals?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I thought I had given sufficient reasons to show that there is no foundation for the suggestion

    Imprisonment for Debt.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether the number of imprisonments for debt through the Birmingham County Court has fallen from 709 in the year 1907 to forty in the year 1912; whether this decline is coincident with the tenure of a new judge; whether other County Court judges are pursuing a similar policy; and whether there is any attempt on the part of the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor to check the punishment of debtors by imprisonment, or to secure a measure of equality in their treatment as between one County Court and another?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not yet received the returns of committals from Birmingham for 1912, but between 1907 and 1911 the number fell from 709 to 136, and I have no doubt the figure given by my hon. Friend for 1912 is correct. During the same years the total for all County Courts fell from 9,235 to 7,692. There thus appears to be a general tendency among County Court judges to have less frequent resort than was formerly the case to this mode of enforcing the payment of judgment debts,
    1382
    and the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1909, particularly that of Judge O'Connor, shows how much can be done in the matter by the action of the judge. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor I have any authority to interfere with the discretion of the Courts in this matter; but, as I have already stated, I am anxious to propose legislation to amend the law of imprisonment for debt at he earliest opportunity.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    COASTGUARD (PAY).
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the necessity of raising the pay of the coastguard men, and especially of those who are posted to isolated stations where the difficulty of getting food, etc., is considerable and the price consequently dearer?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARy to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Under present arrangements special allowances for increased cost of living are paid at four stations, and at about twenty others the Admiralty pay the cost of the periodical conveyance of provisions from the nearest suitable market town. As indicated in previous replies, it is not proposed to increase the pay of the coastguard.
    Colonel BURN: On the south coast of Devon there are some stations where the conditions are particularly hard. Will the right hon. Gentleman take those into consideration?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot carry all these things in mind; I will confer with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the discharges now taking place in the works department of the Royal Dockyard, Devonport; that eight men have had notice of discharge with over seven years' service and two men with over fourteen years' service, while eighty with under seven years' service have received notice of discharge; whether he will make some arrangement so that men with long servitude shall not be liable to discharge except under very special circumstances; will he undertake that it be an instruction to the director of works that men of long servitude, if discharged, have the first choice of

    1383
    any new work that may be going; and is it possible to avoid discharging men with long service by transferring them to another department of the yard?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): These discharges are rendered necessary by the completion of works in hand. Every consideration is given to length of service in regard both to the matter of retention of workmen and to their employment when fresh work is available. Further, every effort is made before any discharges take place to transfer suitable men to other departments in the dockyard.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that a man who has had fourteen years' service is not a suitable man?
    Mr. LAMBERT: When the hon. Gentleman reads my reply, he will see that I have fully covered the question
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You have not at all.

    OINERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain the rating described as "Joiner" under the heading Shipwrights and Carpenters' Crew, page 6 of Statement, showing present and new rates of pay to Royal Navy: whether this is a new rating; whether it is to take the place of the old rating carpenters' crew; whether, under the new conditions, it is still open to carpenters' crew to turn over to shipwright joiners; whether he is aware that carpenters' crew at present can only get leading seaman's rating; and whether he can see his way to place them, as regards rating, in the same position as plumbers and blacksmiths?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The ratings of carpenters' crew and leading carpenters' crew are retained with increased rates of pay, and above them a new petty officer rating of joiner is instituted, with pay from 6d. to 1s. 2d. in excess of the old rates for leading carpenters' crew. Promotion to joiner, i.e., petty officer rating, will thus be open to leading carpenters' crew, and in this respect they will be in the same position as the plumber and blacksmith classes. Transfers of carpenters crew ratings to shipwrights will only be made in special cases, at the discretion of the Admiralty. Full details are about to be communicated to the Fleet by circular letter.
    Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: When may we expect that communication?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There will be no undue delay.

    HAULBOWLINE (BRIDGE).
    Mr. CREANasked whether the Cork Harbour Commissioners have consented to the request of the Admiralty for permission to construct a bridge between Haulbowline and the mainland on the west side of the island; and, if so, when will the proposed work be commenced?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Cork Harbour Commissioners have consented on certain conditions to the construction of a bridge, but I am not in a position to say when the work will be commenced.

    Poor Law Orders (Committee).
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee appointed to examine the existing Poor Law Orders with a view to their consolidation and amendment have now completed their work; whether their Report has been examined by Poor Law associations; and, if so, whether any general agreement has been obtained in the matter; and whether he proposes to issue any Order incorporating these recommendations?
    Mr. BURNS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that the Departmental Committee submitted a draft Order to certain associations and bodies interested in the matter, but I have not yet received any Report or recommendations from the Committee.

    Vagrancy.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received resolutions from a number of boards of guardians asking him to deal with the question of vagrancy in a comprehensive manner; and, if so, whether he proposes to bring in legislation dealing with the subject next Session?
    Mr. BURNS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I stated recently, in reply to a similar question, the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on Vagrancy are under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself, but I am not at present in a position to promise legislation on the subject.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether, having regard to the fact that all cases of foot-and-mouth disease have disappeared from Ireland, and that the restrictive Orders in reference to the cattle trade have been removed from that country, a few days will be given to permit of cattle coming from Ireland to be distributed to the markets of Edinburgh and Perth without the twenty-one days' isolation which is now required?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Owing to inadvertence in connection with the hon. Gentleman's notice, I have not been able to consider his suggestion at length, but I understand that it would interfere with the precautions which we are now taking. The twenty-one days' isolation which will take place under the new Order is only a temporary precaution, which I hope will soon be rendered unnecessary.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether cattle coming within this category could be distributed in private fields in Edinburgh and Perth, thereby doing away with all chance of contagion?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider the point. At first sight it does not seem advisable to interfere with the precautions at present being taken.
Mr. FIELD: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night, in order that we may have an explanation on various points connected therewith.
Mr. FLAVIN: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to allow store cattle and fat cattle from Ireland to go into English markets?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: As soon as the twenty-one days' regulation is removed they will be free to enter English markets, and, as I have already said, I hope that that will be at an early date.
Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Does that apply also to the exportation of hay from Ireland?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite another matter. I shall make a statement on that subject next week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can now say what the business will be on Friday in next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather give an answer on Monday.

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

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  CLAUSE 28.—(Irish Appeals.)
  (1) The appeal from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease; and where any person would, but for this Act, have a right to appeal from any Court in Ireland to the House of Lords, that person shall have the right to appeal to His Majesty the King in Council; and all enactments relating to appeals to His Majesty the King in Council, and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, shall apply accordingly.
  (2) When the Judicial Committee sit for hearing any appeal from a Court in Ireland in pursuance of any provisions of this Act, there shall be present not less than four Lords of Appeal, within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and at least one member who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court in Ireland.
  (3) A rota of Privy Councillors to sit for hearing appeals from Courts in Ireland shall be made annually by His Majesty in Council, and the Privy Councillors, or some of them, on that rota shall sit to hear the said appeals. A casual vacancy occurring in the rota during the year may be filled by Order in Council.
  (4) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction of the House of Lords to determine the claims to Irish peerages.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  This Clause deals with appeals from the Courts in Ireland. At present these appeals are to the House of Lords; but this Clause proposes to abolish the appeal to the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal, and to transfer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Before I deal with the general question, I may refer to the precedents of the previous Home Rule Bills. In the Home Rule
  1408
  Bill of 1886 the proposal was precisely the one I am no making: the appeal to the House of Lords from the Courts in Ire-land was expressly reserved. In the Bill of 1893 the proposal was the same as in the present Bill, but in 1893, under the guillotine, there was no discussion whatever of that particular Clause. It is fortunate that, if we had not a chance on the Committee stage, we had, at any rate, on the Report stage an opportunity for a few words before this final Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom is abolished. The appeal to the House of Lords is one of the most ancient institutions of this country. It is an appeal to His Majesty in his High Court of Parliament. There are some people who believe that the House of Lords as a judicial tribunal is the same as the House of Lords in its legislative capacity. There may be some people who bonâ fide believe that, but there are some who for political advantage and political prejudice, when they are attacking the House of Lords, try to induce that belief. Let me at the commencement once and for all dispel any such notion, because when the House of Lords is sitting as a Court of Appeal only the Lord Chancellor, the Lords of Appeal, and those Peers who have held high judicial office—retired judges who have held high office—constitute the Court.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: All the Lords have a right to sit.
  Mr. CASSEL: They do not exercise it, I say that those who for the purpose of raising prejudice against that House try to induce the belief that it is the same body, can only do so from motives for which there can be no possible defence. However, the proposal is not now to do away with the House of Lords as a judicial authority. If that were the proposal, quite different considerations would arise. There might be much to be said for it, and for having a different Supreme Court of Appeal for the whole of the United Kingdom. My objection to this proposal is that while you leave the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal for all cases in Scotland and England you are setting up an entirely different Supreme Court of Appeal for Ireland. That appears to me to be openly and avowedly a separatist proposal. So far as legislative action or executive action is concerned we have in this Bill at least a pretence of maintaining the legislative and executive unity of the United Kingdom. We have at least

  1409
  words in the Bill which, for whatever they may be worth in practice, are at least inserted for the purpose of creating the idea that the legislative unity of the United Kingdom is maintained. But so far as this particular proposal as to the judicature is concerned, it is openly and avowedly separatist, because it places Ireland simply, solely, and absolutely in the same position as a Colony or a Dominion. So far as the judicature is concerned it severs every link with the United Kingdom qua the United Kingdom and places Ireland simply in the position of a Colony. The distinction throughout the Empire is perfectly well understood. The Supreme Court of the whole of the United Kingdom is the House of Lords, and the Supreme Court for the Colonies and the Dominions is the Privy Council. In order to emphasise that distinction I should like to call attention to a Bill which has been some time before this House, the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General and backed by the Solicitor-General. There is a Memorandum on the face of that Bill which brings out very clearly the distinction to which I refer. The Bill, I think, is a result of a resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1911. It proposes to increase the number of Lords of Appeal from four to six. The Memorandum says:—
  "The increase of the number of Law Lords from four to six proposed by the Bill is the first step necessary to give effect to the resolution passed at the Imperial Conference in 1911. The proposals of His Majesty's Government then were that they should add to the highest Court of Appeal both for the United Kingdom and the Dominions, and the Colonies, by selecting two English judges of the finest quality; that the quorum should be fixed at, say, five—
  These are the words to which I should like to call the special attention of the House—
  "and that the Court should sit successively in the House of Lords for United Kingdom appeals and in the Privy Council for appeals from the Dominions and the Colonies."
  So that on the face of the Memorandum of the Bill prepared by the Attorney-General and backed by the Solicitor-General, following the resolution of the Imperial Conference, you have the distinction clearly made between the House of Lords sitting as a final Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom,' and the Privy
  1410
  Council sitting as a final Court of Appeal for the Dominions and Colonies. How would that resolution read if this Bill passed without my Amendment being inserted? It would read like this:—
  "and that the Court shall sit successively in the House of Lords for English and Scottish appeals, and in the Privy Council for appeals from the Dominions and the Colonies, including Ireland."
  You could not read that Memorandum in any way if this Bill passed into law. The distinction then would be between English and Scottish appeals on the one hand, and on the other, Dominion, and Colonial, and Irish appeals. If the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General had to go to the next Imperial Conference with that proposal, how could you more clearly in the sight of the whole Empire mark the disruption of the United Kingdom? I say it would be a distinct intimation to the whole of the Empire that for the future, so far as the judicature is concerned—and we are dealing with that alone—that England and Scotland stood on an entirely different footing from Ireland, and that there was no longer one Supreme Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom. I think this is also an anti-federal proposal. We have sometimes had it suggested by the Government that this is put forward as a beginning of some federal scheme that is hereafter to be completed. I believe that this piecemeal federalism is an utter impossibility. In a federation there is one highest Court of Appeal for the whole federation. If you look at the United States of America, what would be the corresponding position to that proposed under this Bill? It would be this: "That the Supreme Court of Appeal of the United States of America was the Supreme Court, say, for the whole of America, except Massachusetts and New York, and that these two States had another final High Court of Appeal of their own, and that neither Court would be bound by the decisions of the other Court. What advantage is this proposal to the judiciary to the United Kingdom? Absolutely none, so far as I can see. I am not aware that in Ireland there has been any great demand for the change.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: None whatever.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's agreement in that. There seems to be no demand for the change. What is the difference between the two Courts? What advantage

  1411
  would be gained as regards the difference between the two Courts? Yow gain no advantage so far as the personnel is concerned. The personnel of the two Courts is not so very different. It is quite true it is different to some extent. For instance, there are two Indian judges on the Privy Council, and I think there are certain distinguished Colonial judges on the Privy Council. These occasionally sit. Do you want the change in order that the Indian judges may sit on Irish appeals, or that the Colonial judges should sit on Irish appeals? It is quite true that there are words in the Bill that four Lords of Appeal must sit when Irish cases are being tried. So that it cannot be in order to cut out the personnel that you are making this change, doing away with that system of appeal to which the people are accustomed and familiar, and introducing the substitute of another appeal for it. Again, as to procedure: I quite agree that the procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is different from procedure of the House of Lords, but if there be any difference in the procedure I think the advantage is all on the side of the House of Lords.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) took a different view.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am expressing my own view. If the hon. Member has a different view perhaps he will express it later. But I think I am entitled to express my views. Whatever view the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University expressed I do not think he would desire to transfer Irish appeals to the Privy Council. So far as procedure is concerned there is this disadvantage that in the Privy Council there is no reasoned judgment by all the judges; you have only one judgment, so that each judge does not, give his own view on the appeals before him, and the Colonies have expressed very strong feeling about that procedure of the Privy Council. In the House of Lords every judge gives his own reasoned decision. Australia and New Zealand objected very strongly to the fact that they did not have a reasoned judgment by each judge in the Privy Council. It may be very important to say that an Irish judge is to be put on, but it might be very important to know whether the Irish judge dissented from the judgment of
  1412
  his colleagues in the Privy Council. I cannot see that either from the point of view of personnel or procedure their can be any reason for transferring these appeals from the ancient tribunal of the House of Lords to the Privy Council, although it is the recognised tribunal in these things for His Majesty's Dominions. I do not think there is any advantage, and it might create great anomalies if you adopt the suggestion of this Bill rather than the suggestion of the Bill of 1886, because under this Bill you would have two final Courts of Appeal within the same United Kingdom and the decision of neither would be binding on the other.
  Some of the Colonies at the late Colonial Conference adverted to the fact that there were two final Courts of Appeal within the Empire, but there is only one final Court of Appeal within the United Kingdom. Under this Bill you are setting up two Courts of Appeal with co-ordinate jurisdiction within the United Kingdom The answer the Attorney-General would doubtless make is that there is not very much difference in the personnel. If that is so, it seems to me in the first place to be an excellent reason for not making any change at all; and, in the second place, if there is not very much difference in the personnel at one moment there may be very great difference when the same question comes up again ten or twenty years hence. If it comes up ten or twenty years hence before either Court, the judges of that day would not be bound in the least by, although they would no doubt pay very great respect to, the decision of the other Court. I quite recognise that differences of opinion would not frequently arise, but why should you not have one single Court of Appeal without going out of your way to create two distinct Courts which may possibly be in conflict? I do not put it higher than that, but there is no reason even for running the possibility of risk of such a thing happening.
  Look again at what might happen if you had these two separate Courts of Final Appeal in the United Kingdom. It is a mere matter of chance to which Court an action might come. Supposing there was an action for breach of contract brought to recover damages in respect of that contract. If it so happened that the plaintiff could serve an Irishman with a writ in England, if he happened to be here, then the appeal would come to the House of Lords; and, on the other hand, if it so happened that an Irishman was served with

  1413
  a writ in Ireland, the appeal would go to the Privy Council. Surely it is ludicrous to intentionally and deliberately, without any palpable advantage whatever, bring about that result. It may be, supposing the question was decided by the House of Lords on a breach of contract, that ten years hence the same question would arise, and that the action brought in Ireland, coming on final appeal before the Privy Council, the former decision might be reversed. Is it advantageous to transfer these Irish appeals from the House of Lords to the Privy Council having regard to the state of business in the Courts? Can that argument be put forward? The congestion in the Privy Council is much greater than in the House of Lords. I have taken the figures of the latest judicial statistics I could find—those of 1910. I do not think that we have later published, and these show that there were 142 cases in the Privy Council, and that great dissatisfaction has been expressed by some of the Colonies that their cases have not been tried, whereas there were only eighty-nine cases in the House of Lords; and it may be interesting to the House to know that of the cases that come before the Privy Council the greater number are from India. Out of the 142 appeals, eighty-eight were Indian appeals, fifty-one were appeals from the Colonics and Dominions, and three were from other Courts, such as the Consular Court of Constantinople.
  There have been proposals made from time to time that there should only be one supreme Imperial Court of Appeal for the whole Empire and there is a great deal to be said for that, although Lord Loreburn gave strong reasons the other way at the Colonial Conference. If that were the proposal, we should consider it on an entirely different footing. It would have been a question of one Court for the whole Empire. That is not the question suggested here, and so long as the House of Lords remains and this House thinks it right it should remain the final and supreme Court of Appeal for Scotland and England, there is absolutely no reason for having any different procedure with regard to Ireland. Irish Peers will still remain members of the House of Lords. So far as I am aware there was no period in Irish history when appeals went to the Privy Council. Before the Union I think they went to the Irish House of Lords, and never at any period of Irish history did they go to the Privy Council. So far as precedent is concerned, I think that the precedent of the Bill of 1886, which is similar to the pro-
  1414
  posal I made, is better than the proposal in this Bill. It appears to me that the proposal in the Bill has really no substantive advantage. On the other hand, it may involve anomalies, difficulties and the possibility of conflicting decisions which do not exist at the present time. This proposal appears to me inconsistent with the policy of Union, with the policy of federalism, and I can conceive that the only reason it is brought forward is to lend some colour to the suggestion that this Bill would put Ireland in the position of a Colony and that she would not remain an integral part of the Union.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not know whether the Government are aware that it was to Mr. Isaac Butt, when Chairman of the Irish party about 1875 or 1876, that the retention of the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal for Ireland under the Judicature Bill of that period was preserved. Of course, I am speaking entirely from memory of what happened at a period thirty-five or thirty-six years ago, but I well remember the charges Mr. Butt was exposed to because he maintained that the House of Lords should be preserved as the final Court of Appeal. The original proposal of the Judicature Bill, as I recollect, did not give the final appeal of the House of Lords to Ireland, and Mr. Isaac Butt felt so strongly upon this that his efforts, backed as they were by the Irish party, and speaking with the authority of the entire Irish party, were successful with the Conservative Government of the day, and it was owing to the efforts of the father of Home Rule that we owe the preservation of the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal for Ireland. When this Bill was in Committee I did intend to ask some questions with regard to the reason for the change which the Government proposes. The Irish House of Lords for many centuries had the exercise of Appeal Judicature, and it was one of the causes of conflict between the two Parliaments that the English House of Lords insisted that appeals should come to them, but in 1782, as everybody remembers, the English House of Lords gave up its insistence, and appeals went to the Irish House of Lords, and many of these appeals were of a most interesting character.
  Only the other day I strongly recommended the Librarian of the House of Lords to obtain the series of volumes to be found dealing with these appeals, some of them of the most interesting kind, and to place them in the House of Lords Library,

  1415
  if the Treasury would only allow them to spend the few pounds necessary to procure these volumes. The Privy Council of this country, except for a short period in the reign of Charles I. never interfered with any Irish judicial questions. It was laid down, I think at the time of Strafford, by this House that the Privy Council was the judicature, and was entitled to interfere in matters affecting property. That existed for a short period during the reign of Charles I., but not by way of appeal but on petition from Ireland. They never intervened in any way even on questions of real property, therefore I think it requires some strong justification to change a system which has prevailed for so many centuries. I do not myself attach to this matter the very largest importance, but at the same time I do think we may well ask what is the reason for this change. It may be connected with the suggestion of partisanship. That is a suggestion which I am sure nobody will publicly make, and therefore I assume it is nothing of that kind. It may, however, be due to economy on the part of the Treasury because, as this House may remember, for the last twenty years controversy of an interesting kind as to the right of Ireland to be represented amongst the Lords of Appeal has gone on. I raised the question myself in this House fifteen years ago. The first time a change was made in allowing the voice of Ireland to be heard amongst the Lords of Appeal was when Lord Morris resigned. Then Lord Lindley, for the first time was appointed, and Ireland did not have in the House of Lords any judicial representative because Lord Lindley ousted from the judicial authority the Irish representation which had hitherto obtained in that House. The result was that the present Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), when the next vacancy occurred, in consequence of representations made in this House, appointed an Irish lawyer, Lord Atkinson, amongst the Lords of Appeal. It may well be that the Treasury brought about this change. The salary no doubt is a substantial one, and it may well be that the Treasury, if the appeal still lay to the House of Lords, would attempt to debit Ireland with that £6,000 a year. If there is anything of that sort, I think we ought to know what it is. If, on the other hand, that view is maintained by the Treasury, we desire to know why we should not be debited with some part of the salaries of the Privy
  1416
  Council. If one portion is debited, why should we be debited with the other? Speaking without any great amount of feeling in this matter, one way or the other, it occurs to me that the tribunal of the Privy Council is not the most suitable for appeals from Ireland. It consists, as we know, very largely of gentlemen having great Colonial experience. Some of them are well acquainted with Dutch law, and some with Indian law, but so far as the common law goes it runs in Ireland, and the common law being the same in both countries, and the Statutes being very much alike, one can hardly see any reason from the point of view of the judicature for the transfer. Having no feeling in this matter, and as the Government have yielded to the Opposition in so many mischievous Amendments granting a whole number of changes mischievous to the Bill, and which have done us great harm from a financial point of view, as was faintly confessed yesterday by such a stalwart financial opponent as the Postmaster-General, it seems to me that there is no reason why this Amendment should not be granted.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Issacs): From the speeches to which we have just listened it must be quite clear to the House that there is nothing very vital which separates us on this point. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), said that he did not attribute very great importance to this proposal, but at the same time he seems to have a preference for an appeal to the House of Lords instead of to the Privy Council. It seems to us that the better constitutional course is for these appeals to go to the Privy Council, because it is better that you should only have one Court dealing with all the questions which may arise in Ireland—that is to say one Supreme Appellate Tribunal—and if you are to leave it merely to the House of Lords you would be confronted by a very serious difficulty, because you cannot refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council any question which it seems fit it should be referred to them for their opinion.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think that affects the Colonies only.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I know there are questions affecting the Colonies, but I was thinking of a very much wider jurisdiction which is given than that, and it is the power to apply by an Address to the King

  1417
  in case any question of difficulty arises. I gave an instance of this in one of the earlier Debates, and I will mention it again. A question arose on the demise of the late Sovereign as to whether judges and magistrates were bound to renew the oaths which they had taken originally on being appointed under the new Sovereign upon his accession, and there was a good deal of conflict of opinion, and eventually it was referred by the Crown to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under that Section of that particular Statute. I will give an instance which will show how this jurisdiction may be exercised. When we had a debate upon the appointment of the Select Committee to decide as to whether or not the hon. Baronet the Member for the Whitechapel Division (Sir Stuart Samuel) had vacated his seat, it was suggested in this House that the better course would be, as a question of law was involved, to refer the matter to the Privy Council, and the constitutional course would be to present an Address to the Crown and then the Crown would seek the opinion of the Privy Council. As the House knows, the result of the discussion has been that the Committee has reported that it would be better to take advantage of that course of procedure. Those are instances, and I would suggest that the hon. and learned Member should bear them in mind, and he will then see that the constitutional course would be to do what we are doing in reference to questions arising out of Clause 29. We are assuming the Bill is introduced into the Irish Parliament, and the question might arise as to whether or not the Bill, or some provisions of it, are in conflict with the provisions of this particular Bill we are now discussing; or in other words, the Irish Parliament was acting ultra vires. The only way would be by some such reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it would be an extremely cumbrous procedure, because you would have to have an Address to the Crown praying that the Crown would direct that this question should be decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  There are a number of matters upon which an appeal will now lie to the Privy Council, and what we say is that the moment such a question does arise under the Bill it goes straight to the Privy Council, and it could not go to the House of Lords. I do not say it would be impossible to provide that these matters should proceed to the House of Lords, but I do say that the constitutional course is to
  1418
  proceed as we are providing. No constitutional lawyer will doubt for one moment what I have been saying, that you do not get a very great difference in the personnel of the two tribunals, and it is infinitely better that you should have one Supreme Appellate Tribunal, instead of referring constitutional questions for opinion and advice as to what the law is to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and any other matters which come up for the Court of Appeal in Ireland could go to the House of Lords. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) said that by our proposal we should have two final Courts of Appeal, and the decision of one would not be binding on the other. I agree that is technically true, but, as the hon. and learned Member knows, it is really only technical. I am not disputing the proposition. Any person who has had to argue in the House of Lords knows perfectly well that when he quotes a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he does not suggest it is binding, but I must point out that that Committee is composed almost invariably of the judges who sit in the House of Lords. It has been said over and over again that the decision of the one tribunal, although not technically binding, is looked upon with the greatest respect by the other tribunal. Otherwise it would be an absolute absurdity, because you would have before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—not the Lords of Appeal who are Members of the House of Lords—sitting in the House of Lords deciding questions one day, and, according to my hon. and learned Friend, they might the next day sit on the Privy Council and accept a different decision from them.
  Mr. CASSEL: What I suggested was that the same legal question might come up ten or twenty years after.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: But even Lords of Appeal in Ordinary do not live for ever, and in regard to a final Court of Appeal consisting of those on the Privy Council and the House of Lords, we have not arrived at that stage yet.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the decision of one Court binding on the other?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not suggesting that; it is only technically binding. If the hon. Member means does one Court follow the decision of the other, then I say undoubtedly. I do not want to mislead the hon: Member, but when I say

  1419
  undoubtedly I mean in practice that that is what happens, and you may look through your law reports and you will see that every lawyer who has argued there has quoted Privy Council Reports, and the House of Lords has followed them. I agree that the House of Lords is not bound to do so, but, in fact, that is what happens because you really have the same judges. If there is any substance in the point which has been stated, and any real difficulty in proceeding as we are proposing, and if, as he says, you ought to leave your Supreme Appellate to the House of Lords, what would happen? Various constitutional questions and points would arise which would be bound to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The very same matters might come up for decision in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and the appeal might go to the House of Lords, which would be a totally different tribunal. It is really most undesirable that you should have that unless there was a serious objection to it, and it is ever so much better to have a tribunal consisting, as it does, of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to decide all Irish questions, and all matters of opinion on constitutional points, as to whether they are ultra vires, and whether they infringe the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill which we are now discussing. All these questions go to one tribunal by our system.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understand, this affects the rights of the individual and it does not affect constitutional questions at all.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, but the case we are dealing with at the moment is whether or not the appellate tribunal is to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I was dealing with it from that aspect. I cannot conceive that anyone, whether it be the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras or the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, would suggest that you should preserve the House of Lords as the Court of Appeal for Clause 28 and that for Clauses 29 and 30 you should set up the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. You must have the same tribunal.
  Mr. CASSEL: My suggestion was that both should go to the House of Lords.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite understand, but I was only pointing out to the
  1420
  Leader of the Opposition why I was arguing it in that way, and I think that every lawyer must agree that you must have the one Court for all these appeals. Something might be said for sending them to the House of Lords instead of to the Privy Council, but, in my opinion, nothing can be said for separating them and sending some question from Ireland to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and others to the House of Lords. Let me point out what the tribunal will be in substance. It will be a tribunal assisted by men who are administrators of justice in Ireland. That is to say, that this Clause 28 provides that you must have at least four Lords of Appeal sitting in that tribunal to decide Irish questions, and also one judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland. That one judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland may not be, and need not be, a peer. If he is not a peer he could not sit in the House of Lords, and the consequence would be that you could only have the Lords of Appeal, and you could not have this judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland assisting them to decide Irish questions, giving his point of view and his experience and judgment on Irish matters.
  Therefore it seems to me there is every reason why we should keep to the course which we have prescribed in this Bill. In the first place, it is the proper constitutional course. It gives you all the advantages of going to the House of Lords with none of the disadvantages of separating the constitutional questions from the others. Finally, there is no tribunal in this Empire which is so fit to deal with constitutional questions as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is no tribunal which has ever existed in this country, or, so far as I am able to judge, anywhere else, which has had to deal with so many and such very difficult questions coming from all parts of the Dominions upon constitutional matters. And it does seem to me, as against the point taken by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), that you would have sitting in this tribunal, which is going to deal with Irish legal matters, not only the four Lords of Appeal, but also the one judge from the Supreme Court of Ireland, that it is no objection that in addition to these you might have one of the distinguished judges from Canada, or it may be a distinguished judge from South Africa sitting also, and that they will altogether proceed to deal with and pronounce a decision upon the matters

  1421
  which come before them from Ireland. I should have thought that that was an argument in favour of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that there might be representatives from all these countries sitting together.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how the attendance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is regulated? We know how the attendance of the House of Lords is regulated. Suppose there was a constitutional question affecting Ireland coming up, has not every legal member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a right to attend? It might be that the Government of the day would be strongly opposed to the views of the Irish body, and I should like to ask therefore, how you are going to regulate and provide what persons shall sit in the Court and how they are to be summoned?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is provided for in Clause 28. There is a special rota, and that rota is a rota of the members of the Privy Council who are entitled to sit to hear appeals, and it is drawn up annually, and it is from that rota that the members who are to hear appeals from Ireland and the questions coming from Ireland will have to be constituted. That is subject, of course, to the provision that there must be at least four Lords of Appeal and one judge from the Supreme Court of Ireland, so that you have that rota already. I cannot but think that this tribunal, which has dealt, for example, with matters from Canada over and over again, and with these many constitutional points, assisted by those other judges who will form the tribunal, is the most desirable one that you can have. In answer to the comment made by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, no one for a moment suggests that we should get rid of the House of Lords as an appellate tribunal because of some political prejudice. That is not the reason for this proposal. The reason is that, to our minds, it is the only way in which you can get one tribunal to deal with all these constitutional matters, and therefore we have adopted the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for all appeals on all matters that come from Ireland to our High Court.
  Mr. CLANCY: I rise to say that I have heard with much satisfaction the statement of the Attorney-General. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be a strong
  1422
  preference in this quarter of the House for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as against the House of Lords, and that probably will be the general feeling among most people in Ireland. The argument in favour of the proposal in the Bill seems to me to be two-fold. In the first place, I think the greater part of the questions which will come up for decision before the Privy Council will be questions relating to ultra vires and questions of constitutional interest arising from the Acts of the Irish Parliament. I think the House of Lords as compared with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is far less fit to deal with questions of that kind, and for this very plain reason that at present and ever since the constitution of the Privy Council as a judicial body that body and that body alone has dealt with such constitutional questions, and has dealt with them whether they came from Ireland, or whether they came from inside or outside the United Kingdom. It seems to me it will be a criminal waste of experience and fitness to throw away the long experience of that body and substitute for it the far smaller experience of the minority of the Judicial Committee who would constitute and would be members of the House of Lords. The second argument in favour of the Clause as it seems to me is that it is of great importance to convince the people of Ireland that they shall have fair play in these matters. They want nothing but justice, but they do want justice. They want fair and calm consideration of every question brought up for appeal and particularly questions of a constitutional nature.
  The constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seems to me to offer a better guarantee by far that fairness will prevail in these matters when dealt with by the constitutional and legal tribunal which is to be set up. It has judges coming from South Africa, Canada, and Australia. I do not know whether there might not be some from India. There may be some from any part of the Empire in which fully established Courts prevail and in addition to that there will be the special experience of an Irish judge of a Supreme Court. It seems to me that a body like that, largely composed of judicial minds brought from outside the United Kingdom altogether is more likely to take a detached view, a more impartial view, than any other tribunal that could be imagined. I do not think it is possible to imagine that the House of Lords would

  1423
  take a more detached view, or even as detached a view, that is to say, an impartial view, as this body composed of lawyers who, to a large extent, have never had any part in the administration of justice in these Islands. I was astonished to hear the argument of the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, who said that this spelt separation. Is it to be supposed that Canada is no longer a part of the Empire, or that the Australian Commonwealth is no longer part of the Empire, or that the South African Union is now separated from the Empire? It seems to me that the extravagance of an argument of that character carries with it its own reputation. So far from accepting that, I think that, on the other hand, any impartial person would look upon it not as a measure of separation but as a measure of union. I can hardly imagine anything more plain to the beholder, anything more plain to the masses of the people of the United Kingdom, as proving that the outlying parts of the Empire are part and parcel of the Empire, than to find these judges coming from those parts of the Empire and sitting in its supreme tribunal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and deciding these constitutional questions.
  It is a very striking lesson indeed, and it ought to bring home most forcibly, and I am sure it does, to the minds of the people of this country the lesson that is taught by giving self-government within the limits of the Empire to those out-lying Colonies and Dominions, when we find their representatives here in the capital of the Empire taking part in the decision of constitutional questions relating to themselves. I was astonished at another statement made by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras. He stated that the Privy Council of twenty years hence being composed of different persons from those that composed that body now, would disregard the decisions of their predecessors. I wonder how often has the House of Lords failed to respect the decisions of its predecessors. I have a distinct recollection of the decisions of the House of Lords being reversed by themselves, and I am perfectly certain there is not a single lawyer who is listening to me, or who has read the reports of the cases decided by the House of Lords who has not seen contradiction of themselves in various cases, and I am sorry to say in some cases not direct contradiction, but implied contradiction, which is really the most
  1424
  dangerous form of interpreting the law which I can imagine. I hope the Government will adhere to this proposal, which seems to me to have a distinct advantage to Ireland in having these matters considered in this way by a great body who in my opinion would be more impartial, and therefore would command greater confidence in any decision which could be given, much more than could be placed in any decision of the House of Lords, no matter how it might be constituted.
  Mr. W. MOORE: I hope the House will note the interesting admission made by the last speaker, which was entirely true. He says he has no doubt whatever that the work of this appellate tribunal, after Home Rule is started, will be mainly confined to applications to restrain the Irish Parliament from acting ultra vires. I think that is a striking admission, and is an absolutely accurate prophecy, and what we believe is likely to happen. So long as the minority have any means left to them to proceed with litigation, which after all is a luxury, there will be applications to have cases tried so as to prevent the Irish Parliament from perpetrating some course of injustice which will be ultra vires. The hon. Member has affected to be in some doubt as regards the impartiality of the House of Lords. I do not think it is necessary in this case. Certainly the learned Attorney-General protested, and I, for one, have no desire to suggest that one of these bodies is a bit more impartial than the other. I will assume that they are equally impartial. I do not know, supposing there is to be a nominee of the party below the Gangway—a nominee to an Irish judgeship, who is to come over here and act as a Law Lord—I do not know if that will make for impartiality, but at any rate that has not yet happened. It is only provided for in the Bill. It would be wrong to suggest the slightest atom of partiality on the part of either of these tribunals. We are, however, not dealing with Clause 29. Clause 28 refers to the ordinary appellate tribunal for private individuals, and for the ordinary litigation of the country. Apart from any question of impartiality, surely when you have the common law in England and in Ireland exactly the same, it would be better to have, as you must have in the Appellate Tribunal of the House of Lords, people who have spent all their lives in the study of the common law, and, impartiality being granted, it must be better for litigants to have their cases decided

  1425
  according to the law of the country by jurists who have been brought up in that law.
  The question of partiality or impartiality does not come in. Men who have made a special study of the Statute law of Australia, or of French-Canadian law across the Atlantic, or of the Roman-Dutch law of the Cape, are not likely to have the same ripe experience in deciding matters in common law as judges who have practised in the country all their lives, and, therefore, I, for one, have not the least doubt that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, would be a better and more satisfactory tribunal for the British or the Irish litigant.
  The hon. Member who last spoke takes the view expressed by the Attorney-General some little time ago. It is very characteristic that he should use what I may call the detached argument. I ventured when making a very axiomatic statement the other night to suggest that the Attorney-General had never been in Ireland and therefore did not understand the facts to which he was seeking to apply legislation. Thereupon the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the fact that I myself had been born in Ireland and was an Irishman prevented me being able to take a detached view on the question. The argument amounts to this, that a person who knows nothing about a country is a better judge of what is necessary for that country by reason of the fact that he knows nothing about it or its traditions, because he is thereby enabled to take a detached view. It is a suggestion that our knowledge prevents us being impartial, and that is the argument which the hon. Member who last spoke has laid before the House in favour of appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Attorney-General's argument was that because under Clause 29 you have a constitutional question on which you are to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, therefore you ought to have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to deal with all appeals, including those of private litigants and everything else. The Attorney-General cited a constitutional case which this House has recently been discussing, the case as to whether Sir Stuart Samuel has vacated his seat. The Attorney-General pointed out that that case was to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That may be so. But you are not going to abolish the House of Lords for England; you will keep the House of Lords
  1426
  for English appeals, and if you are going to do that, why should you not apply the same treatment to Ireland?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I pointed out that that procedure could only be brought into operation by moving an Address to the Crown, and that it would be too cumbrous a procedure to apply to all cases likely to arise.
  Mr. MOORE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed what was done in England when a certain constitutional point arose. One would imagine from what he said that the English Appellate Courts are discussing constitutional questions every day of the week. As a matter of fact, I should think that if the House of Lords decided two or three great constitutional questions in the course of a year, that would be an outside number. It is generally dealing with private and other litigation. The Privy Council recently, no doubt, decided an important constitutional question from Canada and very probably that is the only big constitutional question it will be called upon to deal with this year. The Attorney-General said that in English constitutional cases you have to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But you do not therefore abolish the House of Lords. You are going to retain the two tribunals for England while you will only give one for Ireland. Surely if it is good for England to have the two tribunals, it would be equally good for Ireland. I am not profoundly moved by the legal point of view he put forward; indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech showed how very little real difference- there is in it. He said that after all the constitution of the Courts would be very much the same. If you come to the House of Lords you have four or more Law Lords, and in this Bill you will have four or more such Gentlemen sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It really comes to this, there is really no difference in working it out; the only object is to make the Bill constitutionally perfect, otherwise there is not very much reason for the change. I do not think that this is a case which will cause the sluggard blood to flame. On one ground I should rather be in favour of the change. There was a case decided by the House of Lords some little time ago and it was one in which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) was engaged. It was a case affecting fishing rights in Lough

  1427
  Neagh. The case was decided by the House of Lords, which, I have no doubt, came to a perfectly good legal action.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not at all.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MOORE: That brings me exactly to the point I want to make. I do not think the Attorney-General will say it was not a good legal decision. Personally, I believe the Court was impartial, and I do not think there is a lawyer, apart from counsel engaged in the case, who will deny that. No one will suggest that it was a bad decision or a corrupt decision on the point of law. I believe the House of Lords, in giving that decision, did its duty and decided according to its ability. The decision went against the fishery; it was not, therefore, on the popular side, and a paper which calls itself the only Liberal paper in Ulster, as a result of this judicial decision by the highest Appellate Court in the land, came out with a gross, unwarranted attack on the House of Lords as the House of Lords, and not as the legal members of the highest judicial appellate tribunal in the country. It used the decision of the Law Lords as a tag upon which to hang abuse of the House of Lords as a whole and of the hereditary system which fit represents. It was an absolutely gross and unfair misrepresentation, and it was exactly what one would expect from the only Liberal newspaper in the North of Ireland. From the point of view that I would be glad to prevent any further misrepresentation of that sort, and to take away from unscrupulous journalists, and from people who edit leaflets for the Liberal Publication Department, the opportunity of making use of these things for political purposes, I might be inclined to support this Clause and take away this power of appeal to the House of Lords and transfer it to the Judicial Committee -of the Privy Council. But then everybody should be treated in the same way. We say that an exception ought not to be made in the case of Ireland, and that is the reason why I object to this proposal of the Government. Our appeals have been dealt with in the House of Lords, not because it is composed of judges, or jurists, or eminent men, but they were originally dealt with in the House of Lords because that body was part of the High Court of Appeal, and was supposed to be stronger than the Courts of the land. It was not until the last century that the Jay peers gave up the right they claimed
  1428
  to sit and deal with appeals. As a matter of fact, we know that the lay peers, according to the theory of the Constitution, have this jurisdiction, and they also have the right to bring in the judges to advise them. I believe that is the origin of judges attending in the House of Lords at the Coronation and at the opening of Parliament. At any rate, the lords used to have the power of submitting question to the judges and bringing in the judges to advise them. This is really a new growth. When the lay lords gave up their claim, about the middle of the last century, to adjudicate on these appeals, the new tendency arose of leaving the cases to the Law Lords acting under the direction of the Lord Chancellor. If Ireland, in view of the fact that the High Courts of Parliament now exercise the power, is to be sent to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it will be the only instance in the British Dominions where a country or Colony, or whatever you may term it, which has representatives in the Imperial Parliament is confined for appeal purposes to the Privy Council like a Colony. I do not want to say one word derogatory to our Colonies, but I would rather, as an Irishman, have my rights decided on the same footing and by the same Court as Englishmen and Scotchmen, who are equally part of the same Constitution, than I would be relegated, like Tasmania or the West Indies, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as is proposed by this Clause. I should consider it a badge in the sense of inferiority. Hon. Members below the Gangway, I know, would accept any badge of inferiority for their country, if they can get out of it a little more of the idea of separation. They want to be able to go home to their constituents and to claim that, owing to these shackles and restraints and limitations, Ireland is placed in the same position as the self-governing Dominions. They are not averse, therefore, to having to carry their appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is no demand for this. The ordinary Nationalist in Ireland, if you went to him and said, "Do you know that in future your appeals are going to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council instead of the House of Lords?" would not thank you for the information. He would not know how he stands now. He would never be likely to have an appeal to either of these august tribunals in his life, and he would

  1429
  not be moved by this statement. Therefore there is no demand for it.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)made a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. MOORE: I did not hear what the Chief Secretary said.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I said there was no national demand for it.
  Mr. MOORE: Then we agree for once. It is illogical to say that we who are members of the United Kingdom, who are Members of this House, who ought to have the same rights as Englishmen and Scotchmen, should be put in the position of the smallest Colony in the whole of the Empire. Whatever the advantage of it may be, we should not submit to it without a protest, especially when there is no national demand for it. I shall therefore certainly support the Amendment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: One would have expected that when a considerable change in our judicial system is proposed, which is entirely without precedent in the history of the United Kingdom, that some plausible reasons for that change should have been urged. We have heard two speeches in support of the change, one from the Treasury Bench and the other from the Nationalist Bench. Both, as one would naturally expect, for we have seen it always occur, arrived at the same conclusion, but both were ill-advised enough to arrive at that conclusion, although their reasons were, not only not the same, but were in some respects entirely inconsistent. The Attorney-General told us it really did not matter, but that it was a little more symmetrical to have an appeal to the Privy Council. He said it was not a serious matter at all. The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) treated it as a matter of great importance. The Attorney-General told us that the constitution of the House of Lords was very much the same as the constitution of the Privy Council; therefore, from the litigants' point of view it did not very much matter whether the appeal was to the Privy Council or to the House of Lords. The hon. Member for North Dublin took up an entirely different line, because his speech from start to finish expressed distrust of the House of Lords. He told us that it was necessary to convince the people of Ireland that they would have fair play. Apparently, in his view, the people of Ireland will not be convinced that they will have fair play, if the appeal in civil
  1430
  matters, as has been the case for the last 100 years, is to the House of Lords, and that in order to convince them they will get fair play they must have an appeal to the Privy Council. Does the Attorney-General agree with that view?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Then these two reasons are entirely inconsistent. The Attorney-General thinks that one tribunal is just as fair as the other, while the hon. Member for North Dublin thinks the House of Lords is not a fit tribunal to give fair play. There is another difference. The Attorney-General told us that of course the House of Lords would follow the decisions, not only of themselves, but of the Privy Council, and that the Privy Council would of course, though not technically bound to do so, follow the decisions of the House of Lords. Not so the hon. Member for North Dublin. He tells us that the House of Lords cannot even follow their own decisions, which means, I suppose, the decisions of the Privy Council. Which of these reasons is right? The truth is that, so far as I can see, there is no substance in either of these reasons; they are self-contradictory. Are there not sound reasons for keeping things as they are? We are told that this Bill is to make for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and that there is no intention in any way to disturb the unity or the integrity of the United Kingdom. If that is so, why should you in this Bill differentiate between England and Scotland on the one hand, and Ireland on the other. The effect of what is here proposed is to say that the House of Lords is a proper tribunal for appeals from England and Scotland, but that you must have an entirely different tribunal for appeals from Ireland. That effect is of a separatist character. It puts Ireland in a different position from that of the other component parts of the United Kingdom, and in the position, so far as this Clause can do it, of either a self-governing Colony or a Dominion. Why should that be done?
  Take another point of view. What about Irish law? Is there any reason why the House of Lords cannot decide questions of Irish law? We know that the common law of England applies equally to Ireland, and that questions of law coming from Ireland are to be decided on exactly the same principles—I do not think the Attorney-General will contradict this—so far as the common law is concerned, as questions coming from England. When you come to Statutes, of course many of the Irish

  1431
  Statutes are different from those of England, but the principles of interpreting those Statutes are exactly the same, whether those Statutes apply only to Ireland, or to England, or to the United Kingdom. Therefore, so far as that question is concerned, it appears to me that the appeal from Ireland ought to be to the same tribunal as the appeal from the Courts of England. A word about the Constitution of the Privy Council for hearing Irish appeals. There is a point in regard to Sub-section (3) upon which I should like some information. Apparently the Irish Privy Council for hearing Irish appeals is to be constituted in some different way from that which has hitherto been the practice in regard to Privy Council appeals from the Colonies or from other places. There is to be a rota of Privy Councillors, who are to sit and hear appeals from the Courts in Ireland, which is to be made annually by His Majesty in Council. Is there any provision in the Bill to ensure that the Privy Councillors who are to hear Irish appeals shall be persons of any judicial experience whatsoever? Where are they to be drawn from, and what are the qualifications for these Irish Privy Councillors? I should like that point to be cleared up. Apparently the rota is to be made out annually by His Majesty in Council—that is, by the Ministers of the day.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: They must be persons with judicial experience; they are not eligible otherwise.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman refers to a Statute.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Certainly.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The Bill is not very happily worded, because it looks as if this Sub-section constituted a new tribunal, and that a rota of gentlemen from Ireland were to sit upon it. However, if that is not made clear by the Bill, perhaps it will be made certain that when you summon Privy Councillors from Ireland to hear Irish appeals, they shall be persons of qualified judicial knowledge. There is another point which shows the necessity of keeping the appeals from Ireland as they are. Supposing you have a dispute between an Englishman and an Irishman in regard to some commercial question or some contract. In such a case it is perfectly possible that the action will have to be begun either in Ireland or in England, and you have this extraordinary result:
  1432
  That if the action is begun in Ireland, the appeal goes to one tribunal, the Privy Council, specially constituted with this special rota, and if it is begun in England, the appeal is to the House of Lords. What justification is there for an anomaly of that sort? The Englishman may prefer to-go to the House of Lords, but he will be taken to the Privy Council by the Irishman, and rice versa. There ought to be uniformity in this matter, and unless some special reason is urged by the Attorney-General for this change—and so far we have not heard any adequate reason for it—I cannot see why you should introduce these anomalies. The Attorney-General tells us to look at Clause 29, in which special provision is made for the decision of constitutional questions. I will not for the moment discuss whether or not the Privy Council is the proper tribunal for that purpose. Lot us grant that it is for the purpose of questions of a special character, questions entirely apart from ordinary litigation between parties. There is no analogy whatsoever between the ordinary litigation between parties which has hitherto gone to the House of Lords as the Court of ultimate appeal and the questions of a special constitutional character which are sent to the Privy Council by the Order of the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State.
  Clause 29 provides special procedure by which the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State can take the advice of the Privy Council in somewhat the same way as it is open to the King, on the advice of his Ministers, to ask the opinion of the Privy Council on any matter whatever. I think there is a Section in an Act of William IV. which allows the King, on the advice of his Ministers, to submit any question to the Privy Council for decision. No doubt it is on the analogy of that Section that Clause 29 is founded. Assuming that Clause 29 is right for the purpose of determining constitutional questions on the-Order of the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State, is that any reason whatever for disturbing the present arrangement by which cases between litigants-come from the Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords in England. I think the-statement of the Attorney-General that it is a better constitutional Court, is entirely inapplicable to this case. The only other Clause the Attorney-General referred to was Clause 30, under which, where the validity of an Irish law is questioned, the appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland is to the Privy

  1433
  Council. The Attorney-General said that because there was that provision in Clause 30, there should be this alteration in the law under Clause 28. That assumes that Clause 30 is right, but to my mind Clause 30 is wholly wrong. I cannot conceive why an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal under Clause 28 should not go to the House of Lords, just the same as in ordinary litigation between parties, and therefore he is really justifying Clause 28 by assuming that Clause 30 is right. If you eliminate Clause 28 and leave the appeal in the case of ordinary litigation from the Irish Courts to the House of Lords you should eliminate Clause 30 also, and the same reasons which apply in favour of the elimination of Clause 28 seem to me to apply in favour of the elimination of Clause 30. The truth of the matter is that we have not yet heard the real reason for this Clause being put in. Perhaps the real reason is that the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) and those associated with him dislike the House of Lords. At any rate, that is the only reason he gave us, and if that view is shared by his colleagues from Ireland I think that affords a much more convincing reason for the change than any which has been put forward yet by the Attorney-General. We have had an expression of Irish opinion, and I think perhaps very competent Irish opinion, against this change. We have had the views of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy), and if you are to consult Irish opinion in this matter I should very much prefer to follow the advice of the hon. and learned Member, and especially when he agrees with my own view. But I hope before this Debate ends that the Chief Secretary will tell us in some clear and plain language why this change is introduced. Let us put aside this talk about symmetry and so on, and have the real reason, and then I think the House will be in a better position to decide, if they are to decide in favour of the change, than they are at present after hearing the Attorney-General and the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The Attorney-General, in arguing that this Clause should be retained, punctuated his observations by saying that it is the only course. If he made that observation once he made it at least half a dozen times. We are getting accustomed to strange doings in regard to constitutional matters,
  1434
  but it is the first time I have ever heard the expression "the only constitutional course" applied to a course which the Constitution has never known in the whole of its history. Our Constitution, as it used to be understood, is a Constitution which is based upon tradition, custom, precedent, and history. It has to some extent become crystallised in Statutes, but in its origin and in its reality it depends upon what the wisdom of our forefathers has gathered. Here we are now told, so far have we got in our modern methods of dealing with Constitution, that the only constitutional course is the one course which this country and Ireland have never known. We have known a House of Lords in Ireland. You have never known, except for a brief period which did not deal with general matters, appeals from Ireland dealt with by the Privy Council in this country. If constitutional precedent has any value it will require stronger arguments than have been advanced to the House to-day to make a Government fair and frank in rejecting an Amendment of this kind on no stronger reasons than they have thought fit to state to the House. There may be other reasons, I do not say there are not, but the reasons which have been advanced are quite ineffectual for asking this House deliberately to depart from the precedent of centuries and to import into the Constitution a thing which the Constitution has never known. What reason did the Attorney-General give? He said that, under the Act of 1833, now the Crown can send things to the Privy Council on the suggestion of a Minister. That has always been so. It was so before. It is so now in England. He puts that forward as a reason for getting rid of the House of Lords in Ireland because in reference to difficult matters of Constitutional law a Minister may, on occasion, ask the Crown to take the, opinion of that Council. That is a good reason for getting rid of the House of Lords as a tribunal in England. It is not a good reason for getting rid of the House of Lords in Ireland on purely judicial matters appertaining to constitutional questions. To show how poor and futile such an argument is as a justification for this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman was ill-advised enough to instance the case of the recent proposal to submit questions in regard to the hon. Member (Sir Stuart Samuel). That is an English question, and von have still got your English House of Lords, and yet you make your reference to the Privy Council on such questions. They

  1435
  would still, if you left the House of Lords to determine Irish questions as the ultimate Court of Appeal, have that advantage, and still the Crown would act on the advice of the Minister on Irish questions, and the two parts of the Union would be co-ordinate and would be regulated side by side in the same way. Why treat Ireland differently in regard to judiciary from England, if Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom?
  The hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) said that this proposal would take away the powers of the House of Lords and refer them to the Privy Council wholly, and that it was a proposal really for linking closer the Union. We have heard a good deal of linking closer the Union as an argument for every one of the Clauses of this Bill—a real union of hearts, and so forth. But the hon. Member overlooks that when we talk about separation in relation to this matter it is not a question of separation of the different units of the Empire; it is a separation of the different units in the Union, and when he says that it puts us in the position of Canada, of Australia, and of India, are they separate from the Empire because they have appeals to the United Kingdom? The hon. Member entirely overlooks the fact that none of these Dominions and Dependencies have ever been part of the United Kingdom, and Ireland has been and is part of the United Kingdom. It is because of that one points to this as an indication of a separatist character, perhaps not very important, but important enough to be introduced to enable people, who desire a real union of hearts and are going to be really loyal in future as they have been disloyal in the past, to go to Ireland and say, "Look what we have done for you; you have not got complete separation, but, at any rate, you have got so far rid of England that you are in the same position as South Africa, Canada, and Australia when it comes to making appeals on questions of law to England." That must be the true reason, for no other has been given. As regards the suitability of the two tribunals, it is actually urged as an advantage that you have a miscellany of judges drawn from every different point of the Empire, expert in the laws of every Dominion Parliament of our Empire, instead of having judges who have qualified by long experience and practice in administering the law which it is their duty to administer in the House
  1436
  of Lords, namely, the common law of the land and the Statute law, which for all intents and purposes is the same in England as in Ireland. Can any man of ordinary common sense believe that a tribunal is better suited to determine questions of common law and Statute law in Ireland, which are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the common law and the Statute law in England, if it consists of a body of men who have administered different kinds of law in different parts of the Empire, than a body of men who have devoted their whole lives to learning the interpretation of the laws which will govern Ireland? I cannot believe that that is a serious argument. It certainly cannot commend itself to anyone who really appreciates judicial necessities.
  One observation with regard to the rota. It is quite true, as the Attorney-General said, that no one would be entitled to come upon this rota if he is not a judicial authority. But this also is true. No one under the existing law can sit as a member of the Judicial Committee unless he has had high judicial office. But what is the meaning of this Sub-section which is going to pick out from people who have that high judicial office, particular men? Why is that necessary? I should like, and probably the House would like, some explanation of that. If you are going to have the Judicial Committee have the Judicial Committee as it is. Why make a special rota out of the Judicial Committee to deal with Irish affairs? According to the argument that has been put forward from the Treasury Bench the more miscellaneous they are in their experience and in their knowledge of law, the more suitable they are to try Irish questions. Why then make a special rota? What is the necessity for a rota? If the Judicial Committee is the proper authority why is the Judicial Committee not to be taken in its ordinary form but to have drafted upon it or carved out of it a smaller Judicial Committee which shall deal with Irish affairs alone? Of course, if the rota is going to consist of the whole of the Judicial Committee, there is no necessity for this Sub-section at all. If it is going to consist of a small number, why are particular people to be picked to deal with Irish affairs? Why not take the Judicial Committee as a whole?
  One other word. It has been said, the Attorney-General himself has stated the inclination which he has towards eventually working to an Imperial Court of Appeal to deal with the whole of the

  1437
  judicial affairs. But let the Attorney-General bear this in mind, that if he is aiming for that end, if he is proposing to substitute as an Imperial Court of Appeal the Judicial Committee in preference to the House of Lords, he is countering the modern tendency of all Colonial opinion.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present, House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I was calling the attention of the Attorney-General to the fact that modern opinion throughout the Empire is tending in favour of the House of Lords and not the Privy Council. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the proceedings of the different conferences, he will find that Australia, Queensland, South Africa, and other parts of the Empire, have all expressed their preference for the House of Lords.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As the one Imperial Council?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Then, if the right hon. Gentleman himself prefers it as the one Imperial Council, I do not know what his reason is for not taking the House of Lords as the preferable tribunal in the case of Ireland. There are only two logical alternatives for Ireland. If Ireland is still to be part of the United Kingdom, the natural constitutional ultimate Court of Appeal must be the House of Lords. If Ireland is not to be part of the Union, and desires to be a federal State, then Ireland ought to have a penultimate Court of Appeal in her own bounds, and should then come to the Privy Council. But so long as the Union remains, there is no logical justification for the proposal in this Clause. It is interesting to note that no argument that will bear contemplation has been offered by the Government in defence of the proposal. I support most cordially the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras. I do urge that the Government in justification of the course they have taken should submit, at any rate, some material reasons explaining to this House why this proposal is placed before us.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I confess I am somewhat surprised at the conditions under which we are now discussing this very important constitutional question—one of the most important questions involved in this Bill. The proposal indeed is so important as to
  1438
  be described by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) as one for Imperial judicial disruption. I thought under these circumstances there would be more interest taken in these proceedings, more particularly in view of the announcement which appears in one of the leading papers this morning that now that the Unionist party is once more united, there will be a disappearance of the lassitude which has marked the Debates on Home Rule.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Where is the Prime Minister while this great Constitutional question is under discussion?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I will not pursue that announcement any further. It was in view of what I saw in that paper this morning I was surprised that greater interest was not manifested in the question. I wish to deal with some of the arguments brought forward in the course of debate from the other side of the House. There have been many attempts made to discover some sinister motive underlying this proposal. For example, the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras went through the-history of the various judicial proposals in the three Home Rule Bills, and he discovered that the proposal we are now discussing appeared for the first time in the Bill of 1893. It is interesting to note that it took its origin at that period, for we all know that, whatever may be the present situation regarding the relations between the front Ministerial Bench and the Nationalist Members opposite, there was at that time no dictation on the part of the Nationalist Members. We have often heard from the present Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Gladstone at least knew how to deal with the Nationalist leaders, and that the present Prime Minister is always in Mr. Redmond's pocket. We have been told that Mr. Gladstone knew that he had something to give, and that he was always able to make a good bargain. Therefore, at that time when a good bargain could be made, and when we had such a distinguished leader as Mr. Gladstone, this proposal was introduced, and consequently it was not done at the dictation of the Nationalist Members. According to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Gladstone did not take his lead from the Nationalists, and therefore this proposal was not at that time introduced at their dictation. I would refer the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), who is one of the most eager to find sinister interpretations—
  Mr. MOORE: No.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, yes. I do not desire to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. He was particularly delighted when he obtained a valuable admission from the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). The admission over which he was so greatly rejoiced was that the Judicial Committee would be largely occupied by appeals relating to the proposals of the Irish legislative body which exceed their powers. The hon. Member said that he agreed that would be the case, for members of the minority there would be constantly bringing the action of the Irish Parliament before the Judicial Committee. But we always understood that the minority would not be there, and that there would not be any minority in the Irish Parliament, because they would have nothing to do with it. Now, according to the hon. and learned Member, they are to be, there, and constantly obstructing the Irish Parliament.
  Mr. MOORE: I did not say the minority of the Irish Parliament. I said the minority in the country, if they exercised their legal rights, would appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with regard to action on the part the Irish Parliament which they considered ultra vires.
  Mr. PRINGLE: At the same time, that is a step in the right direction. The resistance to be shown to the Irish Parliament is to be legal resistance by means of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not to implements of warfare.
  Mr. MOORE: We will have both.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I have at least obtained a valuable admission from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is probable his association with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) in this matter has led him to take a more rational attitude in regard to it. He made another equally strange admission. He said, "Why should we in Ireland, under this new Constitution, be treated like people in the Colonies and Dominions? They are not represented in the Imperial Parliament, but we in Ireland will be members of the United Kingdom. Why should we be excluded from the House of Lords as our judicial body for the purpose of appeals?" We always understood that it was the main contention of the hon. Gentleman, and those
  1440
  with whom he is associated, that they would cease to be members of the United Kingdom, and that they were being driven out of this Constitution. He has, indeed, in the course of the Debate made a few valuable admissions which we shall not forget. The main arguments, however, which have been brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite apparently are that Ireland is to surfer some great disadvantage by being removed from the House of Lords, and by not having that body as its supreme legal tribunal in future. I think the arguments brought forward by the Attorney-General in favour of the proposal in the Bill are very sound and practical. After all, there is no difference in principle between the two sides of the House in regard to this particular proposal. It is merely a difference of method and machinery, and when you are dealing with a difference of method and machinery the only question is one of practical agreement. I think the argument from the practical point of view is just as strong. If you are going to have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the tribunal for appeals on constitutional questions, it is also practically convenient that the same body should be the tribunal for appeals on all legal questions from the Irish Courts. On that ground I do not think there has been any answer from the other side of the House.
  There is a second question. On the question of procedure the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras took the view, which he was quite entitled to take, that the procedure in the Judicial Committee is defective as compared with the procedure in the House of Lords. In an interruption I suggested to him that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson) has expressed in his book on the Constitution a preference for the procedure in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think we are entitled to make use of this statement of opinion by the hon. and learned Gentleman in a book which is regarded as the standard and most authoritative work on the British Constitution. Of course, we know the difference in the procedure is largely due to the difference in the constitution of the two bodies. Each of the Members of the House of Lords gives his opinion separately, and a vote is taken among the judges, copying the procedure in the House of Lords as a legislative body. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the opinion is the

  1441
  opinion of the whole body, because there can be no difference of opinion in the advice given to the Crown by the Privy Council. There is only one judgment given by the Committee representing the whole of the views of those upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "They decide by a majority."] The Committee rarely give reasons for their finding. I think it is a defect that you should have reasons for the finding of the tribunal, because these reasons are the only ground upon which argument can be based for the purpose of subsequent debate in the various Courts of Law. It is, I think, a matter of great inconvenience that there should be dissenting judges in a Supreme Court, because by the help of such dissenting judges it is quite easy to bring about a great deal of unnecessary litigation. Indeed, a great deal of argumentt in the various Courts at different times is obtained by means of the obiter dicta of judges in the House of Lords.
  In these circumstances, I think, it is for the benefit of the administration of the Court in a Supreme Court that there should be only one judgment which gives the reasons upon which the finding of the whole Court has been based. It is on that ground that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University has expressed his preference for the procedure in the Privy Council as compared with the procedure existing in the House of Lords. I do not desire to enter into any comparison or contrast between the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect to their impartiality or capacity for deciding judicial questions. I think such a comparison or contrast would be invidious. I maintain it is of comparatively little importance in the present Debate, because to a large extent the personnel of the two bodies is the same. The whole question is determined by the two considerations which I have mentioned, first of all the question as to practical convenience of having a single Court of Appeal, and, secondly, the question as to which Court has the better procedure. On both of these grounds I think that the opinion of this House should be in favour of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There are two points in regard to this question of the House of Lords which have not been raised by the Opposition, and in view of the difficulty in establishing new points I may be allowed to raise them. I noticed, for example, that the hon. and learned Member for York
  1442
  (Mr. Butcher) was only able to make one new point, and that a bad one. As the law at present stands, the House of Lords is the tribunal for impeachment, yet there might be a question raised as to whether it would be possible for the House of Commons to impeach Irish Ministers before the House of Lords, and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent such an impeachment taking place. The second point I would refer to is the right of Irish peers to a trial by their peers, which might be more than an academic point in future, because in the view of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite there may be serious happenings in Ulster if this Bill is passed into law.
  Mr. MOORE: Why Ulster?
  Mr. PRINGLE: There may be serious proceedings in other parts of Ireland: I do not make special reference to Ulster.
  Mr. MOORE: I do not care whether you do or not.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Suppose an Irish peer is engaged in criminal proceedings after the Home Rule Bill has passed, there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with the existing practice that such a peer is entitled to trial by his peers, namely, by the King and Parliament, when the House of Lords would sit under the presidency of the Lord High Steward. That would mean under these circumstances, after the passing of the Home Rule Bill, that an Irish peer would be tried in the House of Lords. I think that is a matter for which provision should be made in the Home Rule Bill, especially when the appellate jurisdiction in Ireland is being altered, but on the general question as to which tribunal is preferable, I think for the two reasons I have mentioned the Judicial Committee is better.
  Mr. BOOTHrose in his place, and claimed to move that the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to point out why I regret the decision of the Government not to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. I agree with the hon. Member for Lanark that it would be very invidious, and I think wholly unnecessary, to go into discussions as to the merits of these two tribunals from the point of view either of justice or their capacity. The learned Attorney-General has just pointed out that those who know

  1443
  the tribunals are quite confident of their impartiality and their ability, and those who know them best wish to pay a high tribute of respect to both of them. But, while we do not make any invidious distinctions between them, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire has pointed out that even under this proposal you will not do away with all the legal functions that must in some cases still fall to the House of Lords, and I think that the learned Attorney-General has failed to make any case for altering the present system. The grounds on which I regret the decision of the Government are these: The House of Lords is at present the supreme appellate tribunal of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, as many people think, and has been often said, it goes by the name of the House of Lords, and some members of the tribunal and a great number of Members of the House of Lords have expressed their regret that that should still be its name, because, as appears by the speech of the hon. Member for North Dublin, it is that name which gives a certain opportunity for confusion in the minds of those persons who are not very well versed in either constitutional law or in our legal system. At the present time the House of Lords does stand as our supreme appellate tribunal, and I think it unfortunate that any part of the jurisdiction which is now exercised so well by the House of Lords should be withdrawn from it. I think that if the name of the supreme appellate tribunal at present were other than the House of Lords this proposal would never have been made.
  In the days when the House of Lords was perhaps less discussed, and commanded the confidence of Members on both sides of the House, it is interesting to find that the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras was the proposal then made for the judicial system and for appeals from Ireland, because in the Bill of 1886 it was provided that appeals should be carried to the House of Lords in all matters which affected the personal private rights of Irishmen. But since that time a great deal has happened, and there is a great deal of ill-informed, and I might almost say ignorant, prejudice against the House of Lords, and a great deal of very unfortunate ignorance on the part of persons who confuse our supreme appellate tribunal with the legislative Second Chamber. There is no ground for the Govern-
  1444
  ment, who know exactly what our constitutional system is, adding the weight of their authority to this prejudice, and agreeing only for the purpose of prejudice to withdraw the private rights of the citizens of Ireland from this supreme appellate tribunal of the United Kingdom. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has duties which are somewhat different from those of the House of Lords. It is the supreme appellate tribunal of our Colonial Empire. Also, as the learned Attorney-General has pointed out, and as a recent case has shown, it has a consultative power which can be made use of in certain cases. Those are very valuable powers, and no doubt it is a satisfactory tribunal for the purposes of our Colonial Empire. But time and again, when we have been discussing this Bill, the idea that we were setting up a Colonial Parliament in Dublin and separating the two Kingdoms absolutely, and dividing them in the sense in which Canada is divided from England, or South Africa is given a free Constitution, was disclaimed emphatically by the Members of His Majesty's Government.
  At the present moment their actions speak louder than the Bill, and now actually they are giving in the Bill colour to the arguments and observations which have been made so often that in truth they are giving Colonial procedure, and a Colonial Parliament and freedom, and that under this Bill a Colonial Parliament and new Constitution are being set up. If they had desired to prevent that colour being given to this new Constitution, they would have taken this opportunity of introducing the Bill in the form in which it was introduced in 1886, and not in the form in which it was introduced in 1893. They would have tried to make it quite clear that there is a very important position still to be maintained and preserved to the citizens of Ireland, and they should be able to know that as to their private rights at least they have the same privileges as citizens of England or Scotland have of going to the same supreme appellate tribunal. On those two grounds I think it unfortunate that the Government have come to the decision they have. There is one more point that was raised by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire. He prefers the system under which Judicial Committees give one judgment, and one judgment only. As a lawyer I should object that that procedure should obtain for more appeals than is necessary, because if you do desire the

  1445
  elucidation and development of the law it is very important that you should have the free expression of a number of acute minds of those who have listened to the arguments and have given judgment on matters before them. I confess that the legal world would be the poorer if we had not got a great number of the speeches made in the House of Lords upon the matters that come before them. The Judicial Committee has suffered from this procedure, and I think that in the Colonies it has been pointed out how unsatisfactory it is, and that for one mind to deal with all the points that are raised is almost impossible; but that you have a much better opportunity of finding what the decision was in all its bearings when you are able to collate the various opinions that have been expressed by the several judges that have given their decisions.
  That is the procedure which is followed in the House of Lords and it is a much happier procedure to my mind than the procedure of the Judicial Committee, and so far from agreing with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire on this point I disagree wholly, and I certainly think it hardly just that litigants in Ireland should not have the same opportunities as litigants from other parts of the United Kingdom of having a full decision upon the various points that are raised, which is much more satisfactory to the litigants themselves. I would like to know from the Chief Secretary what is to be done with regard to pending appeals when this Act comes into force? There is no provision for that in the Section, which says that on and after the appointed day appeals shall go to the Judicial Committee. There must be a certain number of appeals then before the House of Lords, and under these Sections the Clause we are discussing and Clause 29, so far as I know, there is a difficulty, because no provision has been made for meeting the case of appeals which have not yet been heard, but have been started. So far as I follow the Bill it seems that the powers of the House of Lords will have gone, and I do not quite see what will happen to cases that may have been entered before the House of Lords. I do not know whether there is power to transfer them to the Privy Council, but perhaps the Chief Secretary will tell me that. On these two grounds, to which I attach the highest importance, namely, that Ireland under this new Parliament is not to have a Colonial Parliament, and also because I think that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to
  1446
  give no weight to the prejudice which has been raised against the House of Lords as the supreme legal authority, and because I think they are giving the weight of their authority to this unfortunate prejudice, that I regret very much the decision of the Government, and I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAVE: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment, because I think it really raises an important constitutional question. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Pringle) is entitled to taunt us with the comparatively small attendance at any of these Debates.
  Mr. BOOTH: Why not?
  Mr. CAVE: Nobody knows better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that if these Debates were allowed to be real Debates, influencing opinion, if we were permitted to thresh out our points and endeavour to convince the House that we were right, and if we had to come to a decision on the merits of a subject, then these benches, and possibly the benches opposite, would be filled by Members interested in the matter. It is the deadening effect of the guillotine, under which it is impossible for us to deal with all the provisions of the Bill on their merits, which is accountable for the small attendance which we see at many of these Debates. I think it is not we, but the Government themselves who are responsible for the unreality—for to some extent they are unreal—of the Debates. They are not on our side unreal, but they are unreal because hon. Members opposite are not desirous of discussing matters on their merits, and come here to vote, and to vote only. This Amendment is to some extent a testing Amendment, in this way: If Ireland is going to be a part of the United Kingdom, then she has a right of appeal from the Court of Appeal in Ireland to the House of Lords. If the appeal is only to be to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is because of the intention to make the Irish Government in status and position a separate body, and nearer to the Colonial form of Government than to a part of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members who vote against this Amendment are really demonstrating once again that this is a separatist Bill, cutting the Kingdom into two, and intended to make in Ireland a separate jurisdiction.
  Mr. BOOTH: What about the Church?
  Mr. CAVE: With regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council no one who knows that Committee and the House of Lords as a judicial tribunal would dream of making a comparison between the two, or of putting one above the other in ability, or in any other respect, except perhaps in reference to procedure. But there is a real difference between the two bodies. The House of Lords is the Supreme Court of Appeal in this country, and has been so for a very, very long time. The Privy Council does not occupy that position at all.
  Mr. BOOTH: With regard to the Church?
  Mr. CAVE: The hon. Member must forgive me. I know something of what I am talking about.
  Sir E. CARSON: He says he wants to deal with the Welsh Church.
  Mr. BOOTH: No; I did not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Church has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. The hon. Gentleman's interruption was quite irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I point out that I did not mean it to be irrelevant, but what I meant to say was that the appeal in ecclesiastical cases is to the Privy Council.
  Mr. CAVE: That is an irrelevant point, I submit. The point I was making is this: Whereas the House of Lords is the Supreme Court of Appeal on questions of fact and of private rights of persons in this country, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is in the position of a Board advising the Crown as to the exercise of its prerogative. The two bodies are quite distinct in that respect. The Privy Council exercise jurisdiction with regard to the Colonies and Dominions, and, of course, with regard to India, whereas all appeals from England, Scotland, and Ireland go, as they have always gone before, to the House of Lords. Why is it that you put Ireland in the position of appealing only to the Privy Council and not to the House of Lords? It must be because you are putting Ireland in the position of a separate Dominion altogether and more like a Colony than a part of this Kingdom. With regard to that question, I should like an answer
  1448
  upon this point. I see that the Bill provides that all the enactments relating to appeals to the Privy Council shall apply to appeals from Ireland. Does that mean that leave must be obtained to appeal from the Irish Courts to the Privy Council? We know that with regard to appeals from the Colonies there is no appeal without leave, either from the Colonial Court or the Privy Council. Does that mean that the same shall apply in Ireland, and with regard to that country the subject shall be deprived of his right, as a matter of course, without leave, to bring an appeal? I think it quite possible that the effect of the Bill would be to limit the right of appeal in the way I suggest. I hope I shall be told what the intention of the Government is with regard to that. There is this further point with regard to the Privy Council. It contains, of course, great judges including most of the judicial members of the House of Lords; it also contains Colonial and Indian judges, the intention being, of course, to set up a Court which shall be competent to deal with systems of law which are not known in this country. My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for York called attention to a point in connection with Irish appeals: Why is it that you do not leave the rota of Privy Councillors for Ireland in the same way as the rota for the Colonies and other places? Why are you going to pick out certain members only of the Judicial Committee to deal with Irish appeals? I hope some answer will be given on this point.
  With regard to procedure, I only wish to add one word to what my hon. Friend said just now about having one judgment. I know there is a difference of opinion about that. The Prime Minister reminded the last Imperial Conference in 1911 of the differences of opinion. Some of the delegates from the Colonies objected to the one judgment. The Prime Minister said there was a difference of opinion, but he did not express his view either way. I think there is some real advantage in having the reasons given on both sides. To begin with, it satisfies the defeated party that his arguments have been taken into account, and tells him whether the decision is unanimous or not. What is perhaps more important, you do supply, by means of a separate judgment, a better guide by which the parties in other cases may judge how far the decision applies to their cases. You have the whole matter argued and threshed out by the highest officials in England, and you learn more from reading

  1449
  the speeches made in the House of Lords in particular cases than by reading one judgment. Therefore, I hope it -will not be taken as admitted that it is the better course to have one judgment. I do not want to compare the two bodies, even in procedure, to the disadvantage of the Privy Council; but I am bound to add that there is no doubt that in some Colonies at all events, possibly in all, a preference felt and expressed for the House of Lords rather than for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I may quote here a speech made by Mr. Deakin at the Colonial Conference held in 1907. He said:—
  "The aim that we have was well expressed in course of the Debate on the Commonwealth Bill, if my memory serves me, by the Right Hon. R. B. Haldane, when he said that he understood the Colonial view to be that what in the shape of a Court of Appeal was good enough for the people of Great Britain was quite good enough for the Colonics, and what was not good enough for the people of Great Britain was not good enough for Colonial litigants. That was a very pithy way of putting the case as it presents itself to us. We venture to entertain the opinion that notwithstanding the theory of its relation to the Crown, but from a purely legal point of view, the House of Lords is the tribunal to be preferred. It certainly stands higher in the estimation, at ail events of Australian lawyers, than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, speaking of it, of coarse, as a Board and not under special circumstances. If the two are to be compared, having some regard, of course, to the differences in their procedure, the House of Lords is preferred in Australia."
  In the House of Lords there is more than one judgment, while in the Privy Council only one is given. I think there is ground for arguing that Ireland, in its own interests, might probably prefer the House of Lords, as a supreme tribunal, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is a further point I want to note. Irish law is very similar to English law in most respects; the differences are mainly statutory and are very easily dealt with. The difference between Irish and English law is infinitesimal compared with the difference between English and Scotch law; yet the House of Lords deals with Scottish appeals, and, of course, with English appeals. In dealing with Irish matters you are dealing with the same subject-matter, the same common law, in many instances the same Statutes as in English appeals; and, if this provision passes, you may have, I do not say you will have, a difference of opinion, and you may have the House of Lords dealing with the English Statute in one way and the Privy Council dealing with the same law in another way. It is very desirable to have uniformity of decision, and if our House of Lords is—as, of course, it is in every respect—most competent
  1450
  to deal with English law, it seems to me that it ought to be allowed at the same time to deal with the same points that will arise in the Irish Courts.
  I confess I am not impressed very much by the point that under the other Clauses of the Bill there may be appeals to the Privy Council, or applications to the Privy Council, because they will be appeals and applications on questions of constitutional law. The Privy Council is accustomed every day of the week to deal with matters of that kind arising in the Colonies. It is the proper tribunal for questions of that kind. It by no means follows that it is the proper or best tribunal for dealing with matters of ordinary law, in which the rights of individuals are concerned. Therefore I do not see the least reason why appeals on constitutional matters should not go to the Privy Council, and appeals on other matters go to the House of Lords. I regret that the Government are not dealing with this question in a more scientific way. There has been for a long time a desire in this country and in the Colonies that we should have all final appeals heard by one tribunal, that we should have what is called an Imperial Court of Appeal to deal with appeals both from this country, the Colonies and Dominions, and India. Advantage, I think, might be taken of this Bill to make a beginning with that idea, instead of which we are getting the old dual system continued. I would much rather have seen all appeals taken to the House of Lords, in the hope that if this Bill passes—I hope it will not—a beginning might be made to constitute the House of Lords, working under the same name, or some other—it seems to me to make no difference—the nucleus and beginning of a final Court of Appeal for the whole Empire. I think you are dealing with the matter in these Clauses on the wrong line and in the wrong way, and that you are going to give the appeal to the wrong body. It would be far better to keep your final Court of Appeal from Ireland, for this purpose at least, in the same position as England, and give your Irish fellow subjects an appeal to the high tribunal that we have in this country.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have listened to all the speeches that have been made, and for the most part they were speeches on very reasonable lines, and they have indicated that we are dealing with two tribunals of the highest possible character. The question simply is, which is the best

  1451
  tribunal to make the Court of Final Appeal in Ireland? Nobody is going to say a word or in any way to reflect on the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal in this country, or on the Privy Council. Certainly both of those Courts deserve all the praise given to them, and they are both very much the same in public estimation, with the same degree of authority. You can refer in the House of Lords to a decision of the Privy Council with the assurance that it will be treated with the same respect as if you referred to one of their own decisions. There may be a shade of difference of opinion, but I cannot agree with the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that the House of Lords have absolutely reversed decisions of the Privy Council. There have been cases in which they have got round them by a process of high intellectual distinction, which practically amounts to the same thing. I quite agree the decision of the Privy Council is not on the same footing in reciting it in the House of Lords as would be a decision of the House of Lords itself. At the same time they are Courts of very high authority and nobody need be ashamed of practising before them. As far as I remember the only difference in doing so is that in one case you have to appear in a big wig, and in the Privy Council, although my experience of it is small, you are allowed to practice in the ordinary bob wig. That, I think, is very much in favour of the Privy Council. An hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the advantage in the case of the House of Lords of being able to read all the speeches of the learned lords. That, I agree, is an advantage, but at the same time I think it would require very great consideration when you were advising His Majesty as to the particular action he was to pursue on the construction of a Constitution or anything of that kind, whether that would be altogether desirable. When you are dealing with the rights of citizens inter se, I rather think a distinction may be struck.
  The Attorney-General presented really what is the case, and the sole case, in this matter. I can assure hon. Members that in this case, at all events, no pressure of any sort, kind, or description has been put on those responsible for this Clause. The responsibility entirely rests upon the Law Officers and upon myself and upon the Cabinet generally. The Irish Members are not responsible for it; nobody is re-
  1452
  sponsible for it. It is one of those matters in which if you go wrong you go wrong simply by reason of your own folly, as sometimes happens in the case of us all. Therefore, the idea that this was to indicate separation, or to flatter the desire of those in Ireland who wanted to be separated, or that it was from a desire to associate Ireland in any way with the Colonies, is not so, and it has rather the opposite kind of effect. We may have been right or wrong, but our consideration simply was that, inasmuch as under Clauses 29 and 30, we were constituting the Privy Council the Court of Final Appeal in Ireland, we thought it desirable to do so under Clause 28. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken did not quite see why that should be so, and thought that on the constitutional question about ultra vires you might have gone to the Privy Council, and have reserved the House of Lords as the final appeal between subjects on matters of common law and the like. We did not overlook that, but many of us thought it was better to take the course we have adopted here, and to secure for all Irish appeals, both appeals as between subjects and appeals on constitutional questions, that they should go all alike to the Privy Council. I am rather surprised to hear that that is thought to be a retrograde step. We rather flattered ourselves that we were rather in front of the age in this matter, and that we were rather pointing to the time to which the hon. Gentleman referred in giving expression to the hope that there would be one Court of Final Appeal for all portions of the Empire and of the United Kingdom. I hope so, too; but he says it ought to be the House of Lords. That would require that every member of this final Court of Appeal would have to be a Member of the House of Lords. That would cumber the case.
  When you do come to constitute your Court of Final Appeal, for the Empire you would really have to go outside the House of Lords and reconstitute some other Court. When you come to do that, I am quite sure you would have to fall back on the Privy Council, which contains the nucleus of a Court of the Empire. Therefore this seems to me to be in the direction of establishing one final Court of Appeal for the Empire, whenever that time comes. In the meantime look at the provisions of the Bill. Clause 2, I think, secures a very strong Court. The Court of Final Appeal must be constituted of four Lords of Appeal, not Lords

  1453
  in Ordinary, but Lords of Appeal, and you must have as well one member who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court in Ireland. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, that distinguished gentleman is not likely to be a member of the House of Lords at all, and therefore, if your Court of Appeal was the House of Lords, you could not secure necessarily his attendance there, and you might not have a Lord in Ordinary who had Irish experience. I think, therefore, that is a safeguard which gives Irish appellants an advantage over appellants from other parts of the United Kingdom, since, when he goes to the Privy Council, it will be constituted of at least five judges. Sometimes we see in the House of Lords very important final appeals decided by only three members. That advantage is something for which the Irish appellant ought to be grateful, and it gives what every lawyer will be very glad to secure, a Court of Final Appeal constituted of five members, of whom one is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court in Ireland. I can assure the House that those are the reasons which animated us in this matter.
  As to what was said by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), I do not think the Attorney-General used the word "symmetrical." He considered that the House would think that when you come to the Privy Council to get advice on constitutional questions that then, on the questions under Clause 28, we should constitute the Privy Council the Final Court of Appeal. It is a Court of great authority, whose fitness and impartiality cannot be impugned, and which, I am quite sure, will discharge this duty satisfactorily. With regard to the point as to whether leave to appeal would have to be obtained, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston looks at Clause 28 he will see there is a provision that where any person would, but for this Act, have the right of appeal from any Court in Ireland to the House of Lords, that that person shall have the like right to appeal to His Majesty the King in Council. That is to say, he will have then the right to go to the Privy Council unencumbered and unfettered by any necessity of obtaining leave. With regard to pending appeals, I apprehend that when the Bill passes appeals will cease, and that therefore pending appeals will have to be transferred to the Privy Council by an Order in Council. I think these are all the questions which have been put. I can only
  1454
  assure the House that the reasons for this particular Clause are the reasons given by the Attorney-General, and not some other more sinister and obscure reasons which have been hinted at by various speakers.
  Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman said that the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council occupy much the same position in public estimation. It would ill become me to attempt to compare them or to decide which stood the higher in public estimation. I only rise because I can speak from the point of view of those who live under a Constitution in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the Supreme Court. When I was in the Registrar's Office of an Indian High Court, I had opportunities of seeing how anxiously the judgments were awaited by litigants who had gone from the Subordinate Court to the District Court, from the District Court to the High Court, and from the High Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I have seen how disappointed they were, after waiting month after month for their judgments, at having a brief judgment delivered by one judge, instead of the individual judgments showing the arguments and decisions of the most eminent judges on the bench, as is the case with those who live under a Constitution in which the House of Lords is the Supreme Court. The Chief Secretary in comparing the two Courts described one as the "wigs" and the other as the "big-wigs." Those who live under a Constitution in which the Supreme Court is the "wigs," would very much prefer to be under the "big-wigs." When they have gone through the trouble and delay of carrying their cases to the Supreme Court, they would infinitely prefer to have judgments in the form given by the House of Lords. Therefore, I believe that the Irish will be the losers by this change which is unfortunately being imposed upon them. The judgment of the Judicial Committee is necessarily a judgment of compromise, and litigants know it. In the case of a judgment by the House of Lords, they can see what has happened. They may get a judgment from one judge entirely in their favour, while the majority of the Court are against them; they feel s satisfied at having a judgment in their favour from one eminent judge that they consider him to be the judge who is right, and to be the most eminent judge on the bench; in fact, they are almost compensated for their disappointment in losing

  1455
  the case by the thought that the judges who decided against them are inferior to the judge who was in their favour. That may be described as sentiment, but it is certainly a serious point.
  The effect of this Clause is to put the Judicial Committee in the place of the House of Lords. But in Sub-section (2) it is provided that when the Judicial Committee is sitting for the purpose of hearing appeals from Ireland, there shall be present not less than four Lords of Appeal. How will this Court remain in effect the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if it is necessary that there shall be present four Lords of Appeal, who, I understand, are judges of the House of Lords? You have a hybrid and composite Committee. By Sub-section (2) you practically take away what is given by Sub-section (1). The Attorney-General shakes his head. Is it not the case that when the Judicial Committee deals with appeals from India and the Colonies it does not necessarily have four Lords of Appeal sitting, or, indeed, any Lords of Appeal?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It does not sit without Lords of Appeal.
  Sir J. D. REES: Can it not?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not say it cannot, but it docs not.
  Sir J. D. REES: I thought I had seen the Court sitting without a Lord of Appeal. I must be wrong. At any rate, there have not been four present. The provision that there shall be four Lords of Appeal present is novel. Seeing that four judges of the House of Lords must necessarily sit on the Judicial Committee for the purpose of hearing appeals from Ireland, I submit that the change which appears to be made is not really made in effect. There is a great deal of make-believe about it. The Government evidently felt that they ought not to take away from Ireland the appeal to the House of Lords, as they clearly ought not, if it is still to remain, as they say, a portion of the United Kingdom, and, being in two minds, they produce this halting and, as I think, unsatisfactory compromise. May I ask whether these four Lords of Appeal will be salaried officers?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member is confusing Lords of Appeal with Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
  Sir J. D. REES: I understand, then, that they would have no salary. I was about to speak of the judges from India and so forth, who sit upon this body. When this Bill comes into force, and these judges have these new powers and duties imposed upon them, will they be provided with salaries? Are they to have all these extra duties thrown upon them, and to perform them without salary and without even luncheon being provided for them? If so, it seems to me a very unsatisfactory provision. The Judicial Committee under this new dispensation will require to be reconstituted, and the judges provided with salaries, before it can be a satisfactory tribunal. Is anything of that sort contemplated? I asked the Prime Minister a question on the point the other day, but I did not get any satisfaction. I may be more fortunate with the Attorney-General. I should like to express my agreement with the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend as to the injustice suffered by the House of Lords as the Supreme Court of Appeal, in consequence of its name. At meeting after meeting the judgments of the House of Lords are exposed to unjust accusations and suspicions. I wish that some new name could be given to it; but it would not be in order to pursue that subject now.
  Mr. SCANLAN: The setting up of a final Appellate Court for Ireland is a matter of first-rate importance to every representative of Ireland. The provision made in this and the proceeding Clauses appears to give Ireland as august and as efficient a tribunal as could possibly be provided. Those who make the insinuation that the Members supporting the Government and resisting this Amendment are influenced by a general prejudice against the House of Lords are entirely mistaken. I wish to dissociate myself, and I am sure the whole of my colleagues from any such imputation. It is one thing to have a rooted objection to the House of Lords as a legislative body; it is quite another thing to form one's view as to the character of the House of Lords as an appellate tribunal. I yield to none of the hon. and learned Gentlemen above the Gangway in the respect which I have for the august character of the House of Lords as a supreme Appellate Court and judicial tribunal. There is an obvious advantage in having for the people of a country one supreme Appellate Court, and not two. It is surely of importance with regard to

  1457
  appeals from Ireland that we should know with certainty to which Court we are to go. No one contends that the class of appeals contemplated under Clauses 29 and 30 could with propriety be sent to the House of Lords constituted as it is. No one suggests that a question as to the constitutionality of any measure or as to whether an Act passed by the Irish Legislature is within the four corners of this Bill should be referred to the House of Lords. That surely is a matter which must go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The class of case contemplated under Clause 30, which it is proposed should go to the Judicial Committee, is exactly the class of case which is likely to come up under the general terms of Clause 28. Where a private citizen seeks to enforce certain rights which he thinks are conferred upon him by an Act of the Irish Legislature, the objection may be raised that the Statute under which he makes his claim is one which is was not within the competence of the Irish Legislature to pass. These are just the questions that arise constantly in Ireland. These are the matters of dispute and questions of difference out of which the crop of appeals arise which come from Ireland to the House of Lords at the present time. Seeing that it is absolutely necessary in one class of case of dispute to have appeals taken from the High Court to the Privy Council, surely it is a matter not only for convenience, but of the highest propriety, that all questions issuing from the High Courts in Ireland should go to one tribunal. So obvious docs it appear to me that the contention of the Government is well founded, that I have no hesitation in saying that if the plan of the Government had been to allow appeals from the ordinary Courts to go to the House of Lords in the ordinary way, and the Government had provided, as they have in Clauses 29 and 30, for another class of questions and of appeals to go to the Privy Council, that the same hon. and learned Gentlemen above the Gangway who are now condemning the Government for the plan here adopted would have brought up more formidable arguments against that plan of the Government—even if it had been to give effect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman so ingeniously contended for in his speech in proposing the Amendment.
  There cannot be any great substance in the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman when we consider that he has admitted that you will have as sound and
  1458
  reliable a judgment from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as from the House of Lords. I have heard with some surprise as to the importance of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was said that a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not binding on the House of Lords. In considering the relative validity and binding of the decisions of those two supreme tribunals, it is interesting to recall that a short time ago this House discussed the position of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tower Hamlets, and the Prime Minister refused, at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member above the Gangway, to refer that question, as he was entitled to do, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Other hon. and learned Gentleman speaking from this side, who urged that course upon the Government, used this argument in support of the position; that no one who was acquainted with the weight afterwards given to the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could entertain any doubt whatever, that if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council came to a judgment in respect of this question, the common Law Courts before which it and other questions arising out of the decision came would pay as must respect to the decision of the Privy Council as they would pay to the decision of the House of Lords. There is another matter which I think should be taken into consideration; the provision for Irish appeals was debated at considerable length in the Committee stage—
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, no; not this question.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Well, the question of appeals to the Privy Council was debated, and I had the pleasure of saying something during the course of the Debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College spoke on this very question of appeals from Ireland to the Privy Council. During his very able and interesting speech he made no objection whatever to these appeals going to the Privy Council. The objection which he did make is an objection now provided for by the Attorney-General. He complained—and the hon. and learned Gentleman and Member for North Armagh also complained—not that the system was to have appeals to the Privy Council, but that you did not give sufficient scope for taking all such appeals. Now, hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side are making this objection; they start a new hare and raise

  1459
  this further objection. I am satisfied that the House will consider that the only objection of any substance in the Debate which they made the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with, promising that if there was any inadequacy in the machinery provided for appeals for Ireland, the Government would devote further machinery to make such provision as would secure that a citizen in Ireland would have as free and direct recourse to the Judicial Committee as any citizen of this country would have to the House of Lords.
  We have been told that a very serious objection to the proposal in Clause 28 is that we will only get one judgment; we shall be deprived of the conflicting opinions of the judges who consider our appeal. My hon. and learned Friend says that judgments must necessarily be conflicting. There is less reason for having separate judgments if they are all in agreement than if they were in conflict with one another. I think it is a matter of test whether you are to have one judgment expressing the view of the whole Court, or the different opinion of the various judges who comprise the Court for the time being. I myself prefer the certainty which we shall get in Ireland by having an opinion of the Court expressed and embodied in one single judgment. I think it has often happened, even in this country, as, for instance, in the Osborne judgment, that the multiplicity of opinions has not in any way helped to make the law clear to the litigants or to the public. If we take the character of the tribunal set up here, we have not only all the arguments in favour of taking our appeals of all kinds to be dealt with by one single tribunal, but we have a tribunal which is probably better and more suitable for Irish litigants than the Privy Council in general. I think any person looking at this matter from the Irish point of view must be very much impressed by the provision made in Subsection (2), which is as follows:—
  "When the Judicial Committee sit for hearing any appeal from a Court in Ireland in pursuance of any provision in this Act there shall be present not less than four Lords of Appeal within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and at least one Member who is or has been a judge of a Supreme Court in Ireland."
  Surely there are certain differences of procedure, and differences of practices, if
  1460
  not differences of law—although there are certain differences of law between Ireland and this country—that it is important for us that we should have, when Irish appeals have to be dealt with in a final Court of Appeal, one judge at least who brings to bear upon the final judgment to be given the best talent which the Irish Judicial Bench can send to reinforce the Privy Council in the giving of its decisions. Viewing this fact in conjunction with the general arguments which have been advanced by the learned Attorney-General, and by the Chief Secretary, in favour of this Clause, I shall have no hesitation in coming to a decision that this Amendment should be resisted. One further argument --and this is the only one I want to refer to—is that if this system is adopted, it must lead—so some of my hon. and learned Friends above the Gangway say—to separation, and it is putting Ireland outside the Constitution. No one has ever entertained the idea in regard to Canada, Australia, or South Africa, that the conferring on the peoples of those great Dominions and Colony of their Constitution was the denying to them the privilege of protection by our Constitution. The most valued privilege of the Colonies and the Dominions, and the provision in the Constitution which brings them nearest to the heart of the Empire, is the decision of their causes by that august tribunal the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In all the circumstances, therefore, I have no hesitation in expressing the view—which I am sure all my colleagues share—that this tribunal will be the most satisfactory for Ireland; therefore, we warmly support the Government in resisting the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman above the Gangway.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not know that I should have arisen had it not been for the observations which fell from the Chair. I understood the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston to be that because the proposal in the Bill is that appeals shall lie with the Privy Council, that that marked this measure as a separatist measure. The interjection I made was not to throw the hon. and learned Gentleman off his argument: I was anxious, in view of his great ability and his great standing as an ecclesiastical lawyer, that before he sat down he should deal with the point I put. Instead of that, he has seen fit to leave the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge has also made

  1461
  a speech and left the House. The hon. Gentleman for East Nottingham has done likewise. These were the hon. Members who were surprised that more of us did not stay in these Debates.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Debate is somewhat thin.
  Mr. BOOTH: I agree that it is one of the thinnest Debates that has ever been heard in this Chamber, and it is perhaps a fitting conclusion that I should be the last speaker. What I want to point out—
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I have not made a speech and I have not left the House.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. It was the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock). He made a speech and left the House, and so did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. Butcher). But I do not want to press that too far, except to say that when hon. and learned Gentlemen make points and are not inclined to hear the answer, it is not much encouragement to those on this side to give constant attendance in Debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has not favoured the House with any contribution, I understand, upon this matter. Unfortunately he has been driven out by the thin
  arguments of his Friends. But the point I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston was in effect this—and I submit with all respect that my interjection was relevant; the argument he was using was that by virtue of its appeal to the Privy Council the Bill was a Separatist Bill. I want to ask what hon. Members opposite, who are connected with the Church of England, would think of an argument like that? It means this, that the fact that appeals in ecclesiastical and Church cases lie to the Privy Council is a sign of the separatist position and that the Church is already Disestablished. I submit that for hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, who have a great advantage over me in their knowledge of the law to bring arguments of that description and to occupy the attention of the House for hour after hour with them is a keen disappointment to those of us who are students of criticism and of correct interpretation, and I therefore appeal to the House to come to the next Amendment, as there is nothing more left to be said upon this.
  Question put, "That the words of the Clause to line 14 [end of Sub-section (1)I stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 502.]

  AYES.

  [7.4 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Chappie, Dr. Wiliiam Allen

  Firench, Peter

  Alden, Percy

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Field, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Clough, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Furness, Stephen

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Ll yd

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gilhooly, James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Gill, A. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crean, Eugene

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Crooks, William

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Glanville, H. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cullinan, John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barton, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Bentham, G. J.

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  De Forest, Baron

  Guiney, Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Delany, William

  Hackett, John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hancock, J. G.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Doris, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Brace, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hayward, Evan

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Falconer, James

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watso

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durh)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberde W.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor in., S.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowlands, James

  Hinds, John

  Munro, R.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Char E. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hodge, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Neilson, Francis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Horne, Charles Silvester Wich)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Ru u

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tll)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Snowden, Philip

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merlo)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carm en, East)

  O'Dowd, John

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Ru liffe)

  O'Grady, James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, William (Carnar lre)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Kellaway, Frederick Geo

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  King, J.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts ricklade)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lardner, James Carrige she

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal,)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl ockerm'th)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Leach, Charles

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Webb, H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkir urghs)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Maclean, Donald

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Regi d

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilber

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Manfield, Harry

  Richards, Thomas

  Winfrey, Richard

  Markham, Sir Arthur Ba

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croyd

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Le n, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robinson, Sidney

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Middlebrook, William

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tyn

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Aitken, Sir William Ma

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir Wi m R.

  Butcher, John George

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major llam

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campion, W. R.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick rge

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy Winchester)

  Cator, John

  Fell, Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salfo South)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Barnston, Harry

  Cave, George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Barrie, H. T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts llton)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Beach, Hon. Michael HHicks

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Ffouth)

  Chambers, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Blair, Reginald

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S Griffith-

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Boyle, William (Norfolk ld)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Boyton, James

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  1464

  1465

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Gretton, John

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

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

  Sandys, G. J.

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  . Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Spear, Sir John Ward

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

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Moore, William

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Kerry, Earl of

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Winterton, Earl

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

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

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclcsall)

  Cassel and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "And the provisions of this Section, as to appeals from the Courts in Ireland, shall extend to appeals against convictions in respect of any offence which under the existing criminal law amounts to a felony, and His Majesty in Council may from time to time make rules as to the mode in which, and the conditions under which, in pursuance of this provision, appeals in criminal matters may be brought before His Majesty in Council, and any rules so made shall be of the same force as if they were enacted in this Act."
  The object of this Amendment is to include among the cases that are to come up on appeal to the Judicial Committee to the Privy Council cases in which convictions have been obtained in Ireland for crime amounting to a felony under the existing law. I do not think, speaking at this time of day, that there is any necessity to emphasise the advantage of the existing Court of Criminal Appeal. I believe when the Bill for the constitution by this House of a Criminal Appeal Court in this country was first brought in there was some difference of opinion, but now that that Court has been in existence for some time I think there is a general consensus of opinion that it is performing a very useful work and has met a long-felt necessity. The object we have in view in this Amendment is to provide that there shall be in future
  1466
  in Ireland some form of Court of Criminal Appeal. The criticism will obviously be-made on the Amendment that the Privy Council does not form an ideal tribunal for constituting a Court of Criminal Appeal, but that is not our fault. I had myself a. Clause down to constitute a separate Court of Criminal Appeal for Ireland, but under the procedure existing in this House we have not been allowed to consider it, and therefore the only thing we can do is to try and utilise the tribunal, on which the Government is placing heavy work in connection with appeals in the future, for what we consider to be the very serious necessity of the case. I do not want to put it offensively to hon. Members from Ireland, but there can be no doubt that in the past in Ireland politics and crime have been inextricably mixed up together. You cannot shut your eyes to the political motives which are at the bottom of a great deal of the crime which comes before the Courts in Ireland. You only need to consider the annual returns which come to this House, showing the large number of cases in which the Crown has undertaken prosecutions in which they thought convictions ought to be obtained, and which they have entirely failed to obtain. Juries have allowed themselves in these matters to be swayed by political ideas. Who is to know in the future, when the Irish Parliament comes into being, if ever it does, that the process will not be reversed, and that you will have political prosecutions

  1467
  based on political grounds coining before the juries? It is idle to suppose that in the future they will be free from the bias which undoubtedly influences them at the present moment. No doubt there will be prosecutions resulting in unjust convictions. Under these circumstances, is it not obvious that some sort of Court of Criminal Appeal ought to be brought into existence? We should be content if we could get, even at this stage, some assurance from the Government that a really independent Court of Criminal Appeal will be established.
  I am not in love with the Privy Council for carrying out this work, but owing to what the House has already decided, it is the only alternative. Therefore, I suggest that this power should be given to the Privy Council, or else we should have some undertaking that a Criminal Court of Appeal will be established. Great as is the necessity for a Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, and great as its success has been under the existing condition of things, I am sure that when the Irish Parliament comes into being it will be still more required, because you have introduced into this Bill a provision under which the judges in Ireland are to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, who will be a political partisan. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Lord Lieutenant acted upon the advice of his Executive, and may be treated as a political partisan. The real gist of what I am saying is that you have got first a judge appointed by the Lord Lieutenant and removable by a Joint Address of the Irish Parliament. What is the meaning of that? At present the judges are removable in Ireland only upon a Joint Address of this House, and in the future you are going to put this power into the hands of the Irish House of Commons, dominated, as it undoubtedly will be, by the political majority of the day. The Joint Address is that of the House of Commons, and of this particular debating society which you are pleased to call a Senate.
  What will be the result? You leave hanging over the heads of the judges this sword of Damocles, and if they exercise the independence of English judges upon which in this country the whole success of the law is founded, they are liable to have their actions called into question and to lose their position on the initiative of a political majority in the Irish House of Commons, totally uncontrolled by any
  1468
  Second Chamber. It is quite clear that in the future you run a serious danger in your quasi political criminal trials of having a judge without the absolute sense of independence which he possesses at the present time. That is the reason why some form of appeal should be given to some tribunal for the protection of the liberties of those whom everybody must admit when this Irish Parliament comes into existence will be seriously jeopardised. Those hon. Members who have heard the Debates will have no doubt whatever in their hearts that there will be when this Act comes into operation serious trouble for the community in Ireland. If this is so in regard to the temptations which I have outlined; if at the present moment you have juries admittedly liable to be swayed by political opinions, surely if ever a case was made out in which there ought to be an appeal this is that case, and there ought to be some form of independent tribunal in which an appeal would lie.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg leave to second this Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it is obvious to the House that my hon. and learned Friend scarcely expected that this Amendment would be accepted, and I even think he hardly desired that it should be accepted, because I doubt very much whether he will suggest that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ought to be made a Court of Criminal Appeal in these matters. Of course, I gather from his argument that he felt constrained to make this proposal because he had not had an opportunity to put some other proposal he wished to make before the House. If we were to accept his Amendment, the Court of Criminal Appeal would be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am somewhat surprised at this proposal, because, so far as I know, there has been no agitation in Ireland for a Court of Criminal Appeal up to the present. We instituted such a Court in this country because there was a demand for it. It was an experiment which had a great deal of comment and criticism passed upon it, but I quite agree that it has worked extremely well, and has satisfied everybody, even its most severe opponents. That is a Court of Appeal which is granted by Statute. The hon. Member asked what would happen assuming that we accepted this Amendment. It is suggested that, supposing a conviction had been wrongly obtained through a wrongful admission of

  1469
  evidence, or some technical point, as the Court of Criminal Appeal is here constituted it would mean that the Court has to be satisfied as to the conviction, but it has already expressed the view that it ought to have power to grant a new trial.
  As this Amendment stands, there would be far greater power vested in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council than actually exists in the Criminal Court of Appeal. I am puzzled by the Amendment, because there is no appeal at all in Ireland to this House. It is suggested that there should be an appeal direct to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am not criticising so much the details, and I appreciate that the hon. and learned Member has been constrained to put this Amendment forward in this form on account of our Rules of Order, because we have now passed the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the supreme tribunal. But surely the answer to that argument is that, if it is desired by the people of Ireland that there should be a Court of Criminal Appeal, you should let the people of Ireland decide that for themselves. It is not for us to decide a question of that character. You say, "It is quite true there has been no demand, but we in the Imperial Parliament wish to insist upon setting up this Court of Appeal and you must take it as we propose it." I do not think that really is a proposition which can be really seriously put forward. If you once accept the view as provided by this Bill that there is to be an Irish Parliament, you must allow that Parliament to decide this question in its own way, and determine for itself in what cases and under what circumstances there shall be a criminal appeal. I do not think it would be of any use to give further reasons in answer to this Amendment. Personally, I am very much puzzled by the suggestion, and I can only say it would be quite im-
  possible to carry out this proposal in the form in which the hon. and learned Member proposes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the Attorney-General's speech begs the whole question. First of all, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, the only body which is now open to us to propose as a Court of Appeal. In the second place, the Attorney-General omits to remind the House of what is the fact, namely, that we protested with all the strength in our power against the Irish Parliament being allowed to appoint the judges in Ireland, and to dismiss them as well. We pointed out that that was entirely novel in federal Constitutions, and something which has never been before allowed in any federal Constitution. Now the Attorney-General says if the people of Ireland desire a Court of Criminal Appeal they will ask for it. They are to be judges in their own cause. If the majority in Ireland do not want a Court of Criminal Appeal the minority will have no power to get one. You cannot get away from the fact that a judge who will be responsible to and removable by an Irish Parliament will be inclined to have some regard for the political feelings of the majority in the Irish Parliament. That is an essential vice of the Government's scheme of making the judges removable by Parliament.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The same thing applies here.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, I know it does, but here we have greater faith in the good sense of the majority than we have in Ireland.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 303.

  Division No. 503.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bird, Alfred

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford, Univ.)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Blair, Reginald

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Chambers, James

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Boyton, James

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Butcher, John George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Barnston, Harry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Cassel, Felix

  Doughty, Sir George

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cator, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Becket, Hon. Gervase

  Cave, George

  Faber, George Denison (Claptum)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecll Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Fell, Arthur

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Fiannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gretton, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Starkey, John Ralph

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Miidmay, Francis Bingham

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Moore, William

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

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

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

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

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

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

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Winterton, Earl

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wyndharn, Rt. Hon. George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rawlinson, Sir Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Hume-Williams and Mr. Bigland.

  Kerry, Earl of

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Ffrench, Peter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Field, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Clough, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Furness, Stephen

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gilhooly, James

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gill, A. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Crean, Eugene

  Glanville, H. J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Goldstone, Frank

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cullinan, John

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Barton, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

  Guiney, Patrick

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hackett, John

  Bentham, G. J.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  De Forest, Baron

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brace, William

  Doris, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hayward, Evan

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Essiemont, George Birnie

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Byles, Sir William

  Falconer, James

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Higham, John Sharp

  1472

  1473

  Hinds, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Worrell, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowlands, James

  Hogge, James Myles

  Munro, R.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hudson, Walter

  Neilson, Francis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nicholson, sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Dowd, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Grady, James

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

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

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Leach, Charles

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Maclean, Donald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

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

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

  Webb, H.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pringle, William M. R.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  M'Kean, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wiles, Thomas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Manfield, Harry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Richards, Thomas

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

  Martin, Joseph

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Robinson, Sidney

  Molloy, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Wond, Sir Alfred M.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPKAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and 30th December last to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Government Amendment made: At end of Clause add,
  "(4) Any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Court of Appeal in
  1474
  any proceedings taken by way of certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, or prohibition, shall have a right to appeal to His Majesty the King in Council in the same manner as if he had such a right to appeal to the House of Lords before the passing of this Act."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]

  CLAUSE 29.—(Special Provision for Decision of Constitutional Questions.)
  (1) If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question

  1475
  whether any Irish Act or any provision thereof, or any Irish Bill or any provision thereof, is beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament, or whether any service is an Irish service within the meaning of this Act or not, or if the Joint Exchequer Board, in the execution of their duties under this Act, are desirous of obtaining the decision of any question of the interpretation of this Act, or other question of law, which arises in connection with those duties, the Lord Lieutenant, Secretary of State, or Board, as the case may be, may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs, the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, constituted as if hearing an appeal from a Court in Ireland.
  (2) Upon the hearing of the question such persons as seem to the Judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were the decision of an appeal, the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open Court.
  (3) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any other power of His Majesty in Council to refer any question to the Judicial Committee or the right of any person to petition His Majesty for such reference.
  Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1), after the word "Board"["or of the Joint Exchequer Board in the execution of their duties"], insert the words, "or any two members of the Board."
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "Board"["Secretary of State or Board, as the case may be"], insert the words, "or members thereof."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]

  CLAUSE 30.—(Appeal in Cases where the Validity of an Irish Law is Questioned.)
  (1) Where any decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland involves the decision of any question as to the validity of any law made by the Irish Parliament, and the decision is not otherwise subject to an appeal to His Majesty the King in Council, an appeal shall lie to His Majesty the King in Council by virtue of this Section, but only by leave of the Court of Appeal or His Majesty.
  (2) Where any decision of a Court in Ireland involves the decision of any question as to the validity of any law made by the Irish Parliament, and the decision is not
  1476
  subject to any appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal in Ireland by virtue of this Section.
  Government Amendment made: At end of Clause add,
  "(3) If any person is dissatisfied with the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board on the question whether a tax is an independent tax not substantially the same in character as an Imperial tax, that person may petition His Majesty in Council to refer the question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, if His Majesty so direct, the question shall be referred to and heard and determined by that Committee as if hearing an appeal from a Court in Ireland; and the determination of the Judicial Committee on the question shall have effect with respect to the question decided as if it were the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board.
  If any decision of the Joint Exchequer Board under this Act involves a decision with respect to any question of law, any person may petition His Majesty in Council to refer the question of law to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and, if His Majesty so directs, the question of law shall be referred to and heard and determined by that committee constituted as if hearing an appeal from a court in Ireland; and if the Judicial Committee determine that the point of law has been erroneously-decided by the Joint Exchequer Board they shall report their determination to His Majesty, and, on such a report being made, the Joint Exchequer Board shall reconsider their decision with regard to the determination of the Judicial Committee.
  Upon the hearing of any question referred under this Sub-section, such persons as seem to the Judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were a decision of an appeal, the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open court.
  A petition shall not be entertained under this Sub-section unless it is presented within six months after the date on which the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board to which the petition relates has been published."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]

LORD LIEUTENANT.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Office of Lord Lieutenant.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, no subject of His Majesty shall be disqualified to hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on account of his religious belief.
  (2) The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment.
  (3) The salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but there shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum in each year, towards the payment of the Lord Lieutenant's salary, a sum of five thousand pounds.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2), after the word "appointment" to add the words,
  "and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry."
  It will be within the recollection of some Members of the House that in Committee on Clause 31 dealing with the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant, considerable discussion arose as to whether it was quite plain, from the language of the Bill as it stood, that it was intended that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be in future, as in the past, what is called a political party office. The Prime Minister, in the course of a speech, made it perfectly plain that that was to be altered. He said:—?
  "He has been subject to any eclipses, political eclipses, of the party fortune which the Ministry undergo. I quite agree we are now altering his position. We are divesting it of that character. We are giving him a fixed term of years. His tenure of office will no longer be coincident, or necessarily coincident, with the office of any particular Government. He will not go out of office when the Government goes out of office, and whatever may be the political complexion of the Imperial Ministry, he will be expected, of course, to conform with his instructions within the constitutional limits which the Act prescribes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2396, Vol. XLI.V.]
  It was thought in the course of that discussion that that was not sufficiently plain in the Bill, and accordingly I now move to add these words to the Sub-section. If the Amendment is carried the Clause will read:—
  "The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and the continuance in office of the Lord
  1478
  Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry."
  I put it to the House that these words make it perfectly plain. It is desirable it should be made as plain as possible that the Lord Lieutenant under this Bill, will no longer hold his appointment as a Government appointment. His tenure of office will be fixed at six years, and it will not be affected by any ups or downs, chops or changes, among Ministers, in either the Imperial or the Irish Parliament. He will be appointed for a fixed period of six years, and will be independent of what are called convulsions, changes, or crises to which politicians so often attach much importance. I therefore beg to move the inclusion of these words.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is my Amendment to substitute five years for six years excluded by your putting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It comes under the category of those that are passed over.
  Sir E. CARSON: It has gone over to the majority. I am not going to discuss this Amendment, but I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question. It is this: Will this unfortunate individual, who is to occupy this high non-political position in the midst of political controversies, have it in his power at any time to resign if he so wishes, or will he have to act for a fixed period of six years? My own impression is that to try and keep him there in certain conditions of political changes that may arise would be to put him in the most cruel position that one can imagine.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Knowing as I do the sympathetic nature of the right hon. Gentleman and appreciating his point, I rise at once to relieve his anxiety. There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent any Lord Lieutenant exercising the prerogative, which everyone of us I hope enjoys, of resigning his position at any time he may please.
  Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment, but he has not explained why this appointment is removed from the category of political appointments which are made for five years.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss his Amendment, as it has been passed over.
  Sir J. D. REES: But cannot I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why six instead of five years has been chosen as the period? Will it be out of order to ask that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have passed the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "with the intent that." If this Amendment be adopted, and the consequential Amendment agreed to, it will read—
  "the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry, and the Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office, conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions in relation to matters of political controversy."
  It it most desirable that the position and status of the Lord Lieutenant should be clearly defined, and, in order to show what the position of the Lord Lieutenant is, I will venture to run through the responsibilities which are placed upon him by this measure. Lender Clause 2 he is to be independent of the Irish Parliament, which can only legislate with reference to himself in connection with the Irish services. In Clause 4 are enumerated certain arrangements by which His Majesty may delegate certain powers to the Lord Lieutenant in order that he may act on His Majesty's behalf. They are all important powers. In the same Clause, it is pointed out that the Lord Lieutenant shall act through the Irish Parliament, and that is important, because he is required to make appointments of officers of various Departments. Clause 6 gives him the power of summoning, proroguing, or dissolving Parliament—a very important power indeed. Clause 7 gives power to the Lord Lieutenant to give the Royal Assent to Bills. There again you have a very important power. In Clause 8 are enumerated his powers in regard to the Senate and the House of Commons. Under this Clause the Lord Lieutenant is called upon to nominate the personality of the Senate. No higher function could devolve on anyone. In Clause 11, in the event of disagreement, the Lord Lieutenant has power to call the two Houses together for a Joint Session whenever he thinks it right to do so. Clause 21 gives the Lord Lieutenant power to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is to
  1480
  undertake the examination of all accounts and all expenditure, and to keep an eye upon the Irish Consolidated Fund. In Clause 27 he is called upon to appoint all the judges, whether County Court, or of the Supreme Court, or of any Court which may be set up at any future period. In Clause 29 he and the Secretary of State have the joint power of handing over for the consideration of the Privy Council any Bills which either of them, or both of them, may hold to exceed the powers granted under this Bill to the Irish Parliament.
  8.0 P.M.
  Without referring to any other Clauses, I think I have enumerated sufficient to show that the position which the Lord Lieutenant will be called upon to occupy in Ireland is one of the highest honour and the greatest possible responsibility. With reference to the position of the Lord Lieutenant, I should like to point out that in Ireland it will be quite different to the position of a Governor in our Overseas Dominions. It will be different to the position of a provincial Legislature responsible to a central Government, and it will also be different, in some degree, from the position of the Dominions with reference to the Imperial Government. The position of the Lord Lieutenant is to some extent different from that of any officer at present exercising functions under the Imperial Government. The communications between the Lord Lieutenant and the Imperial Government are likely to be very much more frequent than is the case with reference to any Governor of our Overseas Dominions. The mere proximity of Ireland to this country will show to the most casual observer that that is likely to be the case. Then, again, with reference to the reserve services the Lord Lieutenant will undoubtedly be the Executive officer of the Imperial Government, and that will differentiate his position from that of an ordinary Governor. His position, being such as it will be, and his proximity to the Imperial Government being so close and so immediate, it is above all things desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should take no part in home politics. That is my excuse, if indeed any excuse were wanted, and I do not think any is, for the Amendment which it is my privilege now to submit to the House. It is within the recollection of Members of the House that complaint has been made against a Lord Lieutenant. Personally, I quite realise he is entirely exempt from any criticism in this House. He is, in his

  1481
  capacity of Lord Lieutenant, a privileged person in that respect like Mr. Speaker, but, while I fully realise that, I would point out that it is within the recollection of the House that complaint was made not very long ago of letters being written and opinions expressed in reference to an election which was then taking place. That was most undesirable, and I feel sure that Members of the House will agree with me that no one holding the exalted position of Viceroy, and acting personally on behalf of His Majesty, should lay himself open to any complaints of the nature to which I have referred. He ought to keep absolutely aloof from all party struggles in this country. I will ask the House to bear with me for a moment while I quote some words of the Prime Minister, on the 4th December last, when this subject came up for discussion on the Committee stage. I said a moment ago that the position of the Lord Lieutenant on some not unimportant points differed from that of the Governors of our Overseas Dominions. I am sure this House will agree with the Prime Minister when he said:—
  "Yon could hardly have a more analogous case to the position of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland than that of Governor of the latest of our Federated Dominions: I mean the Union of South Africa."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1012, col. 2395, Vol. XLIV.]
  Then he went on to say:—
  "In all respects the position of the Lord Lieutenant as contemplated by this Bill is analogous, if not in substance identical, with that of one of our Colonial Governors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th December, 1912, col. 2596.]
  Following up his own definition, he made a further statement of much importance to the House. He said:—
  "I would rather leave the exact farm of words—"
  referring to the Amendment which we have now had placed before us by the Chief Secretary—
  "I would rather leave the exact form of words to be put in at a later stage; but what I have written down and will read out for consideration is something like this."
  Then follows what the Prime Minister wrote down:—
  '"The Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December. 1912, col. 2397.]
  One of the perfectly clear positions always taken up in the past by our Oversea Governors has been that they should stand aside altogether from any question of party; that they should be strictly considerate towards parties of all sorts, and give to any Ministry that might be formed a per-
  1482
  Fa tly free hand That has been the principle acted upon by our Oversea Governors. They have kept themselves absolutely apart from party, and they have stood aloof from such things, with the result that their work has given, in the main, almost unbroken satisfaction to the Dominions over which they have had the privilege of presiding. I should like to quote the Prime Minister once more. He says:—
  "I do not want to be wedded to this form of words—."
  Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
  Sir H. CARLILE: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is observing this—
  "but I undertake to endeavour to find and to insert at a later stage a form of words which will carry out the hon. and learned Gentleman's object, and make it perfectly clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it has been in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day, but that of an impartial person, discharging his duties in accordance with those traditions which are now well established in self-governing portions of the Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2398.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that forty Members are not present.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Division which was taken a short time ago showed that many more than forty Members were present. We cannot always be counting the House.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the Prime Minister's meaning he further added the following definition, which I think is very important:—
  "He is an officer of the Crown, appointed for a fixed term, just like the Governor-General of Canada or of Australia. He is there to act in Irish matters on the advice of the Irish Executive—to whatever party it may belong—and in matters which are not Irish, or which are reserved, upon instructions of the Imperial Government, to whatever party it belongs. I am perfectly clear that a person in that position ought not to interfere in the political affairs either of Ireland or of the United Kingdom itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2462.]
  It must be clear to the House by this time, if I have been at all successful in making anything approaching a clear statement, that what the Prime Minister meant was something a great deal more than is contained in this Amendment. On the strength of that pledge, definite and clear as it is, my hon. and learned Friend, with the agreement of the Committee, consented to withdraw the Amendment which stood in his name. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, poor and meagre as it is, is the proposed fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge. The mountain appears to have

  1483
  been in labour; the mouse seems to have been the only product. It may be asked why add this phrase "in relation to matters of political controversy," and put it in black and white in the Bill. The reason is, when we are dealing with a new Dominion and making an appointment like a Governorship of a new Dominion, we have, as it were, a perfectly clean slate upon which the Imperial Government may write anything it pleases. The post has no past history; there are no customs, habits, and prejudices to be overcome. Anything that may be decided that is reasonable and suitable to the occasion may come into force and be carried through, perhaps with perfect satisfaction to all concerned. But here the position is entirely different. As the Prime Minister said in the same Debate, speaking of a new Dominion:—
  "There we were nor transforming the character of a pre-existent office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th December, 1912, col. 2397.]
  That makes all the difference, and it is necessary in this case that in black and white the undertaking should be laid down that there is to be a complete abstention from taking part in political controversies which may arise from time to time. It is necessary, because in the past and for many years the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has been a distinctly party man. He has gone out with the Government of the moment, when anything has happened to it; he has had to act in accordance with their policy, and has been in every sense a party man. Therefore, we have customs, habits, and prejudices to overcome, and with regard to them it is absolutely desirable that we should put in black and white in the Bill the Amendment which I now move. If that is not done, there will always be a tendency to slip back into the old rut. If you embody this Amendment, perfectly unobjectionable as it is, in the Bill, thereby strengthening the rather feeble form of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has brought in, there will be no tendency to slip back into the old rut. Is there any doubt that you might slip back? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the same Debate on 4th December, made it perfectly clear that he did not at all agree with the view taken by the Prime Minister. Whether or not he knew all the Prime Minister's mind on the subject, I do not know, but these are the Words of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1484
  —no mean Judge of probable events, a man who has much foresight and who has illustrated it in many ways:—
  "You may have a partisan Lord Lieutenant."
  In order that we may be saved from that, and that Ireland may not have that in connection with this Bill, if ever it becomes law, I beg to move the Amendment, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, will see his way to accept it.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must say that the hon. Member has adopted a convenient course, for he has made one speech in support of three different Amendments. His first Amendment is to leave out the words "with the intent that."
  Sir H. CARLILE: I was instructed by Mr. Speaker that he was willing that I should deal with the Amendments, otherwise I should not have done so.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not complaining in the least; I am quite willing to acquiesce if the Amendments are kept separate, although the speech was one. The first Amendment is a purely drafting one. The hon. Member thinks that my Amendment would read better if the words "with the intent that" were left out. The Clause would then read:—
  "The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry."
  The hon. Member does not like the words "with the intent that." If anybody suggests to me that other words are better, I confess that I am disposed always to prefer the other man's words to my own, but in this case these words were very well considered by a number of persons, and it was thought that on the whole, being declaratory words, it was desirable to insert them, and the Clause really reads more effectively and strikingly, and calls more pointed attention to it if you insert—
  "with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry."
  The authorities who proposed this Amendment thought it strengthened the Clause.

  1485
  It certainly does not weaken it in any way. The hon. Member passed over that Amendment altogether, and did not give any reasons, so far as I can remember, in support of it, and I should really be glad to know whether he wants to take the opinion of the House upon it. Why does he object to the words "with the intent that"?
  Mr. C. CRAIG: They are unnecessary.
  Mr. BIRRELL: You say they are unnecessary; that is just the point. Where the English language conveys shades of meaning through words as it does, we think the words "with the intent that" have the effect of calling particular attention to the fact that the office is not what it was before, one dependent upon the existence of the Ministry here at home, or, under the new Constitution, of the Ministry in Ireland, but is intentionally free from party fortunes.
  Sir H. CARLILE: I think the words are mere surplusage, and therefore should not be in.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I confess, if the hon. Member will allow me to say so, that I think it is not merely surplusage. That the words could be omitted without any grave result, I dare say, but I think myself that the introduction of these words does most emphatically have a declaratory effect, and strengthens the new position of the Lord Lieutenant, showing that Parliament intends that it should be free from what it has been exposed to, namely, the ins and outs of political existence either here or in Ireland. Therefore, I still think the words should be retained, and, unless therefore some hon. Member is satisfied either that they do harm or that they have no effect at all, that they are purely otiose, which I should be very sorry to think they were, I think we had better adhere to the Amendment as drawn.
  Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these words, though they may be surplusage, are not mere surplusage. I am not inclined to quarrel about that, but I should have thought, whether they are surplusage or mere surplusage, they would be in either case better omitted. I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman says his intention is that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by a change of Ministers he really gives the reason why the term is fixed at six years. In that case it is made quite clear that the
  1486
  office of Lord Lieutenant survives the normal life of a Ministry by a year. But in that case, if this office is to be placed, as I understand him to say, upon the same footing as other great offices of State, why then is the term limited to six years? The right hon. Gentleman would tell me It is usual that a period of about five years is adopted, but I should answer him that there is no such limitation, that all the great officers of State are appointed until their successors are appointed, and though I heard a Prime Minister from those benches, without correction, state that the Viceroy of India was appointed for five years, it is not the case. By custom a successor is appointed at the expiry of five years, but that great officer of State is, as a fact, appointed until his successor is appointed. Why is not the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appointed upon the same footing as the Viceroy and Governors, with whom the right hon. Gentleman has expressly compared their tenure of office? This is a matter which does not arise merely out of an Amendment which has been passed over, but arises immediately out of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, as amended by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I hope that for the information of the House he will explain why a limit is placed upon the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant. If the Lord Lieutenant's office is not to be affected by any change of Ministry, why, if you have a man who is admittedly giving great satisfaction, who makes the new Government popular and so forth, should his term be limited when the clock strikes the last day of the six years? The right hon. Gentleman has never given any explanation whatsoever upon this point, and I am sure it is not by way of captious criticism but with a real desire to understand why that I ask this question. He might, of course, answer that five years was usual, to which I reply that it is not. There is no such limitation. It has merely become the practice, and if five years had become so usual as to become almost a customary law, there is nothing in favour of six years except that it would carry him beyond the normal life of a Parliament. But if for one year, why not for many years beyond the life of a Parliament? There have been cases, I believe, where Viceroys, to the great advantage of Ireland and of the United Kingdom, have held office for more than six years. Is there the slightest reason why they should not?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They can go on again.
  Sir J. D. REES: There is nothing to prevent their being reappointed. Is that the intention?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not say it is the intention. It is the fact.
  Sir J. D. REES: There is nothing to prevent it in the Act, but the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest, I think, that when a Viceroy has outlived his Government by a year he is likely to be reappointed by the other party who come in afterwards, or even that his own party, having appointed him for so long a period, is likely to keep him on and deprive their many hungry and valuable supporters of that preferment to which they legitimately look forward. I submit that there is a point of substance there, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be so courteous as to give some further explanation upon the point. When he says that the intention is that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should not be a party politician, it is absolutely impossible for anyone who is Lord Lieutenant of a little island which is not divided but is joined to this country by the sea—the narrow sea between is, like an open road, far better than any other; it is absolutely next door to us—it is not possible that any Viceroy who is not a supporter of the party of the day should continue in power. To take the analogy of the Viceroy of India, it is perfectly well known that when there has been any difference of opinion between them they have nver been able to survive the Ministry which appointed them. Take the case of Lord Lytton. There was a difference of opinion about the Afghan war. There was a change of Government at home. Did Lord Lytton survive it? Not at all. He resigned. The same thing must happen. This proviso must be a dead-letter, and if there is to be a fixed term like six years I want to know why a limitation is imposed in this case which does not exist in the case of any other great appointment which the Government of the day make. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear.
  Then as to the terms of the Amendment. It seems to me it is a very meagre and perfunctory fulfilment of the pledge of the Prime Minister given on 4th December that the Lord Lieutenant shall conform to the practice of Governors of the Oversea Dominions. My hon. Friend's Amend-
  1488
  ment would carry that out, but the Amendment of the Chief Secretary conspicuously does not. It really leaves that point completely out. It really does not touch it. Therefore the pledge of the Prime Minister remains if it is not carried out. I have instanced the case of a Governor who differed slightly from the Viceroy he was serving, and immediately had to resign his office. I think it is quite impossible that a Lord Lieutenant can really maintain himself in office after the Government which has appointed him has left office, and this Amendment is a most unsatisfactory carrying out of the pledge of the Prime Minister, which, in fact, it does not carry out at all. It does not really touch the point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend, in answer to whose speech the Prime Minister made it. I certainly hope the Chief Secretary will be good enough to give the House a few-words more upon this point, because I really do not think he has at all answered the point of my hon. Friend or that his Amendment at all carries out the pledge of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BIRRELL: In regard to the pledge of the Prime Minister, we are dealing really with the Amendments one by one.
  Mr. MOORE: Would it not be more convenient to have a general discussion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly. I rather hoped we should have got rid of this Amendment by the hon. Member withdrawing it.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member did not move the first Amendment, but all three.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think that is not so. The hon. Member only moved the first Amendment though he referred incidentally to all the others.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): There can only be one Amendment before the House.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Both my hon. Friends who have spoken have dealt with the question as a whole, and I take it if we dispose of this first Amendment in the first instance we shall then be allowed to develop the larger argument with which my hon. Friend dealt when the other Amendment comes on. The Chief Secretary, in his short speech, only dealt with the first Amendment, and I take it that he intends, when we arrive at the later Amendments to deal with the other

  1489
  question which has been raised by my hon. Friend. In that case, I shall only deal with the first Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been advised by various legal luminaries that the words "with the intent that" are necessary, and that they ought to stand. We have been advised by other legal luminaries, perhaps not so distinguished as those by whom the right hon. Gentleman has been advised, that these words are objectionable. We take the view that if you put in these words you ought to say that the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. That is a plain, straightforward declaration by Act of Parliament; but if you say, as the Chief Secretary proposes, "without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry," we contend that you are there expressing an intention which may or may not be carried into effect. If you intend a certain thing to be done you should say so in mandatory language. This is a sort of pious opinion, and the expression of a hope that those who administer the Act will carry it into execution. If you include the words "with the intent that," you leave the matter in a more or less doubtful position as to whether the intention should be carried into effect or not. We say that you should leave no element of doubt as to whether it will be done, and, therefore, we wish these words left out, so that there may be no loophole open to anybody to act on his own responsibility. It is more mandatory to say that the appointment shall be for six years, and to add, putting the matter in mandatory terms, that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. Surely that is obviously a better form of words than those suggested by the Chief Secretary. I trust the Solicitor-General will agree with us that these words would be clearer, and that they would impose a more obvious duty upon whoever has to administer the Act then if you leave in the words "with the intent that."
  Mr. MOORE: I agree with the Chief Secretary that this is a purely drafting
  1490
  Amendment. I think we have not considered the general merits of the question as to whether this is the proper form of words. I am told that this is a concession to Unionist criticisms, and that it is really a gift for which we have to thank the Government. I must confess that I have a suspicion of any gift they may bring, and, therefore, I would like to look at the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment more closely. It is quite plain that the Government have changed their mind altogether as to the position of the Lord Lieutenant. I think it is an after development which has grown up in the course of the Debates. We were told for the first time in Committee that the Lord Lieutenant is to be a non-political officer. I think it was originally intended that if a Roman Catholic was appointed Lord Lieutenant he should occupy just the same position as the Lord Lieutenant we have at present. When they came to draw Sub-section (2) they said that the term was to be six years, and they stated further that the appointment was to be without prejudice to the power of His Majesty—that is the King advised by His Ministers—at any time to revoke the appointment. You cannot get a more general power than that. The meaning of the Chief Secretary's Amendment is that His Majesty is not to revoke the appointment if there is a change of Ministry. You have the general power that His Majesty may at any time revoke the appointment, but if this is a drafting point, you should say, "Provided always that a change of Ministry shall not be a ground for revoking the appointment." If this is an exception to the general power of His Majesty, it ought to be put in the Bill by way of proviso. The matter ought to be made perfectly clear by a proviso on the universal power given in the immediately preceding words. I submit to those who have greater experience than I have that this ought to be introduced in the shape of an ordinary proviso, and not by the colour-less expression which is really not known to draftsmanship as to an intent which may or may not be carried out. I have heard the Chief Secretary say that he will be glad to consider suggestions. On one occasion he agreed to substitute "or" for "and."
  Mr. BIRRELL: And "shall" for "may."
  Mr. MOORE: I believe the right hon. Gentleman has two cases to his credit in which he accepted suggestions, and no

  1491
  wonder that he is proud of them. He was responsible, as Parliamentary draftsman, for some Bills which have been brought before the House. The terms of these measures formed conundrums to the people in Ireland. If you give general and unlimited power and then put in an exception, it should be done by proviso.
  Mr. CHAMBERS: It is in the highest degree important that the Lord Lieutenant should occupy an absolutely independent position, and I have no doubt it is the intention of the Bill that he should occupy that position. But it is also important that the people of Ireland, who will be living under the new system, should believe that the Lord Lieutenant is in fact independent of the Ministry, either in this country or in Ireland. I think it would simplify the position of the Lord Lieutenant himself, whoever he may be for the time being, if ho should be guilty of an act which might give dissatisfaction to certain people, that they should know from the Act that his appointment is for six years, and that his continuance in office will not be affected by any change of Government. That means that the ordinary person on the look-out for a ground for suspicion will have it conveyed to his mind that while it was the wish of this Parliament that the Lord Lieutenant should be independent of the Government, still it is open to him not to be independent and to show partiality. In the interests of the person, whoever he may be, occupying the position, it is much better to have it definitely and distinctly -declared that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change in the Ministry. It will make the matter perfectly plain, and will take away all opportunity of finding in these words any loophole for attack.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I am afraid that I have not been able to gather from the right hon. Gentleman exactly what his objection is to the first Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I should be very slow to criticise such a master of English composition as the right hon. Gentleman, but I am entirely unable to understand, as a mere matter of English, what is the purport of these words "with the intent that." This is intended to be an Act of Parliament laying down what the law is to be. What does it matter to anybody what anybody's intent is? Whose intent is it supposed to be? So far as I
  1492
  can see it is not even grammatical. Is it the intent of the term of office, the intent of the present Government, the intent of this Parliament, the intent of His Majesty? If it is to be an enactment simply laying down the law what shall be, there is no possible object in cumbering the plain, precise words of the Statute by saying that some absolutely unknown, undefined person's intent is that certain things shall be. You may have an intent on one hand and no carrying out of the intent on the other. The function of this Parliament is to say what shall take place, and not merely to make an assertion of somebody's intent. It is perfectly easy to say that the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, and then go on to say that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change in Ministry. Why not stick to plain and simple language not open to misconstruction, rather than cumber the Statute with words which, if they mean anything at all, are certainly very ambiguous?
  Mr. KING: After listening to four speeches on the other side, I conceive it might be just as well that a reply should proceed from this side of the House. Really, there is not much to answer. I doubt if there is anything at all to answer, but for all that, I think we ought to show that we are able to give good ground for the faith within us. My reading of this Section is what I think would be the ordinary reading of any sensible man who was not trying to pick holes in an inevitable Act of Parliament, for this is going to pass into law very shortly. But while there are many large subjects that might be discussed, the other side are spending a considerable amount of time in bringing up mere drafting and finicking and ridiculously small questions. The intention of the Clause is perfectly plain. It is that in future when there is a change of Government—and I suppose a change of Ministry means any change either on this side of the Channel or on the other side—the Lord Lieutenant shall remain in office as representing the Crown, and not as representing the Government as he does at present.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Will the hon. Member put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with a view to ascertaining whether that is correct? It is a very important point, that it does not depend on a change of Ministry on either side of the Channel.
  Mr. KING: I put a great number of questions in this House and I am always answered in the sense that I expect, and as I am quite confident what the answer will be in this case I do not think it necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."] He has said so, as I thought; but it has been said so often that it is not necessary to repeat it, because it is perfectly plain to anybody who can read and understand a plain English sentence. That being the case, what is the good of getting up and basing arguments, as the last hon. Gentleman did, on the words, "with the intent that"? Whose intent, he asks? Why, the intent of every sensible man, with the intent of this Parliament, with the intent of the Irish people, because they are sensible people too, under this Act of Parliament, as it soon will be, with the intention of making it a success. It is not necessary to labour this matter further, but I want the House to understand that, while we on this side are willing to attend to any sensible suggestion that is put forward, this really is not a sensible Amendment at all, and if the words had been left out I am perfectly confident that hon Gentlemen on the other side would have moved an Amendment to have these words, which they now ask to have left out, put in, and they would have used almost exactly the same argument, exactly the same language, and exactly the same indignant tone with which they have been supporting this ill-timed and utterly unnecessary Amendment
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. Member who has just sat down always imparts to our Debates a piquancy, a vivacity, and a picturesqueness of colouring peculiarly his own, but I am not quite certain that he is an authority on matters of legal interpretation, and therefore I want to ask the learned Solicitor-General two questions: First, about the change of Ministry, which I take it necessarily refers to the Imperial Ministry, because the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland is in the position of the representative of the King, and could not be affected by a change of Ministry in Ireland. But I want also to ask as to whether the words "with the intent that" do strengthen the Clause. The Chief Secretary seems to think they do. I can construe this Clause in this way: "Notwithstanding the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant should be six years, without the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and with the intent that the continuance in office of the
  1494
  Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry." I take it that means we are to put a fixed term and not an indefinite term; that is, that when the Ministry goes out the Lord Lieutenant shall not be expected to resign. It goes no further than that The resignation of the Ministry is not to bring the term of the Lord Lieutenant to an end necessarily, but it leaves it open that it may. We put a fixed term in order that the Lord Lieutenant shall not be obliged to resign, but he might be pressed by the Ministry to resign. It is the difference between saying that he must not resign, and that he need not resign. Therefore, I take it, that it is a weakening phrase to put in, "with the intent," and it must strengthen the position to leave it out. The position of the Lord Lieutenant is going to be a difficult one in any case, because he has to act as the constitutional representative of the Sovereign as regards the Irish Ministry in some matters, and as the Executive officer of the British Ministry in other matters. You ought to strengthen his position and keep it as independent as possible. If you leave in the words "with intent," you must weaken the position, because you will only be saying you are not obliged to go out. You do not say, "You are not to go out." I submit that you ought to lay down without ambiguity that the position of the Lord Lieutenant is not to be affected by and his continuance in office is not to depend upon any change of Ministry. I do submit that you ought to do all that is possible to strengthen his position, and make it as independent as possible. These words will weaken it, and unless the Solicitor-General can show that they do not, then the Amendment to the Amendment ought to be accepted.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): Let me assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have no desire in this matter except to get this Clause expressed in a wise and proper way. Nobody suggests that this Clause makes the difference between Home Rule and no Home Rule, and it must be obvious to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we can have no possible motive in this matter except, to the best of our ability, to get the Clause properly expressed. Hon. Members opposite have made speeches quite reasonable in tone, of course, and, if they had shown any reason why the words should be omitted, I hope that no pride of mine or of anybody else would prevent our agreeing forthwith to the Amendment. But I honestly do not

  1495
  think they have shown any reason, and I am very willing to state why I do not think so. I must ask the House to believe that the single object we have in view is to get the Clause put into a proper form, and that is why we may appear to be a little obstinate on this otherwise trumpery point. No one dislikes more than I do lawyers' discussions in the House of Commons on points of technicality. The matter stands in this way: Exactly the same phrase is to be found in the Bill of 1893. If you turn to that Bill you will find that which corresponds textually to Sub-section (2) of Clause 31 of the present Bill; and when that Clause was dealt with in 1893, Mr. Gladstone said it was framed and expressed in order to get rid of the partisan and political character of the office of Lord Lieutenant. Speaking for myself, and after having spent some little time in examining the different Constitutions of the Empire beyond the Seas, I confess that my own view of this Clause is that it is right as it stands, and I doubt very much whether it will be in any way improved by any addition at all. It was pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite that a Governor, a Viceroy, or a Governor-General, in different parts of the British Dominions, are always what you may call non-political.
  The Lord Lieutenant in the past has been a political personage, and that is a good reason for saying more explicitly in the Home Rule Bill what is intended. The point the hon. Gentleman puts to me is this: What in the view of the Government is the effect and value of this phrase "with the intent," whether it was a strengthening or a weakening phrase? I think I can show the reason why the words are used and why they are quite right. The object we have in view in adding those words is not to change what I believe to be the effect of the Bill—it is to make clear that it is the intention of Parliament that this office of Lord Lieutenant, which in the past has been of a partisan character, certainly of a political character, is to be what is called a non-political office. I think that is sufficiently indicated by saying that the term of office is a fixed term of years, and that we intend that the office should be of a non-political rather than a political character. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I am sure he would have been the first to complain, in view of the consequences which hon. Gentlemen opposite say may ensue from this Bill, if we had put in other terms. Sup-
  1496
  pose for the sake of argument—which we on this side most stoutly repudiate as ridiculous—that if Home Rule were carried and we got a state of very serious disturbance throughout Ireland, and that in this country it was thought the Lord Lieutenant in the discharge of his duties had grossly failed to maintain the claims of the Crown, and that nothing was more urgent than that the Government should recall him, and, if it refused to do so, it were defeated at the poll in this country—does anybody suppose that under these circumstances the victorious party in this country would have a mandate to withdraw the Lord Lieutenant?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I quite admitted that.
  Sir J. SIMON: Is not that an extreme case? It is right when you are drafting a Constitution which is not for to-day or tomorrow, but for all future circumstances which we cannot foresee, that you should put in your Bill the object that this appointment should be non-political.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not displace the case put by my hon. Friend. The case the right hon. Member puts against us is that a Ministry comes in and he asks, Is that a mandate to revoke the commission of the Lord Lieutenant? If these words are left in there is nothing to prevent that being done, because he would have remained in office in spite of the change of the Ministry. It would only have been when the new Ministry came in that they could recall him.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member has made a subtle distinction. I thought what I suggested was that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. I well remember it being once said by one of the most distinguished Members of this House that there was nothing so technical as a layman talking law. To suppose that there is some point and substance which is operating behind these words when the utmost that can be said one way or the other is that it is a matter of a drafting, and when in the view of people who advise us, as well as of ourselves, we have used the words that are apt, is really to ask the House of Commons to spend a great deal of time on a very small point. If I saw any solid ground for omitting these words, I would be the first, so far as it is within my authority or power, to say they ought

  1497
  to go. But it is because this is the apt way to express our object of making this office non-political as opposed to political that, with great respect to the arguments that have been used, I do suggest it is right to retain the words.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I am rather puzzled owing to the speech we have just listened to. The hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke in the course of this Debate told us he was always willing to consider any reasonable suggestion or provision we ask for on any substantial matter. I think it would interest the House if he were to tell us on what particular occasion he ever voted in favour of any such request or provision throughout the whole of these Debates.
  Mr. KING: I voted in favour of women being given the vote.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: That only shows the hon. Member has got one weak point. The Solicitor-General has completely ignored what is the matter in question between us. We have asked what is the meaning and object of the insertion of these words, and how do they strengthen or weaken the language of the proposed Amendment of the Government. That point he has entirely ignored. He says that it is perfectly plain that there are conceivable cases in which it would be essential and necessary to remove the Lord Lieutenant, but then what is the meaning of the Amendment? I understood the meaning of the Amendment was to give a sense of security and permanency of tenure to this office. Either the words do that or they do not. If they are sufficiently strong, then what is the use of saying to us that, notwithstanding these words, it will be quite open to the Government of the day to remove the Lord Lieutenant any time they think fit? That is the argument of the Solicitor-General. He says it would be ridiculous to give the Lord Lieutenant permanent tenure, because one could conceive circumstances in which the Government would be compelled to remove him. These words have no meaning unless they are intended to secure some sort of permanent tenure. I have not during the course of the Debates been a hostile critic of the drafting of the Bill. I do not like the Bill or any line of it, but I must say the expert advisers in the matter of drafting have done their work very well indeed, and I have no desire, quite the reverse, to in any way unfavourably criticise their work. I do
  1498
  wish, since the Solicitor-General has not done so, that someone would tell us the use of these words, "What is the intent." Do they increase the sentence or make it any more clear? They make it, to my mind, unmeaning, unless they are put in to give that loophole which the Solicitor-General suggested in order to defeat the express language of the Section and the express purpose of the Amendment, as I understood it, namely, to give a sense of security to the holder of the office, and not to make him dependent on a change of parties over here or a conflict of politics either at home or in this country. If that is the object, why are these words put in? Would not the exact same be accomplished by saying that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: You do not say that to put in "with the intent" prevents that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not see the object of putting them in unless it is to throw doubts on the bona fides of the provision. It that if the intention, it is plain enough. It is a most extraordinary and novel departure in drafting to put in words to explain the intent of the subsequent language. The subsequent language is perfectly clear, and the introduction of these words can only be to weaken the security given, and in that view, and in that view only, is the argument of the Solicitor-General pertinent when he said that it was perfectly plain, notwithstanding these words, it might be desirable, and probably would be desirable to put an end to the continuance of the office.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I never said anything about a probability of the kind.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman said he could conceive many cases arising.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I was careful to point out that it was suggested by a Gentleman on the other side.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Then that makes the position of the right hon. Gentleman more absurd. If he does not think that any case will ever arise in which the Ministry will have to remove the Lord Lieutenant, then his opposition to the Amendment proposed is all the more unreasonable, because the object is to make this position more permanent and its continuance more secure than it would be with the introdue-

  1499
  tion of the words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made confusion worse confounded. I understood that he was defending the insertion of these words as depriving the words of that idea of permanent security and retention they otherwise would have. He said they were useful on that account because one could conceive cases in which the Ministry might like to determine the office. He now tells us that was not his argument, and that he had no such belief. If his belief is that the occasion will never arise, and if his desire is to add to the importance of the office by increasing the security of tenure, then he ought to be in favour of the omission of these words. I cannot understand why the Government is resisting this pro-
  posal, which I admit is not an exciting or big matter. It is really a test of sincerity and of reasonableness, and, on the contention of the Government, the omission of these words would strengthen their-purpose rather than weaken it.
  Mr. NEWMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the House was prepared to come to a decision very shortly without that Motion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 93.

  Division No. 504.]

  AYES.

  [9.6 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Keating, Matthew

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Arnold, Sydney

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Field, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Furness, Stephen

  Leach, Charles

  Bentham, G. J.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gilhooly, James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McGhee, Richard

  Brace, William

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Brady, P. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Guiney, P.

  M'Kean, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gulland, John William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hackett, J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hancock, John George

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Clough, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molloy, M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morrell, Philip

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crean, Eugene

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Munro, R.

  Crooks, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Cullinan, J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Neilson, Francis

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hogge, James Myles

  O Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Doris, W.

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Malley, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Shee, James John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wadsworth, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rowlands, James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Wardle, George J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Webb, H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sheehy, David

  Wiles, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rea, Rt Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Reddy, M.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Roberts, G. H. Norwich)

  Thomas, J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baird, J. L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Boyton, James

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chambers, J.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Sykes, Alan John (Cites., Knutsford)

  Cralg, Charles (Antrim, S.)

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

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Doughty, Sir George

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

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Moore, William

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newman, John R. P.

  H. Carlile and Mr. Wright.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Sir H. CARLILE: On a point of Order. It is my intention to move the other Amendments standing in my name. Can I do so now?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member has exhausted his right.
  Sir H. CARLILE: By agreement with Mr. Speaker I was allowed in my speech to deal with the three Amendments together. I understood that that did not deprive me of the right to move the Amendments as they came, but that I had not the right to make three speeches.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member has exhausted his right, because the moving of an Amendment counts as a speech. But one of the hon. Member's colleagues may move the Amendment in his stead.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE rose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Hope.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, as-an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "affected by," ["shall not be affected by any change of Ministry"], and insert instead thereof the words "dependent upon."[HON. MEM-

  1503
  BERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your calling upon me meets with the approval of so large a section of hon. Members opposite. I can only hope that the argument that I am about to address to the House will fully vindicate the wisdom of your selection.
  Mr. MOORE: On a point of Order—
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Has not the hon. Member for Sheffield already spoken, and thus exhausted his right to speak?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. Member has already spoken.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order, Sir, surely, having called upon me, you cannot revoke that?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He spoke on the Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Albans, but he did not speak on the main question, and therefore is entitled to speak.
  Mr. MOORE: On a point of Order. I have been in this House for this Debate during a considerable time, and I heard the hon. Member for St. Albans say that he moved three Amendments. You said that that was impossible. The Chief Secretary said that we were only going to deal with them one at a time, and the Chief Secretary further said—I am dealing with the intent of his words—that we were to deal with the other Amendments subsequently. I only want it to be made clear, carrying out that intention, that we only dealt with the words "with the intent that." To prevent any misunderstanding, I want your ruling as to whether we can discuss the subsequent Amendments, to leave out the words "affected by" and insert the words "dependent upon," and also the third Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans? Such a proceeding is only in conformity with what has been ruled and adopted by both sides.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albans rightly said that he had covered all three points. The opinion I gave then, and which I dealt with subsequently on a point of Order—and it was correctly stated—was that only one Amendment, in fact, could be before the House at one time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am sure the whole House will be glad that the great merits of the arguments I am about to adduce to them shall not be lost. I submit really that the words "shall not be affected by any change of Ministry" are nonsense, and that the continuance of the Lord Lieutenant's office may be affected by a change of Ministry, and no words which are put in can prevent it. For instance, he may have had to do with a sympathetic Irish Minister of the Government with whom he got on very well. The Government as a whole he may have been sympathetic with. Another Ministry may have been appointed with whom he finds it is impossible to work. Therefore, his continuance will undoubtedly be affected, and he will consider at once whether his relations with that particular Minister are such as to make it possible for him to continue in office. I think you need the words "dependent upon"—that is to say, that I do not think that the Lord Lieutenant's office should be dependent upon a change of Ministry. I admit the point is a small one, but I think I have sufficiently shown that the words cannot be maintained as they stand. I am sure that the Solicitor-General, with his charming reasonableness and plausibility, will at once admit the cogency of my argument and will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have had the shortest possible notice of this, but perhaps if I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to what it is he wishes this Bill to be, it will suffice. He asks, "That the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be dependent upon any change of Ministry." Consequently, the only thing that would keep the poor Lord Lieutenant in office would be a constant change of Ministry here.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: No, no, "shall not be dependent upon."
  Sir J. SIMON: I will repeat. The hon. Gentleman wants the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant not to be dependent upon a change of Ministry here. It follows therefore that the only thing that will keep the poor man in office will be a change of Ministry here. I agree.
  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and negatived.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "and the Lord Lieutenant shall in the discharge of the duties of his office conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions in relation to matters of political controversy."
  I ask the Government to agree to this Amendment in order to redeem the pledge which the Prime Minister gave at an earlier stage, and which I think really must have been entirely overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman in putting down his Amendment. Otherwise I am quite certain he would not have so flagrantly departed from the promise of the Prime Minister. Before I call attention to what the Prime Minister said, let me say that the arguments adduced from this side of the House upon the question were that words should be put into the Bill making it quite clear that for the future an office such as that of the Lord Lieutenant shall not, as in the past, be a political office in the ordinary sense of the word, but that it should be on the same lines as those of the Governors of the Dominions—that he shall be a Viceroy in the true sense—and that the officer should be precluded by the terms of his office from taking any part in the ordinary political controversies of the country which he governs. When that argument was placed before the Committee the Prime Minister in reply said that he was much impressed by the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, and he followed by saying:—
  "I have no objection to put one in the Bill."
  That is to say, a phrase such as my hon. Friend was then urging. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not like the form of words, but he himself wrote down what he thought for the moment would be a proper way of meeting the argument of my hon. Friend. These were the words which the Prime Minister wrote down:—
  "The Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office, conform to the accustomed practice of the Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions."
  It is quite true that the Prime Minister guarded himself against promising those precise words. We have no desire whatever to tie him down literally to any particular words, but the Prime Minister quite clearly showed that he recognised the claim from our side of the House as a just one; that words to the effect stated should be added to the Clause in order to make it certain that the intention should be carried out. The right hon. Gentle-
  1506
  man in the Amendment which he has put down has simply and entirely given the "go-by" to that promise of the Prime Minister. He has not put in words with any such meaning or intention. He has left out altogether any words whatever which would restrict the office of the Lord Lieutenant in future. As was pointed out in Committee, we are here dealing with an office around which has grown up a great mass of tradition and custom in the past—tradition and custom which as the Prime Minister himself said were compatible with the Lord Lieutenant from time to time being actually a Member of the Cabinet of the day. There have been recent instances of that, and in any case, whether in the Cabinet or not the Lord Lieutenant has been frankly recognised as a party official of the Government of the day. Therefore you cannot, when dealing with the Lord Lieutenant of the future, leave out of account these traditions. The facts must be faced. You have not merely to deal here as if you were appointing the Governor of the new Dominion or a Colony with the presumption that you have all the traditions which attach to the position of Colonial Governor. You have to deal in the future with an officer bearing the same title and historical continuity that made the Lord Lieutenant in the past always a party man. Therefore you do require, I submit, very precise words to show that a change of policy and tradition is to take place. I need not labour it further, and I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman only looks at the promise given by the Prime Minister he will frankly see he is departing from the words of the Prime Minister.
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Amendment in very few words, because I raised the same points when speaking on the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Member for St. Albans (Sir H. Carlile). The Chief Secretary said he was constitutionally inclined to prefer any words that carried out the intention rather than his own. In that case he should accept this Amendment, because the words therein are the words of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that all of us, including the Prime Minister himself, thought that the words which we propose to add to the Clause do make it perfectly plain that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in so far as his appointment is concerned is to be radically changed, and

  1507
  that the Lord Lieutenant will become by virtue of the words we propose to add a non-political person and therefore will be bound by the rules which apply to such persons wherever they are to be found. That is our belief as to the effect of these words. I quite agree that the Prime Minister sketched out some words such as those read by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But the hon. Gentleman said, with the candour that belongs to him, he did not want to hold the Prime Minister to his words. I call attention to what the Prime Minister said on the 4th December, and these are really the governing words:—
  "I merely throw it out for the consideration of the Committee, so that at a later stage we may be able to devise some form meeting with general assent. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General reminds me that we must be very careful about the form of words. There is considerable danger lurking in the words "Governors of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions," because they might be construed to mean that we were setting up in Ireland a system of self-government similar in all respects, or in all substantial respects, to that which prevails in the Oversea Dominions. Therefore I do not want to be wedded to this form of words; but I undertake—"
  And this is the undertaking we think is carried out—
  'and I hope this will meet the general view of hon. Gentlemen opposite—to endeavour to find and to insert at a later stage a form of words which will carry out the hon. and learned Gentleman's object, and make it perfectly clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it has been in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day, but that of an impartial person discharging his duties in accordance with those traditions which are now well established in self-governing portions of the Empire."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 4th December, 1912, cols. 2397–2398, Vol. XLIV.]
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Why do you not say so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We think we do say so, because we have made by this Amendment the Lord Lieutenant a non-political officer, and we have said his office shall not in any way depend on any change of Ministry. What else, therefore, can it be but a non-political office? I do not think it would be at all desirable to introduce into a Bill of this sort reference to the Oversea Dominions, and that he should conform to the customs and habits of Governors-General in South Africa and elsewhere. It would be rather difficult to say what the habits of these persons are. I have known Governors-General of the greatest distinction, men of the highest intellectual eminence, who have made political speeches in the Dominions.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: And in Ireland.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all. Ireland is the best example of loyalty in such matters, and if you hunt through the speeches of Lords Lieutenant appointed by both parties down to the present, I venture to say you will not find any Lords Lieutenant, even when they were Cabinet Ministers, making political speeches in Ireland.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: What about the last General Election?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That was not in Ireland, and it was perfectly plain that the only way in which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was then subject in any way to be called to account was not because he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but Lord Lieutenant of Aberdeen. I can assure the hon. Baronet that if it was necessary to go into it, I could give far worse examples, not really bad examples, but still deviations from the rules binding on Lords Lieutenant of speeches made by Conservative Lords Lieutenant in this country—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid this is not in order and may lead to controversy.
  Mr. BIRRELL: What I meant to say is, there is binding upon the Lords Lieutenant under the present Constitution, nothwithstanding that they may be political partisans, an understanding which may indeed have been broken here or there by one Lord Lieutenant under one Government and one Lord Lieutenant under another, but it is certainly not compatible with the position of a Lord Lieutenant as at present constituted, nor with the position of Governor-Generals and persons in the Oversea Dominions, that they should go gallivanting about the country making speeches on questions of policy. To introduce into this Bill references to Governors-General of our Oversea Dominions would, I am satisfied, be the worst possible method, and the Government cannot consent to its being done. I am very mindful of the pledge of the Prime Minister to introduce words to make it perfectly plain and clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it was in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day. We say we have done that in the best and most effective possible way, not by words necessarily loose, and which might lead to conflict by saying you are to conform to somebody else's standard. Nothing would be more difficult

  1509
  than to introduce behaviour and conduct into an Act of Parliament, but when you say that a person, instead of being a Liberal or a Unionist administrator, is to be a non-political person holding office for six years, and when you make it perfectly plain that the tenure of his office is in no way to depend upon the change of Ministry, I say you place it beyond all possibility of dispute that that person must fulfil the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister. I say that the Amendment proposed from the opposite side is impossible. I am quite willing to use words—
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Why not the Prime Minister's words?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Prime Minister said he would not hold to the words because the Attorney-General called his attention to the fact that there was considerable danger putting in the words "Governors of the Oversea Dominions." The Prime Minister made it perfectly plain what it was that he wanted to make clear and what the position of the Lord Lieutenant was to be. We have made it clear. I am anxious to carry the Opposition with me in this matter, and if they suggest other words not open to the objections to which the words they have suggested are open, and which I cannot get over, I am perfectly willing to listen to them, but I say most candidly that the words we have put upon the Paper do carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: This is a question which really affects the good faith of His Majesty's Government, and if there were any grounds for the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that the words of this Amendment carry out the pledge given by the Prime Minister I should have nothing to say. But let me call the attention of the House to this fact in order that hon. Members may see how ludicrous is the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman's words go within miles of the pledge given by the Prime Minister. What are the words which he says secure the pledge being carried out that words would be inserted to prevent the appointment of the Lord Lieutenant being in the nature of a partisan appointment. The Chief Secretary has said that that was the pledge, and he is right. The pledge, whatever the form of words, was clear and precise, and it was to make it plain that the Lord Lieutenant was in no sense a partisan. These are the words which the
  1510
  right hon. Gentleman says carry out that pledge:—
  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry."
  Mr. BIRRELL: The term of office will be six years.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Our contention is that the words proposed do not secure this object. The Chief Secretary has been contending that his Amendment carries out the pledge of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It makes it plain.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I will not be put off by references to anything else. If the Clause was all right before it did not require an Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman has said, in order to carry out the Prime Minister's pledge, he proposes to insert the following words:—
  "and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry."
  You make a partisan appointment and the Government which succeeds you may be of different politics. That is to say a Conservative Government may be in office. You appoint a partisan to this office, and in order to secure that he shall be un-partisan you provide that he is not to go out of office when a Radical Government succeeds you. I never heard of a more ridiculous suggestion than that language of that sort is going to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, it is going to defeat that pledge because it gives a sort of freehold tenure to the person selected, however partisan he may be. The Prime Minister realised the danger and dealt with it in a most honourable way, so far as promises went, because he gave a distinct promise that when the Report stage was reached words would be inserted which in reality and substance would provide a safeguard in the direction we desire. Of course, he suggested that it would be most unfair to bind him to words spoken on the spur of the moment, and he suggested the very words which have been adopted by the hon. Member who has put down this Amendment It is true that he put in a word of caution at the time and said that there may be lurking in the words "Governors of Overseas Dominions" some difficulty. Does anyone assert that there does

  1511
  lurk any difficulty in those words? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Then what is the difficulty? Nobody who was really anxious to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister honourably would have ever made the ridiculous criticisms which have just been made by the Chief Secretary. Everybody knows what is meant by "the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions." It is the practice of those Governors not to interfere in the local politics of the Colonies they govern. The practice in the case of Ireland has been the reverse in recent years. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I do not wish to introduce into the Debate any elements of bitterness, but I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite of many instances within the last six years which would demonstrate that in the case of a particular holder of this particular office, he was an open partisan.
  Has there ever been any suggestion that the practice of the Overseas Dominion Governors has been partisan in local politics? The practice has always been according to the tradition that the Governors of Overseas Dominions do not interfere in matters of political controversy. I do not say that there has not been exceptions, but we are now dealing with the criticisms which the hon. Gentleman passed on the words of this Amendment. These words do not say it is the universal practice, but we say, "the accustomed practice." Is there any man in this House, or out of it, who would not understand those words, and know that they meant to keep up the good, honourable tradition of the Governors of Overseas Dominions, that so far as matters of local political controversy were concerned they would keep out of them. Do these words accomplish that object. I think the words of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from giving any relief, as I have already pointed out, may possibly intensify the difficulty; because with a partisan in the office, you provide by your Amendment that he is not to lose his office in the event of the Government which appointed him ceasing to hold office and another Government taking its place. That is a very curious way of securing a non-partisan Lord Lietuenant in Ireland. I do not profess to be wedded to these particular words. I think the Prime Minister suggested words which are exceedingly good and incapable of abuse or misunderstanding. If the words "accustomed practice" are not acceptable, I would suggest "recognised tradition."
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of what?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions.
  Mr. BIRRELL: "Representatives of His Majesty" would be better.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Those are equally good words, although I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should be so terrified about the word "Overseas." If it had been "half-seas over" I could have understood it. I am quite willing to take the words "His Majesty's representatives." They are equally good, and the same thing in every way. I am not fighting for a shadow, because I believe this is a substantial matter, and it derives its substance, to my mind, more than anything else from the fact that it involves the pledge and the honour of the Prime Minister. I am quite sure the Prime Minister himself would be the last not to wish to have in this Bill this promise honourably fulfilled. It is plain to demonstration that the proposed words of the Chief Secretary—and I am bound to say, in his favour, he seems to be conscious of it—do not carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister, and whilst we are not wedded to his particular words, we make this suggestion, and we are willing to accept some such words as the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, "according to the accustomed practice and recognised position of His Majesty's representatives."
  Mr. LEES SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has indicated that he might be disposed to accept this Amendment or to accept words similar to the Amendment. I should not have risen excepting to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to do anything of the sort. I am bound to say that it seems to me that the introduction of these words would lead to consequences which hon. Gentlemen opposite have not yet faced. They have confined their attention almost entirely to the accustomed practice from the point of view of His Majesty's Government, but the Chief Secretary put a question which reveals the danger of introducing such words, or the words which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. What is the accustomed practice? Or what is the recognised position in internal politics of Governors of the Overseas Dominions? These words only become of importance in cases of difficulty in the Overseas

  1513
  Dominions, and when the cause of the difficulty is great there has been the greatest variety of opinion, and there have been most acute disputes as to what the accustomed practice of the Governor is or ought to be. Only in the last four years, I believe, there have been votes of censure in Colonial Parliaments upon the Governors because the view of the party has not been the view of the Governor as to what is the recognised practice in matters of contentious legislation. I did not take down the exact words, but I think it was the Mover of the Amendment who seemed to be misled by the idea that the proper position of the Lord Lieutenant would be identical with that of a Colonial Governor. What is the general line of policy which a Colonial Governor pursues? Surely it is that he will not, in any circumstances whatever, interfere in Colonial legislation, provided that that legislation touches no Imperial interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish this alteration to be made? Does he mean to say that we are to tell the Lord Lieutenant that under no circumstances whatever is he to interfere with Irish legislation in matters which are within the competence of the Irish Parliament.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: That is not the point.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: That is the point. That is what you would tell him if he were to follow the practice of the Governors of Overseas Dominions. Take a case which has been raised in these Debates. An hon. Member opposite during the course of the financial Debates, expressed grave anxiety lest the Irish Parliament should levy differential taxes against us. It is inconceivable to me, but I take that instance because it is the case of hon. Members opposite. In the case of a self-governing Colony, however vindictive or predatory the taxation of the Colony would appear to be, it would be contrary to the custom and practice—
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I thought you said there was no such thing.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I said there was, but that it broke down in cases of difficulty. It would be contrary to the practice and recognised position of a Colonial Governor for him to intervene in that case. Does the right hon. Gentleman then say that if the Irish Parliament were to attempt to pay back old scores to Ulster by trying to ruin her industries we should instruct the Lord Lieutenant to simply assent without question or debate?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: That does not arise. It is forbidden by the Bill.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: No, the Irish Parliament is allowed to levy taxes and to vary customs and excise.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Not to discriminate.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: There is nothing about discrimination, except with regard to religion. You say yourselves that the Bill allows them to discriminate against us. I think that very argument goes to prove that the position of the Lord Lieutenant is not identical, and would not necessarily be always identical with that of a Governor of an Overseas Dominion. What would it lead to in times of difficulty if you instructed him always to follow the practice? Hon. Members have spoken as if the recognised position in these Overseas Dominions were something which was fixed and unalterable and could be put into a Bill. As a matter of fact, it is always changing, and it is not going to cease to change on the day that this Bill is passed. In that class of legislation which indirectly affects Imperial interests the practice of Colonial Governors is still developing. Do hon. Members really mean to say that the practice of the Lord Lieutenant is to change because the practice of the Governors of New Zealand or Canada is changing? I do hope the Government will not give way on this point. It all shows that the proper line of policy to pursue is the line which has been such a great success in the self-governing Colonies, and that is to let the practice of the Lord Lieutenant develop by fitting itself to the special circumstances as they arise, and not to tie him down by all these vague and semi-meaningless contentious terms written down in an Act of Parliament.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken has taken a most remarkable view of what was said by the Prime Minister. The matter is one of some importance, not only as it affects the Lord Lieutenant, but as it affects the position of the Prime Minister and his promise in this House. Let me recall the circumstances under which this particular proposal came up. It so happened that on the afternoon of the day on which this came up we had moved an Amendment which proposed to entrust certain powers and duties to the Lord Lieutenant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in resisting the Amendment, did so on the ground that

  1515
  he thought it was not a good thing that these duties should be entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant, because, to use his own words, the Lord Lieutenant might, and probably would, be a partisan. If that is challenged I have the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman here, because I took the trouble to get the quotation before I made the statement. Here is what he actually said:—
  "The only difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and ourselves is this. He says. 'Brush aside the Irish Courts, ignore them and get to the Privy Council through the Lord Lieutenant.'"
  Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on:—
  "But he may be a partisan. The right hon. Gentleman assumes all the partisanship is in Ireland, but you may have a partisan Lord Lieutenant."
  That was the position when we reached the Amendment that night. It appeared to us to be a serious state of affairs, and we have, therefore, brought forward this Amendment in order to ensure that the Lord Lieutenant shall not be a partisan, and shall not interfere in current matters of political controversy in Ireland. The Prime Minister received that proposition with considerable favour, not only in regard to general principles, but in relation to particular words. May I remind the House again that the words now used are the very words suggested by the Prime Minister in Committee? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not bind himself to particular words, but I think I can show that some such words as these are wanted in order to carry out the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member opposite said it was of no use to compare the Lord Lieutenant with the Governor of one of His Majesty's Dominions, because the case was not on all fours; but there he is in direct conflict with what the Prime Minister said in Committee, so far as this particular matter is concerned. As to the position of the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "It does not appear to me that his duties and responsibilities ought to differ from those of a Governor in one of our Dominions."
  He went on at some length to develop that argument in order to show that the position of the Governor in one of His Majesty's Dominions ought to be the position and conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Chief Secretary, I believe, took the view that the Prime Minister did not pledge himself to any particular form of words. But he did go so far as to suggest a form of words, and
  1516
  they were embodied in the closing words of his speech. If I may I will read them to the House in order that the House may see how they conflict. The Prime Minister said:—
  "Therefore I think the temptation, if I may use the expression to the Lord Lieutenant in these altered circumstances, to interfere as a partisan either in Irish or - British politics is a temptation which ought not to exist, and which certainly, we are all agreed, he ought not to yield to, and I think that sufficient, having regard to the dignity of the office. We will insert words in this Clause to make it clear that in this respect he has to conform to what is now the well-established practice, never violated in many years past, by those entrusted by the Crown with the performance of analogous duties in other portions of the British Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, cols. 2405-G, Vol. XLIV.]
  Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously state that the words of his Amendment carry out that pledge of the Prime Minister? I do not believe they do, and I say it is incumbent on the Government, in view of the Prime Minister's promise, and in view of the pledge on the face of which we withdrew from the position we had taken up—that it is incumbent on the Government, and incumbent on the House, to insist that the Government shall take some steps to carry out the pledge they gave.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I remember taking part in the debate from which my hon. Friend has just quoted, and I remember appealing to the Prime Minister's speech and commenting on it after in debate. The Prime Minister seemed to me to be perfectly explicit in his reply to the objection raised on this side of the House, and as my hon. Friend has said, he went so far as to declare that the Governor of Ireland should conform to the usual practice, the traditional practice, the well-established practice of the Governors of our Overseas Dominions. I do not think hon. Members opposite should quibble on this matter, because the sense of the Prime Minister's speech sunk deeply into the minds of every hon. Member present at the time. The right hon. Gentleman wrote it down. Can it be suggested that the Government has fulfilled their pledge and promise by the Amendment which has been brought forward by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? If pledges mean anything at all in this House, if honour means anything, the Amendment set down by the right hon. Gentleman should be entirely different. The hon. Member for Northampton is, no doubt, an authority on many things, but having listened to his speeches on this and other constitutional questions I am not absolutely

  1517
  certain that he has mastered the procedure of constitutional government in our Overseas Dominions. The Governor in an Oversea Dominion, whether the Governor of a province or of a federal Constitution, is strictly bound by the Constitution itself.
  There is no such thing, as the hon. Member suggests, as development of practice or custom in our Oversea Dominions. The Governor of the Dominion, be it Canada or Australia, is tied and bound by the authority given to him at the time the Constitution is granted, and he cannot depart from it. That is very strictly laid down. The Governor of a province—and here is where the confusion comes in in the mind of the hon. Gentleman—may reserve a Bill, for instance, in Canada, and may send it back to the provincial Government and ask it to reconsider it, not from the standpoint of policy, but from the standpoint of constitutional procedure. The Government may have overstepped the bounds of constitutional procedure in their Bill. They may have crossed the line of federal legislation. Then the Governor is strictly bound by constitutional authority to make the comment which is justified, and which he is bound to make, since the Constitution tells him that no Bill which comes before him which crosses the line of federal legislation shall receive his consent but shall be referred back again to the provincial Government.
  The same thing applies to a federal Government. There the Governor is strictly bound, and it is folly to talk about the development of practice. I have never seen anything of it, and I have studied the development of Oversea Constitutions with very great care. I remember a case in which the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was concerned, where he had to take action when a Ministry was leaving office and were about to appoint a great number of partisan members to the Senate. He, according to the constitutional practice to which he was committed as a servant of His Majesty, was bound to intervene, and he did so. But it was accustomed practice. There was no development of any new traditions, nor the making of any new precedents. What I want to come to is this: that in the case of Ireland you have a far more difficult position for the Lord Lieutenant or the Governor of Ireland than exists in the case of any federal Constitution, or in the case of any provincial Governor throughout the Oversea Dominions, because you have the
  1518
  reserved services. The Governor of Ireland is in a very delicate position. He has to act for the Imperial Government in regard to the Imperial services, and he also has to act, within the Constitution, for the provincial Government, the Government of Ireland itself. That is all the more reason why the position of the Governor should be made perfectly clear, and that, as the Prime Minister said, he should conform to the usual practice, that is to say, never interfere in any question of local policy, never, indeed, to express an opinion upon local policy, but only in the case where the Irish Government may have exceeded its rights, as he thinks, under the Constitution, or has traversed the relations which constitutionally should exist between the Irish Government and the Imperial Government, only then to intervene.
  I repeat that every Governor-General, every Governor and every Lieutenant-Governor throughout the Oversea Dominions has before him always an established practice. That established practice we want followed in Ireland. As I ventured to say in the last Debate, the position in Ireland is a very difficult one. You are trying an experiment for the first time with a provincial Government in Ireland. That is all the more reason why the Government should take express care to see that there should be established throughout the United Kingdom and throughout Ireland itself a feeling of confidence that no longer should the Governor of Ireland have that partisan position which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has at the present time. He has been a Member of the Cabinet in past Governments. The Chief Secretary is a Member of the Government, and the Lord Lieutenant is controlled in his actions very largely by partisan directions. If that is the case, we want to be able to say that the Governor of Ireland is controlled in no sense by any partisan directions or by any partisan practice which has grown up in the course of the history of the Government of Ireland since the Treaty of Union. I sincerely hope that the House will be able to recognise to-night that the Prime Minister, through the Chief Secretary, has redeemed an honourable pledge to this House, which not to redeem is to bring the Government into contempt at a time when it can least afford to be brought into contempt, namely, towards the close of the Debates on this Home Rule Bill.
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not doubt that the view I take of this matter will be shared by every hon. Member, that is, that this is a serious matter. It is a serious matter from the point of view of those who sit on this side, not because we believe we are doing anything but fulfilling the pledge the head of the Government gave, but it is serious from our point of view because, although we have done what we thought to be right, it is plain that some hon. Gentlemen opposite think we have failed. Therefore, because we think it is no good discussing who is right or wrong about that, but because we want to discharge an undertaking which hon. Gentlemen opposite think is not being discharged, that we take the view that the matter is one which the Government ought to take into consideration with a view to revision. It is in that spirit that I approach the matter. The hon. Member who spoke last will forgive me if I do not follow him. I do not wish to make any comment on the somewhat strong language with which he concluded his speech. That being my object, how do we stand? The Prime Minister expressed in very clear terms what the hon. Gentleman has just expressed again as the object he has in view, the object that we have in view, and which I believe the House has in view, namely, of making provision in the Bill as to the status and conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I confess, as I said on an earlier Amendment, that I believe that the Clause as it stands in the Bill at this moment, properly construed, has the effect desired. That was certainly the view taken by a great authority like Mr. Gladstone in 1893, when he said that the words as they stand printed in the Bill now would effect the object and prevent the Lord Lieutenant from having a partisan character.
  Be that as it may, it was certainly the undertaking given that we would propose additional words which would make that doubly sure. We believed, and we still believe that that is done by the Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary, but so long as we can get over a difficulty which is sincerely felt, but which is a pure matter of language, it is our most earnest desire to propose, if necessary, additional or alternative words which will allow this matter to drop, without there being the slightest reason for suspicion or doubt as to bona fides on one side or the other. The suggestion I would make to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is this.
  1520
  We do feel a difficulty, in spite of the very learned and interesting explanation we have just had from the hon. Gentleman who proceeded me, in referring in terms to the Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions. For myself, I am not at all prepared to subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view that the extent to which different Governors have at different times acted has always been precisely defined. Probably the view of the hon. Gentleman will be thoroughly met if we do something of this sort. If hon. Members will look at the Amendment which is now before the House, it reads in this way—
  "and that"
  plainly the word "that" must come in—
  "and that the Lord Lieutenant shall in relation to matters of political controversy in the discharge of the duties of his office conform to the accustomed practice of those discharging analogous duties under the Crown."
  It occurs to us that there is a real danger in introducing the expression "Oversea Dominions." There may be in time to come some change in their Constitution or in their number. Newfoundland may take a different position in connection with Canada or we may have further Dominions created here, and we have to proceed here on the basis that we are framing a Constitution not for to-day or to-morrow, but it may be for many years to come, and if hon. Members opposite think these words fairly discharge, as we most earnestly desire, not only to do, but to do in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave, I ask that this Amendment be withdrawn, and I will undertake to move mine.
  Sir E. CARSON: This Amendment, which has been admitted to be an important one, I think demonstrates once more to the House the great difficulties under which we are carrying on this discussion, because we have had a considerable Debate before we could extract anything like the pledge which the Prime Minister gave for the Government, and there has been a good deal of controversy, and there is even now, as to what it was exactly the Prime Minister meant, and still here we are discussing this important question, and the one Gentleman who can tell us what he did mean has taken no part in the discussion at all. That is the way in which these Debates are generally carried on, and a good deal of the limited

  1521
  time that is given is devoted to finding out something that someone else has said when that someone else will not be here to tell us the meaning of what he said. In my opinion, at all events, what the Prime Minister meant was perfectly clear. He said he wished to make the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland exactly analagous to the office of the Governor-General in any of our Colonies. This was not a haphazard statement of the Prime Minister. He is as well able to draft as anyone else, and he not only suggested the words, but he said he wrote them down.
  Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has not been here in the early part of the Debate or he would know that the subject has several times been referred to, with this distinction, that hon. Members opposite have referred to it very fairly and candidly and pointed out that the Prime Minister went on to say he was not wedded to the words, and he was warned that the expression was a dangerous one.
  Sir E. CARSON: I heard the whole of the hon. Member's speech, and I have before me exactly what the Prime Minister said. His meaning was perfectly plain, and he says he wrote it down. He said he was not wedded to the exact words, but these were the words he thought were the best at the time. I really do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words mean. I do not know what he means, if he means to leave out "or in relation to the Colonics or the Dominions." What docs he mean by analogous duties under the Crown? Does he mean Canada or Australia or South Africa? That seems to me to be very far more indefinite than what the Prime Minister said. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said "the accustomed practice under the Crown in His Majesty's self-governing Dominions" I could understand what he means. That would be a perfectly explicit statement. When he says "under the Crown," he must have some reason for barring a reference to the Colonies, and if you leave out the Colonies what other position is there under the Crown which can be held to be analogous to the position the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland is to occupy under this Bill? They must put in words defining what they mean by analogous offices under the Crown in some way or other in reference to the Colonies, and that ought to be all the more easy for them if they have nothing else in their mind which is to be
  1522
  brought into the construction of the duties of the office.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member (Sir H. Carlile) withdraw the Amendment?
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I wish to ask the Government if they propose any other words to meet the objection of my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. BUTCHER: I hope the Solicitor-General will give some answer to the speech of my right hon. Friend. I have exactly the same objection as he put forward. The Government are using words which can only produce ambiguity and difficulty when they come to be construed. To whom do the Government refer when they suggest persons discharging analogous duties to those which the Lord Lieutenant will discharge under the Crown. I agree that the Governors of the Dominions do discharge duties in some senses similar, and in some senses dissimilar. If they mean that the Lord Lieutenant is to follow the established practice of Colonial Governors, or Governors of the Dominions, is it not possible to accept some such words as "the accustomed practice of those discharging analogous duties under the Crown in His Majesty's Overseas Dominions?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have something in his mind as to what is meant by "discharging analogous duties." If he does not mean the Governors of Dominions, what does he mean? If he means something else, would it not conduce to clearness if he were to introduce words showing what is meant? I appeal to him to put in some words to avoid, if I may use a somewhat rude expression, the almost studied and deliberate ambiguity involved in the words he has proposed.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am at the same disadvantage as my right hon. Friend, inasmuch as I did not hear the earlier part of the Debate. But after listening to the speech of the Solicitor-General and the reply of my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) I am at a loss to understand what is the objection to saying exactly what the Government means. The Solicitor-General said that there might be some change in the self-governing Dominions, and he instanced the case of Canada. That is perfectly true, and that would be a valid objection if you were going to name the Governor-General of a self-governing Dominion. We do not mean anything of the kind. The Solicitor-General has made

  1523
  it perfectly plain that the Lord Lieutenant should be in the same position as the Governor-General of one of the Colonies, and he says that will be obtained by putting in the words "discharging analogous duties under the Crown." What is the objection to saying "analogous duties under the Crown in the Overseas Dominions." It is perfectly plain that is what the Prime Minister meant. It is perfectly plain that is what the right hon. Gentleman says the Government still means. Then, why should the right hon. Gentleman object to put in the words?
  Sir J. SIMON: Really the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech perfectly plainly that upon reflection he saw himself an objection to the word "Governor." We think that we have already abundantly discharged the Prime Minister's pledge, whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite think so or not. I have made an offer which hon. Gentlemen were at perfect liberty to accept, if they chose, not to satisfy my conscience but in order that I might be able to feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite might only have themselves to blame if they did not accept it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that what he intended to do was to put in the Bill words to show that the Lord Lieutenant would be in precisely the same position as one of the Governors - General of our Colonies. Although I was not present at the Debate, I have looked at the words of the Prime Minister. Later on he said the objection had occurred to him that it was putting Ireland in the position of a self-governing Colony. We have so far never found that that was any objection to interfering with anything they were doing. If that is their objection, and we do not feel it, I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should say that there is a misunderstanding, and his object is to clear it up and satisfy us if he can. I cannot see any reason whatever why they should not do what was the obvious intention of the Prime Minister and put into the Bill now words which would carry out the promise
  which the Prime Minister then gave. This is what the Prime Minister said:—
  "Therefore in all respects the position of the Lord Lieutenant as contemplated by this Bill, is analogous if not in substance identical."
  We have had that before. We are agreed about that. The only thing we are disagreed about is this, that the Government, while saying that they intend it to be the same as in the self-governing Dominions.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—they have said it—for some mysterious reason which they do not explain, decline to put in the Bill, words which imply what they say they intend.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is worth while that the House should realise the attitude of the Opposition. This afternoon we had a long Debate with regard to appeals, and the whole point of the Opposition then, was that by giving the appeal to the Judicial Committee we were putting Ireland in the position of the Colonies. Now, to-night, they are dissatisfied with the Government because the Government decline to treat Ireland as a Colony. That is the situation. It is only one further illustration of the inconsistency of the Unionist criticism of the Bill. There is no instance of a Colonial Constitution in which any such definition of a Colonial Governor's position is contained, and if these words were added here, they would be practically meaningless.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I rise to call attention to the extraordinary action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland who, not satisfied with having guillotined the Resolution, applies private pressure to his own supporters. We see how shamelessly these things are staged. They are anxious to try to get rid of the odium of the odious system, and therefore they make believe that the hon. Member has finished his speech when he has not finished it.
  It being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December, 1912, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 288.

  Division No. 505.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Barnston, Harry

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Baird, J. L.

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Balcarres, Lord

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bird, A.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Boyton, James

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campion, W. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cator, John

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cautley, H. S.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Royds, Edmund

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Darwen)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Chambers, J.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerry, Earl of

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Keswick, Henry

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kimber, Sir Herry

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Touche, George Alexander

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Valentla, Viscount

  Fetherstonbaugh, Godfrey

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mlldmay, Francis Bingham

  Winterton, Earl

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Moore, William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Cordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Grant, J. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Greene, W. R.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  H. Carlile and Mr. Butcher.

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

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Alden, Percy

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  De Forest, Baron

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Delany, William

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

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Doris, W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barlow, Sir John Enwnott (Somerset)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barton, W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Falconer, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Brady, P. J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Field, William

  Srunner, John F. L.

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  1526

  1527

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Furness, Stephen

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rendal, Athelstan

  George Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richards, Thomas

  Gilhooly, James

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Gill, A. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ginnell, L.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kean, John

  Roch, Walter F.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Gulney, P.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Rowlands, James

  Gulland, John William

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hackett, J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hancock, John George

  Martin, Joseph

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Harmsworth, R. L (Caithness-shire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molloy, M.

  Sheehy, David

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Worrell, Philip

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morison, Hector

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Clcophas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Munro, R.

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hinds, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Thomas, J. H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Grady, James

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Illinyworth, Percy H.

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

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Wardle, George J.

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

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy P. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shee James John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Sullivan. Timothy

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Outhwaite, R. L

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  King, J.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon T McKinnon (Glas.)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Reddy, M.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Question put, "That the words 'and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be
  affected by any change of Ministry.' be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 174.

  Division No. 506.]

  AYES.

  [10.42 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Balfour, Sir Robet (Lanark)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Arnold, Sydney

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (somerset)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Neilson, Francis

  Barton, W.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Brace, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Down, John

  Brady, P. J.

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

  O'Grady, James

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Byles, Sir William (Pollard

  Hodge, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pringle, William R.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Radford, G. H.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Crooks, William

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

  Reddy, M.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

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

  King, J.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Delany, William

  Lardner, James

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leach, Charles

  Robinson, Sidney

  Doris, W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Falconer, J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Sheehy, David

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Kean, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ffrench, Peter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Field, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Manfield, Harry

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Furness, Stephen

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Snowden, Philip

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gilhooly, James

  Martin, Joseph

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Gill, A. H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Ginnell, L.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Middlebrook, William

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Millar, James Duncan

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molloy, M.

  Thomas, J. H.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough

  Molteno, Perey Alport

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Morison, Hector

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Gulney, Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wadsworth, J.

  Gulland, John William

  Munro, R.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Hackett, J.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Hancock, John George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  1530

  1531

  Wardle, George J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Webb, H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesborough)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baird, J. L.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newman, John R. P.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, W. R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bird, A.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rawson, Col R. H.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Royds, Edmund

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Campion, W. R.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, G. J.

  carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cator, John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanier, Beville

  Cautley, H. S.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cave, George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitehin)

  Keswick, Henry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chambers, J.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

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

  Craig, Charies (Antrim, S.)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brown lee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Winterton, Earl

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Williams and Mr. A. Sykes,

  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, as necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.

  CLAUSE 33.—(Continuation of Service of, and Compensation to, Existing Officers.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown who are not provided for under the last preceding Section and are on the appointed day serving as Irish

  1533
  officers shall, after that day, continue to hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions (including conditions as to salaries and superannuation) as theretofore and shall be liable to perform the same duties as theretofore, or such duties as the Civil Service Committee established under this Act may determine to be analogous, and while performing the same or analogous duties shall receive not less salaries than they would have received if this Act had not passed:
  Provided that notwithstanding the provision hereinbefore contained as to the tenure of existing Irish officers any existing Irish officer who at the time of the passing of this Act is removable from his office by His Majesty, or by the Chief Secretary, or by any person other than the Lord Lieutenant, or in any special manner, may be removed from his office after the appointed day by the Lord Lieutenant.
  (2) The Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, shall continue after the appointed day to apply to any such existing Irish officer to whom they then apply, and the service of any such officer under the Irish Government shall, for the purpose of those Acts, be deemed to be service in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown and in a public office within the meaning of the Super annuation Act, 1892:
  Provided that so far as relates to the Grant and ascertainment of the amount of any allow or gratuity under those Acts as respects any such officer who at the time of his ultimate retirement is serving under the Irish Government, the Civil Service Committee shall be substituted for the Treasury.
  (3) The provisions as to compensation contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any such existing Irish officer.
  (4) The superannuation and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable after the appointed day to existing Irish officers in the Civil Service of the Crown under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, and any compensation payable to any such officers under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but any sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with Regulations made by the Treasury.
  (5) Where any existing Irish officer in the Civil Service of the Crown to whom the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, do not apply is on the appointed day serving as an Irish officer in a capacity which, in accordance with a condition of his employment, qualifies him for a superannuation allowance or gratuity payable otherwise than under those Acts, that condition shall after the appointed day have effect, subject to the following modifications, that is to say, any superannuation allowance or gratuity which may become payable to the officer in accordance with that condition after the appointed day shall, if and so far as the fund out of which such allowances and gratuities are payable at the time of the passing of this Act is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund, and any powers and duties of the Treasury as to the grant or ascertainment of the amount of the superannuation allowance or gratuity, or otherwise in connection with the condition, shall be exercised and performed by the Civil Service Committee.
  (6) The Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, shall apply to any person to whom an annual allowance is granted in pursuance of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers as they apply to a person who has retired in consequence of the abolition of his office, and any terminable annuity payable in respect of the commutation of an allowance shall be payable out of the same funds as the allowance.
  Government Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (1), add the words,
  "but, in the case of the existing permanent members of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, only by an order of the Lord Lieutenant, which shall be laid before each House of the Irish Parliament, and if an Address is presented to the Lord Lieutenant by either of those Houses within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it praying that the order may be annulled, the Lord Lieutenant may annul the order, and it shall thenceforth be void."—[Mr. Birrell]

  CLAUSE 34.—(Establishment of Civil Service Committee.)
  (1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to existing officers

  1535
  there shall be established a Committee to be called the Civil Service Committee.
  (2) The Committee shall consist of three members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Executive Committee, and one (who shall be chairman) by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
  (3) Any vacancy arising in the Committee owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a member of the Committee shall be filled by the authority by whom the member whose place is vacant was appointed.
  (4) The determination of the Civil Service Committee on any claim or question which is to be determined by them under the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers shall be final and conclusive.
  Government Amendment made: "In Sub-section (3), leave out the words" owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a member of the Committee."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Government Amendment proposed: Insert at end of Sub-section (3), the words,
  "(4) The Committee may act by any two members, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, the Committee may regulate their own procedure."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 172.

  Division No. 507.]

  AYES.

  [10.52 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  De Forest, Baron

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Alden, Percy

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Doris, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hinds, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Edwards Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Barnes, George N.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Barton, William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beauchamp, sir Edward

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Falconer, J.

  John Edward Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  John, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Brace, William

  Field, William

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Brady, P. J.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Furness, Stephen

  Joyce, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Keating, M.

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Gilhooly, James

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gill, A. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ginnell, L.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  King, J.

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

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Leach, Charles

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Clough, William

  Guiney, Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gulland, John William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hackett, J.

  Lundon, T.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hancock, John George

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Lynch, A. A

  Cotton, William Francis

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  McGhee, Richard

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Catthness-shire)

  Maclean, Donald

  Crean, Eugene

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Crooks, William

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

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

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cullinan, John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hayward, Evan

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Manfield, Harry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Pointer, Joseph

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Middlebrook, William

  Pringle, Wiliam M. R.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Molloy, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander'

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Reddy, M.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morison, Hector

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Munro, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Richards, Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wardle, George J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Webb, H.

  Norton, Captain C. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Whyte, A. F.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'doherty, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Grady, James

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Scanian, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

  O'Shaughncssy, P. J.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sheehy, David

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chambers, James

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

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Baird, J. L.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Criehton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Bird, A.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Boyton, James

  Fleming, Valentine

  Keswick, Henry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Surdett-Coutts, W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Butcher, John George

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Camplon, W. R.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Greene, W. R.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Cator, John

  Gretton, John

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

  Cautley, H. S.

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Cave, George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  1538

  1539

  Moore, William

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Touche, George Alexander

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Edmund

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Sandys, G. J.

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

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Ormsby-Gorc, Hon. William

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Stanier, Boville

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Peel, Capt. R. F.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gershom

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Quilter, sir William Elsy C.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  J. Mason and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 35.—(Provisions as to Existing Pensions and Superannnation Allowances.)
  (1) Any pension granted on account of service in Ireland as a judge of the Supreme Court or of any Court consolidated into that Court, or as a county court judge, or as an Irish officer in an established capacity in the civil service of the Crown, or to any officer or constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or Royal Irish Constabulary, and payable at the time of the appointed day, or in the case of an officer or constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary at the date of transfer, shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, if charged on that fund at the time of the passing of this Act, and out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom if so paid at that time, and shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (2) Any pension payable at the time of the passing of this Act and granted on account of service in Ireland as an Irish officer in the civil service of the Crown not serving in an established capacity or as a petty sessions clerk or officer in the registry of petty sessions clerks shall, if, and so far as the fund out of which it is payable at the time of the passing of this Act is by reason of anything done or omitted after the passing of this Act not available for its payment, be charged upon and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund.
  Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1) leave out the words "at the time of"["and payable at the time of the appointed day"] and insert instead thereof the word"on."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "at the time of the passing of this Act" ["Any pension payable at the time of the passing of this Act"], and insert instead thereof the words "on the appointed day."—[Mr. Birrell.]

PROVISIONS AS TO MEMBERS OF POLICE.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Continuation of Service of, and Compensation to, Members of Police Forces.)
  (1) All officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are serving on the day of transfer shall after that day continue to serve on the same terms and conditions as theretofore, and shall be liable to preform the same duties as there tofore, and while so serving shall not re ceive less salaries than they would have received if this Act had not passed.
  (2) Any existing enactments relating to the pay or pensions of officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal Irish Constabulary shall continue to apply after the transfer to any officer or constable serving on the day of transfer with the substitution of the Lord Lieutenant for the Treasury and for the Chief Commissioner or Inspector-General as the case requires.
  (3) Where any such officer or constable, being qualified under the enactments aforesaid to retire on pension for length of service on or before the day of transfer, continues to serve after that day he shall, on retiring at any subsequent time, be entitled to receive a pension not less in amount than that to which he would have been entitled if he had retired on that day, and his right to receive such pension shall not, while he continues to serve, be liable to forfeiture, except in cases in which a pension when granted is liable to forfeiture under those enactments.
  (4) The provisions as to compensation contained in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to the officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are serving on the day of transfer.
  (5) Any pensions and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable to officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police after the appointed day or to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary after the date of transfer (being in either case officers and constables who are serving on the day of transfer) under the existing enactments applicable to them, and any compensation payable to any of those persons under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom; but any sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.
  (6) The Pensions Commutation Acts, 1871 to 1882, shall apply to any member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or Royal Irish Constabulary to whom an allowance is granted in pursuance of the provisions of this Section in like manner as if he had retired from the permanent Civil Service of the Crown on the abolition of his office, and any terminable annuity payable in
  1542
  respect of the commutation of an allowance shall be payable out of the same funds as the allowance.
  (7) In this Section and in the Fourth Schedule to this Act the expression "day of transfer" in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Police means the appointed day, and in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary means the day on which the control and management of that force are transferred to the Irish Government.
  Government Amendment made: In Subsection (5) leave out the word "date"["after the date of transfer"] and insert instead the word"day."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next, 13th January.
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Estate Duty (Scotland).
  Estate Duty (Scotland).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  INSURANCE COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  INSURANCE COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Agriculture (Taxes).
  Agriculture (Taxes).
  Male Servants (Licence Duties).
  Male Servants (Licence Duties).
  Road Board (Grants).
  Road Board (Grants).
  Tea and Sugar (Taxes).
  Tea and Sugar (Taxes).
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Board of Agriculture (Tuberculosis Order).
  Board of Agriculture (Tuberculosis Order).
  Beet Sugar (Norfolk).
  Beet Sugar (Norfolk).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Public Trustee (Ireland).
  Public Trustee (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SEA TRAINING.
  SEA TRAINING.
  Army Manœuvres (Motor Cyclists).
  Army Manœuvres (Motor Cyclists).
  Army Reserve (Great Britain and Germany).
  Army Reserve (Great Britain and Germany).
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Royal Flying Corps.
  Secondary Schools (Grants).
  Secondary Schools (Grants).
  Local Education Committees (Teachers).
  Local Education Committees (Teachers).
  Immigration Boards.
  Immigration Boards.
  Powick Lunatic Asylum.
  Powick Lunatic Asylum.
  Youthful Prisoners (England and Wales).
  Youthful Prisoners (England and Wales).
  Crown Jewels (Dublin).
  Crown Jewels (Dublin).
  Factory Risks.
  Factory Risks.
  Tanjong Pagar Dock Company.
  Tanjong Pagar Dock Company.
  Conviction of Mr. Channing Arnold (Burma).
  Conviction of Mr. Channing Arnold (Burma).
  Isolation Hospitals.
  Isolation Hospitals.
  Wheat Prices.
  Wheat Prices.
  Compensation Cases (Post Office Employés).
  Compensation Cases (Post Office Employés).
  Telephone Fitters' Allowances.
  Telephone Fitters' Allowances.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Sheep and Cattle Exported from Ireland.
  Sheep and Cattle Exported from Ireland.
  Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Regent's Park (Reserved Areas).
  Regent's Park (Reserved Areas).